Did God create Iberia in Genesis 1:9? And where was it?

And God said, “Let the (two) waters (or the two seas/oceans, «Ha-mayim») under the heavens (or The Dual Name of God, «Ha-shemayim») be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [ESV+my notes] Genesis 1:9

The word translated «Dry Land» here Heb. היבשה «Ha-Yeb-(e)-shah» may actually refer to a nation, and may mean the «Twelvth Land» or the «Land of the Twelve» or even «Land of the Lamb» a totally different word compared to its translation into «the dry land».

If we divide the word, or imo.-- proper name of a potential nation-- into its given syllables, we get ה-יב-שה. The first syllable (prefix) is «ha» which is the definite article «The», the second syllable is Heb. יב -- that is «ib» or «yeb» and it means «twelve» or «twelvth» and the last syllable (either suffix or word) «shah» or «seh» denotes decisiveness as in «the/this [nation]» or «the/this [land]». As a verb it may also mean «to live» or «to linger». However, if we read it as «seh» it means «lamb» or «kid» or «sheep» as reflected in Heb. סדר «Seder» or Yid. «Seyder» the traditional Passover meal which is centred around the Passover lamb, where the S-sound is noted as a Samech not a Shin/Sin and with its proper suffix or verb-root following to end the word.

Now which nation(s) or place(s) have names which sounds similar located between two seas/oceans? There is one area (or rather a pair of them) that does indeed sound similar. «Iberia», as in the «Iberian (Spanish) Peninsula» located between the Mediterranean- and Atlantic Oceans, but the name has also been used to name the area or rather the Asiatic people once living in the area which is now Georgia between the Black- and Caspian Seas. Both seem to fit in nicely.

So did God speak of a particular nation or people in Genesis 1:9? And is it a coincident that both Georgia (the first Christian nation) and Spain/Portugal (which is central in terms religious traditionally) is referred to with names highly similar to the stem of the word translated «the dry land» in Genesis 1:9 -- both even located between two major seas/oceans?

The meaning of Gr. Ἰβηρία «Iberia» (Iberian Peninsula where Spain and Portugal is-- or the Transcaucasian nation with identical name placed where Georgia is today)-- or also Gr. Ίβηρες «Iberes» (the Celts of Spain, and also an Asian people of Caucasus who lived in the area now named Georgia)-- has been lost, but the words have an ancient history and first shows up in literature about 500 BC when Hecataeus of Miletus used the word. Herodotus and Strabo also used the word in different settings.

Since both these regions are located smack between two seas/oceans and both areas have traditionally been of great religious and strategic importance, I find it hard to assume this is coincidental, and the name might actually stem back to a Phoenician or earlier word describing «an area/nation/people situated between two seas/oceans».

ETA: Another highly interesting name is the Hebrew name Eber, one of the early patriarchs in Shem's line, Heb. עבר, which means "region beyond" according to BDB, which may relate it to the very words Hebrew and Hebrews; from BDB: «proper name, masculine Eber (perhaps eponym of Hebrews...)»

Sources:
==> biblehub.com...
==> www.doitinhebrew.com...
==> www.etymonline.com...
==> www.thefreedictionary.com...
==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
And God said, “Let the (two) waters (or the two seas/oceans, «Ha-mayim») under the heavens (or The Dual Name of God, «Ha-shemayim») be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [ESV+my notes] Genesis 1:9

The word translated «Dry Land» here Heb. היבשה «Ha-Yeb-(e)-shah» may actually refer to a nation, and may mean the «Twelvth Land» or the «Land of the Twelve» or even «Land of the Lamb» a totally different word compared to its translation into «the dry land».

If we divide the word, or imo.-- proper name of a potential nation-- into its given syllables, we get ה-יב-שה. The first syllable (prefix) is «ha» which is the definite article «The», the second syllable is Heb. יב -- that is «ib» or «yeb» and it means «twelve» or «twelvth» and the last syllable (either suffix or word) «shah» or «seh» denotes decisiveness as in «the/this [nation]» or «the/this [land]». As a verb it may also mean «to live» or «to linger». However, if we read it as «seh» it means «lamb» or «kid» or «sheep» as reflected in Heb. סדר «Seder» or Yid. «Seyder» the traditional Passover meal which is centred around the Passover lamb, where the S-sound is noted as a Samech not a Shin/Sin and with its proper suffix or verb-root following to end the word.

Now which nation(s) or place(s) have names which sounds similar located between two seas/oceans? There is one area (or rather a pair of them) that does indeed sound similar. «Iberia», as in the «Iberian (Spanish) Peninsula» located between the Mediterranean- and Atlantic Oceans, but the name has also been used to name the area or rather the Asiatic people once living in the area which is now Georgia between the Black- and Caspian Seas. Both seem to fit in nicely.

So did God speak of a particular nation or people in Genesis 1:9? And is it a coincident that both Georgia (the first Christian nation) and Spain/Portugal (which is central in terms religious traditionally) is referred to with names highly similar to the word translated «the dry land» in Genesis 1:9 -- both even located between two major seas/oceans?

The meaning of Gr. Ἰβηρία «Iberia» (Iberian Peninsula where Spain and Portugal is-- or the Transcaucasian nation with identical name placed where Georgia is today) or Gr. Ίβηρες «Iberes» (the Celts of Spain, and also an Asian people of Caucasus who lived in the area now named Georgia) has been lost, but it has an ancient history and first shows up in literature from about 500 BC when Hecataeus of Miletus used the word. Herodotus and Strabo also used the word in different settings.

Since both these regions are located smack between two seas/oceans and both areas have traditionally been of great religious importance, I find it hard to assume this is coincidental, and the name might actually stem back to a Phoenician or earlier word describing «an area/nation/people situated between two seas/oceans».

Sources:
==> biblehub.com...
==> www.doitinhebrew.com...
==> www.etymonline.com...
==> www.thefreedictionary.com...
==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> en.wikipedia.org...

You do realise that none of the people who wrote the books of the bible would have been there to see the world forming. They simply saw the landscape and made up stories to describe what they saw. Of course the words match what we see today because they wrote it to match what they saw then.

Where did you go to university for archeology, or anthropology? Are you coming to these conclusions outside of academia? Have you ever been to these places, or are you just searching through religious websites and deciding they must be right?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
The word translated «Dry Land» here Heb. היבשה «Ha-Yeb-(e)-shah» may actually refer to a nation, and may mean the «Twelvth Land» or the «Land of the Twelve» or even «Land of the Lamb» a totally different word compared to its translation into «the dry land».

For an all powerful all knowing deity he sure lacked foresight when deciding which language to write his words in, when you all still confused with the translations

His words should not be open to interpretation at all if he is as infallible as he's claimed to be

a reply to: Woodcarver

OBS: I edited the text of the OP to include the patriarch Eber, who is seen as the father of the Hebrews. So perhaps not Iberia, but simply Eber/Heber the nation of the Hebrews.

That aside, and back to your reply:

Indeed. And I never claimed that. The first chapter of Genesis may have been inspired by the Enuma Elish or other early writings the Hebrews had available. Most likely the oldest (not necessarily the first chapters, but the oldest parts of the...) Torah was written around the first millennium BC. There may have been oral traditions predating this, but the earliest linguistic evidence suggest a date around 1000 BC for the oldest bits.

I personally believe Genesis 1 was written down around the time of the Babylonian exile around 600-500 BC.

a reply to: Discotech

I don't believe in deities. I understand the biblical God as the forces of nature or the forces of the Universe, to me the Biblical God is an anthropomorphism of the origin of space, time, life and the rest of the universe. If a person wins the lottery, he may say «Thank God!», but it wasn't any deity that made that person win, it was a case of random coincidence that made him/her win.

This is not a place of preaching, but a place to research conspiracies and origins of such. I see religion as the greatest conspiracy the world will ever see.

So can we cut the mumbo-jumbo and discuss the matter I've presented?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Nice work on breaking down the semantics and introducing an interesting theory!

The first few chapters of Genesis always remind me of Mesopotamian and Sumerian mythology.

The cosmology and mythology of Mesopotamian creation becomes extremely interesting when compared to Genesis 1:1-10

Enlil (El/Elohim) gave birth to the moon, who gave birth to the sun. In Genesis 1:3 when Elohim said, "Let there be light," this implies that darkness preceded light,... just as Enlil first birthed Moon (Nanna), who later birthed Sun (Utu).

In Genesis 1:6, Elohim separated the waters. This is paralleled to when Enki/Ea separated Abzu (fresh water) from his wife Tiamat (salt water) by imprisonment.

In Genesis 1:7, Elohim first separated the water under the vault. This is paralleled to when Enki/Ea imprisoned the waters of Abzu underneath the city of Eridu.

In Genesis 1:8-10, we see that Elohim separates the waters to create the land and the sky. This is paralleled to when Enlil slays Tiamat, divides her body, and uses the vault of her chest to create the heavens and the earth.



Genesis 1:2;
"Now the earth was formless and empty (tohu wa bohu), darkness was over the surface of the deep (tehom), and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

This event corresponds to three Mesopotamian deities:
• Abzu as ("Tohu wa Bohu")
• Tiamat as ("Tehom")
• Enki/Ea as "Spirit of God"

The "abzu" was the primordial deep fresh water, and the place where Enki/Ea dwelled before the creation. Abzu was the consort of Tiamat. Tiamat was the primordial deep ocean, and the mother womb of creation. Together, Abzu and Tiamat filled the cosmic abyss with their primordial waters. Tohu wa bohu + Tehom

"When above the heavens did not yet exist nor the earth below, Apsu the freshwater ocean was there, the first, the begetter, and Tiamat, the saltwater sea, she who bore them all; they were still mixing their waters, and no pasture land had yet been formed, nor even a reed marsh."

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Woodcarver

OBS: I edited the text of the OP to include the patriarch Eber, who is seen as the father of the Hebrews. So perhaps not Iberia, but simply Eber/Heber the nation of the Hebrews.

That aside, and back to your reply:

Indeed. And I never claimed that. The first chapter of Genesis may have been inspired by the Enuma Elish or other early writings the Hebrews had available. Most likely the oldest (not necessarily the first chapters, but the oldest parts of the...) Torah was written around the first millennium BC. There may have been oral traditions predating this, but the earliest linguistic evidence suggest a date around 1000 BC for the oldest bits.

I personally believe Genesis 1 was written down around the time of the Babylonian exile around 600-500 BC.

And what sort of understanding of the world around them do you think these people had? Were these people sophisticated scientists? Or were they superstitious and primitive in their ideas of how the world worked?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Discotech

I don't believe in deities. I understand the biblical God as the forces of nature or the forces of the Universe, to me the Biblical God is an anthropomorphism of the origin of space, time, life and the rest of the universe. If a person wins the lottery, he may say «Thank God!», but it wasn't any deity that made that person win, it was a case of random coincidence that made him/her win.

This is not a place of preaching, but a place to research conspiracies and origins of such. I see religion as the greatest conspiracy the world will ever see.

So can we cut the mumbo-jumbo and discuss the matter I've presented?

Correct me if i am wrong, but didn't you used to write posts that were supportive of the idea that deities exist?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The point is the book has gone through so many different iterations and translations, it's nigh on impossible to make any sense of it as a historical record

It is akin to running a sentence through google translate numerous times and you end up with something completely different from the original material, there's many factors which can play into it from not only mistranslation but also incorrect syntax, the wrong word being used etc.

So less of the attitude about mumbo jumbo it's entirely relevant to your thread

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Discotech

I don't believe in deities. I understand the biblical God as the forces of nature or the forces of the Universe, to me the Biblical God is an anthropomorphism of the origin of space, time, life and the rest of the universe. If a person wins the lottery, he may say «Thank God!», but it wasn't any deity that made that person win, it was a case of random coincidence that made him/her win.

This is not a place of preaching, but a place to research conspiracies and origins of such. I see religion as the greatest conspiracy the world will ever see.

So can we cut the mumbo-jumbo and discuss the matter I've presented?

i do appreciate this expansion of your position, but you have not answered my question as to your credentials and qualifications to speak on these matters. What is your academic background and if you have none, what special qualifications do you have to consider your thoughts on this to be valid?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

And God said, “Let the (two) waters..."

Someone pretending to speak for God said that. Nobody knows the mind of God.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Woodcarver

OBS: I edited the text of the OP to include the patriarch Eber, who is seen as the father of the Hebrews. So perhaps not Iberia, but simply Eber/Heber the nation of the Hebrews.

That aside, and back to your reply:

Indeed. And I never claimed that. The first chapter of Genesis may have been inspired by the Enuma Elish or other early writings the Hebrews had available. Most likely the oldest (not necessarily the first chapters, but the oldest parts of the...) Torah was written around the first millennium BC. There may have been oral traditions predating this, but the earliest linguistic evidence suggest a date around 1000 BC for the oldest bits.

I personally believe Genesis 1 was written down around the time of the Babylonian exile around 600-500 BC.

genesis 1. Is believed to have been an oral tradition that had it's roots in the enuma elish. It's very easy to see when you compare them side by side. Very much of the torah is thought to have evolved literarily from oral traditions based on many stories from many cultures of that time and area.

It is likely that some facts still exist in the old testament. I personally don't know enough to say either way about your OP, which is why i want to know about your credentials. Also, i remember seeing your earlier threads which i remember being very supportive of the idea that these early writings hold some significant relevence.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
You are creating an elaborate unnecessary mystery, because you haven't visualised the image being presented in that first chapter.
It is the understanding of the universe according to the mythology of the time.
The earth is a flat area floating in the middle of the "abyss", understood as an infinite mass of water.
The first step is to place an enormous dome over the earth. This is the sky, or "firmament". Obviously there is now water trapped between the firmament and the earth.
Half of that trapped water is drawn upwards, to become "the waters above the firmament". It has stayed there ever since (you will have noticed that the sky is blue), except when a lot of it was released for the Flood.
The other half is allowed to drain downwards, to become the sea. That is why the sea is such an evil place; it is one of the remnants of the original abyss.
Once you have got this picture in your mind, it is easy to understand what is happening in Genesis ch1. Nothing to do with Spain or any other peninsula.

a reply to: Woodcarver

A Newly Deciphered Babylonian Tablet Details Blueprints for "Noah's Ark"

A Newly Deciphered
Babylonian Tablet Details Blueprints for "Noah's Ark"

a reply to: Sahabi

Aye, I remember researching this a couple of years back, and especially paid notice to «Tehom» and how it sounded very similar to Tiamat. Also interesting is how the Hebrew word for Light (Genesis 1:3) is very similar (or even identical) to the name of the Chaldean (Mesopotamian) city-state Ur, where Abraham came from (Genesis 11:28). There are also quite a bit of other such odd and hardly coincidental similarities between Hebrew words and other words and names in other languages. However many are pervasions like hos Eretz probably inspired imperialist Britain linguists to become similar to the word Earth. However Eng. Earth, like Ger. Erde comes from Old Norse Jorð, and Heb. Eretz doesn't mean Earth, but Land.

To get back to my OP, I see there is one thing I neglect to say too much about, and that is the suffix -ayim as in Mayim and Shemayim I include in the notes to the opening Bible quote. They are not regular plural nouns, but dual ones. However these two examples are quite controversial since most scholars consider them merely plural and they see the -ayim suffix or «tail» as coincidental or even arbitrary and «just because it sounds more correct» -- which in modern translations and modern bible translations typically translate into singular words Water/Flood (mayim) and Heaven (shamayim) depending on which translation you are using. The -ayim suffix in Hebrew nouns isn't just plural, it's dual or double, however the verb is conjugated into plural (but not always), since there are no dual form for verbs, pronouns and adjectives according to Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar.

As I have covered in earlier threads and posts, I understand the word translated Heaven or Heavens in modern Bibles «Hashemayim», as «The [Two] Names [of God]» and comparatively «Hamayim» typically translated «Flood/Waters» in translated Bibles-- into «The [Two] Oceans/Floods/Seas/Waters».

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Woodcarver

OBS: I edited the text of the OP to include the patriarch Eber, who is seen as the father of the Hebrews. So perhaps not Iberia, but simply Eber/Heber the nation of the Hebrews.

That aside, and back to your reply:

Indeed. And I never claimed that. The first chapter of Genesis may have been inspired by the Enuma Elish or other early writings the Hebrews had available. Most likely the oldest (not necessarily the first chapters, but the oldest parts of the...) Torah was written around the first millennium BC. There may have been oral traditions predating this, but the earliest linguistic evidence suggest a date around 1000 BC for the oldest bits.

I personally believe Genesis 1 was written down around the time of the Babylonian exile around 600-500 BC.

And what sort of understanding of the world around them do you think these people had? Were these people sophisticated scientists? Or were they superstitious and primitive in their ideas of how the world worked?

I believe the ancients were far more advanced than the vast consensus of scientists like to admit. The ancient Indus library describe flying machines (as does the Bible in some people's opinion) and what seems to be nuclear explosions. I believe there have been several highly advanced civilisations that have been ended by ice-ages or other climatic or violent phenomena. I believe the Pyramids of Giza are far older than what the consensus of scientists have agreed upon. And these structures are (or rather were, since their outer layers have since been removed to build fancy buildings elsewhere) so complex and impressive that there are serious doubts that we could manage to replicate them even with modern machinery. Same goes with certain structures elsewhere, like in South America.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

And God said, “Let the (two) waters..."

Someone pretending to speak for God said that. Nobody knows the mind of God.

The -ayim suffix denotes dual nouns. Besides, I don't think anyone ever heard God say anything. The Biblical gods are in my opinion either early scientists or anthropomorphisms of natural phenomena, and stuff like shear luck or bad luck.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Discotech

I don't believe in deities. I understand the biblical God as the forces of nature or the forces of the Universe, to me the Biblical God is an anthropomorphism of the origin of space, time, life and the rest of the universe. If a person wins the lottery, he may say «Thank God!», but it wasn't any deity that made that person win, it was a case of random coincidence that made him/her win.

This is not a place of preaching, but a place to research conspiracies and origins of such. I see religion as the greatest conspiracy the world will ever see.

So can we cut the mumbo-jumbo and discuss the matter I've presented?

Correct me if i am wrong, but didn't you used to write posts that were supportive of the idea that deities exist?

No, I am an atheist, but religion is one of my main interests, mostly in relation to linguistics which is my main field of study. If I say God did this or God said that, I am referring to the Biblical (or other religious literature) narrative or concepts. Quoting the Bible, doesn't mean the quoting person believes the crap. I discuss a lot with religious people, and I may correct them and say ex. «God didn't say that he said this...» etc. If I quote the American constitution, or correct someone or criticise it, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

You and many others here need to learn the difference between faith contra arguing on terms of written texts and traditions.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Which is exactly what I said, only not as cocksure.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Woodcarver

OBS: I edited the text of the OP to include the patriarch Eber, who is seen as the father of the Hebrews. So perhaps not Iberia, but simply Eber/Heber the nation of the Hebrews.

That aside, and back to your reply:

Indeed. And I never claimed that. The first chapter of Genesis may have been inspired by the Enuma Elish or other early writings the Hebrews had available. Most likely the oldest (not necessarily the first chapters, but the oldest parts of the...) Torah was written around the first millennium BC. There may have been oral traditions predating this, but the earliest linguistic evidence suggest a date around 1000 BC for the oldest bits.

I personally believe Genesis 1 was written down around the time of the Babylonian exile around 600-500 BC.

And what sort of understanding of the world around them do you think these people had? Were these people sophisticated scientists? Or were they superstitious and primitive in their ideas of how the world worked?

I believe the ancients were far more advanced than the vast consensus of scientists like to admit. The ancient Indus library describe flying machines (as does the Bible in some people's opinion) and what seems to be nuclear explosions. I believe there have been several highly advanced civilisations that have been ended by ice-ages or other climatic or violent phenomena. I believe the Pyramids of Giza are far older than what the consensus of scientists have agreed upon. And these structures are (or rather were, since their outer layers have since been removed to build fancy buildings elsewhere) so complex and impressive that there are serious doubts that we could manage to replicate them even with modern machinery. Same goes with certain structures elsewhere, like in South America.

Why do i remember us being at odds before? It seems like our world views are similar.