Is the God of Genesis 1 El or Yam?

«In the beginning» the Torah is thought to have been written in «scriptio continua» (Latin for continual text/script) i.e. it was written as one long serpent of text. No spaces between the words, no mesora or niqqud diacritics nor punctuation or paragraphs and clauses, only endless rows of syllables, one consonant after the other, from start to end. We don't really know how the syntax of the Torah was supposed to be other than from thoroughly analysing the grammar and orthography, counting different meters and poetic mechanisms applied to the texts and so on. In all honesty, we have no clue as to how the ancient pre-Babylonian Hebrew language sounded like or how it was meant to be understood or even how the general grammar worked. We simply have far to little archeological or written evidence from before our rather modern Torahs, like the ones included in the Westminster Leningrad Codex (WLC) and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensis (BHS), and we also have partially fragmented Torah texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). The latter seems to belong to the same Rabbinical tradition as the WLC and the BHS, and while WLC and BHS are about 1000 years old, the DSS Torahs are about 2000 years old.


Illustration from Wikipedia showing Semitic script written in scriptio continua

There are a few things that come out as strikingly odd about the rather modern syntax and mesora («niqqud» vowel diacritics), and already in the first verse of Genesis we stumble upon at least one such oddity, and I think I have found out something that could put the whole Torah in perspective and bring light to something quite remarkable and if it rings true, this might turn over whole religions, for the oddity I am referring to is the first name of God used in the Bible, which is indeed the cornerstone of the whole torah.

All these Torahs differ slightly from each other but for sake of consistency I will use the letters of the WLC without vowel diacritics in this thread, all copied from biblehub.com, a Bible study tool I use for most of my work presented here on ATS. The first sentence of the WLC goes as follows:

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃

The supposed name of God is Heb. אלהים «Elohim». When read using the spacing of these texts it seems like a plural word, ending with the seemingly masculine plural suffix -im. However, if Elohim is plural of Eloah as the vast consensus claims, the verb heb. ברא «bara» (typically translated to mean «Created») would also have reflected this plurality, but it doesn't. This is typically explained by theologians, religious scholars, linguists and Semittic Philologers-- with Elohim reflecting what is popularly called «majesty pluralis», but still it doesn't make any sense, for the word it supposedly is plural of, «Eloah», actually reads and acts partly like a feminine noun, so the plural suffix should have been -oth, not -im, and it doesn't stop there. The word «bara» is only used together with Elohim as subject. There is something fishy going on with Genesis 1, and I believe I may have found the answer to all these things.

Before I go further, I'd like to remind you that this here is common research, and since I have been confronted by a bunch of users here on ATS criticising my integrity and supposed hidden agenda, I must assure you that this is indeed my humble opinions, supported by evidence of varying Gehalt, but for that matter, so is the reigning consensus concerning about the supposed proper name of God, Elohim.

That said, and let's get to the juicy part: As I mentioned, these books were supposedly «originally» written without spaces between the word, just like when we speak, when we only pause in order to bring attention. Anyway, let's go straight to the nitty gritty: If we split up the highly irregular noun Elohim into Heb. אל-ה-ים it can be read as «El-Ha-Yam», which could easily translate into «the god Yam», «Father of Yam» or «El the Yam» and similar. Now who is the god Yam, you may ask? Well, he is not very well known today, but back when the first letters of the Torah were first written, he was one of the main gods found in the pantheons of the Middle East, especially in ancient Canaanite and Ugaritic texts that have been discovered and been studied. Generally these stories tell us that Yam was the god of water, oceans, rivers and seas, and was a sort of anthropomorphism of water and oceans, so his temper and personality reflected his personality as anything from calm and innocent like a lamb, just to suddenly transform into a furious monster threatening to destroy all living things with massive floods. El was Yam's father and together they fought side by side as enemies of Baal who was the Old Testament Devil, I bet you have at least heard of the latter.


Illustration from Wikipedia showing a bronze statue of Baal

In Genesis 1 God is awfully concerned with water, busy dividing and moving about seas and waters and Elohim even relates to the cosmos as oceans. To top this, water in all shapes and forms was the traditional domain of Yam in the eyes of the Semitic population living in Canaan and the area in and around today's Palestine/Israel, back in the days when Genesis was supposed to have been written.

Could Elohim be a wrongfully contraction of El-Ha-Yam? At least this makes sense to me, and it would also explain perfectly why the associated verbs like ex. Heb. ברא «bara» in ex. Genesis 1:1, which are always singular when Elohim is subject. In Canaanite and Ugaritic tradition Yam was the favorite son of the father-god El, and just like the Biblical God (Elohim and JHVH) Yam was El's main ally against Baal who is Zeus and Satan in more modern mythologies, apocalypses and eschatology. This interpretation of Elohim also serves to explain how Elohim is said to have slain a Serpent and/or a Dragon (like in Job, Isaiah and Revelation), which is exactly what Yam did in the Ugaritic and Canaanite traditions, also the Babylonian god Marduk comes to mind, but also Leviathan, Yam is, like the sea, shifting, and he was a popular god, so people spun up all sorts of stories about him.


Illustration from Wikipedia showing the destruction of Leviathan

In Hebrew ים «yam» is also a common word for sea, ocean, rivers and floods &c i.e. water in general. And this would also fit in nicely with the idea that Genesis 1 was inspired by Enuma Elish or came out as a product of the same tradition. Enki, was god of the sea and water, who also slew the dragon Tiamat using his son, Marduk, as his instrument, which in turn alludes to the arch angel Michael and his way with the Dragon. Enki was also the god that warned my namesake about the Flood. Yam and Enki are in my opinion anthropomorphisms of rivers, oceans and seas, and for that matter the whole nature- and cycle of water.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Genesis is just a regurgitated and abridged version of the Sumerian creation myth.

Now then, to finish the reply, I am going to side with the conjecture that it was a linguistic glitch elohim is most likely yam. I have a friend on facebook that posted something similar not to long ago. I am going to go with the Yam Enki connection. After consideration I think you are onto something there.

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Genesis is just a regurgitated and abridged version of the Sumerian creation myth.

Yes, and if you had bothered to read my OP you would have noticed that I actually already said that.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Sorry replying from work, was going to edit that with the complete answer in a moment, didn't mean to submit it already.

a reply to: sycomix

Fair enough. Looking forward to read your response later. The Mesopotamian creation story you are looking for is Enuma Elish, you can find it here: www.sacred-texts.com...



ETA: That said, in a few thousand years there will be similar quarrels about our time and knowledge when they find print-outs from NASA's website detailing how the earth circle a central sun, and complain on ATS it's plagiat of Copernicus. Just saying.

Or how they will claim in the future that we were worshipping the Norse, Greek and Roman pantheons, since our names for the days of the week and the planets carry these gods' names, or were Mithraists and solar worshippers since we call our sun Sol and the moon Luna. Worth a thought IMHO....

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I have been confronted by a bunch of users here on ATS criticising my integrity and supposed hidden agenda

oookkayy.....whats that aboot ?

enjoyed the read
although I know nothing really about any of this

Kandsvelt ? Kandesvelt ? he? she ? would be great on this topic I think

a reply to: kibric

Indeed, sir, and thank you! I have great respect for Kantzveldt and enjoy his threads and view on things. I hope he drops by!

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

OP go to Psalm 82 and try to do with it what you are trying to do with Genesis. Elohim is not a proper name but probably refers to those beings who live in the unseen realm . Even Samuel was described as a Elohim by the Witch of Endor . Its like if you live in Syria you are considered a Syrian .

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The God of Genesis is most definitely fake, as in false, as in FAKE NEWS from thousands of years ago.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Indeed. All the Hebrew deities of OT are mere aspects of the «personality» of water. Satan in regard to Job might have simply been a terrible hail-storm where bowling ball sized ice balls fell from the sky destroying his family and property &c. From analysing the ocean and the weather Noah was «told» by the anthropomorphed water that Bosporous was about to break after the Mediterranean ocean «ate» greater and greater chunks of the rocks and thereby was warned by Yam that his eretz (land or kingdom) would soon be drowned in trillions of tons of water breaking through creating the Black- and Caspian Seas. Get it?

a reply to: ThoughtIsMadness

I have to disagree. It is our understanding of it that is wrong. Code word is anthropomorphism. We do the same today often without noticing it. When the clouds are amassing and the distant thunder is rumbling, the weather «tells us» a storm is coming. When the trees let go of their leaves and the temperature drops, nature is «warning us» that winter is coming. And how many people don't use expressions like how a picture «speaks» more than a thousand words?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

If you check closely its not Satan but The Satan so once again its not a proper name in the OT . By the time of the NT it becomes a proper name . Satan in the old is more of a function that could have been any one within the divine council . It is kind of like Angel which is not really a proper name but a function like messenger .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

But of course, we all know that

If you ask me Satan is not a person, but perhaps the printing press, spewing out a symbolic flood of literature, resulting in the Bible becoming and remaining the most widely printed book in the world following the believers everywhere, and mind you, the earliest printed bibles were often full of forgeries (as they do still to this day IMHO), threatening to lead astray even the most pious among the believers with all sorts of secret or hidden and ancient handwritten manuscripts that came out from chests and vaults to be set and printed, mass produced and distributed all over the world. For all we know Satan is nothing other than KJV or the Odyssey?

ETA: Traditionally the old name of Satan was Shemael which translates into «The Name of God». At some point the first letter was changed from shin into Samech so it came to mean «The Venom of God». You see the same sort of mocking in the pervasion of the name Baal Sebul (Lord of Rising) into the name Beelsebub (Lord of the Flies). Or how the Romani (Gypsy) word for God Devel which means God and has the same etymology as Sans. Deva, Gr. Theos Lat. Deus (all of them sharing the same etymology, and means God) and the westerners changed the second to last letter from e into i, and invented the word Eng. Devil and entered it into the lexicons to mean Satan with a supposed etymology leading back to gr. Diablos.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I think the KJV is only one version among many . It has the Gospel message in it and it seems most others do as well .The people producing a version of the Bible make decisions . If they have integrity they tell you about their decisions . The same could probably been said about the development of the old testament ...editing is a decision . Comparing the Dead sea scrolls to what we have today is not a bad deal . We have added lots of grammar tools including paragraph breaks . Is it perfect ? no and how could it be .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Take a look at Revelation in the transition between the 12th and 13th chapters:

KJV (start of 13:1): And I stood upon the sand of the sea [...]
NIV (start of 13:1): The dragon stood on the shore of the sea [...]
NASB (start of 13:1): And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore [...]
ESV (end of 12:17): [...]And he stood on the sand of the sea.

Can you spot why some people-- including meself-- have nicknamed KJV Satan's Bible?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I guess there are two opposite views about the KJV ...some are KJV only which is silly and others that are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water . I think the differences noted should be explored ...ie it begs a question that requires more data and study... That is what makes it such a great book ...well one of the reasons imo

Ahura Mazda

That's the original god of Abraham. I am actually working on a theory about this but google that.

a reply to: toysforadults

Abraham tried out many gods before he supposedly settled with Jahveh. Among other things he sacrificed his own son he had with Sarah; Isaac-- to Moloch. According to Friedman and his Documentary Hypothesis, the oldest part of the narrative ended there, and the Isaac he had with Sarah is never mentioned as living again, while chunks of text were inserted by several other packs of scribes for the text to make sense and to read that he sacrificed a goat instead and bla bla bla, Jahveh comes into the picture and Isaac seemingly living on and kicking as if nothing had happened.

However, if you study the following text after Abraham sacrificed Isaac, you can read that Abraham gave his elder servant everything that he owned (Gen. 24:2), and this servant's name is later revealed (Gen. 24:14), and his name was, ah, you guessed it, Isaac, the same name as the son he had with Sarah. Then again a little later on, we see that the servant whom Abraham had entrusted everything he owned unto, was indeed named Isaac (Gen. 25:5) and Abraham counted him as his son (Gen. 25:11).

Then the text goes on to name Ishmael's (awfully similar to Israel that name eh? All you need to do is remove a small streak to the mem, and you have a resh, Ishmael turns into Israel by slight of hand) 12 sons. Total script chaos. This part of Genesis is one of the most nested and redacted portions of Genesis and all the different sources (revealed by different languages and dialects, different names for the gods different stages of Hebrew even, and so on) and well, long story short, it's a bloody mess and the father of the red herring Jacob was another Isaac than the one Abraham had with Sarah, namely his butler who was also named Isaac. All sown together like a patchwork of frustrated scribes' desperate attempts at gaining integrity lost by the oldest parts of the narrative.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

OP go to Psalm 82 and try to do with it what you are trying to do with Genesis. Elohim is not a proper name but probably refers to those beings who live in the unseen realm . Even Samuel was described as a Elohim by the Witch of Endor . Its like if you live in Syria you are considered a Syrian .

I took some time to analyse the text of Psalm 82, and reshaped it according to it's Hebrew, and what do you know, Anu the Mesopotamian mountain/sky god also shows up:

The relevant parts of Psalm 82, according to ESV; from Biblehub.com:

1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
[...]
6 said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
7 nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit all the nations!

And here is Psalm 82 with my added juice:

1 Yam stands before El, his companion;
together they judge
[...]
6 Anu has said, “You are El's Yam,
exalted above all the children of El;
7 nevertheless, like Adam you shall die,
and fall like all his princes”
8 Rise again, Yam of El, who judges the Land;
you shall inherit the gentiles!

As you see, the text suddenly speaks of several gods and deities. Yam in the sense of the regular noun, translates sea, figuratively a bunch of people, like the bunch Moses spoke to when he said the things attested to Anu in my rather rough and alternative translation.

Below is the interlinear text (browse along using the arrows beside the heading to skip to the next verse), from Biblehub.com:

biblehub.com...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Star and Flag for a well thought out and put together theory and op. I enjoy the originality and enthusiasm of the op.

¿ I'd like to ask, could you please share the sources illustrating Yam defeating a Serpent/Dragon? Everything I see correlates Yam with the maritime serpent motif himself, in direct relation to Lotan. Everything I have encountered describes Baal-Hadad as the one to defeat both Lotan and Yam. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Furthermore, academic sources traditionally correlate the Biblical water serpent; Leviathan, with Lotan and Yam.

According to the op of this thread, that would mean that Yam defeated himself; The-God-Yam defeating Leviathan.

However, in Psalm 74, we see that El is the one to defeat Yam and Leviathan. El is mentioned in this chapter as both "El" and as "Elohim".

Psalm 74

• verse 1: "Oh God, why?" (Elohim)

• verse 7: "defiled the dwelling place of your Name."

• verse 8: "They burned every place where God was worshiped" (El)

• verse 10: "How long will the enemy mock you, God? Will the foe revile your name forever?" (Elohim)

• verse 12: "God is my King" (Elohim)

If we continue in this chapter, we see that El/Elohim actually defeats Yam:

• verses 13-14: "It was you who split open Yam יָ֑ם (the seas) by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in Ha-ma-yim הַמָּֽיִם׃ (the waters). It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave it as food to the creatures of the desert."



We can't have "Elohim" referring to El and his domain in all instances, then cite "Elohim" as being The-God-Yam in a single instance. I fully understand the mechanics of semantic languages, but the Pentateuch and Torah were oral traditions before they were written. Furthermore, the oral recitation from both memory and from the scriptures has been dictated by rabbi to student for generations; meaning, the scriptures are not dead words scribed on parchment, rather, they are written depictions of verbal teachings. In this verbal custom, even the Samaritan Torah is in agreement with the Babylonian Torah regarding El and Elohim. If it was a matter of incorrectly deciphering written letters, then we would see an El/Elohim/Yam discrepancy between the different sects of the Hebrew/Israelite religion, but that is not the case.