Jump to content
koroigetsuga

Should Christians Replace Verses From Ot With Hebrew Bible

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I have found this forum to be helpful in my interfaith dailogue. However Christians always seem to have some rebuttal to the mistranslations I point out in the Old Testament.

My question is if through intelligent dialogue it is proven that the Old Testament has some discrepancies with the Hebrew Bible as is the case with something like Isaiah 7:14, which is an important statement about whether Jesus (pbuh) was the messiah or not, then for Christianity to be "honest" should christians be willing to edit the Old Testament to match up with the Hebrew Bible, even though they would lose essential arguing points like Isaiah 7:14?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Old testament is an historical document for back ground reference.

The important part for Christians is the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus.

Until you read these and understand them you will continue to make these silly errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have found this forum to be helpful in my interfaith dailogue. However Christians always seem to have some rebuttal to the mistranslations I point out in the Old Testament.

My question is if through intelligent dialogue it is proven that the Old Testament has some discrepancies with the Hebrew Bible as is the case with something like Isaiah 7:14, which is an important statement about whether Jesus (pbuh) was the messiah or not, then for Christianity to be "honest" should christians be willing to edit the Old Testament to match up with the Hebrew Bible, even though they would lose essential arguing points like Isaiah 7:14?

While Isaiah 7:14 is a pretty egregious example of Christian tampering with the Hebrew texts, it's far from the only one. For example, Christians claim that "seed", such as in the verse where G-d promises that his "seed" will be blessed, is a singular noun, and "obviously" refers to Jesus.

Exd 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit [it] for ever.

That "seed" is plural is clearly evident from the phrase "I will multiply your seed" -- one doesn't "multiply" singular entities. Thus Paul, in this verse

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

hasn't just mistranslated a word, like "maiden" becomes "virgin", he's taken the entire concept of the "seed" of Abraham, which is also referenced here --

Gen 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

and perverted it. The context makes it clear that this "seed" is the Israelites when we were slaves in Egypt, and that it definitely isn't "Jesus", who was never a slave in Egypt and didn't live 400 years anyway.

If you look at the definition of "seed" using Strong's, it has this to say --


1) seed, sowing, offspring
a ) a sowing
b ) seed
c ) semen virile
d ) offspring, [u]descendants[/u], posterity, [u]children[/u]
e ) of moral quality
1 ) a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
f ) sowing time (by meton)

So much for Galatians ...

Edited by Ariella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious problem with the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is that it is taken from its literal context; this is the device of most Christian missionaries. Isaiah 7:14 is not the entirety of the prophetic statement, but only part of the opening statement; to prove this one need only look at 7:15. Aside from the contextuality of the verse, the Christians have altered the very grammatical structure to fit their ideas. I will cover the grammatical issues with 7:14 first, then I will cover the issue of out-of-context.

לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם אֹ֑ות הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמֹ֖ו עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל׃

Therefore YHWH, He, will give to you [plural] a sign; Look, the woman [is] pregnant and [is] bearing a son and you [feminine singular] called his name emanu El.

The sign was given to Ahaz and the House of Dawid- the royal lineage which was threatened by the alliance of Ephraim and Syria; it was this alliance which prompted God to send Isaiah to Ahaz and Judea to appease their fears. The Hebrew 'almah is the feminine equivalent to the Arabic ghulamah [غُلاَمَةٌ]- a young woman regardless of virginity. The young woman is definite and, like all definite nouns preceding indefinite adjectives, this indicated a copula- which is not always present in Semitic. It is like stating Al-ta'amu ladhidh [the food is good] or Al-kitabu jadid [the book is new]. Here haAlmah harah meant the young woman [is] pregnant; this indicated the woman was already in this state and is not referring to some future state of pregnancy from an unknown young woman. The verb YaLaD is in the participle- a present tense- YoLeDeTh [is giving birth]; again, not a future aspect. The verb QaRaA is in the 2nd perfect feminine QaRaAT- you [feminine] called. This meant that the young woman to which Isaiah was referring was present with Ahaz and had already chosen the name of the child; it is not possible nor is it grammatically correct to say to a woman not present at a conversation "you called his name." 

The contextual issue concerns the nature of the prophetic statement. 1) there was a rumor of a confederation between Ephraim [Northern Israel] and Syria to come to Jerusalem, remove Ahaz as king, and set up their own puppet monarch on the throne (verses 1-2). This rumor frightened the royal line as well as most of the Judeans (verse 2). At this point, Isiaiah and his son Shear Yashuv were instructed to go meet Ahaz and explain that the rumors, though true, would not come to pass (verses 3-9). Apparently, from the last clause of verse 9, Ahaz had doubt, so God asked Isaiah to ask for a sign (verse 10). Since Ahaz refused- feigning piety- God chose the sign for him.

Now comes the entire prophetic statement:

Behold! The young woman is pregnant and is bringing forth a son; and you [feminine singular] called his name emanu el. He shall eat curds and honey until he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you hate will be forsaken before both her kings. YeHeWaH shall bring the king of Assyria on you, and on your people, and on your father's house, days which have not come since the days Ephraim turned aside from Judah.  And it shall be in that day YeHeWaH shall hiss for the fly that is in the end of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee in the land of Assyria. And they shall come, and they shall all rest in the steep ravines, and in the clefts of the rocks, and in all the thorn bushes, and in all the pastures. In that day the Lord will shave with a razor that is hired, beyond the River, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet, and also it shall sweep away the beard. And it shall be in that day, a man shall keep alive a heifer of the herd, and two sheep. And it shall be, he shall eat curds from the plenty of milk making; for everyone who is left in the land shall eat curds and honey. And it shall be in that day, every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand pieces of silver, it shall be for briers and thorns. With arrows and with the bow, he shall come there; because all the land shall be briers and thorns. And all the hills which were hoed with the hoe, you shall not come there for fear of briers and thorns; but it shall be for the sending out of the ox, and for trampling of sheep. 

Taken in context, it is clear the reason for the birth of the child was not a miracle of a virgin birth at all; it was a promise that before this child grew to maturity, the two kings and their kingdoms would be destroyed and the line of Ahaz would continue.
 

Edited by Yaaqov Ben Yisrael
spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, Ariella. In those days, we were all wrong. 

16 hours ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

Taken in context, it is clear the reason for the birth of the child was not a miracle of a virgin birth at all; it was a promise that before this child grew to maturity, the two kings and their kingdoms would be destroyed and the line of Ahaz would continue.

Thanks for the wrap up. I got lost about three times reading through all that. I have heard that before but it's nice to refresh. 

Everybody seems to be willing to stretch a few things to find their Prophet in the OT. I don't think Jesus nor Muhammad need further verification, especially from controversial passages taken out of context.

It's another one of those things that isn't overly dangerous to core beliefs, but it's believed and taught like truth in Sunday School.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree; everyone is trying to prove their prophet was foretold in previous scripture- which is unnecessary and mostly false. A prophet is shown true or false based upon his actions- Moshe (AS) never had to dig up proof from any previous scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

I agree; everyone is trying to prove their prophet was foretold in previous scripture- which is unnecessary and mostly false. A prophet is shown true or false based upon his actions- Moshe (AS) never had to dig up proof from any previous scripture.

What previous scripture was there that Moses could have used as proof? Answer: there were no such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Friday, November 30, 2007 at 4:48 PM, Ariella said:

While Isaiah 7:14 is a pretty egregious example of Christian tampering with the Hebrew texts, it's far from the only one. For example, Christians claim that "seed", such as in the verse where G-d promises that his "seed" will be blessed, is a singular noun, and "obviously" refers to Jesus.

 

 

Exd 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit [it] for ever.

 

That "seed" is plural is clearly evident from the phrase "I will multiply your seed" -- one doesn't "multiply" singular entities. Thus Paul, in this verse

 

 

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

 

hasn't just mistranslated a word, like "maiden" becomes "virgin", he's taken the entire concept of the "seed" of Abraham, which is also referenced here --

 

 

Gen 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

 

and perverted it. The context makes it clear that this "seed" is the Israelites when we were slaves in Egypt, and that it definitely isn't "Jesus", who was never a slave in Egypt and didn't live 400 years anyway.

If you look at the definition of "seed" using Strong's, it has this to say --

 

 

1) seed, sowing, offspring
  a ) a sowing
  b ) seed
  c ) semen virile
  d ) offspring, [u]descendants[/u], posterity, [u]children[/u]
  e ) of moral quality
    1 ) a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
  f ) sowing time (by meton)

 

So much for Galatians ...

Where does Paul refer to the Virgin birth? As far as I know he seems totally unaware of this tradition. 

About translation of Isaiah, wikipedia writes: 

Scholars agree that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah, "almah", signifies a girl of childbearing age without reference to virginity,[13] and Isaiah is in any case talking about his own immediate circumstances in the year 735 BC, not the distant future.[14] In Isaiah the Immanuel prophecy has an immediate aim, but Matthew uses it to find patterns of God's dealings with Israel rather than a single and specific fulfillment.[14]


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, andres said:

What previous scripture was there that Moses could have used as proof? Answer: there were no such.

There were plenty; the Hebrew Text is an amalgamation of older Semitic narratives. 

According to the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation story, Marduk became the supreme deity when he defeated Tiamat- the personification of the primordial, chaotic waters which covered the earth. From the slain body of Tiamat, Marduk created the sky and the earth; once that was completed, Marduk suggested to EA- the personification of fresh water and life- to create humanity. 

EA, Marduk's father, considered the idea to create humans as a good one- for they would do the menial tasks of the gods, but Marduk's plan, as EA suggested, was flawed. To correct the flaw, EA decided to create the humans from the body of the god Qingu, the leader of the armies of Tiamat. EA used the blood and parts of the body of this deity to create the first humans. (Enuma Elish 400-401:6.1-33)

In the Genesis account, there is a remarkable parallel. The first name used for deity in the Hebrew text is Elohim- a plural noun meaning gods/deities. The text began with a statement that the account was the beginning of Elohim's (gods') creation of the sky and earth. The grammatical structure of the first clause in the second verse, a disjunctive clause, demanded that the narrative began its linear movement from verse 2. 

The second verse of Genesis, being the first verse of the actual narative, stated that the earth, at the creation of sky and earth, was covered in water- called tehom in the Hebrew text. Tehom is the Hebrew equivalent of the Babylonian Tiamat- the primordial, chaotic water which covered the earth. This is further developed in the description given the earth in the Genesis account;

Now the earth was chaotic and without form (tohu and bohu in Hebrew).

It was from the body of the Tehom that the sky was first created and from which the land- the earth- arose.

And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And god made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Sky; and the evening and morning were the second day. God also said; Let the waters that are under the sky, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:6-10)

The sky, just like in the account of the Enuma Elish, was fashioned by the division of the body of Tiamat- the primordial ocean. God (Elohim- the gods) divided the body of the Tehom and fashioned the sky to keep the tehom separated. From the lower part of the body of tehom, the dry land arose- which the gods called Earth.

Once the earth was sufficiently developed to support life, the gods decided to make man. In the Genesis account, the English has been rendered as "in our image, after our likeness." The Hebrew text, in reality, followed the Babylonian story exactly.

And God said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26)

The Hebrew word for image was Tselem; tselem is a physical representation of a deity. This stated that the gods decided to create a human from the physical body of a deity. In addition to creating humans from the physical body of a deity, the gods decided to create them from the blood of a deity as well. The Hebrew word for likeness was demuth- the root of this word is DM which meant blood. The name for humans, Adam, was derived from the Semitic word for ground- Adamah. The root of which is, like demuth, from DM- blood. The adamah, in Semitic languages, is the red earth which was stained by the blood of the slain god, Qingu, when humans were first created. It is for this reason that the Semitic word for red is Adom. Adom is spelled- in all Semitic languages- the exact way that Adam is spelled- only the pronunciation changed. 

Let us make ADM in our image after our likeness Genesis 1:26

And Esau said to Jacob (AS), I beg you, Let me eat of the red [adom], this red [adom], for I am faint. Therefore his name was called Edom. (Genesis 25:30)

And they rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone upon the water, and the Moabites saw on the other side red water (mayim adumim) like blood. (2Kings 3:22)

Adumim is the plural form of Adom; this is so because the grammatical structure of water in Hebrew is always plural.

The account of the creation of the earth, of humans, of the expulsion from the garden of God, the flood narrative, as well as the story of the confusion of the languages of man all came from the Babylonian/Sumerian stories. These stories were brought to the lands of Ham, the son of Noah (AS). by the Semites- the sons of Shem (AS), the son of Noah (AS)- when they overthrew the Hamitic dynasties which first ruled Mesopotamia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, andres said:

What previous scripture was there that Moses could have used as proof? Answer: there were no such.

Salam Andres,

Good point. Moses is the one who God inspired to write most (not all) of the Torah.

However, the Children of Israel were awesome at passing down oral accounts of the past. The enslaved Children of Israel knew the oral traditions about their ancestor Abraham and Isaac and Jacob (Israel) so they knew that Joseph wanted his bones to be buried back in the land God gave to them.

And Joseph said unto his brethren: 'I die; but God will surely remember you, and bring you up out of this land unto the land which He swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.'

And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying: 'God will surely remember you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.'

- Genesis 50:24-25

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0150.htm

While granted, Moses wrote this down, he wasn't the only descendant of Israel who knew this promise...this promise was passed down for generations from the time of Joseph to the time of Moses, then written down for posterity.

Peace and God bless you

Edited by Christianlady

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

There were plenty; the Hebrew Text is an amalgamation of older Semitic narratives. 

According to the Enuma Elish,

Salam Yaaqov Ben Yisrael,

Moses would not have needed to use a pagan source for proof because the enslaved Children of Israel knew their history.

The enslaved Children of Israel were not clueless as to how they came to live in Egypt (famine during Jacob's old age). 

While I believe God inspired Moses to write the Torah, I also believe that God allowed oral accounts passed down from Adam to his kids to his grandkids to his great grandkids to... Moses' family to be written down for posterity in Genesis.

Their history is proof enough that God sent Moses to rescue the Children of Israel from slavery in Egypt and bring them to the land He promised their forefathers.

Peace and God bless you

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2007 at 5:09 AM, koroigetsuga said:

My question is if through intelligent dialogue it is proven that the Old Testament has some discrepancies with the Hebrew Bible as is the case with something like Isaiah 7:14, which is an important statement about whether Jesus (pbuh) was the messiah or not, then for Christianity to be "honest" should christians be willing to edit the Old Testament to match up with the Hebrew Bible, even though they would lose essential arguing points like Isaiah 7:14?

Salam,

I don't edit the Old Testament, but instead of using the Christian Old Testament, I've recently started using this online Hebrew Tanakh translated into English:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

Personally, this version does not at all affect my belief concerning Isaiah 7:14 being a prophecy about Jesus Christ.

 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1007.htm

The following are the reasons this verse in the Hebrew Tanakh does not change my beliefs concerning Jesus being Immanuel is because of the following:

1.) In Jewish culture long time ago, young women were virgins until married. (Some Jewish women today are virgins until married.) 

2.) This prophecy is quoted in the New Testament:

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”). - Matthew 1:22-23 (NIV)

3.) Jesus' mother was a virgin (young woman and had not had sex) when she conceived.

Peace and God bless you

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Yaaqov

Besides that Moses did not write Genesis, (it was written centuries later, I believe we agree on this) Moses is not known from earlier writings. Certainly the writers of the Genesis were inspired by earlier writings as you also say, but so what? These earlier religions never were the same as Judaism, just like Judaism neber was the same as Islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, andres said:

Hi Yaaqov

Besides that Moses did not write Genesis, (it was written centuries later, I believe we agree on this) Moses is not known from earlier writings. Certainly the writers of the Genesis were inspired by earlier writings as you also say, but so what? These earlier religions never were the same as Judaism, just like Judaism neber was the same as Islam. 

 

I am not sure if I commented in this thread or if it was another. The religion called Judaism was started by the Rabbis- it never reflected the theology of the Torah. The Rabbis created a document called the Talmud- claiming it was the true Oral Torah. Not only is this false, but the Talmudic and Rabbinic authority completely disregard the commandments. One easy proof is the well know qiddush for the Shabbath. According to the blessing which all Jews recites, it stated that God commanded them to light the candles for Shabbath. This is a blatantly false statement. In fact, the Torah declared otherwise

לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּיֹ֖ום הַשַּׁבָּֽת׃ You shall not burn a fire, in all your habitations, on the Shabbath day. Exodus 35:3

Judaism is the false doctrine of Rabbis and is the cause of the disobedience of the "Jewish" people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

I am not sure if I commented in this thread or if it was another. The religion called Judaism was started by the Rabbis- it never reflected the theology of the Torah. The Rabbis created a document called the Talmud- claiming it was the true Oral Torah. Not only is this false, but the Talmudic and Rabbinic authority completely disregard the commandments. One easy proof is the well know qiddush for the Shabbath. According to the blessing which all Jews recites, it stated that God commanded them to light the candles for Shabbath. This is a blatantly false statement. In fact, the Torah declared otherwise

לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּיֹ֖ום הַשַּׁבָּֽת׃ You shall not burn a fire, in all your habitations, on the Shabbath day. Exodus 35:3

Judaism is the false doctrine of Rabbis and is the cause of the disobedience of the "Jewish" people.

The Old Testament discribes the development from an old polytheistic religion with animal sacrifices, and even human sacrifices (God demanding Abrahams son as sacrifice). As monitheism grows, the Israelites are forbidden to make sacrifices other sites than Jerusalem. Israelites did not believe in heaven and hell. This came later, and 500 years after Genesis was written, when Jesus lived, Jews were divided on this matter. 

You are right: Judaism has changed. But there never was a written Torah from the times of Moses. In fact Moses very existence is doubted, and the earliest testimony about him we find in the Torah. Written 800 years after he was supposed to have lived. 

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really interesting to note that the Hebrew folk etymology of Moshe's (AS) name was said to be from the Egyptian- even though the Hebrew etymology held a different meaning entirely. In ancient Egyptian, the verb "to bear" is M-S-S and the noun "child" is M-S-W. The final W indicated a masculine name and indicated that the word was derived from a verb. The Hebrew spelling has a final H, which is- in origin- from the W- which is similar to the Arabic. The Hebrew etymology meant to draw- hence the legend that the Egyptian princess named him Moshe (AS) because she drew him from the water. The name actually meant "son.: He was taken by this princess, in whatever manner she found him, and raised as her son- hence the true origin of the name.

The earliest mention of the Israelite deity is from the Temple of Amenhotep III in Soleb, Egypt. In this inscription, the name YHWH is actually spelled YHWA- with a final Alef. This is significant in the fact that the Israelites- when they entered Egypt- would have spoken Aramaic and not Hebrew; Hebrew was not developed until much later- being a dialect of Cana'anite. The earliest written record of Hebrew only dated to the time of the early Israeite kings. In fact, the Hebrew Text indicated that- as part of the firstfruits offereing- we say the following when offering them:

And you shall speak and say before YHWH your God, My father was a perishing Aramean! And he went down to Egypt with few men, and lived there, and became a nation there, great, mighty and many. Deuteronomy 26:5

The Israelites soke Aramaic, not Hebrew- hence there is no sign of Hebrew in the Ancient Egyptian monuments. What is present is the name of their deity, YHWA. The name YHWH, as I have explaiened before, is not Hebrew, but Aramaic. The earliest vocalized Aramaic Text we have- to date- is the Masoretic Text. In the Aramaic sections, the name YWHW never appeared for the name of God- since that would have been very confusing. However, the verb HWH is Aramaic and necessary to use and vocalize; therefore, in the Aramic sections, the YHWA is vocalized as YeHeWeA. 

WHile no one, at the current time, can produce a document in Egypt which stated the Israelites were there, there is sufficient proof that the Israelites were a people in Cana'an from a time before Ramses and Amenhotep III- who identified their deity as YHWA.

If they worshipped YHWA, then it could be safe to assume they had some type of organized religious society, but even that cannot be proven. What can be proven is that at the time just prior to the 15th dynasty, the Hyksos- a Semitic people- entered Egypt, took control, and in the 18th dynasty were finally pushed out. This fits the early Hebrew accounts; a Semitic Aramaic people, the sons of Israel, enterd Egypt; the son of Israel named Yosef (AS) became second only to Pharaoh; after considerable time had passed, the Semitic Aramaic peoples were driven out.

So, while everything might not be exactly as the Hebrew Text stated, there is enough circumstantial evidence that there was a Semitic Aramaic people called Hebrew Israelites who might have entered Egypt, took over, and were driven away after their defeat.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Yaaqov

Archeologists agree that Israelites was a native Kaananean tribe that worshipped the kaananean Gods until the middle of the 1st century BC. The story of Moses in Egypt being a myth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YHWA was never a Cana'anite deity. Can you provide any instance in which YHWH was used among the Phoenician or Cana'anites- Ugaritic, etc.? Even 500 years after the inscription of Amenhotpe III's temple, the King Mesha' of Mo'ab wrote about the Israelite deity as YHWH- explaining that he destroyed the House of YHWH and took its articles elsewhere- that was long before the middle of the 1st century BCE. It is interesting to note that Mesha never mentioned any other deity in association with Israel than YHWH- even though he worshiped Ashtoreth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

YHWA was never a Cana'anite deity. Can you provide any instance in which YHWH was used among the Phoenician or Cana'anites- Ugaritic, etc.? Even 500 years after the inscription of Amenhotpe III's temple, the King Mesha' of Mo'ab wrote about the Israelite deity as YHWH- explaining that he destroyed the House of YHWH and took its articles elsewhere- that was long before the middle of the 1st century BCE. It is interesting to note that Mesha never mentioned any other deity in association with Israel than YHWH- even though he worshiped Ashtoreth. 

Before Islam and Christianity, Jahwe was not a God in Iran, Sweden or America either. 

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, andres said:

Before Islam and Christianity, Jahwe was not a God in Iran, Sweden or America either. 

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

 

You stated the Israelites worshiped the Cana'anite deities until the mid 1st century BCE. According to the ancient records, the Israelites worshiped YHWH; I can provide the text of the Mesha stele as an example- 500 BCE. I do agree that the Israelite worshiped Cana'anite deities in conjunction with YHWH, but not in exclusion. This was the reason they were exiled from the land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

You stated the Israelites worshiped the Cana'anite deities until the mid 1st century BCE. According to the ancient records, the Israelites worshiped YHWH; I can provide the text of the Mesha stele as an example- 500 BCE. I do agree that the Israelite worshiped Cana'anite deities in conjunction with YHWH, but not in exclusion. This was the reason they were exiled from the land. 

We agree, Israelites worshipped many Gods, as both archeology and the the Bible say. There were and yet had not been any monotheism.  Interesting that is that the Bible say that the king of Moab sacrificed the life of his son in the same way as the Israelites dud with their sheep. This is said to have caused troubbles for the Israelis. 2Kings 3:27. The Moabs west of the Death Sea still had a some remains of stoneage religion in the 10th century. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2017 at 1:46 PM, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

It is really interesting to note that the Hebrew folk etymology of Moshe's (AS) name was said to be from the Egyptian- even though the Hebrew etymology held a different meaning entirely. In ancient Egyptian, the verb "to bear" is M-S-S and the noun "child" is M-S-W. The final W indicated a masculine name and indicated that the word was derived from a verb. The Hebrew spelling has a final H, which is- in origin- from the W- which is similar to the Arabic. The Hebrew etymology meant to draw- hence the legend that the Egyptian princess named him Moshe (AS) because she drew him from the water. The name actually meant "son.: He was taken by this princess, in whatever manner she found him, and raised as her son- hence the true origin of the name.

The earliest mention of the Israelite deity is from the Temple of Amenhotep III in Soleb, Egypt. In this inscription, the name YHWH is actually spelled YHWA- with a final Alef. This is significant in the fact that the Israelites- when they entered Egypt- would have spoken Aramaic and not Hebrew; Hebrew was not developed until much later- being a dialect of Cana'anite. The earliest written record of Hebrew only dated to the time of the early Israeite kings. In fact, the Hebrew Text indicated that- as part of the firstfruits offereing- we say the following when offering them:

And you shall speak and say before YHWH your God, My father was a perishing Aramean! And he went down to Egypt with few men, and lived there, and became a nation there, great, mighty and many. Deuteronomy 26:5

The Israelites soke Aramaic, not Hebrew- hence there is no sign of Hebrew in the Ancient Egyptian monuments. What is present is the name of their deity, YHWA. The name YHWH, as I have explaiened before, is not Hebrew, but Aramaic. The earliest vocalized Aramaic Text we have- to date- is the Masoretic Text. In the Aramaic sections, the name YWHW never appeared for the name of God- since that would have been very confusing. However, the verb HWH is Aramaic and necessary to use and vocalize; therefore, in the Aramic sections, the YHWA is vocalized as YeHeWeA. 

WHile no one, at the current time, can produce a document in Egypt which stated the Israelites were there, there is sufficient proof that the Israelites were a people in Cana'an from a time before Ramses and Amenhotep III- who identified their deity as YHWA.

If they worshipped YHWA, then it could be safe to assume they had some type of organized religious society, but even that cannot be proven. What can be proven is that at the time just prior to the 15th dynasty, the Hyksos- a Semitic people- entered Egypt, took control, and in the 18th dynasty were finally pushed out. This fits the early Hebrew accounts; a Semitic Aramaic people, the sons of Israel, enterd Egypt; the son of Israel named Yosef (AS) became second only to Pharaoh; after considerable time had passed, the Semitic Aramaic peoples were driven out.

So, while everything might not be exactly as the Hebrew Text stated, there is enough circumstantial evidence that there was a Semitic Aramaic people called Hebrew Israelites who might have entered Egypt, took over, and were driven away after their defeat.

 

 

 
 
 
 

This is a photo of an inscription found in Soleb, Egypt- in the Temple erected by Amenhotep III in the 15th century BCE. Speaking of his enemies to the north, he referred to theמ as the SHasu of YHWA. 

In this inscription- which reads top to bottom and right to left- it began with the horizontal biconsonantal sign of land with the phonetic value of T3 (the 3 represents the Alef); next came the horizontal sign for a pool with flowers and represented the biconsonantal sign SH; followed by the sign for a marsh rush with the bi-consonantal value of Su- the last sign in this part is the monoconsonantal sign of a quail chick- this represented the nominal case ending and had a value of W. Together, this part reads the land [t3] of the Shasu [sh.su]- meaning bedouins. In the bottom section appeared the first recorded instance of the four letter name of the Israelite deity. It began with two reed leaves- indicating a Y; next came the monoconsonantal sign of an outline of a courtyard wall- indicating the H; the next letter is a biconsonantal sign of a lasso- its constonantal value combined W and Alef. The final monoconsonantal sign was another quail chick which indicated another nominal case ending and had the value of W. The case endings were never, really, part of the word; hence the actual four consonants used for the name of the Israelites deity was spelled according to the Aramaic conjugation of the 3rd imperfect- YHWA יהוא

Tetragramma-Soleb-Egipto-3.jpg

Edited by Yaaqov Ben Yisrael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is disputed haw long Jahve, Baal, El, Ashera and ma y othet have been known. What we know is that they were worshipped as late as 500BC and that polytheisn existed until then. Among Arabs until Mohammed, Scandinavians until 1.000AD and in the New World until Columbus came, and in some isolated places until today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ But I live in the middle of a bunch of " polytheists" ( if you want to call them that....I think it is a misnomer myself). They follow no Abrahamic religion. The tribal faiths are still very much alive in the US native populations, especially since the US Religious Freedom laws for natives were passed in the 1970's. Tribal religions are on the rebound.

Edited by LeftCoastMom
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

^ But I live in the middle of a bunch of " polytheists" ( if you want to call them that....I think it is a misnomer myself). They follow no Abrahamic religion. The tribal faiths are still very much alive in the US native populations, especially since the US Religious Freedom laws for natives were passed in the 1970's. Tribal religions are on the rebound.

As I understood it the Tribal faiths had many spirits, but only one great spirit. No?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×