His The Mysterie of God is apparently the first English language book on Universalism.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A66686.0001.001?view=toc
His political views also interest me, I'll be writing more on him in the future.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Monday, June 13, 2016
Right now there is a war between Two Enemies of Freedom
One side wanting to take our Second Amendment rights and the other First Amendment rights.
One side taking advantage of irrational fear of guns and the other of irrational fear of Muslims.
Make no mistake that both sides are equally wrong.
Just say no to giving up Liberty for Safety and Security.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Deutercanonical books
A claim often made to undermine the logic of Sola Sciptura, especially towards KJV proponents, is that the KJV "originally had 12 extra books".
Leaving aside that the KJV translators and publishers clearly didn't intend to endorse them as canonical since they were put in a separate section titled "The Apocrypha", not Canon is what "Apocrypha" means. They were the 1611 equivalent of DVD bonus features.
It is not the KJV itself I consider God's preserved Word but the Masoretic Text for the Hebrew Bible and Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament. The Deuterocanonical books are part of neither of those but are preserved for us mainly via Septuagint manuscripts, which I don't trust.
The desire to make it sound like Protestants and Evangelicals are the ones picking and choosing I find annoying because the Catholic Bibles do NOT keep all 12 of those books, only some of them.
The first time one of them was quoted by a Catholic while debating Martin Luther, he responded "since when is that in The Bible?" While these books were around, they were never considered of equal authority. It was in response to the Reformation some started being propped up more.
The Catholic Church choose to keep in their Bible ones that they could take as supporting their positions on issues like Prayer for the Dead, but rejected ones that contradicted their views on those issues. If Protestants were also picking and choosing you'd think they'd have kept the ones the Catholic Church rejected.
While the books of Maccabees are most interesting to us today for being our oldest historical source on the origins of Hanukkah, and the Hasmonean revolt. I suspect the Catholic Church kept them because of parts like First Maccabees chapter 8 that really praised Rome. I personally think chapter 8 is where the Hasmoneans started going wrong.
2 Esdras (also called 4th Esdras by languages that call the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah 1 and 2 Esdras). Is infamous for the Prophecies it gives, some of which I have and will in the future mention for the sake of curiosity on my Prophecy Blog. But the book is dangerous because of a strong Anti-Semitic tone it has.
Judith and Tobit are interesting historical oddities that often come up in talks on Revised Chronology and also Lost Tribes speculation (which one of the 2nd Esdras Prophecies is also a part of). If they ever were reliable histories the versions we have are clearly corrupt, being filled with confusing geographical contradictions and historical anachronisms.
There are three more books also grouped with the Deutrcanonical books though they are not among the 12 included in the 1611 KJV, or in any Catholic Bibles, but they are popular in the Eastern Churches. They are 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.
Psalm 151 doesn't seem to say anything particularly interesting. But it's amusing to me that it makes the Psalms like the original Pokemon. 150 are all you need, but there is also an extra.
4 Maccabees is a poetic elaboration on a story found in 2 Maccabees.
3 Maccabees however is not about the history it's title would make you think. It is clearly a work of Prose Fiction written by Alexandrian Jews during the time of Caligula about Alexandrian Jews during the time of Ptolemy IV Philopater.
It has an attempt to do an Abomination of Desolation qualifying event but gets thwarted. Then later Ptolemy tries to massacre the Alexandrian Jews with drunk elephants.
Something similar to the latter is mentioned by Josephus in Against Apion as being tried by Ptolemy VIII Psycon. I find it amusing how Ussher and many others since think Josephus must be mistaken on which Ptolemy did this, since 3 Maccabees is clearly a literary narrative, and Jospehus goal in Against Apion was documenting things the Greek Alexandrians could verify from their own (now lost to us) historical records. Now it's possible similar incidents could have been tried by both Kings since History does repeat itself, but if only one is true it's Ptolemy VIII.
So those are my thoughts on this collection of Apocrypha. They're interesting sources of information, but not Inspired Scripture.
Update August 13th 2018: The Nazarene Judaism Website wants to affirm the Apocrypha via apparent quotations of Wisdom of Solomon in Romans. However many Scholars who see that connection see it as Paul quoting the ideology reflected in Wisdom of Solomon in order to then refute it.
http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/romans-118-32-and-wisdom-of-solomon.html
http://www.realdevil.info/dig2.htm
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/god-grace-righteousness-in-wisdom-of-solomon-and-paul-jonathan-linebaugh
This is a subject I've spoken on before, like in the Romans part of The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality. Romans 1:18-32 use of "Para Phusis" as if it's inherently Bad is refuted by Paul's using "Para Phusis" in Romans 11 to describe what God does grafting Gentiles into Israel.
Update November 2018: Early Christian Canons
The earliest source on what Christian viewed as Canon for the Old Testament is the Bryennios List. It was possibly written in the late first or early second century. The only thing in that list viewed as a possible endorsement of a Deuterocanonical book is "2 of Esdras" but in Greek Nehemiah was often called 2 Esdras, and in Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah were often the same scroll, so this reference is very likely just to those two books. Likewise Lamentations is probably only missing because it shared a Scroll with Jeremiah.
It's with Origen that we begin seeing Christians treat Deuterocanonical Septuagint books as Scripture, with him even saying Christians accept books the Jews do not. I like Origen in some areas, but it's with him and his mentor Clement we begin seeing a massive escalation in the Hellenization of Christianity.
Leaving aside that the KJV translators and publishers clearly didn't intend to endorse them as canonical since they were put in a separate section titled "The Apocrypha", not Canon is what "Apocrypha" means. They were the 1611 equivalent of DVD bonus features.
It is not the KJV itself I consider God's preserved Word but the Masoretic Text for the Hebrew Bible and Textus Receptus for the Greek New Testament. The Deuterocanonical books are part of neither of those but are preserved for us mainly via Septuagint manuscripts, which I don't trust.
The desire to make it sound like Protestants and Evangelicals are the ones picking and choosing I find annoying because the Catholic Bibles do NOT keep all 12 of those books, only some of them.
The first time one of them was quoted by a Catholic while debating Martin Luther, he responded "since when is that in The Bible?" While these books were around, they were never considered of equal authority. It was in response to the Reformation some started being propped up more.
The Catholic Church choose to keep in their Bible ones that they could take as supporting their positions on issues like Prayer for the Dead, but rejected ones that contradicted their views on those issues. If Protestants were also picking and choosing you'd think they'd have kept the ones the Catholic Church rejected.
While the books of Maccabees are most interesting to us today for being our oldest historical source on the origins of Hanukkah, and the Hasmonean revolt. I suspect the Catholic Church kept them because of parts like First Maccabees chapter 8 that really praised Rome. I personally think chapter 8 is where the Hasmoneans started going wrong.
2 Esdras (also called 4th Esdras by languages that call the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah 1 and 2 Esdras). Is infamous for the Prophecies it gives, some of which I have and will in the future mention for the sake of curiosity on my Prophecy Blog. But the book is dangerous because of a strong Anti-Semitic tone it has.
Judith and Tobit are interesting historical oddities that often come up in talks on Revised Chronology and also Lost Tribes speculation (which one of the 2nd Esdras Prophecies is also a part of). If they ever were reliable histories the versions we have are clearly corrupt, being filled with confusing geographical contradictions and historical anachronisms.
There are three more books also grouped with the Deutrcanonical books though they are not among the 12 included in the 1611 KJV, or in any Catholic Bibles, but they are popular in the Eastern Churches. They are 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151.
Psalm 151 doesn't seem to say anything particularly interesting. But it's amusing to me that it makes the Psalms like the original Pokemon. 150 are all you need, but there is also an extra.
4 Maccabees is a poetic elaboration on a story found in 2 Maccabees.
3 Maccabees however is not about the history it's title would make you think. It is clearly a work of Prose Fiction written by Alexandrian Jews during the time of Caligula about Alexandrian Jews during the time of Ptolemy IV Philopater.
It has an attempt to do an Abomination of Desolation qualifying event but gets thwarted. Then later Ptolemy tries to massacre the Alexandrian Jews with drunk elephants.
Something similar to the latter is mentioned by Josephus in Against Apion as being tried by Ptolemy VIII Psycon. I find it amusing how Ussher and many others since think Josephus must be mistaken on which Ptolemy did this, since 3 Maccabees is clearly a literary narrative, and Jospehus goal in Against Apion was documenting things the Greek Alexandrians could verify from their own (now lost to us) historical records. Now it's possible similar incidents could have been tried by both Kings since History does repeat itself, but if only one is true it's Ptolemy VIII.
So those are my thoughts on this collection of Apocrypha. They're interesting sources of information, but not Inspired Scripture.
Update August 13th 2018: The Nazarene Judaism Website wants to affirm the Apocrypha via apparent quotations of Wisdom of Solomon in Romans. However many Scholars who see that connection see it as Paul quoting the ideology reflected in Wisdom of Solomon in order to then refute it.
http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/07/romans-118-32-and-wisdom-of-solomon.html
http://www.realdevil.info/dig2.htm
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/god-grace-righteousness-in-wisdom-of-solomon-and-paul-jonathan-linebaugh
This is a subject I've spoken on before, like in the Romans part of The Bible does not Condemn Homosexuality. Romans 1:18-32 use of "Para Phusis" as if it's inherently Bad is refuted by Paul's using "Para Phusis" in Romans 11 to describe what God does grafting Gentiles into Israel.
Update November 2018: Early Christian Canons
The earliest source on what Christian viewed as Canon for the Old Testament is the Bryennios List. It was possibly written in the late first or early second century. The only thing in that list viewed as a possible endorsement of a Deuterocanonical book is "2 of Esdras" but in Greek Nehemiah was often called 2 Esdras, and in Hebrew Ezra and Nehemiah were often the same scroll, so this reference is very likely just to those two books. Likewise Lamentations is probably only missing because it shared a Scroll with Jeremiah.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Jesus Nave, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Judges, Ruth, 4 of Kings (Samuel and Kings), 2 of Chronicles, 2 of Esdras, Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel.Melito's Old Testament Canon is the other oldest Christian one and is also pretty much ours but with Esther neglected. Again Nehemiah and Lamentations are missing due to their sharing scrolls with Ezra and Jeremiah. The only possible reference to a Deuterocanonical book there is Wisdom, but again that is disputed, it's possible he was still talking about Proverbs which is also largely about Wisdom.
Melito's list, as cited by Eusebius, as follows:The Murtarian Canon mentions Wisdom of Solomon but strangely does so in a New Testament canon list. Wisdom seems to be the most popular for Christians to accept, and I think it was because many missed how Paul's use of it in Romans was to refute it.
Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras.
It's with Origen that we begin seeing Christians treat Deuterocanonical Septuagint books as Scripture, with him even saying Christians accept books the Jews do not. I like Origen in some areas, but it's with him and his mentor Clement we begin seeing a massive escalation in the Hellenization of Christianity.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
I've done my first Audio recording. Reading from the KJV page
[Update January 2025: This was a Link to something I regret recording.]
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Was the Name of Yahuah unknown before the Burning Bush?
It is a common assumption that the implication of what Exodus 3:13-14 says, and the seemingly more blatant 6:3, is The Holy Name
wasn't known before, and therefore everything in Genesis taken as
showing it being known is viewed as a contradiction. These alleged
contradictions are taken advantage of by both Atheists, and by believers
with weird fringe theories trying to say YHWH is actually the name of a
Pagan god added to the text and never originally part of Scripture at
all.
I however feel the greater testimony of Scripture is that it was known from the beginning.
Now where it's used in the narrative voice of Genesis one could easily say that's just Moses giving the text it's final form. But Abraham in Genesis 22 names a location Yahuahjirah, it's not just an editorial note, it says Abraham gave it that name.
The end of Genesis 4 says in the days of Enosh men began to call upon the name of Yahuah. While this is irrelevant to it's relevance to this issue, I want to state my disagreement that "call upon" should be translated Profane here which I see asserted often. This is the exact same terminology used when Genesis latter tells us Abraham "called upon" the name of Yahuah, in Genesis 12:8 and Isaac in 26:25.
Some quotes.
As for the desire to allege the name is Pagan. Attempts to find it in Canaanite or Arabic texts or inscriptions that clearly predate Moses or even Solomon are all lacking.
The best argument for a Pagan origin for Yah is the Egyptian moon god Iah. How exactly to pronounce Egyptian names has been lost, Iah is the default you see on Wikipedia, but it also states other alternatives like Yah, Jah, Joh or Aah. They become less similar to the Hebrew Yah as we go down the list. Other equally likely possibilities could include Ieh, Yeh, or Jeh, which will prove ironic later. That the Iah theophoric name Ahmose is rendered in Greek texts like Hedotus and Manetho as Amasis or something similar, I consider support for something like Aah being the correct pronunciation.
Aah could be etymologically related to Ajah/Aiah, which is not a Yah theophoric name but can easily be confused for one, it comes from the Hebrew word for Hawk or Kite or Vulture. The Egyptian moon god Khonsu's name is spelled with Hieroglyphics that resemble similar kinds of birds.
Iah isn't even the main Egyptian Moon god. There were two for the Moon just as there were for the Sun (all four were male unlike in many other cultures). The main Sun deity was Ra, while Aten was a lesser one, more like the name for the visible Solar disc itself. For the moon Iah was equivalent to Aten not Ra, the main Moon deity was Khonsu. Still Akhnetan choose Aten over Ra for his Henotheistic Sun cult, so hypothetically someone could have done the same with Iah for a Moon cult.
I'm curious what the oldest Egyptian references to Iah are. I'm wondering if it could have come from in some way the influence of Joseph and later got corrupted.
Fringe theorists will suggest that the Hebrew name for the Moon, Yerech/Yerikh often transliterated into English as Jerah/Jereh, was originally identical to Yahweh but that the scribes changed the spelling of one or the other to obscure it. But Yerach is the same spelling non monotheistic Semites used in the texts we have for them.
The words only have in common beginning with the same letter, as do many other not related Hebrew words. The two letters for "h" are different, Yah uses Heh and Yerach uses Heth/Cheth.
Another thing people might use to support a Yahweh as a Moon God theory is the fact that the Torah uses a Lunar calendar. Mostly I think God wanted that to be contrary to the Solar Calendar as the standard of their Canaanite neighbors. But either way many other Calendars have been Lunar including the Attic Greeks without it meaning they favored Moon worship over other gods.
Also I've seen the theory out there that the name of Sinai comes from Sin the Akkadian Moon god, and Horeb means shining (a meaning linked to lunar deities like Phoebe). I consider neither of those the most likely etymology. Horeb is spelled identically to the Hebrew word for Sword, and is also related to Cherub, Cherub's similarity to Sword is part of the wordplay of Genesis 3:24. The name Sinai first occurs in Exodus 16:1, which also refers to a place called Sin, the Hebrew spelling implies they come from is the same root as the Sinite tribe of the Canaanites. It was probably populated by Sinites first then the Midianites and/or Kenites drove them out. Now it may be the Akadian deity's name comes from the Sinites, who knows.
To show I'm not a hypocrite I want to say I no longer agree with labeling Allah a moon god. The main Idol of the Pre-Islamic Kaaba was Hubal, who was not a Moon god but the Nabatean form of Baal. There are many theories as to the origin of the Crescent Moon being a Muslim Symbol, nothing in the Koran actually calls for it to my knowledge. The theory I favor is it being connected to them using a Lunar calendar. Some Pre-Islamic Arabian Jews are known to have used a similar symbol for that reason, the Muslims might have copied them. Being Crescent Moons being use din Byzantine art is also a proposed reason since the early Arabic Empire copied a lot from Byzantine architecture.
The argument for the name being a foreign insertion into the Hebrew texts has two basis really, but a third implication from that is that all Yah theophoric names as well as the expression halleluyah should replace the Yah part with Ye or Yeh.
The first basis is a supposed inconsistency between YHWH and the I AM statement that we assume was when the name was revealed.
The Hebrew says "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" which gets translated "I AM that I AM". The Hebrew word for I AM is Hayah, but Ehyeh is the first person form. Someone saying it to refer to someone else would say Hayah.
An interesting fact is that Hebrew and many ancient languages unlike English will use their definite article before a personal name. The Hebrew definite article is just the letter Heh added to a word as a prefix and pronounced Ha. So really every occurrence of Yah is really HaYah.
So really the I AM statement is more like a pun on an existing name, not the origin of one.
The second Basis is arguably more then one but all from how the Greek New Testament renders things. But the New Testament passage that works against them they say is corrupt. So they're selective.
Now this theory doesn't necessarily assert Ehyeh was the original everywhere you see YHWH. Based on the common assumptions about Exodus 6:3 they would probably say it should be El Shaddai everywhere it occurs in Genesis.
And they may use the Septuagint and New Testament quotations of the Hebrew Bible to support saying Adonai (Lord) was in the original. The Septuagint which I have expressed my problems with before was the product of developing Jewish superstition that you shouldn't pronounce the name that came from a misunderstanding of the 4th Commandment. The Hebrew Bible is against that idea however, it record the name being spoken in dialogue by humans often.
New Testament quotations I think happen to also do this because for the New Covenant Yeshua/Iesous/Jesus has replaced Yahuah as the personal name of God.
And they use the Greek spelling of Jesus to support their replacing of Yah with Ye/Yeh. Problem is Eta following the Iota is a common practice of Greek transliteration that does not necessarily tell us how it was pronounced in the original language, we see it with many names that started with a Yot. Though in this case I think the Holy Spirit might have been playing with how Eta has an ambiguous relationship to the "h" sound.
Revelation 19 verifies that Hallelujah should be pronounced ending with an A sound rather then an E. So they allege that word wasn't originally in the text at all. They don't even say it's absent from any old texts, which it could very well be from the Alexandrian corpus for all I know. Their main argument is that Revelation 19:1-6 is a repeat of part of Revelation 7. There may be thematic or poetic parallels there, but they were blatantly arguing for a non Chronological view of Revelation.
I however feel the greater testimony of Scripture is that it was known from the beginning.
Now where it's used in the narrative voice of Genesis one could easily say that's just Moses giving the text it's final form. But Abraham in Genesis 22 names a location Yahuahjirah, it's not just an editorial note, it says Abraham gave it that name.
The end of Genesis 4 says in the days of Enosh men began to call upon the name of Yahuah. While this is irrelevant to it's relevance to this issue, I want to state my disagreement that "call upon" should be translated Profane here which I see asserted often. This is the exact same terminology used when Genesis latter tells us Abraham "called upon" the name of Yahuah, in Genesis 12:8 and Isaac in 26:25.
Some quotes.
There is no hint in Exodus that Yahweh was a new name revealed first to Moses. On the contrary, the success of his mission depended on the use of the familiar name for validation by the Israelites—The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew (1974:102).And
[The] texts of Genesis show that Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs (Gen 12:1, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 26:12, 35:1, 48:3), and that he spoke to each one of them (Gen 12:7, 15:1, 26:2, 28:13, 31:3). The name “Yahweh” occurs 162 times in Genesis, 34 of those times on the lips of speakers in Genesis (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC 2:340-41). They also made proclamation of Yahweh by name (4:26, 12:8), and they named places with the name (22:14). These passages should not be ignored or passed off as later interpretation.Exodus 6:3 has been addressed on this issue in a few ways. One is that "name" here is being used in the sense of character. Many are discussed here from a Karaite Jewish perspective, some things he mentioned being not fulfilled yet we believe are. Another is that the "not" part is meant to be Rhetorical. Taken form this page quoting a user named Frank Luke.
W. J. Martin has suggested this translation.
"I am YHWH. I allowed myself to appear to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai. My name is YHWH. Did I not make myself known to them?"
As for Exodus 3. What happens there can be taken many ways too. In fact the implication can absolutely be read as implying it's a name already known. The scene is also believed to reflect Moses entering this on an erroneous Pagan notion that knowing a god's name gives you power over them, he grew up a Prince of Egypt remember.Martin argues that the translation of the key clause as a question is demanded by verse 4 beginning with "And also I established my covenant." That would seem to imply that the preceding clause ought to be taken in a positive sense and not a negative sense, such as "by YHWH I was not known to them."
As for the desire to allege the name is Pagan. Attempts to find it in Canaanite or Arabic texts or inscriptions that clearly predate Moses or even Solomon are all lacking.
The best argument for a Pagan origin for Yah is the Egyptian moon god Iah. How exactly to pronounce Egyptian names has been lost, Iah is the default you see on Wikipedia, but it also states other alternatives like Yah, Jah, Joh or Aah. They become less similar to the Hebrew Yah as we go down the list. Other equally likely possibilities could include Ieh, Yeh, or Jeh, which will prove ironic later. That the Iah theophoric name Ahmose is rendered in Greek texts like Hedotus and Manetho as Amasis or something similar, I consider support for something like Aah being the correct pronunciation.
Aah could be etymologically related to Ajah/Aiah, which is not a Yah theophoric name but can easily be confused for one, it comes from the Hebrew word for Hawk or Kite or Vulture. The Egyptian moon god Khonsu's name is spelled with Hieroglyphics that resemble similar kinds of birds.
Iah isn't even the main Egyptian Moon god. There were two for the Moon just as there were for the Sun (all four were male unlike in many other cultures). The main Sun deity was Ra, while Aten was a lesser one, more like the name for the visible Solar disc itself. For the moon Iah was equivalent to Aten not Ra, the main Moon deity was Khonsu. Still Akhnetan choose Aten over Ra for his Henotheistic Sun cult, so hypothetically someone could have done the same with Iah for a Moon cult.
I'm curious what the oldest Egyptian references to Iah are. I'm wondering if it could have come from in some way the influence of Joseph and later got corrupted.
Fringe theorists will suggest that the Hebrew name for the Moon, Yerech/Yerikh often transliterated into English as Jerah/Jereh, was originally identical to Yahweh but that the scribes changed the spelling of one or the other to obscure it. But Yerach is the same spelling non monotheistic Semites used in the texts we have for them.
The words only have in common beginning with the same letter, as do many other not related Hebrew words. The two letters for "h" are different, Yah uses Heh and Yerach uses Heth/Cheth.
Another thing people might use to support a Yahweh as a Moon God theory is the fact that the Torah uses a Lunar calendar. Mostly I think God wanted that to be contrary to the Solar Calendar as the standard of their Canaanite neighbors. But either way many other Calendars have been Lunar including the Attic Greeks without it meaning they favored Moon worship over other gods.
Also I've seen the theory out there that the name of Sinai comes from Sin the Akkadian Moon god, and Horeb means shining (a meaning linked to lunar deities like Phoebe). I consider neither of those the most likely etymology. Horeb is spelled identically to the Hebrew word for Sword, and is also related to Cherub, Cherub's similarity to Sword is part of the wordplay of Genesis 3:24. The name Sinai first occurs in Exodus 16:1, which also refers to a place called Sin, the Hebrew spelling implies they come from is the same root as the Sinite tribe of the Canaanites. It was probably populated by Sinites first then the Midianites and/or Kenites drove them out. Now it may be the Akadian deity's name comes from the Sinites, who knows.
To show I'm not a hypocrite I want to say I no longer agree with labeling Allah a moon god. The main Idol of the Pre-Islamic Kaaba was Hubal, who was not a Moon god but the Nabatean form of Baal. There are many theories as to the origin of the Crescent Moon being a Muslim Symbol, nothing in the Koran actually calls for it to my knowledge. The theory I favor is it being connected to them using a Lunar calendar. Some Pre-Islamic Arabian Jews are known to have used a similar symbol for that reason, the Muslims might have copied them. Being Crescent Moons being use din Byzantine art is also a proposed reason since the early Arabic Empire copied a lot from Byzantine architecture.
The argument for the name being a foreign insertion into the Hebrew texts has two basis really, but a third implication from that is that all Yah theophoric names as well as the expression halleluyah should replace the Yah part with Ye or Yeh.
The first basis is a supposed inconsistency between YHWH and the I AM statement that we assume was when the name was revealed.
The Hebrew says "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" which gets translated "I AM that I AM". The Hebrew word for I AM is Hayah, but Ehyeh is the first person form. Someone saying it to refer to someone else would say Hayah.
An interesting fact is that Hebrew and many ancient languages unlike English will use their definite article before a personal name. The Hebrew definite article is just the letter Heh added to a word as a prefix and pronounced Ha. So really every occurrence of Yah is really HaYah.
So really the I AM statement is more like a pun on an existing name, not the origin of one.
The second Basis is arguably more then one but all from how the Greek New Testament renders things. But the New Testament passage that works against them they say is corrupt. So they're selective.
Now this theory doesn't necessarily assert Ehyeh was the original everywhere you see YHWH. Based on the common assumptions about Exodus 6:3 they would probably say it should be El Shaddai everywhere it occurs in Genesis.
And they may use the Septuagint and New Testament quotations of the Hebrew Bible to support saying Adonai (Lord) was in the original. The Septuagint which I have expressed my problems with before was the product of developing Jewish superstition that you shouldn't pronounce the name that came from a misunderstanding of the 4th Commandment. The Hebrew Bible is against that idea however, it record the name being spoken in dialogue by humans often.
New Testament quotations I think happen to also do this because for the New Covenant Yeshua/Iesous/Jesus has replaced Yahuah as the personal name of God.
And they use the Greek spelling of Jesus to support their replacing of Yah with Ye/Yeh. Problem is Eta following the Iota is a common practice of Greek transliteration that does not necessarily tell us how it was pronounced in the original language, we see it with many names that started with a Yot. Though in this case I think the Holy Spirit might have been playing with how Eta has an ambiguous relationship to the "h" sound.
Revelation 19 verifies that Hallelujah should be pronounced ending with an A sound rather then an E. So they allege that word wasn't originally in the text at all. They don't even say it's absent from any old texts, which it could very well be from the Alexandrian corpus for all I know. Their main argument is that Revelation 19:1-6 is a repeat of part of Revelation 7. There may be thematic or poetic parallels there, but they were blatantly arguing for a non Chronological view of Revelation.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Cannabis in The Bible
I've already mentioned how The Bible proclaims no Plant Life unclean. Thing is the Cannabis plant is mentioned in The Hebrew Bible as a plant used in the Worship of Yahuah.
The common view is that the word Cannabis is Scythian in origin, but it seems the Scythians had a decent amount of contact with Ancient Israel and Judah, they are refereed to in The Bible as Magog after all, and a Hebrew artifact was once found in the grave of a Scythian warrior woman.
Cannabis comes from combing the Hebrew words Qaneh (Strong number 7070) three times rendered in the KJV Calamus, and Bosem (Strong number 1314). Qaneh on it's own could also be a reference to the plant in question, but Bosem just means sweet smelling or fragrance. The actual Calamus plant does not have the qualities The Bible describes this plant as having. Two other KJV occurrences render it Cane.
The usually cited first appearance is Exodus 30:23.
Then there is the Song of Solomon 4:14.
Next is Isaiah 43:24
After that is Jeremiah 6:20.
Finally is Ezekial 27:19.
And this is the Dan and Javan verse I so often refer to. Perhaps Dan is a factor in how the Scythians came to use the same term for the plant.
Most others discussing this topic think these five are the only verses. Basically directly correlating to when the KJV renders Qaneh either Calamus or Cane. Now the Strongs does have a tendency to classify things as the same word when they're really different forms of the same root, so it can be complicated, clearly many uses of 7070 seemingly are not a plant or herb. Like when it's used of the Branches of the Menorah in Exodus 25.
Only three of the five also use Bosem ("Sweet" in the KJV).
It's actual first occurrence is in Genesis 41 where it is twice translated "stalk", in reference to Corn Stalks. The Canibus plant also grows on stalks.
There is also 7071, a river in Israel called Kanah. Mentioned in Joshua 16:8, 17:9 and 19:28, in the land allotted to Ephraim.
Now a lot of religions out there want to use these Biblical references to the plant for their own agenda. It's important to note none of these references seem to refer to recreational drug use.
The point is, don't let anyone convince you Cannabis is an evil plant.
There are also possibly references to Hemp.
https://twitter.com/MichaelDPress/status/1266369067499180038
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/world/tel-arad-shrine-israel-cannabis-study-scn/index.html
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03344355.2020.1732046
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-reveals-cannabis-frankincense-judahite-shrine.html
The common view is that the word Cannabis is Scythian in origin, but it seems the Scythians had a decent amount of contact with Ancient Israel and Judah, they are refereed to in The Bible as Magog after all, and a Hebrew artifact was once found in the grave of a Scythian warrior woman.
Cannabis comes from combing the Hebrew words Qaneh (Strong number 7070) three times rendered in the KJV Calamus, and Bosem (Strong number 1314). Qaneh on it's own could also be a reference to the plant in question, but Bosem just means sweet smelling or fragrance. The actual Calamus plant does not have the qualities The Bible describes this plant as having. Two other KJV occurrences render it Cane.
The usually cited first appearance is Exodus 30:23.
Take thou also unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels,This is from the instructions for The Tabernacle given by Yahuah himself. This is probably one of the incense refereed to in Exodus 30:8-10.
Then there is the Song of Solomon 4:14.
Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices:Definitely not a negative reference.
Next is Isaiah 43:24
Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.Another clear reference to it being an incense offered to Yahuah.
After that is Jeremiah 6:20.
To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.A negative passage, but still clearly consistent with it being an incense used in The Worship of Yahuah.
Finally is Ezekial 27:19.
Dan also and Javan going to and fro occupied in thy fairs: bright iron, cassia, and calamus, were in thy market.It's part of the Prophecy of Tyre's destruction, referring to it as a plant Tyre traded. Remember much of what was used in Solomon's Temple was available via his trade partnership with Tyre.
And this is the Dan and Javan verse I so often refer to. Perhaps Dan is a factor in how the Scythians came to use the same term for the plant.
Most others discussing this topic think these five are the only verses. Basically directly correlating to when the KJV renders Qaneh either Calamus or Cane. Now the Strongs does have a tendency to classify things as the same word when they're really different forms of the same root, so it can be complicated, clearly many uses of 7070 seemingly are not a plant or herb. Like when it's used of the Branches of the Menorah in Exodus 25.
Only three of the five also use Bosem ("Sweet" in the KJV).
It's actual first occurrence is in Genesis 41 where it is twice translated "stalk", in reference to Corn Stalks. The Canibus plant also grows on stalks.
There is also 7071, a river in Israel called Kanah. Mentioned in Joshua 16:8, 17:9 and 19:28, in the land allotted to Ephraim.
Now a lot of religions out there want to use these Biblical references to the plant for their own agenda. It's important to note none of these references seem to refer to recreational drug use.
The point is, don't let anyone convince you Cannabis is an evil plant.
There are also possibly references to Hemp.
HEMPUpdate May 29th 2020: There seems to be some new News related to this issue archaeologically.
(Cannabis sativa, Linn.)
“Thy raiment was of fine linen.”—EZEK. 16:13.
THE Hebrew word shesh or sheshi, translated “fine linen,” occurs, according to Royle, twenty-eight times in EXODUS, once in Genesis, once in Proverbs, and three times in Ezekiel. This fine linen was spun by women, as mentioned in Exodus 35:25, where it is said, “All the women that were wise hearted did spin with their hands, and brought that which they had spun, both of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine linen.” Ezekiel says of Tyrus, “Fine linen with broidered work from Egypt was that which thou spreadest forth to be thy sail” (Ezek. 27:7). The material of which this fine linen was wrought is considered by many to have been the produce of the hemp plant. This is rendered probable also by the similarity between shesh and the Arabic word haschesch, which is applied to hemp. Hemp consists of the fibres of Cannabis sativa, a plant belonging to the natural order Urticaceæ or nettleworts. It is a native of Persia, and is now extensively cultivated in Europe as well as in India. The variety cultivated in India is sometimes called Cannabis indica, and is remarkable for its narcotic qualities. The dried flowering tops of the female plant from which the resin has been removed are used to form a medicinal extract and tincture. The resinous matter covering the leaves is called churrus; and the names bhang, gunjah, and haschesch, are given to the dried plant in different states. It seems likely that the hemp plant was cultivated in Egypt in ancient times as well as the flax plant; but accurate information on the subject is still wanting. The Hebrew word bad is also translated “linen.” Thus it occurs in Exodus 39:28, where it is said that they made for Aaron and his sons “a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen.” The Hebrew word butz or buz is also translated “fine linen” and “white linen,” as in 1 Chronicles 4:21; Esther 1:6; Ezekiel 27:16, etc. In the New Testament the Greek word byssus is translated “fine linen,” as in Luke 16:19; Rev. 18:12, 16, and 19:8, 14. (See also Flax.)
--
Balfour, John Hutton. The Plants of the Bible. London; Edinburgh; New York: T. Nelson and Sons, 1885. Print.
https://twitter.com/MichaelDPress/status/1266369067499180038
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/world/tel-arad-shrine-israel-cannabis-study-scn/index.html
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03344355.2020.1732046
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-reveals-cannabis-frankincense-judahite-shrine.html
Monday, April 18, 2016
Is there a correlation between being Levitically Unclean and biologically Unhealthy?
The perception that there is is a popular argument of people who want to argue Christians are still required to follow the Dietary Laws. And generally conceded by Christians who don't just so they can say "isn't the Bible's scientific knowledge awesome!". And the latter fits my own personal bias.
And it's easy to make it seem that way when you single out Pigs/Swine/Pork among all Unclean animals. And singling them out became popular during the Inter-testamental period. But The Bible doesn't support it, neither Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14 lists pigs first when giving examples of unclean land mammals. And they're by definition not the most unclean since they do fit one of the two requirements, but failing to have either is enough to be unclean. And the story about Antiochus Epiphanes offering a Pig on the Altar is not in 1st or 2nd Maccabees, it shows up by Josephus giving it more antiquity then the Menorah legend, but Josephus was not above referring to urban legends as if they were facts.
But the thing is the Hare is one of the unclean animals listed before Pigs. And Rabbit meat is considered healthy to eat. My searches on the subject found the only disparaging thing said about it being that it's to lean to live off only Rabbit meat for very long.
Now there is some dispute about if Arnebeth being translated Hare is accurate, but Rabbits and Hares definitely fit the definition of chewing the Cud but not being Cloven Hoofed, no matter what a skeptic may try to tell you.
I could see the logic in Chewing the Cud having a correlation to being healthy or not, but I don't see how having Cloven Hoofs could mean anything in that department.
Meanwhile there are NO restrictions on eating plant life. It's not just that the Torah never takes the time to forbid any, Yahuah specifically said all plant life we are allowed to consume, (including the ones used to make illegal narcotics). Yet some are poisonous, like poison ivy.
You know what's interesting, Humans fit neither requirement for being clean, I wonder if that might be significant?
And it's easy to make it seem that way when you single out Pigs/Swine/Pork among all Unclean animals. And singling them out became popular during the Inter-testamental period. But The Bible doesn't support it, neither Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14 lists pigs first when giving examples of unclean land mammals. And they're by definition not the most unclean since they do fit one of the two requirements, but failing to have either is enough to be unclean. And the story about Antiochus Epiphanes offering a Pig on the Altar is not in 1st or 2nd Maccabees, it shows up by Josephus giving it more antiquity then the Menorah legend, but Josephus was not above referring to urban legends as if they were facts.
But the thing is the Hare is one of the unclean animals listed before Pigs. And Rabbit meat is considered healthy to eat. My searches on the subject found the only disparaging thing said about it being that it's to lean to live off only Rabbit meat for very long.
Now there is some dispute about if Arnebeth being translated Hare is accurate, but Rabbits and Hares definitely fit the definition of chewing the Cud but not being Cloven Hoofed, no matter what a skeptic may try to tell you.
I could see the logic in Chewing the Cud having a correlation to being healthy or not, but I don't see how having Cloven Hoofs could mean anything in that department.
Meanwhile there are NO restrictions on eating plant life. It's not just that the Torah never takes the time to forbid any, Yahuah specifically said all plant life we are allowed to consume, (including the ones used to make illegal narcotics). Yet some are poisonous, like poison ivy.
You know what's interesting, Humans fit neither requirement for being clean, I wonder if that might be significant?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)