Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: El Elyon's gift to his son--a people of their own

Expand Messages
  • Holly
    Hey Lloyd: Here is the transliteration of the verse: behanhel elyown gowyim behapridow bene adam yasseb gebulot ammim lemispar bene yisrael When El elyown
    Message 1 of 118 , Oct 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Lloyd:

      Here is the transliteration of the verse:

      behanhel elyown gowyim behapridow bene adam yasseb gebulot ammim lemispar bene yisrael

      When El elyown divided (nhl) the gowyim, he divided the sons of Adam fixing the boundaries (erecting a pillar) of the amm (according) to the number of bene yisrael

      ki heleq YHWH ammow yaacob hebel nahalatow

      For portion YHWH his amm. Jacob is the rope of his intheritance. (Jacob is tied to his inheritance or the land of Canaan because he was created from its foundation stone or rock).

      It seems that El divided the gowyim and divided the sons of Adam. Between them he fixed a pillar or boundary. The amm (sons of Adam) were limited to the number of Bene Ysrael. In other words, the goyim were excluded. YHWH who is El Elyon, took his amm (sons of Adam) as his people only and he roped or tied Jacob to the land he designated for him, which would have been the rock or the foundation stone from which they were created. This rock or foundation stone was the land of Israel and Judea, which was exclusively theirs because they were created from it (Deut 32:18).

      I still do not see anywhere in Chapter 32, which even implies that El Elyon gave YHWH an inhertiance. It appears that El Elyon, who is YHWH, took the sons of Adam or Jacob's people as his exclusively. He left the goyim to their won territory and their own gods.

      Take Care
      Holly


      --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, LM Barre <l_barre@...> wrote:
      >
      >  ×`Ö¼Ö°×"ַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן ×'ּוֹיִם
      >
      > This first phrase of Deut 32:8 should be translated as "When Elyon made the nations an inheritance ..." because this is precisely what verse 9 states;
      > 32:9 For Yahweh's allotment is his people,Jacob is his portion of his inheritance.
      > As an inheritance, Elyon gives nations to his divine sons, and specifically gave Jacob, "his people," to Yahweh.
      > Verse 9 is clearly an instance of synonymous parallelism:
      > Yahweh//hishis people//Jacoballotment//portion of inheritance
      > El is the giver, Yahweh, one of his sons, is the recipient, Jacob or "his people" is the gift.
      > I do not find anywhere in Deut 32 where Yahweh is identified with El Elyon, only that Yahweh was a real "god." ('eloah in v 17).  Note that the section begins with an infinitive construct of nhl and ends with the feminine noun nahalah, from the same verbal root which further indicates that verse 8 makes a similar statement to verse 9.
      > LM Barre'
      >
      > LM Barre'
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • LM Barre
      I agree.  One of the best ways to do that is to read the Hebrew Bible in classical Hebrew.   LM Barré ...
      Message 118 of 118 , Nov 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree.  One of the best ways to do that is to read the Hebrew Bible in classical Hebrew.
         

        LM Barré



        >________________________________
        > From: Holly <gmrf@...>
        >To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
        >Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 4:39 PM
        >Subject: ABH Re: Tendentious intepretations of the Bible
        >
        >

        >
        >Lloyd:
        >
        >I am interested in understanding the Bible in its historic and cultural context. Immersion in a Semitic culture is essential to that understanding. All else is Western academic spin.
        >
        >Take Care
        >Holly
        >
        >--- In mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com, LM Barre <l_barre@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> Holly,
        >>  
        >> My interest is not whether or not you are Isalmic, which I think is clear that you are, but rather that your thinking is tendentious, which I submit that it is.  Thus, your credibility is impugned.
        >>  
        >> The presence of a intellectual Tendenz is a common thing when it comes to interpretations of the Bible.  Other common strong biases are Christian, Jewish, and Atheist.  A major characteristic of this sort of bias is that it tries to be covert, so as not to become exposed and ruin its ideological intent.
        >>
        >> LM Barré
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> >________________________________
        >> >From: Holly <gmrf@...>
        >> >To: mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com
        >> >Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 2:42 PM
        >> >Subject: ABH Re: Allah?
        >> >
        >> > 
        >> >Lloyd:
        >> >
        >> >You need to be immersed in a Semitic culture. There are certain questions that it is considered culturally incorrect to answer as a yes or a no. One of them is involving the adherent's religion. Al hamdu lilah is the Muslim's reply to your question. Arab Jews and Christians will also give you the same reply if you ask them the same question. You will also get the same reply if you ask after a person's health, a person's family, a person's state of affairs etc. Asking for further information is considered impolite unless the person questioned is willing to offer further information.
        >> >
        >> >Take Care
        >> >Holly
        >> >
        >> >--- In mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com, LM Barre <l_barre@> wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >> I will take that as a "yes."  Is that correct?
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> LM Barré
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >>
        >> >> >________________________________
        >> >> >From: Holly <gmrf@>
        >> >> >To: mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com
        >> >> >Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:34 PM
        >> >> >Subject: ABH Re: Allah
        >> >> >
        >> >> > 
        >> >> >Lloyd:
        >> >> >
        >> >> >Its the standard reply to your inquiry. It means praise be to God.
        >> >> >
        >> >> >--- In mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com, LM Barre <l_barre@> wrote:
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >> What does that mean?
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >> LM BarrÃÆ'©
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >________________________________
        >> >> >> >From: Holly <gmrf@>
        >> >> >> >To: mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com
        >> >> >> >Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 4:43 PM
        >> >> >> >Subject: ABH Re: Allah
        >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> > 
        >> >> >> >Lloyd:
        >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >The answer to that is Al hamdu lilah!
        >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >Take Care
        >> >> >> >Holly
        >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >--- In mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com, LM Barre <l_barre@> wrote:
        >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> Holly,
        >> >> >> >> ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> It seems to me that from the shape of your thinking that you are Muslim.ÃÆ'‚  Is that correct?
        >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> LM BarrÃÆ'Æ'©
        >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >________________________________
        >> >> >> >> >From: Holly <gmrf@>
        >> >> >> >> >To: mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com
        >> >> >> >> >Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 3:56 PM
        >> >> >> >> >Subject: ABH Re: Moses & Meaning of Levi (Lwh)
        >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >Lloyd:
        >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >I was refering to mlwh (Prov 22:7) which means lender in English. In Arabic mlwy means wrench. The root in Hebrew is lwh and means to bind, to twine, to coil, to lend. In Arabic the same word, lwy, means to coil to curve, to flex, to wrench. The Biblical authors used the word mlwh to refer to a lender which implies a binding contract.Mlwh grammatical form is Qal as substantive according to http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/3867.htm. This site also does the Arabic comparison.
        >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >I am certainly NOT an expert in either Hebrew or Arabic. I have lived in the Middle East and I am very familian with Arabic. I often use the Arabic to cross reference the Hebrew. The words are very similar and Arabic has never fallen out of use. It has been continuously spoken. Also, the culture has been continuously practiced, so I often refer to the Arab tribal culture to understand the ancient culture of the Hebrews. The Hebrew culture was a Semitic culture whose ancient roots originated in the Arabian Peninsula.
        >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >Take Care
        >> >> >> >> >Holly
        >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >--- In mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com, LM Barre <l_barre@> wrote:
        >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> What is the grammatical form you are refering to when to mention mlwy as I have not referred to it previously.
        >> >> >> >> >> ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> Like any language, Hebrew words have more than one meaning.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  A word has a "semantic range, as you find in English dictionaries that list the various meanings that a word can mean.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  If you would check BDB, you will find the semantic range of the verb, lvh.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  It seems to me that you pretend to be an authority in these matters.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  Do you have any formal training in classical Hebrew?
        >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> LM BarrÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'‚©
        >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >________________________________
        >> >> >> >> >> >From: Holly <gmrf@>
        >> >> >> >> >> >To: mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com
        >> >> >> >> >> >Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 7:38 AM
        >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: ABH Re: Moses & Meaning of Levi (Lwh)
        >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >Lloyd:
        >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >I think you missed the meaning of my post. The Semites did not use the word mlwh (Hebrew)/mlwy (Arabic) for non clan members who joined their tribes. The words would be sHb in Arabic and rea' in Hebrew, both words would be translated as companion or confederate. Lwh means to join in the sense to bind together as a borrower is bound to his lender and vice versa. Lwh implies parties that are bound by a contract. When an outsider is accepted into a tribe, a different situation exists as there is no contract between the outsider and the tribe into which he is accepted. The acceptance is an extension of hospitality. That is why those who are accepted are sHb or rea' meaning a companion. So, Moses would be rea' or sHb and not mlwh. Also, if you look up the word joiner in Hebrew, you would find the word ngr or njr in Arabic. The word is used for carpenters and others who are in the building trade.
        >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >Take Care
        >> >> >> >> >> >Holly
        >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >--- In mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com, LM Barre <l_barre@> wrote:
        >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> In Num 18:2, both "Levite"and the niphal of lavah="to be joined." occur in the same verse as a play on words, providing evidence that the name "Levite" is derived from the verb lavah.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> LM BarrÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©
        >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >________________________________
        >> >> >> >> >> >> > From: LM Barre <l_barre@>"ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >To: "mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:55 PM
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: ABH Re: Moses & Meaning of Levi (Lwh)
        >> >> >> >> >> >> > fÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >lawah in the Niphal="to be joined" used here:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://interlinearbible.org/numbers/18-4.htm
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >LM BarrÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>________________________________
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: LM Barre <l_barre@>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>To: "mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:38 PM
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Subject: Re: ABH Re: Moses & Meaning of Levi (Lwh)
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>lawah="to be joined"
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/3867.htm
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>LM BarrÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>________________________________
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: LM Barre <l_barre@>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>To: "mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 2:28 PM
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Subject: Re: ABH Re: Moses & Meaning of Levi (Lwh)
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Holly,
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>In an earlier post I listed the text where lvh is used to mean "to join."
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>LM BarrÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>________________________________
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> From: Holly <gmrf@>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>To: mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:31 PM
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Subject: ABH Re: Moses & Meaning of Levi (Lwh)
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Lloyd:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Lloyd wrote:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ Moses was a Levite, and a Levite, as I have argued
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>before, is an Egyptian "joiner" or convert to Hebrew Yahwism. end quote
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Lloyd, the word lwh is never used in the OT to mean joiner. Mlwh means lender. The Biblical word which gives the meaning of 'joiner' in the sense of one who joins would be the Hebrew word rea' from the root ra'h. The best translation for this word is companion or associate. If Moses was an Egyptian who joined a tribe, he would be considered 'rea' or tribal associate/companion. In Arabic, the word sHb which means to become an associate, to keep company, and saHb means associate, companion. The word is applied to tribal confederates from different tribes who are associated with one another.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>The word lwh in connection with Leah and the levites means to bind, twine, coil, unite. The root of the word Leviathan (lwwtn), meaning the twisting, coiling one, is lwh. Lwy in Arabic means to coil, to twist, contort. It is most likely a reference to the clerics of a serpent cult. Leah's name, Lah, may also be an alternate spelling of the word lwh. She may have originally been a high priestess. The priestesses of Wadd were lwyh (pronounced lawiat). Wadd was a Minean moon god whose name means love and whose sacred animal was the snake. The Mineans, Dedan in Genesis, were trading partners with the Judeans.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Take Care
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Holly
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>--- In mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com, LM Barre <l_barre@> wrote:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Rich:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> You wrote:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> The Hebrews despised the Egyptians. Why model their religion on an Egyptian one? The Egyptians despised pastoralists. The Torah makes a pastoralist the patriarch of the religion.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Not according to my research, Rich. ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ I find that the historical Moses was an Egyptian. ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ His name is Egyptian.
        ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Everything about him is Egyptian. ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Raised as an Egyptian.
        >> ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Worked as an Egyptian. ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ What makes him a Hebrew is the fictional legend of his basket trip down the Nile, a legend that is based upon "The Legend of Sargon."
        ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Moses was a Levite,
        >> >> and a Levite, as I have argued before, is an Egyptian "joiner" or convert to Hebrew Yahwism. ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Mushite or Levitical Yahwism was based upon the Egyptian god, Khepera, who was the god of all that "becomes." ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ Based upon an
        Egyptian texts
        >> >> >> which summarizes who Khepera was reads:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> "I who became, made become, what has become."
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> This is virtually identical in form and content to the name that Yahweh gave to Moses:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> "I become what becomes" ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 'ehyeh asher 'ehyeh. ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ (Exod 3:14)
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> So in the person of Moses, we have an Egyptian who defined his Yahwism in terms of a demythologized concept of the Egyptian god Khepera who thus became the patriarch of the Levitical priesthood.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Here is a Legend of Sargon, which E used to make the Egyptian Moses into a Hebrew Moses:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> 1. Sargon, the mighty king, king of AkkadÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ª am I,
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >2. My mother was lowly; my father I did not know;
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >3. The brother of my father dwelt in the mountain.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >4. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the bank of the Purattu [Euphrates],
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >5. My lowly mother conceived me, in secret she brought me forth.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >6. She placed me in a basket of reeds, she closed my entrance with bitumen,
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >7. She cast me upon the rivers which did not overflow me.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >8. The river carried me, it brought me to Akki, the irrigator.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >9. Akki, the irrigator, in the goodness of his heart lifted me out,
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >10. Akki, the irrigator, as his own son brought me up;
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >11. Akki, the irrigator, as his gardener appointed me.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >12. When I was a gardener the goddess Ishtar loved me,
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >13. And for four years I ruled the kingdom.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >14. The black-headed peoples I ruled, I governed;
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >15. Mighty mountains with axes of bronze I destroyed (?).
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >16. I ascended the upper mountains;
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >17. I burst through the lower mountains.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >18. The country of the sea I besieged three times;
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >19. Dilmun I captured (?).
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >20. Unto the great Dur-ilu I went up, I . . . . . . . . .
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >21 . . . . . . . . . .I altered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >22. Whatsoever king shall be exalted after me,
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >24. Let him rule, let him govern the black-headed peoples;
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >25. Mighty mountains with axes of bronze let him destroy;
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >26. Let him ascend the upper mountains,
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >27. Let him break through the lower mountains;
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >28. The country of the sea let him besiege three times;
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >29. Dilmun let him capture;
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >30. To great Dur-ilu let him go up.ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> LM BarrÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚©
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >________________________________
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> > From: richfaussette <RFaussette@>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >To: mailto:AncientBibleHistory%40yahoogroups.com
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:16 PM
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >Subject: ABH Re: the divine Logos and Egyptian theology (NOT)
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >Hi LM,
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >Here are two links to wiki articles. One on the Ten Sefiroth of the Kabbalah, the fundamental religious philosophy of the Hebrews. Kabbalah texts are primarily medieval but they represent the attempt to find the true meaning of the biblical text by the religion's greatest philosophers so I am assuming their understanding represents what the ancient philosophy of the biblical text actually means.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >The other article is on the Amesha Spentas; from the fundamental religious philosophy of Zoroaster.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >You will note that the sefiroth and the amesha spentas (the heptad) are manifestations of the ineffable God (elohim) in both creeds. Note that monotheism and polytheism become confused in both because of their identical concept of the attributes of God which I explained in my post on elohim.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >Note the principle of divine sparks emanating from creation in both.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephirot
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >In Kabbalah:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >"Medieval Kabbalah depicts a linear descending hierarchy of Divine vitality, the sephirot emerging from the Ein Sof to enact Creation... The first emanation in Creation leads to spiritual shattering of Divinity in a definitive "catastrophe" (Shevirat HaKeilim - "The Shattering of the Vessels"), and the exile of its "sparks" into the descending created realms."
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amesha_Spenta
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >In Zoroastrianism:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >"Significantly more common than the non-specific meaning of Amesha Spenta is a restrictive use of the term to refer to the great six "divine sparks" of Ahura Mazda. In Zoroastrian tradition, these are the first six emanations of the noncreated Creator, through whom all subsequent creation was accomplished."
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >If man is made in the image and likeness of God and God is ineffable shouldn't Man be ineffable? May I suggest that when Man attains divinity through self sacrifice what he is doing is shedding his attributes which is his karma until he is without karma and no longer bound to his attributes as the ineffable God is not bound to his attributes or emanations. He has no karma and is free to create without restrictions.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >So say the Vedic texts.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >"...any identification of Man with a theory of "man" obscures the fact that any and all theories about 'man' are made of the radical dismemberment of man himself and distract him from engaging in his only original and primary activity; the sacrificing of all theories about himself so that he may recreate himself as man."
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >Antonio de Nicolas on the Rig Veda
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >It is redeemed Man who is made in the image and likeness of the ineffable God. He is not bound to his emanations or attributes as God is not bound to his elohim/attributes. Because both God and redeemed Man are not bound to their attributes, they are free to create without karmic impediment.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >LM,
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >I could find more uncanny similarities (both have purity laws for instance governing menstrual blood and women's confinement, both have clothing accessories that must be worn every day, both live in strictly endogamic diaspora communities) but the definitive argument is the realization that the structure, theology AND PROCESSES of the Torah reflect the structure and theology of the Creation Hymn of the Rig Veda and indeed appear to be modeled upon it.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >This is not a basic set of parallelisms. This is a multi layered comparison of literary structures, theologies and sociopolitical processes (I'll be more specific below).
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >In the Vedic texts sacred to Zoroastrianism, Pastoral Man is One until he is dis-membered into priest and warrior classes when he settles down and becomes national Man.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >In the Torah, Pastoral Man is one (Melchizedek who is both priest and king) until Moses dismembers him into the priest and warrior classes of national man.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >You're hastily dismissing the obvious Persian influence in the Torah because you can't let go of an old paradigm.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >From:
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >The Fundamental Structure and Systematic Theology of the Torah
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >[snip]
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >"The national structure of "Man dismembered" portrayed in the Purusha Sukta and in the Torah arises from the pastoral structure of "Man re-membered" whose egalitarian society is dismembered into functional classes of priests and warriors when he settles down and becomes an agriculturalist. For the primeval pastoralist there were no separate priest and warrior classes. The flat hierarchies of the earliest pastoralists are simpler than the functionally differentiated classes of sedentary agriculturalists. Man's two major political roles; maintaining a community's oral traditions and militarily advancing a community's interests are responsibilities ideally assumed by all men in these smaller mobile populations.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >In the process of pastoral Man's dismemberment into national Man, a nonsedentary community settles down, adopts and intensifies agriculture and eventually amasses an agricultural surplus. As agriculture becomes more efficient many more people are born but fewer of them are engaged in food production. The growing society stratifies. Priest and warrior classes necessarily emerge because large diverse populations have to be taught the shared traditions and norms ordained by their elites, and stored agricultural surplus and sedentary communities have to be guarded.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >The priest and warrior classes into which Man is dismembered in the Vedic Purusha Sukta and in the saga of Moses in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are typical of sedentary agricultural societies; nations with borders, a priestly class, a warrior class and written laws.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >The Men re-membered of Genesis do not know borders and have no priestly class, warrior class or written laws. Men re-membered memorize their oral traditions. They are disciplined to make the self sacrifice. Men re-membered are nonsedentary priest/kings with the laws of God "written on their hearts.""
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >"The Torah is a complex literary structure that knows Man's psychology, Man's society and the Darwinian rules that govern Man's survival. Complex literary structures with interdependent social, political and theological elements do not lend themselves to the processes of accretion or multiple redactions over a long period. The Torah's fundamental structure and integrated theology suggest a compilation under the direction of a chief author/redactor who utilized an even more ancient framework to create the Torah that has come down to us today.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >The Torah is not to be regarded as mere myth, fiction or history. The Torah's two fundamental literary, religious and political structures: the worldwide Jewish diaspora established by Joseph in Genesis and the nation of Israel established by Moses in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy stand established in strength in the 21st century."
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >The evidence is on the ground, LM, right in front of you.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >The Hebrews despised the Egyptians. Why model their religion on an Egyptian one? The Egyptians despised pastoralists. The Torah makes a pastoralist the patriarch of the religion.
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >Regards,
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >Rich Faussette
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >> >> >>
        >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >
        >> >> >> >
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >> >>
        >> >> >
        >> >> >
        >> >> >
        >> >>
        >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >> >>
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >>
        >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>
        >
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.