Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here are the verses in the Concordant Literal Old Testament where "distinguished" is used:
As Daniel pointed out ("גבורים [gibbôrîm] does not mean "distinguished." It means "strong" or "mighty." It is used to refer to warriors and war heroes. "), and I pointed out in another thread when someone claimed it meant "Caucasion" - the term gibbôrîm does not mean "distinguished", but it means "mighty ones", "heroes", etc. - especially since it emplys the plural ending. It is not an adjective (which is what "distinguished" is). If the Concordant Literal Translation is makine a choice to translate the word as such, that is their decision and does not change the actual meaning of the Hebrew word. I'll repost my reply to grandpa from the other thread, in which I discussed the word in a litle more detail. Keep in mind that Semitic languages derive multiple words from the same root (in this case gbr), but all related to the root meaning:
The word gibbôrîm means "heroes" or "mighty ones", and its' usage is seen in other forms of the root:
The man of understanding is mightier [lit. "more the geber"] than the one hardened with strength.
(Proverbs 24:5)
I said: Better wisdom than might [gĕbûrâ], but the poor man's wisom is scorned and his words are unheard.
Ecclesiastes 9:16
To be more specific:
These are the names of David's warriors [gibbôrîm]...
(II Samuel 23:8)
The word was used to denote heroes, warriors, mighty men (Joshua, Samson, David's 30 gibbôrîm, Ehud, Joab, etc.) - not specifically "Caucasians". The word is, indeed, used in Genesis 6:4, but it is not restricted as a term only for the nephillim.
Try to apply the word "distinguishment" or "distinguish" in the verses above (especially Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) and you'll find it destroys the meaning of the verse, or makes nonsense of it.
7 Remember the days of the eon;
Understand the years of generation
+ after generation.
Ask your father, and he shall tell you,
Your elders, and they shall say to you:
8 When the Supreme gave the nations allotments
When He parted the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of 7 El Q
32:8 7-Q El: Hb Israel.
So the Septuagint and Qumran has "El" but the Hebrew has "sons of Israel" in 37:8.
Israel was the head and the nations were supposed to be subordinate. When Christ returns (and He really will) He will take up with this again and subordinate the nations to the number of the sons of Israel (12) sons - 12 tribes.
Notice the lowercase 'e' and uppercase 'E' for "elohim" below:
Jdg 11:24 That which Chemosh your elohim causes you to possess--do you
not possess it? and all that which Yahweh our Elohim has dispossessed
from our presence, --it we do possess.
2Ki 23:13 And the high places that [are] on the front of Jerusalem, that
[are] on the right of the mount of corruption, that Solomon king of Israel
had built to Ashtoreth abomination of the Zidonians, and Chemosh
abomination of Moab, and to Milcom abomination of the sons of Ammon,
has the king defiled.
They knew it was an abomination to worship false idols.
The land was riddled with different people with different false gods [idols]. Chemosh was an abomination.
(Numbers 21:29) Woe to you, Moab! You have perished, people of Chemosh! He gave up his sons delivered from slaughter, and his
daughters into captivity to Sihon, king of the Amorite.
(Judges 11:24) That which Chemosh your elohim causes you to
possess--do you not possess it? and all that which Yahweh our Elohim has
dispossessed from our presence, --it we do possess.
(1 Kings 11:7) Then does Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the
abomination of Moab, in the hill that [is] on the front of Jerusalem, and
for Molech the abomination of the sons of Ammon;"
That was a very bad thing, by the way.
(1 Kings 11:33) `Because they have forsaken Me, and bow themselves
to Ashtoreth, elohim [goddess] of the Zidonians, to Chemosh elohim of
Moab, and to Milcom elohim of the sons of Ammon, and have not walked in
My ways, to do that which [is] right in Mine eyes, and My statutes and My
judgments, like David his father.
(2 Kings 23:13) And the high places that [are] on the front of Jerusalem,
that [are] on the right of the mount of corruption, that Solomon king of
Israel had built to Ashtoreth abomination of the Zidonians, and Chemosh
abomination of Moab, and to Milcom abomination of the sons of Ammon,
has the king defiled.
(Jeremiah 48:7) For, because of your trusting in your works, And in your
treasures, even you are captured, And gone out has Chemosh in a
removal, His priests and his heads together."
(Jeremiah 48:13) And ashamed has been Moab because of Chemosh, As
the house of Israel have been ashamed Because of Beth-El their
confidence."
(Jeremiah 48:46) Woe to you, O Moab, Perished has the people of Chemosh, For your sons were taken with the captives, And your
daughters with the captivity."
Back then, people were known by the idol they worshiped. Moab had the idol Chemosh. Ammon had the idol Milcom. The Zidonians had the idol Ashtoreth. It does not mean these were real beings. "An idol is nothing" the apostle Paul wrote.
I forgot to touch on something here that you mentioned and I will try to explain it here but I am sure Whoppers and Daniel can do a far better job than I. You said:
Quote:
"So the Septuagint and Qumran has "El" but the Hebrew has "sons of Israel" in 37:8."
Actually, I don't think this is correct. YES, the 10th century CE Hebrew Masoretic Text does say "children of Israel" and the King James Version, in line with that text says the same thing. However, the OLDER HEBREW Dead Sea Scrolls says "Sons of God" while the Greek Septuagint (older than the Masoretic Text also) says "angels of God." Neither of the older texts says anything about "children of" or "sons of Israel" and this makes sense. Israel was NOT a nation when the nations were divided as per Genesis 10 (or is it 11 or 12) They could not be used as the standard when they, as a people, were not even in existence as yet. And what sense would it make to divide the nations by another nation? What would have been the purpose? Dividing them up amongst royal sons is a much likely scenario, don't you think?
Now, by the time the Masoretic Text was completed (some 900 years or so AFTER the time of Jesus), the Jews were an already established monotheistic people compared to their ancient forefathers who were far from such a thing. It would make sense that uncomfortable passages such as Deuteronomy 32:8 would be "cleaned up" to say otherwise and to reflect the Jewish theology of that day, in the same way Christians retroject their current beliefs and biases back into the Old Testament. I hope you can understand this.
Now, consider this. In those ancient times, it was believed that the supreme father god had sons. In some places, it was believed he had 70 sons. Is it just sheer coincidence that the nations were divided into 70 nations? As I also submitted before, the ancient Israelites admitted other gods existed who were responsible for their respective nations, as was the case with Chemosh and the people he was responsible for - the Ammonites. Of course, nationalism would lead the Israelites to believe THEIR god was the head honcho which is, in part, the definition of henotheism. "We know other gods exist but OUR god is the biggest and baddest."
There is also that curious figure in the book of Daniel known as the "Prince of Persia." Modern Christians would see him as some Satanic figure who was there to obstruct Daniel's answer to prayer (who would have thunk angels flew back and forth to deliver answers to prayer???). To the Jewish understanding of the time, however, the Prince of Persia was the "angel" ("god" to the more ancient Jew) who was commissioned to preside over Persia in the same way Michael was responsible for Israel. See the evolution? See the process???
In light of Deuteronomy 32:7-9 where the LORD (Yahweh) is given Jacob as HIS portion (part of his inheritance), isn't it interesting that Yahweh appears out of nowhere to Moses and begins his responsibility to his portion - Jacob? In fact, Deuteronomy 32:10-12 says:
"“He found him in a desert land
And in the wasteland, a howling wilderness;
He encircled him, He instructed him,
He kept him as the apple of His eye.
11 As an eagle stirs up its nest,
Hovers over its young,
Spreading out its wings, taking them up,
Carrying them on its wings,
12 So the Lord alone led him,
And there was no foreign god with him."
Notice that the writer gives a precise moment when Yahweh takes that responsibility to own up to his portion. He found Israel in the desert and wilderness and we are told in the Exodus narrative that Yahweh joined himself to his people, Israel, via a covenant in the desert at Mount Sinai and it is emphasized that no other god had a part in consummating the relationship.
Usually when you ask what something means in one part of the Bible it is answered in another part.
From the book of Job, chapter one:
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil. 2 And seven sons and three daughters were born to him. 3 Also, his possessions were seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred female donkeys, and a very large household, so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the East.
4 And his sons would go and feast in their houses, each on his appointed day, and would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 So it was, when the days of feasting had run their course, that Job would send and sanctify them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did regularly.
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
**********
Here the sons of God are what we would call angels. Or divine beings.
That is an incredibly bad translation.
First, there is no such thing "Satan." It is "satan" and it means "adversary" or "accuser."That is why if you intend to study the Old Testament, you pony up the money and buy a BHS, instead of relying on probably the most poorly translated text ever: the King James Version.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and satan [the adversary/the accuser] also came among them.
The text has been appended/amended at that point.
Originally:
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh.
or
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and El Shaddai also came among them. or
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Yam also came among them. or
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Mot also came among them. or
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and El Elyon also came among them. or
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and El Berith also came among them.
Take your pick.
One of the gods in the Ugaritic Pantheon (which included Yahweh) that the Hebrews appropriated for their own use was in conflict with Yahweh, and in later texts the, name of the god was redacted and replaced with the generic "accuser/adversary" (satan).
The most likely suspect is Jeremiah's scribe Baruch who wrote Deuteronomy.
If the Exodus Trilogy (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) had already existed in some written form prior to Deuteronomy, then that would have also been the time that the name of X-Moses was altered. It was Ptahmoses, Tothmoses, Rameses or bearing some other deity as a prefix and just shorted from Ptahmoses to Moses (hence X-Moses since we don't know the real name).
That will all become more clear once we find the the 'J' or 'E' texts (or both).
The other amendment was switching Land of Ur to Land of Uz.
Textually...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Only that they are not the sons of God but the sons of Angels. Elohim means Judges, Angels, gods and God, so in this case reference is not made to those sons of the gods who came into the daughters of men.
Elohim means gods, plural.
You're a little weak on your Classical Biblical Hebrew Grammar. The "im" suffix indicates plurality, as in more than one.
If it would be angels, then it would be shenayim or malachim (in the sense of messengers). If it would be god (in the singlular then it woould be El Elohe as in El Elohe Israel which could mean god or god of Israel (the man named Israel).
Grammatically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The book of Enoch means nothing to me.
Why not?
The criteria you employ to accept or reject ancient texts is totally subjective and based on whimsical notions. Anything that is subjective cannot (by definition) be universal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The ones who knew God wrote the bible.
Then why did they make so many errors?
Why should I trust in a divine being who cannot even do something as simple as "hire" people to write the texts correctly?
Seriously, "silver lips?" That's hysterical. Who would be daft enough to butcher something like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
But quoting a non-inspired writing does not make the non-inspired writing inspired!
But that comes back to what objective standard do you determine a writing to be inspired or non-inspired?
You have none. It is all wholly subjective.
Arbitrarily....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
It provides an excellent summary of the different levels of "divine beings" that are being discussed.
As a result of the contextualization provided by this cognate literature,
recent scholarship has supported viewing the organization of the early Israelite
pantheon according to a three or four-tiered hierarchy. El and his consort inhabit the top tier of this hierarchy. El represents the high god, and the father of the other deities. The בניאלהים, [bene elohim] or “sons of Elohim,” inhabit the second tier. Cho is certainly correct in concluding the sons of Elohim were viewed as sharing a filial relationship with El; that is, they were the procreated offspring of El and his consort, not simply members of the אלהים [elohim] taxonomy.
Recent scholarship? Hell, we knew that 50 years ago. All civilization in Mesopotamia and environs had a pantheon of gods that were ranked in a structured hierarchy. For many pantheons there were "gods of the heavens" (12), "gods of the heavens and Earth" (12) and "gods of Earth" (12).
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
A third tier comprising craftsmen or artisan deities is proposed, but is not well attested in the Hebrew Bible.
Proposed? It's well known that such a tier existed. There were lords of writing, lords of wine-making, lords of agriculture, lords of medicine and such.
I agree that Old Testament works show no such structure, however I would attribute that as something unique to Sumerian and Akkadian culture, and that when Sumer and Akkad were destroyed, that facet (the concept of "teaching gods") died out with the death of their respective cultures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
The word אלהים [elohim] can render divinity, deity, God, or gods, and covers all the tiers discussed, showing a rather broad semantic range.
Those are evolved concepts. The can be used only to pinpoint a certain time-period. Elohim means gods, plural. Over time, the meaning and connotation of the word came to mean other things in addition to "gods."
Religious thought is not static; it is constantly changing and evolving. In today's modern world, with internet, cell-phones, satellite radio, satellite television, cable television, broadcast television, broadcast radio, newspapers, books, magazines, music and oral communications, it takes only 20-40 years for a concept to be altered.
In the ancient world, with only oral communications, it would take 2 to 4 centuries (or longer) for a concept to be altered.
To see that, you need only read the Old Testament, where Yahweh metes out divine justice individually in the "here and now" because there is no concept of an after-life. That eventually changes from individual punishment to mass punishment and so on over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
The above is an excellent description of what was going on in the Hebrew Bible, how divinity was viewed by the ancient authors, and helps to demonstrate the stage which provided later interpretations - including inner-biblical interpretation and revision - with material. Daniel, your statement that "the ancient Israelite concept of deity was not static by any means, but there is a general consensus regarding its earliest recoverable shape" (ibid, p. 66) perfectly catches the fact (denied by many fundamentalists) that things change - especially ideas, and the authors of the various books of the Bible were no exception to this rule.
Yeah, well, he's a day late and a dollar short. I've been saying exactly that here on this forum for the last freaking 6 years, and it's free -- don't cost nothing.
In case anyone is wondering, the Yahwist transition occurred in the post-Ugaritic pre-Dynastic period.
That is when the Hebrews shifted from El, El Elyon, Mot, Yam, El Berith, El Shaddai and Yahweh to just Yahweh.
Why? I just told you why.
You're still going to worship El? What the hell for?
Isn't there a great big gaping smoking crater where the Kingdom of Ugarit used to be?
Um, yeah.
Very obviously, El was powerless to stop the total destruction of Ugarit (circa 1,190 BCE), the massacre of most of its denizens, and the exile and slavery of those who survived.
If you dumb your brain down to a goat-herder, you'd probably very quickly reason that it was Yahweh who spared you from the same fate as Ugarit, and then a cult grows up around Yahweh who eventually reigns totally supreme once the Kingdom of Israel is destroyed and people flee south the Kingdom of Judah where the 'J' and 'E' texts are then merged.
In fact, the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel would only reinforce their belief that the Kingdom of Judah was spared by Yahweh.
Goat-herding...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
I knew that other thread would be closed so I figured I would start this here.
For the record, I know that in the New Testament and the book of Hosea, humans are referred to as "sons of god." My argument surrounds the EARLIER used title found in books such Genesis and Job.
Also, I do NOT believe in angels, sons of any gods or giants nor do I believe in angels and humans copulating. I simply want to treat the literature AS IS on its own merit and how it was intended to be interpreted. I don't believe in flying angels any more than I believe in Phaeton driving a fiery sun chariot across the sky, but WITHIN the story of the book and WITHIN the book only, Phaeton drove a fiery sun chariot across the sky. I hope this distinction is made clear.
So for starters, who were the sons of god of Genesis 6? Mere mortals or divinity?
No, for starters you have to make a better examination.
The phrase bene-’elohim (sons of [over-] lords) appears only 5 times in the Old Testament: twice in Genesis 6 (the Deluge account) and three times in Job.
That, in and of itself, gives us clues. The Hebrews did not write Job. Job is a story that existed in great antiquity. There are more than a 1,000 versions of the Job story and nearly all of them are older than than written versions of the Old Testament. There are more than a dozen Job stories that even predate Abrahm.
The original Job text is Sumerian: Man and His God. Kramer does a good treatment analyzing it (and there are others as well). That text dates from about 3,700 BCE, but it is a copy of an older work dating back to the 5th or 6th Millennium (5,000 BCE to 4,000 BCE).
Job is an incredibly difficult book both to translate and study. Much of it is written in a sort of poetic parallelism, but it is very cryptic, and uses unusual grammatical constructions, in addition to a large number of very rare words.
The grammatical constructions prove a non-Hebrew origin, for there is no such parallel in Classical Biblical Hebrew. The best evidence indicates that Job was "finalized" sometime in the early kingdom (during the Davidic/Solomon period).
In addition to bene-’elohim, the Akkadian lord El Shaddai appears 31 times in Job, more than any other book in the Old Testament and more than all Old Testament books combined. That is another clue that Job is of non-Hebrew origin. Note that El Shaddai was a [male] fertility god in both the Ugaritic and Palestinian pantheons and most likely equates to the Sumerian Ningishiddza and Egyptian Toth.
As part of the christian propaganda brain-washing scheme, many bibles (including the catholic versions) like the New American Bible translate the phrase as “sons of the heavens.” However, that is grossly incorrect. The “sons of the heavens” would be rendered in Hebrew as bene-ha’shamayim.
The fact that the phrase appears in only two books, and that both books are of great antiquity in their origin, and that there are hundreds of loan-words from other languages (mostly Sumerian and Akkadian) proves the Hebrews did not write Job, rather they took a popular story known by every culture that ever existed in Mesopotamia and environs and made some minor alterations to it (like Hebrew names for Job's three daughters).
When looking at this, you always have to factor in the "Christian Filter." Christian archaeologists and anthropologists interpret things much differently (and incorrectly) than non-chrisitan archaeologists and anthropologists.
To christian archaeologists and anthropologists, pyramids are "tombs" of the pharaohs. What's their evidence? No evidence whatsoever. No pharaoh was ever found interred in a pyramid, and there no Egyptian texts from any period suggesting, hinting or implying that pharaohs were ever interred in pyramids. Pharaohs did not even "lie in state" for viewing or ceremonial purposes.
To christian archaeologists and anthropologists, ziggurats are "temples." What's their evidence? No evidence whatsoever. There's evidence that ziggurats were Solunar calendars, astronomical observatories and administrative (office) buildings, but not one single shred of evidence to support a claim that they are or were ever used as temples.
When christian archaeologists and anthropologists see texts describing a superior being, they automatically assume those superior beings are gods, even though no evidence exists to support their claims.
In early Sumerian history, it is abundantly clear beyond any reasonable doubt that those beings were mortal, albeit with life-spans longer than mere humans.
If I display extreme respect to Geddy Lee, Peter Cetera, Nile Rodgers and Leo Kottke, it doesn't mean I view them as gods. If that respect evolves into reverence and then hero worship, it still doesn't mean I view them as gods. When I start praying to them asking them to heal me, and bring back the dead, send gentle rains, weak winters, big harvest, good tea, nice house etc, yes, then I'm treating them as gods, because I'm expecting them to do something that they cannot do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
As Whoppers pointed out earlier, the term "angels," in the sense we understand it today came much later and was then retrojected into older stories to "clean up" content.
That isn't necessarily true. The existence of messengers is well-known from Sumerian and Akkadian texts. These messengers functioned as intermediaries between humans and these "divine" over-lords. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is also of non-Hebrew origin, has messengers going to warn Lot about the pending destruction.
It would be more like assuming that since today's cars have power-seats, power-brakes, power-steering, power-windows, power-door locks, power-mirrors and air-conditioning, that every car ever built had the same luxuries. Is that true? No, the Model "T" and Model "A" came with power-nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
"Sons of God" implies "the dirty" (sex) and it is unthinkable that the biblical god could have sex much less even a wife (though he did). So how did the later Jewish writers fix this? Well, call them mere CREATED messengers, sent out to do god's work. Then one wonders why an all-powerful god needs messengers?
Again, those stories are not of Hebrew origin. They came from the Sumerians via the Akkadians and a host of others.
Genesis 6:1 When humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 6:2 the sons of the gods saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose.
That, is the exact complaint made by Enlil to Enki (the "serpent god").
Nergal and Ningishiddza (the "serpent god junior") who were both sons of Enki advise him of a disturbing development in the heavens. The texts never make it clear what exactly it is, but from the geological record, climate record and such, it was apparently a small asteroid on a collision course with Earth.
Enki rushes to warn Enlil, whose attitude is "Cool. I like it already."
Seeing how this asteroid is going to destroy a lot, Enki wants to start evacuating people, and Enlil, says they are all leaving, but the humans are staying. Why? Because Enlil is mad that the sons of the gods are having sex with human women producing all of these "demi-gods" and also, Enlil sees humans as a nuisance, unable to adapt to the harsh climate (the Ice Age) which is steadily growing harsher by the year.
Enlil's attitude is that since the humans are going to die of starvation anyway because of the worsening climate, might as well let them die quickly in an apocalypse.
The Pantheon of 12 meets, they swear each other to secrecy (to keep the humans from knowing what fate is about to befall them) affirming an oath and bestowing mutual curses upon each for breaking the oath.
Enki (the "serpent god") created humans, so he's a little miffed that Enlil wants to see them die, so he breaks the oath by telling Ziusurda of the pending calamity and gives him instructions on how to build a submersible vessel that will survive a tsunami.
As you can see, by the time the Sumerian version is filtered through numerous cultures over several thousand years, by the time the Hebrews get the story, it is FUBAR and then the Hebrews butcher it even worse, because they don't understand most of it (being so far removed from the history and then also trying to crow-bar everything into their world view).
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
How do you then explain and account for the JEWISH detailing found in the First Book of Enoch 6?
Secondly, the passage makes a marked distinction between the "sons of god" and the "daughters of men." If you think about it, where were the "daughters of god" and "sons of men" in all of this? Are we to believe ONLY the daughters of men and some wayward "godly" men were in on this?
Well, again, why would you not go to the original source, instead of a copy? What do all of the allegorical phrases in the song "American Pie" mean? For example, what is "...the sacred store where I'd heard the music years before...." mean?
Would you go and interview Madonna who did a cover version of "American Pie" in order to get the answer? How would she know the answer? She sang the song, but she did not write it.
Why would you do that when you can interview Don McLean who wrote the damn song and recorded it first?
The answer is simply that there was only one female deity. Ianna, Ishtar, Asterah, Aphrodite, Venus etc etc etc, they are all one-in-the-same.
As far as sons of men, that's what ben 'adam means. You can see that in Genesis 11 with the Tower of Babel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
Eusebius, regional religious history, ancient Jewish tradition, biblical scripture and even non-biblical scripture ALL point to "sons of god" being divine beings. I know you know deep down inside WHY alternate views, fraught with problems, had to be employed. The ramifications are far reaching and brings down much of the house of cards.
Not to worry. It's only a matter of time before the original 'J', 'E' and 'P' texts or their variations/precursors are found.
In fact, we don't even need those. All we need is a copy of the Deuteronomy text written before the Chaldean (Babylonian) Exile. That will be enough to open the flood gates. I can imagine the number of suicides that will take place, when people's world's are destroyed.
Angelically...
First, there is no such thing "Satan." It is "satan" and it means "adversary" or "accuser."That is why if you intend to study the Old Testament, you pony up the money and buy a BHS, instead of relying on probably the most poorly translated text ever: the King James Version.
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and satan [the adversary/the accuser] also came among them.
The text has been appended/amended at that point.
Originally:
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh.
or
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and El Shaddai also came among them. or
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Yam also came among them. or
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Mot also came among them. or
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and El Elyon also came among them. or
Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of the gods came to present themselves before Yahweh, and El Berith also came among them.
Take your pick.
One of the gods in the Ugaritic Pantheon (which included Yahweh) that the Hebrews appropriated for their own use was in conflict with Yahweh, and in later texts the, name of the god was redacted and replaced with the generic "accuser/adversary" (satan).
The most likely suspect is Jeremiah's scribe Baruch who wrote Deuteronomy.
If the Exodus Trilogy (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) had already existed in some written form prior to Deuteronomy, then that would have also been the time that the name of X-Moses was altered. It was Ptahmoses, Tothmoses, Rameses or bearing some other deity as a prefix and just shorted from Ptahmoses to Moses (hence X-Moses since we don't know the real name).
That will all become more clear once we find the the 'J' or 'E' texts (or both).
The other amendment was switching Land of Ur to Land of Uz.
Textually...
Mircea
Elohim means gods, plural.
You're a little weak on your Classical Biblical Hebrew Grammar. The "im" suffix indicates plurality, as in more than one.
If it would be angels, then it would be shenayim or malachim (in the sense of messengers). If it would be god (in the singlular then it woould be El Elohe as in El Elohe Israel which could mean god or god of Israel (the man named Israel).
Grammatically...
Mircea
Why not?
The criteria you employ to accept or reject ancient texts is totally subjective and based on whimsical notions. Anything that is subjective cannot (by definition) be universal.
Then why did they make so many errors?
Why should I trust in a divine being who cannot even do something as simple as "hire" people to write the texts correctly?
Seriously, "silver lips?" That's hysterical. Who would be daft enough to butcher something like that?
But that comes back to what objective standard do you determine a writing to be inspired or non-inspired?
You have none. It is all wholly subjective.
Arbitrarily....
Mircea
[/font][/indent]Recent scholarship? Hell, we knew that 50 years ago. All civilization in Mesopotamia and environs had a pantheon of gods that were ranked in a structured hierarchy. For many pantheons there were "gods of the heavens" (12), "gods of the heavens and Earth" (12) and "gods of Earth" (12).
Proposed? It's well known that such a tier existed. There were lords of writing, lords of wine-making, lords of agriculture, lords of medicine and such.
I agree that Old Testament works show no such structure, however I would attribute that as something unique to Sumerian and Akkadian culture, and that when Sumer and Akkad were destroyed, that facet (the concept of "teaching gods") died out with the death of their respective cultures.
[/font]
Those are evolved concepts. The can be used only to pinpoint a certain time-period. Elohim means gods, plural. Over time, the meaning and connotation of the word came to mean other things in addition to "gods."
Religious thought is not static; it is constantly changing and evolving. In today's modern world, with internet, cell-phones, satellite radio, satellite television, cable television, broadcast television, broadcast radio, newspapers, books, magazines, music and oral communications, it takes only 20-40 years for a concept to be altered.
In the ancient world, with only oral communications, it would take 2 to 4 centuries (or longer) for a concept to be altered.
To see that, you need only read the Old Testament, where Yahweh metes out divine justice individually in the "here and now" because there is no concept of an after-life. That eventually changes from individual punishment to mass punishment and so on over time.
[/font]
Yeah, well, he's a day late and a dollar short. I've been saying exactly that here on this forum for the last freaking 6 years, and it's free -- don't cost nothing.
In case anyone is wondering, the Yahwist transition occurred in the post-Ugaritic pre-Dynastic period.
That is when the Hebrews shifted from El, El Elyon, Mot, Yam, El Berith, El Shaddai and Yahweh to just Yahweh.
Why? I just told you why.
You're still going to worship El? What the hell for?
Isn't there a great big gaping smoking crater where the Kingdom of Ugarit used to be?
Um, yeah.
Very obviously, El was powerless to stop the total destruction of Ugarit (circa 1,190 BCE), the massacre of most of its denizens, and the exile and slavery of those who survived.
If you dumb your brain down to a goat-herder, you'd probably very quickly reason that it was Yahweh who spared you from the same fate as Ugarit, and then a cult grows up around Yahweh who eventually reigns totally supreme once the Kingdom of Israel is destroyed and people flee south the Kingdom of Judah where the 'J' and 'E' texts are then merged.
In fact, the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel would only reinforce their belief that the Kingdom of Judah was spared by Yahweh.
Goat-herding...
Mircea
No, for starters you have to make a better examination.
The phrase bene-’elohim (sons of [over-] lords) appears only 5 times in the Old Testament: twice in Genesis 6 (the Deluge account) and three times in Job.
That, in and of itself, gives us clues. The Hebrews did not write Job. Job is a story that existed in great antiquity. There are more than a 1,000 versions of the Job story and nearly all of them are older than than written versions of the Old Testament. There are more than a dozen Job stories that even predate Abrahm.
The original Job text is Sumerian: Man and His God. Kramer does a good treatment analyzing it (and there are others as well). That text dates from about 3,700 BCE, but it is a copy of an older work dating back to the 5th or 6th Millennium (5,000 BCE to 4,000 BCE).
Job is an incredibly difficult book both to translate and study. Much of it is written in a sort of poetic parallelism, but it is very cryptic, and uses unusual grammatical constructions, in addition to a large number of very rare words.
The grammatical constructions prove a non-Hebrew origin, for there is no such parallel in Classical Biblical Hebrew. The best evidence indicates that Job was "finalized" sometime in the early kingdom (during the Davidic/Solomon period).
In addition to bene-’elohim, the Akkadian lord El Shaddai appears 31 times in Job, more than any other book in the Old Testament and more than all Old Testament books combined. That is another clue that Job is of non-Hebrew origin. Note that El Shaddai was a [male] fertility god in both the Ugaritic and Palestinian pantheons and most likely equates to the Sumerian Ningishiddza and Egyptian Toth.
As part of the christian propaganda brain-washing scheme, many bibles (including the catholic versions) like the New American Bible translate the phrase as “sons of the heavens.” However, that is grossly incorrect. The “sons of the heavens” would be rendered in Hebrew as bene-ha’shamayim.
The fact that the phrase appears in only two books, and that both books are of great antiquity in their origin, and that there are hundreds of loan-words from other languages (mostly Sumerian and Akkadian) proves the Hebrews did not write Job, rather they took a popular story known by every culture that ever existed in Mesopotamia and environs and made some minor alterations to it (like Hebrew names for Job's three daughters).
When looking at this, you always have to factor in the "Christian Filter." Christian archaeologists and anthropologists interpret things much differently (and incorrectly) than non-chrisitan archaeologists and anthropologists.
To christian archaeologists and anthropologists, pyramids are "tombs" of the pharaohs. What's their evidence? No evidence whatsoever. No pharaoh was ever found interred in a pyramid, and there no Egyptian texts from any period suggesting, hinting or implying that pharaohs were ever interred in pyramids. Pharaohs did not even "lie in state" for viewing or ceremonial purposes.
To christian archaeologists and anthropologists, ziggurats are "temples." What's their evidence? No evidence whatsoever. There's evidence that ziggurats were Solunar calendars, astronomical observatories and administrative (office) buildings, but not one single shred of evidence to support a claim that they are or were ever used as temples.
When christian archaeologists and anthropologists see texts describing a superior being, they automatically assume those superior beings are gods, even though no evidence exists to support their claims.
In early Sumerian history, it is abundantly clear beyond any reasonable doubt that those beings were mortal, albeit with life-spans longer than mere humans.
If I display extreme respect to Geddy Lee, Peter Cetera, Nile Rodgers and Leo Kottke, it doesn't mean I view them as gods. If that respect evolves into reverence and then hero worship, it still doesn't mean I view them as gods. When I start praying to them asking them to heal me, and bring back the dead, send gentle rains, weak winters, big harvest, good tea, nice house etc, yes, then I'm treating them as gods, because I'm expecting them to do something that they cannot do.
That isn't necessarily true. The existence of messengers is well-known from Sumerian and Akkadian texts. These messengers functioned as intermediaries between humans and these "divine" over-lords. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is also of non-Hebrew origin, has messengers going to warn Lot about the pending destruction.
It would be more like assuming that since today's cars have power-seats, power-brakes, power-steering, power-windows, power-door locks, power-mirrors and air-conditioning, that every car ever built had the same luxuries. Is that true? No, the Model "T" and Model "A" came with power-nothing.
Again, those stories are not of Hebrew origin. They came from the Sumerians via the Akkadians and a host of others.
Genesis 6:1 When humankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 6:2 the sons of the gods saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose.
That, is the exact complaint made by Enlil to Enki (the "serpent god").
Nergal and Ningishiddza (the "serpent god junior") who were both sons of Enki advise him of a disturbing development in the heavens. The texts never make it clear what exactly it is, but from the geological record, climate record and such, it was apparently a small asteroid on a collision course with Earth.
Enki rushes to warn Enlil, whose attitude is "Cool. I like it already."
Seeing how this asteroid is going to destroy a lot, Enki wants to start evacuating people, and Enlil, says they are all leaving, but the humans are staying. Why? Because Enlil is mad that the sons of the gods are having sex with human women producing all of these "demi-gods" and also, Enlil sees humans as a nuisance, unable to adapt to the harsh climate (the Ice Age) which is steadily growing harsher by the year.
Enlil's attitude is that since the humans are going to die of starvation anyway because of the worsening climate, might as well let them die quickly in an apocalypse.
The Pantheon of 12 meets, they swear each other to secrecy (to keep the humans from knowing what fate is about to befall them) affirming an oath and bestowing mutual curses upon each for breaking the oath.
Enki (the "serpent god") created humans, so he's a little miffed that Enlil wants to see them die, so he breaks the oath by telling Ziusurda of the pending calamity and gives him instructions on how to build a submersible vessel that will survive a tsunami.
As you can see, by the time the Sumerian version is filtered through numerous cultures over several thousand years, by the time the Hebrews get the story, it is FUBAR and then the Hebrews butcher it even worse, because they don't understand most of it (being so far removed from the history and then also trying to crow-bar everything into their world view).
Well, again, why would you not go to the original source, instead of a copy? What do all of the allegorical phrases in the song "American Pie" mean? For example, what is "...the sacred store where I'd heard the music years before...." mean?
Would you go and interview Madonna who did a cover version of "American Pie" in order to get the answer? How would she know the answer? She sang the song, but she did not write it.
Why would you do that when you can interview Don McLean who wrote the damn song and recorded it first?
The answer is simply that there was only one female deity. Ianna, Ishtar, Asterah, Aphrodite, Venus etc etc etc, they are all one-in-the-same.
As far as sons of men, that's what ben 'adam means. You can see that in Genesis 11 with the Tower of Babel.
Not to worry. It's only a matter of time before the original 'J', 'E' and 'P' texts or their variations/precursors are found.
In fact, we don't even need those. All we need is a copy of the Deuteronomy text written before the Chaldean (Babylonian) Exile. That will be enough to open the flood gates. I can imagine the number of suicides that will take place, when people's world's are destroyed.
Angelically...
Mircea
LOL...well thank you Mircea for setting all of us straight.
Anyway, I appreciate your insights but I wanted to let it be known that I know the stories and traditions preceded the Hebrew versions found in the Bible. I was just trying to keep it simple, at the moment, for Eusebius. I do realize the Jewish writers were putting to writing some old, handed down stories from civilizations that long preceded them but who were also part of the fabric from which they themselves were later weaved.
I forgot to touch on something here that you mentioned and I will try to explain it here but I am sure Whoppers and Daniel can do a far better job than I. You said:
Quote:
"So the Septuagint and Qumran has "El" but the Hebrew has "sons of Israel" in 37:8."
Actually, I don't think this is correct. YES, the 10th century CE Hebrew Masoretic Text does say "children of Israel" and the King James Version, in line with that text says the same thing. However, the OLDER HEBREW Dead Sea Scrolls says "Sons of God" while the Greek Septuagint (older than the Masoretic Text also) says "angels of God." Neither of the older texts says anything about "children of" or "sons of Israel" and this makes sense. Israel was NOT a nation when the nations were divided as per Genesis 10 (or is it 11 or 12) They could not be used as the standard when they, as a people, were not even in existence as yet. And what sense would it make to divide the nations by another nation? What would have been the purpose? Dividing them up amongst royal sons is a much likely scenario, don't you think?
Now, by the time the Masoretic Text was completed (some 900 years or so AFTER the time of Jesus), the Jews were an already established monotheistic people compared to their ancient forefathers who were far from such a thing. It would make sense that uncomfortable passages such as Deuteronomy 32:8 would be "cleaned up" to say otherwise and to reflect the Jewish theology of that day, in the same way Christians retroject their current beliefs and biases back into the Old Testament. I hope you can understand this.
Thanks for the complement, by the way, but Daniel has much more scholary training under his belt than I do at this point. I just try my best heh heh!
As for the quotation you replied to: That's correct - he was close with the "El" part, though.
When the Highest [Elyon] gave nations [goyim] legacies,
when He dispersed humankind [bene adam - lit. "sons of mankind"],
He set the people's [ammim] borders
to the number of the children of Israel [bene Yisrael].
(Deuteronomy 32:8, CoT, Friedman)
The MT, which is reflected above and has been the normative text used to translate from for many years, has bene Yisrael ( lit. "sons of Israel"), the LXX has "angels of God", and the Dead Sea Scrolls' 4QDeutj has bene elohim ("sons of the gods" - I would say the context precludes "God"). Now, if you run those in reverse you can see the evolution from "the gods" to "the angels of God" to "the sons of Israel". So the standard scholarly conclusion is that the oldest form of the text was probably the one found in 4QDeutj ("sons of gods") and this makes the most contextual sense, in my opinion. Daniel - in his article - comments on this to some degree and points out some very interesting details, as well as pointing to another verse in Deuteronomy that tries to prepare the reader for the section.
This is a prime example of how things changed, and why they were changed, and by whom. Heck - we have been living with this particular change of the Biblical text for thousands of years. Slowly, though, it appears we are becoming increasingly able to peer through the mists of time to start getting an even clearer view of the world of the Ancient Israelites and what they believed.
Nice post, by the way, Insane - very informative!
P.S. - the usage of bene adam in the verse has a bearing for those who still wish to deny that adam can mean "mankind" or "humankind", or even "groundlings" if one likes the etymology provided in Genesis.
LOL...well thank you Mircea for setting all of us straight.
Anyway, I appreciate your insights but I wanted to let it be known that I know the stories and traditions preceded the Hebrew versions found in the Bible. I was just trying to keep it simple, at the moment, for Eusebius. I do realize the Jewish writers were putting to writing some old, handed down stories from civilizations that long preceded them but who were also part of the fabric from which they themselves were later weaved.
Mircea has always been quite insistent that some day the "discovery" of the JEPD tablets will bring Christianity to it's knees in shock and horror (even though Christians have been dealing with (and generally accepting of) the Documentary Hypothesis for over a hundred years now - cough). I guess the last time we discussed this did not disabuse him of that notion, or his strange Sumer-fetish. His view of scholarship is, unfortunately, typical of those who stumble upon websites extolling the virtues of Sumerian myth over all others, amid claims that everyone else "stole" from the Sumerians.
I'll stick with a more reasonable investigation technique that recognizes Sumer for what it actually did contribute to the ANE - rather than what some of the more Sumer-ific Websites and Fringe books claim for it.
Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).
Sang Youl Cho, Lesser Deities in the Ugaritic Texts and the Hebrew Bible (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008).
Michael Heiser, "The Divine Council in Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature" (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin – Madison).
Lowell K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994).
Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Joel S. Burnett, A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 2003).
Come back and talk after you've familiarized yourself with the scholarship.
Dear Daniel the Scholar, I know what to expect by reading the expensive writings of the contemporary scholars and thus I prefer the less costly writings of the ancient scholars who, on the subject of the “sons of the gods” wrote as follows:
Egyptians: The sons of the god Atum were produced via masturbation.
Sumerians: The sons of the god Enki were produced after Enki poured his semen into the womb of his beloved wife and then into the wombs of his beloved daughter, granddaughter and great granddaughter.
Greeks: The sons of Zeus were the products of the endless raping of the women of the men which the great God commited.
Christians: The one and only son of their God he produced by impregnating Virgin Mary.
Why, for God’s sake, the sons of the Elohim were produced differently and were not the same as their fathers were since they also raped the poor women of the mankind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Elohim means gods, plural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You're a little weak on your Classical Biblical Hebrew Grammar. The "im" suffix indicates plurality, as in more than one.
If it would be angels, then it would be shenayim or malachim (in the sense of messengers). If it would be god (in the singlular then it woould be El Elohe as in El Elohe Israel which could mean god or god of Israel (the man named Israel).
Grammatically...
Elohimdoes mean gods but the gods did not fall from the skies. Before they were known as gods (immaterial) they were known as messengers of the gods (material) and before that as Judges. Grammatical analysis only is not enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Hell, we knew that 50 years ago. All civilization in Mesopotamia and environs had a pantheon of gods that were ranked in a structured hierarchy. For many pantheons there were "gods of the heavens" (12), "gods of the heavens and Earth" (12) and "gods of Earth" (12).
What does (12) mean? The number of the gods?
Gods were not only those composing the pantheons; the gods were myriads, as many as the men.
You should take into account popular traditions too, not only theological theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The phrase bene-’elohim (sons of [over-] lords) appears only 5 times in the Old Testament: twice in Genesis 6 (the Deluge account) and three times in Job.
Listen to Whoppers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
When the Highest [Elyon] gave nations [goyim] legacies,
when He dispersed humankind [bene adam - lit. "sons of mankind"],
He set the people's [ammim] borders
to the number of the children of Israel [bene Yisrael].
(Deuteronomy 32:8, CoT, Friedman)
The MT, which is reflected above and has been the normative text used to translate from for many years, has bene Yisrael ( lit. "sons of Israel"), the LXX has "angels of God", and the Dead Sea Scrolls' 4QDeutj has bene elohim ("sons of the gods" - I would say the context precludes "God"). Now, if you run those in reverse you can see the evolution from "the gods" to "the angels of God" to "the sons of Israel". So the standard scholarly conclusion is that the oldest form of the text was probably the one found in 4QDeutj ("sons of gods") and this makes the most contextual sense, in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
…proves the Hebrews did not write Job, rather they took a popular story known by every culture that ever existed in Mesopotamia and environs and made some minor alterations to it (like Hebrew names for Job's three daughters).
Job is not a popular story is a theological attempt to justify God’s wickedness.
Philosophers borrow the theories of other philosophers; peoples do not borrow the popular stories of other peoples.
You have to make the distinction between popular tradition and theological nonsense because otherwise you attribute the nonsense to the peoples.
Just a quick note on the Book of Job from your comments above (both - Dtango and Mircea).
The book that we have in the Hebrew Bible is probably both: a popular story and a philosophical inquiry into Theodicy. There is a Prose framework that surrounds the middle Poetic section, the biggest. This framework story contains the familiar story of Job suffering, the scene in the Divine Council among the "sons of the gods/God" where the Satan makes the charge against Job after listening to Yahweh go on about him and hell on earth breaks loose, Job's patient retention of his faith, and his final vindication and restoration by Yahweh in the end.
The middle Poetic section, however, has a Job far from patient - in fact, he's extremely impatient, and quasi-blasphemous! From various factors (linguistic, theological, philosophical, the divine name, etc) in the Poetic section, most see the Poetic section as composed by a different person than the framework story. The question is: Which came first? The original folk tale? The philosophical Poetic section? Was the folk tale updated to serve as a framework? Was the framework made to contain the Poetic section? Was the author consciously working with former treatments of theodicy? Was he reacting against traditional Detueromic principles?
Ezekiel 14:14 refers to 3 great heros who had the ability to save others through their own righteousness: Job, Noah and Daniel (though this name is probably Dan'el - the same folk hero of the Ugaritic tale, possibly). It's possible that this section in Ezekiel referred to a longstanding popular or folk tradition about Job. At any rate - the framework story of Job shows a Job who IS able to save others, essentially.
Anyways - my point is that the Book of Job is a bit of both: both popular folklore and philosophy. It's impossible to draw the conclusion that it's either/or, I think. And people could be just as "nonsensical" as theologians. As far as I remember, it's usually people who claim that they have found a piece of toast with the Virigin Mary's face on it - not the Church. Well, not anymore, anyways!
I forgot to touch on something here that you mentioned and I will try to explain it here but I am sure Whoppers and Daniel can do a far better job than I. You said:
Quote:
Eusebius wrote:
According to the number of the sons of 7 El Q
32:8 7-Q El: Hb Israel.
Actually, I don't think this is correct. YES, the 10th century CE Hebrew Masoretic Text does say "children of Israel" and the King James Version, in line with that text says the same thing. However, the OLDER HEBREW Dead Sea Scrolls says "Sons of God" while the Greek Septuagint (older than the Masoretic Text also) says "angels of God." Neither of the older texts says anything about "children of" or "sons of Israel" and this makes sense.
Notice, the footnote of 32:8 in my quote above does not have for the "7" where "7" stands for "70" or "LXX": "sons of God" but rather just "El." And "El" is Hebrew for "God." So both the LXX and Qumran have "El" rather than "Israel." The Hebrew mss. has "Israel."
"Angelwn" in the LXX has nothing to do with what the footnote states.
Notice, the footnote of 32:8 in my quote above does not have for the "7" where "7" stands for "70" or "LXX": "sons of God" but rather just "El." And "El" is Hebrew for "God." So both the LXX and Qumran have "El" rather than "Israel." The Hebrew mss. has "Israel."
"Angelos" in the LXX has nothing to do with what the footnote states.
I know that, Eusebius. I was simply pointing out that the OLDER (MUCH OLDER) Jewish scriptures says "sons of god" or "angels of god." The LATER MSS (Masoretic Text) says "sons of Israel" and the even later King James Version says "children of Israel." Why the notable change?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
His view of scholarship is, unfortunately, typical of those who stumble upon websites extolling the virtues of Sumerian myth over all others, amid claims that everyone else "stole" from the Sumerians. 
