Different languages and the name of God?

Where have we been?
Kilik
BANNED
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:00 am

Different languages and the name of God?

Post by Kilik » Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:51 am

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest copy of biblical texts, containing biblical texts as well as ones missing from the modern book. They were written by the community of monks called the Essenes, or the Great White Lodge, and they lived virtuosly and rightously, and even had connections to the east. YHVH is foundational and key to the DSS, regardless of anything. Truth is truth however far back in antiquity it might go. neways, they were VERY literate
http://www.handwritingfoundation.org/deadsea.htm
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was hailed as an important discovery


Although many of the scrolls are written in Aramaic script, other languages were also used, such as Greek. Some fragments were written in old Hebrew called Paleo-Hebrew and a few were written in a secret script for initiates. An interesting and important scroll called the Habakkuk Commentary [Figure 3], is an illustration of square Hebrew script or Aramaic used in the 1st and 2nd centuries B.C. Note, however, the use of an ancient Hebrew script employed on line 10 to write the divine name of the Lord. The slant on the four letter word which represents the name of God as YHWH also has a different lettering style.





http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/PW11-04/theName2.html
http://www.webcom.com/mhc/archaeology/decalogue-tetragrammaton.html
http://jesus-messiah.com/gifs/s-name2.gif

DSS
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/
http://www.crystalinks.com/dss.html

language
http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/13_the_origin_of.htm



Tarot
http://www.crystalinks.com/tarot.html

But what needs to be considered, is that very far back in time some people had no writing system. In fact, what might not be so commonly known is that Egypt, the Tarot, and travelling Egyptians, and those of a few other lands too probably, were the start of various civilizations written language and spiritual teachings which eventually became religous concepts. And in fact, greed and gambling could insure that at least some oft the shell remains if not the inner meaning

and
http://www.meru.org/Gestures/frsthand873.jpg

Kilik
BANNED
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:00 am

Post by Kilik » Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:55 am

interesting
The name YHWH was not always applied to a monotheistic God: see Asherah and other gods, Elohim (gods) and Yaw (god).

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:17 am

Kilik,

The Dead Sea Scrolls may be the oldest copies of some OT books in existence today, BUT, that does not mean that they are the oldest version of the bible; nor do the scrolls represent a complete collection of the scriptures. They are not, and they do not.

Scholars are dating the scrolls at the earliest around 100 bce to the latest being 200 ce. Most of which fall somewhere in between.

The earliest known version of the bible, however, is actually the Greek Septuagint, circa 250 bce. The Greek bible was the bible used by all known Jewish scholars until around the late 1st-2nd centuries c.e., and was also the primary resource of the writers of the New Testament.

Yes, the biblical writers were very literate. They were probably primarily Greek speaking and educated in the Greek educational system. Semitic language was being used, but not necessarily as a spoken language, as much as a scholar's written language.

There is no evidence of any biblical scripture previous to 250 bce and the Greek LXX, and the Dead Sea Scrolls do not provide such evidence.

~Beth
Last edited by Beth on Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:52 am

Kilik wrote:interesting
The name YHWH was not always applied to a monotheistic God: see Asherah and other gods, Elohim (gods) and Yaw (god).


In Semitic, YHWH is a name built upon the primary 'to be' verb and carries shades of meaning such as “to become,” “to come to pass,” “to fall,” or “to come into being.”

Several theories have been offered regarding the actual history of the proper name ‘Yahweh’: a Sumerian etymology has been suggested that means “seed of life,” an Egyptian etymology that means “moon one,” an Akkadian etymology as “noble one,” and even an Indo-European etymology “Dyau-s, which became Zeus in Greek, Jupiter in Latin, and Yah in Hebrew.”

Additionally, some scholars have embraced the opinion that when it first arose, this divine name was not so much a ‘proper name’ as it was an “emotional cultic outburst, such as dervishes might cry out ecstatically.” This theory is based upon the digrammaton ‘ya’, a two syllable word that meant “a kind of numinal exclamation.” http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hil ... ame-TJ.htm

While YHWH was the most frequently used name of God in the OT, it was not the only name of God: YHWH was used approx. 3,000 times, EL was used around 400 times and ELOHIM was used around 430 times.

ELOHIM is the plural, or dual, form of EL which simply means "God." It is ELOHIM that is found at the beginning of Genesis, where it says:

"In the beginning ELOHIM created..."

Which in straight translation reads:

"In the beginning GODS created..."

and then there is Genesis 1:26, which reads:

"And ELOHIM said, let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness..."

"Ashtoreth" was a female Goddess of "love and/or increase" in Phoenicia and Sidonia, and other forms of the name, such as "Astarti" in Bashan and "Astiratu" in Egypt, are also found as well.

~Beth

User avatar
Zenskeptic
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1288
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:02 pm
Custom Title: Genie
Location: Miskatonic University Frat House

Post by Zenskeptic » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:59 am

In Semitic, YHWH is a name built upon the primary 'to be' verb and carries shades of meaning such as “to become,” “to come to pass,” “to fall,” or “to come into being.”

That's similiar to the word that implies God in certain Buddhist schools, Tathagata "Thus Goer".

Kilik
BANNED
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:00 am

Post by Kilik » Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:33 pm

not to confuse the point too much, but another interesting quote
Tetragrammaton - a name of God that can be thought, read, gestured, and written, but not spoken aloud.

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:17 pm

Kilik wrote:not to confuse the point too much, but another interesting quote
Tetragrammaton - a name of God that can be thought, read, gestured, and written, but not spoken aloud.
Kilik,

That is merely biblical/Jewish religious propaganda. YHWH is not anything so mysterious, YHWH is a verb.

>propaganda: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause

Worked on you, did it?

~Beth

Kilik
BANNED
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 3:00 am

Post by Kilik » Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:47 pm

interesting quote about the Essenes
They refuse to swear oaths, believing every word they speak to be stronger than an oath.


http://www.indotalisman.com/christmudra5.jpg

a meditation posture is a physical representation of YHWH[/quote][/google]

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:25 pm

The Wellhausen Theory, which you quote here, is just that--a theory.

In this, J, E, D and P can only be isolated through literary analysis, which may well match the method, but does nothing to substantiate any presumed historical claim to the writer's themselves.

Moreover, this analysis must be performed on the Hebrew Bible as we know it, which was not even an ancient version, due to its not being compiled and finalized until the 8th-9th centuries of the current era.

Also according to this theory, P was the final editor of the other three, an edit that is assumed to have occurred during the Babylonian exile--which I should add--gives it an assumed date of around the 5th century bce. As such, the theory as a whole requires the well used circular argument in order to make it valid, i.e., the premise must be made that there even was a Babylonian Exile, during which the final edit of the older writings could have occurred.

Until someone produces outside evidence of the Hebrews in general, and in specific, an exile of the Hebrews in Babylon, then logic demands that this was just another fictional bible story. This renders the Wellhausen theory null and void, and is just another casualty of misbegotten belief.

Again, to the best of my knowledge, the earliest known collected version of the Bible--that can be verified outside of the Bible itself--is the Greek Septuagint (circa 250 bce).

Without verification of the existence of a Semitic Bible previous to the LXX, all claims to there being such is merely religious propaganda (even if that propaganda has been successfully used to control history for 2,000 years.)

~Beth

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:07 pm

Doctor X wrote:
Beth wrote:The Wellhausen Theory, which you quote here, is just that--a theory.


Dr. X wrote: Rather as evolution is a theory.


Do you really think that these two theories are rationally comparable ???? :?

Beth wrote:
In this, J, E, D and P can only be isolated through literary analysis, which may well match the method, but does nothing to substantiate any presumed historical claim to the writer's themselves.


Dr. X wrote:
It is a little bit clearer than that.


No. It isn't.

While literary analysis and historical verification are not mutually exclusive, they are certainly not mutually inclusive either. They can be used hand-in-hand, or not. In this case, the former is present but the latter is missing.

Beth wrote:
Moreover, this analysis must be performed on the Hebrew Bible as we know it, which was not even an ancient version, due to its not being compiled and finalized until the 8th-9th centuries of the current era.

Dr. X wrote:
No, LXX and Qumran indicate otherwise. More like 100 CE.

I am not sure what you mean here. The Hebrew Bible, as we know it, was written into Hebrew, edited and compiled by the Masorites in 8-9th centuries CE. This is also when most of the grammatical rules of Hebrew were firmly established, and the diacritical vowel system was created and implimented.

But even if it was 100 CE (which I believe is actually when the first versions of Samuel begin to show up) then the LXX was still the primary--the only--verifiable biblical resource since 250BCE. This is one of the points that I am trying to make.

You cannot use the existence of the Hebrew texts as historical verification of the content of those texts. Historical verification is totally dependent upon at least a 'somewhat collaborative' agreement between outside sources. This is what is missing when verifying the content of the OT. It has yet to be found. Oh, and an assumed oral tradition doesn't work either.

Beth wrote:
Also according to this theory, P was the final editor of the other three, . . .

Dr. X wrote:
No, not according to the Documentary Hypothesis. There has been work since Welhausen.


Do you not see where the Documentary Hypothesis must assume the historical veracity of the scripture itself? That's circular.

Beth wrote:
Until someone produces outside evidence of the Hebrews in general, and in specific, an exile of the Hebrews in Babylon, then logic demands that this was just another fictional bible story.

Dr. X wrote:
Ipse dixit but incorrect. Logically, you would need a better explanation for the textual and extant evidence than the DH. If you have one, many would be interested.

Ipse dixit on whose part???? Not mine. I am working with what we know for sure. I am not the one making unsubstantiated--or what may well be--unsubstantiatable claims.

Dr. X wrote:
You are arguing Quantum with Newton.

Interesting statement: but, we cannot see the quantum world--because we do not want to see the quantum world--but rather, because it is beyond our capabilities to do so at this time. It is not, however, beyond our capabilities to see the evidence that we do have regarding the matter being discussed, e.g., the presence of a Greek bible, but the absence of a Semitic bible, and a total lack of historical verification for the content therein, so, in corrective mode, we need to base our initial premises on what evidence we do have.

We have been living with a view of history that has been based upon initial premises that are totally religiously based and driven.

And -- 'we' are the only ones that can--must--correct this error in favor of a rational understanding.

Finally,
Dr. X wrote:
If you have one, many would be interested.


I do not have a theory that pertains to the creation of the Hebrew Bible, but rather, evidence that the content of the bible--in any language--is totally fictitious. The biblical stories (both OT and NT) are complex literary creations that are fundamentally dependent upon the use of wordplay between the proper names of the characters and the lexical meanings of those proper names; in both Greek and Semitic.

~Beth

p.s. Whew! I'm tired now!!!

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:56 am

Doctor X wrote:
Beth wrote:Do you really think that these two theories are rationally comparable ???? :?


Dr. X wrote:
I am not interested in belief.

Your answer does not make any sense whatsoever.

Again, I invite you to come up with a better theory.


I am not the least bit interested in coming up with a theory to replace something that I think is totally misplaced in the first place. Both of these theories are moot points as far as I am concerned. (Are you even reading my posts thoroughly?)

All the problems that we have with the Hebrew Bible do not even exist with the Greek LXX. It is a much cleaner text, where God is Theos, and Theos is God.

This would not explain the LXX or the Qumran texts . . . or the competing Samaritan texts.


The Hebrew scriptures were not even necessary to the production of the LXX. The bible could have actually originated in Greek--in toto--a theory that actually bears out the evidence that we have, e.g., known evidence of the LXX circa 250 BCE, plus, what surely amounts to thousands of direct quotes from the LXX in other Greek texts, e.g., the extensive writings of Philo of Alexandria, a few other first century rabbis that we have evidence of and the New Testament. Moreover, the earliest Christian scholars also used the Greek LXX for several more centuries until the Vulgate was translated, and even then, Jerome used the LXX to do so.

Also unnecessary to the production of the LXX, the Samaritan texts could have been the first translations of the Greek LXX into a Semitic language and likewise, the Qumran texts were even later translations.

It must be stressed that all the earliest known Jewish scholars were all Greek speaking, Greek writing, Greek educated Jews. All of these scholars used the LXX, and show no signs of even knowing a Semitic language; not even the New Testament writers. And a smattering of Semitic words found in Greek, does not a Semitic writer make.

Beth wrote:
But even if it was 100 CE (which I believe is actually when the first versions of Samuel begin to show up)

Dr. X wrote:
You would believe incorrectly since Chronicles extensively rewrites and quotes the Deuteronomistic History of which first and second-Samuel is a part and is directly post-exilic.


In the context that I was writing in at the time, we were discussing the Hebrew Bible, and I was referring to the books of Samuel first appearing in Semitic. They had long been in existence in the LXX.

One can also date the Deurteronomistic history based on when prophecy breaks down: easy to "prophesize" when you are writing about past events.


It is also incredibly easy to fictionalize both the original prophecy and its 'easy' fulfillment. This is called an epic continuation.

But...once again. You are trying to prove the veracity of one biblical book vis-a-vis another biblical book. That is circular absurdity.

Right, have to leave and beat people up. . . .


Now why doesn't THAT surprise me???

~Beth

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:14 pm

Dr. X

Dr. X wrote:
If you continue to argue against arguments that you merely imagine rather than the actual arguments others are making, you will, indeed, run in circles.


If you think everything that tradition has handed down to us is correct-- without question -- then you are certainly within your rights to do so.

But just because 'they' say that it's so, doesn't make it so. I'm not interested in being a Peter Keating.

~Beth

(This is a skeptics forum, right?)

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:28 pm

Dear Dr. X,

Either I am just very tired and don't have what it takes to respond to you in depth, or you have bested me at a contest of erudition. Check for Dr. X.

I am also totally out of my element in "putting people in their place in Latin," and I cannot write in such a grandiloquent manner as you; so you have bested me in these things as well. Check Mate.

I know that my agenda does not adhere to tradition, but I have not devised such an agenda without reason, or without Reason. Turning over centuries of established thinking will not be easy, but one day it will be done. You have helped me see that I will not be the one to do it single-handedly.

I will contribute to this debate those things that I have discovered through my own research; things which have demanded that I think long and hard about their implications. When I do officially make my contribution, then maybe others will begin to think long and hard about the implications too. This may well be the best that I can do.

But before exiting the stage, I will ask you Dr. X:

What IF most everything that we think we know about the bible, its original composition and its content, was not actually the case?

What would happen if western religion is proven to be fundamentally based upon total fiction?

Your conquered and humble servant,
~Beth

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:01 am

GOOD GRIEF!!! YIKES!!!

An alien from planet DRX must have temporarily taken over my mind for me to have submitted with such pitiful ease to such obviously cheap fundie-masculo tactics.

Gez...maybe 04/05/06 was inauspicious afterall...

I will let the first parts of the post stand, but you can just forget the 'conquered and humble servant' stuff, and ... the questions I posed to you are still waiting for an answer Doctor...

~Beth

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Sat Apr 15, 2006 1:35 pm

Doctor X wrote:I refer to the answers and suggestions I have given previously.

--J.D.

Which may answer questions about well-known scholarship, but does not put forth any thoughtful consideration to the questions being posed.

But that's okay Doc. You may not be one of those people that can produce original thought.

I am sure that other scholars will soon come out with such answers, and then you can read them, quote them, and present yourself as being very intelligent.

Maybe someone else on this forum would like to ponder on some answers?

~Beth

p.s. I have a new signature suggestion for you Doc:

"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN, "I AM THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE OZ!!<ROAR...FIRE...ROAR>

Beth
New Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:47 am

Post by Beth » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:42 am

Doctor X wrote:I am sure that should this particular fool ever read the texts, bothers to learn the basics

Are you talking about me? Really? Well, that just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
or even responds to what posters write rather than what she believes

You know nothing about me: I am a skeptic regarding a lot of things. So, I am not sure what "I believe," but I do know what "I know."
and otherwise behave in a manner expected of a lady

Excuse me sir, but you are the one that set the scathing tone to this thread, not me. You are the one that started with the insults, and I just happen to be in the mood to "play along." If you can't handle getting back the same kind of thing you so easily put out here, then, well...maybe you should think twice about how you word your posts.
I will note the sad irony of an avowed "atheist"
If you are talking about me, well son, you don't know what you are talking about. I am not an atheist.
willful ignorance of text and religion
I study religion and philosophy on a full-time basis. I work in the religion field. You know nothing about me, or my background.
Similarly, she made eroneous claims akin to a creationists waxing fatuously about how "intelligent design" has "more evidence" than all of biology and physics.
You must have me mixed up with someone else Doc. That doesn't even come close to sounding like something I would ever say. Show me the thread...
Now, the fundamentalist labors in ignorance, even willful ignorance
Me a fundie??? HA! Now THAT'S FUNNY!! :lol: You MUST have me mixed up with somebody else...
What can one write about a woman who pretends to knowledge?


Why write about me at all? Why don't you just answer my questions regarding the bible being fiction? You must not have an answer Doc, not one that you can wrap your head around, because you are resorting to the nasty tactic that you, and people like you, always do: insult the poster in order to divert attention away from your own lack of original thought.

~Beth

User avatar
skepticdoc
Poster
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:23 am

Post by skepticdoc » Mon May 08, 2006 11:10 pm

There is that story of the dyslexic agnostic that wondered if there was really a dog!

User avatar
skepticdoc
Poster
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:23 am

Post by skepticdoc » Tue May 09, 2006 3:27 am

Johnathan Kirsch, Skeptic lecture closing joke