(Interesting) Biblical Interpolations/Edits

yep, Asherah. I can't back up this claim but I think it's interesting so fuck it: apparently the wisdom literature of Proverbs is similar to proverbs of Ishtar. who was synchronized with Asherah to some extent.

>cute
>the fedoras

Spotted your motivations almost instantly.

how does this refute his point? is there some Elohai's used for God in Isaac's life story past childhood?

That's who I was thinking of, Asherah. I remember reading once about Asherah later morphing into the feminine 'shekinah' concept, which Jews hold to be the more 'maternal' aspect of God.

Because the formulation indicates a continuity of ancestry. "I am the God of your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and THAT is why I'm going to free the Israelites from slavery"; a formation like that makes no sense if according to the E source, Isaac is sliced up and isn't the father of Jacob.

Plus, isn't the Yahwest source generally considered to be older than the Elohist?

Given the relitively late date of the bible compared to many of middle eastern tradtions that we know of, it would not be surprising if there was an older version of the story that was altered because latter generations found it morally repulsive . I doubt we will ever no for sure

this doesn't seem to be related to your previous comment though. anyways the Deuteronomist source if I remember correctly uses YHVH normally and is considered one of the later parts of the Torah.

Most of the first half of Exodus is attributed to J, which means that the statement that Isaac drops out of the J storyline bunk; he'd have to have sired Jacob, which precludes his dying in the binding.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that chain of logic, but that is what I meant from the start.

>anyways the Deuteronomist source if I remember correctly uses YHVH normally and is considered one of the later parts of the Torah.

Part of the problem is that all 4 of the "main sources" use YHVH on occasion, although most of them are from J. You usually have to go to secondary hallmarks to winnow it out for certain: For instance, you usually attribute the burning bush to J because of his preoccupation with the link between soil and humanity (Moses must take off his shoes and touch the ground with his skin because he is treading on holy ground), and the face to face diction and bargaining with God,, which you have here, and not the dream/vision game that E and the others usually give.

And I just realized I shot myself in the foot by demonstrating that the burning bush narrative was actually probably J and not E who thinks Isaac was sacrificed. Oops. Let me think about this a bit more, there's a flaw in here but I can't quite put my finger on it.

>Plus, isn't the Yahwest source generally considered to be older than the Elohist?

Traditionally, but realistically there is no clear dating for any of the sources of the Torah and barring absolutely extraordinary discoveries there never will be. I do agree that if there is a trace of a tradition where Isaac is in fact killed, it's only a trace; anything more leaves us with a genealogical conundrum as to the identity of Israel's father. I don't think any of the major sources of the Torah contained such an ending to the story.

More on the original topic of weird ass biblical passages, there's Exodus 4:24-26:

>24. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
>25. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, "Surely a bloody husband art thou to me."
>26. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

The "him" of the first verse is presumably Moses, but the pronoun-heavy and generally bizarre nature of the passage makes it a bit hard to tell. The Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby read the passage as saying in somewhat tortured fashion that when Moses, when he met God, tried to kill his own son; in other words the story is about Zipporah substituting circumcision for child sacrifice to YHVH. I recommend his book The Sacred Executioner for anyone who is interested in this sort of whackadoo shit.

. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, "Surely a bloody husband art thou to me."
. So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Actually, it's even weirder than that. I remember being sharply rebuked in a bible studies class for translating it the way you just gave, but וַתַּגַּע isn't really "threw" or "cast", it's root is "touched" or "pushed".

I mean, the former gives this mental image of whatever the hell's going on, Zipporah performs the circumcision and throws the foreskin down as if to say "Look, I did it!", but a closer reading shows she's actually physically touching it to Moses's feet (connection with ground holiness from such?) after performing the circumcision.

You get similar weirdnesses elsewhere in Exodus too. Go check out the episode where Moses kills that Egyptian. His crime gets reported despite nobody seeing it (except maybe the guy who was being beaten/killed?) except not really, because it's just one slave sarcastically mentioning it. And despite the fact that you have a neutral formation "Two men were fighting", Moses rebukes 'the one that was in the wrong'.

The slave's retort is doubly weird, "Who made you a ruler and judge over us?" When the previous narrative is quite clear that Moses grew up in the Pharaoh's palace, can wander around work sites as he wills, and generally seems to be in a position of authority,

What can I say, there's a lot of unclear writing in the Pentateuch.

>anything more leaves us with a genealogical conundrum as to the identity of Israel's father
aren't Jacob and Abraham considered to be originally part of separate traditions? Jacob is usually in more northern locations than Abraham such as when he sets the boundary with his father in law, setting down the future boundary between Israel and Damascus. if this is true and they were later combined into one history in Genesis by a later editer than the genealogical issue really doesn't matter

Its obvious who is shilling this theory, muslims. If Issac died, then Ishmael is the true heir of Israel. Its the same exact thing with the Khazar theory. Inventing myths to undermine the myths of the jews.

>Its obvious who is shilling this theory, muslims

t.Christcuck shill

why do you and others feel compelled to write YHWH but not LHM for Elohim

just write Yahweh and Elohim. really no need to be an obnoxious wall breaking twat.

Except according to Islamic theology, it's Ismail, not Isaac, who gets offered up by Abraham, and if this is correct, he's the one who gets his throat slit.

>If Issac died, then Ishmael is the true heir of Israel.
wat. muslims had Ishmael take the place of Isaac in the story. having the story be an actual human sacrifice undermines their narrative that the Quran is 100% accurate

since YHVH became forbidden to say out loud we don't know how it was originally pronounced, unlike Elohim. Yahweh is a very accurate guess but it's not for certain

cant avoid reading this post in the voice of the guy from panel three of pic related

it being forbade from being spoken has nothing to do with its possibility of phonological reconstruction. do you understand that?

something like sumerian is different only because we have literally no reference intrinsic (no recorded pronunciation of any words) or extrinsic (it's an isolated language).

>why do you and others feel compelled to write YHWH but not LHM for Elohim

Because we literally have no idea how YHWH is supposed to be pronounced, whereas we do for the word 'Elohim'.

and how is this possible with no vowels?

How do vowels even enter into it? If you look at very, very old Hebrew manuscripts, none of the words have vowels or cantillation of any sort (or punctuation, for that matter), which only starts appearing in the middle ages, at which point all words, even the tetragrammaton, have them.

What's next? Modern Hebrew words are impornouncable because you look at Israeli newspapers and they don't have vowels either?

are you retarded? if we wrote english without vowels we would pick up what the vowels were naturally from being native speakers. knowing the full pronunciation is impossible without the knowledge of a native speaker since the vowels aren't written. if there are no native speakers left that are willing to pronounce it for generations the pronunciation is lost

>if there are no native speakers left that are willing to pronounce it for generations the pronunciation is lost

Now prove that this is the case. Oh wait, you can't.

>Now prove that this is the case. Oh wait, you can't.
kek, you are retarded. this is common knowledge. ask any observant Jew to pronounce YHVH

I don't think OP was going for that, but I can sorta understand the logic you are describing. There are some bizzaro /pol/ Christians on this board who in their quest to delegitimize Judaism, argue a biased interpretation of the OT revised to fit NT canon (which Jews do not follow), and sperg about how Jews are in denial about Jesus and are deserving of their suffering for not performing the same allegorical eisegesis in their commentary. Nevermind that the Jewish version of the OT is far older than the Christian revisions and that both narratives can exist without invalidating the other's claim due to differences in opinion and interpretation. Its like George Lucas putting Anakin's ghost in at the end of the Return of the Jedi.special edition - it was cool for fans of the Clone Wars (Christians), but it pisses of fans of the OT (Jews). That the later writing answers (unasked) questions in the first does not mean that it is required to properly interpret the original.

The Muslim claim against Jews is pretty selfish, considering they borrowed from both Christian and Jewish theology, while being in denial of their own unique pre Islamic pagan roots.

A prohibition of such which pops up in the Mishnah. It was pronounced, and relatively regularly, during the temple eras.

archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabri15chisrich#page/311/mode/1up

And by that point, you have a continuity of tradition as to how all the various divine names were pronounced in Rabbinic circles, which means there isn't the time for the pronounciation to be lost from having "no native speakers left that are willing to pronounce it".

Idiot.

because phonological reconstruction of vowels does not depend on adjacent vowels as vowels themselves come into existence after the fact of consonants.

the question of the pronunciation of hebrew is entirely different to something like the example I gave (sumerian) where it is actually lost because aside from individual words being absent, the entire language itself is absent. with hebrew this is simply not the case. this is the fact of the matter: if the pronunciation is known of just a couple old hebrew words, then the pronunciation of the word Yahweh can be scientifically reconstructed.

These come well after the story of Isaac. Those are discussed in Judges, during the exodus

>The Hebrew Bible never stated that God created ex nihilo

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

- Gen 1:1

Not after the battle, not out of a corpse, no just IN THE BEGINNING.

>he'd shaped the Earth from already extant primordial elements.

The Earth wasn't made until the third day.

>the Biblical cosmology is in no way "radically different" from the cosmologies of any of the other Semitic religions,

A covenant making monotheistic deity is unique to Israelite civilization. This is a fact.

Israelite civilisation arose DURING the production of the 4 major narratives which were redacted into the Torah, and the Torah shows obviously signs that prior to the monotheistic revolution in jewish culture, that the stories were part of a polytheist culture with traditional semitic religious features.

Fuck me mate. Your magic book isn't an adequate source for itself. Because it is a complex bookie wookie heavily redacted long after the development of monotheistic Israel.

You can't have a proper discussion about the origins of the abrahamic religions on this board thanks to people like this guy. You won't convince anyone that the bible is legit and you won't be convinced that it isn't so why even bother?

You're an idiot, plain and simple.

You're seriously ignorant. YHWH is Elohim.

It's a shame you're blinded to the truth, Jew.

>I can't tell God from demons, the post.

>Given my bullshit lies and ignorance, isn't it more likely that my lies are more real than the truth to me?

Moses thought that the people would recognize him as their leader.

They did not.

40 years later, God appointed Moses as their leader.

You sound like you're literally shaking.

Pretty much. Liars, and people who love lies hate the plain truth of the bible.

The plain truth is that God stayed Abraham's hand from killing his only begotten son, but did not stay His own hand from killing His only begotten Son. And Abraham even told his people, his son, that God would provide Himself a lamb for the sacrifice. That Lamb's name is Jesus.

And just as Abraham knew God could and would raise Isaac from the dead, God raised Jesus from the dead.

The only way to not understand that is to have been blinded by God Himself.

It's intentionally designed to not be said out loud, so that the person does not say it out loud incorrectly and thus blaspheme God.

Your Hebrew is obviously weak.

The tanakh is the Old Testament, albeit organized differently. There are no grammatical differences of note.

I would be hard pressed to find anyone who loved God and who believed killing babies is fine with Him.

While you have some points and there are similarities. There are also many differences. It is like those people who claim Machiavelli wasn't doing anything new and then mention similarities but completely ignore the differences.

To be fair beginning is indefinite here so we could read it in a beginning.

i can picture steam coming out of your ears

what about divine command theory

Fuck off, Christcuck samefag.

I subscribe to it. You are correct. I should have said "murder babies" instead of "kill babies", because "kill babies" includes "kill babies on orders from God".

A feat both necessary and terrible to behold, which is likely why Joshua stopped prior to ridding the promised land of all Canaanites (and why we have ISIS today).

Go back to class, learn what samefagging means, and come back when you're 18.

fair enough

But they just started using the Adonai vowels on YHWH. Making it like Jehovah but the word itself seems to be more akin to a verb for he exists or something related which is the rub.

Not the guy you were arguing with, by the way.

>The Muslim claim against Jews is pretty selfish, considering they borrowed from both Christian and Jewish theology, while being in denial of their own unique pre Islamic pagan roots.

But can't anyone argue that about anything? I bet you say the Jews got their religion from pagan Semites and Zoroastrians and that Christians from pagan Romans, Greek philosophy and Judaism. Again the differences are important and the changes. A Muslim is very different than a Jew or Christian and all of these religions are very different from different systems of polytheism which are in turn very different from one another. Besides Islam's claim is to be a return to God's religion that has always existed to some extent and in some manner that it has similarity to Christianity or Judaism isn't strange.

>The talmud is sacred, the post.

>But they just started using the Adonai vowels on YHWH.

Who said that was the right thing to do? Doesn't that seem rather random?

Exactly which is why people aren't sure how to pronounce YHWH, although I personally think it would be Yahweh as in a verb.

I think the argument for why they did that is that it removed them more from profaning God's name hence the whole ha Shem and G-d thing now. It just keeps going.

Isn't that obviously the case? That mispronouncing God's name is blasphemy, and so the best way to not commit blasphemy, a sin punishable by death, was to not even try to pronounce the unpronounceable YHWH?

And to either gloss over it or to say HaShem?

I think the really odd thing is that people who built a golden calf and worshiped it, and then murdered Jesus, think blasphemy is mispronouncing God's name.

I don't know. I can't remember a very explicit statement about not saying YHWH. I know it developed to being a once a year affair with the tabernacle and the priest but I aleays find it odd how Jews emphasize this.

And it isn't odd that they prefer doing this to other things (to take a modern example, Jews who don't believe in God but won't eat pork) because they are very legalistic just like Christians are very spiritual. Just look at Christians that will do literally anything but think their belief is the only important thing in the sense that they might be nudists, adulterers, or baseball card collectors but still very Christian. I think Muslims tend to take a middle approach with some deviations and inclinations at times.

No they didn't.

"Adonai" vowelation would be kamatz attached to the aleph, a cholem attached to the dalet, and a chireq attached to the nun.

Meanwhile, "YHWH" gets a sheva attached to the yud, a cholem attached to the hey, and a kamatz to the vav.

They're no more related than lots of random Hebrew words which share a pair of vowels attached to different letters in different spaces.

>I am quite literally retarded: the post.

Prohibition against pronunciation of Jehovah is Mishnaic in origin, it was done earlier, which leaves no real gap for the "true pronunciation" to be forgotten

>I think

Bullshit. You're like the ducktalk from 1984, speech devoid of any sort of thought.

>No they didn't.
I meant the reading of YHWH as Jehovah. Doesn't that use the Adonai vowelling?

> the Torah, and the Torah shows obviously signs that prior to the monotheistic revolution in jewish culture, that the stories were part of a polytheist culture

Yes I'm sure the signs are 'obvious' to any unbiased objective rational scholar without any kind of agenda. It's just these ignorant sky daddy believers haven't been enlightened by their own intelligence to see them!

>monotheistic revolution

Which just happened randomly by a coincidence! You see, the objective critical scholars realized that Israelites used to be polytheists but then became monotheistic one day because reasons. It's all very deep and you wouldn't understand so there's no need to elaborate.

>Your magic book isn't an adequate source for itself. Because it is a complex bookie wookie

and a tip o' le fedore to you as well good sir!

>I meant the reading of YHWH as Jehovah. Doesn't that use the Adonai vowelling?

No, not at all. I mean, there are a couple of shared vowels, but they're not in the same order, not attached to the same letters, and you have additional vowels that are not in common.

"Jehovah" would be written as

יְהוָה

Wheras "Adonai" would be written as

אֲדֹנָי

This is literally what happened when Israel was founded O_o. Different Jewish people arrived and weren't able to understand each other cause their bible lacks vowels. They all pronounced words differently.

Didn't follow the whole discussion but how retarded are people ITT if you have to point those things out? I mean this is pretty much what you learn in the first week of an ulpan.

>Yes I'm sure the signs are 'obvious' to any unbiased objective rational scholar without any kind of agenda. It's just these ignorant sky daddy believers haven't been enlightened by their own intelligence to see them!
Not that guy. But what exactly are you saying? We pretty much now that YHWH was a war-god during the Iron Age who had competing gods.

>Prohibition against pronunciation of Jehovah is Mishnaic in origin, it was done earlier, which leaves no real gap for the "true pronunciation" to be forgotten

As I said, it's hilarious that Jews think mispronouncing God's name is blasphemy, but killing God's Son is okay.

Oh please GTFO.

>I have never read the Mesha Stele, the post.

Imagine how ignorant your forefathers were to be standing in the presence of YHWH, Who said to them "Before Abraham was, I AM", and still not know He is your God.

Oh, wait, you don't have to imagine that level of ignorance. You're there. You live it. Even with 2000 years of hindsight.

Remember what Gamaliel said? Kill the shepherd, and the sheep will scatter?

How many people still follow Jesus?

The Mesh Stele is 200-300 younger than the time I was referring to. Also the text might be interpreted as a proof for polytheism. So what you are you saying?

I don't even know what you are talking about. My "forefathers" are all atheists/communists with a military or philosophical background. And I am not Jewish, Mr. pathological anti-judaist.

>As I said, it's hilarious that Jews think mispronouncing God's name is blasphemy, but killing God's Son is okay.

It's amazing how wrong this statement is. I just want to sit back and admire how you can pack so many bad ideas into so short a framework.

Mispronouncing the name isn't the problem; in fact, that's why you have deliberate mispronunciation of other divine names. The problem is uttering the divine name for no good purpose.

And yeah, Jesus isn't God, or God's son, or any such twaddle.

Yeah, most things are written after the fact.

Except of course the bible, which includes about 30% content prior to the fact.

But you keep confusing Chemosh with YHWH, see how that works out for ya.

Nothing worse than Jews in denial.

I actually worship a Jew, which of course you would know if you knew anything worth knowing.

>deliberate mispronunciation of other divine names

Yes, to blaspheme them. Because names are important.

Keep sitting back in awe, though. I like that.

>And yeah, Jesus isn't God, or God's son, or any such twaddle.

He is, though.

>יְהוָה
Dude this says Yahweh not Jehovah. Are you messing with me?

>but killing God's Son
projecting

In case you haven't noticed but I am not the guy you were arguing. Fact remains that YHWH is considered a warrior god in his early days.
So yeah.

To be fair, the curse isn't for killing God's only begotten Son, but for wanting to.

And then for making His sacrifice on your behalf meaningless.

It's almost like there isn't a "J" is Hebrew....

He's also God when it's peace time. He's the God of the mountains, and of the valleys. He's the God of fair weather and calamitous weather. He's the God no matter what is happening, because He is God.

The only thing God did for the Canaanites was to put them out of their misery.

Shhhhhhh, don't tell the JWs. They'll panic!

We're talking about vowelling here and nobody spells Yehowah. There's also not a v. But he spelled Yahweh and not Yehowah and then says see, the vowelling is different than Adonai while I say it is like Yehowah. This is good bait.

It's spelled, in English, YHWH.

It's unpronounceable on purpose.

That concept seems to elude most of you.

Yeah now. And now brace yourself: Things might have been different 3200 years ago! I guess it's hard to believe but literally every theoretician agree on that.

Have you ever read anything on the origins of the Jewish faith written by a scholar?

>In all likelihood, Hebrews of the patriarchal period (second millennium B.C.E.) as well as many first-millennium Israelites and Judeans were not markedly different from many of their polytheistic neighbors... Most scholars conjecture that ancient Israelite-Judean religion (the practices and beliefs of the actual inhabitants of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the first millennium B.C.E.) was at the most monolatrous (promoting the worship of one God, Yahweh, without denying the existence of other gods) rather than monotheistic (asserting the reality of one god only).

>"In the Hebrew scriptures, we find a theological image of God rooted in the social structure of Israelites monarchy. Since this is a monarchy confined to a single ethnic group, the image of God is one of henotheism rather than monotheism".

Too lazy to quote anything that is not online.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding where you're going with this.

As for the pronunciation, 'Y'how'vwah" is probably most accurate, moreso than "Yehowah", since you don't have a segol at the beginning, and with a very soft vav.

And yes, the vowleing is far different from "Adonai", which I pointed and even spelled out in a previous postWhat exactly is the "bait"?

>written by a scholar?

Spotted the logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

Dude, I hire experts. With doctorates. No matter what position I want to defend or attack, I can find a "scholar" who will say exactly the opposite of what the other side's "scholar" says.

Find me someone from a peer reviewed paper denying the polytheistic origin of YHWH. Go ahead. And of course I appeal to authorities in the way that I don't run around in the desert looking for 3000 old artifacts to examine them. Also you not answering my questions makes me think you didn't read anything scientific on the Jewish faith. I studied 6 months in Be'er Scheva and took mostly classed on the origin of Judaism, so I know and saw 1-2 things. Everyone of my teachers was Jewish and hardcore Zionist but still less deluded than you.

Have the most famous quote from the Deuteronomy indicating that YHWH one faced competition:
>There is none like God, O Jeshurun
who rides through the heavens to your help ...
he subdues the ancient gods, shatters the forces of old ...
so Israel lives in safety, untroubled is Jacob's abode ...
Your enemies shall come fawning to you,
and you shall tread on their backs.
>he subdues the ancient gods,
>gods
>Monotheism has been defined as the belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God

So yeah. I am gonna watch a movie now. You blew the chance to talk with someone who is neither a nazi nor a retard.

>The only thing God did for the Canaanites was to put them out of their misery.
Canaanite became Israelites you buffoon. There are a plethora of "canaanite" idols found in Jewish homes up until the babylonian captivity. Early jewish temples follow the exact design of canaanite temples. Canaanite cities were largely abandoned - almost none show any signs of destruction. The few that do have destruction layers dating hundreds and hundreds of year apart. At around the time the canaanite cities are abandoned signs of new occupation occur in the canaanite hill country (like Galilee). The bottom half of pic related is a good example: one of the pots is israeli and the other is canaabite. They're identical. The conquest of canaan is a tribal origin myth and very similar to pretty much every other tribal origin myth.

>Spotted the logical fallacy: appeal to authority.
Well you are appealing to sources which were edited over the course of hundreds and thousands of years only. Which is appealing to authority also, but false authority since you fail to entertain any kind of source criticism