Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Penumbra

Yahweh = Canaanite War God/Cult?

245 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Leonardo

Right, so you don't know it but know it's not ever, do you Leo? I think Yahweh YHVH can be easily pronounced 'ever' and that's how I see God, eternal and ever-lasting and it agreed with the ancient Greek name that Granpa gave from eon. "Aristotle,(4) the great Greek Philosopher, explained the derivation as a combination of two Greek words (aei ón) which signify always existing".

No other word is consistantly used to describe God. Forever and ever, Amen. That's my opinion for now and I'll only be repeating myself to continue to post here until I think it might be something else. Leave you all to it, I've got an OLB mystery to solve. :tu:

As I said, you are entitled to name the hebrew deity as you wish, but that you pronounce the tetragrammaton in the style of a word in the English language grants no authority to that word being it's name.

How a word sounds phonetically does not 'link' languages, as much as you might desire it does.

For the record, the hebrew equivalent of 'ever' is me-az.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SlimJim22

yod can also be a vowel. (ee)

so can the vav (o)

hence aeon (and javan = ion)

This was most likely the view taken by some ancient Greeks albeit esoterically, the Gnostics and Neoplatonists. The word Javan connects east and west and it is from the east that Greeks like Pythagoras took their mathematical science. So I can definitely make sense of your reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

but isnt it a feature of their written language that the vowels are omitted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

but isnt it a feature of their written language that the vowels are omitted?

Which gives us a strong indication that the Hebrew culture was formed much more after the Akkadian system then after the Egyptian as always claimed. It was not until the Greek that a vowel became a separate entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
granpa

but isnt it a feature of their written language that the vowels are omitted?

generally yes.

But yod can be ee.

vav can be o or u

he can be ah

vowels arent written in egyptian either but that only because the egyptian language died and was resurrected by egyptologists and they had no way of knowing what the vowels originally were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Phonology

Since vowels were not written, reconstructions of the Egyptian vowel system are much more uncertain, relying mainly on the evidence from Coptic and foreign transcriptions of Egyptian personal and place names. The vocalization of Egyptian is partially known, largely on the basis of reconstruction from Coptic, in which the vowels are written. Recordings of Egyptian words in other languages provide an additional source of evidence. Scribal errors provide evidence of changes in pronunciation over time. The actual pronunciations reconstructed by such means are used only by a few specialists in the language. For all other purposes the Egyptological pronunciation is used, which is, of course, artificial and often bears little resemblance to what is known of how Egyptian was spoken.

As a convention, Egyptologists make use of an "Egyptological pronunciation" in English, in which the consonants are given fixed values and vowels are inserted in accordance with essentially arbitrary rules. Two consonants, alef and the ayin, are generally pronounced /ɑː/. The yodh is pronounced /iː/, and w /uː/. Between other consonants, /ɛ/ is then inserted.

Edited by granpa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

but isnt it a feature of their written language that the vowels are omitted?

Yes, this is true. It's important to understand that the Hebrew spoken in modern Israel is not really the same as that spoken in ancient Judah, any more than modern English is the same as Old English.

Vowels were not written in ancient Hebrew. This is why when you see linguists transliterate ancient Hebrew inscriptions, only consonants are represented--the same as with ancient Egyptian transliterations. The system used today by which vowels can be indicated in the script, developed at a point much later in history. In point of fact, ancient Hebrew nearly became extinct. By late antiquity Jews were not speaking Hebrew, they were speaking Aramaic. Hebrew was barely preserved and mostly in religious functions. Luckily for anyone and everyone interested in ancient Semitic languages, both Hebrew and Aramaic are still spoken today. They did survive, unlike numerous (most?) other ancient Near Eastern languages.

It's quite possible the Hebrews of the Early Iron Age were influenced by Greek philosophical thought, as far as monotheism is concerned. I would argue Zoroastrianism was more of an influence. However, as has been correctly stated several times in this thread, the god Yahweh originated from among the pantheon of deities in Canaanite cults, and these cults of Levantine peoples far precede the arrivals of Indo-Europeans, the Greeks included. With respect to granpa, the "name" YHWH has nothing to do with Greek culture or language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
granpa

generally yes.

But yod can be ee.

vav can be o or u

he can be ah

why is this so?

because when you say 'ee' you are actually saying 'ey'

and when you say 'o' you are actually saying 'ow'.

hence Ion (ey ow n) is written ywn which is then translated as javan

Edited by granpa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

generally yes.

But yod can be ee.

vav can be o or u

he can be ah

Ié ieus éó ou éó óua! O Jesus, bond of Yah's righteousness, O Living Water, O Child of Child, O glorious Name! Really truly, O Eon that is, iiii éééé eeee oo uuuu óóóó aaaaa, really truly éi aaaa óó óó! O One That Is, Seer Of the Ages! Really truly, aee ééé iiii uuuuuu óóóóóóóó, You who are eternally eternal, really truly iéa aió, in the heart, You who Are, You are what You are, ei o ei eios ei!

The Gospel Of the Egyptians/Nag Hammadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
granpa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Gospel_of_the_Egyptians

It also contains a hymn, parts of which are unusual in being apparently meaningless sequences of vowels (thought to be a representation of early Christian glossolalia), although the vowels of the final paragraph (u aei eis aei ei o ei ei os ei) can be partitioned to read (in Greek) who exists as Son for ever and ever. You are what you are, you are who you are.

Edited by granpa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

I see these notions are aptly in the alternative history section, basically most of these are atheist fantasies and pseudo historian mumbo jumbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
granpa

I am not an atheist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

I dint say you were, my reference was to those who proposed the theories in their books and those videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
granpa

if we equate YHWH with Zeus then equate Zeus with Baal then it makes sense.

but its probably better to equate YHWH with Chronos instead.

the canaanite equivalent would presumably be El_Elyon

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/El_Elyon

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/El_%28god%29

Edited by granpa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I see these notions are aptly in the alternative history section, basically most of these are atheist fantasies and pseudo historian mumbo jumbo.

Why would you presume that, simply because a person does not lend credence to the existence of those gods recorded in human writings, that person is an atheist? Or that what is written by scholars regarding those gods are 'fantasies'?

You, I would submit, are far more blinkered in your view of what god may be, than many who post here who hold to no religion. If you find this forum, or topic, not to your liking, why post here - except to flame those who do?

granpa,

The Hebrew deity would not, in my opinion, have any association with any Hellenic deities. Most scholarship points to it being an amalgamation of the early Canaanite deities, with a fair sprinking of Mesopotamian influence thrown in. That the Jewish bible was translated into the Greek when the region was under Hellenic influence lends no weight to the supposition that the Greek pantheon of deities had any influence on the Jews formulation of their own god, as that formulation no doubt preceded the Hellenic period of the Levant.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

Leo.

The producers of the videos are atheists, alot of the content quoted and referenced are from professed atheists. I don't mind that they are atheists, I just find their theories mumbo jumbo coming from no academic credibility, nor is anything claimed credible. It's fantasy. Alot of that goes on in UM as whole, "let's pretend".

Alternative history is the apt place for such pseudo history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Leo.

The producers of the videos are atheists, alot of the content quoted and referenced are from professed atheists. I don't mind that they are atheists, I just find their theories mumbo jumbo coming from no academic credibility, nor is anything claimed credible. It's fantasy. Alot of that goes on in UM as whole, "let's pretend".

Alternative history is the apt place for such pseudo history.

You'll forgive me if I conclude you are not the authority on what constitutes "academic credibility", and that you have no real idea whether all the various links posted in this thread are to people whose religious leaning is atheist.

Basically, you are bullsh!tting to appear more authoritative than you really are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

You'll forgive me if I conclude you are not the authority on what constitutes "academic credibility", and that you have no real idea whether all the various links posted in this thread are to people whose religious leaning is atheist.

Basically, you are bullsh!tting to appear more authoritative than you really are.

Lmao!!! I don't need to respresent or appear authoritative. The reason this garbage you refer to as scholarly work (shows how astute you really are), is on here is because it's fanciful, BS laiden mumbo jumbo, posted by self claimed experts (like the one you try and appear as).

So when I said it was atheist mumbo jumbo, that is coz the video producers are and the authors of the works quoted (which by the way totally dismiss Christian and Judaic scholarly expertise, traditions, sources etc. I'm not supportin the latter in anyway, but to dismiss such sources is not academic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Lmao!!! I don't need to respresent or appear authoritative. The reason this garbage you refer to as scholarly work (shows how astute you really are), is on here is because it's fanciful, BS laiden mumbo jumbo, posted by self claimed experts (like the one you try and appear as).

So when I said it was atheist mumbo jumbo, that is coz the video producers are and the authors of the works quoted (which by the way totally dismiss Christian and Judaic scholarly expertise, traditions, sources etc. I'm not supportin the latter in anyway, but to dismiss such sources is not academic

Ah, that is how it works, so because I don't understand Einstein nor make any effort to learn it converts into mumbo-jumbo and therefore disdain-able! Thanks for clearing that up. I feel better now :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

Ah, that is how it works, so because I don't understand Einstein nor make any effort to learn it converts into mumbo-jumbo and therefore disdain-able! Thanks for clearing that up. I feel better now :devil:

Not quite old chap, understanding Einstein can be achieved on many levels, but to understand Einstein and his works, I turned to the pope as my source, would not be the best way to get an understanding, although I'm sure the pope could give me something on Einstein but my approach dismissing the actual source or sourced itself would be deemed inadequate and definitely not credible. This is how it works ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Not quite old chap, understanding Einstein can be achieved on many levels, but to understand Einstein and his works, I turned to the pope as my source, would not be the best way to get an understanding, although I'm sure the pope could give me something on Einstein but my approach dismissing the actual source or sourced itself would be deemed inadequate and definitely not credible. This is how it works ;)

So, those who disdain oral tradition for archaeological and written evidence on the ground are "the pope"? Good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Lion,

Do you have anything of substance to offer this thread, regards the actual topic, or are you here to simply pass wind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

Pass wind…Let me know when you catch my drift! Lol.

I'm doing the same as you. Offering an opinion on something which is intellectually and academically redundant. And I have no reason to defend Christianity or the judaism or their scripture, but I can offer an opinion on some shoddy work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

So, those who disdain oral tradition for archaeological and written evidence on the ground are "the pope"? Good one.

You said it, lol.

Oral traditions as well as other sources dismissed too. Usually by amateurs who don't understand how to distinguish authenticity from oral traditions but also have no clue on Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, factual history, etc. Basically, it's like you coming to me to learn or understand Einstien, I can shed some light on it, but if you don't go to the sources yourself, you wont have a full or correct unserstanding of Einstien. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

You said it, lol.

Oral traditions as well as other sources dismissed too. Usually by amateurs who don't understand how to distinguish authenticity from oral traditions but also have no clue on Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, factual history, etc. Basically, it's like you coming to me to learn or understand Einstien, I can shed some light on it, but if you don't go to the sources yourself, you wont have a full or correct unserstanding of Einstien. ;)

I see, now you have a problem discerning irony from de facto statements, don't you?

Because I was trying to tell you in a nice way (or in a little less radical way than Leo) that given the amount of ignorance you display concerning the theme at hand you sure have quite a pompous regard of your opinion toward it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.