Crossing the Sea of Reeds; an inside job

a reply to: TheChrome

Not to defend the claims in the op (which clearly go against all context of scripture), but both the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex say "be'yam suph".

biblehub.com...

Are you refering to another codex?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: TheChrome

Not to defend the claims in the op (which clearly go against all context of scripture), but both the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex say "be'yam suph".

biblehub.com...

Are you refering to another codex?

Good point! The Aleppo and Leningrad Codex do render Exodus 15:4 as Yam-Suph. Compare Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:29 which use the Greek words erythra and Thalassa, meaning Red Sea. Ask the question: if Israel crossed a marsh or "reed sea" how would Pharaoh's be swallowed up by water?

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: TheChrome

I agree, they crossed they red sea, its possible that 'sup' is really a derrived from 'supah', which means to blow, rather than the Egyptian word for reed. The east wind is what parted the sea.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

TextFrom the Babylonian Talmud of Hillel (Same name as is translated into Lucifer in KJV) to different rabbinical traditions.

Hillel the elder was not the author of the Babylonian Talmud but only one of many who helped develop its creation. Also the Jerusalem Talmud agrees with the Babylonian Talmud of which Hillel had nothing to offer.

The Greek NT informs us of the schools of Hillel and Shammai and it is the school of Hillel of which the Apostles regarded as in the most Godly order. This school of Hillel in which the apostle Paul studied under the grandson of Hillel the elder is none other than the school of the Apostles. In fact it was this very Hillel who was Nasi of the Sanhedrin in the days of Jesus.

Guess that's why Jesus had the habit of protesting the folly over and over. Like walking the entire distance from Jerusalem to the Mount Olives every Saturday he was there to speak against among other Hillel and the other teachers who added stones to the burden of Moses. Talmud describes this distance as the maximum distance allowed to be walked on the Sabbath before it's considered work. Jesus protested further by healing people on the Sabbath, and defending his disciples against the Talmudians who claimed crushing corns in your hands for a snack should be considered work. "Lucifer's Talmud" (Hillel translates into Lucifer in King James' Bible) was the teachings of "the Pharicees and the scribes", and of course the fraud Saul Paulus who was a Pharicee.

Can you please post one single verse from the NT where Jesus agrees with the teachings of any of these guys? For gods' sake, how in heaven or hell have you come to the conclusion that Jesus supports Hillel/Lucifer? For instance, among Jesus disciples, we have Simon the Zealot, which was basically an anti-Roman militia who considered Pharicees and other sects who collaborated with Rome, Quislings. There were obviously also Gnostics and followers of Plato and Pythagoras among the disciples. Noone (!) held the doctrines you describe as "none other than the school of the Apostles". Saul Paulus, being a Pharicee and a murderer of prophets and saints-- naturally he was a Talmudian. He never met Jesus and was a self proclaimed apostle. A fraud, a spy and an agent working for Rome and the Sanhedrin against Christendom, who infiltrated and destroyed Early Christendom, and was responsible for killing perhaps hundreds of Christians before he magically converted after seeing a vision of Jesus.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: TheChrome

Not to defend the claims in the op (which clearly go against all context of scripture), but both the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex say "be'yam suph".

biblehub.com...

Are you refering to another codex?

The prefix of Yam is arbitrary, but helps to showing Suph is a noun and of course it's not an adjective, like Red. The 'Red' in "The Red Sea" is an adjective and not a noun, and there is no adjective Suph in Hebrew, meaning either Red or anything else. Both codexes you refer to both agrees that we are not talking about the Red Sea but "a sea of reeds". Strong's 5489 Suph means "reed," a place near which the law was given biblehub.com... Suph most likely was the name of a city between Gosen and the Sinai peninsula.

However, the Greek LXX Septuagint, which was produced in Alexandria a couple of centuries BC and infact the oldest surviving and complete mss, like the Codex Vaticanus, of the Tannakh and the Torah-- translates Yam Suph as ἐρυθρά θάλασσα, "red sea". It is not a proper noun, but a description of a sea that is red. Probably and allusion to how thousands of Egyptian soldiers were killed in it when the gates opened and the raging Nile crushed and buried them in the mud.

And again, please read the below quote:

en.wikipedia.org...

Yam Suph (Hebrew: יַם-סוּף) is a phrase which occurs about 23 times in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible/Old Testament) and has traditionally been understood to refer to the salt water inlet located between Africa and the Arabian peninsula, known in English as the Red Sea. More recently, alternative western scholarly understandings of the term have been proposed for those passages where it refers to the Israelite Crossing of the Sea as told in Exodus 13-15. These proposals would mean that Yam Suph is better translated in these passages as Sea of Reeds or Sea of Seaweed; see Egyptian reed fields, also described as the ka of the Nile Delta. In Jewish sources I Kings 9:26 "yam suph" is translated as Sea of Reeds at Eilat on the Gulf of Eilat.

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: TheChrome

Not to defend the claims in the op (which clearly go against all context of scripture), but both the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex say "be'yam suph".

biblehub.com...

Are you refering to another codex?

Good point! The Aleppo and Leningrad Codex do render Exodus 15:4 as Yam-Suph. Compare Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:29 which use the Greek words erythra and Thalassa, meaning Red Sea. Ask the question: if Israel crossed a marsh or "reed sea" how would Pharaoh's be swallowed up by water?

en.wikipedia.org...

Both codexes are modern (10th-11th c AD), written in the square Aramaic script we know as Hebrew today, with niqqud vocalisation. Modern Hebrew is more or less founded on these two renditions with their vowel points, but ancient Hebrew certainly sounded quite different than today's, should we say, "Germanised" or "Yiddified" phonetic system. By the time these Tannakhs were written, Hebrew as a spoken language had been extinct for for the good part of a thousand years, it was archaic even in the time of Jesus. And no matter what grammatical- or phonetical system you use, 'Yam Suph' or 'Jom Zuph' or how you choose to phrase it, has nothing to do with the colour red or for that matter, the Red Sea, other than Solomon's naval base, nicknamed Yom Suph at Eilat in Edom, to commemorate the strategic master plan and military victory of Moses and his insiders by the floodgates in the Exodus that eradicated a whole division of Egypt's standing forces.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Tex tSaul Paulus, being a Pharicee and a murderer of prophets and saints-- naturally he was a Talmudian. He never met Jesus and was a self proclaimed apostle. A fraud, a spy and an agent working for Rome and the Sanhedrin against Christendom, who infiltrated and destroyed Early Christendom, and was responsible for killing perhaps hundreds of Christians before he magically converted after seeing a vision of Jesus.

Another Paul bashing thread. I guess that is your hobby.

I do not expect to convince you of any of my theological biblical understandings simply because of your mindset. You are in a different understanding than I and your posting and thread show that you have no regard for the scholars and translators which some are also linguists of high regard.

You take one word “Lucifer” and try to build disinformation. Your thread was designed with its foundation of disbelief and bible bashing. I can relate to that as I have interacted with you several times. Your agenda is to convince others that the Christian bible is all wrong and you are all right. Now you have jumped from Moses to Jesus. It did not take you long to get to your intention. You now want me to show you in the NT where Jesus agrees with any of these guys? I understand that is your bait.

Hillel the elder was the first of six teachers in the Hillel family. As Jesus was a youngster Hillel the elder died and we now find his grandson Hillel as the teacher of the school Hillel. This is the school which accepts certain youngsters of intelligence to learn Torah. Several hundred years into the future is when the Talmud was codified so to say that Hillel was the Talmudic progenitor is disingenuous to say the least. You nor anyone knows the teachings of Hillel commentaries to Torah simply because the commentaries changed by the Sanhedrin court of judgment almost on a daily basis.

Yes Gamaliel was the president of the Sanhedrin as well as the master of the school but out of the seventy one members of the Sanhedrin it was mostly controlled by the Sadducees and not the Pharisees. In fact the vote of the Sanhedrin vindicated Jesus so it was not the Sanhedrin that pronounced the death penalty for Jesus. At this time Saul was graduated as a rabbi and was very influential in the Sanhedrin and in fact was regarded as the next in line to be president. No one truly knows how Hillel voted in that trial of Jesus. We are informed that probably Saul voted to stone Jesus because Saul hated Christians and did transport Christians to the courts for punishments against Rome. The Sanhedrin could not take a life and all death punishments had to be by the Roman courts and Roman military.

Now this brings me to your statement –

Text“Saul Paulus, being a Pharicee and a murderer of prophets and saints-- naturally he was a Talmudian. He never met Jesus and was a self proclaimed apostle. A fraud, a spy and an agent working for Rome and the Sanhedrin against Christendom, who infiltrated and destroyed Early Christendom, and was responsible for killing perhaps hundreds of Christians before he magically converted after seeing a vision of Jesus.”

The Talmud Babli was not codified till the second to third century and up to this time no known written records have been kept. Why so? Simply because it was oral Torah in conjunction with written Torah that was taught in various schools. So for you or anyone to state that Hillel taught Ha Satanic Talmud is absolutely untrue and nonsense. The word Lucifer was not in the Hebrew language or manuscripts at this time and was introduced by the Roman Christian Jerome.

It is true that that the school of Hillel did teach written Torah and it was Torah that Jesus taught also. The oral Torah was not recorded because that was why it was oral: it was to be unknown to others who were not privy to Torah. Did Jesus not teach in the synagogues Himself as well as the Jerusalem Temple? Did Jesus also teach oral Torah? Oral Torah was tradition till it was written and then it became Talmud Babli. But that was hundreds of years in the future that it was written. Then how do you know what was taught in the school of Hillel to call it evil? Jesus accepted all of the law and He came not to change Torah but to fulfill Torah.

One thing that you have overlooked concerning Talmudic studies. Hillel taught Torah with commentaries to written Torah. These commentaries were not accepted by all forms of Judaism. A first example were the Sadducees who accepted nothing but written Torah. The Essenes who also accepted some but not all commentaries. These commentaries applied to the rabbinic authority which was the house of Ananias but even at this the various rabbis in Jerusalem did not agree one with the other. You can see this as you read the written Babylonian Talmud. Jesus did not kick against oral Torah as was taught on Mt. Sinai but was contentious against the house of Ananias who controlled the entire nation through the Sanhedrin and was appointed through Roman authority. The house of Ananias made many amendments to oral Torah to suit its power over the nation and it was here in the days of Jesus that we first see the results even though it was Ananias’ son in law named Caiaphas who was high priest in the days of Jesus. Ananias controlled Caiaphas and was not of Zadok authority.

Even though the house of Ananias controlled the nation it was the Sanhedrin that that was a thorn in his side. He had no control over the Sanhedrin which consisted mostly of Sadducees and in fact Ananias was also a Sadducee. Now Hillel the elder was the founder of the school of Hillel and his son Simeon was the very same Simeon who blessed the baby Jesus in Luke 2:25. It was not his son Simeon who took over the school but it was his grandson Gamaliel who became the master of the school of Hillel in those days of Jesus. This is why it is believed by scholars that the Hillel’s were considered saints among the congregation of the first apostolic Christian synagogue. This is the reason I stated that Hillel was approved and sanctified by the Apostles. That would be opposite of what you teach. Did not Jesus accept Saul and forgive Saul? Who are you to say who is forgiven and who is not forgiven? By your own mouth you have denied that Christ Jesus performed miracles and that all is bogus trickery. Saul sought to repent and received grace from the Lord Jesus.

Act 9:4-6 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (5) And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (6) And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

According to various scriptures Saul was forgiven by Jesus and was accepted by the Apostles of Christ Jesus. Whether you accept this is your own prerogative and by your posts I cannot understand why you are so upset over other people’s theology. If you expected disagreement as to your own theology then don’t be so contentious as to post a thread with insults of those who disagree. That is what a forum is for.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I agree with Seede. Your OP is lacking solid evidence. The word 'sup' can have a number of definitions, and according to Isaiah and Psalm 74, God parted an actual Sea, not a marsh. I feel that your motive is to cause controversy and insult rather than honestly testing a theory. Its like you are probing the Bible for weaknesses to rub in the face of Jews and Christians. You have the capacity to do honest research, Ive seen it in your other threads. I suggest that you stick to your area(s) of strength, and avoid posting such distastefull propaganda. If I were to post on Islam, I would stick to the context of the Koran. If the subject were astrology/astronomy, I would play by those boundries. In this thread, you have once again shown total disregard for what the Bible says on the subject, and instead you seek to exchange textual criticism for your own personal fantasies.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The word 'sup' can have a number of definitions

No it hasn't. Suph (as in soof) is actually the same word as the Norwegian noun Siv, which also means reed. As a proper name it means Heritage, go wonder. Reeds were used as pens, and there are 23 occurences of 'Yam Suph' in the Bible. Hint hint.

Heb. verb Suph or סוּף means : to come to an end, cease - Strong's 5486
Heb. noun Suph or סוּף means : reeds, rushes - Strong's 5488
Heb. proper noun Suph or סוּף means : "reed," a place near which the law was given - Strong's 5489
Aram. verb Suph or סוּף means : to be fulfilled - Strong's 5487

The word Suph is neatly defined and as I have shown over and over, the definitions are actually very narrow too, leaving nothing to discuss. So doesn't that make you a liar? You're bollocking us here! Argh, open the gates already!

a reply to: Seede

As for my "Lucifer disinfo": In KJV Isaiah says in 14:12:

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"

The word translated 'O Lucifer' in KJV is Strong's 1966 Helel and it means Morning or Shining One. The full name given is Helel ben-Sahar, which in modern spelling becomes "Hillel ben Zohar" (Hillel son of Zohar), which brings in yet another tradition in Judaism, Kabbalah. Zohar and Sahar are derived from Strongs 7836 the verb shachar, which means to perform morning prayer.


ETA: And as for your thread-drifting trolling about Talmud being the "way of the apostles": Bollocks and delusion.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Suph also means ,'end' as in destination. Same spelling, but different word. That doesnt make me a liar. The fact that you argue agianst scriptural context makes you the liar.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Suph also means ,'end' as in destination. Same spelling, but different word. That doesnt make me a liar. The fact that you argue agianst scriptural context makes you the liar.

Care to show me the definition? And a Strong's entry? If it is 5490, it's סוֹף Soph, a noun, different vocalisation, but related, it means "an end", being a nominal consort of the verb Suph, which means "come to an end". 5490 means End as in End of the Egyptian slavery. Still nothing suggesting we are talking about the Red Sea. The idea that Yam Suph is the Red Sea came together with the LXX Septuagint (3rd c BC), which, as I have stressed over and over, is a Greek translation made hundreds of years after the first Torah saw first light. According to www.beingjewish.com... it was sometimes in the 14th c BC.

You are feeding and breeding theological, even historical-- anachronisms here. Wash your dragon mouth, Priest! Out of all; You should know better.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The Septuagint was translated by Jews for Helenized Jews. They translated from Paleo-Hebrew texts that were also memorized via the rhetorical meter. The variations between the Septuagint and Masoretic Texts are mostly the result of 'expanded' or 'explanatory' translations.

As I mentioned in my very first post in this thread, Isaiah referenced the parting of the Sea, and he described Israel treading in the depths of the Sea. Depth is emphasized. A reed march does not have any comparable depth to that of a Sea floor. Throughout this entire conversation, you still havent addressed Isaiah 51:10.

Was it not You who dried up the sea, The waters of the GREAT DEEP; Who made the DEPTHS of the sea a pathway For the redeemed to cross over?

Please explain Isaiah 51:10 since you clearly know the bible better than the Septuagint translaters did.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The Septuagint was translated by Jews for Helenized Jews.

In the 3rd c BC

They translated from Paleo-Hebrew texts that were also memorized via the rhetorical meter. The variations between the Septuagint and Masoretic Texts are mostly the result of 'expanded' or 'explanatory' translations.

The septuagint was a translation made from earlier copies of the Hebrew Torah. None of which have survived in entirety.

As I mentioned in my very first post in this thread, Isaiah referenced the parting of the Sea, and he described Israel treading in the depths of the Sea. Depth is emphasized. A reed march does not have any comparable depth to that of a Sea floor. Throughout this entire conversation, you still havent addressed Isaiah 51:10.

Was it not You who dried up the sea, The waters of the GREAT DEEP; Who made the DEPTHS of the sea a pathway For the redeemed to cross over?

Who are talking about a reed marsh other that you? I am talking about a giant water reservoir or a water gateway, near an unknown Egyptian delta city called Suph, used to tame the Nile when it flooded, a water magazine, an artificial lake even. Today it takes the Aswan Dam to tame the Nile, that should be an indicator of how much water is added to the Nile when it floods every year. Marsh my arse. You are delirious.

Please explain Isaiah 51:10 since you clearly know the bible better than the Septuagint translaters did.

ETA: Instead, explain how your reed marsh apply to the following: www.history.com...

Do a search for Nilometer. Educate yourself.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Text The word translated 'O Lucifer' in KJV is Strong's 1966 Helel and it means Morning or Shining One. The full name given is Helel ben-Sahar, which in modern spelling becomes "Hillel ben Zohar" (Hillel son of Zohar), which brings in yet another tradition in Judaism, Kabbalah. Zohar and Sahar are derived from Strongs 7836 the verb shachar, which means to perform morning prayer.

You are way off from your thread but will try to explain my understanding. Everyone can find a means of belief if that one is determined to do so. You have found your way to incite disinformation by using limited interpretations of translations in half truths.

It makes no difference what an interpretation is of a translator unless that interpretation is from that translator who actually translated the script into his own understanding. This is why a translation must be from at least two sources of comparative languages at the same period. But a concordance is not a commentary and was never meant to be a commentary. Strongs concordance is a concordance to the King James bible only and is meant for that purpose only.

Now it seems that you are confused as to what a translation, transliteration and an interpretation are. These three are actually three different avenues of expertise. The King James interpreters used the translation of “Day Star” Son of the morning as Lucifer from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Lucifer is used in all protestant bibles only once. However the Hebrew translators did not use the name “Lucifer” at all. Lucifer does not exist in their conception of translation from their language to English. In fact neither did Jerome. Jerome used the translation from his understanding of Hebrew into Latin and then from Latin to English.

One and foremost reason the Hebrew does not render Lucifer as their understanding is that a Lucifer or fallen angel does not exist in their understanding in their faith. In their understanding of the celestial creation an angelic rebellion did not happen nor will it happen. There is no evil angel called Lucifer and therefore he cannot be referenced to the Gentile from the Hebrew such as the Gentiles understand him. According to orthodox Judaic teachings angels cannot sin and ha Satan is an angel of trials but not punishments to the creation through God’s decree. Lucifer simply does not exist.

JPS - Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!

KJV - Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

The two comparative verses above are not only translated differently but are interpreted altogether differently. This is why it is important to understand the origins before interpretation. The commentary of this subject in Hebrew does not even resemble the commentary of a Christian Gentile. That is called interpretation.

To show you comparative interpretation --

Luke_10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Lucifer is not worded as Lucifer here in the Greek translation but the interpretation is that Satan is this same fallen angel which is called Lucifer. But then everyone can have their own interpretation can’t they?

So how does this fit into our discussion? Well it is similar to apples and oranges. You have been duped into the same mindset that many others have been duped. You have tried to use a Gentile translation into a non-existing comparison of Hebrew understanding. It simply does not mix because the concept does not exist in Hebrew. The family of Hillel did exist in Jewish history up to about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE but it could not have had any comparative value to Lucifer because Lucifer does not exist to the Hebrew at this time. Regardless of the KJV concordance the word Lucifer who was created in the Latin Vulgate late in the third century has no value to Hebrew concept. Now it may have value to you simply because that is what you choose to use. Even then it is false because you yourself have called the bible bogus. If the bible is bogus then how can you use its material to prove another bogus concept within its contents? That in itself is the most disingenuous and double mindedness that could be presented in any thesis.

What am I led to understand? The Latin word “Lucifer” is not Hebrew but a metaphor translated into Latin by Jerome in the late third century. In other words Jerome invented the word Lucifer. It was non-existent till this time and in the Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica it does not exist. So by this “Lucifer” lies in the minds of the Gentile religions and is not comparative to Judaic faith. By this it cannot be translated from Hebrew manuscripts to English understanding as “Lucifer.”

The King James translators did not use the Masoretic text in this instance but used Jerome’s Latin rendition to the English. This led to extended confusion down through these centuries. If the KJ translators had relied on the Masoretic text then “Lucifer” would never have existed in the first place. Therefor your premise of degrading the school of Hillel as that of Lucifer is absolutely ridiculous and malicious. Your KJ concordance only continues to support your KJ bible and nothing more.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Text The word translated 'O Lucifer' in KJV is Strong's 1966 Helel and it means Morning or Shining One. The full name given is Helel ben-Sahar, which in modern spelling becomes "Hillel ben Zohar" (Hillel son of Zohar), which brings in yet another tradition in Judaism, Kabbalah. Zohar and Sahar are derived from Strongs 7836 the verb shachar, which means to perform morning prayer.

You are way off from your thread but will try to explain my understanding. Everyone can find a means of belief if that one is determined to do so. You have found your way to incite disinformation by using limited interpretations of translations in half truths.

It makes no difference what an interpretation is of a translator unless that interpretation is from that translator who actually translated the script into his own understanding. This is why a translation must be from at least two sources of comparative languages at the same period. But a concordance is not a commentary and was never meant to be a commentary. Strongs concordance is a concordance to the King James bible only and is meant for that purpose only.

Now it seems that you are confused as to what a translation, transliteration and an interpretation are. These three are actually three different avenues of expertise. The King James interpreters used the translation of “Day Star” Son of the morning as Lucifer from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. Lucifer is used in all protestant bibles only once. However the Hebrew translators did not use the name “Lucifer” at all. Lucifer does not exist in their conception of translation from their language to English. In fact neither did Jerome. Jerome used the translation from his understanding of Hebrew into Latin and then from Latin to English.

One and foremost reason the Hebrew does not render Lucifer as their understanding is that a Lucifer or fallen angel does not exist in their understanding in their faith. In their understanding of the celestial creation an angelic rebellion did not happen nor will it happen. There is no evil angel called Lucifer and therefore he cannot be referenced to the Gentile from the Hebrew such as the Gentiles understand him. According to orthodox Judaic teachings angels cannot sin and ha Satan is an angel of trials but not punishments to the creation through God’s decree. Lucifer simply does not exist.

JPS - Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, that didst cast lots over the nations!

KJV - Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

The two comparative verses above are not only translated differently but are interpreted altogether differently. This is why it is important to understand the origins before interpretation. The commentary of this subject in Hebrew does not even resemble the commentary of a Christian Gentile. That is called interpretation.

To show you comparative interpretation --

Luke_10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Lucifer is not worded as Lucifer here in the Greek translation but the interpretation is that Satan is this same fallen angel which is called Lucifer. But then everyone can have their own interpretation can’t they?

So how does this fit into our discussion? Well it is similar to apples and oranges. You have been duped into the same mindset that many others have been duped. You have tried to use a Gentile translation into a non-existing comparison of Hebrew understanding. It simply does not mix because the concept does not exist in Hebrew. The family of Hillel did exist in Jewish history up to about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE but it could not have had any comparative value to Lucifer because Lucifer does not exist to the Hebrew at this time. Regardless of the KJV concordance the word Lucifer who was created in the Latin Vulgate late in the third century has no value to Hebrew concept. Now it may have value to you simply because that is what you choose to use. Even then it is false because you yourself have called the bible bogus. If the bible is bogus then how can you use its material to prove another bogus concept within its contents? That in itself is the most disingenuous and double mindedness that could be presented in any thesis.

What am I led to understand? The Latin word “Lucifer” is not Hebrew but a metaphor translated into Latin by Jerome in the late third century. In other words Jerome invented the word Lucifer. It was non-existent till this time and in the Blackwell Dictionary of Judaica it does not exist. So by this “Lucifer” lies in the minds of the Gentile religions and is not comparative to Judaic faith. By this it cannot be translated from Hebrew manuscripts to English understanding as “Lucifer.”

The King James translators did not use the Masoretic text in this instance but used Jerome’s Latin rendition to the English. This led to extended confusion down through these centuries. If the KJ translators had relied on the Masoretic text then “Lucifer” would never have existed in the first place. Therefor your premise of degrading the school of Hillel as that of Lucifer is absolutely ridiculous and malicious. Your KJ concordance only continues to support your KJ bible and nothing more.

Since you seem to avoid anything important and instead carry on explaining your incompetence clearly dismayed by mine:

"Helel ben-Sahar" which KJV translates "O Lucifer Son of the Morning", is clearly a proper name, complete with surname and all. And yes, it is a transliteration, here's the Hebrew: הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־ שָׁ֑חַר -- Still the same name, which in modern spelling becomes "Hillel ben Zohar" or "Hillel son of Zohar". I use Strong's since it's quite good and it is available for all. I could use a number of obscure lexica and dictionaries, but you still wouldn't believe it.

As for your "two sources for any translation", what utter horsecrap. In order to make a sound translations of anything, you must use ALL available mss, whether one or 10,000, as well as other useful information available. This quote from Isaiah (the KJV Lucifer one) is useful since it shows much the same kind of anachronism as translating 'Yam Suph' into 'The Red Sea'. Hey, I even threw in a couple meself showing how Isaiah somehow knew about the Talmud and the Zohar eventhough these traditions would still be unwritten for another 500 years, and Hillel the Elder was still unborn and waiting for another 400 years, just to see if you were able to detect them. You didn't but instead attacked my integrity by delivering a teaching in kindergarten hermeneutics. I guess Isaiah was a better prophet than any of us could ever imagine.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
www.history.com...

Do a search for Nilometer.

According to Budge, Wallis E A in his book called 'The Nile Notes for Travellers in Egypt' from 1895, the "typical heights of flood were 45 feet (13.7 metres) at Aswan, 38 feet (11.6 metres) at Luxor (and Thebes) and 25 feet (7.6 metres) at Cairo." See page 77 onward a few pages. The book is available at Google Books. The text between the quotation marks is from Wikipedia and not a lit. quote from the book. See Wikipedia link below.

Flooding of the Nile ==> en.wikipedia.org...
Nilometer => en.wikipedia.org...

You don't turn rivers and seas red by stroke of a letter. But through knowledge. During the annual floodings the Nile turned blood red because of the iron oxide in the silt from henna soils upstream. The below is from the book I referred to earlier (from page 78):

About June 5 the Blue Nile begins to rise quickly, and it reaches its ordinary maximum by August 25; its red, muddy water reaches Aswan about July 15, and Cairo 10 days later. When once the red water has appeared the rise of the Nile is rapid

ETA: Papyrus reeds typically grow up to 13 to 16 ft tall ==> en.wikipedia.org...

The broken reed was one of or THE the most prominent of the Pharaoh's regalia. It shows the power of the flooding Nile in the hands of the Pharaoh; how the Pharaoh could accurately predict and make it happen as if he was God, controlling the torrents and water level of the Nile, by devising the Ankh, the Key of the Nile, and a symbol of Life.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The "great deep" is not a reference to a 15 to 30 meter deep water reservior. Its means, the bottom of the ocean/sea.

Gen 7:11 ...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open...

It means: sea floor, abyss, subterranean spring.

No nilometer fits the description of Isaiah 51:10.

Edit:

Thats not the only problem with your theory. You said:

The biblical text doesn't actually say anything magic happened. Just that Moses made a signal by raising his staff over his head that made the water stand as walls to both sides. Which can easily be interpreted as a turning wall that can hold back water. A floodgate.

Neither in Isaiah 51:10 nor in Psalm 77:19, or Psalm 106:9 were the writers praying to Moses, but to God Himself. It wasnt Moses who "opened the flood gates", but God who parted the Red Sea.

Also look at Isaiah 43:16 and Isaiah 63:11&12.

Your "theory" and the actual Exodus accounts are mutually exclusive. You would have to rewrite parts of the bible to support your story.

For someone who believes in the supernatural, I dont understand why the parting of the Red Sea is so hard to accept. The evidence is there: the charriot wheels, the underwater land-bridge. Why are biblical miracles so repulsive to you?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

TextSince you seem to avoid anything important and instead carry on explaining your incompetence clearly dismayed by mine:

You seem to have forgotten that this subject of Lucifer was your idea and not mine. This was another of your diversions from reality which you call intelligence.

Just as you have no idea of the Hebrew language you also have no idea of where your Sea of Reeds is located. In fact you have no idea where Succoth is located nor where the Freedom Valley (coastal city of Pitham or Pi Ha Chiroth) is located. You have no clue as to the location of Baal Tzephon (Baal Zephon), the snarling dog, and it would shock you to learn that your great gates of the Nile are non existent and even if they did exist could not possibly be anywhere near the Exodus. Where is the Tower and Lord of the North located? You have no idea of what I am talking about simply because you have no idea of the Exodus. Tell us again the unfounded fable that Moses was nothing but a gate keeper who waved his stick to signal the opening of those imaginary gates and drown thousands of the Egyptian charioteers. Wikipedia cannot help you on this one. You are at best delusional.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The "great deep" is not a reference to a 15 to 30 meter deep water reservior. Its means, the bottom of the ocean/sea.

Gen 7:11 ...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open...

How can you argue with someone who splits hairs and never admits any error. By your own words, and as the lexica says, Suph can mean end, and Yam refers to a body of water, like a sea or a lake or even a river, since Yam was the name of the Canaanite god Yam who was one of the sons of El, meaning he was an Elohim, and Yam was the Ugaritic god of Rivers and Sea (source): "The seven-headed dragon Lotan is associated closely with him [U: Yam] and the serpent is frequently used to describe him. He is the Canaanite equivalent of the Sumerian Tiamat, the primordial mother goddess." And looking up Lotan shows he is one and the same as Leviathan: "He represents the mass destruction of floods, oceans, and winter." (source). Both Leviathan and Rahab (another dragon) are closely connected with Egypt and especially the Nile river.

'Yam Suph' can thereby mean the 'delta of the Nile', and reeds as in papyrus reeds which is abundant along all of the Nile. Yam is related to Mayim (Strong's 4325 מָ֫יִם) "Water" or "Flood" or Shamayim (Strong's 8064 שָׁמַ֫יִם) "[Seas of] Heaven".

It means: sea floor, abyss, subterranean spring.

No nilometer fits the description of Isaiah 51:10.

I am not talking about Nilometers being "The Great Deep", but they show how much water the flooding Nile used to rise. You argued that the Nile only rose to create some muddy and shallow swamp, but when I showed you how the Nile rose nearly 45 feet, and that's to be added to the depth of the non-flooding Nile. What other Great things can we find in the bible:

Joshua 1:4 "Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates"

Seeing how the Nile is even greater than the Euphrates, it looks like the Nile is great even before flood season.

Ezekiel 17:3 "A great eagle with powerful wings, long feathers and full plumage of varied colors came to Lebanon."

Now how big is a GREAT eagle compared to a regular one?

2 Chronicles 2:5 "The temple I am going to build will be great"

Should I rub it in even further? As you see, the Nile is GREAT as it is. And if it is not great enough for you, it more than doubled in size before the Aswan dam was built. Discussing with you is like discussing who is the best guitarist in the world or what is the greatest football player. Do you have to be this childish?

Edit:

Thats not the only problem with your theory. You said:

The biblical text doesn't actually say anything magic happened. Just that Moses made a signal by raising his staff over his head that made the water stand as walls to both sides. Which can easily be interpreted as a turning wall that can hold back water. A floodgate.

Neither in Isaiah 51:10 nor in Psalm 77:19, or Psalm 106:9 were the writers praying to Moses, but to God Himself. It wasnt Moses who "opened the flood gates", but God who parted the Red Sea.

Again, you are not referring to Exodus, but prophetic poetry written nearly 1000 years after the fact. I'm amazed. You clinging to straws and splitting hairs, and there is no point to be made. You are wrong, I have arrested you in lying several times, and you just will not listen.

Also look at Isaiah 43:16 and Isaiah 63:11&12.

Your "theory" and the actual Exodus accounts are mutually exclusive. You would have to rewrite parts of the bible to support your story.

For someone who believes in the supernatural, I dont understand why the parting of the Red Sea is so hard to accept. The evidence is there: the charriot wheels, the underwater land-bridge. Why are biblical miracles so repulsive to you?

Because miracles are only miracles to children and the stupid. Add knowledge and wisdom and you understand that it wasnot magical miraculous supernatural stuff that happened, but intelligence, ingenuity, strategical victories, rhetorics, science. Go 200 years back from now, and flying through the air like a bird would be miraculous and supernatural. 100 years later and science found a way. Feel free to stare at and worship the shadow on the wall inside your cave explaining it as a miracle. Or get laid or something.