posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:27 AM
Who is Yahweh?
His name is actually written with only the consonants YHWH. In the Hebrew writing the vowels are, if at all written, marked with diacritics
(additional signs), which is never or only rarely done with YHWH. The reason may be that according to old tradition his name should not be pronounced.
One therefore talks about him in indirect ways, such as Adonay = “the Lord”. For this reason the vowel signs for ADNY are used also for YHWH. This
would actually lead to Yahowah, but it became Yehowah. Why is that? One reason for the “e” could be that Yehu is an alternative name for him (and
apparently one that may be pronounced). The more proper pronunciation will, however, be Yahweh.
Recent discoveries of ancient texts and inscriptions  show that the archaic Hebrew religion knew a highest god ’El ’Elyon (the sign ’ is in
transliterations used for the Hebrew letter ’aleph and ‘ for the letter ‘ayin), who had 70 sons. One of his sons was Yahweh, who had a consort
’Asherah, i.e., a goddess. Her name is mentioned some 40 times in the Old Testament but it is almost always translated as “grove” or “tree”.
This is because her symbol is a tree or and upright wooden pole. So when the Old Testament states that it is forbidden to plant a tree at the altar of
Yahweh it really means that it is forbidden to place a symbol of ’Asherah there (Deut 16:21 – and what sense would it otherwise have to forbid
planting a tree there?). Has Yahweh even rejected her?
The true creator god, the prime creator, was therefore not Yahweh, but ’El ’Elyon. He has obviously created a number of secondary gods as his
“sons” – better: deities – of which Yahweh is one (and, of course, also the “daughter” ’Asherah). Hence, Yahweh is not the prime creator
he wants us to believe that he would be, even though he has also produced certain creations. We recognize a noticeable parallel to the Sumerian
creation story Enûma Elish (I here simply use the notation “Sumerian” generally without dividing texts up in a more exact ethnological manner as
“Sumerian”, “Accadian”, “Assyrian”, etc.). This tells us about a prime creator pair Apsû and Ti’âmat (who we, in a way, could also
regard as the male and female side of the prime creator, resp.), who created a number of deities, from which further deity races arose. One such deity
race is the one of the Anunnaki (so called because their ruler and leader has the name Anu). They separated themselves off from the prime creators and
wanted to live and act without them. Enûma Elish tells about a murder of the highest gods. The Anunnaki are told to have killed first Apsû and then
Ti’âmat! Is it possible to kill the prime creators? Of course not! This merely symbolizes that they turned away from them and didn’t want to have
anything to do with them, as if they were dead – that was the fall, the plunge out of the divine light into a relative darkness. Therefore, the
Anunnaki are fallen deities. The one who is said to have murdered Ti’âmat is Marduk who also became the lord of the Earth. The Anunnaki have under
his rule created new human beings on our Earth by means of genetic manipulation, and from them to-day’s humanity arose. The first attempts for this
were not very successful, but then they had the new race they wanted to produce.
Correspondences with the Bible
The first sentence in the Bible reads, in the common translation: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). The Hebrew
word that is here translated as God is ’Elohim. It is a linguistic fact that cannot be denied that this word is a plural and hence means “gods”.
It has been tried to explain this away through declaring it as pluralis majestatis, which actually doesn’t seem to be common in Hebrew. It rather
looks as if one is trying to sweep an embarrassing question under the carpet.
In Hebrew, the sentence is Bere’# bara’ ’Elohim ’et ha shamayim ve-’et ha ’aretz. Therefore, some want to translate it as: “In the
beginning the gods created the heaven and the earth”, but this doesn’t fit, since the word bara’ = “create” is in singular. Furthermore, the
word for “heaven”, shamay, is also in plural: shamayim. But the problem has a solution.
According to cabbalistic sources, the word bere’# means not only “beginning”, but also “the first one”, the “original one”, the first
entity that was, the highest God. The little word ’et could be seen as an accusative particle but can also be translated as “with” (in ve-‘et
the word ve means “and”, hence: “and with”). We now arrive at the following translation, which fits grammatically: “The first one created
the gods [together] with the heavens [cosmic worlds] and with the Earth”. This translation, therefore, refers to a prime creator, who first created
“gods” and cosmic worlds, of which one is the Earth. According to Gen 2, Yahweh is one of these gods, one of the ’Elohim (since the Bible here
calls him “Yahweh ’Elohim” in the Hebrew text, and not simply “Yahweh”). Some regard the ’Elohim as creator gods, who (themselves created)
in their turn created other entities – human beings, animals and plants, like Yahweh did.
The conventional and “dogmatically approved” translation of bere’# is based on be = “in, at” and re’# = “beginning”. However
dictionaries (such as ) state that re’# can also mean “the first (of its kind)” and be can be a reference to the “origin”. Therefore the
word bere’# can also be understood as a somewhat tautological expression for “the original first”, “the very first” or “the first of
all”. A cabbalistic interpretation is that the word is a combination of beyt = “house, residence” and re’sh = “the supreme, the lord”
placed inside beyt (between be and yt). This is then interpreted as “the lord in his residence”.
In a more exact transliteration is bere’shiyt and re’shiyt, resp., and thus one can say “between be and yt”. In -iyt, however, the letter y
(actually being a consonant) phonetically marks the prolongation of i and therefore the more common (but less exact) transliteration is bere’#. More
exactly then with a stroke over the i that marks the length: ī.
There are some more peculiarities in the sentence. If one still wants to translate as “in … beginning”, it should more literally be “in a
beginning” rather than “in the beginning” (because the latter would be bare’shiyt – a contraction of be-ha-re’shiyt – and not
bere’shiyt). This seems to make little difference, but the word is actually written in an undetermined form
[edit on 30-8-2010 by memyself]