The cover up as to God's gender, page 12
Pages: <<  9    10    11    12  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 04:27 PM by Sigismundus
reply to post by undo

Hi Undo

You wrote:

QUOTE

“ Clearly the Rabbis are having a problem with it to…it makes no logical sense to have ASHUR show up in the middle of that statement, unless that's not what it said.…I can see it here in the paleoHebrew…and every source lists it, but I'm still floundering over its use. It's illogical. Since when does Jehovah call himself Ashur or any part of his name Ashur? ”

UNQUOTE


Take ANOTHER look at the very ungrammatical paleoHeb phrase in Exod 3:14 - vayomer Elohyim al-Mosheh: EH’YEH ‘ASHUR EH’YEH - v'yomer ko tomar livneh Yisro’el eh'yeh sh'lachni alechem….

Where EH’YEH ‘ASHUR EH’YEH (I am WHICH I am) looks deliberately esoteric & dubious – possibly a reflection of an early misunderstood tradition that was truncated (see e.g. Gen. chapter 5:1-18, also truncated from a longer, earlier text).

Also: Please leave the KJV (King James Version of 1611) out of this ATS discussion - it is in ENGLISH & is quite irrelevant to figuring out obscure paleoHeb phrases & all the various contradictory paleoHebrew textual traditions & the Greek translations based on OTHER paleoHebrew consonantal texts than the pointed (i.e. vowelled) Masoretic Text (MT) of c. 1000 AD.

As you should know, the KJV translated text was merely taken from ONE of these pointed-consonantal paleoHebrew text families (ignoring the Greek translations e.g. the LXX Septuaginta, & Aquilla & Theodotion & Symmachus etal. – & the KJV translators had NO knowledge of the Dead Sea Scroll consonantal texts - which do not match these other versions very exactly if you count the letters) –

NB: you should also know that the KJV in English was also so full of errors during its first publication series in 1611 that it had to be re-printed / corrected at least 4 times in the following decades …

But back to the actual obscure paleoHeb consonantal text and not the messy translations in English...

The paleoHeb phrase EH’YEH ‘ASHUR EH’YEH could have been a deliberately obscure ‘pun’ for ‘Israelite priestly insiders’ to show the clan god of the Assyrians (ASHUR) was to be identified with the tent-dwelling clan god YHWH (please do NOT use the mis-construed name JEHOVAH of the KJV to transliterate the PaleoHeb name of the god YAHWEH or ‘YHWH’)

If you recall – or perhaps you just overlooked my posts – the male god ASHUR was the clan god of the Assyrians –the same people who had militarily invaded Eretz Yisro’el in c. 722 BCE and who had exiled the ’10 lost tribes’ back into Assyria (from whence they never returned) replacing the original 'Yisroelite' northern inhabitants (i.e. the area north of Jerusalem) with thousands of ‘good, law-abiding Assyrian citizens’ who (naturally) brought their OWN clan-gods & their OWN Ashurite priests with them - and promptly set up their own Ashur and Asherite shrines - effectively taking over the earlier temples of the gods e.g. EL, BAAL & YHWH and their shrines –

Don't forget !! This very same god 'ASHUR' had a wife goddess consort named ASHERAH which figures large in preExilic Yisroel (pre587 BCE)

Also: Don't forget !! this same god 'ASHUR' was portayed by the Assyrian invaders as ALSO having (4) faces (the face of a Lion, the face of a Man, the face of an Eagle & the face of an Ox or Bull) just as YHWH was portrayed in the later writings of the postExilic Yisroelites - e.g. see the words of the book of the Prophet Hezekiel (c. 550 BCE) in chapter 1 & chapter 10 where YHWH as four faces (the face of a Lion, the Face of a Bull the Face of a Man and the face of an Eagle):

Coincidence ? I think not. The cults of ASHER and ASHERAH obviously had been co-mingled (syncretistically) with the cults of EL and the cults of YHWH to produce what we see in Hezekiel chapters 1 & 10

i.e. later descriptions of YAHWEH (YHWH) during the periods AFTER the Assyrian invasions of 722 BCE, used borrowed star-god descriptions of the Assyrian god ASHUR to describe YHWH's faces..

Also, we have several plaques which show that ASHERAH (the fertility-goddess wife of ASHUR) prior to the Exile into Babylon (pre 587 BCE) was identified as the WIFE of YHWH (‘this place is sacred to YHWH and his ASHERAH’) – so we can see that the cults of YHWH and the cults of ASHUR had already been syncretistically joined into a single clan-god (much like the Canaanite clan god Bull-EL (KJV: ‘God’) was syncretistically joined with YHWH (KJV ‘the LORD’) to produce a single clan god EL-YHWH or even YHWH-ELOHIM, (KJV : ‘The LORD God’).

The god-cult-joining process of ‘Syncretism’ was rife in the ancient Levant & elsewhere – i.e. the process of joining one priestly cult of any god with another rival cult (see in Egypt where we have the cults of AMEN joined with the temple cults of RA to produce a single god under a double barreled name e.g. AMEN-RA.


reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 04:33 PM by snusfanatic
reply to post by WarJohn



Calling God a he is a function of language needing a gendered pronoun and human bias that a ruler (even a ruler of the universe) would be king like or male.

If we want to tear down gender descriptions of a supreme being and restart with only logic, then we should probably assume that God has no gender. Gender is a continuum and social construct and sex is an evolutionary adaptation. A supreme creator would carry neither social construct traits or evolutionary traits.

There's no need for a God to carry a child or excrete sperm, or fit into gender paradigms that we build as social animals (and that change every day).

So, again, if we're going to restart from ground-0 on this: God has no sex or gender.



reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 04:48 PM by undo
reply to post by Sigismundus



you avoid going back to sumerian and akkadian. you should. i'd like to hear your
take on enlil, enki and anu.


reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 06:52 PM by vedatruth
reply to post by undo



Grammer or language (man-made) are not going to take us any closer to understanding God.

There are a vast number of languages, but only one God (of all people, and all living beings).

We should focus on that God - a God of not only humans but also of animals, plants, and the inanimate matter.

Jesus calls God his 'Father'. People have taken that in a literal sense. Great seers always use language that can be understood by common folks. The subject of God is very difficult, and very difficult to explain. So obviously if God is Jesus's Father, the same is true of every other soul. Existence of all life is due to God.

Krishna also said 'I am Brahma' while describing aspects of Brahma. But a soul (that takes birth) can never be God. God is all powerful, and can perform actions without taking birth. What Krishna said was a pure soul like him has similar qualities as God. A pure soul always identifies itself with God.

Ancestors can never be God (or gods). Ancestor worship is foolish, and is sure to take one to hell. Only formless God can give a soul salvation.
Pages: <<  9    10    11    12  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Truth About the Garden of Eden Story
  Posted 8 days ago with 49 member flags
The Mormon Church is a Cult
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags
Google Earth proves Muhammad-Islam
  Posted 2 days ago with 23 member flags
Where is the gospel of jesus?
  Posted 3 days ago with 18 member flags
Who killed the prophet Muhammad? A 1400 year old murder mystery.
  Posted 17 days ago with 16 member flags
Quake Reveals Day of Jesus\' Crucifixion
  Posted 4 days ago with 12 member flags
The talk too controversial for TED to post...
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags