The cover up as to God's gender

page: 12
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 08:31 PM
for example, notice kiy is the hebrew for "that", the latin vulgate translates it "qui"
now if the word was ashur, why did the vulgate translate it qui? sounds like retroactive translation into the vulgate, from the kjv.

something's wrong

convince me that you're right cause i like the idea that ashur is the assyrian version of enlil. fits perfectly into the rest of my theory. but my theory is irrelevant if the word ashur wasn't there.

edit on 22-11-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by undo

Hi Undo

You wrote:


“ 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? ”


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.

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 04:33 PM
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.

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by lilowl53
A lot people think Jesus was a white guy. If you want to think or believe that "GOD" is a female, then you can. It's obvious that the truth or facts for that matter have no place in Christian society. People just make up whatever they want about the Bible, follow only what they want to, and ignore the stuff they don't. Whatever, to each their own I say.

Oh but he was, with bright blue eyes and carried a little baby lamb under his arm all the time!

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 04:48 PM
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.

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:52 PM
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.

posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 06:14 PM
Maybe the Elohim are male and female but are also one body of God they make up what God is.

Like the example the body of Christ or being One like the father or the One.

Every person will be in the one or be like the Father as one so if the Elohim are humanoid they are all part of God's oneness but God has made Man ruler over the other spiritually including his Son Christ who will have all the Father's power to come.

Makes sense why God made man and female in his likeness, maybe after the fall of man the order of things changed.

new topics
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in