The Two Names of God

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Hashem to me is the motions of the astrological stars through the Mazzaroth or the constellations of the zodiac. It is also the aforementioned sword katas and the Tree of Life. It's certainly not a regular name.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Its good to see you too.

Yeah, I've been rather busy and haven't found much good stuff here since the purge that seemed to shrink the amount of madness here. The madness here is what makes this sub-forum fun if you'd ask me.

What literary evidence can you provide to claim that mayim is a dual noun.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

Arabic is the only Semitic language that has the dual form for the verb as well as for the noun; in Syriac only a few traces of the dual have been preserved. In Hebrew the dual has been preserved in the case of the noun only, its suffix being "ayim."

This could sort of explain how Elohim is possibly originally a dual noun (was it originally El-ayim?), since Bara («create») is singular and treats Elohim («El-ayim») as one entity.

In the case of Mayim, Shamayim and a few others the duality implied is a bit controversial, but there are naturally two camps hehe:

"Yerushalayim," however, the name of Jerusalem, according to the Masoretic reading of the name , must not be explained as a dual, as it is one of several words having the suffix "ayim" that are not duals. Thus, "mayim" (water) and "shamayim" (heaven) are plural forms, the "y" preceding the plural ending "im" being radical. This was recognized by as early a grammarian as Abu al-Walid ("Luma'," pp. 285 et seq. ="Riḳmah," pp. 172 et seq.); while Abraham ibn Ezra ("Sefer ha-Shem," i.; commentary to Gen. i. 2) holds that they are duals, and attempts to explain them as such on the ground of natural philosophy.

There are two floods in the Bible. The Genesis 1:2 Flood, and Noah's flood, but I don't think the Bible really gets into particle physics.

Like I said, whenever you see the suffix -ayim, there are pairs in motion, either obviously (as in scissors: «misparayim», tongs: «melkahayim», and two years: «shenatayim») or implied (ex. water/flood: «Mayim», Heaven: «Shamayim»).

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The problem is that the word for heaven comes in a singular form also, shamaya. Therefore to make it plural, you drop the aleph at the end and replace it with mem. As a result, you are adding an 'im' suffix to 'shama', not an 'ayim' suffix to 'shem'. Shama is a 'shin' prefix added to a 'mem' prefix. Shin means to devour or divide, mem means flowing. Therefore, mayim is many flowing, shamayim is divided many flowing.

I dont think shem is part of it.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Where is Shamaya used as anything but the adjective for high/highest? Shamajah Shamayim means the Highest Heaven as far as I can remember. Shamayah is an adjective (not a noun) means high or lofty I believe. Think I read the Shamayah Shamayim one in Bahir or Sefer Yetzirah (Kabbalah) or some dark age grimmoire. Where and when did they write Shamayah (as a noun)? Looks like a typo or an error to me.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Ezra 5:11-12& 6:9-10 to name a few. Elah shamaya, God of heaven.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You are aware that Ezra is Aramaic, not Hebrew? They are actually quite different languages, like English and German?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Jeremiah 10:11 uses it too, as well as multiple uses throughout Daniel. I know parts of Daniel are written in Chaldean, but not all of it.

Edit:

Never mind, Jeremiah 10:11 is Aramaic too.

Either way I'm not convinced of your theory. There are plenty of other wors that contain shem or sham and do not relate to name or title. You'll have to explain those too.

According to Kabbalah, the Godname functions in Atzilut, the Archetypal World. This means that a Godname is assigned to each of the 10 Sephiroth. YHVH is assigned to the second Sephirah Chokmah and ELOHIM is assigned to the third. ADONAI is assigned to the last Sephirah, Malkuth. The 10 Godnames have been shown to have a mathematical basis in the sense that they mathematically prescribe the nature of all levels of reality, including space-time. The way they mathematically define the group theory underlying superstring theory has been proven in recent years - see here. But they have a much wider kind of meaning. They determine the properties of all TRUE sacred sacred geometries (as opposed to the counterfeits that masquerade on the internet as such, e.g., the so-called "Flower of Life"). For details, see here. Historically speaking, only the biblical, contextual meanings of the divine names have been known. Their more fundamental and profound, mathematical meanings have never been recognised until recently because of the widespread, but false, assumption that they are merely inventions of a particular religion. They are explored here and here
and in more detail at the website linked to above.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

It's not really a theory, it's just what happens when you remove the bird droppings, verse divisions and punctuation. The way it was in the beginning....

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Heb.: בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך 
Tr.: Bereshyt bara Elohim at hashamayim waat haeretz wahaeretz hayoth tohu wabohu wahushek 
Eng.: Initially created Forces the two Names of God, the Land and the Wasted Land, [they] were Void and Darkness

Ok, but another problem that you're running into is that Isaiah specifically said that God did not created a desolate or void Earth.

Isaiah 45:1818For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited),

First God created the Heavens and Earth in Gen 1:1, then they became desolate and void in Genesis 1:2. There is an undisclosed period of time in ellipsis between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. This thread explains that in more detail. After God initially created the universe, there was a revolt that resulted in a literal flood of the ENTIRE universe. This is why the heavens (hashamayim) and waters (hamayim) are so closely related.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

best thread on ATS ATM.

Doesnt the word for void also imply "a judement passed by God" .....MADE VOID?

implying that it once had light....was the home of light....made void by judgement....and was made dark...

Lucifer was the first pharoah? He displeased God, by claiming Godhood.....a tradition passed on by his flesh incarnate....

Instead of being the moon of God.....He became the Sun....to Gods' creation...

I do think Moses stole much from Egypt. He like Abraham was trying to remove his people from their nomadic life of desert ignorance....and the dark arts have always been associated with any peoples rise from ignorance....into the light....

The arts are judged to be dark by this original judgement, there since the death of the last world of the golden ages spoken of across the world, and stained into the birth of this one as such a mark.

They are not lacking the passage of time (chronos) and its destruction, entropy, but are in the mystery of life....which begets life and defies time by remaining here through blood, (family, descendants)

The divine "injection" of royal blood keeps men from returning to savagery. Though which divine spark begs the question of whose light are we following.

That of a moons reflection, like that of its light on dark waters, or the light of the sun itself.

Who claims to be the sun itself? When did that happen, in the begining....or later in rebellion of an unjust judgement.....

Sorry for more questions, but I find they offer better understanding than answers do, as answers depend on who you ask, but our questions are always the same.

Great freaking thread. Am learning a thing or two. Thank you.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Heb.: בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך 
Tr.: Bereshyt bara Elohim at hashamayim waat haeretz wahaeretz hayoth tohu wabohu wahushek 
Eng.: Initially created Forces the two Names of God, the Land and the Wasted Land, [they] were Void and Darkness

Ok, but another problem that you're running into is that Isaiah specifically said that God did not created a desolate or void Earth.

Well, didn't he create Mars? And Venus? Aren't they both desolate and hostile worlds? You don't understand that the books of the Bible spans thousands of years and that they were written by humans and that they represent changing politics and doctrinal development? As you seem to have understood there are even a handful different languages involved. I am specifically talking about Torah and especially the first page of Bereshyt. It's full of weirdness, and I show that the texts may have been tampered with in order to make it more vivid. The way I see it Genesis 1:1-2 displays two gods who make for themselves two Mazzaroth and establishes two worlds.

as far as the waters.....Could it be an ocean in the sky?

a water canopy.....A protective layer of earths or another bodys atmosphere that was lost and mixed with the waters of earth.....it rained itself away....

A flood happened, when they mixed, then they were parted and made as befofe, and yet another flood through that rain, that cleansed the earth of the competing blood lines of the "other light"....the light we all claim now?

Individually, we all become a sun unto the darkness, the judgement...this way to inner light that does not follow as a moon, a shared secret of the "dark arts". One that makes men as gods, as SUNS. Stars.....

How the creator became the creator, and barred others from the path....except for one, who wanted to keep the path open....and shared with his descendants which were not allowed to him and his own..... the path.

And then comes Christ in our age.....

as others came before.

But the way was made broken....crooked paths that do not lead to inner light. Paths that are made to follow that of the Sun, light which wanted no more competing. No more stuggle.

Who is the one to claim to be the sun now? Dont we all? lest we follow the light of one.....a reflection upon dark waters....

Who is really "unjust". A serpent....

?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Why do you think Mars and the other planets are desolate today? I think they all once supported civilizations.

Isaiah was a prophet of God. He lived his life by the Torah. The Word was transmitted via many different languages, but the message is unified. Anyways, I don't want to start an argument, I'll just agree to disagree.

a reply to: tadaman

I don't know if I believe the water canopy thing anymore. Read 2 Peter 3:5-7 and the surrounding verses. It details a flood that preceded humanity.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Why do you think Mars and the other planets are desolate today? I think they all once supported civilizations.

Well, not all of them? Mars, yes, and maybe even Venus, but the others couldn't possibly have supported much of any civilisation?

Isaiah was a prophet of God. He lived his life by the Torah. The Word was transmitted via many different languages, but the message is unified. Anyways, I don't want to start an argument, I'll just agree to disagree.

Isaiah was a human. He was highly political and his nemesis seems to have been one הילל בן־שחר or Hillel ben Shachar.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Ezra and Daniel are for the most part written in Aramaic. The wee snip from Jeremiah is also Aramaic, and written ages after the pre-exhilic Torah was put together or in development. Thus you find odd stuff like singular heaven and such, possibly since Aramaic doesn't have the dual form (I think...), which lends more support to my claim that Shamayim is to be understood as a dual form of Sham, not plural Shamaya. But what's in a name....

Even the Torah holds several languages in its belly. There are plenty foreign names, Chaldee, Canaanee, Egyptian, and the texts themselves represent different stages of Hebrew and Friedman with his Documentary Hypothesis has more than explained how the Torah is a patchwork and was redacted in several stages until it ended up in the shape we know it today, the way it has been known since the return from Babylon. The largest engines behind Torah are the Elohists and the Yahveists, as well as a few others, among them the Priestly Source, as many as 10 different redactions have been identified.

The Torah as we know it today was most likely put together around the time when Ezra and the others returned to Jerusalem after Babylon. However, Torahs existed before Babylon, but there was probably more diversity as for the contents and most of it seems to have been destroyed, leaving only a few tiny fragments for us to study today. Even though the Bible is bound together as one book it actually contains anything from 66 to 81 books, written over a period of centuries and even millennia, since some of the books, like most of Job and parts of the Torah, are old as rocks.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

A little more alternate translations from Genesis 1

From before I have established the idea that an alternate reading of Genesis is more than possible. It looks rather likely from here:

Heb.: :בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשך
Tr.: Bereshyt bara Elohim at hashamayim waat haeretz wahaeretz hayotah tohu wabohu wahushek
Eng.: Initially created Elohim the two names, for the Land and the Wasted Land, [they were] Void and Darkness.

Further:

Heb.: :על־פני תהום ורוח: אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים
Tr.: al-pane tehom Uruk. Elohim marahepet al-pane ha-mayim.
Eng.: Over Tiamat were Uruk. Elohim moved [over] the surface of the Waters.

Here we see the ancient origins of this tale. Elohim is Enki (L=N K=H Silent M = Enochim = Elo'im?)? Sounds about right with him warning Noah and all.

Heb.: :ויאמר אלהים יהי אור: ויהי־אור
Tr.: Vayomer Elohim: «Yahi Ur!» Vayahi-Ur
Eng.: And said Elohim: «Let there be Light!» And came to be Ur.

What do you guys think? Ur was the place in Chaldea Abraham came from. Uruk is a town nearby, and sometimes used for the entire area. Where's our Mesopotamia expert? «Oi! Wandering Scribe giddyup!»

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Could you elaborate as to how you came to Tiamat and Uruk in your translation. If you remove the spaces, you can reparse the words to say THWM and URUHh (Hhet is not the same as Khaf in ancient Hebrew. Its closer to the Arabic forms).

In Hebrew, Uruk is spelled Aleph-Resh-Khaf. You spell it Waw-Resh-Waw-Hhet. Its not the same at all, and most ATSers don't know any Hebrew at all.

Aleph is a guttural release and stopping consonant.

Hhet is a guttural huffing sound, not to be confused (as modern Hebrew speakers do) with the fricative form of Khaf which sound like you're clearing your throat.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Could you elaborate as to how you came to Tiamat and Uruk in your translation.

I was hoping Wandering Scribe would come by and explain it with her knowledge about Mesopotamia and their writings. I sent her (or him?) a PM and hope she still comes by.

PS: I just recognise the names in the texts, and wanted to translate it accordingly.