What's in a Word: Create?

When Genesis 1:1 says that God created Heaven and Earth, the Hebrew [sic] word for Create here is BARA. This word is actually the same word we see in Jewish names. Jochannan BAR Zachariah, Jeshuah BAR Josheph, Jeshuah BAR Abbas and so on. It means "son of" in the sense to FATHER.

Genesis 1:1 actually says: In the beginning God fathered Heaven and Earth.

There are plenty of ancient religious systems based on the relationship between a god or goddess of Heaven and a god or goddess of the Earth. In Mesopotamia we have Enki and Enlil, in Egypt we have Geb and Nut and so on. These are very primitive religious concepts and it makes sense that religion as a concept in itself, started when early provincial Man made himself gods out of the concept of above and below. Genesis 1 may not be so cosmologically and evolutionary correct, but if we are talking about different stages of, or the evolution of -religion itself, it may actually be spot on. Humanism being the sixth stage, being succeeded by a religion based on relaxation and peace. Sounds plausible.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Sorry but found this funny first google entry on 'Bara' =

Wiki.. Bara

Bara (薔薇?, "rose"), also known as the wasei-eigo construction "Men's Love" (メンズラブ menzu rabu?) or ML, is a Japanese jargon term for a genre of art and fictional media that focuses on male same-sex love, usually created by gay men for a gay audience.

The word Bara tends to be associated differenty depending on the culture, where religon is concerned.
Wiki.

Al Wala' Wal Bara' is an Arabic phrase. Within the context of Islam, the phrase means, on one hand, drawing near to what is pleasing to Allah and His Messenger and, on the other hand, withdrawing from what is displeasing to Allah and His Messenger. [1]

reply to post by Maltese5Rhino


Nasty!

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Sorry just about to leave work so felt a bit humorous , now to your topic in detail....

I believe that the core beliefe systems of religion that survied to this day would have come from the first people to seriously inspire and creat awe in any that saw them. Then over time..... A long time, the idea of a person causeing of such events as agriculture for instance. If you aply the same 'word connection' it makes sense. 'Created the Heaven and the earth', the earth could be deemed 'created' once someone first was able to farm the earth, to make shelter from the earth and in so doing created 'heaven' so to speak.

Im not very well versed in religous teachings compared to many, just thought Id post as I concure to your thread S&F

reply to post by Maltese5Rhino


Still a nasty coincidence, look up for thunderbolts the next couple of days, you may have shook the foundations of the Temple just there. Bad Rhino! Bad Rhino!

Edit: This just shows the importance of naming the language when quoting words

Edit 2: Certainly killed this thread quite effectively. Bollocks. V

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Not to be a stickler or anything, as I do agree with the idea that in Genesis God "fathers" his creation (hinting at Ašerah, Mrs. God), but, you're a bit off with the "creation" motif as it is found in Mesopotamia.

The Sumerians didn't believe that Heaven and Earth were "fathered," but instead believed in a "tiered" system that had always existed. This schema contained an Underworld called Kur (referred to as both a landmass, and a being), on top of which rested the Cosmic Sea (called Nammu) and the Earth (called Urash), both of which were capped by a dome of sky with tiny holes that served as stars (known as Antu). These last three—Nammu, Urash, and Antu—were considered to be both transcendent goddesses—who always existed—and the actual, physical elements themselves (the Persian Gulf, Mesopotamia, and the Heavens). An (called Anu in Babylonian mythology) was the masculine counterpart to all three, who did father the Anunnaki, and a whole slough of other divine and demonic beings, but never Heaven and Earth. While Enlil and Enki (among others) did inherit the sky, sea, and earth after An, they are not actually representative of the divine consummation your post is discussing.

Again though, not that I disagree with your post, or its implications. Only that I think using Mesopotamian mythology as an example is a bit misleading. The idea of an All-Father who mates with a Great Mother, and creates everything, is present in other mythologies. And it is certainly an element of Judaism and Christianity. The Void and Darkness within which God creates Life and Light could (and is, in my mind) a representation of some cosmic feminine: the great womb, or sea, so commonly referred to in ancient mythologies.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Then how about Bel the Sumerian god of Heaven and Earth? The main character from the intermezzo of the first section or tablet of the Enuma Elish, son of Ea and Damkina?

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Bel, or Marduk, does come a little bit closer. In the Enuma Eliš the body of Tiamat is used to create the Heavens and the Earth. It's still not quite the same as "fathering" the Heavens and the Earth, as there's no generative principle involved, but it is much closer.

I think your example of the Egyptian Ennead is still the best. Atum's act of masculine-parthenogenesis (I'm not sure what the male version of that act is called, or if there even is a word for it) within the Nun influenced the Hebraic creation even more than Marduk's in the Babylonian Enuma Eliš.

Though they stand on shaky ground, and were without a doubt collected in writing far later than the Old Testament, the Norse myths, specifically that of Auðumbla, Búri, and the Ginnungagap, also express similar motifs and themes as the Ennead and Judeo-Christian Genesis.

Again though, my reply wasn't a disagreement with your original post. I do think there was a generative principle involved in the creation of the world as it is relayed in the Old Testament, one that most likely involved Ašerah. I just didn't think your use of Enki and Enlil as Mesopotamian examples was the best choice.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


Indeed. I wrote the OP in a hurry, and instead of taking my time and research properly, I just threw in Enki and Enlil as examples. As for the dating of this literature, I'm not really sure, but to me the Sumerian records are by far older than the Torah. C. 1600 BC for the Sumerian "Eridu Genesis" (Nippur tablet) and c. 400 BC for the Torah. The first written Hebrew canons were probably first compiled around the end of the Babylonian exile.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


Sumerian records are, without a doubt, far older than Hebrew records. The majority of Sumerian mythology comes from around 2500 BCE - 2000 BCE, with Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian redactions following every couple centuries as the dominant powers in Mesopotamia collapsed and were replaced.

I also agree that the Hebrew canon was (most likely) compiled during the Babylonian exile, but, the Jews themselves had already been wandering for several hundred years by then. Encountering Babylonians, Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians, and other Semitic tribes must have had great influence on their developing mythology and beliefs.

There are also records of the Hebrews interacting with the people of Lower Egypt (in the North). The Ennead, and specifically the New Kingdom figure of Amun (or Amen-Re), chief deity of Thebes, certainly do bare significant resemblance to what the Judeo-Christian concept of "God" eventually evolved into.

I also tossed in the Norse myth as another example in support of your position. The interplay between Auðumbla and Búri in the Ginnungagap is, I feel, reminiscent of Yhvh's creation of the world from the void.


~ Wandering Scribe

Wandering Scribe
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

Babylonians, Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians, and other Semitic tribes

Both the Egyptians and the Canaanites were Hamites, not Semites, just thought I should mention it

I also tossed in the Norse myth as another example in support of your position. The interplay between Auðumbla and Búri in the Ginnungagap is, I feel, reminiscent of Yhvh's creation of the world from the void.

But of course, the old Norse Asabelief relies on our ancient Mesopotamian library, the very word for god in Norse, Ås/Æs/As/Os/Es and several other variants actually mean Asian. My favorite in comparing Heimdall with Noah, same esoteria, different concept and tradition. And also comparing the different futharks with ancient Semitic alefbets and scripts pays out. Odin in Norse, Adonai in Hebrew. There are many similarities. And of course, the Jews' harp, found all over the world, but up here we made it into an art:



I see Denmark as the kingdom of the Israeli tribe of Dan, where Denmark is lit. Dan's Field and Norway his angel, whom I call the Silver Dragon. The Northerner was never an enemy of David, he was his refuge and defence. The Serpent/Dragon was the totem of Dan, as seen reflected in the old Norse wood carvings and architecture, boatbuilding &c. St. Olav our partron king is often depicted standing on a dragon***

Some examples of Norse architecture incorporating dragons







*** A total sidetrack, but here we go: As for standing on the dragon, have you read the Gospel of Bartholomew? This seems to be the basis of modern Christian "satanology" in lack of a better word. It's BS from end to other, but it's exactly what they want to hear, so they base their whole demonology on it. Don't know if it's sad or pathetic. Anyway, it maketh a great read

Jesus saith to Bartholomew: As I said unto thee, tread upon his neck and ask him what is his power.] And Bartholomew went and trode upon his neck, and pressed down his face into the earth as far as his ears. [...] 25 And Beliar answered and said: If thou wilt know my name, at the first I was called Satanael, which is interpreted a messenger of God, but when I rejected the image of God my name was called Satanas, that is, an angel that keepeth hell (Tartarus). 26 And again Bartholomew saith unto him: Reveal unto me all things and hide nothing from me.

www.gnosis.org...

I find the discussion on religion when not taking anything as fact is intriguing.
How did we envisage God, why? Why do our lives feel influenced, how do we act together.

Tribes increase in size and life becomes seemingly complicated but also the needs must.

Interesting because if we can realize that religion was as much about teaching and directing than controlling and insisting then we can possibly make a big evolvement.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


I think we've had a discussion on language and linguistics before (unless you're not the main person championing the Odin-Adon comparison on ATS). But, I suppose I'll rehash my view here as well. The major problem with a number of the connections that you make is this:

Semitic languages (where Adon comes from) are part of the Afro-Asiatic language tree, seen here: link

While the Old Norse language (part of Northern Germanic) is on the Indo-European language tree, which can be viewed right here: link

Concerning Odin, I stand with the linguists, who state that:

The Old Norse noun óðr may be the origin of the theonym Óðinn (Anglicized as Odin), and it means "mind", "soul" or "spirit" (so used in stanza 18.1 of the Poetic Edda poem Völuspá). In addition, óðr can also mean "song", "poetry" and "inspiration", and it has connotations of "possession". It is derived from a Proto-Germanic *wōð- or *wōþ- and it is related to Gothic wôds ("raging", "possessed"), Old High German wuot ("fury" "rage, to be insane") and the Anglo-Saxon words wód ("fury", "rabies") and wóð ("song", "cry", "voice", "poetry", "eloquence"). Old Norse derivations include œði "strong excitation, possession".[2]

Ultimately these Germanic words are derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *wāt-, which meant "to blow (on), to fan (flames)", fig. "to inspire". The same root also appears in Latin vātēs ("seer", "singer"), which is considered to be a Celtic loanword, compare to Irish fāith ("poet", but originally "excited", "inspired").[2] The root has also been said to appear in Sanskrit vāt- "to fan".[3]

source

Not to say that there aren't cultural borrowings in play. As I pointed out, Buri, Audumbla, and the Ginnungagap share many similarities with the Hebraic creation schematic. Similarly (and somewhere on ATS I've got a short-lived thread touching on this) you can see reflections of Ninurta alive and well in Thor. I do not think that Odin and Adon(is) are the same though. I think that Norse figures have much, much more in common with Celtic lore than with Mesopotamian lore (compare Tyr and Nuada if you want a fun one).

As for Denmark, I admit I haven't studied the etymological history of the term before. My initial search did bring up your theory, the idea of a personage named Dan (a redaction of the "Tribe of Dan"), but it also brought up the idea of the Dani, or the Danes, as the origin of the term. I, personally, knowing that the Danes were a large tribe in Denmark, would probably agree with that origin over the Hebraic one (as I myself don't put much stock in Biblical history). Also, during my search, I found this:

Most handbooks derive[3] the first part of the word, and the name of the people, from a word meaning "flat land", related to German Tenne "threshing floor", English den "cave", Sanskrit dhánuṣ- (धनुस्; "desert"). The -mark is believed to mean woodland or borderland (see marches), with probable references to the border forests in south Schleswig,[4] maybe similar to Finnmark, Telemark, or Dithmarschen.[5]

Source

So, I would say the jury is still out on "Denmark". None-the-less though, and in an attempt to pull this thread back on track, let's circle back to Yhvh and the Genesis account of creation. You perceive the word "bara" as meaning "fathered". What are your opinions, then, on the female consort of Yhvh? Do you think it was an act of male parthenogensis? Did Yhvh have a wife?

Thoughts, opinions?

~ Wandering Scribe

Wandering Scribe
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

I think we've had a discussion on language and linguistics before (unless you're not the main person championing the Odin-Adon comparison on ATS).

I'm rather new here, and am unaware of any campaign like what you discribe. It's my personal opinion that Odin should be understood as cognate of Heb. Adonai or Gr. Adonis. However, many brooks run ito the river, so I also see it related to Goth. 'Atta' meaning 'Father' and Norse adjective 'Óðr' meaning 'wild' and 'uncontrolable' and the same as a noun when it means 'mind or 'poetry'.

However tracing the name of Odin back to Indo European, you end up with the root *Wāt- as seen in Lat. 'Vātēs' and 'Vātis', which means 'seer' and 'prophet'. This is also the root of the Eng. word 'faith' from Old Irish 'Fáith' meaning 'seer' or 'poet'.

In Norse you also have the word óðal (modern Norwegian 'Odel') which means heritage as seen in the name of the O-rune "Odal". Also words like German 'Adler' meaning 'Eagle' as reflected in words like No. 'Adel' meaning 'nobility' and 'edel' meaning 'noble' or 'Preceous'. And Eng. 'Oath' (No. 'Ed') and Lat. 'Ode', Gr. 'Aoidē', both meaning poetic song, and Gr. 'Odysseus'. There are many.

As for Denmark, I admit I haven't studied the etymological history of the term before.

I also see the names of rivers Donau and Danaube as cognates of the Heb. name 'Dan'

let's circle back to Yhvh and the Genesis account of creation. You perceive the word "bara" as meaning "fathered". What are your opinions, then, on the female consort of Yhvh? Do you think it was an act of male parthenogensis? Did Yhvh have a wife?

I believe God can get any woman he wants (or man if it turns out that he's a woman), don't believe he ever married though, that's part of the human experience, gods and angels don't marry, but that doesn't mean they don't get laid or can't have children. It's just that the concept of marriage is a human one. God isn't limited by procreation to get children, I see him more like a genetic engineer who designs lifeforms using "God's image" which I believe is a computer.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
When Genesis 1:1 says that God created Heaven and Earth, the Hebrew [sic] word for Create here is BARA. This word is actually the same word we see in Jewish names. Jochannan BAR Zachariah, Jeshuah BAR Josheph, Jeshuah BAR Abbas and so on. It means "son of" in the sense to FATHER.

Genesis 1:1 actually says: In the beginning God fathered Heaven and Earth.

There are plenty of ancient religious systems based on the relationship between a god or goddess of Heaven and a god or goddess of the Earth. In Mesopotamia we have Enki and Enlil, in Egypt we have Geb and Nut and so on. These are very primitive religious concepts and it makes sense that religion as a concept in itself, started when early provincial Man made himself gods out of the concept of above and below. Genesis 1 may not be so cosmologically and evolutionary correct, but if we are talking about different stages of, or the evolution of -religion itself, it may actually be spot on. Humanism being the sixth stage, being succeeded by a religion based on relaxation and peace. Sounds plausible.

edit on 23-1-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: added [sic]

Although they share the same root, their meaning is different. Bara in Hebrew means - to create, shape, gave form. Even pronunciation is different. Bar means - son of. What sets the difference is the pronunciation, that's because ancient Hebrew did not have vowels. Words written the same way may have multiple meanings, depending on pronunciation.

a reply to: Abednego

You are aware that modern vocalisation and well the sound of Hebrew, relies on the Leningrad Codex mostly, and that it's only a thousand years old? Thing is, we don't know how Masoretic (pre LenCdx) Hebrew sounded like. The sources Torah relies on was most likely written 2000 years before that. Bara is a verb and means "created" and bar inbetween names means 'created by', understood 'the son of' since it's obvious David didn't use much science making Solomon. Thing is, if you read the NT genealogies for Jesus, Adam is referred to as the 'son of God'. Much the same way Cain is the 'son of Man', and how Adam ate from the 'tree of Life'. And it was Love, Clearity and Intelligence and a few more who made them such.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Abednego

You are aware that modern vocalisation and well the sound of Hebrew, relies on the Leningrad Codex mostly? Thing is, we don't know how Masoretic (pre LenCdx) Hebrew sounded like, and it's only a thousand years old. The sources Torah relies on was most likely written 2000 years before that. Bara is a verb and means "created" and bar inbetween names means 'created by', understood 'the son of' since it's obvious David didn't use much science making Solomon. Thing is, if you read the NT genealogies for Jesus, Adam is referred to as the 'son of God'. Much the same way Cain is the 'son of Man', and how Adam ate from the 'tree of Life'.

As you said bara' ( br' without vowels ) (that would be the correct way of writing it) is pronounce "bawraw" and is a verb, but bar ( br looks the same but it has a completely different outcome due to the missing letter aleph ) (pronounce bar) is a noun and in Aramaic is ben, Jesus bar Joseph is the same as Jesus ben Joseph. Nouns and verbs are not the same, while verbs express an action nouns expressed names of things or abstract

a reply to: Abednego

All agreed. Only, Hebrew is a funny language, and in many ways similar to Norwegian in an odd way. The Lexicon is rather slim, but the interconnectedness between words is well, magic is the word for it. It's like the lexicon speaks a million more words than are listed. Well, fantazillions really. Thing is, on a human level we limit origin for a person to it's male parent, since he has the bollocks and he is the muscle. With God things are slightly different, we can only speculate how he creates. Or create without the s just to make a point. And the two often untranslated words in the first line of Genesis: at, does that ring a bell? If translated it is often done so as identical to Latin, ad shortened to @, modern spelling, at. To or well, at. You seem to know the rules, how would you translat the first line of Genesis if you had to translate and include Alef-Tav?

ETA: I should add that the vocalisation used in the Leningrad Codex, which is the main source for modern Hebrew voc. is the so called en.wikipedia.org... -- Tiberian vocalisation, based on the work of Tiberias who lived in ancient Judea c. 750-950 AD.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Abednego

All agreed. Only, Hebrew is a funny language, and in many ways similar to Norwegian in an odd way. The Lexicon is rather slim, but the interconnectedness between words is well, magic is the word for it. It's like the lexicon speaks a million more words than are listed. Well, fantazillions really. Thing is, on a human level we limit origin for a person to it's male parent, since he has the bollocks and he is the muscle. With God things are slightly different, we can only speculate how he creates. Or create without the s just to make a point. And the two often untranslated words in the first line of Genesis: at, does that ring a bell? If translated it is often done so as identical to Latin, ad shortened to @, modern spelling, at. To or well, at. You seem to know the rules, how would you translat the first line of Genesis if you had to translate and include Alef-Tav?
ETA: I should add that the vocalisation used in the Leningrad Codex, which is the main source for modern Hebrew voc. is the so called en.wikipedia.org... -- Tiberian vocalisation, based on the work of Tiberias who lived in ancient Judea c. 750-950 AD.

Sometimes there is more than just what it is written in hebrew. The act of creation in Genesis involve 2 beings (I bet your jaw just hit the floor). Genesis in hebrew is spell " Barasit" with an h between the s and the i. What the first letter of the hebrew alphabet? Aleph, WRONG. Is Bet. Bet means beginning, so is Aleph. Thats why create goes with the Bet followed by the Aleph. Because the male can not procreate with the female and viceversa.

About the Bet and Aleph being both the first letters. Theres a story about God before the creation, He create the letters that will make the words He will use for the creation. So He interview all the letters, asking them why they should be the first letter. The things is that letters in hebrew you can spell them to the right and to the left, and they will mean the opposite except for Bet, it means the same. God chose Bet to be the first. But Aleph did not came to the interview. God ask her why she did not came. She asnwer that He already make a decision so it will be foolish to be interviewed. Because of that God gave her the same consideration as Bet, meaning the same no matter how you read them.

a reply to: Abednego

The first verse of Genesis goes:

בראשית ברא אלהימ את השמים ואת הארץ

Which transliterates into: Beresjit bara Elohim AT hashamajim VAT haeretz. These AT's are either not translated or the last is translated 'and' and the first left out or explained similar to Latin & or ET or as a "marker" for accusative. Looks to me as if Elohim somehow creates on behalf of- or to please, the "Alpha and Omega" and את transforms into- or creates, accusative. John is possibly hinting to Kabbalah and the Bahir when he says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This Word, is it את? The invisible god who is littered all over the Hebrew library, who is impossible to understand or define? A and T or Alef and Tav are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alef-bet. In NT Greek it's "Alfa and Omega". Ring a bell? To me it looks like "In the beginning God created the "Alfa-and-Omega" Shamajim and the "Alfa-and-Omega" Eretz. Jesus says about himself in the end of the Apocalypse:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."