YHVH: Yahweh

[Sancho]

This thread is for discussing who Yahweh is, was. One question I have is whether it is helpful to learn about how common ancients at various times would have thought about their god. In my opinion it is important to bare those roots to better relate to the divine living in eternal present.

The link below gives a succinct summary, not just of an illuminating book, but also of the picture of ancient Israel archelogists are arriving at.

Did God Have a Wife?

Though I'm interested in understanding how this mountain god Yahweh related to other gods in and outside of his hosts, I also want leave this thread open to anything else anyone wants to discuss concerning this god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Martin Buber, in his book on Moses, says, "YHVH is 'He who will be present' or 'He who is here', he who is present here; not merely some time and some where but in every now and in every here. Now the name expresses his character and assures the faithful of the richly protective presence of their Lord."

 

[Sancho]

In an article written for the First Inter-American Symposium on Feminist Intercultural Theology, published 2007, Marciel Mena-Lopez seeks to bring attention to the role played by Ethiopian traditions in the formation of Judaic culture.

From this article, 'Because of an Ethiopian woman.'

"Yahweh, before becoming the God of Israel, was the ancient Kenite god of fire, whose dwelling place was the summit of Sinai.
"The Kenites were also ironsmiths and worshipers of fire. Moses' father-in-law came from this people and perhaps introduced his son-in-law to this form of worship. The association of the Hebrew God with a local divinity is by no means absurd. . . . Indeed, in exodus he is called 'the God of the mountain' (Ex. 3:1).
. . .
"Extrabiblical data coming from texts engraved in the walls of Nubia, formerly known as Ethiopia and presently as Sudan, contains inscriptions that, according to testimony, are the most ancient in which the biblical God appears. The texts are found in temples dating back to the reign of the pharaoh Amenophis III (1400 bce) and in buildings of the epoch of Ramses II, around 1250 bce. Both inscriptions mention the Shasu Beduins."

She also has a lot to say about the need for new paradigms in biblical studies, which could provide material for several discussion threads. I'll just add one more quote and wait to see what interest there is in these issues.

"The spreading of the idea that the Ancient World was basically Caucasian derived from the process of racialization that had its roots in the concepts of European superiority that arose during the colonial epoch in the Americas. The classical world that we understand to be our cultural origin found its deepest roots in the world of East Africa (Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia). The understanding of the world on the basis of the Aryan model is quite recent, and for that reason I have proposed returning to the ancient model, the one witnessed to in the biblical tradition."

 

[iBrian]

Interesting to see if the suggestion can be expanded upon - I wonder if Bob X is around to provide any potential context linguistically?

 

[bob x]

I find these assertions that YHWH was a "mountain" god or a "fire" god to be utterly baseless. The name indicates the god of all existence, not a god confined to any particular role, or having any possible relationships to other gods except supremacy.

 

[taijasi]

As long as you accept that Saturn is the center of our solar system, this makes perfect sense.

Perhaps it is helpful to consider that Yaho (rendered Iao in the Greek tradition, and referred to as such by Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, et al, being a form of the Mystery Name) ... is not the same as Yah-Hovah, or Jehovah.

If we wish to acknowledge the tradition wherein the Tetragrammaton was and may still be known (thus, already a form of Gnosis), then we can make the connection between Yaho/Iao and the Supreme Logos ... and study the association with one of the creative Elohim (or ALL of Them).

Otherwise, we are dealing with less than the `Most High God' to say the very least, and the unraveling of the mystery will lead us into a consideration of the creative evolution of humanity, including the original hermaphroditic parent-elohim ... plus their/his/her various or collective offspring (creations), which became male as well as female, and not simply male-AND-female (sic), at the same time.

 

[Amergin]

I think JHWH was probably a local god of fire. Moses discusses God talking to him and JHWH appeared as a burning bush. This fits with the numerous gas vents in Sinai and Mount Sinai. This is a tectonic zone of four tectonic plates converging. The Sinai sub-plate is squeezed between the African, Arabian, Anatolian, and European mega plates. The area is a tectonic time bomb. There is the double wammy of oil and gas pockets in the Sinai and Palestine area emitting methane which occasionally catch fire or may have been set on fire by local people. Magma pushing is squeezing the Oil and Gas layers, a disaster waiting to happen.

Exodus.

Exodus has been debated, but one argument against it was the story that Jews were working on a City of Rameses in the Nile Delta. No city was found...until recently. Archaeologists digging in the silt deposits of the Nile have found a large ruin of a city that was incomplete. It apparently had some identification as the City of Rameses. This make one important item of the Exodus story, verified. Egyptian records show a pharaoh Tutmoses? who reigned 90 years followed by his son (Pepi or some say Amenhotep) who had a short reign after which Egypt was in a state of disarray, without defences. Upper Egypt was in defiant rebellion.

All of this would be compatible with the loss of the Pharaoh and his army. I would like to see more divers looking for remnants of Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds (more likely a direct route from the city of Rameses site.)

The Book of Exodus describes Moses following a cloud and a column of fire (JHWH). In 1625 BC, the island of Santorini's volcano Thera erupted in a massive volcanic event. The area is the convergence point between 4 tectonic plates with subducting zones. One major fault line is the Dead Sea fault that may have done in Sodom and Gomorrah.

This huge eruption destroyed Santorini in the Aegean Sea, quakes extended for hundreds of miles and Ash was found as far away as North of the Black Sea. As many Americans on the west coast know this may cause tidal waves or Tsunamis. This could have manifested as a wave of water emptying the Sea of Reeds and lowering the Red Sea temporarily. Then the Tsunami would come with perhaps a wave 100 feet high. If the Hebrews were following the column of Fire from the volcano, then they crossed the Sea of Reeds to Sinai and higher ground, they reached safety. If Pharaoh’s army pursued them across the mud flats, possibly getting bogged down, they then saw a wall of water rushing fast over them.

I think that this possible scenario fits with the Bible description of Exodus as does the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by tectonic action and volcanism. The area is infamous for its volcanic catastrophes. One could propose that God managed it so that the Hebrews got across in the nick of time, but Pharaoh didn't.

Sodom and Gomorrah were cities lying right on the Jordan to Red Sea Tectonic fault. Most of it is a Transform fault (slip-slide) but it has also crushed together many times. It happens to sit under a vast reservoir of oil and natural gas. Thousands of years ago, it erupted into vast hot lava flows similar to the ones in Washington State and Siberia. Such a lava flow created the Golan Heights. When it had its last major eruption, it destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. There was fire and brimstone (burning sulphur), and ignited the oil and/or Methane gas caught fire. Fire would mean the Fire God, JHWH.

The pyroclastic flow covered people in casts of hot ash. This would fit with Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of stone. She likely looked like the victims of Mt. Vesuvius in Pompeii. It must have been an explosion of millions of tonnes of ash and burning gas, and hot magma (lava) welled up and out of the fault spreading perhaps for hundreds of miles. Like the Yellowstone Mega Volcano, the Jordan fault emptied much of its magma chamber and collapsed creating a deep, below sea level valley that soon filled with water.

Those who escaped or who lived nearby but safe would have remembered stories of the fire and brimstone. Again, JHWH is associated with Fire. As the story was retold, it became Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed by the Fire God JHWH for evil acts of the people.

This does have some reference to the Fire God of the ancients.

Amergin

 

[bob x]

Egyptian records show a pharaoh Tutmoses? who reigned 90 years followed by his son (Pepi or some say Amenhotep) who had a short reign after which Egypt was in a state of disarray, without defences.

Amergin, you are driving me nuts. Please understand that "ancient history" covers a very... very... long... stretch... of... time.... Your writings come across like "George Washington, to distract the people from the disastrous results of Hurricane Katrina, sent troops into Vietnam, to fight the conquistadores."

There were four Pharaohs named Thutmoses, and four named Amenhotep, along with several others with different names, during the 18th dynasty, called the "Great 18th" because it was a prolonged high-water mark of Egyptian power and prosperity, falling apart (of course) toward the end. There were six Pharaohs named Pepi, during the 6th dynasty, which was OVER A THOUSAND YEARS EARLIER. It was Pepi VI who reigned for 90 years or so, a record unlikely to be broken: he came to the throne as a child, so the first 30 years of his reign were a Regency, ruled by a council who were supposed to turn power over to him when he came of age, but refused to do so; then as some of the older Regents died, Pepi managed to assassinate the rest, and the next 30 years were an Absolute Monarchy, as he roamed the country micro-managing everything personally, and executing anybody who looked to be getting powerful enough to be a threat to him, eventually including all of his sons; then he started slipping into senility, so his last 30 years were an Anarchy, as everybody was still terrified of the old man and unwilling to try to run things, and unfortunately although his mind was gone, his body remained healthy as a horse and he survived until about the century mark. That was the end of the Old Kingdom, and there were centuries of confusion (the "First Intermediate Period") before the Middle Kingdom got established.

The time distance between those events and the Exodus is comparable to the time distance between the fall of the Roman empire and the American revolution.

As long as you accept that Saturn is the center of our solar system, this makes perfect sense.

Um, Saturn is the furthest from the center of any of the planets the ancients knew, and all the ancients agreed that it was on the outer edge. What are you trying to say here?

Perhaps it is helpful to consider that Yaho (rendered Iao in the Greek tradition, and referred to as such by Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria, et al, being a form of the Mystery Name) ... is not the same as Yah-Hovah, or Jehovah.

The Greeks were simply ignorant of Hebrew and unable to pronounce it correctly. The authors you are citing are a couple thousand years later than when YHWH became established as a sacred name.

 

[taijasi]

The Greeks were simply ignorant of Hebrew and unable to pronounce it correctly.

Such a casually dismissive wave of the hand, the old ostrich head in the sand syndrome, shows me that you have no idea what you're talking about. But, what can we expect.

 

[bob x]

Such a casually dismissive wave of the hand, the old ostrich head in the sand syndrome, shows me that you have no idea what you're talking about. But, what can we expect.

Ah, the old "Gnostic syndrome" of patting yourself on the back for your hidden wisdom that vulgar people don't share. Look, a priori I see no reason to give any more weight to the opinion of Alexandrian Greeks from c. 200 AD about the original pronunciation of a Hebrew name from c. 2000 BC than I would to, say, the opinions of American Internet fundies from c. 2000 AD about the original meaning of Aramaic prophecies from c. 200 BC. If you have any information to share about why Origen or Clement might have inherited some valid insights, then share it-- or don't, whatever.

 

[Sancho]

Brushing aside the question of how the name of the Abrahamic god is best transliterated, other questions I'd like to throw out there are, why was the choice made to use other titles? And, how does it change our understanding of God to read translations that refer to "the Lord" rather than Yahweh?

 

[taijasi]

Ah, the old "Gnostic syndrome" of patting yourself on the back for your hidden wisdom that vulgar people don't share. Look, a priori I see no reason to give any more weight to the opinion of Alexandrian Greeks from c. 200 AD about the original pronunciation of a Hebrew name from c. 2000 BC than I would to, say, the opinions of American Internet fundies from c. 2000 AD about the original meaning of Aramaic prophecies from c. 200 BC. If you have any information to share about why Origen or Clement might have inherited some valid insights, then share it-- or don't, whatever.

Look up Parampara, mull that over (as it applies to ALL traditions and Tradition, not just the Sanatana Dharma) ... remember that Plato was an Initiate as was Moses, different traditions but the same Wisdom ... then maybe we can get somewhere.

It's all good and well to speak of the Most High God, and toss around this word as if we really have a clue ... but what about the SEVEN on that ol' candelabra thingamajig? Who/what were They, and did they just evaporate once ol' Yahweh/Jehovah came along? No other gods, that sorta thing?

Hmmmm.

By the way, gnostics do try to be careful about I know this, I know that ... but if YOU know stuff too, then great! Let's see what we KNOW in common. Nothing wrong with belief, strong convictions or ideas we hold on the basis of x, y and z either ... even if the Buddha did say, hold no views.

Why might he have said that, anyway?

 

[bob x]

Look up Parampara, mull that over

No, that's not how it works. If you have anything interesting to say about "Parampara", say it, don't expect me to go googling to fill in the gaps in your presentation.

remember that Plato was an Initiate as was Moses

No, I don't "remember" any such thing. Show me what you are talking about. There is absolutely nothing in anything that Plato about "Iao" or any such "sacred name": it is not part of any "Greek tradition" until the Greeks of Alexandria encountered Jews and tried, without much background, to fit it in with their own conceptions.

Different traditions do NOT, in general, teach "the same" wisdom. What a Southern Baptist considers "wisdom", a Zen Buddhist might well perceive as the very epitome of ignorance, while what the Zen Buddhist considers "wisdom", a Wahhabi Muslim is likely to call "blasphemy". The Jews and Greeks famously did not see eye-to-eye on much of anything, and even went to war based on ideological differences, something we don't find much of in ancient times.

but what about the SEVEN on that ol' candelabra thingamajig? Who/what were They, and did they just evaporate once ol' Yahweh/Jehovah came along? No other gods, that sorta thing?

As I thought everyone was aware, the SEVEN refers to the days of the week. This number was originally used because it is the approximate number of days between quarter-phases of the moon. The Hebrew names for the days of the week translate: "first", "second", "third", "fourth", "fifth", "sixth", "seventh". The later innovation of associating them with "planets" was an idea that eventually reached Israel, and was rejected there, as not being in the least compatible with their ancient tradition.

By the way, gnostics do try to be careful about I know this, I know that ...

I have not found gnostics to be the least bit careful about that.

but if YOU know stuff too, then great! Let's see what we KNOW in common.

Listen, I've been studying these things for over forty years, probably longer than you've been alive, and I bet there are a lot of things I know that you just don't have a clue about. I am not trying to be arrogant, it's just a fact.

On the particular subject of what Alexandrian Greeks knew about Hebrew pronunciation: are you familiar with Origen's Hexapla? I am not going to make you google it (although you are welcome to if you want to check up on me); I am going to tell you what I know. One of his six columns (the others were alternative translations) was the Hebrew text transliterated into the Greek alphabet to indicate how it was pronounced: since we have no tape-recordings from the ancient world, this is wonderful, and we regret that we do not have it complete. But:

Hebrew went through a lot of known shifts in pronunciation, particularly after it ceased to be the vernacular and became confined to formal usage. For example, when the "Pentateuch" was produced (the Septuagint translation of the first five books), the letter 'ayin was evidently still pronounced as the glottal stop (a catch in the back of the throat) since names containing it, like "Gomorrah", get rendered with "G" to represent it; while other books of the Septuagint, translated in later centuries, indicate that 'ayin had become a silent letter (names containing it are rendered without anything to indicate the 'ayin was even there). At least, 'ayin was silent as Jews in Egypt now pronounced things (Babylonian Jews evidently never did silence 'ayin: Bananabrain, from a family of Iraqi Jews, says the cantors he knew still pronounce it, although Ashkenazis and most Sephardis don't).

From what we know about the pronunciation shifts, Origen's Hexapla is demonstrably giving us a late Hebrew. It is great that we get information about how the cantors in Alexandria c. 200 AD were pronouncing the Hebrew, but Origen did not know anything, anything at all, about how early Hebrew was pronounced.

 

[taijasi]

You are not interested in dialogue. Your ego prevents that. You are quite full of yourself and your own ideas about all this. I myself am interested in the truth. Now I could have been talking to a reflection, except for that last statement.

And that (pursuit of the Truth) is what I would prefer united us, rather than divided us.

Do I have it all figured out? Hell no I don't. But I'm not afraid to admit that. And I can explain to you why I believe what I believe, but friend, I will not bang my head against your wall ... and try and win your appeal. You are of the same ilk as Thomas, and when it comes to doubters I have enough challenge on my own.

I know what I know. And plenty else makes sense, even if I might not be so bold as to try and codify it ... yet, or at the moment. Maybe one day I'll have something to add along those lines.

Tell me, what do you remember from before those forty years of study? And before your birth?

I rest my case.

What do you KNOW of Teachers beyond the veil, walking in our midst, alive in Jesus' time, Moses' time, Mohammad's time, our time? I dare say you know nothing. If you knew much, you wouldn't contradict me, you'd either seek to weave it all together, or you'd enter into a reasonable dialogue.

You don't want that. Your ego wants what it wants. Take that, then. No one can deny you your glory. Rattle your sabre, for if you wonder if I have one, yes - and now you see it.

Enjoy the richness of your ... knowledge, your worship.

 

[iBrian]

Let's try not to make discussions personal, thanks.

 

[taijasi]

Let's try not to make discussions personal, thanks.

Fair enough. Thank You for the reminder ...

 

[bob x]

Taijasi, I am interested in truth as well, but I do not regard bald assertions as "truth". You say you "can" explain why you believe what you believe-- but, you don't do so, and don't really even make much trouble to explain what your beliefs even are. Apparently, before I could be seen as worthy to receive your explanations, I would have to already accept your beliefs.

From what I can gather, you have the "gnostic" attitude, used in the very general sense in which the Valentinians etc. of old are like such modern types as Madame Blavatsky, the Urantians, the Eckankar etc. That is, putting a high importance on making lists and heirarchies of invisible worlds and the higher spiritual beings that populate them, in charge of this, that, or the other of the multifarious aspects of life, the universe, and everything-- and thinking that it is of great spiritual value to know and memorize these lists of names and roles. My attitude toward all such exercises is: "Meh". If it does something for you, great; walk whatever path works for you. But it doesn't do anything for me, and I just get annoyed when I am told that I, too, should find these lists very interesting and important.

 

[taijasi]

Sancho, I can't answer your question with certainty, but I can say this: When we become hung up over one particular name for the Divine, I believe we create our own stumbling block(s).

For instance, if I say that the Shahadah has a significance for me, and that I find it an especially beautiful expression, some people may automatically assume that I am a Muslim. That, or they may (wrongly) assume I know a great deal about Islam, or that I resonate with those teachings more so than most others. Nothing could be farther from the truth, although I do feel that there is much beauty and much strength within the Muslim Faith, and in the teachings of Mohammed.

The expression lâ ilâha illallâh, the first part of the Shahadah, appeals to me in the same way as the ancient Sanskrit expression, TAT TVAM ASI, which means, `Thou Art THAT.' The Shahadah may be translated, `There is no God but Allah,' yet even a non-linguist can look at the words provided in the Shahadaha and realize that this is not an accurate translation.

The Shahadah may seem to NAME the one God and call this God `Allah.' Yet it is really saying There is but one God, or There is no god but God, or even There is nothing except God! Since Allah means `worthy of praise,' we are quite mistaken if we confuse such an appellation with the supposed personal name of a deity ... which has always seemed a ridiculous absurdity to me. I suppose I could sum this up by saying, Context is everything!

If a person dares to say, "Yes, and the NAME of this one God is Allah ... and we MUST refer to [this one God] in such manner, with such a name," then imho, s/he has missed the point utterly. I could not dialogue with such a person, just as I cannot dialogue with plenty of other folks, because there is no room there for considering other possibilities. Such obstinacy would tell me that trying to explore the matter would be fruitless.

The Shahadah does not say, The one God is NAMED x, or y, or z. It is, in one sense, a simple affirmation of monotheism. And I feel very sorry for the Muslim who cannot understand that, just as I feel a bit sorry for those who are not willing to consider that monotheism is not so opposed to other forms of theology, or theology to other philosophical notions of the Divine. But when we say, "my way or the highway," it does not matter how much education we have, how learned we may feel we are - by any means, or how special we are convinced our knowledge may be. I may as well subscribe to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if I wish to be that way, and refuse to consider another person's contribution ... until s/he has affirmed faith in the Monster, this being the one sure sign that such a person is sane and ready to speak my language.

I realize this thread is on YHVH, but I could say all the same things, just from a different context, a different background. When approaching the subject of the Tetragrammaton, we can very easily become lost in the exploration of a tradition whose history is every bit of 3,000 years ... and much, much longer I would suggest. Yet I think this goes in a different direction than you would prefer, Sancho.

Apologies for temporarily derailing this thread. The question about using other titles for speaking of the One God, such as "the Lord" ... and what the implications are of having done this (for it is now a fait accompli, and not just someone's idea, for better or worse) is worth exploring. Thank you for helping get things back on track, Sancho ... and Brian ... and if I have managed to contribute anything at this point that adds to the discussion, please feel free to ask me about it further.

 

[taijasi]

Taijasi, I am interested in truth as well, but I do not regard bald assertions as "truth". You say you "can" explain why you believe what you believe-- but, you don't do so, and don't really even make much trouble to explain what your beliefs even are. Apparently, before I could be seen as worthy to receive your explanations, I would have to already accept your beliefs.

From what I can gather, you have the "gnostic" attitude, used in the very general sense in which the Valentinians etc. of old are like such modern types as Madame Blavatsky, the Urantians, the Eckankar etc. That is, putting a high importance on making lists and heirarchies of invisible worlds and the higher spiritual beings that populate them, in charge of this, that, or the other of the multifarious aspects of life, the universe, and everything-- and thinking that it is of great spiritual value to know and memorize these lists of names and roles. My attitude toward all such exercises is: "Meh". If it does something for you, great; walk whatever path works for you. But it doesn't do anything for me, and I just get annoyed when I am told that I, too, should find these lists very interesting and important.

Basically, bob x, if it doesn't fit my experience, I am immediately in a different position than you are, and I regard what must then occur as bridging work. I see this as a 50/50 enterprise. Either we both cooperate (no matter what the context) and learn to speak enough of the same language as to get things across to each other, and to whomever else is part of the discussion, or we can just throw in the towel and give up. Because a half-hearted effort will not get us there.

There, in this context, refers to a mutual understanding of each other's points ... not necessarily full agreement upon, or acceptance of those points as a part of one's own Faith or conceptual framework.

For me to approach the subject on an even keel, and be serious about the discussion, I think it is as you say: I must be ready, willing and able to explain not just what I believe, but also why I believe it. For while I may have had all sorts of experiences which I would consider direct experiencing or Knowing ... this is not my natural mode of consciousness and being. If that were the case, would I not already have - and even BE - the kind of authority ... as we witness in Christ Jesus, or whichever other Teacher(s) we acknowledge as of the Divine?

That is a bit circular, but basically I am agreeing with you. I do have a tendency to toss something out, often without explanation, and then expect or hope the other person will just get it ... either intuitively (which is not always the case), or by doing research on his/her own. Perhaps that's asking too much, since after all, we're on a discussion forum, wherein a conversation is always unfolding, albeit in slow motion.

So, I'm happy to say a bit more about what I believe, and just as importantly, WHY I believe such, although I do hope it won't bother you that I consider the bulk of such experience as has led me to consider things the way I do ... as coming prior to my 38 years in this incarnation. You see, I don't care that you may not believe in rebirth; it doesn't matter, since I remember things from prior lives. My challenge, as always, remains how to express my beliefs, regardless of how I've come by them, in terms that make sense to others ... and preferably without asking that you necessarily accept things - like rebirth, or the tenets of Islam, or the creeds of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

This is the approach I took in my post that mentions the Shahadah. And while the subject is a parallel to the discussion on YHVH, at best, I made the contribution with the hope that others might grasp one simple point: That language, and perhaps terminology, especially the naming of the Divine, easily becomes a stumbling block to our understanding, rather than a point of connection or increased awareness.

And I could be mistaken, but if so, I think I have said enough that there is at least some burden on anyone who wishes to dispute that point ... at this point. At any rate, I do sometimes have knee-jerk types of reactions, though I try to avoid that when posting, and especially when responding to a post that I may disagree with. Alas, I do not always make the right choices, even if - over the years - I have probably posted less (fewer) than half of the rather lengthy compositions which I have prepared ... for CR/Interfaith.org.

One word about the importance of lists. It is true, sometimes a particular form of learning is not suited for all involved. In such cases, a good teacher tries to find ways for all students to understand what s/he is teaching. Well, I am no teacher. But I do believe, as a student, that if I am being asked to consider something like the classification of species according to the scientific rubric of our day, I should not dispute the arrange of Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, etc. ... just because I don't like tables or lists. I may wish to ask WHY this nomenclature is used, why the order is as it is, and I may want to explore this in depth, if it appeals.

But, just as I asked Thomas on another thread, if we can manage not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as well as keep a reasonable degree of Respect for all forum contributors (a lesson we must all remind ourselves, from time to time ... as none of us are perfect) ... I'm sure we can make progress, and learn all sorts of things along the way. Agreed?

Also ...

thinking that it is of great spiritual value to know and memorize these lists of names and roles

No, I think such memorization alone is about as useful as memorizing bumps on the ceiling. It's as you say, IF it helps us - and especially helps us in walking the path we are meant to walk - then fine. Then it can become useful. But I could spit that stuff out all day, or till the cows come home, and if it's not a part of my spiritual practice, and in a way that goes to help me and others along life's path ... it really doesn't serve a useful purpose. And this is why such studies will not appeal to plenty of folks at all, or in the current phase of their spiritual growth.

I definitely agree with you upon this point!

 

[Sancho]

Thanks for getting us back on track. Tajasi, I agree with your point about the danger of getting hung up on one name for the divine. Over the years I've tryed to change up the name that stands for whose will I pray be done. For the past couple years I've been interested in trying to understand the god who spoke through the prophets. Many passages in the prophets become more approachable, personal, when the name Yahweh is substituted for 'the Lord'. At least with the KJV. It occurs to me that I should probably take a look at translations that attempt overcome the sorts of stumbling blocks I speak of. The King James Version has both the virtue and the vice of being the translation most deeply imprinted on the psyche of the English speaking world.

But I'm not so much interested in the name itself as in getting to know this god who Hosea, Jeremiah, and Isaiah knew.

 

[taijasi]

Apparently, before I could be seen as worthy to receive your explanations, I would have to already accept your beliefs.

Not at all. But you could try, "Would you please explain x?" or "What did you mean by y?" ... or if we must be terse, "What are you trying to say by z?"

I may come across like a know-it-all, yet it's a tough task to simply snap one's fingers and automatically find the right fit for what one has to share. Probably on this thread, I should have held my tongue from the outset. However, by way of explanation:

My belief is that the elohim whom and which were responsible for the original appearance of Humanity upon our planet ... are of different orders than those who brought about our physical existence - which did not occur for many millions of years AFTER the original Adam, or first types of Humanity. This is supported by the Bible - Hebrew Scriptures, anyway - and it is Kabbalistic. Yet I have found that it is taught by plenty of the world's Faiths, in one form or another.

The elohim Whom and which were at work 18 million years ago may continue to have certain roles and responsibilities relative to Humanity. For example, if we are kind stewards of our animal companions, practicing right animal husbandry, then we may have a wonderful, uplifting influence upon that Kingdom, and this is very much like the relationship of this particular order of elohim to us. Not that we are pets, because this is getting the parallel backwards. The original relationship would be this order of Elohim relative to us, and only then (potentially) mirrored down in the relationship of Humanity to the dometicated animals.

But these different orders of elohim are not the same as the highest orders, which include the Planetaries, or Seven Spirits before the Throne. The days of the week very much do reflect a Heavenly Order, so that we may have a practical, observable understanding thereof. And the ancient Greeks knew this, the ancient Egyptians, the Hebrews and Chaldeans, the Hindus, the Zoroastrians, etc. They may have been called Amshaspends, Prajapatis, Elohim, and so on. But as one great Teacher has said, What's in a name?

Sancho, you asked the same question I believe, nuanced for a discussion relative to the Tetragrammaton, but not with the intent of heading for Gemmatria and such.

The days of the week, if one is familiar with Romance languages, have an interesting correspondence with the heavenly bodies (Elohim), for whom and which they are named. Monday, for instance, is lunes in Spanish, or lundi in French. This refers to and corresponds with the moon, even if that heavenly body may actually be symbolic of, or `veil' yet another (Vulcan or in this case Uranus).

Tuesday, or martes/mardi, refers to Mars.
Wednesday, or miercoles/mercredi, refers to Mercury.
Thursday, or jueves/jeudi, refers to Jupiter.
Friday, or viernes/vendredi, refers to Venus.
Saturday, the Sabbath in Judaism, and most relevant to this discussion ... is sabado/samedi, and this corresponds with Saturn.
Sunday, or domingo/dimanche, refers to the `Sun's day,' and thus definitely corresponds to a celestial orb.

There are correspondences with the Elohim numerologically speaking, and I cannot provide the complete background for such a numbering scheme ... one, because I am not fully qualified, and two, because I believe that would be a tangent to a discussion of the naming of the Divine, and the adjustment from elohim/Adonai/YHVH to "the Lord."

However, there are the following correspondences which are of note:

Monday - Moon/Vulcan or Uranus - Elohim #7
Tuesday - Mars - Elohim #6
Wednesday - Mercury - Elohim #4
Thursday - Jupiter - Elohim #2
Friday - Venus - Elohim #5
Saturday - Saturn - Elohim #3
Sunday - Sun or Vulcan - Elohim #1

Once again, I realize this all seems somewhat esoteric ... but I would also point out that the Book of Revelation, a piece of Scripture in the Christian New Testament, has direct reference to the Seven Angels before the Throne of God. Further, the Catholics have their Seven Archangels, their Seven Deadly Sins and corresonding Seven Cardinal Virtues.

EVERY tradition speaks of a Sacred Seven, and the fact that these are also mapped to the days of the week, each week forming one half of the moon's current period of 14 days of waxing and 14 days of waning, is no mere coincidence.

Other discussions would bring to light that the ancients did not know of so many as Seven sacred orbs within our own system, either 2000 or 3000 years ago ... while a case can be made that they knew of as many as 10 or 12 such bodies many tens of thousands of years prior. Science, as yet, does not know of invisible planets, for even while the astronomer Herschel PHYSICALLY SAW, as in OBSERVED the planet Vulcan, on more than one occasion ... scientists today have done their best to DISCOUNT his observations.

Why? Why such a rigorous effort, especially since NUMEROUS additional astronomers have seen Vulcan on their own, following upon Herschel? That planet may no longer be visible by ordinary means, yet careful calculations would - and one day SHALL PROVE - its existence, even if we cannot SEE that orb through a telescope at present, in the range of VISIBLE light bandwidths. We will know it is there by its perturbations of other planets' orbits, most notably Mercury's.

You see, bob x, I cannot pull Vulcan out of my pocket and shake it around in front of your eyes, thus PROVING for you - or anyone else - that it exists. If that is what you wish, you will find my contributions useless. Yet I can quote for you the astronomers who HAVE SEEN IT DIRECTLY ... and - if I am not mistaken, you will happily dismiss that as insubstantial, irrelevant, etc. N'est pas?

Nor can I prove that the ancients knew of Saturn, and that they understood this, as other orbs, to correspond with the Sacred Seven Elohim (and the highest order of such) ... because I cannot pop in the VHS tape and say, look, see how they're discussing this subject and making the same parallels that I have tried to make!

What I can do, is tell you that I have spent plenty enough time - not your 40 years - but perhaps 20, studying precisely this sort of thing. And thus, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt what I'm talking about ... if not in the every particular, then certainly in the broad outline or brushstrokes.

Shall I assert it dogmatically? PAH! Why should I? I become a fool. It is not dogma, it is an arguable case, and I've presented for you PLENTY to see some of the connections. There was a correspondence, I say, betwen the Elohim associated with (expressing through and `upon') Saturn ... and the `God of the Jews,' yet what is the significance of this, if we feel compelled to dismiss the statement out of hand?

Entire BOOKS have been written to demonstrate these connections, and many chapters spent on explaining just how and why these correspondences, and this one in particular, came about ... and what is their significance for Judaism, for Christianity, and for religion today & into the future, as a whole.

Not that I am not interested in exploring the topic further, but why should I simply quote ad infinitum when it is not a point that I dispute? I feel that if I present a statement or two, maybe a set of correspondences, and say something about why this makes sense, and even show you that the very LANGUAGES people speak reflect this truth ... then the LEAST you should be willing to do is explore a little on your own. I don't think that's asking too much, at all!

By the way, MONDAY=Moonday, and TUESDAYis from the Old English and Proto-Germanic for `Tiw's Day,' referring to Tyr, the Norse God of War(umm, MARS). WEDNESDAY, if you research this, has the same connections with the Norse mythology as Tuesday, and thus corresponds, in its English derivation, with Mercury. Thursday refers to Thor's Day in the Norse mythology, yet in Sanskrit the correspondence is just as in the Romance languages; it refers to Brihaspati, the Prajapati associated with Jupiter.

FRIDAY is the day of Frigg, or Freyja, but again in Sanskrit we can see a direct reference, as in the Romance languages, to the planet Venus. SATURNDAY, I mean umm, SATURDAY, has such a direct linguistic correspondence with SATURN in the English that I think the point could be missed only by the most obtuse ... while SUNDAY is not simply the `Sun's Day' in Romance languages, it is, once again, a reference to Surya, the Sun God, in the Indic languages.

But, I will be the first to agree. When we try to begin our foundation here upon the EARTH, building our tower to the Heavens, and seeking to make everything fit into OUR framework, and OUR standards of what is high, holy and important ... the tower crumbles every so often, and reduces our best efforts to - rubble. Our divisions, our failure to recognize these connections between our languages, our mythologies, our cultures, our world's faiths and religious traditions, as well as between ALL PEOPLES, everywhen and everywhere, guarantees that this Tower of Babel will be a doomed effort, every time we begin it on improper footing.

I believe that there is One God, whether we say No God but God, or `Thou Art That' (`I am That I Am,' better rendered, `I AM BECOMING').

But if you ask me to defend that, I will politely decline. Some articles of FAITH, as Gnosis, do not lend themselves to be picked apart, put on display, bandied about, or otherwise justified in the eyes of men.

This is not a statement of pride, or intended to sound haughty. It is an acknowledgment that if there IS such (a/the) `G*d,' that Being does not need our justiifcation ... or argument, in order to exist. For such a Divinity to be expressed, on the other hand, in our hearts, in our minds, through the work of our hands and feet .... THIS is something we are proving - or not proving - every minute, of every hour, of every day.

I'd rather help, than hinder.