We are living in a world of illusion

[Marks]

Perception is everything.

Acts 10:11-15

Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance
and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth.
In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air.

And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”

And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.

 

[Koichos]

So it begs to reason, what kind of beginning is "the beginning"

My post #226 would seem to touch upon your question.

and what separates "the" from "a"

A definite article from an indefinite article.

explain the meaning of Seths firstborn "Enos"

Enos (biblical figure) - Wikipedia


Seth - Wikipedia

First of all, let's get one thing clear: there are two forms of the Hebrew consonant ש: if it is marked with a superior point on the right head, as שׁ, it is called shin and has the value of 'sh'; but if it is marked with a superior point on the left head, as שׂ, it is called sin and has the value of 's'. The substantive names are spelled אֱנוֹשׁ and שֵׁת so that the first letter is שׁ shin and not שׂ sin as you wrote numerous times—evidently after the Greek, because the sigma (Σ,σ or ς in its terminal form) replaces the Hebrew ש shin (as Greek lacks the consonant 'sh'). Now, אֱנוֹשׁ (not אֱנוֹשׂ) signifies mortality; he is the son of שֵׁת (not שֵׂת) and grandson of אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן (not אָדָם הָרִאשׂוֹן), and was born 235 years after the latter (see B'reshıth 5:3 & 5:6).

In the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus refers to Seth as virtuous and of excellent character,[8] and reports that his descendants invented the wisdom of the heavenly bodies, and built the "pillars of the sons of Seth", two pillars inscribed with many scientific discoveries and inventions, notably in astronomy. They were built by Seth's descendants based on Adam's prediction that the world would be destroyed at one time by fire and another time by global flood, in order to protect the discoveries and be remembered after the destruction. One was composed of brick, and the other of stone, so that if the pillar of brick should be destroyed, the pillar of stone would remain, both reporting the ancient discoveries, and informing men that a pillar of brick was also erected. Josephus reports that the pillar of stone remained in the land of Siriad in his day.

Nothing Yosef ban Mattith'yohu ever wrote should be relied upon without external corroboration.

 

[Koichos]

from my perspective, there is no such thing as "the intellect" nor is their true "memory",

'How very most unusual!' (to borrow Horace Rumpole's words).

only what we ask of God in the very moment.

Yes, there is a time and a place for prayer but 'God helps him who helps himself'—mind you, God help him who is caught helping himself!

 

[Koichos]

@Koichos @Marks

Spoiler

The Little Known Biblical Curse of Egypt by Isaiah

Hail to you rising cobras



Hypatius



Is it real history, or a veiled story of war between christian believers was Justinian responsible for Revelation?
Monophysitism - Wikipedia

Author aside, that heap of ḥoroʾ is nothing more than a copy of parts of Doniyyeʾl—and not even a very good copy, either.

 

[Koichos]

Jews would say they know God as “Yaweh”

No, we would not—not least of all because the Explicit Name does not have any vowels, and as such it is unpronounceable. It does appear with vowels in printed editions of the Tanach (original Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Bible), though (although never in handwritten scrolls, which in any case contain no vowel markings or full stops), and appears as either יְ־הֹ־וָ־ה or as יֱ־הֹ־וִ־ה. These two sets of vowel-points are actually the vowels of the two words אֲדֹנָי and אֱלֹהִים, respectively, and indicate which of the two words a particular instance of the Explicit Name represents; thus, the Explicit Name is vocalized as אֲדֹנָי except when the two are found in succession. Put another way, the Explicit Name occurs in the Tanach just over 6,800 times and the overwhelming majority of these are read as אֲדֹנָי (in which case it is written as יְ־הֹ־וָ־ה). However, in approximately 300 instances where אֲדֹנָי is followed by the Explicit Name, the latter is marked with the vowels of the word אֱלֹהִים (and written as יֱ־הֹ־וִ־ה) so as not to repeat אֲדֹנָי where it is not written that way in the text (see the ii anomalies below). יֱ־הֹ־וִ־ה is only ever found in combination with אֲדֹנָי so that one knows the two words are to be read as אֲדֹנָי אֱלֹהִים.

The shem ham'forosh (or 'Explicit Name', that is to say, the Tetragrammaton) seems to be a combination of three verbs: the perfect, participle, and imperfect conjugations הָיָה hoyoh ('was'), הֹוֶה howah ('is'), and יִהְיֶה yih'yah ('will be'), but this is just conjecture; not least of all because, as it has no vowels, it would be impossible to determine what part of the verb it is even if it WERE part of the root verb 'to be' (how do you know it ought to be read in פִּעֵל piʿel and not, say, פֻּעַל puʿal?). We can see from B'reshıth 15:2, 15:8, 18:27 and 18:31 that, even at that early point of history, ʾAvrohom ʾOvinu was already addressing Hashem as 'אֲדֹנָי'. Moreover, it should be noted that the word לעולם ('forever') in Sh'moth 3:15 is unusually written לעלם instead of the standard spelling לעולם, so that it can also be read as לְעַלֵּם ('to conceal')—which would make the verse effectively say 'This is My Name which is to be concealed'. Indeed, the Oral Sources report that when the Chief Kohen uttered the shem ham'forosh (the 'Explicit Name') as part of the Confessional Service on Yom Kippur known as the Widduy, he used to muffle his voice so that the congregation should not be able to hear how the Name was pronounced.

In short, the shem ham'forosh is unpronounceable today because nobody now knows how it was ever pronounced—if, indeed, it ever was (with the single exception of the Head Kohen, of course, and even he could only utter the Name during the confessions made on Yom Kippur); but for the purpose of the Biblical prohibition, knowledge (and use) of the 'correct' vowels is irrelevant: in fact, hachomeinu zich'ronom liv'rochoh cite one opinion that אַף הָהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיוֹתָיו 'also one who pronounces the Name by its letters' forfeits his share of ʿolom habboʾ and one does not need to know the correct vowels to do this. So, the group of letters yud, heʾ, wow, heʾ is always read aloud as אֲדֹנָי or אֱלֹהִים, or a combination thereof:

יְ־הֹ־וָ־ה is read as אֲדֹנָי;
אֲדֹנָי יֱ־הֹ־וִ־ה is read as אֲדֹנָי אֱלֹהִים;
and, anomalously, יְ־הֹ־וָ־ה יְ־הֹ־וָ־ה (*two instances in all of Tanach) is read as אֲדֹנָי אֲדֹנָי.​

or El shaddai

Actually, there are a total of nine Holy Titles that appear in the Tanach 'which may not be erased', and another eleven 'which may be erased'; these are all listed in our Oral Sources. As for the names 'that must not be erased' and those that 'may be erased', the former are so sacred that they may not be rubbed away (i.e., scratched out, erased) once they have been written, whereas the latter are applied not only to Hashem but also to people, which this prohibition does not apply to. The prohibition against erasing these Holy Titles is derived from D'vorim 12:2-4 where we (not you) are commanded to completely eradicate from E"Y all the locations עַל־הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים... וְתַחַת כָּל־עֵץ רַעֲנָן 'on the mountain tops and under every green tree' (v. 2) where the former inhabitants used to perform their idolatrous worships, and we must וְנִתַּצְתֶּם אֶת־מִזְבְּחֹתָם וְשִׁבַּרְתֶּם אֶת־מַצֵּבֹתָם וַאֲשֵׁרֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ וּפְסִילֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם תְּגַדֵּעוּן וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת־שְׁמָם מִן־הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא 'totally obliterate their altars, monuments, ʾasheroh-trees [which were used for idolatrous worship] and the images of their deities, wiping out the memory of them' (v. 3); verse 4, however, specifically states that we לֹא־תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם 'must not do the same to Hashem, our ʾAlohim'.

Those that fall within the former class [that specifically and only refer to Hashem] may not be erased after having been written down, because this comes under the prohibition 'You must not do this in the case of Hashem, your ʾAlohim' (v. 4), whereas those in the latter class [that frequently do refer to Him, but can also be applied in a more general sense] are not included and, if written down, may be erased just as any other writing may be. It is, in any case, permitted to erase even the nine Holy Titles if they are 'written' in sand because that medium is by its nature impermanent, and 'writing' in pixels on a monitor screen is similarly impermanent—halochoh (Jewish Law) on this point has been decided and is very clear.

:אֵלּוּ הֵן שֵׁמוֹת שֶׁאֵין נִמְחָקִין, כְּגוֹן: אֵל, אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֱלֹהִים, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, אַלֶ״ף־דַּלֶ״ת, וְיוּ״ד־הֵ״י, שַׁדַּי, צְבָאוֹת—הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֵין נִמְחָקִין. אֲבָל הַגָּדוֹל, הַגִּבּוֹר, הַנּוֹרָא, הָאֲדִּיר, וְהֶחָזָק, וְהָאֲמִּיץ, הָעִזּוּז, חֲנּוּן, וְרַחוּם, אֶרֶךְ־אַפַּיִם, וְרַב־חֶסֶד—הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִמְחָקִין​

These are the [Divine] Titles that may not be rubbed away:
(i) אֵל ʾEl ('God')
(ii) אֱלֹהֶיךָ ʾAlohacho ('your [sg.] God')
(iii) אֱלֹהִים ʾAlohim ('God')
(iv) אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ʾAloheicham ('your [pl.] God')
(v) אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה ʾAh'yah ʾashar ʾAh'yah ('I will be as I will be')
(vi) אַלֶ״ף־דַּלֶ״ת ʾAlaf-Dalat (i.e., אֲדֹנָי ʾAdonoi 'my Lord')
(vii) יוּ״ד־הֵ״י Yud-Hei (i.e., the Explicit Name)
(viii) שַׁדַּי Shaddai ('Almighty')
(ix) צְבָאוֹת Ss'voʾoth ('Armies', usually preceded by אֲדֹנָי ʾAdonoi or אֱלֹהֵי ʾAlohei or another similar title)
—none of these may be rubbed away. But, (i) הַגָּדוֹל Haggodol 'the Great', (ii) הַגִּבּוֹר Haggibbor 'the Mighty', (iii) הַנּוֹרָא Hannoroʾ 'the Awesome', (iv) הָאֲדִּיר Hoʾaddir 'the Majestic', and (v) הֶחָזָק Hahozoq 'the Strong', and (vi) הָאֲמִּיץ Hoʾammiss 'the Powerful', (vii) הָעִזּוּז Hoʿizzuz 'the Potent', (viii) חֲנּוּן Hannun 'Gracious', and (ix) רַחוּם Rahum 'Merciful', (x) אֶרֶךְ־אַפַּיִם ʾArach-ʾappayim 'Long-suffering', and (xi) רַב־חֶסֶד Rav-hasad ('abounding [in] kindness')—all of these may be rubbed away. [הֲוָיוֹת דְּאַבַּיֵּי וְרָבָא, מס׳ שְׁבוּעוֹת דַּף ל״ה עַמּוּד א׳]

Note that the former (ii) אֱלֹהֶיךָ and (iv) אֱלֹהֵיכֶם both mean 'your God', and the only difference between them is that the first inflection is used when addressing an individual while the second is for speaking to a group of many people all at the same time—that is to say, it is the pronoun 'your' that is either singular (־הֶיךָ) or plural (־הֵיכֶם), while the noun 'God' is singular in either case.

In addition to these, there is the כוז״ו (formed by taking the next letter in the Hebrew alphabet to each of the letters of 'ʾadonoi ʾalloheinu ʾadonoi' (D'vorim 6:4))—the sofer writes this on the reverse of our m'zuzoth opposite the words 'ʾadonoi ʾalloheinu ʾadonoi'—and also three other mystical 'names' in Hebrew esoteric tradition: the שם בן־כ״ב אותיות, i.e., the '22-lettered name' that is associated with the public blessing administered by the kohanim (which is printed in some very old mah'zorim (holiday prayerbooks)), the שם בן־מ״ב אותיות, i.e., the '42-lettered name' that is associated with Creation (a poem attributed to the second generation Tannoʾ ר׳ נְחוּנְיָה בֶּן־הַקָּנָה consisting of seven lines of six words each is an acrostic of the letters of the '42-lettered name' which is printed in some siddurim (daily prayerbooks) before the Friday night poem l'cho dodi (sung in all Jewish prayer halls every Friday immediately before Evening Prayer)), and the 'name of 72 triples' (derived from Sh'moth 14:19-21) whose composition is described by our commentator Rash"i in his note on the phrase 'ʾani woho' (recited during Hoshaʿnoth on Sukkoth) on folio mem-heʾ, column ʾalaf of Treatise Sukkoh. The four mystical names that I mentioned above are not for general use. I only mentioned them at all to show that there is nothing secret about them and what they are is freely available; but this does not mean anyone should actually use them: they should not.

Finally, the word הַשֵּׁם hashem is not a title at all: it literally means 'the name' and it is what is called a kinnuy (substitute word) because rather than saying or writing אֲדֹנָי ʾAdonoi when this is not necessary in common use, we use the substitute word in place of it. However, the substitute word 'hashem' is never used in any actual prayer. Incidentally—the word 'ʾAdonoi' is in a sense itself also a substitute, because it stands in place of the Explicit Name (the Four-Lettered Divine Title) which has never been pronounced the way it is written (it can be seen from B'reshıth 15:2, 15:8, 18:3, 18:27, 18:31 that even ʾAvrohom ʾOvinu substituted 'ʾAdonai' for it and ʾAvimallach, the king of G'ror, did likewise in 20:4). Still, even the word אֲדֹנָי is treated with great respect, because the Four-Lettered Divine Title is usually vocalized (i.e., read out aloud) as אֲדֹנָי, so we do not utter even this word unnecessarily—instead, we SAY the word הַשֵּׁם hashem, meaning 'The Name', in its place and, in writing, we use the letter ה heʾ followed by an apostrophe or geresh (ה׳, the apostrophe indicating that the ה heʾ is an abbreviation, in this case an abbreviation of the word הַשֵּׁם hashem, itself a substitute for the Explicit Name).

and Hebrew language used for Israelites

Aramaic, too, which occurs in all three divisions of our Holy Scriptures: יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא in B'reshιth 31:47 (i. Torah); the entire verse in Yir'm'yohu 10:11 (ii. N'viʾim); the section extending from the words מַלְכָּא לְעָלְמִין חֱיִי in the middle of verse 4 of Doniyyeʾl's second chapter to the end of his seventh chapter, and a few isolated passages in ʿAzroʾ-N'hamyoh (iii. K'thuvim). In fact, the use of Aramaic roots in poetic texts composed otherwise in Hebrew is found all the way through the text,

וַיֹּאמַר
ה׳ מִסִּינַי בָּא
וְזָרַח מִשֵּׂעִיר לָמוֹ
הוֹפִיעַ מֵהַר פָּארָן
וְאָתָה מֵרִבְבֹת קֹדֶשׁ
מִימִינוֹ אֵשׁ דָּת לָמוֹ׃​

Then he [i.e., Moshah] said:
'Hashem—from Sinai did He come,
and shone out for them [Yisroʾel] over Seʿir:
He blazed forth from Mount Poʾron
and appeared with [some] of the myriads of holiness;
from His right hand, a fiery law for them.' (D'vorim 33:2)

In this particular stanza, the Hebrew verb בָּא and the Aramaic verb אָתָה both mean 'he came'. The Torah, however, substitutes the Aramaic form for the second instance to avoid repeating the same word, which always looks clumsy in poetry.

 

[MMS]

My post #226 would seem to touch upon your question.


A definite article from an indefinite article.


First of all, let's get one thing clear: there are two forms of the Hebrew consonant ש: if it is marked with a superior point on the right head, as שׁ, it is called shin and has the value of 'sh'; but if it is marked with a superior point on the left head, as שׂ, it is called sin and has the value of 's'. The substantive names are spelled אֱנוֹשׁ and שֵׁת so that the first letter is שׁ shin and not שׂ sin as you wrote numerous times—evidently after the Greek, because the sigma (Σ,σ or ς in its terminal form) replaces the Hebrew ש shin (as Greek lacks the consonant 'sh'). Now, אֱנוֹשׁ (not אֱנוֹשׂ) signifies mortality; he is the son of שֵׁת (not שֵׂת) and grandson of אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן (not אָדָם הָרִאשׂוֹן), and was born 235 years after the latter (see B'reshıth 5:3 & 5:6).


Nothing Yosef ban Mattith'yohu ever wrote should be relied upon without external corroboration.

Enos or Enosh translates to "Mortal Man" correct? This would throw the understandings of Cain (Spear) and Abel (Breath) in a different light from a conventional reading of it

the reason I ask this is that Seth according to the link I posted had "32 sons and 23 daughters" which I read as potentially symbolic as well as literal

Typically, the indefinite article is used to introduce new concepts into a discourse.

Atypically, the indefinite article is used to introduce new concepts into the discourse.

what about atypical situations?

We are living in a world of illusion

Spoiler

Serug - Wikipedia

Further details are provided in the Book of Jubilees, which gives the names of his mother, Ora (11:1), and wife, Milcah (11:6). It also states that his original name was Seroh, but that it was changed to Serug in the time when Noah's children began to fight wars, and the city of Ur Kesdim was built, where Serug lived. It says this Serug was the first of the patriarchal line to abandon monotheism and turn to idol worship, teaching sorcery to his son Nahor.

Nahor wouldnt have anything to do with Nahar would he?

Tehom - Wikipedia

According to both traditions before the creation all was water. The deep is personified as a terrible monster, which in the Babylonian version bears the name of "Tihamat," corresponding to the Hebrew "Tehom," used as the technical expression for the primæval ocean. The Hebrew word is employed without the article, like a proper name, thus indicating that in Israelite tradition also it stood originally for some mythological being.

Lycian Turkey - Legendary Heroes of Lycia
Another version of the Bellerophon myth has a happier ending. In this myth, King Iobates does not reward Bellerophon upon his killing the Chimera, nor for several other incredible and brave deeds. In anger, Bellerophon begs Poseidon to flood the plains of Xanthos, which he did. When Bellerophon approaches the city in advance of the waves, and the citizens recognize their impending doom, the women of Xanthos run towards Bellerophon offering him their bodies in exchange for mercy. King Iobates sees Bellerophon's startled reaction as he backs away and comes to realize that his son-in-law's accusations are not true. When he learns the truth from Bellerophon, he begs Bellerophon's forgiveness and mercy and marries him to his second daughter, and Bellerophon and his Lycian wife then rule over Lycia together. King Iobates praised the action of the women of Xanthos and decreed that henceforth the citizens of Xanthos would bear the name of their mother and not that of their father - an indication of the special position that was generally held by the women of Lycia.

"a happier ending?"

 

[Koichos]

I Am that I Am - Wikipedia

Wrong: the Tanach has no word for 'am' because the verb be in the present tense is not attested to in Hebrew OR Aramaic. There are just two tenses: perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incomplete action), whereby perfect and imperfect express not point-in-time but rather the state of an action: complete or incomplete. Grammatically, אֶהְיֶה is the first-person singular, imperfect aspect of the verbal root היה ('to be') and translates as 'I shall be'. In Hebrew the roots היה and הוה are used interchangeably: thus, for example, the perfect (past) and imperfect (future) aspects are conjugated הָיִיתִי ('I was'), הָיִיתָ/הָיִית ('you [m./f.] were'), הָיָה/הָיְתָה ('he/she was') and אֶהְיֶה ('I shall be'), תִּהְיֶה/תִּהְיִי ('you [m./f.] will be'), יִהְיֶה/תִּהְיֶה ('he/she will be') respectively; however the imperative is הֱוֵה ('be!') as in B'reshıth 27:29 (or הֱוֵא [same] 'be!' as in ʾIyyov 37:6), and the essentially unused present participle is הֹוֶה/הֹוָה ('being') as in Qohalath 2:22, N'hamyoh 6:6/Y'hazqeʾl 7:26, et cetera.

'I Am that I Am' is an incredibly ignorant mistranslation of the enigmatic term אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה that occurs in Sh'moth 3:14 (did you notice that this is the value of the mathematically enigmatic number π?), which is just an attestation of אֶהְיֶה that is found in verse 12 where Hashem tells a hesitant Moshah: כִּי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ 'But I will be with you'. This word occurs once in Sh'moth 3:12 and three times in 3:14 simply as a statement that 'I will be [with them when they have need of Me]'; it is also found in a total of thiry-nine other places in the Tanach. It is interesting to note that Moshah never actually asks Him: ?מַה שִׁמְךָ 'What is your Name'?; and, correspondingly, He never tells Moshah: שְׁמִי 'My Name [is]'. Moshah merely asks what he is to say if he is asked what His 'Name' is, and the reply is simply: '[Tell the Yisrʾelim it is I, the One who says] I will be [with them when they need Me now, just] as I will be [with them whenever they have need of Me in the future]'.

"?יא וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הָאֱלֹקִים, "מִי אָנֹכִי, כִּי אֵלֵךְ אֶל־פַּרְעֹה, וְכִי אוֹצִיא אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם
":יב וַיֹּאמֶר, "כִּי־אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ; וְזֶה־לְּךָ הָאוֹת כִּי אָנֹכִי שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ. בְּהוֹצִיאֲךָ אֶת־הָעָם מִמִּצְרַיִם, תַּעַבְדוּן אֶת־הָאֱלֹקִים עַל הָהָר הַזֶּה
"?יג וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הָאֱלֹקִים, "הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָא אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתִּי לָהֶם, 'אֱלֹקֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם' וְאָמְרוּ־לִי 'מַה־שְּׁמוֹ'—מָה אֹמַר אֲלֵהֶם
":'יד וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה, "אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה"; וַיֹּאמֶר, "כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, 'אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם
":טו וַיֹּאמֶר עוֹד אֱלֹקִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה, "כֹּה־תֹאמַר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, 'ה׳ אֱלֹקֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם—אֱלֹקֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹקֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹקֵי יַעֲקֹב—שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם'; זֶה־שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם, וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹּר​

11 But Moshah said to the ʾAlohim: "Who am I to approach Parʿoh, and to take the b'nei Yisroʾel out of Missroyim?"
12 He answered: 'For I will be with you; this is your sign that it was I who sent you. When you have taken the people out of Missrayim you are to worship the ʾAlohim at this mountain."
13 Moshah said to the ʾAlohim: "See, [when] I come to the b'nei Yisroʾel and I tell them, 'Your ancestors' ʾAlohim has sent me to you'—if they ask me 'What is His Name', how should I answer them?"
14 So ʾAlohim said to Moshah: "[Tell them it is I, the One who says] I will be [with them when they need Me now, just] as I will be [with them whenever they have need of Me in the future]"; and then He said: "Tell the b'nei Yisroʾel, '[the One who says] I will be [with them when they need Me now] has sent me to you'."
15 ʾAlohim said further to Moshah: "You are to tell the b'nei Yisroʾel this: 'YUD, HEʾ, WOW, HEʾ, your ancestors' ʾAlohim—ʾAvrohom's ʾAlohim, Yisshoq's ʾAlohim, and Yaʿaqov's ʾAlohim—has sent me to you'; this is My fame forever [as the One whom ʾAvrohom, Yisshoq, and Yaʿaqov worshiped] and this is My recognition [how I will be remembered] in every generation." (Sh'moth 3:12-15)

I am (heh!) aware of only two instances in all of Tanach where Hashem says '...שְׁמִי' ('My Name [is]...') or 'שְׁמִי...' ('...[is] My Name') and, in both cases, the Four-Lettered Divine Title is used: Yir'm'yohu 16:21 and Y'shaʿyohu 42:8, respectively.

 

[MMS]

'How very most unusual!' (to borrow Horace Rumpole's words).


Yes, there is a time and a place for prayer but 'God helps him who helps himself'—mind you, God help him who is caught helping himself!

Samekh - Wikipedia

Samekh

Rumpole of the Bailey - Wikipedia

Accordingly, Rumpole's credo is "I never plead guilty", although he has qualified that credo by stating on several occasions that he is morally bound to enter a guilty plea if he knows for a fact that the defendant is guilty of the crime of which he/she is accused. (In fact, he enters a plea of guilty on behalf of his clients in "Rumpole's Last Case".) But if he has any doubt whatsoever about the facts surrounding the commission of the crime, even if the defendant has confessed to the deed (having stated, and proved, on one occasion that "there is no piece of evidence more unreliable than a confession!"), Rumpole feels equally honour-bound to enter a plea of "not guilty" and offer the best defence possible. His "never plead guilty" credo also prevents him from making deals that involve pleading guilty to lesser charges (again, with some exceptions; in "Rumpole and the Tap End" he persuades his client to plead guilty to assault in exchange for the dismissal of a charge of attempted murder). Rumpole also refuses to prosecute, feeling it more important to defend the accused than to work to imprison them. (There was one exception, when Rumpole took on a private prosecution, working for a private citizen rather than for the crown, but he proved that the defendant was innocent and then reaffirmed, "from now on, Rumpole only defends".)

Spoiler

Despite what's been written, it doesn't appear to me that a language can ever "leave" its parent language. So the story of Moses isn't something that can be said is done in totality without forming a language "truly" separate from Egypt

Proto-Sinaitic script - Wikipedia

And Canaan saw the land of Lebanon to the river of Egypt, that it was very good, and he went not into the land of his inheritance to the west (that is to) the sea, and he dwelt in the land of Lebanon, eastward and westward from the border of Jordan and from the border of the sea. And Ham, his father, and Cush and Mizraim his brothers said unto him: 'Thou hast settled in a land which is not thine, and which did not fall to us by lot: do not do so; for if thou dost do so, thou and thy sons will fall in the land and (be) accursed through sedition; for by sedition ye have settled, and by sedition will thy children fall, and thou shalt be rooted out for ever. Dwell not in the dwelling of Shem; for to Shem and to his sons did it come by their lot. Cursed art thou, and cursed shalt thou be beyond all the sons of Noah, by the curse by which we bound ourselves by an oath in the presence of the holy judge, and in the presence of Noah our father.' But he did not hearken unto them, and dwelt in the land of Lebanon from Hamath to the entering of Egypt, he and his sons until this day. And for this reason that land is named Canaan.
—Jubilees 10:29–34

In Egypt the land west of the nile represented the land of the deceased...

 

[Koichos]

Atypically, the indefinite article is used to introduce new concepts into the discourse.

Hebrew and Aramaic both lack an explicit indefinite article, but both languages certainly possess a definite article: ה־ prefix in Hebrew and ־א suffix in Aramaic.

Serug - Wikipedia

Nahor wouldnt have anything to do with Nahar would he?

No... נָחוֹר is spelled with a ח not a ה. The Hebrew letter ח is properly represented in transliteration by an h with punctum inferior (ḥ) or by an underscored h (h); it is a guttural sound somewhat like a heavily aspirated 'h' made in the throat with the mouth open but not as hard (rasping) as the Scottish 'ch' which is made rather higher in the throat, with the epiglottis partially closed. One who confuses the two sounds ח and ה will come to read וְחִכִּיתִי לַה׳ [in Y'shaʿyohu 8:17] as וְהִכִּיתִי לַה׳!

And Canaan saw the land of Lebanon to the river of Egypt, that it was very good, and he went not into the land of his inheritance to the west (that is to) the sea, and he dwelt in the land of Lebanon, eastward and westward from the border of Jordan and from the border of the sea. And Ham, his father, and Cush and Mizraim his brothers said unto him: 'Thou hast settled in a land which is not thine, and which did not fall to us by lot: do not do so; for if thou dost do so, thou and thy sons will fall in the land and (be) accursed through sedition; for by sedition ye have settled, and by sedition will thy children fall, and thou shalt be rooted out for ever. Dwell not in the dwelling of Shem; for to Shem and to his sons did it come by their lot. Cursed art thou, and cursed shalt thou be beyond all the sons of Noah, by the curse by which we bound ourselves by an oath in the presence of the holy judge, and in the presence of Noah our father.' But he did not hearken unto them, and dwelt in the land of Lebanon from Hamath to the entering of Egypt, he and his sons until this day. And for this reason that land is named Canaan.
—Jubilees 10:29–34

The apocryphal books Ṭoviyyoh (Tobit), Hash'monoyim (Maccabees), et cetera are classed as סְפָרִים חִיצוֹנִים saforim hissonim, 'external [i.e., heretical] books' (Treatise Sanhédhrin, daf ssaddi ʿammudh ʾalaf and daf quf ʿammudh béth) because some of the concepts they touch upon are inconsisent with Jewish theology and culture, so they were excluded from the canon of Tanach by the אַנְשֵׁי כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדֹלָה ʾanshé kanasath hag'dholoh (the 'members of the great synod' or parliament who governed Yisroʾel during the Second Commonwealth period following ʿAzroʾ and Nahamyoh) and hidden away, strenuous efforts being made to discourage their study—so, since those texts were actively suppressed by the Jewish authorities, no reliable copies exist today and nobody knows exactly what they originally said. The 24 books that comprise the Tanach were selected and even their order decided by the כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדֹלָה which flourished at the beginning of the Second Bayyith.

 

[Koichos]

Muslims call God “Allah”

I should point out, too, that when Arabic-speaking Jews refer to God bi-y'mei hol ('during the week', i.e., in everyday conversation), they use the term اللّٰه ʾAllah (אללה in Hebrew transliteration). Linguistically, الله ʾallah (spelled ʾalif, lam, lam, haʾ) is cognate with the Aramaic אֱלָהּ ʾalohh (spelled ʾalaf, lamadh, heʾ) or אֱלָהָא ʾalohoʾ (spelled ʾalaf, lamadh, heʾ, ʾalaf) and Hebrew אֱלוֹהַּ ʾalowahh (spelled ʾalaf, lamadh, holom, heʾ) and has nothing whatsoever to do with any 'moon god'.

The Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים ʾalohim is the plural form of אֱלוֹהַּ ʾalowahh ('[a] god') and can refer to '[foreign] gods' (qualified by a PLURAL adjective, pronoun or verb), though it is most frequently used as a name or title of Hashem (qualified by a SINGULAR adjective, pronoun or verb); in contrast, the Aramaic אֱלָהִין ʾalohin—although cognate with the Hebrew אֱלֹהִים ʾalohim—is the plural form of אֱלָהּ ʾalohh ('[a] god') but is never actually used as a name or title of Hashem and simply means '[foreign] gods' or 'the [foreign] gods'. When the Babylonian king Nabbū-kūdhūrri-ʾūssūr (or נַבּוּ־כּוּדוּרִי־אוּצוּר, transliterated into Hebrew characters) refers to Hashem in Doniyyeʾl 3:26, he uses the singular form and calls Him אֱלָהָא עִלָּאָה ʾalohoʾ ʿilloʾoh, which is Aramaic for 'the Supreme God' (אֱלָהָא ʾalohoʾ functioning as the emphatic form of אֱלָהּ ʾalohh, that is, a form that has the definite article suffix ־א added; compare with Hebrew which uses the definite article prefix ה־).

What is more, the relatively uncommon form אֵלִים ʾelim (which is not related to the Hebrew אֱלוֹהַּ ʾalowahh or the Aramaic אֱלָהּ ʾalohh or אֱלָהָא ʾalohoʾ, or the Hebrew אֱלֹהִים ʾalohim or the Aramaic אֱלָהִין ʾalohin) occurs only in Yashaʿyohu 57:5, Tahillim 29:1, 89:7, ʾIyyov 41:17, Doniyyeʾl 11:36, Div'ré Hayyomim Béth 29:22 and is the plural of אֵל ʾel (the primitive meaning of אֵל ʾel is 'power' - see, for example, B'reshıth 31:29, D'vorim 28:32, Michoh 2:1, Mish'lé 3:27, N'hamyoh 5:5; not to be confused with אֶל ʾal, one form of the preposition to), while the singular form of אֱלֹהִים ʾalohim is אֱלוֹהַּ ʾalowahh, which occurs in the Tanach more than 50 times, such as Tahillim 18:32 and 114:7 (see below); the Aramaic cognate אֱלָהּ ʾalohh similarly occurs throughout the Aramaic portions of the Tanach, as in ʿAzroʾ 5:1 אֱלָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל 'Yisroʾel's God'. In any case, there are more than eleven hundred instances of the word ʾalohim governing an explicitly singular verb-inflection.

:תהלים י״ח ל״ב: כִּי מִי אֱלוֹהַּ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי ה׳ וּמִי צוּר זוּלָתִי אֱלֹהֵינוּ​

For who is God (ʾAlowahh) apart from Hashem? And who is a Rock, apart from our God (ʾAloheinu)?

:תהלים קי״ד ז: מִלִּפְנֵי אָדוֹן חוּלִי אָרֶץ מִלִּפְנֵי אֱלוֹהַּ יַעֲקֹב​

From before the Master – Creator of the earth – from before Yaʿaqov's God (ʾAlowahh)!

(i) אֵלִים is anomalously spelled אֵלִם in the poetic language of Shirath Hayyom (Sh'moth 15:1-18), the triumphal Song that Moshah led the Yisrʾelim in singing on the shores of the Suf Sea after their miraculous rescue from the Egyptians.
-------------

-------------
*eighth line [reckoned from the middle of the middle poetry section with space on either side], Sh'moth 15:11 ...מי כמכה באלם​

 

[MMS]

@Koichos
in Egypt, the Djed is represented by the Letter Samekh

Djed - Wikipedia

In the Osiris myth, Osiris was killed by Set by being tricked into a coffin made to fit Osiris exactly. Set then had the coffin with the now deceased Osiris flung into the Nile. The coffin was carried by the Nile to the ocean and on to the city of Byblos in Lebanon. It ran aground and a sacred tree took root and rapidly grew around the coffin, enclosing the coffin within its trunk. The king of the land, intrigued by the tree's quick growth, ordered the tree cut down and installed as a pillar in his palace, unaware that the tree contained Osiris's body.

Meanwhile, Isis searched for Osiris aided by Anubis, and came to know of Osiris's location in Byblos. Isis maneuvered herself into the favor of the king and queen and was granted a boon. She asked for the pillar in the palace hall, and upon being granted it, extracted the coffin from the pillar. She then consecrated the pillar, anointing it with myrrh and wrapping it in linen. This pillar came to be known as the pillar of djed.

Thus the name "Ba-Neb-Djedet" translates to "Soul of the Lord of Feminine Stability"
We are living in a world of illusion

with alittle abstraction, you'll see you can recreate many of the egyptian "deities" with just hieroglyphs
Science eventually leads back to God

 

[DoubleClutch]

I should point out, too, that when Arabic-speaking Jews refer to God bi-y'mei hol ('during the week', i.e., in everyday conversation), they use the term اللّٰه ʾAllah (אללה in Hebrew transliteration). Linguistically, الله ʾallah (spelled ʾalif, lam, lam, haʾ) is cognate with the Aramaic אֱלָהּ ʾalohh (spelled ʾalaf, lamadh, heʾ) or אֱלָהָא ʾalohoʾ (spelled ʾalaf, lamadh, heʾ, ʾalaf) and Hebrew אֱלוֹהַּ ʾalowahh (spelled ʾalaf, lamadh, holom, heʾ) and has nothing whatsoever to do with any 'moon god'.

Yea I actually agree when you break the translation down like that considering this is how Arab speaking Jews and Christians would look at the word “Allah”

but remember they are coming from a perspective where they already know the Bible/Jewish history and culture which has established of God as YHWH

For them the word ALLAH is not a name but a title that must ultimately point to YHWH.

for Jews they know this from Gods encounter with Moses, while for Christians Jesus would point to YHWH being the son of God/Jewish messiah, king, etc.... or God in flesh.

like you said, there is no other NAME better to know GOD by other than YHWH if we are being technical

I am (heh!) aware of only two instances in all of Tanach where Hashem says '...שְׁמִי' ('My Name [is]...') or 'שְׁמִי...' ('...[is] My Name') and, in both cases, the Four-Lettered Divine Title is used: Yir'm'yohu 16:21 and Y'shaʿyohu 42:8, respectively.

HOWEVER for Muslims ALLAH is the extent of GODS name. It points to nothing more than just a loose translation of “God” on its own and in the context of the Quran teachings.

for those who DONT believe the god of Muhammad to be the same as the God who sent Jesus or even the GOD depicted in the Torah or any OT scriptures, ALLAH might as well be the NAME of the “unknown GOD” or it’s simply ambiguous title for ANY god.

So how does that make ISLAM different from any religion of any people or culture in the history of earth?

Their God has no NAME.

And that’s where anyone can assume it to be reference to old Arab pagan Gods and idols especially given the fact that Muslims keep some of the same pagan traditions of pre Islam Arabia

not to mention BEFORE Muslims knew Allah as a GOD Muhammad connected to Abraham or Jesus, the pre Islamic pagan Arabs had been using the title ALLAH in reference to all types of as you say “foreign gods” if ALLAH is Arab translates to the older alowahh and:

ʾalowahh ('[a] god') and can refer to '[foreign] gods'

This isn’t an issue for Jews since they have many additional descriptions/titles like hashem or the name or lord all still point to YHWH

So I ask why Muslims NEVER acknowledge the GOD of Israel by the name GOD gave they in the Torah, YHWH

YHWH is never written in the Koran or mentioned by Muhammad (but they name Gabriel ) and I don’t think it’s even taught to Muslims at mosques although common knowledge for any Christian who has enough sense to look up the meaning of Jesus name .

Yet Muslims claim ALLAH to be the same GOD with Jews and the GOD who sent Jesus with ZERO logic or evidence to back up these claims in their scriptures

At the end of the day, it’s not that ALLAH is a MOON God or even a false God but that Muslims cannot prove what ALLAH is NOT so I’ll just assume it can be literally anything someone believes it to be.

For Muslims, most who don’t even know Arabic when they call out to “Allah” they can unknowingly be worshiping anything...... or maybe nothing at all

One thing I know for sure, “ALLAH” is whatever entity Muhammad got his so-called revelation from and I’m not a follower of Muhammad

one thing i learned from the OT scriptures is the foreign Gods they encountered came in all types of images, forms, shapes, sizes, characteristics, descriptions, and most importantly were known by many different names throughout history and people still worshiped them without distinction or questioning the difference between who is true and false

without the a definitive Name of the one true God consistent throughout history there is no way to truly KNOW and trust in God.

So why would anyone trust a GOD that who simply goes by the Arabic translations of “God”? The word ALLAH could be any God unless specified otherwise and how would any Muslim prove it’s not the MOON God undercover or Baal, ZEUS, RA, etc.... reinvented without piggybacking Judasim/Christianity?

And if Allah is to be considered the unique NAME of the Muslim GOD then you got two choices:

1. ALLAH, the God of Islam, a virtually new God introduced in the 8-9 century AD

Or

2. YHWH the Jewish God who by his own name is an eternal GOD seeming how YHWH = I was/shall be

One last question for you.

Do Jews claim to be “Muslim” or do you believe ALLAH as an acceptable name of Gods?

And why do you think Muslims do not know or acknowledge GOD as YHWH? Do you think it matters in their religion?

The answer to me is pretty simple.

 

[MMS]

@DoubleClutch @Koichos

I think the answer to a debate is within the story of Abraham
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 17 - King James Version



We are living in a world of illusion

"...People feel unhappy and they don’t know why. They feel that something is wrong, but they can’t put their finger on what. They feel uneasy, confused, frustrated, alienated and estranged – and they can’t explain it. They have everything and yet they want more; and when they get it, they are still empty and dissatisfied. They want fulfillment and it never seems to come. Everything is fine and yet everything is wrong...

...Here in America, this is almost a national disease. It is covered over by frantic activity and endless running around; it is buried in activities and events; it is drowned out by television programs and football games. But when the movement stops and the dial is turned off and everything is quiet... then the dread sets in, the meaninglessness of it all, the boredom and the fear...

...St. Augustine said more than 1500 years ago, “and we will be forever restless until we rest in Him.” Our lives are made for God and we will be unsatisfied, unfulfilled and frustrated until we find our home with Him. Nothing in this fallen world can, of itself, bring us the peace that we seek. God alone can do that because He alone is our home. And we are His...

~Fr Thomas Hopko, "The Lenten Spring"

We are living in a world of illusion
John 14:1-4

1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

We are living in a world of illusion

 

[MMS]

@Marks

While we're on the subject of names, an interesting site I found regarding biblical theory and the lense its seen in

Genesis 1 Explained: The Chaotic Set Theory

The Chaotic Set

For all kinds of reasons, mankind has been projecting the weirdest tales upon the creation account, and for many reasons more, some elements from the story were blatantly deleted, while others were almost randomly added. Today however, armed with our substantial yet incomplete knowledge of the origins, we are allowed to not only pierce through the heart of the universe, but also that of Scriptures.

A long hard look at Genesis 1 and the sequential Scriptures that explain Genesis 1, reveals the following (in the pages to come we will examine the proof and consequences):

Our world so far develops in three distinct but intimately related self-similar 'periods' that cover the evolution of matter, life and mind. The catch is that these three periods develop according to one single pattern, which is the meta-narrative behind all evolution. Ergo: matter, life and mind are self-similar, and Genesis 1 is the meta-narrative of all development: the scaffold in which the entire universe, from beginning to end, was created.

The Chaotic Set Theory looks at Genesis 1 through the eyes of Chaos Theory, or more specifically, the Mandelbrot Set and the Household Set. Where the Mandelbrot Set consists of marshmallow men inside bigger marshmallow men and the Household Set of little houses within big ones, the Chaotic Set consists of periods within periods within periods.

We are living in a world of illusion

Mandlebrot and Household Sets?

Spoiler

We might be getting worked into a shoot

We are living in a world of illusion
Swtj -> pronounced Shuh Tekh
"Drunken Eternal Speech"

The amazing name Ham: meaning and etymology

For the meaning of this name Ham, Alfred Jones (Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names) confidently derives it from the verb חמם (hamam), meaning to be hot, and renders it Heat, Black. Then he goes off on the tried and commonly rejected ramble that connects blackness with sin. Jones rather reluctantly admits that Ham was the grandfather of Nimrod, the world's first emperor, but quickly relativizes this feat by fantastically stating, "no doubt [Ham] was the sole introducer of the worship of the sun," and thundering, "even while the hand of God was bearing him up in safety in the Ark of gopher wood, the leaven of his horrid idolatry was working in his breast".

What escapes the otherwise fine scholar is that:

• This version of the name Ham is also identical to חם (ham), father-in-law, from the unused root חמה (hmh) of which the cognates mean to protect or surround.
• In the Bible not blackness but whiteness is associated with sin. Miriam turned white because of her aggression against Moses' second wife, who was a Cushyte and thus quite likely very black. And the bride of the Song of Solomon, often regarded as a type of the Church, was black as well (Song of Solomon 1:5). For more on black-and-white in the Bible, read our article Meet Mrs. God.

NOBSE Study Bible Name List simply reads Hot for Ham, but in view of the above, a closer rendering would be Passion or Intensity.

In the Coffin Texts, however, the ancient god Atum places his fingernail against a nerve in Nehebkau's spine, calming his chaotic and fearsome nature.

FACT CHECK: Is Jason Jordan Really Kurt Angle's Son?

 

[Koichos]

@Koichos
in Egypt, the Djed is represented by the Letter Samekh

Djed - Wikipedia


Thus the name "Ba-Neb-Djedet" translates to "Soul of the Lord of Feminine Stability"
We are living in a world of illusion

Sorry to be pedantic, but I do not recognize any letter called 'samekh'—for the simple reasons that the digraph 'kh' is used to represent a letter of the hated Greek language; while Hebrew-speaking academics invariably use 'ch' to transliterate כ (chof rafuyyoh), i.e., 'weak chof' or chof without dogesh (כ ch; compare כּ k). In transliterating Hebrew, kof with dogesh (כּ) is transliterated by k; chof without dogesh (כ) is transliterated by ch, and heth (ח) is transliterated by h. The reason why some prefer the 'kh' is because the digraph 'ch' in English often has the non-guttural sound found in 'chess' that exists neither in Hebrew or Aramaic—or Arabic, for that matter; albeit most people feel there is no possibility of confusion simply because Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic lack that sound. On a slightly different tack, if the letter kof occurs at the end of a word—or even at the end of a syllable within a word—its sound changes from 'k' (i.e., kof with dogesh) to a kind of hard, guttural sound which resembles a person clearing his throat: 'ch' (i.e., chof without dogesh). So, for example: the acronym תְּנַ״ךְ, composed from the initials of the three words תּוֹרָה־נְבִיאִים־כְּתוּבִים Torah-N'viʾim-K'thuvim, is pronounced T'na"ch.

By the way, even though we call the Bible 'Tanach' (which is not a word, but an acronym), Hebrew does not actually have a name for it. When B.G. (the first Prime Minister of the modern state of Yisroʾel) mentioned the Bible in our country's Declaration of Independence on 6th ʾIyyor 5708 (the ceremony took place on 5th ʾIyyor, but the fledgling country came into being on 6th ʾIyyor), he had to refer to it as ספר הספרים הנצחי sefar ha-s'forim ha-n'ssohi: 'the eternal Book of Books'.

with alittle abstraction, you'll see you can recreate many of the egyptian "deities" with just hieroglyphs
Science eventually leads back to God

Why on Earth would I want to do that?!—we are forbidden even to mention such obscenities in passing! The only 'recreating' I will be doing is during the upcoming fast on Pasah Eve in memory of the Egyptians' firstborns who died. There is a day called תַּעֲנִית בְּכוֹרִים taʿanith b'chorim (or תַּעֲנִית בְּכוֹרוֹת taʿanith b'choroth), the 'Firstborns' Fast', on which all firstborn Jewish males fast in memory of all the innocent Egyptian firstborn males who had to die so we could gain our freedom three and a half millennia ago: see Sh'moth 12:12, 'I will pass through the land of Egypt tonight, and I will kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and livestock, and I will execute justice against all the Egyptians' gods, I—Hashem!' In fact, Moshah refers to the Egyptians' lamb-god as תּוֹעֵבָה toʿevoh ('[something] disgusting') when he is speaking to the Parʿoh in Sh'moth 8:22 (the same word is used to describe the act of [male] homosexuality in Wayyiq'roʾ 18:22 & 20:13).