Signs, Symbols, and Pagans oh my

[redhotmagma]

The standard line of thought among secularists is that religion proceeded from local tribal deities coming from nature worship first, then becoming more organized, more sophisticated.  As civilization progressed animism gave way to idolaltry, those idols then coalesced as cultures came together, eventually leading to Monotheism, and finally atheism.  Thus the symbols in the Bible were borrowed from pagans. 

The standard christian line of thought on this is that satan created forgeries of the heavenly symbols, or took what he could from what God had revealed to the angels about his plan of salvation, sacrifices, etc. In this case the symbols were co-opted by satan and used ahead of time to throw off God's plan.  (this used to be how I resolved the issue of similarities between paganism and christianity)

Another line is that God uses the symbols that are already used in culture, to communicate His message.

The Divine Council people (Michael Heiser, ELM), it seems to me (I don't know that material too well) states that the elohim were appointed to the nations to rule them and show them the way to YHWH.  They failed and instead the peoples worshipped them (the elohim, or B'Nai elohim- sons of God).  These became the pagan gods.  In this case were in the heavenly temple with all its symbols, and used those symbols to give religion, just a corrupted version.

Another is that the story was given to Noah or one of his decendants, and the story was told through the mazzaroth (hebrew zodiac).  the story was corrupted and the symbols for portions of the story became personified as deities as in Virgo= queen of heaven=Aphrodite.  In this case the symbols were corrupted by man and fitted to the local tribes own theology.

Then there is the idea that all paganism can be traced back to Nimrod and Semiramis at Babel.  Noah and his family carried the worship of the true God through the deluge, and then Nimrod and Semiramis created the first organized religion from which sprang all other religions, except the true worship of God.  In this case the symbols were corrupted by a small group of people (Nimrod, Semiramis, fellow family or tribesman).

The book "The Origins of Pagan Idolatry" by Faber he states that the true religion was corrupted by Nimrod.  Since the people at that time were only a couple generations from Noah, the corruption couldn't be completely blatant.  The peoples connection to God through the past world(s) is Noah and his 3 sons, and Adam and his 3 sons.  What they did then was deify (or demonize as he calls it) Adam, Cain, Able, Seth.  These then transmigrated to become Noah, Ham, Japeth, and Shem.  Adam=Noah, Seth=Shem.  The Hindu's call them menu or manu (where we get our word man).  In their cosmogony then Adam becomes the god who all of creation is formed out of which is the story we see in the pagan religions.  His sons are all a representation of him, or they resolve into him.  Then at the end of that world it is destroyed by a deluge where only the new menu is saved, but what is actually happening is the god is dying (representing the world), and he is put into an ark, or a cow, or a lotus, or an egg, and then is reborn, which then creates the new age.  This happens over and over, in cycles of successive worlds.  What you're left with are trinities of gods that are really an emination of Adam/Noah the father, Odin=Uranus=Jupiter=Atum (sounds like adam).  the trinity is Isis, Osiris,Horus represent his children.  since the father god was originally a hermaphrodite (male and female he created them) the term hermaphrodite is hermes+aphrodite.  so having a woman in there is no big whoop, and really the male and female gods all are really just a part of the father/mother god=Adam=menu=Atum=Brahm. 

His idea of how it all began is that after the flood originally people would work fairly harmoniously together, but eventually a politically minded person would arise, and would rather subjugate people than work for a living.  He would likely be a hunter (Nimrod) since he could hone his people killing skills on animals.  Eventually people would start to revolt so he would have to create an armed force, likely from fellow tribesman (Cucrapes), and they would train by hunting animals.  Eventually this first king would realize that force isn't the best way to control his subjects so he would invent religion to continue his subjugation.  This would require priests, also likely from his tribe also.  What you would be left with is a tribe of warrior priests controlling the rest of humanity. The other tribes would become merchant/artizan class or worker class.  The caste system is born. Then as the people dispersed to other parts of the world they would go as tribes, but with a nucleus of warrior priests to rule them.

thus the pagan religion was created at babel and propagated through the rest of the world, with only minor changes between cultures. 


I know there are other theories, and mixtures of the above too.

Common symbols
Sun=male, Moon/Earth=female, Stars=children
Cows, Bulls 
Serpent
Tree of life

My questions are:
1.  What is the nature of revelation to people not "chosen"
2.  What is the origin of the symbols that are so prevalent
       

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people 39  who suppress the truth by their 40  unrighteousness, 41  1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, 42  because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people 43  are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts 44  were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed 45  to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings 46  or birds or four-footed animals 47  or reptiles.
1:24 Therefore God gave them over 48  in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor 49  their bodies among themselves. 50  1:25 They 51  exchanged the truth of God for a lie 52  and worshiped and served the creation 53  rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

[WhiteWings]

The book "The Origins of Pagan Idolatry" by Faber he states that the true religion was corrupted by Nimrod.

^KJVGenesis 4
26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

^EBRGenesis 4
26 And, to Seth––to him also, was born a son, and he called his name Enosh,––then, was a beginning made, to call on the name of Yahweh.

^JPSGenesis 4
26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh; then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.


H2490
châlal
BDB Definition:
1) to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, begin
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to profane oneself, defile oneself, pollute oneself
1a1a) ritually
1a1b) sexually
1a2) to be polluted, be defiled
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to profane, make common, defile, pollute
1b2) to violate the honour of, dishonour
1b3) to violate (a covenant)
1b4) to treat as common
1c) (Pual) to profane (name of God)
1d) (Hiphil)
1d1) to let be profaned
1d2) to begin
1e) (Hophal) to be begun
2) to wound (fatally), bore through, pierce, bore
2a) (Qal) to pierce
2b) (Pual) to be slain
2c) (Poel) to wound, pierce
2d) (Poal) to be wounded
3) (Piel) to play the flute or pipe
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong's Number: a primitive root [compare H2470]
Same Word by TWOT Number: 660, 661



^WWGenesis 4
26 And, to Seth––to him also, was born a son, and he called his name Enosh,––then, mankind started to slander (the name of) Yahweh.

Just reading the verse gives the impression people started to preach (good things) about God.
But when looking a bit closer it seems they started to defame Him.
Obviously that means they didn't before that verse.

[redhotmagma]

"If one had the ingenuity to strip away all the nonsensical additions that have been attached to some of the early teachings, it might be possible to discover many truths of early mankind and to see that God has never let any of the human race to be utterly destitute of His divine truths."

this is the essence of why I posted this originally.  ^
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d030301.htm   In this article, he states that the pagan deities were biblical patriarchs. 

"Take for example the ancient pagan god Cronus. This early Phoenician author Sanchoniathon states that Cronus went about the world establishing settlements and colonies. He gave the best part of Greece to his daughter Athena. But he did more than that. Sanchoniathon said, "Cronus offered up his only son as a sacrifice and circumcised himself, and forced his allies to do the same."

"For Cronus, whom the Phoenicians call Il [the word "Il" is phonetically the Semitic "God" or sometime "Bull"] a man who after his death was deified and instated in the planet which now bears his name."

The particular planet that the Phoenicians called "Cronus" was the one the Romans referred to as "Saturn." It was well known that the day of Saturn was Saturday (the weekly Sabbath of the Jews). And note this. Sanchoniathon went on in his description of Cronus by saying that one of his sons was called Ieoud — clearly a corrupt take-off on the Israelitish tribe of "Judah."
Sanchoniathon said that a man by the name of Hypsuranius (a name signifying High-Heaven) took up an abode in the city of Tyre.

"And he fell into enmity with his brother Usous, who first made clothing for the body of the skins of the wild beasts which he could catch."

It is plain that this Usous of the Phoenicians is the biblical "Esau" — the brother of Jacob. Note that the Bible says that Esau was a hairy man (like that of an animal), and that Jacob received the blessings and birthright of Esau by deceiving his father by putting on animal skins (Genesis 27). Even the prestigious Dictionary of Religion and Ethics (vol. XI. p. 179) states that there is no question but that this Usous within the Phoenician pantheon was the biblical "Esau."

"Sanchoniathon said that the god Usous (Esau) was the one who taught the Phoenicians the art of ship-building and navigation. The other name for Esau was Edom (meaning "Red"). The Greek name for "Red" was Erythras, and it was recognized in ancient times that a King Erythras was one who made sailing vessels. 7 The Red Sea near Egypt and also the arm of the Indian Ocean called the Persian Gulf was named after this King Erythras (Edom). Usous was the one who inspired the Phoenicians on the Mediterranean to do the same. Really, both were the same man! Jewish beliefs also thought that Esau helped to colonize Tyre and that his descendants became some of the Phoenicians who settled North Africa and parts of Spain. 8"

[WhiteWings]

Hi Red.
You must eddit the URL. A space befor "In this article"

What emerges is this: Pagan idolatry (in which images made of stones, metals, woods, etc., were used) had its origin only about 3500 to 3600 years ago.

That's 1600-1500 BC. http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/the_secrets_time_9637.msg121820.html#msg121820


I always thought idol worship goes back much further in time.

[redhotmagma]

Chronus=Saturn= Abraham or Nimrod? maybe a mixture of the two.

The name of the cherubim were Moloch and Chiun.  Chiun= Kayawan or kewan= Saturn in Babylonian

Amos 5:26
You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images, the star of your gods which you made for yourselves.
Sikkuth=tent, Abraham dwelt in tents

There seems to be good evidence that the pagan deities were deified humans.

The Israelites were possibly worshipping Abraham (if Saturn does = Abraham)

Matt 3:9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.

similar to this:

Acts 14:12 And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.


The Israelites worshipped the cherubim
The cherubims names were Moloch (Jupiter) and Chiun (Saturn)
Saturn is likely Abraham (or Nimrod or a mixture)
Do the cherubim represent flesh? or the thing that gets between God and man (religion, philosophy, foolish speculations) you know the thing that was torn when Christ true thing between God and man breathed his last
http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/enigma_mirror_9604.0.html

Knowing the future, God still gave the Israelites the command to build the ark and cherubim, even though He knew they would worship them.  Why????

[Beloved Servant]

Hi Red.
You must eddit the URL. A space befor "In this article"

What emerges is this: Pagan idolatry (in which images made of stones, metals, woods, etc., were used) had its origin only about 3500 to 3600 years ago.

That's 1600-1500 BC. http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/the_secrets_time_9637.msg121820.html#msg121820


I always thought idol worship goes back much further in time.

It does.
The grandest idol of all is SELF. 

[rosered]

Hi Red.
You must eddit the URL. A space befor "In this article"

What emerges is this: Pagan idolatry (in which images made of stones, metals, woods, etc., were used) had its origin only about 3500 to 3600 years ago.

That's 1600-1500 BC. http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/the_secrets_time_9637.msg121820.html#msg121820


I always thought idol worship goes back much further in time.

It does.
The grandest idol of all is SELF.

amen to That  Dave your on fire Bro !  :HeartThrob:


Phl 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Rev 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.


Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Interesting article.....

[WhiteWings]

Knowing the future, God still gave the Israelites the command to build the ark and cherubim, even though He knew they would worship them.  Why????

Knowing the future God put that tree in the midst of the garden. Why?  :laughing7:
Maybe both questions have the same answer.

[redhotmagma]

WW, I was thinking the same thing on my way home today from work  :thumbsup:

[redhotmagma]

Hi Red.
You must eddit the URL. A space befor "In this article"

What emerges is this: Pagan idolatry (in which images made of stones, metals, woods, etc., were used) had its origin only about 3500 to 3600 years ago.

That's 1600-1500 BC. http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/the_secrets_time_9637.msg121820.html#msg121820


I always thought idol worship goes back much further in time.

It does.
The grandest idol of all is SELF.

Bingo


Right now I see the cherubim as the original type for the physical representation of idols.  What I mean is that the bull, the lion, the eagle, and of course the man are the main animal symbols for the most ancient idolatry.  And I see the cherubim as a representation of self.

There's more as you get into researching veil or covering.  For instance

maccekah <04541>

hkom maccekah

Pronunciation:   mas-say-kaw'
Origin:   from 05258
Reference:   TWOT - 1375c 1376a
PrtSpch:   noun feminime
In Hebrew:   hkom 11, hkomw 5, twkomhw 2, hkoml 2, hkomh 2, hkomhw 2, twkomw 1, tkom 1, twkom 1, Mtkom 1
In NET:   metal image 7, images 5, molten 4, metal 2, metal images 2, cast metal 1, blanket 1, cast metal image 1, alliances 1, image 1, metal idol 1, formed out of metal 1, covering 1
In AV:   image 18, molten 7, covering 2, vail 1
Count:   28
Definition:   1) a pouring, libation, molten metal, cast image, drink offering
1a) libation (with covenant sacrifice)
1b) molten metal, molten image, molten gods
2) web, covering, veil, woven stuff
from 5258; properly, a pouring over, i.e. fusion of metal
(especially a cast image); by implication, a libation, i.e.
league; concretely a coverlet (as if poured out):-covering,
molten (image), vail.
see HEBREW for 05258
   Isa 30:22   

You will desecrate your silver-plated idols 1  and your gold-plated images. 2  You will throw them away as if they were a menstrual rag, saying to them, "Get out!"

What else is associated with menstrual rags?  Works of the flesh



3:13 and not like Moses who used to put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites 25  from staring 26  at the result 27  of the glory that was made ineffective. 28  3:14 But their minds were closed. 29  For to this very day, the same veil remains when they hear the old covenant read. 30  It has not been removed because only in Christ is it taken away. 31  3:15 But until this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds, 32  3:16 but when one 33  turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 34  3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, 35  there is freedom. 3:18 And we all, with unveiled faces reflecting the glory of the Lord, 36  are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, 37  which is from 38  the Lord, who is the Spirit. 39

This passage links the veil on Moses face with the veil before the innermost (they have different hebrew words)

Num 12:8 With him I will speak face to face,  openly,   and not in riddles (enigma in LXX); and he will see the form 17  of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"

Moses removed the veil when he talked with God => face to face =not in riddles

Riddle of the sphinx was well known from Egypt, A sphinx=a cherub,  the answer to the riddle of the sphinx is a man

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/enigma_mirror_9604.0.html
I redded reflecting to link to the scrip of seeing through a glass darkly, explained in more detail in above link

Sorry if this is confusing, but there are so many connections to make between idols, futility, beast, cherubim, covering.  Every time I try to post this I get lost in the word search and forget what my original point was.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: That happens to me, too.......I call it a "rabbit trail", LOL

[rosered]

 
   Great post Redhot magma  :thumbsup:

 

[redhotmagma]

I've attached a pdf, not sure how to get it to post in the box (WW?).

Explanation of the flowchart:
key:  the arrows with a protruding tip (the most on there) mean that the word comes from the one the arrow originates at
the chevron means in the sense of the word being pointed to
the squiggly line means it seems similar in sound or in lettering but not specifically linked by strongs
the brackets between 7907 and 2910 mean they are used in a verse together, only a couple occurrences of these
the arrow between 2910 and 5640 means they are parallel words according to genesius

7906 sekuw-watchtower near Ramaah (possibly raama the buddhist god) the root is saka

THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA. Buddhism originated in Northern India around 500 BC. It sprang from the teachings of the Historical Buddha -- an actual historical personage. Before he became a Buddha (literally "enlightened one"), he was known as Gautama Siddhartha, or Prince Siddhartha, for he was born the son of King Suddhodana of the Sakya Clan, whose people then inhabited an area of India now located in present-day Nepal. His family name was Gautama and his first name was Siddhartha. Shaka is the Japanese abbreviation of the Sanskrit term Sakyamuni, which literally means "Sage of the Sakya." In China, his contemporaries were Confucius and Lao-tzu (the founder of Chinese Taoism), and slightly later in the West comes Plato (approximately 427 - 347 BC).
http://www.buddhist-artwork.com/statues-buddhism/shaka-nyorai-historical-buddha-statuary.html

The Ikshvaku dynasty, in Puranic literature, was a mythical dynasty founded by Ikshvaku, grandson of Vivasvan or Surya and son of Vaivasvata Manu. This dynasty is also known as Sūryavaṁśa (the Solar dynasty). The important personalities belonging to this royal house are Harishchandra, Dilīpa, Sagara,[1] Raghu, Rama and Prasenajit. Although, both the Hindu Puranas and the Buddhist texts include Shuddodhana, Gautama Buddha and Rahula in their accounts of the Ikshvaku dynasty,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikshvaku_dynasty

"Suryavanshi" or Suryavamsa means a person belonging to this dynasty. This clan was the oldest and biggest Kshatriya/Chattari clan of India which was also known by many synonyms as Adityavamsha (आदित्यवंश), Mitrawamsha (मित्रवंश), Arkawamsha (अर्कवंश), Raviwamsha (रविवंश), etc. The early Suryavanshis considered Sun-god ('Surya', 'Aditya' or 'Arka') as their kul-devta (clan God) and mainly practised sun-worship.The capital of Solar race was ancient Ayodhya.The clan founder, Vivasvan or Vaivaswat Manu, also known as Arka-tanaya (अर्क तनय) or son of Arka (Surya), is supposed to have lived coeval with the origin of the world. The name Vivaswan literally means master of the rays. That is, The Sun or Sun God. The first historically important king of this dynasty was Vivaswan's grandson Ikshvaku, so the dynasty is also known as the Ikshvaku dynasty.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suryavansha

rama is supposedly the previous incarnation of buddha
kshatriya=kush these are still the warrior caste in india (remember the cush were warrior/priests)
the sun-god lived coeval with the origin of the world, and one name is arka --> ark? 
surya= zero in chaldee -->zero-asshur-->zoroaster

I am fully aware, that Sir William Jones places the origin of Buddhism no higher than about a thousand years before the Christian era; that he supposes the system to have been introduced by a younger Buddha, whom he distinguishes from that earlier Buddha who is placed by the Hindoo records in the age of the deluge; and that he conceives the younger Buddha or Sacya to be the Sesac of Scripture, whom he makes to conquer the whole country between Egypt and Hindostan and to promulge wherever he was successful the then novel doctrine of the Buddhists. To this opinion I am unable to assent. The name indeed of Sesac is doubtless a name of Buddha, for Se-Sac denotes the illustrious Saca; and this fatal resemblance, as it has been not ill termed, seems to have been the chief thing, or at least one chief thing that gave rise to the opinion. Such a coincidence of names however will by no means prove the point: Sesac, if I mistake not, received his appellation merely in honour of the god Saca or Se-Saca, agreeably to a custom very generally prevalent in the gentile world; [1] and, though I pretend not positively to say how far he might have pushed his conquests, there is certainly no scriptural evidence that he passed beyond the limits of Judea. He is simply represented, as taking the fenced cities of Rehoboam and as pillaging the temple of Jerusalem, and then to all appearance as returning with his booty into Egypt. [2] Hence there seems to me, so far as we have any authentic account of his actions, to be just as little reason for identifying him with a
1 Thus Nebuchadnezzar, Esar-Haddon, and Belshazzar, were all called after the gods venerated by their fathers.
2 See 2 Chron. xii. 1-9.
{Page 88} younger Sacya who was the first promulgator of Buddhism, as with the fabulously victorious Sesostris. The evidence for the remote antiquity of Buddhism rests upon exactly the same foundation as that for the remote antiquity of Brahmenism. There is scarcely a country, in which we do not find both systems more or less blended together: and Buddha, as much as Siva or Osiris, under his various names of Buddha, Saca, Taut, Teut, Thoth, Bod, Wod, Hermaya, Hermes, or Mercolis, has been worshipped from Japan in the east to Ireland in the west. The theory of Sir William Jones is inadequate to account for this circumstance: no conquests, which a king of Egypt could make, and which after all it remains to be proved that he did make; could have spread his name and novel theology over the face of the whole globe; I say name, because, if I do not misunderstand Sir William, Buddha first received his title of Sacya from the circumstance of Sesac's being venerated as a new incarnation of Buddha. This opinion however, if it be the opinion of that able writer, is most certainly an error. The appellation Saca or compoundedly Se-Saca existed before the time of the Egyptian prince, and was communicated from the god to a great tribe of his Cuthic worshippers, who were thence called Sacas or Sachim or Saxons. Some of these Sachim formed a part of the Indian Shepherd- kings; who once conquered Egypt, and who afterwards founded the kingdom of African Ethiopia or Cusha-dwip without: for we find a detachment of them expressly mentioned with their brethren the Cushim, as serving in the army of Sesac. [1] If then there was a whole tribe of Sachim or Sacas in the days of Sesac, both the name and the worship of Saca must inevitably have been prior to that prince. Thus, in whatever light the question be viewed, we cannot, I think, ascribe a more recent origin to Buddhism than the dispersion from Babel.
1 2 Chron. xii. 3. The word is expressed by our translators Sukkiim after the Masoretic punctuation; but it is just as properly pronounced Sachiim, which is the plural form of Sach or Sachi. In our language the plural of Sach would be Sachs.
______________________________
The twenty two Buddhas, like the fourteen Menus, may all be reduced to two, Adam and Noah: for Buddha is the very same person as Menu. A later Buddha is described as living at the time of the flood, as being the sovereign prince in the belly of the symbolical fish, and as marrying Ila the daughter of Menu-Satyavrata who was preserved with seven companions in an ark when the whole earth was inundated. But Menu is also said to have espoused his own daughter: therefore Buddha must be the same as Menu. Accordingly, as Menu and his three sons are allowed to be an incarnation of the Hindoo Unity and Trimurti: so Buddha is at once confessed to be an Avatar of Vishnou, and pronounced to be no other than the mystic Om by which name the Trimurti is wont to be designated. Buddha however is here acknowledged not to be any real and proper god: and his diluvian character proves him to be the patriarch Noah.

Origins of Pagan Idolatry: Faber

Lots more to come, but you'll notice in the flow chart:
ship/ tower/ weave/ fence/ cover all associated with idolatry, and all coming from saka or ksh (or the same phoenetically)

[WhiteWings]

I've attached a pdf, not sure how to get it to post in the box (WW?).

It's not possible AFAIK.
You could show it as a picture but then you bump into size limitations.

Free image hosting: http://imageshack.us/

[Molly]

The standard line of thought among secularists is that religion proceeded from local tribal deities coming from nature worship first, then becoming more organized, more sophisticated.  As civilization progressed animism gave way to idolaltry, those idols then coalesced as cultures came together, eventually leading to Monotheism, and finally atheism.  Thus the symbols in the Bible were borrowed from pagans.

A lot of these concepts were arising simultaneously in the cultures surrounding the Israelites.  It's not so much that they were borrowing from each other, but that they were given similar and progressive revelation.

For instance, the idea of a Shepherd/King is an ancient one.  For the Egyptians, this Shepherd/King took the form of Pharaoh  on earth, which is why Pharaoh  is treated as a god.  For the Israelites, he was their God YHWH:  The LORD is my Shepherd.  We see places in the OT where the Israelites are not so much borrowing from the surrounding cultures, as instructing them.  For instance, they say the rider on the clouds is Ba'al, and the Israelites, not by accident say, no, the cloud rider is the Son of man.  Neither is it by accident that Jesus calls himself, Son of man--he is referencing Daniel's cloud rider when he does so.

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

--Dan 7



This is a fascinating study, but don't make the mistake that peoples are just copying from each other, or a lot of the richness will be lost. 

[Molly]

We recently placed what is, as far as we know, the first electronic digital library for the study of the Ugaritic language and its literature on our pre-Pub page.

Ugaritic, the language of ancient Ugarit (in modern Syria), isn't something that most people think about when it comes to Bible study. However, the clay tablets discovered and deciphered in the late 1920s and early 1930s provide an unparalleled glimpse into the life and religious worldview of the ancient Israelites. Some (including myself) would argue that they are as important as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ugaritic is important because of the fact that its vocabulary is so close to biblical Hebrew — many Ugaritic words are letter-for-letter the same as biblical Hebrew. It is the religion of Ugarit, however, that is especially important to Old Testament scholarship.

You might be thinking that all you really need to know about the religion of the Israelites is in the Bible.  You'd only be partially correct in that thought.  We are centuries removed from the world of the Bible, and a lot of material in the Bible is pretty obtuse to those of us in the 21st century. Those who wrote the Bible weren't writing for a technological society, and so words, phrases, descriptions, and concepts that were completely familiar to an Israelite are lost on us. There's also the matter of the kinds of ideas that were floating around in Israel from other religions—like Baal worship—that were being embraced by people who were supposed to be following the God of Israel.  You have to wonder why, to paraphrase Elijah (1 Kings 18:21), Israel kept halting between two opinions as to who was the true God. 

Ugaritic...was a life-changing course, because it opened up the Hebrew text and Israelite religion to me in so many ways.
The ancient literature of Ugarit sheds a lot of light on these issues and others (hey, the library contains three thick books of parallels!). The destruction of Ugarit can be accurately dated to around 1200 BC, which means that these tablets, and the ideas they convey, were around earlier than most of the books of the Hebrew Bible. Given that chronology, scholars were startled to find so many striking parallels to words, phrases, pericopes, and ideas previously known primarily—or even only—from the Hebrew Bible. In the years prior to the discovery of the library of Ugarit, especially the late 19th century, scholars of the Hebrew Bible and the languages of the ancient Near East presumed that Mesopotamian religious texts provided the best parallels to those found in the Hebrew Bible. It was at that time that the cuneiform tablets of works such as the Gilgamesh Epic and Atrahasis (the flood story) were first translated, revealing similarities to stories in the Bible in written material centuries older than the Bible. After the discovery of Ugaritic, the idea that Israelite beliefs came from foreign civilizations in Mesopotamia was abandoned. The Ugaritic texts showed that people in Canaan living during biblical days were quite literate, a realization that was important, since the oldest manuscript evidence for the Hebrew Bible at the time dated to roughly 1000 AD.

Like everyone whose doctoral work is in Semitics, I took Ugaritic during graduate school. It was a life-changing course, because it opened up the Hebrew text and Israelite religion to me in so many ways. I'd like to share one of the observations made by scholars that has profound implications for the biblical theology of both testaments.

Some Backdrop
It is often said that one of the most important principles of interpretation is to put every text into its proper context. That is, to read the text to be interpreted in place with its surroundings: the surrounding text as well as the social, historical, cultural, and literary traditions of the world in which it was produced. The texts recovered at Ugarit provide a key piece of literary, social, and religious context for certain passages of the Old Testament.

Literary Context. First of all, it's important to understand that the biblical writers, though under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, followed the ordinary forms of literature that were current in their day when they wrote. If, for example, the biblical writer was describing a covenant treaty between God and his people, his description conforms in style to covenant treaties known elsewhere in the ancient world. To depart from this style would have seemed strange to the ancient readers: "What kind of covenant treaty is this? Didn't this guy know how to write one?" The apostle Paul as well wrote his letters to the churches in a recognizable style and with an expected format. The recipients of Paul's letters knew what a letter was supposed to look like. Just as we wouldn't write a letter home to Mom and put footnotes in it, or jot down a recipe and lace it with legal mumbo-jumbo, so the biblical writers wrote using the literary conventions and forms that would be expected by their audience.

Just as preachers today quote commentaries, news periodicals, or even TV shows to illustrate a point, the biblical writers used external material to draw attention and make a statement.
Biblical writers didn't just use the forms of contemporary non-inspired literature, they were also influenced by the literature itself. Just as preachers today quote commentaries, journals, news periodicals, or even television shows to drive home or illustrate a point, so the biblical writers used external material to draw attention and make a statement. Paul quotes from pagan Greek poets. The psalmists and prophets borrow vocabulary and paraphrase material from ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Syrian literature. Jude quotes a book from the Pseudepigrapha (ancient writings that falsely claim authorship by a biblical character). The people of biblical times knew the quoted material wasn't inspired, but it had meaning for them and their audience.

Religious Context. The religion of Ugarit and the religion of ancient Israel were not the same, but there were some striking overlaps. For example, the name of the ultimate divine authority at Ugarit was El, one of the names of the God of Israel (e.g., Gen 33:20). El was described as an aged god with white hair, seated on a throne. However, at Ugarit, El was sovereign, but another god ran things on earth for El as his vizier. That god's name was Baal, a name quite familiar to anyone who has read the Old Testament. At Ugarit Baal was known by several titles: "king of the gods," "the Most High," "Prince Baal" (baal zbl), and—most importantly for our discussion—"the Rider on the Clouds."

Baal's position as "king of the gods" in Ugarit, Israel's northern neighbor, helps explain the "Baal problem" in the Old Testament. Jereboam's religion in the northern kingdom borrowed from Baal worship, and it soon began to look like there was no difference, or if there was a difference, they were so close that worshipping one or the other was just theological hair-splitting. This is what prophets like Elijah had to contend with. The people had no Bible. They had only the prophets and their words. When a prophet wasn't around to set the record straight, it was easy to just do what the neighbors were doing—especially if your king didn't care, or actually preferred it that way.

Given this state of affairs, it's not surprising that sometimes in the course of their preaching and writing, the prophets counted on familiarity with Baal to make their case that it was Yahweh, not Baal, who was the heavenly king. We know this was the case, since certain Old Testament books actually quote from the Ugaritic religious texts, most notably the one that modern scholars have called the Baal Cycle. Whereas the Baal Cycle would give Baal credit for things like sending rain and making the crops grow, the prophets would credit those things to Yahweh. The showdown at Carmel (geographically close to Ugarit) is a case in point. God had withheld rain and Elijah challenged the rain giver to a duel, which God won in glorious fashion (1 Kings 17-18).

The Bible can only be fully understood when properly situated within its ancient context. That is not to say that the Bible is no longer relevant for our modern world. The Bible is certainly written for our benefit, as well as the benefit of future generations. Still, the Bible was neither written by this generation nor for this generation as the immediately intended audience. It's an ancient (wonderful!) record from God, which must be understood on its own terms. Putting the Bible into its ancient social, historical, and yes, even religious context doesn't harm it; rather, the text is illuminated for people like us who are culturally removed from their origin.

"The Cloud Rider"
Throughout the Ugaritic texts, Baal is repeatedly called "the one who rides the clouds," or "the one who mounts the clouds." The description is recognized as an official title of Baal. No angel or lesser being bore the title. As such, everyone in Israel who heard this title associated it with a deity, not a man or an angel.

Part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Yahweh in some way. Consequently, Yahweh, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). For a faithful Israelite, then, there was only one god who "rode" on the clouds: Yahweh.

Until we hit Daniel 7, that is. You know the scene, but you likely don't know the full context, since Ugaritic provides that for us:

9 As I looked on, the thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His garment was like white snow, and the hair of His head was like lamb's wool. His throne was fiery flames; its wheels were blazing fire. 10 A river of fire streamed forth before Him; thousands upon thousands served Him; myriads upon myriads attended Him; the court sat and the books were opened . . . 13 As I looked on, in the night vision, One like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven; he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented to Him. 14 Dominion, glory, and kingship were given to him; all peoples and nations of every language must serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed.

The plurality of thrones in the passage tell us plainly that we have here what scholars of the Hebrew Bible call a divine council scene — the high sovereign in his throne room, meeting with the heavenly host. The literature of Ugarit has many such scenes, and the biblical divine council and the council at Ugarit are very similar. In point of fact, the flow of Daniel 7 actually follows the flow of a divine council scene in the Baal Cycle:


Ugarit / Baal Cycle Daniel 7
(A) El, the aged high God, is the ultimate sovereign in the council. (A) The Ancient of Days, the God of Israel is seated on the fiery, wheeled throne (cf. Ezekiel 1). Like Ugaritic El, he is white haired and aged ("ancient").
(B) El bestows kingship upon the god Baal, the Cloud-Rider, after Baal defeats the god Yamm in battle. (B) Yahweh-El, the Ancient of Days, bestows kingship upon the Son of Man who rides the clouds after the beast from the sea (yamma) is destroyed.
(C) Baal is king of the gods and El's vizier. His rule is everlasting. (C) The Son of Man is given everlasting dominion over the nations. He rules at the right hand of God.

The striking parallels are especially noteworthy given that this is the only time in the Old Testament where a second personage other than Yahweh is described as "coming with/upon the clouds" (the preposition in Aramaic can be translated either way). The intent of the author to describe this "son of man" with a title reserved only for Yahweh was clear by virtue of how the scene followed the Baal literature — the literary cycle whose central character, Baal, held the Cloud-Rider title!

The Jewish audience reading Daniel understood the implications — the prophet Daniel was describing a second power in heaven — a second being at the level of Yahweh to whom Yahweh himself granted authority. Although we naturally think of the idea of a godhead as distinctly Christian, we have evidence here that the seeds of the idea are found in the Hebrew Scriptures.  It's no accident that Jewish theological writing during the Intertestamental period is filled with references to the "second power in heaven" and attempts to figure out how to articulate what was going on in heaven in light of monotheism.  Jewish writers speculated that the "second god" was the archangel Michael, or perhaps Gabriel.  Some Jewish writers even wrote that Abraham or Moses occupied that position!  For Christians the answer was obvious.

It is well known that Jesus' favorite title for himself while on earth was "son of man." The term means two things: (1) human being (Jesus enjoyed being human!), and (2) the deity figure to whom all authority was given. The latter usage is perfectly evident in Matthew 26, as Jesus stood before Caiaphas — someone who knew his Old Testament — waiting to fulfill his destiny on the cross. When asked to give the Sanhedrin a straight answer about who he was, Jesus quoted Daniel 7:

63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." (ESV)

By quoting this passage, Jesus was making an overt, unmistakable claim to be deity—he in fact was the one who rides on the clouds.  That this is no exaggerated interpretation is evident from Caiaphas' reaction:

65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy." (ESV)

The statement is only blasphemous if one is claiming to be the rider on the clouds. That idea may have been acceptable to Jews at the time, but it was simply intolerable that this man Jesus of Nazareth would claim to be the incarnation of the second power. What most of us might think is an odd answer, or even a deliberate deflection of Caiaphas' demand, is the exact opposite. Jesus could not have been more blunt. He was the "second deity" of Daniel 7.

The Jews of the first century understood this well. They knew their Bible. The idea of a godhead was not a Christian innovation; it is rooted in Israelite religion and Jewish theology, and was acceptable doctrine for Jews until the second century A.D. when, in response to the worship of Jesus by Jews converting to Christianity, the rabbis declared the second power idea a heresy for faithful Jews.

Who would have suspected?  We are able to see the beginnings of the Christian doctrine of the godhead in the Hebrew Bible with the help of the context supplied by the literature of Ugarit.
http://www.logos.com/ugaritic

[redhotmagma]

The standard line of thought among secularists is that religion proceeded from local tribal deities coming from nature worship first, then becoming more organized, more sophisticated.  As civilization progressed animism gave way to idolaltry, those idols then coalesced as cultures came together, eventually leading to Monotheism, and finally atheism.  Thus the symbols in the Bible were borrowed from pagans.

A lot of these concepts were arising simultaneously in the cultures surrounding the Israelites.  It's not so much that they were borrowing from each other, but that they were given similar and progressive revelation.

For instance, the idea of a Shepherd/King is an ancient one.  For the Egyptians, this Shepherd/King took the form of Pharaoh  on earth, which is why Pharaoh  is treated as a god.  For the Israelites, he was their God YHWH:  The LORD is my Shepherd.  We see places in the OT where the Israelites are not so much borrowing from the surrounding cultures, as instructing them.  For instance, they say the rider on the clouds is Ba'al, and the Israelites, not by accident say, no, the cloud rider is the Son of man.  Neither is it by accident that Jesus calls himself, Son of man--he is referencing Daniel's cloud rider when he does so.

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

--Dan 7



This is a fascinating study, but don't make the mistake that peoples are just copying from each other, or a lot of the richness will be lost.

Molly this is very much what I'm trying to express.  And thats what I'm interested in is the nature of that prebiblical revelation, you know the bible that Abraham had :Sparkletooth:

"The standard line of thought..." I'm saying this is not correct, in fact in some future installment I'm going to follow these concepts all the way down through the enlightenment to modern day.

Here's a sneak peak.  Rama=Buddha=the enlightened one  ramah in Hebrew= lifted up, there was a tower there (sekyu=saca=buddha). 
akin to the dust mother earth idea in Micah's post (again not saying yea or nay to his idea)

If the original language is Hebrew (syrio-phoenecian) and the concept of raamah means to be lifted up.  In a positive way we could exalt the true God.  Instead the pagans took that and made it into a god (possibly combined with other concepts).  All creation declares His glory, but professing to be wise (buddha, thoth) they became fools (usually akin to the words for idols, also coming soon) and exchanged the glory of the incorruptable God for...

Its like idolatry is the opposite of natural then spiritual.  They take the things/ideas/attributes of God and corrupt them, making them natural-->and ultimately worshipping self/adam/mankind

The original idea may have been spiritual lifting up since the pagans concept was enlightenment.  What they missed though is that true enlightenment doesn't come through us, but through being lifted up in Christ.  As they look toward God they are veiled, that veil is related to the word saka.  They deified the veil, just like they deified the cherubim (your moloch and chiun,  sikkuth-saccuth). 

[Molly]

Or, alternatively, is the idea that there really are other gods, and they are taking the place of the one true God:YHWH [cf Michael Heiser], which I find to be more likely the case and more compelling.  If you take a look at Heiser's work on the Divine Council, then suddenly all sorts of things from nephelim to Greek gods to our eventual co-rulership with Christ take on a new meaning...

[WhiteWings]

Yeah, see Molly's summary just below this post  :laughing7:

[Molly]

heh

Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you;
--Deut 6:14

[redhotmagma]

I'm totally open to the divine council, which was why I mentioned it in my OP.  I know ELM is a divine council guy, yet I posted that article about Abraham=Chronos, Jacob Uranus, etc from him, basically stating that the gods were men. 

Either way, option one is wrong (as I see it now) "the standard line of thought". 

If the divine council is true, likely famous men were added onto, or thought to be the incarnation of those gods. 

I have some questions about divine council, I've read a bit, something sits funny with me though, I just can't pinpoint it.

[WhiteWings]

93אלה ('lh). Assumed root of the following.
93aאֵל ('ēl) god, God.
93bאֱלַֹה ('ĕlōah) god, God.
93cאֱלֹהִים ('ĕlōhı̂m) gods, God.
'lh is the assumed root of 'ēl, 'ĕlōah, and 'ĕlōhı̂m, which means "god" or "God." The Ugaritic term for "god" or the "chief god" is 'il, plural 'ilm, occasionally plural 'ilhm (cf.UT 19: no. 163). The Phoenician term is 'l "El"; the plural is 'lm which seems to be construed sometimes as a singular (cf. Z. Harris, Grammar of the Phoenician Language, Jewish Publication Society, 1936, p. 77). The Aramaic is 'ĕlāh, plural 'ĕlāhı̂n. The Akkadian form is ilu.
The view that the three Hebrew terms come from one root is much disputed and a final verdict is lacking. Some hold that the two are distinct, deriving 'ēl from the root 'wl (strong). Others see 'ĕlōhı̂m derived from the root 'lh, together with 'ĕlōah, that root meaning "fear." Still others hold that both 'ēl and 'ĕlōhı̂m come from 'ĕlōah.
More probable is the view that 'ĕlōhı̂m comes from 'ĕlōah as a unique development of the Hebrew Scriptures and represents chiefly the plurality of persons in the Trinity of the godhead (see 'ĕlōhı̂m).
'ĕlōah is also a basic Hebrew term for the God of Israel, but is used less frequently (see 'ĕlōah and 'ēl, a separate though perhaps related generic term for God).
'ēl. God, god, mighty one, strength. In the common use of the word to denote either the generic name "god" or "the God" of Israel, the ASV and RSV are usually alike. However, in some specialized uses of the term they differ from KJV and from one another, e.g. ASV and RSV treat Jud 9:46 as a proper noun "El-Berith" while KJV translates "god"; Ps 29:1, RSV translates "heavenly beings" while ASV has "sons of the mighty"; Ps 50:1, ASV and RSV have "mighty one," KJV "mighty God;" Ps 80:10 [H 11], ASV renders "cedars of God," RSV has "mighty cedars" and KJV simply "goodly cedars": Ps 82:1, ASV says "congregation of God" but RSV translates "Divine counsel"; Ps 89:6 [H 7]) ASV and KJV "sons of the mighty" but RSV "Heavenly beings"; Isa 57:5, KJV has "idols" but ASV, RSV read as another Hebrew word, "oaks"; and finally, Ezk 32:21, KJV and ASV "strong among the mighty" while RSV renders it simply "mighty chiefs."
The primary meanings of this root as used in Scripture are "god" (pagan or false gods), "God" (the true God of Israel) and less frequently, "the mighty" (referring to men or angels). By far the predominant usage is for the true God and it is to this usage that we will give major attention.
The name "El" is a very ancient Semitic term. It is also the most widely distributed name among Semitic-speaking peoples for the deity, occurring in some form in every Semitic language except Ethiopic. Pope, in his study of "El" in the Ugaritic, notes that it is the most frequently occurring name for the deity in proper names throughout the ancient Semitic world (Marvin Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, p. 1).
We must agree with Pope that etymologically the bottom of the barrel has been scraped with little success (Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, p. 19). Most frequently mentioned suggestions for an original meaning are "power" or "fear" but these are widely challenged and much disputed. [It may be noted that even if the origin of the word in Canaanite or proto-Semitic is from a root meaning power, this by no means indicates the connotation in Hebrew religious usage. Our word "deity" comes from a root known in Sanskrit to mean "sky" but we do not worship a sky-god. r.l.h.]
The question of the relationship between the biblical use of 'ēl and the Semitic concepts of El has received much attention particularly since the discovery of the Ugaritic texts, which have apparently established the fact that the term El was used in reference to a personal god and not merely as a generic term in the ancient Semitic world.
Space will not allow us to develop the various points of view on this matter. The article by Frank M. Cross, published in 1975, in the first volume of the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, gives much attention to this. Certainly we do not have to accept the view that assumes an ancient polytheism in Israel which was gradually refined so that various gods such as El, Shaddai, and Elyon were finally merged into Hebrew monotheism under the heading of Elohim or Yahweh. The bibliography following this article suggests further reading for those who would like to pursue this matter.
A. B. Davidson has observed the pronounced tendency in Scripture to accompany 'ēl with epithets. Indeed, as we study the word as used in Scripture, we must conclude that it is almost always qualified by words or descriptions which further define the word. This leads A. B. Davidson to conclude that these qualifications both elevate the concept of El in Scripture and distinguish the term as used biblically from others who might be so named (A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 61).
A study of the various accompanying descriptions of El where the name occurs in Scripture leads to the rather solid conclusion that, from the beginning of the use of this term in Scripture, it was intended to distinguish the true El (God) from all false uses of that name found in other semitic cultures.
We note first the use of El in terms denoting God's greatness or superiority over all other gods: ha'ēl haggādôl "the great El" (Jer 32:18; Ps 77:13 [H 14]; 95:3); hā'ēl 'ōsēh pele' "El doing wonders" (Ps 77:14 [H 15]); 'ēl 'ēlı̂m "El of els" ("God of gods," Dan 11:36); 'ēl 'ĕlōhê hārûḥôt lĕkol-bāśār "El, the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num 16;22; 27:16).

[WhiteWings]

Next, consider epithets relating to El's position: 'ēl hashshāmāyim "El of heaven" (Ps 136:26); 'ēl mimā'al "El that is above" (Job 31:28); 'ēl 'elyôn "El most high" (Gen 14:18-19, 20, 22; Ps 78:35).
Again, as a precaution against overfamiliarity with God because of the use of a common Semitic term, God is described as 'ēl mistatēr "El who hides himself" (i.e. known only by self-revelation, Isa 45;15). Yet God does see us at all times as Hagar affirmed, 'ēl rō'ı̂ "El who sees me" (Gen 16:13).
Most specially El is accompanied in Scripture by those epithets which describe him as the Savior God of Israel. As such he is called hā'ēl hanne'ĕmān "Faithful El" (Deut 7:9); hā'ēl haqqādôsh "Holy El" (Isa 5:16); 'ēl 'ĕmet "El of truth" (Ps 31:5 [H 6]; Deut 32:4); 'ēl shadday "Almighty El" (Gen 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 48:3; Ex 6:3; Ezk 10:5); 'ēl gibbôr "El the heroic" (Isa 9:6 [H 5]; 10:21); 'ēl dē'ôt "El of knowledge" (I Sam 2:3); 'ēl hakkābôd "El of glory" (Ps 29:3); 'ēl 'ôlām "El of eternity" (Gen 21:33): 'ēl-ṣaddı̂q "Righteous El" (Isa 45:21); and 'ēl qannā' "Jealous El" (Ex 20:5; Deut 4;24; 5:9; 6:15; Josh 24:19; Nah 1:2).
In contradistinction from all false "els" (gods), he is declared to be 'ēl ḥay the "Living El" (Josh 3:10; I Sam 17:26, 36; II Kgs 19:4, 16; Ps 42:2 [H 3]; 84:2 [H 3]; Isa 37:4; Jer 10:10, 23:36; Dan 6:20, 26 [H 21,27]; Hos 1:10 [H 2:1]). In accord with strict biblical monotheism he is therefore 'ēl 'eḥād, the one El (Mal 2:10). And in the passage most quoted elsewhere in the Old Testament El is described in terms of those attributes by which God desired to be known by his people (Ex 34;5-7; cf.Deut 4:31; II Chr 30:9; Neh 9:17, 31; Ps 103:8; Joel 2:13, etc.).
The very personal relationship between the El of Scripture and his believers is seen in the following epithets: hā'ēl bêt-'ēl "the El of Bethel" (Gen 31:13; 35:7); 'ēl sal'ı̂ "El my rock" (Ps 42:9 [H 10]); 'ēl yĕshû'ātı̂ "El my Savior" (Isa 12:2); 'ēl ḥayyāy "El of my life" (Ps 42:8 [H 9]); 'ēl gōmēr 'ālāy "El the performer on me" (Ps 57:3); "the El of ... " (Gen 49:25,etc.); 'ēlı̂ "My El" (Ps 89:26 [H 27]; 102:24 [H 25]; 118:28); hā'ēl mā'ûzzı̂ "El my fortress" (II Sam 22:33); hā'ēl ham'azĕrēnı̂ ḥāyil "El the girder of me with strength" (Ps 18:32 [H 33]); hā'ēl hannōtēn nĕqāmôt lı̂ "the El giving me vengeance" (Ps 18:47 [H 48]; II Sam 22:48).
Thus, in an evangelistic sense, he is described in such epithets as 'ēl mĕhōllekâ "El who begat you" (Deut 32:18); 'ēl môshı̂'ām "El their Savior" (Ps 106:21); 'ēl môṣı̂'ô mimmiṣraim "El his (their) bringer from Egypt" (Num 24:8; 23:22); 'ēl yĕshūrûn "El of Jeshurun" (Deut 33:26); and 'ēl 'ĕlōhê yiśrā'el "El the God of Israel" (Gen 33:20).
Frequently therefore we find the term "El" combined with or associated with the personal name for Israel's God, Yahweh (Josh 22:22; Ps 85:8 [H 9]; 118:27; Isa 42:5, etc.) which testifies that he is indeed 'ēl nōśē' El who forgives (Ps 99:8) and consequently hā'ēl yĕshû'ātēnû "El of our salvation" (Ps 68:19-20 [H 20-21]).
Whether or not the name El can be identified etymologically with the concept of fear, it is clearly often associated with this idea in biblical epithets. He is called hā'ēl haggādôl wĕhannôrā' "El, great and terrible" (Neh 1:5; 4:14; 9:32; Deut 7:21; 10:17; Dan 9:4) or simply, 'ēl na'ărāṣ "Terrible El" (Ps 89:7 [H 8]). He is also described as 'ēl gĕmūlôt "El of recompenses" (Jer 51:56) or more severely 'ēl nōqēm "El the revenger" (Ps 99:8; Nah 1:2), and sometimes simply 'ēl nĕqām "El of vengeance" (Ps 94:1). Being indignant is a continuous characteristic of El in Scripture (Ps 7:11 [H 12]).
Only in Job do we find extensive use of El without epithets. There the term is treated by Job and his friends as the common term for the true God and its use there, unlike other parts of Scripture, far outnumbers the occurrence of Elohim (q.v.).
'ĕlōah. God, god (ASV, RSV similar). The exact relationship between this name for God in Scripture and 'ēl or 'elōhı̂m is disputed and far from settled. It occurs in some of the oldest ot poetry (Deut 32:15, 17) and very frequently (forty-one times) in the debates between Job (anancient believer) and his friends. It appears therefore to be an ancient term for God which was later dropped for the most part until the time of the exile and after, when there was great concern for a return to the more ancient foundations. It is not frequently used outside Job. It occurs once in Isa, once in Prov, twice in Hab, four times in the Ps, and then in the postexilic books: II Chr, Neh, and Dan, a total of five times.
Marvin H. Pope in his Book, El in the Ugaritic Texts, has noted that 'ĕlōah never has the article although it is once determined by the suffix (Hab 1:11) and found once in the construct (Ps 114:7). He further points out that it never occurs in combination with another divine name.
We shall first look at the usage outside Job. Three times it occurs in parallel to "rock" as a descriptive term for God (Deut 32:15; Ps 18:31 [H 32]; Isa 44:8). Once it is found in a context in which God is described as a shield to those who take refuge in him (Prov 30:5). Three times it is used in a context of terror for sinners (Ps 50:22; 114:7; 139:19).
This would suggest that the term conveyed to God's people comfort and assurance while conveying fear to their enemies. The concepts of strength and might conveyed by the term are further seen in the three successive verses of Daniel's vision about the great anti-god (Dan 11:37-39). Here the anti-god's god ('ĕlōah) seems to be "strength" itself. In Hab 1:11 the term is used similarly.

[WhiteWings]

In Hab 3:3, the prophet speaks of 'ĕlōah coming from Teman. In Job, Teman is associated with one of Job's three friends, Eliphaz (Job 4:1). Interestingly, the term 'ĕlōah, used for God, is predominantly used in Job by Job and Eliphaz in their debating. Only in one context does Zophar use the term (11:5-7). Bildad never does. Of course Elihu uses it, perhaps in imitation of the former speakers (six times in chapters 33-37). God himself, in speaking to Job, uses the term twice: once in a context of his providence and once in parallel to "the Almighty" (see our discussion on the concept of might associated with the name).
This term for God was usually clearly used for Israel's God, the true God. This is evident from the fact that the Levites in the postexilic period used the term in quoting the descriptive revelation of God given in Ex 34:6-7, where the original revelation to Moses had used El and Yahweh (Neh 9:17).
The Hebrew word is quite similar to the Aramaic 'ĕlah, the usual name for God in Biblical Aramaic. It has been suggested that the term has come, via Aramaic, from two elements: El and Ah (a shortened form of Ahyeh, Ex 3:14, "I shall be," the designation of Yahweh in the first person; Feigin, Samuel I., "The Origin of lôh, 'God', in Hebrew," JNES 3:259). This suggests the possibility that originally two separate gods were involved and later combined. Such a suggestion does not seem likely inasmuch as the term is in Scripture almost always used as a designation of the true God.
It is probably akin to the term El. It was in use quite early, then, after a period of neglect among God's people, the term was revived to a limited use perhaps through the contacts with Aramaic, where a similar term was in constant use.
'ĕlōhı̂m. God, gods, judges, angels. (Generally, agreement is found in ASV and RSV, however in some passages where the meaning is not clear they differ from KJV: Ex 31:6, where RSV has "God" but KJV "the judges"; similarly in Ex 22:28 [H 27] where RSV has "God" but KJV "the gods" or as a margin "judges.") This word, which is generally viewed as the plural of 'ĕlōah, is found far more frequently in Scripture than either 'ēl or 'ĕlōah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun 'ĕlōhı̂m is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.
Albright has suggested that the use of this majestic plural comes from the tendency in the ancient near east toward a universalism: "We find in Canaanite an increasing tendency to employ the plural shtorôt 'startes', and natôt 'naths', in the clear sense of totality of manifestations of a deity' " (William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2d ed., p. 213). But a better reason can be seen in Scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Gen, the necessity of a term conveying both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1:2,26). This is further borne out by the fact that the form 'ĕlōhı̂m occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramaic (Gustav F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 88).
The term occurs in the general sense of deity some 2570 times in Scripture. Yet as Pope has indicated, it is difficult to detect any discrepancy in use between the forms 'ēl, 'ĕlōah, and 'ĕlōhı̂m in Scripture (Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, p. 10).
When indicating the true God, 'ĕlōhı̂m functions as the subject of all divine activity revealed to man and as the object of all true reverence and fear from men. Often 'ĕlōhı̂m is accompanied by the personal name of God, Yahweh (Gen 2:4-5; Ex 34:23; Ps 68:18 [H 19], etc.).
While the individual occurrences of the term 'ĕlōhı̂m for God are far too numerous to treat here, some significant appositives and descriptive phrases or clauses associated with the name are given below. These descriptive words attached to the noun 'ĕlōhı̂m really serve as titles and indicate the various titles by which God's people came to know him. The term 'ĕlōhı̂m is the favorite term in titles. They are usually attached by means of the construct, the relative clause or by participial phrases rendered as titles.
The first category of titles pertains to his work of creation: Isa 45:18, "God, Former of the Earth"; Jon 1:9 "God of Heaven Who Made the Sea and the Dry Land."
A second category of titles expresses God's sovereignty: Isa 54:5, "God of All the Earth"; I Kgs 20:28, "God of the Hills"; Jer 32:27, "God of All Flesh." The God of All the Kingdoms of the Earth" (cf.Isa 37:16); God of Heaven (Neh 2:4, 20); "Yahweh God of the Heaven" (Gen 24:7; II Chr 36:23); God in the Heaven (II Chr 20:6); "The Lord God of the Heaven and God of the Earth" (Gen 24:3; see Deut 4:39; Josh 2:11); and finally "God of gods and Lord of Lords, the Great, the Mighty, and the Terrible Who Does Not Regard Favorites and Does Not Take Bribes" (Deut 10:17). All of these titles may be subsumed under the rather brief "God Most High" (Ps 57:2 [H 3]).
As sovereign God, 'ĕlōhı̂m is often described as Judge: simply "God Judge" (Ps 50:6; 75:7 [H 8]) or "God Judge in the Earth" (Ps 58:11 [H 12]).
Another category of titles focuses around God's majesty or glory. Among these we find "God of Eternity" (Isa 40:28); "God of Justice" (Isa 30:18); "God of Certainty" (Isa 65:16); "Living God" (Jer 10:10); and "This Holy God" (I Sam 6:20).
By far the most frequent category of titles are those pertaining to the Savior God. Here we include numerous constructs in which God is linked to individuals whom he has called: "Their God" (Gen 17:8); "The God of Abraham" (Gen 26:24); "The God of Abraham ... and the God of Isaac" (Gen 28:13); "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Ex 3:6), etc. (More than one hundred such titles are found in the Old Testament.) Sometimes to these titles is added the personal name, "Yahweh" (Gen 24:12).
Similarly, we find titles linking God by the construct grammatical form to Israel as a whole or to some part of it: "God of the Armies of Israel" (I Sam 17:45) or "God of Jerusalem" (II Chr 32:19).
All of these represent God as savior of his people as does the simple "God of Salvation" (I Chr 16:35; Ps 18:46 [H 47], etc.; cf.Ps 88:1 [H 2]).
Some titles reflect God's actions on behalf of his people in the past: "The Living God, Speaker from the Midst of the Fire" (Deut 5:23 [H 26]; cf.I Kgs 18:24); "God, the Bringer of Prisoners into Prosperity" (Ps 68:7); "God ... the Bringer out to you Water from the Flinty Rock" (Deut 8:15); "Your God Who Separated You from the Peoples" (Lev 20:24).
And finally, we find titles expressing the intimacy of God with his people: "The God of Nearness" (Jer 23:23); "Your God in Whom you Trust" (II Kgs 19:10); "God Your Chastener" (Deut 8:5); The God Feeding Me My Life Long Until Now"(Gen 48:15); "God of My Righteousness" (Ps 4:1 [H 2]); "God of My Mercy (Ps 59:17 [H 18]); "God of My Strength" (Ps 43:2) and "Our God Being Merciful" (Ps 116:5).
In reference to one particularly difficult passage from the point of view of interpretation, which therefore bears on the translation, Cyrus Gordon has said, "It is my contention that here (Ex 22:8-9 [H 7, 8]) 'ĕlōhı̂m does not mean God as the LXX translates, nor judges, which is the interpretation of Pecrapto and Targum Onkelos, followed by Rashi and Ibn Ezra, by several English versions and by the Lexicon" (Cyrus H. Gordon," 'ĕlōhı̂m in its reputed meaning of rulers, judges," JBL 54:140,149. He goes on to demonstrate to his own satisfaction that from our knowledge of the Nuzi tablets we can conclude that "gods" is the better translation and that the passage refers to the "oaths of the gods" which he calls a well attested ancient oriental court procedure. He therefore sees this text as a heathen survival in the Mosaic legislation, one that was obliterated in the later Deuteronomic and priestly recensions.
This is unacceptable from the point of view of Scripture's attestation to being God's Word and its clear doctrine of the existence of only one God. The question of whether "God" or "judges" is to be used here is difficult. If "God" is correct, we understand by the passage that every man is ultimately answerable to God and stands or falls before God no matter what judgment men may make.