• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Now, Brickjectivity, you go ahead and tell everyone what cannot be forgiven without the shedding of blood. What is it?
You should begin by going through the sacrifices in the Torah to see what they are for. Whatever is not listed is your answer. You should also research how Jesus comes to the conclusion that people have power to forgive sins and also the nature of praying for others to be forgiven. That's probably what Paul does and what he wants other people to do, assuming he writes Hebrews.
When Miriam slandered Moses, he prayed for her and she was forgiven. No sacrifice at all. The text requires a variety of behaviors (repayment plus a penalty, separate fines, asking forgiveness) in different cases. If blood provided atonement, none of this would exist.
There is an example of some sin that is unaffected by a sacrifice. I wonder what the other ones are? It might be embarrassing for you @Redemptionsong if it were plain common sense. How unexpected.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
OK, but who cares. We are talking about Judaism.

In the discussion of what one may not eat, one is forbidden to eat blood. This section is not about sacrifices but about why blood can't be eaten.


Yup -- and the method listed is through the burning of incense. Inventing anything else is dishonest. "placed the incense and provided atonement."

So your question is "if the section about eating forbids blood because blood can provide atonement, why can atonement be said to happen without blood?"

There are a few reasons:

1. Numbers 15 makes it clear that any sacrificial system only atones for unintentional sins (check 15:30 and Lev 4:27 for proof). Therefore, since the behavior of the people was intentional, no blood COULD have atoned.

2. The text explicitly says that in cases of certain sins, a poor man can offer flour if he can't afford an animal (Lev 5:11). No blood. The text gives an alternative and does not say that the priest adds anything in beyond what the person gives as his offering.

3. When Miriam slandered Moses, he prayed for her and she was forgiven. No sacrifice at all. The text requires a variety of behaviors (repayment plus a penalty, separate fines, asking forgiveness) in different cases. If blood provided atonement, none of this would exist.

Additionally, post the 5 books, there is explicit text that says that prayers are a method (in I Kings 8) and that they replace sacrifices (it is in Hoshea) so there would not be any need for blood well before the beginning of the common era.

The problem isn't with the translations, but with the logic which you decide must apply as you interpolate details that support your worldview.

If the problem isn't with translations, then you should start believing what is written in the JPS!

Here are the relevant words in the JPS, Numbers 17,verse 12:
'He [Aaron] put on the incense and made expiation for the people;'
The notes in the JPS margin say, 'It is thus Aaron's expiation ritual that halts the plague.' It is NOT the incense burning that expiates. Incense burning accompanies every meat-offering.

You say that the incense burning IS the expiation ritual!

I say that the incense burning is separate from the expiation ritual, and that the KJV is correct to insert a comma to make this distinction clear.

The word 'expiation' gives a clue as to Aaron's intention, because the word comes from the Latin expiare, meaning 'appease by sacrifice'. So, guilt is said to be 'expiated' when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. This is clearly not what is intended with incense burning, which is symbolic of prayer.
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
You should begin by going through the sacrifices in the Torah to see what they are for. Whatever is not listed is your answer. You should also research how Jesus comes to the conclusion that people have power to forgive sins and also the nature of praying for others to be forgiven. That's probably what Paul does and what he wants other people to do, assuming he writes Hebrews.
There is an example of some sin that is unaffected by a sacrifice. I wonder what the other ones are? It might be embarrassing for you @Redemptionsong if it were plain common sense. How unexpected.

It's not me you're undermining; it's Paul. It's the Word of God that you fail to believe.

I've provided the key words, you try answering a straightforward question. Is Paul referring to the remission of sin?
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not me you're undermining; it's Paul. It's the Word of God that you fail to believe.

I've provided the key words, you try answering a straightforward question. Is Paul referring to the remission of sin?
You are the one who is embarrassing Paul by quoting him without doing what he suggests -- researching his reasoning. Maybe you don't believe that you can? Rosends is a rabbi with a diploma, and you're calling Paul's work into question by not following its advice.

As if I could fail by not believing you, someone who can't be bothered to take an interest in their own scripture.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That was pretty unpleasant wasn't it? We should get married and maybe build a putt putt golf course. We'll have arguments while we putt.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Here are the relevant words in the JPS, Numbers 17,verse 12:
'He [Aaron] put on the incense and made expiation for the people;'
The notes in the JPS margin say, 'It is thus Aaron's expiation ritual that halts the plague.'
Yes, the ritual which is listed - the incense.
It is NOT the incense burning that expiates. Incense burning accompanies every meat-offering.
And yet there was no meal offering here, so maybe the incense isn't limited in its power to accompanying a meal offering. maybe, when the text has Moses tell Aaron what to do to effect atonement, and Aaron does it, the text is being precise.
You say that the incense burning IS the expiation ritual!
Well, the text says that. Put on the incense and atone for the people. You want to introduce something unmentioned there. That's your invention. Even placing punctuation shouldn't indicate a whole missing ritual. And yet you insist that there is one. Fascinating.
The word 'expiation' gives a clue as to Aaron's intention, because the word comes from the Latin expiare, meaning 'appease by sacrifice'. So, guilt is said to be 'expiated' when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. This is clearly not what is intended with incense burning, which is symbolic of prayer.
But the Hebrew is "v'chaper" with the word chaper having nothing to do etymologically with a sacrifice. So you are hanging your hat on a comma and a word that one translator chose, instead of the Hebrew and the word that other translators chose. That speaks for itself.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Yes, the ritual which is listed - the incense.

And yet there was no meal offering here, so maybe the incense isn't limited in its power to accompanying a meal offering. maybe, when the text has Moses tell Aaron what to do to effect atonement, and Aaron does it, the text is being precise.

Well, the text says that. Put on the incense and atone for the people. You want to introduce something unmentioned there. That's your invention. Even placing punctuation shouldn't indicate a whole missing ritual. And yet you insist that there is one. Fascinating.

But the Hebrew is "v'chaper" with the word chaper having nothing to do etymologically with a sacrifice. So you are hanging your hat on a comma and a word that one translator chose, instead of the Hebrew and the word that other translators chose. That speaks for itself.

Pity we can't speak to the translators of the JPS, because it's their translation from the Hebrew that uses the word 'expiate'.
Had the incense burning been used to atone, there would have been no need to use 'AND' in the sentence. The translation could have read, 'put on the atoning incense' but it doesn't. It separates the incense burning from the expiatory ritual, intentionally.

At Yom Kippur, the greatest of the days given to atonement, we have a graphic picture of the expiatory nature of the service. [Lev. 16:3-10; 23:26-32; and Num.29:7-11]
Here's a glimpse: JPS, Leviticus 16:6, 'Aaron is to offer his own bull of sin offering, to make expiation for himself and for his household.'

The bull is Aaron's sin offering, and it is used to make expiation for himself and his household.

[This isn't about whether I'm right. It's about what God is revealing to us!]
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Look, if you have Faith in all this then just say so and I can acknowledge your FAITH. But if you want to try and crank real history in to every word then you're going to have trouble.

I am happy to acknowledge that I do have faith, but for me faith involves both the head and the heart!

The big difference between our approaches to history is that you rely wholly on secular documentation and archaeological discovery. From my perspective of faith, the Bible contributes the richest source of reliable historical information. Time and time again, the information provided by the Bible is proved to be correct.

Luke understood clearly that Herod the Great had registered the Jews of Judea [in 4BC] in response to Caesar Augustus' request. This was not a typical Roman census, and therefore does not appear in Roman accounts. That is why, in accordance with Jewish custom, the registration of Joseph and Mary took place in the ancestral town of Bethlehem.

If you look closely at the relationship between Herod and Augustus, which was marred by Herod's support of Antonius (Mark Antony), you will see that Herod was doing his best to ingratiate himself with Augustus. Herod wanted freedom to deal with his own sons, and to demonstrate to Rome that a Jewish king could govern effectively over a distinctively Jewish territory (Judea).
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I am happy to acknowledge that I do have faith, but for me faith involves both the head and the heart!

The big difference between our approaches to history is that you rely wholly on secular documentation and archaeological discovery. From my perspective of faith, the Bible contributes the richest source of reliable historical information. Time and time again, the information provided by the Bible is proved to be correct.

Luke understood clearly that Herod the Great had registered the Jews of Judea [in 4BC] in response to Caesar Augustus' request. This was not a typical Roman census, and therefore does not appear in Roman accounts. That is why, in accordance with Jewish custom, the registration of Joseph and Mary took place in the ancestral town of Bethlehem.

If you look closely at the relationship between Herod and Augustus, which was marred by Herod's support of Antonius (Mark Antony), you will see that Herod was doing his best to ingratiate himself with Augustus. Herod wanted freedom to deal with his own sons, and to demonstrate to Rome that a Jewish king could govern effectively over a distinctively Jewish territory (Judea).
Thanks for your post.
I cannot reply now but will do so tonight or tomorrow.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Pity we can't speak to the translators of the JPS, because it's their translation from the Hebrew that uses the word 'expiate'.

A side note: the 1917 JPS was heavily based on the KJV. But you quoted a side note which wouldn't be a function of translation. The problem isn't the word "expiation" -- it is your belief that this refers to a specific thing which is absent in the Hebrew. You look at the etymology of the English and ignore the etymology of the Hebrew. That's a problem for you, not me.
Had the incense burning been used to atone, there would have been no need to use 'AND' in the sentence.
Sure there would -- and indicates a chronological series of events -- light the incense and atone for the people. The second use is even more explicit (17:12) "and he gave the incense and he atoned for the people." The two are linked by the "and". Think about "light a candle and banish the darkness." Those aren't two separate actions. "Open the book and see for yourself" -- doing the first causes the second.
The translation could have read, 'put on the atoning incense' but it doesn't. It separates the incense burning from the expiatory ritual, intentionally.
No, it couldn't because that's not the way the Hebrew reads.
At Yom Kippur...
Citing a day on which there were sacrifices does nothing to affect the fact that in other cases, there was no sacrifice needed. On Yom Kippur, the atonement ritual required special clothes, but on a Tuesday, it didn't. That doesn't change Tuesday.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
A side note: the 1917 JPS was heavily based on the KJV. But you quoted a side note which wouldn't be a function of translation. The problem isn't the word "expiation" -- it is your belief that this refers to a specific thing which is absent in the Hebrew. You look at the etymology of the English and ignore the etymology of the Hebrew. That's a problem for you, not me.

Sure there would -- and indicates a chronological series of events -- light the incense and atone for the people. The second use is even more explicit (17:12) "and he gave the incense and he atoned for the people." The two are linked by the "and". Think about "light a candle and banish the darkness." Those aren't two separate actions. "Open the book and see for yourself" -- doing the first causes the second.

No, it couldn't because that's not the way the Hebrew reads.

Citing a day on which there were sacrifices does nothing to affect the fact that in other cases, there was no sacrifice needed. On Yom Kippur, the atonement ritual required special clothes, but on a Tuesday, it didn't. That doesn't change Tuesday.

Leviticus chapters 6 and 7 (JPS) deals with priestly rituals in the Tabernacle. We can be sure of this because it says in the concluding verses, 7:37,38:
'Such are the rituals of the burnt offering, the meal offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the offering of ordination, and the sacrifice of well-being, with which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai, when He commanded that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai.'

Now we return to Numbers 17:12, where Aaron makes an atonement for the congregation (v.46). He does so because they have sinned. So Aaron is going to make a sin offering to stop the plague.

In Leviticus 6:17-23 the ritual for sin offering is explained. It says, 'the sin offering shall be slaughtered before the LORD, at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered: it is most holy.'

If, by any chance, I have called their offense a sin, when, in fact, it was a trespass, then we have this to follow [Lev. 7:7]; 'The guilt [trespass] offering is like the sin offering. The same rule applies to both: it shall belong to the priest who makes expiation thereby.'

Psalm 141:2 [JPS]' Take my prayer as an offering of incense, my upraised hands as an evening sacrifice.'

Incense and sacrifice go together in ritual, but are nevertheless two quite distinct components. The conclusion must be that Aaron offered BOTH incense and the blood of a sacrifice to deliver the congregation from the plague.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
admit that 'without shedding of blood is no remission' [of sin]!
First admit you didn't know the context. I provided it, because I wanted to be nice. Nevertheless you ought to be doing your own homework. Paul is apparently toxic for you since you won't research the background. Quote mining him is a mistake. I'm not kidding you.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
First admit you didn't know the context. I provided it, because I wanted to be nice. Nevertheless you ought to be doing your own homework. Paul is apparently toxic for you since you won't research the background. Quote mining him is a mistake. I'm not kidding you.

Boy am I happy I can see Pauls writings in a different light. ;) They give meaning for us all, to ensure we can be a true and loyal follower of Jesus the Christ, and as such await the end of age Messiah. The one the Jews await to fulfill their years of expectations.

I am confident all that has been recorded, in both the Tanaka and the New Testament, can be relied upon for us to grasp who that Messiah will be.

So much confidence in the fact that many millions have also seen it much in the same way. These people are Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and many that had no faith, who now all embrace those biblical promises.

The world is indeed a strange place, but we can rest in the knowledge that G_d Doeth as He Willeth and that is a part of the Covenant we can not ignore.

Regards Tony
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Leviticus chapters 6 and 7 (JPS) deals with priestly rituals in the Tabernacle. We can be sure of this because it says in the concluding verses, 7:37,38:
'Such are the rituals of the burnt offering, the meal offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the offering of ordination, and the sacrifice of well-being, with which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai, when He commanded that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai.'

Now we return to Numbers 17:12, where Aaron makes an atonement for the congregation (v.46). He does so because they have sinned. So Aaron is going to make a sin offering to stop the plague.
No, you see, that's the problem you have. He ISN'T going to make a sin offering, or any offering. The text says what he is going to do. You have decided that the text is leaving something out. That's called an invention on your part. The "sin offering" is a korban chatat which, first, isn't vicarious, so Aaron couldn't offer it for the people, and second, only applied to particular unintentional sins which wasn't the case. So your interpolation of a sin sacrifice is doubly wrong.

If, by any chance, I have called their offense a sin, when, in fact, it was a trespass, then we have this to follow [Lev. 7:7]; 'The guilt [trespass] offering is like the sin offering. The same rule applies to both: it shall belong to the priest who makes expiation thereby.'
Now you are talking about a korban Asham which only relates to six particular categories of sin (none of which is the one mentioned in the text). The sacrifice is offered by the person to the priest who performs the sacrifice and the priests keep the extra and can eat the meat (that's the meaning of "it shall belong to the priest who makes expiation thereby." This is confirmed by 7:8 which adds that even the skin belongs to the priest even though it isn't eaten). So, again, the person involved has to bring the sacrifice to the priest and that doesn't happen here.
Psalm 141:2 [JPS]' Take my prayer as an offering of incense, my upraised hands as an evening sacrifice.'
You realize that this proves MY point, right? That prayer can replace sacrifice -- the upraised hands in prayer can be accounted as sacrifice meaning that no actual blood is spilled. Well done. Good point.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Boy am I happy I can see Pauls writings in a different light. ;) They give meaning for us all, to ensure we can be a true and loyal follower of Jesus the Christ, and as such await the end of age Messiah. The one the Jews await to fulfill their years of expectations.

I am confident all that has been recorded, in both the Tanaka and the New Testament, can be relied upon for us to grasp who that Messiah will be.

So much confidence in the fact that many millions have also seen it much in the same way. These people are Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and many that had no faith, who now all embrace those biblical promises.

The world is indeed a strange place, but we can rest in the knowledge that G_d Doeth as He Willeth and that is a part of the Covenant we can not ignore.

Regards Tony
I would disagree with any number of people, be it a trillion. I would breathe my last rather than bend, unless I were convinced. I'm as stubborn as an old fence post that won't come out. Try to change me, and you'll find its easier to warp spacetime. What am I? There are multiple answers possible.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
I would disagree with any number of people, be it a trillion. I would breathe my last rather than bend, unless I were convinced. I'm as stubborn as an old fence post that won't come out. Try to change me, and you'll find its easier to warp spacetime. What am I? There are multiple answers possible.

Ha ha that is the choice. Meet another stubborn person in me. Baha'u'llah has also said He would raise up people that if the whole world turned against them, they would still stand and proclaim, Behold the Promises have been fulfilled, the Messiah has come and all the Prophecy is fulfilled.

Not the exact words.;)

I am convinced and attest that is so.

I wish you always well and happy in the stance you take.

Regards Tony
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The following is an interesting website with a detailed description of the roots of much of the Hebrew scripture and Ugarit texts.

From: Quartz Hill School of Theology
3. From the Literature of Ugarit to the Literature of the Bible.

The style of writing discovered at Ugarit is known as alphabetic cuneiform. This is a unique blending of an alphabetic script (like Hebrew) and cuneiform (like Akkadian); thus it is a unique blending of two styles of writing. Most likely it came into being as cuneiform was passing from the scene and alphabetic scripts were making their rise. Ugaritic is thus a bridge from one to the other and very important in itself for the development of both.

One of the most, if perhaps not the most, important aspect of Ugaritic studies is the assistance it gives in correctly translating difficult Hebrew words and passages in the Old Testament. As a language develops the meaning of words changes or their meaning is lost altogether. This is also true of the Biblical text. But after the discovery of the Ugaritic texts we gained new information concerning the meaning of archaic words in the Hebrew text.

One example of this is found in Proverbs 26:23. In the Hebrew text כֶּ֣סֶף סִ֭יגִים "silver lips" is divided just as it is here. This has caused commentators quite a bit of confusion over the centuries, for what does "silver lips" mean? The discovery of the Ugaritic texts has helped us to understand that the word was divided incorrectly by the Hebrew scribe (who was as unfamiliar as we are with what the words were supposed to mean). Instead of the two words above, the Ugaritic texts lead us to divide the two words as כספסיגים which means "like silver". This makes eminently more sense in context than the word mistakenly divided by the Hebrew scribe who was unfamiliar with the second word; so he divided into two words which he did know even though it made no sense.

Another example occurs in Ps 89:20. Here the word עָזַר is usually translated "help" but the Ugaritic word gzr means "young man" and if Psalm 89:20 is translated this way it is clearly more meaningful.

Besides single words being illuminated by the Ugaritic texts, entire ideas or complexes of ideas have parallels in the literature. For example, in Proverbs 9:1-18 wisdom and folly are personified as women. This means that when the Hebrew wisdom teacher instructed his students on these matters, he was drawing on material that was commonly known in the Canaanite environment (for Ugarit was Canaanite). In point of fact, KTU 1,7 VI 2-45 is nearly identical to Proverbs 9:1ff. (The abbreviation KTU stands for Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit , the standard collection of this material. The numbers are what we might call the chapter and verse). KTU 1.114:2-4 says:

hklh. sh. lqs. ilm. tlhmn
ilm w tstn. tstnyn d sb
trt. d. skr. y .db .yrh

Eat, o Gods, and drink,
drink wine till you are sated,

Which is very similar to Proverbs 9:5;

Come, eat of my food and drink wine that I have mixed .

Ugaritic poetry is very similar to Biblical poetry and is therefore very useful in interpreting difficult poetic texts. In fact, Ugaritic literature (besides lists and the like) is composed completely in poetic metre. Biblical poetry follows Ugaritc poetry in form and function. There is parallelism, qinah metre, bi and tri colas, and all of the poetic tools found in the Bible are found at Ugarit. In short the Ugaritic materials have a great deal to contribute to our understanding of the Biblical materials; especially since they predate any of the Biblical texts.

4. The Ugaritic Pantheon.

The prophets of the Old Testament rail against Baal, Asherah and various other gods on nearly every page. The reason for this is simple to understand; the people of Israel worshipped these gods along with, and sometimes instead of, Yahweh, the God of Israel. This Biblical denunciation of these Canaanite gods received a fresh face when the Ugaritic texts were discovered, for at Ugarit these were the very gods that were worshipped.

El was the chief god at Ugarit. Yet El is also the name of God used in many of the Psalms for Yahweh; or at least that has been the presupposition among pious Christians. Yet when one reads these Psalms and the Ugaritic texts one sees that the very attributes for which Yahweh is acclaimed are the same for which El is acclaimed. In fact, these Psalms were most likely originally Ugaritic or Canaanite hymns to El which were simply adopted by Israel, much like the American National Anthem was set to a beer hall tune by Francis Scott Key. El is called the father of men, creator, and creator of the creation. These attributes are also granted Yahweh by the Old Testament.

For instances, read KTU 1. 2 I 13-32 and compare it to many of the Psalms. Also, read Ps 82:1, 89:6-8!).

In 1 Kings 22:19-22 we read of Yahweh meeting with his heavenly council. This is the very description of heaven which one finds in the Ugaritic texts. For in those texts the sons of god are the sons of El.

Other deities worshipped at Ugarit were El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith. All of these names are applied to Yahweh by the writers of the Old Testament. What this means is that the Hebrew theologians adopted the titles of the Canaanite gods and attributed them to Yahweh in an effort to eliminate them. If Yahweh is all of these there is no need for the Canaanite gods to exist! This process is known as assimilation.

Besides the chief god at Ugarit there were also lesser gods, demons, and goddesses. The most important of these lesser gods were Baal (familiar to all readers of the Bible), Asherah (also familiar to readers of the Bible), Yam (the god of the sea) and Mot (the god of death). What is of great interest here is that Yam is the Hebrew word for sea and Mot is the Hebrew word for death! Is this because the Hebrews also adopted these Canaanite ideas as well? Most likely they did.

One of the most interesting of these lesser deities, Asherah, plays a very important role in the Old Testament. There she is called the wife of Baal; but she is also known as the consort of Yahweh! That is, among some Yahwists, Ahserah is Yahweh s female counterpart! Inscriptions found at Kuntillet Ajrud (dated between 850 and 750 BCE) say:

I bless you through Yahweh of Samaria,
and through his Asherah!

And at El Qom (from the same period) this inscription:

Uriyahu, the king, has written this.
Blessed be Uriyahu through Yahweh,
and his enemies have been conquered
through Yahweh's Asherah.

That Yahwists worshipped Asherah until the 3rd century before Christ is well known from the Elephantine Papyri. Thus, for many in ancient Israel, Yahweh, like Baal, had a consort. Although condemned by the prophets, this aspect of the popular religion of Israel was difficult to overcome and indeed among many was never overcome.

As had already been mentioned, one of the more important lesser deities at Ugarit was Baal. Baal is described as the rider on the clouds in KTU 1.3 II 40. Interestingly enough, this description is also used of Yahweh in Psalm 68:5.

In the Old Testament Baal is named 58 times in the singular and 18 times in the plural. The prophets protested constantly against the love affair the Israelites had with Baal (cf. Hosea 2:19, for example). The reason Israel was so attracted to Baal was that, first of all, some Israelites viewed Yahweh as a God of the desert and so when they arrived in Canaan they thought it only proper to adopt Baal, the god of fertility. As the old saying goes, whose land, his god. For these Israelites Yahweh was useful in the desert but not much help in the land.

There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:

sm . bny . yw . ilt
The name of the son of god, Yahweh.

This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.

Among the other gods worshipped at Ugarit there are Dagon, Tirosch, Horon, Nahar, Resheph, Kotar Hosis, Shachar (who is the equivalent of Satan), and Shalem. The folks at Ugarit were also plagued by a host of demons and lesser gods. The people at Ugarit saw the desert as the place which was most inhabited by demons (and they were like the Israelites in this belief). KTU 1.102:15-28 is a list of these demons.

One of the most famous of the lesser deities at Ugarit was a chap named Dan il. There is little doubt that this figure corresponds to the Biblical Daniel; while predating him by several centuries. This has led many Old Testament scholars to suppose that the Canonical prophet was modeled on him. His story is found in KTU 1.17 - 1.19.

Another creature which has ties to the Old Testament is Leviathan. Isaiah 27:1 and KTU 1.5 I 1-2 describe this beast. Also see Ps 74:13-14 and 104:26.

There is more that I may post that well documents the origin of the Hebrew scripture, language and culture and the intimate relationship and origins of Judaism with Ugarit culture and language.
You can try to overwhelm me if you want, but it won't work. I'm already familiar with this. Almost all of it is hogwash. There are a handful of words common between Ugarit and Hebrew. That's where the overlap ends. You have no argument.
 
Top