The Holy Shelah: Circumcising the Divine Phallus.

[IndigoChild5559]

El Elyon is a different epithet from El Oliun.

El Elyon = "God Most High"
El Oliun = "God Supreme"

I am not a native speaker of Hebrew. In fact my knowledge of Hebrew is only good enough that I can follow along in the Siddur. However, that said, I certainly do have Google at my disposal, as well as AI. As best as I can determine, not only is El Oliun never used in the Tanakh, but it appears Oliun isn't a word in Hebrew at all.

Elyon can be translated either as "most high" or "supreme." Think for a moment--those are synonyms.

 

[Ebionite]

Jesus is YHVH.

No. In prophecy he is described as a servant, and in the gospels he refers to his Father as someone above him.

 

[Sargonski]

I am not a native speaker of Hebrew. In fact my knowledge of Hebrew is only good enough that I can follow along in the Siddur. However, that said, I certainly do have Google at my disposal, as well as AI. As best as I can determine, not only is El Oliun never used in the Tanakh, but it appears Oliun isn't a word in Hebrew at all.

Elyon can be translated either as "most high" or "supreme." Think for a moment--those are synonyms.

AI at your disposal ?? .. ?? I gave you the link to the Hebrew-English Interlinear Transliteration . Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

Go there .. Go to Genesis 14:18 .. they will give you the Hebrew script .. then a Hebrew translation Oliun then english = Supreme.

Then Go other Places and you will find El Elyon .. so obviously .. these are two different epithets .. the fact that you can not find elsewhere does not matter .. one epithet is God Most High .. the other is God Supreme .. and there are others El Shaddai .. a term the experts are confused but something to do with twin peaks .. mountains .. On High ... El was a god who lived in a tent on a high mountain back when he was Chief God of Earth.

Just because they are synonyms does not mean they are the same epithet. El Shaddai is also a synonm with the others .. and there are others .. but they are not the same epithet .. so you are wrong twice. These are two different epithets with similar meaning

 

[IndigoChild5559]

AI at your disposal ?? .. ?? I gave you the link to the Hebrew-English Interlinear Transliteration . Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

Go there .. Go to Genesis 14:18 .. they will give you the Hebrew script .. then a Hebrew translation Oliun then english = Supreme.

I was immediately surprised by your Hebrew Interlinear site. Even though it correctly uses the Hebrew word. עֶלְיוֹן , I certainly know enough hebrew to know that the word it is using is not Oliun as your website states, but Elyon. Sometimes I make mistakes, so I double and triple checked this. I'm afraid you website simply transliterated incorrectly.


I'm not really sure why your website screwed this up. I'm completely baffled. I don't really know who put together the online Hebrew Interlinear. Sometimes even qualified people make honest mistakes. It could be that this was a simple data entry mistake.

There doesn't seem to be anything "obvious" about the website that would cause concern, so I do understand why you would trust it. The only reason I was able to spot the error was because my awful Hebrew was nevertheless good enough to know how to pronounce words.

I hope that this settles the matter.

 

[John D. Brey]

AI at your disposal ?? .. ?? I gave you the link to the Hebrew-English Interlinear Transliteration . Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

The link you gave is to a low-budget interlinear. I have about ten of the best lexicons in existence and not one of them seems to support your argument. They all transliterate the Hebrew consonants as El Elyon (or Elyon without the El) wherever they're found in the Tanakh.

El Shaddai .. a term the experts are confused but something to do with twin peaks .. mountains .. On High ...

The idea of "twin peaks," if it's authentic, would be because "shad" שד means "breast," ala twin peaks. There's a famous hill in Arizona named "Squaw Peak" because it's shaped like a woman's breast.

Just because they are synonyms does not mean they are the same epithet. El Shaddai is also a synonm with the others .. and there are others .. but they are not the same epithet .. so you are wrong twice. These are two different epithets with similar meaning . . . one epithet is God Most High .. the other is God Supreme.

I don't think there's any difference in the Hebrew. I have one of the best Bible software programs available and a word search shows that the fifty-three or so times the consonants עליון are found, they all mean the same thing. The meaning at Genesis 14:18 isn't interpreted differently than the meaning anywhere else in the Tanakh. To the best of my knowledge there's no lexicon that transliterates עליון as "oliun" outside the low-budget interlinear you linked to? There's no respectable Bible translation where עליון is used for two different epithets for God.



John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The link you gave is to a low-budget interlinear. I have about ten of the best lexicons in existence and not one of them seems to support your argument. They all transliterate the Hebrew consonants as El Elyon (or Elyon without the El) wherever they're found in the Tanakh.



The idea of "twin peaks," if it's authentic, would be because "shad" שד means "breast," ala twin peaks. There's a famous hill in Arizona named "Squaw Peak" because it's shaped like a woman's breast.



I don't think there's any difference in the Hebrew. I have one of the best Bible software programs available and a word search shows that the fifty-three or so times the consonants עליון are found, they all mean the same thing. The meaning at Genesis 14:18 isn't interpreted differently than the meaning anywhere else in the Tanakh. To the best of my knowledge there's no lexicon that transliterates עליון as "oliun" outside the low-budget interlinear you linked to? There's no respectable Bible translation where עליון is used for two different epithets for God.



John

Thank you very much. I said as much in my own post. Given that I am not a Hebrew scholar, it made me genuinely uncomfortable to contradict an online text. It is very reassuring to know that I'm not the only person who caught this mistake.

 

[Eddi]

LOL I've just seen this

WTF is a divine phallus????

I don't think God has a willy

 

[Sargonski]

I was immediately surprised by your Hebrew Interlinear site. Even though it correctly uses the Hebrew word. עֶלְיוֹן , I certainly know enough hebrew to know that the word it is using is not Oliun as your website states, but Elyon. Sometimes I make mistakes, so I double and triple checked this. I'm afraid you website simply transliterated incorrectly.


I'm not really sure why your website screwed this up. I'm completely baffled. I don't really know who put together the online Hebrew Interlinear. Sometimes even qualified people make honest mistakes. It could be that this was a simple data entry mistake.

There doesn't seem to be anything "obvious" about the website that would cause concern, so I do understand why you would trust it. The only reason I was able to spot the error was because my awful Hebrew was nevertheless good enough to know how to pronounce words.

I hope that this settles the matter.

Your claim that the website transliterated incorrectly the epithet for Oliun is "naked" .. and nonsensical. Do feel free to support your claim.

In the meantime .. The epiphet El Oliun .. will be rendered "God Supreme" .. as opposed to "God most high" .. the dumb thing is that it matters not to the question of the identity of the God of Abraham .. which is EL .. at least according to modern theological scholarship .. Judaism included.

Modern Bibles are being changed to reflect and include this fact .. and please restrain from crying out that these newer Bibles are "mistranslation" as there no question in serious circles as to the meaning of "the Assembly of EL" in Psalm 82:1 "YHWH stands in[b] the assembly of El;[c] in the midst of the gods[d] he renders judgment.[e]"

If we click on the footnote we find --- The phrase עֲדַת אֵל (ʿadat ʾel, “assembly of El”) appears only here in the OT. (3) The present translation assumes this is a reference to the Canaanite high god El, who presided over the Canaanite divine assembly. (See Isa 14:13, where El’s assembly is called “the stars of El.”) In the Ugaritic myths the phrase ʿdt ʾilm refers to the “assembly of the gods,” who congregate in King Kirtu’s house, where Baal asks El to bless Kirtu’s house (see G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 91). If the Canaanite divine assembly is referred to here in Ps 82:1, then the psalm must be understood as a bold polemic against Canaanite religion. Israel’s God invades El’s assembly, denounces its gods as failing to uphold justice, and announces their coming demise.

-----------


You know the Hebrew word for EL can also mean God ! just like the Hebrew word for "most high" - Elyon .. can also mean Supreme .. depending on the context .. and a one ringy dingy .. and a two

 

[Sargonski]

LOL I've just seen this

WTF is a divine phallus????

I don't think God has a willy

May Gods have a willy .. .. what on earth are you talking about ?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your claim that the website transliterated incorrectly the epithet for Oliun is "naked" .. and nonsensical. Do feel free to support your claim.

The vowel point beneath the the ayin is pronounced "eh," not "o."
The vowel point under the lamed is silent since it is at the end of a syllable.
The vowel that is independent (on top of a placeholder) is pronounce "o," not "u." If the author wanted it to be pronounced "u," he would have place the dot inside, not on top.

In the meantime .. The epiphet El Oliun .. will be rendered "God Supreme" .. as opposed to "God most high" ..

I already explained to you that in English "God Supreme" and "God most high" mean the identical thing. El Elyon can be correctly translated to either phrase.

 

[Eddi]

May Gods have a willy .. .. what on earth are you talking about ?

?????

 

[IndigoChild5559]

May Gods have a willy .. .. what on earth are you talking about ?

He is referring to the outrageous title of this thread.

 

[John D. Brey]

You know the Hebrew word for EL can also mean God ! just like the Hebrew word for "most high" - Elyon .. can also mean Supreme .. depending on the context .. and a one ringy dingy .. and a two

What do you see as the fundamental distinction between "most high" versus "supreme"? Does the interlinear you link to translate עליון other than "supreme"? I looked a few places and it doesn't seem to be the case. So how do you get two distinct epithets out of "supreme"?



John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What do you see as the fundamental distinction between "most high" versus "supreme"? Does the interlinear you link to translate עליון other than "supreme"? I looked a few places and it doesn't seem to be the case. So how do you get two distinct epithets out of "supreme"?

He is remaining adamant, despite our posts, that the interlinear transliteration Oliun is correct, and he is concluding that the two words, Oliun and Elyon, have different meanings.

In my last post to him, I went vowel by vowel to show him that the transliteration is Elyon and not Oliun, and have not heard back from him yet.

 

[John D. Brey]

LOL I've just seen this

WTF is a divine phallus????

I don't think God has a willy

"Absolute being, not being manifested, can be perceived only by means of its creation, which is its sign -- its lingam. The existence of a transcendent being who thinks the world can be known only through this sign". . . By worshiping the lingam [phallus] one is not deifying a physical organ, but simply recognizing a form that is eternal and divine manifested in the microcosm. The human organ is the image of the divine emblem, the eternal and causal form of the lingam, present in all things. The phallus is the perceptible aspect of the divinity who exceeds the state of non-creation by the length of ten fingers. . . it is not the phallus in itself which is revered but that for which it is the sign – the progenitor, the cosmic individual.

Alain Danielou, The Phallus, p. 11, 13.​

John

 

[Eddi]

"Absolute being, not being manifested, can be perceived only by means of its creation, which is its sign -- its lingam. The existence of a transcendent being who thinks the world can be known only through this sign". . . By worshiping the lingam [phallus] one is not deifying a physical organ, but simply recognizing a form that is eternal and divine manifested in the microcosm. The human organ is the image of the divine emblem, the eternal and causal form of the lingam, present in all things. The phallus is the perceptible aspect of the divinity who exceeds the state of non-creation by the length of ten fingers. . . it is not the phallus in itself which is revered but that for which it is the sign – the progenitor, the cosmic individual.​

​

Alain Danielou, The Phallus, p. 11, 13.​

John

OK

 

[John D. Brey]

He is remaining adamant, despite our posts, that the interlinear transliteration Oliun is correct, and he is concluding that the two words, Oliun and Elyon, have different meanings.

In my last post to him, I went vowel by vowel to show him that the transliteration is Elyon and not Oliun, and have not heard back from him yet.

As best I can tell, he's investing a lot in the interlinear he linked to. It definitely seems to be an outlier so far as transliteration is concerned. It states that it's a "simple" versus a "phonetic" transliteration. The methodology they're using might be useful if a person fully understands what the methodology they're using is. But since it's an outlier, a person would have to jettison all their previous exegesis, based on the standard methods of transliteration, learn the new methodology, which is a pretty taxing endeavor requiring a lot of faith in the new methodology. Worse, if even if you do adopt the new methodology, as Sargonski appears to have done, you get in trouble when you use the new methodology to dialogue with people ensconced in the traditional methodology. No one is going to know what "oliun" means unless you tell them. Then they're going to scratch their head and wonder what's wrong with "Elyon"?

It reminds me of the time I purchased a new translation of Heidegger's, An Introduction to Metaphysics. The guy who translated this particular edition took it on himself to produce his own, new, methodology for translating Heidegger's famously difficult German. He went so far as to coin new English words to allegedly better express what Heidegger meant by the German word. The problem is, that the reader has to know the methodology for how the English word was coined (to better express Heidegger's German) before he can even understand the coined word let alone appreciate why it's a better translation of Heidegger's German than the traditional English versions of An Introduction to Metaphysics. I could quote from a more standard English version of, An Introduction to Metaphysics, and someone would get the gist of it. But to attempt to quote from the new version I'd have to explain each newly coined word and the methodology for why it's better than the standard word.

That seems to be something like the problem associated with Sargonski using an interlinear transliteration that uses a different methodology than every other interlinear transliteration.

Of course that doesn't solve the problem of Sargonski's claim that "most high" עליון is a different epithet than "supreme" עליון??




John

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course that doesn't solve the problem of Sargonski's claim that "most high" עליון is a different epithet than "supreme" עליון??

Right. His Hebrew Interlinear source DOES properly translate עליון in other places as Elyon, and he has yet to acknowledge this.

My going hypothesis is that his interlinear source simply made a data entry mistake of its Genesis 14:18 transliteration. It's a mistake that anyone who knows how to pronounce Hebrew vowel marks can catch, even me! LOL

 

[John D. Brey]

OK

Though it likely doesn't interest you, the idea of a "divine phallus" is ubiquitous so far as ancient religions and their symbolism are concerned:

Throughout the ancient Mediterranean, Middle East and even into India, images of Priapus (or Hermes, or some other phallic deity) with a phallus were used in deflowering rituals of newlywed virgin brides. Though the bride would later consummate the marriage with her husband, the deity was said to impregnate her with her firstborn child.​

​

Wikipedia, Priapus.​

In the ancient religious symbolism, the firstborn child of every virgin was conceived through the jus primae noctis of the tribal deity. Ritually speaking, the virgin bride would enter the temple where there was a wooden or metal phallus representing the tribal god and she'd deflower herself symbolizing that her firstborn was the tribal god's son. This firstborn would then be a priest serving in the temple where he was ritually conceived. Even in Judaism there's the ritual of pidyon haben where the parents "redeem" the firstborn male from temple servitude by purchasing him from that responsibility.

As in all myths of divine births, the maiden might have an earthly husband, but he didn't lie with her until after she brought forth her firstborn child, who was the son of God . . ..

Barbara G. Walker, TWEMS, p. 311.​

She didn't lie with her bridegroom until she deflowered herself on the divine organ of the tribal god.

Even the form itself, under which the god was represented, appear to them a mockery of all piety and devotion, and more fit to be placed in a brothel than a temple. But the forms and ceremonies of a religion are not always to be understood in their direct and obvious sense; but are to be considered as symbolical representations of some hidden meaning, which may be extremely wise and just, though the symbols themselves, to those who know not their true signification, may appear in the highest degree absurd and extravagant.​

​

Richard Payne Knight, A History of Phallic Worship, p. 27.​

John

 

[Eddi]

Though it likely doesn't interest you, the idea of a "divine phallus" is ubiquitous so far as ancient religions and their symbolism are concerned:

Throughout the ancient Mediterranean, Middle East and even into India, images of Priapus (or Hermes, or some other phallic deity) with a phallus were used in deflowering rituals of newlywed virgin brides. Though the bride would later consummate the marriage with her husband, the deity was said to impregnate her with her firstborn child.​

​

Wikipedia, Priapus.​

In the ancient religious symbolism, the firstborn child of every virgin was conceived through the jus primae noctis of the tribal deity. Ritually speaking, the virgin bride would enter the temple where there was a wooden or metal phallus representing the tribal god and she'd deflower herself symbolizing that her firstborn was the tribal god's son. This firstborn would then be a priest serving in the temple where he was ritually conceived. Even in Judaism there's the ritual of pidyon haben where the parents "redeem" the firstborn male from temple servitude by purchasing him from that responsibility.

As in all myths of divine births, the maiden might have an earthly husband, but he didn't lie with her until after she brought forth her firstborn child, who was the son of God . . ..​

​

Barbara G. Walker, TWEMS, p. 311.​

She didn't lie with her bridegroom until she deflowered herself on the divine organ of the tribal god.

Even the form itself, under which the god was represented, appear to them a mockery of all piety and devotion, and more fit to be placed in a brothel than a temple. But the forms and ceremonies of a religion are not always to be understood in their direct and obvious sense; but are to be considered as symbolical representations of some hidden meaning, which may be extremely wise and just, though the symbols themselves, to those who know not their true signification, may appear in the highest degree absurd and extravagant.​

​

Richard Payne Knight, A History of Phallic Worship, p. 27.​

John

What about the divine vagina?