Shalom NechemYah, you should list the ten names of genesis 5 on one side, and translate into English on the other side and see the message Yehovah has given to us. Shalom!
Scripture clearly tells us the meaning. Lev 20:11 - And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev 20:19 - And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. Lev 20:20 - And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness:they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. Lev 20:21 - And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. Lev 20:17 - And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it isa wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people:he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. Lev 18:14 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
@dawnchristine1344 Scripture plainly states Yehovah hates a false witness. To think and speak evil is to reveal the corrupt nature of the heart. Why do you seek and assume evil, where it is not seen? Repent in the name of Yeshu'a HaMoshe'a, renouncing every thought that separates you from Yehovah.
@phillipbradshaw What! Oh my goodness! Please look at Leviticus for a better understanding and do some more research from scholars such as Dr. Michael Heiser who does an in depth study of these verses in Genesis and Leviticus!
As evil increased God provided more teaching about good. As mankind abandoned and forgot the ways of God, God provided the remnant with more information about His righteousness. Expanding Tora to deal with the increase of sin.
Has Nehemia dealt with the popular assertion that the name of the first 7 patriarchs, read in sequence actually speaks out the prophecy of God before the Flood of Noah's time? Is that a Jewish tradition of old, or is this an idea imposed on the Scripture/text?
Has Nehemia Gordon finished researching the Shem Tov Mattityahu Gospel copies? Al Garza has teamed up with Janice Bacca to find the oldest, authentic Ivrit Brit Chadashah.
When we discuss these stories we need to emphasize this is theological literature and what is the theological literature doing with respect to proper names. Mesopotamia as we come to thing about it has a soft beginning about 6500 BCE (8500 years ago) as an extension of a developing river cukture called the Hassuna/Samarah culture. Scarcely little is known until around 7450 years ago with Ubaid 1 and in particular the founding of Eridu. The grand opening of Eridu was the building of the temple of E.Absu, or the temple of the swamp. Why did they build a temple to the swamp, because the swamp was a buffer against the tempestuous nature of the Euphrates, as mythified in the various flood myths, the swamp essentially spread out the flood waters and outlet them to the Persian gulf. One of the settlements, Ur or Urim-ki, was completely sterilized by one of these floods and would not be occupied again for 15 years as the river shifted. It is from Eridu which the foundations of civilization are built, but Eridu had its limitations, in the copper age it had no copper, in order to get copper locally you had to either go up the Tigris or over to the Zagros mnts, where different people groups lived. At the end of the Ubaid-Eridu period a people most would call Protoindoeuropeans moved in north of the Tigris river and thus the supplies of minerals available in the Samarah started to disappear. Moreover Halaf culture of the middle Euphrates began to move into the upper Tigris. However as Bad Tibera was closer to these early sources, it produced a town of copper smiths. This gave them power and according to the SKL they took kingship from Eridu. However as copper trade moved up the Euphrates, the towns along the Euphrates started gaining power. About 30 or so miles north of Eridu was Kallubah. The village had a sky spirit, a nearby village had a love/war goddess. These two merged to form Uruk. Uruk then organized to control trade on the Euphrates this occurred between 5500 and 6000 years ago during the Early Uruk period. The various other protocities in Sumer then confederated with Uruk into a trading alliance creating the framework of what we call god. The heights of heaven are not Kur or Absu, but An. The priest of A determined who was in the confederation by essentially promoting revamped spirits into gods. Absu of Eridu was replaced by Enki. A great temple was built called the white temple, and A ziggurat was built for Innana. Its was via the conjugal acceptance of the priestesses of Inanna that kings were a ‘anointed’. Thus began civilization. Cities were not that powerful, and the Semetic peoples, possibly Halaf, moved into the region. Cities needed to protect the trade routes against these raiders, and their crops against the flocks. So up the Euphrates stations were draft animals could be fed and water, garrison troops, and trade outlets. One of the cities became as powerful as Uruk, Shuruppak. rose in power to about 3000 BCE, however over the next 100 years great trouble befell the city. In fact its troubles were so great that its saga was the best known saga for the next 3300 years. As Shuruppak reached its peak so also the attention of the raiders on its wealth. Eventually they burnt the city down. This has resulted in fired clay tablets that paint a picture of the all-but communist civil structure of the city. The city was rebuilt but then suffered drought do to the drying Euphrates. Scientist speculate that human activity and windblown sand filled in the channel of the Euphrates causing it to back up. Around 2900 BCE this dam broke and covered the city in places with 15ft of sandy silt. This is the Great Flood which the biblical literature uses, at least from two sources. After 2900 BCE there was a major push up the Euphrates, as with Shuruppak the occupation was topsy-turvy. A city was built at Mari, then abandoned and then reoccupied toward the end of the 27th century BCE and by the 26th century BCE. This push up the Euphrates effectively begins the Early dynastic period (which has huge implications for the Bible, but outside of the scope here). Once Mari is established Shuruppak falls in importance and as the conquest of Canaan commences (the real conquest not the biblical conquest) there was an increased need for basically way-stations. It is during this period that Babilu (Babel) is started. There is little evidence that Babilu is anything more than just a stop along the Euphrates. We need to understand the political implications of Mari and its kings. Mari-Sumer was a failure. For Mari to succeed it needed some local support. Sumer developed this support by engaging the Amurru (believers in the pantheon of Amurru, what they called Mar.tu and what we call Amorites) whose livelihood came from grazing sheep herds up and down the Euphrates. Sumer solves this problem by creating the hybrid kingship of Mari, giving the Amorites a strong foothold, not only in the conquest of Canaan (25th to 17th century BCE) but also in the colonization down the Euphrates. One of the places they colonized was Babilu, whose god Marduk has both Sumerian (he’s the son of Enki) and an Amorite god. The Akkadian dynasty collapses into a dark period followed by the rise of Trading City States. Ur III and its satellite Haran are the cities mentioned as the cities of Abram, most certainly his family revered Nanna/Suen (If he existed), during this period trade was extended in Canaan into the direction of Egypt and sites like Jericho and Ai have destruction layers into the Isin-Larsa period. This period ends in the takeover of Akkad and Sumer by Hammurabi and his short lived Empire at Babylon. Hammurabi was not interested in promoting the Amorite gods so much as establishing Amorite dominance within Sumerian culture. There are temples in Babilu at the time, but none of particular notice. Also, Amorite leadership is relatively short-lived and replaced by Protoindoeuropean kings called Kassites. But there is a legacy of the Amorites that the Bible gets wrong. The Amorites connect the west coast of the near east to the eastern trading routes. It then connects Mari with Egypt via the Hyksos, who just happen to be Amorite and Arab (w. Semetic). One of the kings has the name Yaqub Har, Jacob. We know from Egyptian Archaeology that Lapis Lazuli from Afghanistan (IVC/BMAC) reaches Egypt at this time. Thus the Babylonians were clearly communicating with “Hamitic”, west Semetic, east Semetic, Sumerian speakers, Elamites, and peoples as far east as Afghanistan. In fact, artifacts from Mesopotamia show up in Southern India and Ceylon. There is another Jewish polemic against Babilu, that is the whore of Babylon. The terminology is not so much wrong as it is misplaced. The great seductress is Ishtar, from Uruk, whose imagery shows up as Astarte, Aphrodite …but also a possible source for the biblical Ester. I think Sumerians when confronted with prostitute imagery and the Queen of Heaven, we would make the comparison, if Uncle Sam is on Army Recruitment posters, the Ishtar was on the Sumerians Equivelent. Join the Armies and enjoy the perks. So then we have to think about why the authors of this chapter in Genesis creating this polemic against Babilu. Noting also that the kings who took Jerusalem were not Amorite, but Chaldean (Aramean not Amorite). After the fall of the Kassites, Uruk became less powerful, the administration for Uruk was now in the realm of legacy cities. As Assyria terribly mismanaged Babylon, ziggurats rose and fell. During the reign of Ashurbanipal, the last vestiges of the Assyrian familial dysfunctionality ended with a self-evident (gee not again) and the fall of Babylon, the temple was being reconstructed but never fully completed. At the end of the Babylonian period, the last king Nabonidus took a very deep look at the polity of Mesopotamia realizing that things always headed for destruction, he abandoned the cult of Marduk and sought out the sages in Tayma and Yathrib (both Jahwist and Suen) in the end he decided to move the capital to Haran. Some have argued that Nabonidus was not Chaldean, but from Uruk, that he wanted to reinstitute the old system and get away from Marduk/Assher type power gods. He failed, rather promptly. In the age of dynasties you cannot be but a dynastic ramrod. So the Bible is taking this imagery and mixing metaphors, Babylon was waning at the end of the Neobabylonian period, city rituals had not been performed in a decade, and Nabonidus was going to decapitate it, but the imagery of the whore they are attaching because they despise Babilu. On the other hand, while creating this polemic, the Hebrew Bible is borrowing like crazy from different aspects of Akkad and Sumer legends and myths to build stories of creation, floods, the Abram stories, the story of Jonah, Ester, …... You even see top of the hat to Mesopotamian region at multiple places in Ezekiel. Love and Hate are two sides of the same coin.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
Watched this many times over 6years ago. And still don’t get enough of it.
Contemplating watching the entire series for a third time 😂
Shalom NechemYah, you should list the ten names of genesis 5 on one side, and translate into English on the other side and see the message Yehovah has given to us. Shalom!
Perfect on his generation: noit mixed with nephalim blood?
The Scripture clearly refers to Ham's offense is when he mocked his father to his brothers.
Ham had sexual intercourse with Noah’s wife.
Scripture clearly tells us the meaning. Lev 20:11 - And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:19 - And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
Lev 20:20 - And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness:they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
Lev 20:21 - And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
Lev 20:17 - And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it isa wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people:he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Lev 18:14 - Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
@dawnchristine1344 Scripture plainly states Yehovah hates a false witness. To think and speak evil is to reveal the corrupt nature of the heart. Why do you seek and assume evil, where it is not seen? Repent in the name of Yeshu'a HaMoshe'a, renouncing every thought that separates you from Yehovah.
@phillipbradshaw What! Oh my goodness! Please look at Leviticus for a better understanding and do some more research from scholars such as Dr. Michael Heiser who does an in depth study of these verses in Genesis and Leviticus!
SHALOM WHAT ARE THE TWO EXTRA YODS IN THE YETZER OF THE MAKING OF ADAM
As evil increased God provided more teaching about good. As mankind abandoned and forgot the ways of God, God provided the remnant with more information about His righteousness. Expanding Tora to deal with the increase of sin.
Has Nehemia dealt with the popular assertion that the name of the first 7 patriarchs, read in sequence actually speaks out the prophecy of God before the Flood of Noah's time?
Is that a Jewish tradition of old, or is this an idea imposed on the Scripture/text?
Has Nehemia Gordon finished researching the Shem Tov Mattityahu Gospel copies? Al Garza has teamed up with Janice Bacca to find the oldest, authentic Ivrit Brit Chadashah.
When we discuss these stories we need to emphasize this is theological literature and what is the theological literature doing with respect to proper names.
Mesopotamia as we come to thing about it has a soft beginning about 6500 BCE (8500 years ago) as an extension of a developing river cukture called the Hassuna/Samarah culture. Scarcely little is known until around 7450 years ago with Ubaid 1 and in particular the founding of Eridu. The grand opening of Eridu was the building of the temple of E.Absu, or the temple of the swamp.
Why did they build a temple to the swamp, because the swamp was a buffer against the tempestuous nature of the Euphrates, as mythified in the various flood myths, the swamp essentially spread out the flood waters and outlet them to the Persian gulf. One of the settlements, Ur or Urim-ki, was completely sterilized by one of these floods and would not be occupied again for 15 years as the river shifted.
It is from Eridu which the foundations of civilization are built, but Eridu had its limitations, in the copper age it had no copper, in order to get copper locally you had to either go up the Tigris or over to the Zagros mnts, where different people groups lived. At the end of the Ubaid-Eridu period a people most would call Protoindoeuropeans moved in north of the Tigris river and thus the supplies of minerals available in the Samarah started to disappear. Moreover Halaf culture of the middle Euphrates began to move into the upper Tigris. However as Bad Tibera was closer to these early sources, it produced a town of copper smiths. This gave them power and according to the SKL they took kingship from Eridu. However as copper trade moved up the Euphrates, the towns along the Euphrates started gaining power.
About 30 or so miles north of Eridu was Kallubah. The village had a sky spirit, a nearby village had a love/war goddess. These two merged to form Uruk. Uruk then organized to control trade on the Euphrates this occurred between 5500 and 6000 years ago during the Early Uruk period. The various other protocities in Sumer then confederated with Uruk into a trading alliance creating the framework of what we call god. The heights of heaven are not Kur or Absu, but An. The priest of A determined who was in the confederation by essentially promoting revamped spirits into gods. Absu of Eridu was replaced by Enki. A great temple was built called the white temple, and A ziggurat was built for Innana. Its was via the conjugal acceptance of the priestesses of Inanna that kings were a ‘anointed’.
Thus began civilization. Cities were not that powerful, and the Semetic peoples, possibly Halaf, moved into the region. Cities needed to protect the trade routes against these raiders, and their crops against the flocks. So up the Euphrates stations were draft animals could be fed and water, garrison troops, and trade outlets.
One of the cities became as powerful as Uruk, Shuruppak. rose in power to about 3000 BCE, however over the next 100 years great trouble befell the city. In fact its troubles were so great that its saga was the best known saga for the next 3300 years. As Shuruppak reached its peak so also the attention of the raiders on its wealth. Eventually they burnt the city down. This has resulted in fired clay tablets that paint a picture of the all-but communist civil structure of the city. The city was rebuilt but then suffered drought do to the drying Euphrates. Scientist speculate that human activity and windblown sand filled in the channel of the Euphrates causing it to back up. Around 2900 BCE this dam broke and covered the city in places with 15ft of sandy silt. This is the Great Flood which the biblical literature uses, at least from two sources.
After 2900 BCE there was a major push up the Euphrates, as with Shuruppak the occupation was topsy-turvy. A city was built at Mari, then abandoned and then reoccupied toward the end of the 27th century BCE and by the 26th century BCE. This push up the Euphrates effectively begins the Early dynastic period (which has huge implications for the Bible, but outside of the scope here).
Once Mari is established Shuruppak falls in importance and as the conquest of Canaan commences (the real conquest not the biblical conquest) there was an increased need for basically way-stations.
It is during this period that Babilu (Babel) is started. There is little evidence that Babilu is anything more than just a stop along the Euphrates. We need to understand the political implications of Mari and its kings. Mari-Sumer was a failure. For Mari to succeed it needed some local support. Sumer developed this support by engaging the Amurru (believers in the pantheon of Amurru, what they called Mar.tu and what we call Amorites) whose livelihood came from grazing sheep herds up and down the Euphrates. Sumer solves this problem by creating the hybrid kingship of Mari, giving the Amorites a strong foothold, not only in the conquest of Canaan (25th to 17th century BCE) but also in the colonization down the Euphrates. One of the places they colonized was Babilu, whose god Marduk has both Sumerian (he’s the son of Enki) and an Amorite god. The Akkadian dynasty collapses into a dark period followed by the rise of Trading City States. Ur III and its satellite Haran are the cities mentioned as the cities of Abram, most certainly his family revered Nanna/Suen (If he existed), during this period trade was extended in Canaan into the direction of Egypt and sites like Jericho and Ai have destruction layers into the Isin-Larsa period. This period ends in the takeover of Akkad and Sumer by Hammurabi and his short lived Empire at Babylon. Hammurabi was not interested in promoting the Amorite gods so much as establishing Amorite dominance within Sumerian culture. There are temples in Babilu at the time, but none of particular notice. Also, Amorite leadership is relatively short-lived and replaced by Protoindoeuropean kings called Kassites.
But there is a legacy of the Amorites that the Bible gets wrong. The Amorites connect the west coast of the near east to the eastern trading routes. It then connects Mari with Egypt via the Hyksos, who just happen to be Amorite and Arab (w. Semetic). One of the kings has the name Yaqub Har, Jacob. We know from Egyptian Archaeology that Lapis Lazuli from Afghanistan (IVC/BMAC) reaches Egypt at this time. Thus the Babylonians were clearly communicating with “Hamitic”, west Semetic, east Semetic, Sumerian speakers, Elamites, and peoples as far east as Afghanistan. In fact, artifacts from Mesopotamia show up in Southern India and Ceylon.
There is another Jewish polemic against Babilu, that is the whore of Babylon. The terminology is not so much wrong as it is misplaced. The great seductress is Ishtar, from Uruk, whose imagery shows up as Astarte, Aphrodite …but also a possible source for the biblical Ester. I think Sumerians when confronted with prostitute imagery and the Queen of Heaven, we would make the comparison, if Uncle Sam is on Army Recruitment posters, the Ishtar was on the Sumerians Equivelent. Join the Armies and enjoy the perks.
So then we have to think about why the authors of this chapter in Genesis creating this polemic against Babilu. Noting also that the kings who took Jerusalem were not Amorite, but Chaldean (Aramean not Amorite). After the fall of the Kassites, Uruk became less powerful, the administration for Uruk was now in the realm of legacy cities. As Assyria terribly mismanaged Babylon, ziggurats rose and fell. During the reign of Ashurbanipal, the last vestiges of the Assyrian familial dysfunctionality ended with a self-evident (gee not again) and the fall of Babylon, the temple was being reconstructed but never fully completed. At the end of the Babylonian period, the last king Nabonidus took a very deep look at the polity of Mesopotamia realizing that things always headed for destruction, he abandoned the cult of Marduk and sought out the sages in Tayma and Yathrib (both Jahwist and Suen) in the end he decided to move the capital to Haran. Some have argued that Nabonidus was not Chaldean, but from Uruk, that he wanted to reinstitute the old system and get away from Marduk/Assher type power gods. He failed, rather promptly. In the age of dynasties you cannot be but a dynastic ramrod.
So the Bible is taking this imagery and mixing metaphors, Babylon was waning at the end of the Neobabylonian period, city rituals had not been performed in a decade, and Nabonidus was going to decapitate it, but the imagery of the whore they are attaching because they despise Babilu. On the other hand, while creating this polemic, the Hebrew Bible is borrowing like crazy from different aspects of Akkad and Sumer legends and myths to build stories of creation, floods, the Abram stories, the story of Jonah, Ester, …... You even see top of the hat to Mesopotamian region at multiple places in Ezekiel. Love and Hate are two sides of the same coin.
Doesn't in some places, when it says, saw his father's nakedness, mean saw his wife naked?
Dr. Michael Heiser has a wonderful study on this. Ham slept with Noah’s wife.
Noach nakedness was his wife naked... There was a child born of the matter that noach cursed
doesn't uncovering naked also apply to spouse. Meaning Noah got drunk and Ham to opportunity with Noah's wife.