El, seated on a throne with lion feet, wears conical horned headdress, a tunic and mantle. He receives gifts from a priest or king or lesser deity.

ʾĒl (written aleph-lamed, e.g. Ugaritic: 𐎛𐎍, Phoenician: 𐤋𐤀,^[1] Hebrew: אל‎, Classical Syriac: ܐܠ, Arabic: إل‎ or إله, cognate to Akkadian: ilu) is a Northwest Semitic word meaning "god" or "deity" and it is used as the name of major Ancient Near East deities, including the God of the Hebrew Bible.

In the Canaanite religion, or Levantine religion as a whole, El or Il was a god also known as the Father of humanity and all creatures, and the husband of the goddess Asherah as recorded in the clay tablets of Ugarit (modern Ra′s Shamrā—Arabic: رأس شمرا‎, Syria).^[2]

The bull was symbolic to El and his son Baʻal Hadad, and they both wore bull horns on their headdress.^[3][4][5][6] He may have been a desert god at some point, as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. El had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yam, and Mot.

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Linguistic forms and meanings
• 2 Proto-Sinaitic, Phoenician, Aramaic, and Hittite texts
• 3 Amorites
• 4 Ugarit
• 5 Hebrew Bible
• 6 Sanchuniathon
• 7 Poseidon
• 8 See also
• 9 Footnotes
• 10 References
• 11 Further reading
• 12 External links

Linguistic forms and meanings[edit]

Cognate forms are found throughout the Semitic languages. They include Ugaritic ʾil, pl. ʾlm; Phoenician ʾl pl. ʾlm; Hebrew ʾēl, pl. ʾēlîm; Aramaic ʾl; Akkadian ilu, pl. ilānu.

In northwest Semitic use, El was both a generic word for any god and the special name or title of a particular god who was distinguished from other gods as being "the god".^[7] El is listed at the head of many pantheons. El is the Father God among the Canaanites.

However, because the word sometimes refers to a god other than the great god Ēl, it is frequently ambiguous as to whether Ēl followed by another name means the great god Ēl with a particular epithet applied or refers to another god entirely. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean "Ēl the King" but ʾil hd as "the god Hadad".

The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning "gods" is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾ^elōhîm "powers". But in Hebrew this word is also regularly used for semantically singular "god".

The stem ʾl is found prominently in the earliest strata of east Semitic, northwest Semitic, and south Semitic groups. Personal names including the stem ʾl are found with similar patterns in both Amoriteand South Arabic which indicates that probably already in Proto-Semitic ʾl was both a generic term for "god" and the common name or title of a single particular god.

Ze’ev Orzech writes from Corvallis, Ore.: “I am intrigued by the connection between the Hebrew name for the planet , shabtai, which comes from Shabbat, and the word ‘Satur’ or ‘Saturn’s day.’” How, he asks, are we to explain this?

That there is indeed a connection seems beyond doubt. The question is what came first. Did non-Jews call the seventh day of the week “Saturn’s day” because Jews called Saturn shabtai — that is, the Sabbath planet — or did Jews call Saturn shabtai because non-Jews called the seventh day of the week “Saturn’s day”?

To answer this question, we have to inquire when the word shabtai was introduced into Hebrew and when dies Saturni, “Saturn’s day,” entered Latin, from where it eventually spread to other European languages, including English. The earliest Hebrew text containing the names of the planets is Bereshit Rabba, a compilation of midrashim on the Book of Genesis, probably first put into writing in the fifth century C.E. In one place in it, there is mention of how long it takes the six independently moving celestial bodies of the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn to orbit the seventh body, the sun. Mercury is called kokhav h.ama (“the Sun Star”); Venus, noga (“Brightness”); Mars, ma’adim (“The Red One”); Jupiter, tsedek (“Justice”), and Saturn, shabtai. (Uranus and Pluto, which cannot be made out with the naked eye, were unknown to the ancient world.) But while this gives us a latest possible date for the existence of these Hebrew words, it does not give us an earliest one: Although they are undoubtedly post-biblical, they quite conceivably could be considerably older than the redaction of Bereshit Rabba.

{Planets name came from the concept but the concept did not came from th planet themselves!}

Looking at it from the Latin side of the picture, we know that the seven-day week reached the Roman Empire through the Christian church, which adopted it from Judaism, so that when the emperor Constantine institutionalized Christianity in the early fourth century C.E., it became part of the official Roman calendar. But the Romans also had a pre-Christian week of their own. Known as the “nundinal cycle,” it had originally had nine, and at a later stage, eight days, each cycle ending with a market day. This day was known as nundinae, and the other days were named for the sun, moon and five visible planets, each of which was believed to dominate one of them. Thus, there was dies solis or “sun day”; dies lunae or “moon day” (English Monday, French lundi, Spanish lunes); dies Martis or “Mars’ day” (French mardi, Spanish martes); dies Mercurii or “Mercury’s day” (mercredi, miércoles); dies joves or “’Jupiter’s day” (jeudi, jueves); dies Veneris or “Venus’ day” (vendredi, viernes); and dies Saturni. (French samedi and Spanish sàbado derive not from dies Saturni but from Latin sabbata, which goes back to Hebrew shabbat).

When did these Latin names come into existence? Our earliest bit of evidence for any of them, to which I was led by a great Hebrew lexicographer, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, is an intriguing one — and most pertinent for our discussion. In the verse of Latin poet Tibullus, who lived in the first century BCE, there is a passage telling of a voyage he made from Italy to Greece despite his premonitions that it would turn out badly, so that, in my Loeb Classical Library translation, he kept searching “in my disquiet for reasons to linger and delay [setting out]. Either [auguries of] birds or words of evil omen were my pretexts, or there was the accursed day of Saturn to detain me.”

Accursed? Or would a better translation be “holy”? Tibullus speaks of dies Saturni sacra, and sacra in Latin can mean either of these two things depending on the context. One way or another, it seems almost certain that, even though he was not a Jew, Tibullus was referring to the Jewish Sabbath — whose ban on travel, if one was looking for a superstitious excuse to stay at home, might deter a non-Jew, too.

A second bit of evidence, also cited by Ben-Yehuda, comes from Tacitus, a Roman historian. Writing in the late first or early second century C.E., Tacitus tells us that the Jews rest every seventh day, and let the earth lie fallow every seventh year, in honor of Saturn, the seventh and highest of the heavenly bodies. Although he does not say that the Jews worship Saturn, Tacitus does state that it is considered by them to be the planet with the most powerful influence on human life.

Tibellus antedates Bereshit Rabba by 500 years. Tacitus does so by at least 300. It is likely, therefore, that dies Saturni is an older term than shabtai, and that, even before the rise of Christianity, the Romans, aware that the Jews rested every seven days and wondering why they did, attributed this to the role played in their religion by Saturn and referred to the Jewish Sabbath as “Saturn’s day.” Perhaps the other Latin names for the days of the week — dies solis, dies lunae, etc. — were modeled on dies Saturni and followed in the wake of it. But in any case, in the course of time the term dies Saturni would have influenced Jews, too, to associate their Sabbath with Saturn and to call the latter shabtai. This seems to me the most reasonable hypothesis.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/9794/the-sabbath-planet/#ixzz3QhXr1odX

Terms that are followed by an asterisk have their own entries in the glossary. All transliterations are from Hebrew.

Adam HaRishon (lit. “the first man”)—Biblical Adam

Adam Kadmon (lit. “primordial man”)—the will of the

Or Ein Sof* to create

Ahavat Hashem—love of G-d

Ahavat Yisrael—love of a fellow Jew

Aleph Bet—The Hebrew alphabet

Amidah—The silent prayer said while standing

Assiyah—The world of “action,” lowest of the four worlds of Creation

Atzilut—The world of “emanation,” highest of the four worlds of Creation

Atzmut—The essence of G-d

Avodat Hashem—service of G-d

Baal Teshuvah (lit. “a returnee”)—one who has become

observant of the commandments

Benoni—the intermediate person; between the Tzaddik* and the Rasha*

Beriah—The world of “creation,” second-highest of the four worlds of Creation

Binah—Sefirah* of understanding

Bitachon—trust in G-d

Bnai Yisrael (lit. “the children of Israel”)—the Jewish people

ChaBaD—acronym for Chochmah*, Binah*, Daat*—also the name of the worldwide chassidic* movement

ChaGaT—acronym for Chessed*, Gevurah*, and Tiferet*

Challah—bread used on Shabbat* and holidays

Chassid (pl. chassidim)—follower(s) of the chassidic* movement

Chassidic—movement of Judaism that focuses on the study of Kabbalah*; founded by the Baal Shem Tov

Hassidism—chassidic* philosophy

Chaya—Hebrew for “living one”; second-highest of five general souls

Chayot Hakodesh (lit. “holy beings”)—A Group of angels

Chessed—Sefirah* of kindness

Chochmah—Sefirah* of wisdom

Daat—Sefirah* of Knowledge

Daat Elyon—Supernal knowledge

Daat Tachton—terrestrial knoweldge

Dirah BeTachtonim—quoted from the Midrash*: G-d desired to have a “dwelling place in the lower worlds”; the purpose of Creation

Drush—“homiletical” interpretation of the Torah*; second highest level of Pardes*

Ein Sof (lit. “without end”)—the Infinite G-d as enclothed in Creation

Elokut—G-dliness

Emet—truth

Emunah—faith

Farbrengen—chassidic gathering

Gehinom—Hell

Gevurah—Sefirah* of strength

Gilgul—reincarnation

Hashgochah Pratit—Divine providence

hatzlachah—success

Havaye—the Tetragrammeton; four-letter name of G-d

Hiddur Mitzvah—Beautification of the Mitzvah*; i.e. doing a commandment in a beautiful way

Hod—Sefirah* of splendor

Kabbalah (lit. “received”)—mystical tradition of the Torah*

Kaddish—prayer recited in the memory of a departed soul

Kav—circular “beam” of pre-Tzimtzim* Light*

Kedushah—holiness

Kelipah (pl. Klipot; lit. “peel” for “shell”)—words used by

Kabbalah to describe coverings of impurity.

Kelipat Nogah (lit. “illuminating shell”)—Klipah* that can be utilized for good

Keter—Sefirah* of crown

Malchut—Sefirah* of kingship

Mashiach (lit. “anointed one”)—the Messiah

Mazal (pl. Mazalot)—constellation or planetary influence

Memale Kol Almin—Light* that fills all worlds; also referred to as the Kav*

Mezuzah—parchment scroll attached to doorpost

Midrash—anthology of rabbinic scriptural commentary

Mikvah—ritual bath used for spiritual purification

Mishnah—Oral Law of the Torah* compiled by Tannaim* under the leadership ofRabbi Yehudah Hanassi.

Mitzvah (pl. Mitzvot)—Divine commandment(s) derived from the Torah*

Modeh Ani—first words of the following prayer said immediately upon awakening: “I offer thanks to You, living and eternal King, for you have restored my soul within me; Your faithfulness is abundant.”

Mussar (lit. “rebuke”)—a movement of Judaism that encourages people to study ethics and morals and to improve character.

Nefesh—Hebrew for “soul of vitality”; lowest of five general souls

Nefesh Elokit—G-dly Soul of a person

Nefesh HaBehamit—Animalistic Soul of a person

NeHiY—acronym for Netzach*, Hod*, and Yesod*

Neshamah—Hebrew for “breath of life”; third-highest of five general souls

Netzach—Sefirah* of victory

Nigleh—revealed dimension of Torah*

Nistar—inner dimension of Torah*

Nistarim—clandestine Kabbalistics during the days of Baal Shem Tov

Olam (lit. “concealment”)—world

Olam Haba—the World to Come

Ophanim—Group of angels

Or - Light—English for “Or.” metaphor for Divine energy

Or Ein Sof—Hebrew for “Light of the Infinite”; metaphor for Divine energy used in Creation

Or Makkif—a peripheral Light*

Or Pnimi—an inner Light*

Pardes (lit. “orchard”)—acronym for four levels of Torah* study

Pshat—“simple” interpretation of the Torah*; most basic level of Pardes*

Rasha—wicked person

Rebbe—leader of Chassidim*

Remez—“illusionary.” interpretation of the Torah*; third highest level of Pardes*

Rosh Hashanah—The Jewish New Year

Ruach—Hebrew for “spirit”; fourth-highest of five general souls

Ruach Hakodesh (lit. “holy spirit”)—Divine inspiration

Seder Hishtalshlut—chain-ordered process used in Creation

Sefirah (pl. Sefirot)—a channel of Divine energy or attribute used in Creation

Seraphim—Group of angels

Shabbat—Sabbath

Simchah—joy

Shechinah—Divine Presence

Gustave Doré, Jacob Wrestling with the Angel (1855)

The account of Jacob wrestling with the angel is a story found in the Book of Genesis, and referenced elsewhere such asGenesis 32:22-32 and Hosea chapter 12. The account includes the renaming of Jacob as "Israel", literally "He who struggles with God."

"It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen. 32:30 NIV)

In the Hebrew Bible, Penuel (or Pniel, Pnuel; Hebrew פְּנוּאֵל) is a place not far from Succoth, on the east of the Jordan River and north of the river Jabbok. It is also called Peniel "Face of God" by Jacob:

"It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen. 32:30 NIV)

Here Jacob wrestled (Gen. 32:24-32) "with a man" ("the angel", Hos. 12:4) "till the break of day." This episode resulted in God (or the angel) changing Jacob's name to "Israel" (Gen. 32:28) which literally means, "He who struggles [Fight with but did not lose] with God."

A town was afterward built there (Judg. 8:8; 1 Kings 12:25). The men of this place refused to give bread to Gideon and his 300 men when they were in pursuit of the Midianites (Judg. 8:1-21). On his return, Gideon tore down the tower there and killed all the men of the city.

When the Northern Kingdom of Israel broke away from the United Monarchy c. 930 BCE, Jeroboam, its first king, established his capital in Shechem. A short time later, he left Shechem and fortified Penuel, declaring it as his new capital (I Kings 12:25). He and his son, Nadab, ruled there, until Baasha seized the throne in 909 BCE and moved the capital to Tirzah (I Kings 15:25-34).

Pnuel is a common name given to males in the Assyrian culture.

Penuel vs. Pniel[edit]

Two categories of spellings exists, the i-type Pniel and Peniel and the u-type Pnuel, Penuel and Pnuël. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia^[1] prints the i-type פְּנִיאֵל for Pniel. The u-type is only a minor textual variant written as פנואל for Pnuel in the critical apparatus. It appears only in  (the Samaritan Pentateuch), σ´ (Symmachus),  (the Peshitta) and  (the Latin Vulgate).

Therefore translations like the Luther Bible write Pnuël as being directly translated from the Vulgate. So does the KJV, the ESV and the Elberfelder Bibel. But translations like the NIV, the NIrV and the Schlachter 2000 write Peniel or Pniel.

The being with which Jacob wrestles is variously described as an angel, a man, or God. Jacob asks the being his name, and while he doesn't receive an answer, Jacob names the place where they wrestled Peniel or Penuel or Phanuel.^{[Genesis 32:29-30]} The event occurs during Jacob's journey back to Canaan.

Biblical text[edit]

The Masoretic text reads as follows:

The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the day has broken.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.” Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.” The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.

—Genesis 32:22-32

The account contains several plays on the meaning of Hebrew names — Peniel, Israel — as well as similarity to the root of Jacob's name (which sounds like the Hebrew for "heel") and its compound.^[1] The limping of Jacob (Ya'aqob), may mirror the name of the river, Jabbok (Yabbok sounds like "crooked" river), andNahmanides (Deut. 2:10 of Jeshurun) gives the etymology "one who walks crookedly" for the name Jacob.^[2]

Talmud and Targums and Christian versions[edit]

Initially in 32:24 Jacob wrestles with "a man," but after the man's reply Jacob calls the name of the place Peniel (Hebrew for Face of God), saying "For I have seen God face to face." Talmud, Targum, Syriac Peshitta and Vulgate render "God" here "Angel."^[3]

Interpretations[edit]

Among Christian interpreters, this incident is sometimes thought to be a Christophany. J. Douglas MacMillan suggests that angel with whom Jacob wrestles is a "pre-incarnation appearance of Christ in the form of a man."^[4]

The following words and terms used in Modern Churches today all have pagan origins, and are found to be directly linked to ancient Sun-worship found in Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Teutonic-German, Hindu, and Persian cultures. English word forms of the names of Sun-deities in these ancient cultures still exist today and are used in Modern Christianity. True Believers should remove these words from our language, from teaching, and certainly from our worship assemblies.

This list is partly taken from the book COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE, by C. J. Koster, published by Institute For Scripture Research, located on the Web athttp://www.messianic.co.za/isr/index.htm

The asterisks ( * ) indicate proper substitute words (Hebrew or English) that can be used by the True Believer, without reference to the words that have association to Sun-god worship.

1. Angel/Angels from Greek Word "Angelos" meaning "messenger/messengers. Angelos was the name of a Greek god associated with Sun-worship.

* Malakh/Malakhim from Hebrew word meaning "messenger/messengers;" has no association with Sun-worship.

2. Sunday was the day set aside in the Mithra (Roman) cult as its official day to assemble together to worship its Sun-deity. Roman Emperor Constantine legislated Sun-day as a day of rest dedicated to the Greek and Roman Sun-god, Helios. Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun." The Roman Catholic Church venerates Sun-day as its Sabbath even today, and has handed it down to Christianity.

* Shabbat/Sabbath is the Hebrew word pertaining to Yahweh's 7th day of rest. It is the 4th Commandment (Exodus 29:8-11), and a sign for all Israelite generations (descendants) found in Exodus 30:13 & 17, Ezekiel 20:12 & 20.

3. Lord comes from the old English spelling of "Lard" which comes from "Lar/Larth Lares," Estruscan and Roman deities associated with Sun-worship. The Greek word "Kurios" was originally a title for the Greek and Roman Sun-deity "Helios" and was called "The Kurios (Lord) of Heaven and Earth." The Hindu god "Krishna" is also known as "Lord." The title "Lord" was eventually applied to all heathen deities. Most Bible translators continue to use the title "Lord" as a substitute name for YHVH (Yahweh).

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with banning all cars, which is not the same thing.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts. Example:

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course.

In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire course on only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick.

In this example, the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth. Example:

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army.

In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related.

Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:

Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.

Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned would be logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal causes enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed in the claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."

Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Example:

George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.

In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices. Example:

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.

In this example, the two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car-sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments. Example:

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies.

In this example, the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group.

Ad populum: This is an emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) concepts rather than the real issue at hand. Example:

If you were a true American you would support the rights of people to choose whatever vehicle they want.

In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a concept that people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war, with allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there is no inherent connection between the two.

Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them. Example:

The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will fishers do to support their families?

In this example, the author switches the discussion away from the safety of the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the livelihood of those catching fish. While one issue may affect the other it does not mean we should ignore possible safety issues because of possible economic consequences to a few individuals.

Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint and then attacks that hollow argument.

People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage increase hate the poor.

In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive to an opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition probably has more complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By not addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the opposition with respect or refuting their position.

Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities.

That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.

In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate