Since from what I've read the Hittites called themselves something like Neshites but were called by everyone else Hittites owing to their ruling the land of Hatti, previously inhabited by Hattians i.e. after the Neshites conquered the Hattians everyone continued to call the country Hatti and the people Hattians, and this was recorded in the Bible as people bearing the consonants H & t in their name.

So, were the Israelites actually calling the Hittites Hattians?

Obviously the -ite and -ian portions are just English conventions here, I'm speaking only to the vowel in the root of the word in the original languages.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exjew/comments/7d7sjo/hittite_laws_in_the_torah/?st=JA1R3WOS&sh=2fc52f7ahttps://www.reddit.com/r/exjew/comments/7d7sjo/hittite_laws_in_the_torah/?st=JA1R3WOS&sh=2fc52f7a

In the Hebrew Bible it states: "Completely destroy them the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites as the Lord your God commands you. Otherwise they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshipping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God"(Deuteronomy 20:17-18)

Here are some themes from a passage like this:

(i)"Completely destroy". The use of war language in the Bible.

• Throughout the Bible, the Biblical authors often times use Ancient Near Eastern War idioms when speaking about and describing battles and military campaigns. An idiom is a phrase or figure of speech that is used by a society or culture that isn't meant to be taken literally. So for instance if I said "I am so hungry I could eat a horse". No one would think I want to eat horses. That's a figure of speech used to illustrate my hunger. If someone were describing a football game and they said the Steelers "annihilated" the saints, no one would think that's literal. That's a figure of speech used to describe the fact that they won the game.
• Similarly in Ancient Near Eastern cultures when battles and military campaigns were described, idioms were used as part of the war rhetoric of that culture. For instance, when describing the conquest of Israel, Moabite King Mesha states in the Mesha Stele that he destroyed Israel "forever and ever". That's an obvious exaggeration because Israel still survived. Ramses III when describing his battle with the Sea People's at the Battle of Djahy states "their seed is not, their heart and soul are finished for ever and ever". Another example of a figure of speech due to the fact that right after that he would fight the Sea Peoples again at the Battle of the Delta.
• In a similar sense the Biblical authors like their Ancient Near Eastern contemporaries uses war rhetoric that employs hyperbole. Language like "utterly destroy" or "destroy all that breathes" are hyperbolic statements used for literary and theological purposes.

(ii)Judgement on wickedness

• God is passing judgement on the wickedness of the Canaanite nations in the region. The Biblical authors elaborate on this by stating the following: "You must not do the same for the Lord your God, because every abhorrent thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods. They would even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire for their gods"(Deuteronomy 12:31).
• In the Wisdom of Solomon it goes further than this by s

I've seen a lot of posts here and on AcademicBiblical on Ex 21:22-25. The debate always revolves around whether the damage is to the mother or the fetus.

Some people say that the death that is punished is the mom's. Some say that the death of the fetus presumes the personhood of the unborn fetus at all points, even since conception, which is why Lex talionis is applied.

I'm thinking that maybe the Hebrew itself presuposes a reading not too dissimilar to that of LXX, where the state of development is specified.

If a pregnant woman has a miscarriage during the end of the first trimester or the very beginning of the second, i.e., the third or the fourth month, there is not "IF" there is no damage, ancient people were not dumb, a fetus at that point statistically speaking will virtually never survive at all, especially with the lack of medical technology that an Iron age society had. The IF in the law MUST presupose a certain state in development, one of plausible self-susteinability of some sort, for the casuistic logic of the law to work.

This self-susteinability could be related to the ancient Hebrew idea of breath as life and its departure or absense as death (Gn 2:7, Ez 37, Jb 27:3/34:14-15, Psalm 104:30). If the fetus did breathe, then it was alive and there was no damage beyond the premature birth. If it could not sustain itself, the fault could be placed on the man who hit the woman.

This would put the text very much in line with Hittite legal codes and the Septuagint, where the latter just puts into less ambiguous language what is already implied in the Hebrew.

Is this a dumb reading or does it make sense?

In several episodes in the Old Testament you see instances of leaders and nations who start out in a certain area morally, and then become the opposite. Not only that but they become the very thing that they opposed morally and spiritually. Particularly when it comes to issues of justice and righteousness. Here are examples.

(i)Israel and oppression

• The Israelites when they were in Egypt were in a position of oppression. In describing their situation it states "Therefore they set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labour. They built supply cities, Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh"(Exodus 1:11).
• Because of this experience the Israelites were commanded in Biblical legislation "You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice; you shall not take a widow's garment in pledge. Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed your from there; therefore I command you to do this"(Deuteronomy 24:17-18). It also states "When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who residents with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God"(Leviticus 19:33-34).
• Essentially they were meant to learn from their experience of oppression and practise justice in the land. Instead once they got into the land they ended up practising injustice and oppression. They very things they escaped from. The prophets are constantly railing against this. Amos for example states "Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals--they who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth and push the afflicted out of the way"(Amos 2:6-7)
• The prophet Micah when confronting the leaders of his day states "Listen, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Should you not know justice?--you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin off my people, and the flesh off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, flay their skin off them, and break their bones in pieces and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a cauldron"(Micah 3:1-3).
• When we get to the Book of Kings it speaks of Solomon's construction projects and how they used "forced labour". The Northern tribes asks the Son Rehoboam "Your father made our yoke heavy, Now the

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

I'm back once again with another review of S.M. Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time series. There isn't really much more to add. Well, I will say I'm glad everyone liked the first review. Even S.M. Stirling himself commented on how he enjoyed it when I shared it in the S.M. Stirling Fan Group on Facebook. Without further ado, let's jump into it. We're taking a look at Against the Tide of Years by S.M. Stirling.

A few years have passed since the events of the first book. The temporally displaced people of Nantucket are adjusting well to their new lives in the Bronze Age. Trade is flourishing and new alliances are being forged. However, a storm is brewing on the horizon. William Walker, though temporarily defeat and set back, has licked his wounds and moved on to Greece. Here, Walker and his cronies have made a second, and far more successful, attempt at empire building. The people of Nantucket know that they're going to have to defeat Walker once and for all if they want their new world to be safe. Nantucket is going to make new allies, and find new adventures, in a world set against the tide of years.

As you might recall, I absolutely loved Island in the Sea of Time, the first book in the series. Against the Tide of Years not only managed to keep up the momentum, but might be even better than Island in the Sea of Time. The first notable difference is that, this time around the major civilizations of the Bronze Age Mediterranean and Near East play major roles in the plot. Walker's segments are set in Mycenaean Greece, while Nantucket has courted the Babylonian and Hittite Empires as allies against Walker. More information has survived about these civilizations compared to Bronze Age England, Tartessos, and the Olmecs. Though, that having been said, they still have a lot of blanks spaces, and details we aren't certain about. So, Stirling has more information to work with, but still had plenty of wiggle room with how he depicted these Bronze Age civilizations.

As I've said before, with so many competing theories about life in the Bronze Age, there is no way Stirling could be faithful to them all. Having said that, it is still very impressive how closely he follows many of these theories, and the attention to detail with his depiction of the Bronze Age cultures and civilizations.

Okay

!Xóõ !Xun (Ekoka) //Ani /Xam A-Pucikwar A-Pucikwar Aari Aariya Aasáx Abau Abaza Abenaki (Western) Abidji Abipón Abipón Abkhaz Abui Abun Acaxee Acehnese Achagua Achang Aché Achí Acholi Achuar Achumawi Acoma Acroá Adai Adamorobe Sign Language Adang Adioukrou Adithinngithigh Adjuvilo Adyghe (Abzakh) Adyghe (Shapsugh) Adyghe (Temirgoy) Adynyamathanha Adzera Aekyom Aequian Afrihili Afrikaans Agarabi Agavotaguerra Aghem Aghu Aghu Tharnggala Aghul Agta (Central) Agta (Dupaningan) Aguacatec Aguaruna Ahom Ahtna Aikaná Ainu Aizi Aja Ajagbe Ajawa Ajië Aka Aka-Bea Aka-Biada Aka-Bo Aka-Cari Aka-Cari Aka-Jeru Aka-Kede Aka-Kede Aka-Kol Aka-Kora Akan Akar-Bale Akawaio Akha Akhvakh Akkadian Akkala Sami Aklanon Akwa Ala'ala Alabama Alagwa Alamblak Alanic Alas Alawa Albanian Aleut Aleut (Eastern) Algonquin Alladian Allentiac Alngith Alsatian Alsea Alsea Altai (Southern) Alune Alutiiq Alutor Alyawarra Ama Amahuaca Amanab Amanayé Amara Amarakaeri Ambae (Lolovoli Northeast) Ambai Ambulas Amdo Amdo (Themchen) Amele American Sign Language Amharic Amis Ammonite Amo Ampeeli Amuesha Amuzgo Anamuxra Ancient Cappadocian Ancient Macedonian Andi Andoa Andoke Andoquero Anejom Anêm Angaataha Angami Angas Anggor Angolar Anguthimri Anindilyakwa Anong Antrim dialect, Irish Anufo Anyi Anywa Ao Apache (Chiricahua) Apache (Jicarilla) Apache (Western) Apalachee Apalaí Apatani Apiaká Apinayé Apurinã Arabana Arabela Arabic (Bahrain) Arabic (Bani-Hassan) Arabic (Beirut) Arabic (Borno Nigerian) Arabic (Chadian) Arabic (Eastern Libyan) Arabic (Egyptian) Arabic (Gulf) Arabic (Hijazi) Arabic (Iraqi) Arabic (Kormakiti) Arabic (Kuwaiti) Arabic (Lebanese) Arabic (Modern Standard) Arabic (Moroccan) Arabic (Negev) Arabic (North Levantine Spoken) Arabic (Palestinian) Arabic (San'ani) Arabic (Syrian) Arabic (Tunisian) Arakanese (Marma) Araki Aralle-Tabulahan Arandai Araona Arapaho Arapesh (Abu) Arapesh (Mountain) Aravirá Arawak Arbore Arcaicam Esperantom Archi Are'are Areba Aribwatsa Aribwatsa Aribwatsa Arikara Arikem Arin Armenian (Eastern) Armenian (Iranian) Armenian (Western) Arop-Lokep Arosi Arrernte Arrernte (Mparntwe) Arrernte (Western) Arritinngithigh Aruá Asmat Assamese Assan Asturian Asuriní Atacameño Atakapa Atakapa Atampaya Atayal Atchin Athpare Atikamekw Atlantean Atsugewi Atsugewi Attempto Controlled English Au Aulua Auregnais Auslan Auyana Avar Avatime Avestan Avikam Avokaya Awa Awa Pit Awabakal Awadhi Awngi Awtuw Awyi Ayabadhu Ayiwo Aymara (Central) Aynu Ayomán Ayoreo Azari (Iranian) Azerbaijan

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

Update: I am arguing for the conclusion "El is not Yahweh."

--

The post is long because it includes scholarly quotes. If you are in a hurry, just read the 613 words from "General Claim" to "QED."

General Claim Premise: gods with distinct attributes and functions cannot reasonably be equated.

Specific Argument: El is a nonpartisan Canaanite god who does not favor any tribe; Yahweh is a more recent god who shows extreme favor to one particular tribe and extreme violence to that tribe's enemies. El's attributes and functions do not match Yahweh's attributes and functions. El is not Yahweh.

Scholars commonly admit that Dyaus-Pater was an old all-seeing god of the bright sky, who saw everything done by humans and who therefore demanded adherence to oaths. Scholars commonly admit that the Greek god Zeus is derived from Dyaus-Pater, and generally consider the Norse god Tyr to be similarly derived. However, while Zeus was associated with the sky, Zeus was not very much concerned with adherence to oaths. While Tyr was concerned with adherence to oaths, Tyr was not particularly associated with the sky. Both Tyr and Zeus were connected to Dyaus-Pater, but neither was exactly equivalent. None of these gods functioned as a psychopomp.

A slightly similar non-psychopomp god was Mitra or Mithra. Mithra was invoked as a god of oaths in the 15th century BCE in a Hittite-Mittani cunieform text. Vedic texts mentioned Mitra circa 1400 BCE. Mithra was associated with covenants. Mithra's oath-enforcing functions resembled those of Dyaus-Pater. If a scholar came from Greece to Persia and tried to argue that Mithra was just a different name for Zeus, that scholar could argue on the basis of functions.

An entirely unrelated god was Anubis. Anubis was a psychopomp who had the head of a jackal, and weighed the hearts of dead souls to determine their truthfulness. If a priest came to Persia and tried to argue that Anubis was just another name for Mithra, that priest would be wildly wrong. The priest could argue the the truth of a dead soul's heart was equivalent to the truth of an oath, but that would be avoiding the obvious. Anubis' attributes and functions were entirely distinct from those of Mithra.

It may seem unreasonable that any priest would try to equate Anubis with Mithra. And yet ancient Israelite priests preached an equally unreasonable doctrine when they preached that Yahweh was exactly equivalent to El.

Scholars do not know where or when Yahweh

They’re on standbi

Is there any exchange app available for Sumerian learners ? What about Classical Nahuatl, Hittite and Biblical Hebrew?

If there is one feature in the Old Testament that is regular it is the presence of war. War is common for a couple of basic reasons. (i)Warfare was common in the ancient world and the ancient near east. Whether it is tribal wars, political conflicts, or the struggles of the various empires over the Levant such as the Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians, etc. The Old Testament reflects that reality. (ii)Warfare is a common feature of the human condition. The Bible is the story about humanity and in it are contained narratives that speak about both peace and war.

With that reflection what we see is that the Old Testament's understanding of the ethics of war is complex. Which would make sense because any serious reflection on the ethics of war is complex. Even modern ones. So for example in modern international law a distinction is made between "war crimes" and "collateral damage". That's because international humanitarian law operates on 3 principles. (i)Distinction. (ii)Proportionality. (iii)Military Necessity. Because of the principle of distinction and proportionality it is mandated that civilians be protected in a war time context. At the same when military necessity outweighs the other principles, modern international law allows in certain instances civilian casualties where it does not constitute a war crime. Luis Moreno Ocampo, the former Chief Prosecutor of the ICC clarified this where he stated "the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." Moreno also clarified of course that he did believe war crimes were committed in conflicts like Iraq. But I use these examples to illustrate the fact that war ethics in general are complex.

If its complex in a general sense, one can understand it being complex in a Biblical context where there is nothing like the Rome Statute, Geneva Conventions, or any of those things. The Biblical authors come out of an ancient context where the norms of war for all societies in the Ancient and Medieval World were that if one lays siege on a city or society, if they surrender they were your subjects. If they didn't, the conquering army had the right to kill or enslave the resisting population. This was a principle the Egyptians, Hittites, Gree

Often times when we read parts of the Mosaic Code modern readers tend to be confused at what seems like its arbitrariness, harshness and so forth. When it is read in the context of the entire plot of the Old Testament though it makes more sense. When you think of a plot to a narrative, there might be random events that take place in the story that in itself seem to not make sense but later on as the plot unfolds it makes more and more sense. You see this in TV shows like Game of Thrones for example where something random happens in season 2, and it doesn't make sense till you get to season 4 or 5 for instance.

The Biblical plot is somewhat similar. And the Law's role in the Bible's plot is similar. And one of its roles is that it is use as a measurement for Israel's obedience vs its disobedience. Here are examples of this:

(i)"If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, and the omens declared by them take place, and they say 'Let us follow other gods(whom you have not known) and let us serve them', you must not head the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. The Lord your God shall you follow, him alone shall you fear, his commandments, you shall keep, his voice you shall hold fast to. But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the Lord your God-who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery-to turn you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst"(Deuteronomy 13:1-5)

• This is a pretty harsh passage in Deuteronomy who's central themes include faithfulness to God's commands, not listening to false prophets, as well as a test for whether a person truly loves the Lord their God with all their heart, might and strength. In terms of the Biblical plot, the narratives that this commandment applies to the most are the narratives involving King Ahab in the Book of Kings.
• The first is the famous story of the clash between Elijah and Ahab's prophet's of Baal in 1 Kings 18. The backdrop to this of course is Ahab marrying Jezebel which leads him to install the cult of Baal in 1 Kings 16:31-34. This then leads to a where not only do they lead the nation into apostasy, but the followers of Yahweh faced persecution. It stat

Pilot on me!!

Nothing, he was gladiator.

This post talks about sexual assault and genocide. This is a content warning.

In this post, I will give Wes Morriston’s argument against divinely mandated genocide with some revisions to strengthen it. I will then argue that only does the Bible command genocide – and for this it is morally repugnant – but that this command has real-world consequences. The conclusions for the post are thus:

1. The Bible commands genocide.
2. The Bible is commanding something immoral.
3. The Bible therefore undermines a Classical Theism
4. This position – that the Bible commands genocide – has led to genocides.

What is Genocide?

“Genocide constitutes the crime of crimes.”

Amnesty International says that genocide is “any one of a number of acts aimed at the destruction of all or part of certain groups of people; it is this intent that distinguishes genocide from other crimes against humanity.” Amnesty International says that it will prosecute any of the following as genocide so long as the intention is to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

1. Killing members of a group.
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
3. Deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group.
5. Forcibly transferring children of a group to another group.

This is a legal understanding of genocide, but I will treat it as a moral understanding as well.

The Bible Commands Genocide

>You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you. Thus, you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here (Deut. 20:14-15)

These are the instructions, given by Moses, as to what is to be done with the Canaanites. These commands are additional to him telling his followers that the Canaanites ought to be shown no mercy and utterly destroyed (Deut. 7:10-2). Moses continues:

>You shall annihilate them – the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites – just as the LORD your God has commanded, so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and thus sin against the LORD your God (Deut. 20:17-18).

Moses is guilty of a commanding a genocide – with God’s expre

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

The God “Adad” is “Seth” from the Bible; as it is stated in Genesis that Adam produced another son in his own likeness and image – and given that Hadad – called by the Hurrians and Hittites “Teshub” – was said by them to have been born out of Kumarbi’s surgically split cranium – since they interpreted Kumarbi as being the God "Enlil"; according to this statement he would be Enlil’s son. But then this version of the story doesn’t really make much sense since the Hittites in the “Song of Ullikummi” considered Enlil to be a separate entity from Kumarbi himself – even though Kumarbi had also been equated with a deity named Dagan – and Dagan is a god depicted while hurling a thunderbolt and bringing grain for the Semites (characteristics typical of Enlil in Mesopotamia - who was said to have brought grain to Sumer) - which would seemingly confirm him as being none other than Enlil himself, but apparently it isn't quite so. As already addressed previously; it’s quite renown that the God who gave birth to a deity of storm and rain that was also considered the God of Fertility (called in Mesopotamia – "Abu/Dumuzi" where he took storm-like characteristics in his monstrous form as the “Anzu bird/Imdugud”) was none other than Ea/Enki himself – when he’d fallen ill from the 8 forbidden fruits that he ate in the Garden of the Gods and Dumuzid/Abu was born out of his forehead thanks to Ninhurshag planting the seed in her uterus. So the role of the Hittite god "Kumarbi" with regards to the birth of Teshub out of his forehead – would most likely be a recast in that case, of Enki’s character for the myth of creation – but with him being considered also the “Father of the Gods” and “King of Heaven” much embodying the roles and titles of Enlil, and proving that both brothers were fused in syncretism since the storm-god that was considered their son: "Teshub/Hadad" was given two fathers in alternative traditions – where some cultures regarded him as the son of Enlil while others as the son of Enki. And yet, when Teshub is born it’s stated in the “Song of Kumarbi” that it was Ea/Enki himself who surgically split Kumarbi’s forehead open in order to deliver Teshub; so Kumarbi embodies both roles of both brothers accordingly when one is not present in the picture and the other is, or viceversa – in order to reconcile opposing traditions that consider the storm-god that was born out of such an operation (the splitting of another deity's skull) as either the son of Enlil or the so

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "

I won't be doing that today!

[Removed]

This morning, my 4 year old daughter.

Daughter: I'm hungry

Me: nerves building, smile widening

Me: Hi hungry, I'm dad.

She had no idea what was going on but I finally did it.

Thank you all for listening.

Where ever you left it 🤷‍♀️🤭

You take away their little brooms

When I got home, they were still there.