To straighten out the record a bit, we go to Gen. 24. Here, Abraham tells his most trusted servant that he does not desire for Isaac a wife among the Canaanites with whom they dwell and sends him to get a wife from among Abraham's people. His servant dutifully returns with Rebecca whom the lord singled out to be the wife for Isaac. Chapter 28 is where Isaac, on his death bed, implores that his son Jacob not take a wife among the Canaanites but return to the house of Leban, his mothers brother, and take a wife from among his daughters. Gen. 28:5 identifies Leban as the son of Be-thu-El the Syrian and the brother of Rebecca, Jacob and Esau's mother. In other words, the people of Abraham are the Syrians.
Here are no contradictions. The Syrians were Canaanites and while they were the Canaanites of a different area, this does not make any difference. Their Gods were also no controversy.
They worshipped the God most high El-Elyon, most often referred to as El, and they worshipped Baal and, it is certain the Hebrews also worshipped these Gods at this stage in history. Jacob became Israel, and he, instead of Abraham could have been referred to as the son of an Amorite and Hittite, not Abraham.
Gen. 11:31 is where Terah, Abraham's father, takes Abraham and the rest of the family from Ur of the Chaldee's to Haran. At the time of Abraham, Ur of the Chaldee's was the same as Ur of the Sumerians a few hundred years earlier, before the conquest of Sumer. The city God of Ur was Nanna/Sin, the moon God. Nanna/Sin was also the city God of Haran where the family moved to.
Just a coincidence would the many say, but not so. Joshua 24:14states: "...and put away the Gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt."
Mere coincidence. No, as a cross reference, I used the Lutheran Bible from Norway, and they translated the same material (my translation of the Norwegian into English) "...Separate yourselves from the Gods your fathers worshipped on the other side of the large river and in Egypt." Do not two instances make a case?
Easton's 1897 Concise biblical dictionary states: "Ur was consecrated to the worship of Sin, the Babylonian moon-god. It shared this honor, however, with another city, and this city was Haran, or Harran. Harran was in Mesopotamia, and took its name from the highroad which led through it from the east to the west. The name is Babylonian, and bears witness to its having been founded by a Babylonian king. The same witness is still more decisively borne by the worship paid in it to the Babylonian moon-god and by its ancient temple of Sin. Indeed, the temple of the moon-god at Harran was perhaps even more famous in the Assyrian and Babylonian world than the temple of the moon-god at Ur."
"Between Ur and Harran there must, consequently, have been a close connection in early times, the record of which has not yet been recovered. It may be that Harran owed its foundation to a king of Ur; at any rate the two cities were bound together by the worship of the same deity, the closest and most enduring bond of union that existed in the ancient world. That Terah should have migrated from Ur to Harran, therefore, ceases to be extraordinary. If he left Ur at all, it was the most natural place to which to go. It was like passing from one court of a temple into another.
"Such a remarkable coincidence between the Biblical narrative and the evidence of archaeological research cannot be the result of chance. The narrative must be historical; no writer of late date, even if he were a Babylonian, could have invented a story so exactly in accordance with what we now know to have been the truth. For a story of the kind to have been the invention of Palestinian tradition is equally impossible. To the unprejudiced mind there is no escape from the conclusion that the history of the migration of Terah from Ur to Harran is founded on fact"
How correct? But the obvious god worshipped is the Moon God!
Joshua 24:2 states: "Your forefathers worshipped other Gods and Nahor lived from of old on the other side of Euphrates." In the Norwegian Bible the translation would be, "So says the Lord, God of Israel; Your forefathers, among them Terah, Abraham's father lived from of old on the other side of Euphrates and worshipped other Gods."
Then who did Abraham worship? His father obviously worshipped the Moon God. Abraham received a different God, who was he? En-Ki? En-Ki's symbol was the fish, the fish as a sacred symbol is found throughout the Bible. En-Ki was a jealous God. He was jealous of En-Lil, his older brother. En-Ki's sacred number was 40, and 40 is a resounding number in the bible, such as the 40 years in Sinai, the 40 years of David's reign, etc.
Many of the names of Ebla have the theophoric element -ya. This is related to the divine name of the Hebrew god Yahweh which also is abbreviated -ya. But Abraham did not worship YHWH. Terah, the father of Abraham, may never have been in Ebla, but he could very well have been. This would be indicated as possible by Abraham changing his God to the one his father worshipped prior to coming to Sumer and adopting the city God of his place of residence. Accadian, a forerunner of Hebrew, was spoken at Ebla. Dagan, which means fish in Hebrew was the national god of the Eblaites and later of the Philistines.
Having been associated with fish, Dagan could have been confused by many early worshippers with the Sumerian God En-Ki who was associated with fish in Sumer. The possibility Dagan was the same as the Sumerian En-Ki also exists. But since En-Lil was the chief God of the Sumerians, people such as Sargon would have changed to the chief Deity in the area where he took up residence.
The God of Abraham was En-Lil/Bel/El. Perhaps Dagan should be included, but it does not seem very likely. The biggest difference between the God of Exodus and the God of Genesis is of course that the God of Genesis displayed none of the jealous traits which the God of Moses did.
Abraham was contemporary with the culture at Mari where a lot more archeological evidence regarding the Bible has been dug up. The material here even mentions Abraham and his entire family with name as they had to travel through Mari and had to pay for their passage through the area. This but verifies the story of Abraham. It can pretty well be ascertained that the tale of Abraham is true to a certain extent. Now if this is so, why are not the Christians and Jews sprouting off about this all over the place?
It was discovered at Mari that Abraham worshipped the Babylonian God Bel, the Sumerian En-Lil. You cannot sprout off about a part of the story without divulging the entire tale. It has been tried but it is not ethical and the repercussions when people later learned the truth was undesirable to say the least. The truth about what Man really have been worshipping is likely to be a shock to many people, but the story must be told. There is no need for anyone to get angry when they discover the truth. The shock to the religious community will be the most severe and vehement denial will most probably be the result. Denial will be useless because the data is amply verified by the Biblical record. Just remember that the religious leaders have been fooled as much or more so than anyone.
Biblical style prophesies at Mari from the time of Abraham abound. There we find duplicates of the Lord of Israel following his armies. Numbers 10:35states: "...Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered and let them that hate thee flee before thee." Psalm 68:2 states: "As smoke is driven away, so drive them away..."; 68:4, "Extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name Jah and rejoice before him." 1 Kings 22:17 states: "And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have no shepherd; and the Lord said, These have no master; let them return every man to his house in peace." The Lord is the master of his armies, just like at Mari. The corresponding material between the war God depicted in the Bible and the war Gods of the people of Mari is so numerous, it gets boring reciting parallels.
Numbers 12:6 states: "And he said, Hear my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a vision, and will speak to him in a dream." Ezek. 2:2 states: "And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me." 3:22-24, "...and he said unto me, arise, go forth into the plain and I will there talk with thee..." Now these same exact words are used by the prophets and worshippers at Mari. There are no differences. The minor differences which came about in the fifth century BCE when the worship of a single Deity became popular are insignificant.
When it comes to prophesies and war, there is no difference between the sect of the Hebrews and the population of Mari. To deny the parallel between the Babylonians and the people called Israelites is an insult to the intelligence of any man. There is virtually no difference which further illustrates the fact Abraham worshipped the Babylonian God Bel (En-Lil).
The cult of the Dead at Mari is reflected in 2 Sam. 18:18 Absalom prescribes the proper actions for a Babylonian without an heir to carry his interest after death so he can be taken care of in the underworld. Isaiah 56:4-5 shows the care and measure for the eunuchs of Babylonian society. That these are identical is not mere coincidence. Calling it coincidence is blatant manipulation of facts.
While the later editors of the Hebrew accounts attempted their best to eradicate all signs of pagan worship from the Bible, we have Deut. 26:14 which reflects the proper attitude of the Babylonians toward the sacrificial food. Not eating that which had been set aside for the Dead ancestors, etc.
On the other hand, Psalm 106:28 indicates the people ate of the food set aside for the dead ancestors. Isaiah 8:19, when correctly translated, would read "Should not a people consult their ancestral spirits?"
This would be a matter of fact to any Babylonian and is so also with the Hebrews and all other Canaanites. 1 Sam. 20:5-6 states: "And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat." This is spoken by David when he is attempting to be excused from a banquet or feast. What David leaves here is the festival of the new moon with it's family sacrifices. No self respecting Babylonian or Canaanite would miss the family new moon festival and here David is begging to be excused from it. Do not say David has nothing to do with Abraham because this proves nothing. It was the same cult as the Hebrews of the time worshipped. There was a slight variance by some called Israelites, but they were not the ones which gathered Israel and evicted the Egyptians out of Israel a little before twelve hundred B.C.
YHWH was unsuccessful when it came to eradicating the practice from the Hebrews. They still celebrate the new moon and their ancestry today. The Feast of Tabernacles is where the spirits of the ancestors visit for seven days, then today's Israelite is visited by the spirits of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron and David (Samael must be doing the rock & roll in Sheol).
Sacrifices at Mari were most often 7-7-7. Numbers 23:1 states: "And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven oxen and seven rams." 23:29, "And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven bullocks and seven rams."
Exodus 6:3 states: "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew me as God almighty (El Shaddai) but by the name Jehovah they did not know me." The names of the Gods were a part of their power. The Gods name indicated his function, and when a God changed his name, he changed his functions.
Abraham is well described in the Bible. What was he like? The family of Abraham stayed in Haran for several years. This is where his father Terah died. Some years after his death, Abraham got his calling from his new God. The God made a covenant with Abraham which was to be expected. The worshippers of Baal and El also had their covenant, so it would only be natural for Abraham to have his covenant with the Deity.
The ancient populace of the Near East, including the Sumerians, the Semites and Canaanites had a firm belief not only in the universal chief deities, but they all had their own personal Gods which were the family gods. These Gods of the family were referred to as the Elohim, which as stated is plural.
Each and every family had their Elohim. We could not possibly be successful in trying to list or remember the personal names of each of the gods of each of these families. It is possible that the name of the family god of the tribe of Abraham was YHWH, but with the rest of the evidence against this notion, it seems highly unlikely.
The upper class of kings and emperors had their chief deities as their family Gods. Thus we find in ancient literature a reference to the goddess Astarte as the Elohim. She was the family deity of some upper class citizen. The upper deity Chemosh is referred to as Elohim for this same reason and so are most other gods of the pantheon.
It was this kind of deity that advised Abraham to leave Haran. This was not extraordinary. A call from his god would have to come from his family deity. The responsibility of the family Deity was the welfare of the family. The fairy godmother of other areas is a perfect duplicate of these family Deities.
Abraham came from a background that excluded a belief in only one deity. No one would try to confirm that he and his family were worshipping only one God. His belief in a chief deity would have been the same as his countrymen who believed that one of the many gods was chief in order to keep some organization among what the gods had to accomplish. Each family firmly believed that their Elohim frequently gave them instructions as to how to carry on their everyday affairs. After all, a God that did not communicate with those who were his or her responsibility would not be of much use.
If we look a bit closer at the Bible, and all the races of people which were created, we find this also was a futile effort by the Hebrews to account for all the people of the area and their ancestries. According to the Bible, the Canaanites were the descendants of Ham (Gen:10:6). Archeology shows that they built temples about 7,000 B.C. The Israelites descended from the Amorites which in turn, descended from the Canaanites.
Towards the end of his life, Abraham makes sure his son does not marry a Canaanite woman. Why would he do that when he himself is descended from the Canaanites? It is quite simple because there were a lot of different races within the tribes of the Canaanites and the Israelites were but one of them.
The Benjaminites are mentioned at the tablets at Mari which indicate they lived hundreds of years before the Benjamin of the Bible came about. The idea that the Benjaminites originated with Benjamin, the son of Jacob, is therefore preposterous. Both the Bible and the Mari tablets describe the Benjaminites as raiders and pillagers who employed fire beacons in their illegal activities. They are described as the scum of Mankind having no ethics or morals. A better question would be: Why would anyone desire to associate themselves with people of such disreputable character?
Abraham's wandering took him back and forth through the land of the Canaanites. He is, according to Christian and Hebrew myths, supposed to be the model of human behavior. What were these people like that we today are told to look up to by our religious leaders? Our first impression of Abraham is that he was a coward. Before he entered Egypt, he told his wife Sar'ai that she was to pose as his sister. Now, this is not untruthful. She was his sister. But her primary role was as his wife. According to the Bible, he was afraid the Egyptians would kill him in order to have his wife. This indicate he was not very well aware of the Egyptian customs, morals or laws. Or perhaps he had ulterior motives.
It was due to famine that they ventured into Egypt in the first place. According to the Biblical authors, Genesis 12:11, "When he was about to enter Egypt he said to Sar'ai his wife, I know that you are a woman beautiful to behold; and when the Egyptians see you they will say, This is his wife. Then they will kill me, but they will let you live. Say that you are my sister that it may go well with me because of you, and my life may be spared on your account."
They got along well in Egypt until the Pharaoh, who was of a higher moral fiber than Abraham, discovered the truth about Sar'ais relationship with Abraham. Abraham was lucky and stayed alive following his attempted deception of the Egyptians, but they had to leave Egypt. Genesis 12:28-30 relates the story. "So Pharaoh called Abraham and said, "What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me she was your wife? Why did you say, "She is my sister" so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her and be gone." The final part of the story is that the pharaoh sent a host of his men to ensure that they left. Deut. 28:22 states: "Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother." Most assuredly this was not written with Abraham in mind. The religious leaders would excuse this by stating the law did not come into effect before Abraham. What was the matter, did the Hebrew God not know what was right and wrong before this commandment? The real reason is that it was a different God.
Next we see Abraham worshipping and receiving the blessing of the God of the Canaanites El. En-Lil of the Sumerians had by this time become the El. One of his epithets was El Elyon which means god most high, he was the God most high, the God of Gods, the maker of Heaven and Earth. In Gen. 14 :18-23, it is recorded thus, "And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was the Priest of the God most high (El Elyon) and he blessed him (Abraham) and said, "Blessed be Abraham by God most high, maker of heaven and earth and blessed be God most high (El Elyon) who has delivered your enemies into your hand. But Abraham said to the king of Sodom, "I have sworn to the Lord God most high, maker of heaven and earth (El Elyon/En-Lil)..."
It is not surprising Abraham is worshipping the rest of the Gods of the Canaanites. The Hebrews were a Canaanite race themselves. Salem, where Melchizedek is king, has been identified as Jerusalem. And this may have been the reason David elected to erect the kingdom of the Israelites in Jerusalem. After all, it was the city of El Elyon. El Elyon the Canaanite Deity was most assuredly worshipped by David. The king of Salem, Melchizedek, was most assuredly altered. It should have read the God of Salem, and the Canaanite God which should be identified with Melchizedek both in the Old Testament, the New Testament and the documents from Qumran was Baal. After all, Baal was the savior who time and again delivered the Israelites out of the hands of their other God referred to as Yawwu at Ugarit, the evil son of El. Salem being identified with Jerusalem is like so many other things in religious identification, just allegory.
Psalm 110:4 states: "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." David singing a tribute to this Canaanite priest king is far more proper than one may at first think. Here the priest, on the order of Melchizedek, is where king David is predicting a future king/God over the Israelites which can be compared with the Canaanite priest king Melchizedek. Priest king is how the OT defines Baal in this case.
Yet this is not the end of the story about Melchizedek. A document at Qumran also mentions Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God and here he is definitely identified with Christ. Christ was the savior and so was Baal. They were not at all identical. The Israelites worshipped the one. They rejected Jesus. Further, a document from the caves at Qumran where the Essene's supposedly had their stronghold, also talks of Melchizedek and his special position. From Qumran, it is stated that when Elohim stands in the midst of the assembly of El and judges, Melchizedek is there. (Elohim is explained away here as referring to angels.) In Qumran where a reference is to Isaiah, such as Isa 61:2, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the lord and the day of vengeance of our God..." Here Melchizedek is used for God. Psalm 110:4 states: "The lord has sworn and he will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." Psalm 110 is Canaanite and comes from the Canaanites. The God is El, the "priest" is Baal.
Jesus is also identified as a judge, but the Jesus of the New Testament is not the Baal of the Old Testament. They are both saviors, but the Gnostics, of whom Jesus was one, the Prophets did not revere in the least in any part of the OT, Jesus the judge is not Gnostic either. The Gnostics did not judge anyone. However, the similarities between Baal and Jesus are most interesting.
Psalm 82:1 states: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the Gods." The God which is here talked of when correctly translated is Melchizedek. And Melchizedek is identified as the God doing battle with the evil Belial in Qumran. This would be perfect if Melchizedek is Baal and Belial is Mot. Melchizedek is designated as the leader of the heavenly spirits. The spirits here referred to, when correctly translated, also mean Gods.
In Deut.32:8-9, it is stated that the most high God (The Canaanite El-Elyon) divided the nations and their inheritance he gave to the Lord Jacob. Here the most high God is definitely mentioned separate from the God of Israel. There are variances between the Norwegian Lutheran and the King James version again, and between the two of them, it is clear that what is divided out are the sons of Adam. This would be all of Mankind. One of these people are given to the Lord, that is the people referred to as Israelites. This could very well be the same God which later claims to be the only one which these people are to worship.
Melchizedek is also to be identified with the angel Michael in certain of the documents, but which came where is a question? Rev.12:7-9, when Michael fights the dragon, is also duplicated by the manuscripts of the Canaanites only here, it is Baal doing the fighting and not Michael.
The manuscripts from Qumran predate all extant Biblical material and while it verifies the Biblical tradition, it along with numerous other recently discovered finds, contradict the picture which Biblical scholars and priests have been peddling for millenniums. The only way in which the Biblical beliefs can be maintained is to cease all exploration and research. Ignorance may indeed be a blessing to the God of the Hebrews whom we know as the Archon. But it is tantamount to turning our real selves, the Souls, into objects which are a part of the physical universe.
El-Elyon is used to designate the Hebrew Deity. When it is, it is a borrowing from the Canaanites or more correctly, a verification of the statement of the fact the Hebrews were a Canaanite race worshipping the Canaanite Gods. To state the Hebrews would employ the name of the chief Canaanite God if they were not following the God would equal in absurdity a Norse Christian referring to the Christian god as Odin. It was not done, and it could never be done no matter how far the imagination is stretched.
As we saw, Melchizedek may in fact have been none other than our friend Baal. And if we read the letter to the Hebrews which is wrongly ascribed to Paul, in the seventh chapter we also see Jesus described of the order of Melchizedek. This would then conform to the idea of the Pharisees that Jesus was an incarnate of Baal whom, as we know, was also a savior. When Jesus was to have removed demons from the suffering people, he was in fact taking over one of the chores of Baal. Baal was the savior who removed the demons from the blind so they could see, from the lame so they could walk, etc.
The Jesus of the Gnostics was not such. He did his revelations after he was reborn (received Gnosis). These feats assigned to Jesus were in most likelihood assigned to Jesus after his death. The later Hebrews who were converted to the new religion desired to keep some of their old traditions and their manner of divesting divinity to any character, be it Jesus or Moses was the same. They took the feats of others and ascribed them to their hero. I suggest they were assigned to Jesus by Irenaeus. There would be references made in literature of authors who died prior to Irenaeus. The funny fact is that that material is not authentic. They are either dubious copies or acknowledged falsifications.
Gen,16:11 states: "And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, behold thou art with child, and shall bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Ishmael; because the lord has heard thy affliction." The Lord here is also El. Ishmael means El hears or El listens. The tale depicted here is in fact very consistent with the Canaanite worship of the god El. This verse along with Gen. 12:2 is where the Lord, whom we should be calling El, promises to make a great nation of Abraham. This comes from the Canaanite document called Aqhat I. It is the Canaanite/Hebrew God El who blesses his followers with offsprings, a feat Baal cannot do and never claimed to be able to do. He was mocked by the followers of El because of just this fact as we can see in Hos. 9:10-16.
Gen 17:2 where the lord promises to make a great covenant with Abraham to multiply him exceedingly as he also does later with Jacob, also comes from Ugarit. The entire part of Genesis which deals with Abraham falls under the worship of the Canaanite god El. The tribe of Abraham was Canaanite and they worshipped El. Others of the same people would be worshipping El's son in law, Baal. The only problem with Baal was that he could not provide his worshippers with offsprings. That was the duty left to the god El. How bound the Deity is by his covenants is reflected in Exodus where the God suggests wiping out the entire race of the Israelites and making a great "nation" out of Moses.
The tale which we are left with in the Bible is not at all that depicting the moral qualities of a father of a nation. The morals of Abraham's nephew Lot in Sodom are not much better than those of Abraham. Gen. 19:8 states: "Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
Then there is another attempt by Abraham, possibly to get his wife pregnant. He again passes on his wife this time to the Canaanite king Abimelech. The kings of old were the symbol of fertility and while Abraham was a member of a fertility cult, it was unusual to pass his wife off to a local king to get her pregnant, but it may have been that Sar'ai was more a sister than a wife to Abraham. The problem Abraham had was his inability to get his wife pregnant. All ancient Babylonians and Canaanites needed offsprings in order to have someone to provide for them after their death when they were in the underworld, and someone to erect a standing stone or stele for them. But most importantly, someone to provide food for them through their sacrifices.
Gen. 20:2-10 shows where Abraham passes off his wife to Abimelech, and the Lord comes to Abimelech in a dream and tells him the consequences of any liaison with Sar'ai. Why the Lord would punish the victim of the story? Abimelech is another story. It seemed the Deity had no punishment for the perpetrator, only for the victims. But Abimelech lets Abraham know that his actions are despicable and sends them both on their way like the king of Egypt did and Abimelech also rewards Abraham with riches for his journey. This does not mean Abraham was a pimp but the indications are there. He received riches from the Egyptian king also.
The two daughters of Lot who had never known a man remedies the situation themselves in Gen. 19:32-38 where they get their father drunk and have their way with him. They both get pregnant by their father. The firstborn had a son and called him Moab and he was said to be the one whose offspring became the Moabites.
The second daughter had a son who became the father of the Ammonite's. Historically, this is also about as sound as a fairy tale. But the Archons devised fairy tales by the myriad's. Abraham eventually is granted a son by his God. He had to wait long enough, but his wife eventually has Isaac. And Isaac is truly his father's son. Gen. 26:6-12 states: "So Isaac dwelt in Gerar. When the men of the place asked him about his wife, he said, "She is my sister"; for he feared to say "she is my wife thinking lest the men of the place should kill me for the sake of Rebecca."
The Canaanite king Ahimelech must have gotten pretty sick of this tribe, for he looks out of his window and sees Isaac fondling his wife (Gen. 26:8). Gen. 26:9-10 states: "And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, behold of a surety she is thy wife; and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because lest I die for her. And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? One of our people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us." At least there was someone about to teach these nomads of morals.
Rebecca and Isaac had twin sons, Jacob and Esau. These two boys were as different as twins can be. Naturally, one was the favorite of his father; this was Esau, and the other was very much the favorite of his mother; this was Jacob.
The brothers eventually grew up and got married. We pick up the story again in Gen. 30:14-17. Reuben, the son of Leah by Jacob, went and found mandrakes in the field. Mandrakes are a hallucinatory mushroom used by the ancient fertility cults to produce a high in much the same manner as our unfortunate young generation employing LSD, opium, cocaine, heroin, etc. Reuben brought these mushrooms to his mother, Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, "Give me, I pray, some of your son's mandrakes. Leah replies." Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband? And wouldest thou take my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee tonight for thy sons mandrakes." Leah then meets Jacob when he comes from the field and informs him that he is to lay with her as she has bought him with her sons drug. The profound teaching here might be that it is a blessing to trade off your mate for a bit of dope. Today's drug culture practicing this attitude are punished by law which indicating today's ethics are far superior to the primitive society depicted in the Old Testament.
Jacob cheated Esau out of his birthright by dressing in the skin of an animal with the help of his mother. Cheating and deception seems to have been the order of the day among this people. Jacob working for his father in law for the right to marry Rachel is another example. In Genesis chapter 30, Leban agrees that the wages suggested by Jacob are fair. Jacob is to be paid all of the black lambs and speckled and striped goats. With the help of his God as the co-conspirator this time, all the offspring of the healthy sheep and goats are speckled and striped and black.
Leban had gone to shear the sheep and his daughter proceeds to steal her fathers household goods. Jacob had not told his father in law he intended to flee and took off with both livestock and the household goods Rachel had stolen.
Leban upon returning home and learning of the theft followed the crooks. Once he had caught up with them he demanded they return what had been stolen. But Rachel managed by womanly wiles to outwit her father.
Someone might suggest that Leban deserved what he got. The thief's would. Honest people do not steal or cheat. It does not matter what the excuse one may have for committing theft or murder or any other unethical act. Theft is theft. Crime is crime. Man can tell the difference, and the using of excuses to commit atrocities are what the Archons desire, for with every excuse used, more of the pleroma of the individual is trapped within the physical universe. Exo.11:2 is where the Lord of Moses tells Moses to borrow things from the Egyptians out of silver and gold which they can take along for their journey. Stealing was not beneath this Deity as we see, so how could he tell his followers not to steal.
This part of the Bible is where it tells us that using birth control is against the wishes of El. Gen. 38:6-12 reflects the Canaanite fertility religion where if a wife's husband dies, the nearest relative is to cohabit with the woman provided she has no son. This in order that he has an heir to care for his interests in the nether world. "And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn and her name was Tamar. But Er Judah's firstborn did what was wicked in the sight of the El so he slew him. Then Judah said to Onan, "Go into your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother in law to her and raise up offspring for your brother."
But Onan knew the offspring would not be his, so when he went into his brother's wife, Tamar, he spilled the semen on the ground lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of El and he slew him also.
Following the traditions set by Baal's wife when he was in the underworld, the widow, Tamar, then plays the harlot and tricks her father in law, Judah, into impregnating her.
The Bible is supposed to be a manual, teaching us proper ethical and moral living. The type of ethics and morals taught are however a liability to Mankind. It is useless as a guidance. The other Canaanite tribe whom we know something about because of the excavations at Ugarit had far superior moral and ethical views than the ones depicted in Genesis. The morals of modern Man are far superior to these again. Genesis is a deception, teaching Man corrupt and unethical living. As a guide it is useless. As a relic explaining why Man was not for centuries able to rise above the dirt from which he came, it is illustrative.