Page 6 of 6

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:15 am
by notmartha
And more on Easter...

http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tracts/tract1.html

The Pagan Origin Of Easter

Easter is a day that is honored by nearly all of contemporary Christianity and is used to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The holiday often involves a church service at sunrise, a feast which includes an "Easter Ham", decorated eggs and stories about rabbits.

Those who love truth learn to ask questions, and many questions must be asked regarding the holiday of Easter.

Is it truly the day when Jesus arose from the dead? Where did all of the strange customs come from, which have nothing to do with the resurrection of our Saviour?

The purpose of this tract is to help answer those questions, and to help those who seek truth to draw their own conclusions.

The first thing we must understand is that professing Christians were not the only ones who celebrated a festival called "Easter."

"Ishtar", which is pronounced "Easter" was a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of their gods that they called "Tammuz", who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god.

In those ancient times, there was a man named Nimrod, who was the grandson of one of Noah's son named Ham.

Ham had a son named Cush who married a woman named Semiramis. Cush and Semiramis then had a son named him "Nimrod."

After the death of his father, Nimrod married his own mother and became a powerful King.

The Bible tells of of this man, Nimrod, in Genesis 10:8-10 as follows: "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."

Nimrod became a god-man to the people and Semiramis, his wife and mother, became the powerful Queen of ancient Babylon.

Nimrod was eventually killed by an enemy, and his body was cut in pieces and sent to various parts of his kingdom.

Semiramis had all of the parts gathered, except for one part that could not be found.

That missing part was his reproductive organ. Semiramis claimed that Nimrod could not come back to life without it and told the people of Babylon that Nimrod had ascended to the sun and was now to be called "Baal", the sun god.

Queen Semiramis also proclaimed that Baal would be present on earth in the form of a flame, whether candle or lamp, when used in worship.

Semiramis was creating a mystery religion, and with the help of Satan, she set herself up as a goddess.

Semiramis claimed that she was immaculately conceived.

She taught that the moon was a goddess that went through a 28 day cycle and ovulated when full.

She further claimed that she came down from the moon in a giant moon egg that fell into the Euphrates River.

This was to have happened at the time of the first full moon after the spring equinox.

Semiramis became known as "Ishtar" which is pronounced "Easter", and her moon egg became known as "Ishtar's" egg."

Ishtar soon became pregnant and claimed that it was the rays of the sun-god Baal that caused her to conceive.

The son that she brought forth was named Tammuz.

Tammuz was noted to be especially fond of rabbits, and they became sacred in the ancient religion, because Tammuz was believed to be the son of the sun-god, Baal. Tammuz, like his supposed father, became a hunter.

The day came when Tammuz was killed by a wild pig.

Queen Ishtar told the people that Tammuz was now ascended to his father, Baal, and that the two of them would be with the worshippers in the sacred candle or lamp flame as Father, Son and Spirit.

Ishtar, who was now worshipped as the "Mother of God and Queen of Heaven", continued to build her mystery religion.

The queen told the worshippers that when Tammuz was killed by the wild pig, some of his blood fell on the stump of an evergreen tree, and the stump grew into a full new tree overnight. This made the evergreen tree sacred by the blood of Tammuz.

She also proclaimed a forty day period of time of sorrow each year prior to the anniversary of the death of Tammuz.

During this time, no meat was to be eaten.

Worshippers were to meditate upon the sacred mysteries of Baal and Tammuz, and to make the sign of the "T" in front of their hearts as they worshipped.

They also ate sacred cakes with the marking of a "T" or cross on the top.

Every year, on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, a celebration was made.

It was Ishtar's Sunday and was celebrated with rabbits and eggs.

Ishtar also proclaimed that because Tammuz was killed by a pig, that a pig must be eaten on that Sunday.

By now, the readers of this tract should have made the connection that paganism has infiltrated the contemporary "Christian" churches, and further study indicates that this paganism came in by way of the Roman Catholic System.

The truth is that Easter has nothing whatsoever to do with the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We also know that Easter can be as much as three weeks away from the Passover, because the pagan holiday is always set as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.

Some have wondered why the word "Easter" is in the the King James Bible.

It is because Acts, chapter 12, tells us that it was the evil King Herod, who was planning to celebrate Easter, and not the Christians.

The true Passover and pagan Easter sometimes coincide, but in some years, they are a great distance apart.

So much more could be said, and we have much more information for you, if you are a seeker of the truth.

We know that the Bible tells us in John 4:24, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

The truth is that the forty days of Lent, eggs, rabbits, hot cross buns and the Easter ham have everything to do with the ancient pagan religion of Mystery Babylon. These are all antichrist activities!

Satan is a master deceiver, and has filled the lives of well-meaning, professing Christians with idolatry.

These things bring the wrath of God upon children of disobedience, who try to make pagan customs of Baal worship Christian.

You must answer for your activities and for what you teach your children.

These customs of Easter honor Baal, who is also Satan, and is still worshipped as the "Rising Sun" and his house is the "House of the Rising Sun."

How many churches have "sunrise services" on Ishtar's day and face the rising sun in the East?

How many will use colored eggs and rabbit stories, as they did in ancient Babylon.

These things are no joke, any more than Judgment day is a joke.

I pray to God that this tract will cause you to search for more truth.

We will be glad to help you by providing more information and by praying for you.

These are the last days, and it is time to repent, come out and be separate.

David J. Meyer

Semiramis, Nimrod, and Easter

Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:46 pm
by Firestarter
notmartha wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:15 am
Nimrod became a god-man to the people and Semiramis, his wife and mother, became the powerful Queen of ancient Babylon.

Nimrod was eventually killed by an enemy, and his body was cut in pieces and sent to various parts of his kingdom.

Semiramis had all of the parts gathered, except for one part that could not be found.

That missing part was his reproductive organ. Semiramis claimed that Nimrod could not come back to life without it and told the people of Babylon that Nimrod had ascended to the sun and was now to be called "Baal", the sun god.
I don’t believe that Moloch was the “God” to which humans were sacrificed, but that originally “Moloch” symbolised the human sacrifice ritual itself...

About 2,275 years BC, Nimrod the great grandson of Noah lived (the grandson of Ham). According to scripture he was “the mighty hunter”; but Nimrod hunted for humans to sacrifice them in the Moloch ritual.
According to the book of Jasher (Yashar), the priests of Ba’al counseled Nimrod to marry his own mother Semiramis; to acquire the “third eye” or “all-seeing eye of Lucifer”. Nimrod’s mother and wife, Semiramis, has been worshiped as “The Queen of Heaven” all over the world ever since.

Semiramis and her son/husband, Nimrod started this occult religion that included sacrificing babies in the Moloch ritual. They sacrificed babies in the temple at the Winter Solstice (December 21st -25th) and also at “Easter ‘Sun’ Day” at the Spring or Vernal Equinox (March 21st -25th).
Nimrod also had the Tower of Babel erected.

Every year on 15 March and 25 December, there would be wild drunken orgies where virgins were impregnated by the pagan priests. From 25 March to 25 December counts 9 months, just in time to sacrifice the new-borns on the altar in the Moloch ritual on 25 December.
When the son of Noah, Shem, heard about these human sacrifices, he sent out a bounty hunt to kill Nimrod. According to the book of Jasher (Yashar) it was Esau (the twin brother of Jacob) who actually killed Nimrod. Nimrod´s body was cut in pieces and scattered over the kingdom. Semiramis had all of the parts gathered, except for the penis that couldn´t be found and couldn´t resurrect him.
Semiramis decided to memorialize his penis by erecting an “obelisk”. These obelisks can be found all over the world, for example in Washington DC on St. Peter’s Square in front of the Vatican and in the City of London.
See for example the giant phallus symbol on the Dam in my home town of Amsterdam.
Image

The Babylonian story of Nimrod and Semiramis is basically identical to Osiris and Isis of Egypt, where Isis reconstructed Osiris’ body after it had been cut up into pieces by their evil brother Set (Satan), but couldn´t find his penis. Isis then had a son by Osiris named Horus.
Semiramis consulted the pagan priests and astrologers who told her that the sun “dies” on 21 December but comes back to life again on the eve of 24 December. Semiramis created a myth for the Babylonians that Nimrod dies each year on 21 December but 3 days and 3 nights later, on 25 December, is “born-again” as the the Sun-god, Ba’al.
Queen Semiramis also proclaimed that Baal was present on earth in the form of a flame, whether candle or lamp, to be worshipped.

Semiramis ordered the Babylonians to go into the groves (forest) and place a gift under the tree to honor Nimrod who was “cut down” like a tree (Isaiah 14:12-19). She also ordered them to cut down a tree, place it into their homes and decorate it with silver and gold balls to symbolize Nimrod’s testicles (Jeremiah 10:3-4).
Semiramis also declared herself the goddess of the moon and sky and said that her son/husband Nimrod had impregnated her with the “rays of the sun” (on 25 March); so on 25 December (!) another son Tammuz is born (Ezekiel 8:14).

I think that a strong case can be made that Christmas and Easter-Egg trees are really “Asherah Poles” for honouring Ba’al!
Decorating these trees with little balls and coloured eggs, just like the ancient Babylonians, who set them up right next to their altars. Did you know that the little balls on these trees represent Nimrod’s testicles?
According to Strong’s Concordance #H842 Asherah: groves (for idol worship); a Babylonian (Astarte)-Canaanite goddess (of fortune and happiness), the supposed consort of Baal, her images; the goddess, goddesses; her images; sacred trees or poles set up near an altar.

The “bowed crucifix” is an allusion to Nimrod’s bow and it is meant to point to the rider on the white horse in Revelation 6:2.
It is claimed that the name “Semiramis” was adopted into other cultures as: Isis, Diana, Astarte, Ishtar, Aphrodite, Venus, Easter and also as the “Virgin Mary”.
Her son and husband “Nimrod” (reincarnated as Tammuz) also became known as: Horus, Apollo, Sol, Krishna, Hercules, Mithra, amongst others.

Before the city was called “Rome” it was known as Saturnalia (the city of Saturn). In the Chaldean mysteries, the Babylonian dictator Nimrod was deified as Saturn. His birthday was celebrated on 25 December, Saturnalia. In Chaldee, Saturn is spelled as “STUR” which totals 666.
Semiramis was also called “Venus” in Rome, and had the day of the week “Venerdi” (Friday) named after her.

Constantine simply recycled the pagan statues, naming them after “Christian” saints. The statues of the Neptune for example was renamed “Saint Peter”, the statue of Venus was re-named the “Virgin Mary” and the statue of Sol (Mithra) was renamed “Jesus Christ”.
Roman Emperor Constantine also had depictions of the original “Queen of Heaven” Semiramis holding her baby son Tammuz renamed as “Mary and Baby Jesus”. Is Isis “Queen of Heaven” holding her baby Horus the origins of “Mary and Baby Jesus”?
Note the horns on Isis’ head for the “horned god” Lucifer and the “disk” within the horns symbolising the sun.
Image

When Tammuz was forty years old, he was killed by a wild boar. His mother Semiramis started a Babylonian ritual called “Forty Days of Weeping for Tammuz” where people had to fast and pray. The Roman Catholic Church recycled this custom as 40 days of fasting leading up to Easter Sunday. Catholics begin these 40 days with “Ash Wednesday”.
Like in ancient Babylon, priests (of Ba’al) take ashes and place the “mark” of the cross on the foreheads of the faithfull with a declaration that we were “created from ashes and to ashes we shall return”.

The French made a colossus of Jezebel, it now stands in New York Harbor, facing “East”, referring to the name Ishtar or Easter, and is called the “Statue of Liberty”! The French Illuminati donated this statue to the US to bring it under the influence of Jezebel.
The Babylonian name for Semiramis is “Ishtar” from which the “Easter” comes.
The Romans first called her Astarte but later called Venus, and the Phoenicians called her Asherah. The Hebrews called her Astoroth, the consort of Ba’al. Her emblem is the flower of the lily. This explains why people buy lilies during Easter and women don corsages of lilies and orchids to church on Easter Sunday.
See the Fleur de lys in the coat of arms of the House of Plantagenet.
Image

At the first Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine formed the first “Ecumenical Council” of the Catholic Church. Later new creeds were drafted. One of them included:
I accept all customs, rites, legalism, and feasts of the Romans, sacrifices. Prayers, purifications with water, sanctifications by Pontificus Maxmus (high priests of Rome), propitiations, and feasts, and the New Sabbath “Sol dei” (day of the Sun), all new chants and observances, and all the foods and drinks of the Romans (Pork and all unclean foods). In other words, I absolutely accept everything Roman, every new law, rite and custom, of Rome, and the New Roman Religion.
Later, in approximately 365 AD, the Imperial Church of Rome wrote in one of their canons:
Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day. Rather, honoring the Lord’s Day (Ba’al’s Day) which is “Sun-day” for Sol Invictus (the invincible sun). But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema (against) Christ.

In Greek, the word “Catholic” means “universal”; this can only mean that it always intended for this religion to become the “One World Religion”.
In June 2000, the New World Order named the Roman Catholic Church the “Mother” of the “One World Church” and Pope John Paul II was elected as the “leader” of the “United Religions”: http://doubleportioninheritance.blogspo ... hurch.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/RL11t)

Re: Semiramis, Nimrod, and Easter

Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:27 pm
by notmartha
Firestarter wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:46 pm
I don’t believe that Moloch was the “God” to which humans were sacrificed, but that originally “Moloch” symbolised the human sacrifice ritual itself...
As I said in the previous post here, the word Moloch/Molech is translated from the Hebrew noun ‏מֹלֶךְ‎ which means "king", which is from from the Hebrew verb ‏מָלַךְ‎ which means "reign." "Moloch/Molech then became symbolic of any diety or idol that required sacrifices, STATE being the most dangerous of them all.


Hebrew Strong's Number: 4432
Hebrew Word: ‏מֹלֶךְ‎
Transliteration: mōlek
Phonetic Pronunciation:mo'-lek
Root: from <H4427>, Greek <G3434>
Part of Speech: n pr m

English Words used in KJV:
Molech 8
[Total Count: 8]

from <H4427> (malak); Molek (i.e. king), the chief deity of the Ammonites :- Molech. Compare <H4445> (Malkam).

Hebrew Strong's Number: 4427
Hebrew Word: ‏מָלַךְ‎
Transliteration: mālak
Phonetic Pronunciation:maw-lak'
Root: a primitive root
Part of Speech: v

English Words used in KJV:
reign 289
king 46
made 4
queen 2
consulted 1
indeed 1
make 1
rule 1
set 1
surely 1
set up 1
[Total Count: 348]

a primitive root; to reign; inceptive to ascend the throne; causative to induct into royalty; hence (by implication) to take counsel :- consult, × indeed, be (make, set a, set up) king, be (make) queen, (begin to, make to) reign (-ing), rule, × surely.

Hebrew Strong's Number: 4428
Hebrew Word: ‏מֶלֶךְ‎
Transliteration: melek
Phonetic Pronunciation:meh'-lek
Root: from <H4427>, Greek <G3197>
Part of Speech: n m

English Words used in KJV:
king 2518
royal 2
Hammelech 1
Malcham 1
Moloch 1
[Total Count: 2523]

from <H4427> (malak); a king :- king, royal.


Hebrew Strong's Number: 4445
Hebrew Word: ‏מִלְכֹּם‎
Transliteration: milkōm
Phonetic Pronunciation:mal-kawm'
Hebrew Word: ‏מַלְכָּם‎
Transliteration: Malkâm
Phonetic Pronunciation: mal-kawm'
Root: from <H4428> for <H4432>
Part of Speech: n pr m

English Words used in KJV:
Milcom 3
Malcham 1
[Total Count: 4]

or Milkowm, mil-kome'; from <H4428> (melek) for <H4432> (Molek); Malcam or Milcom, the national idol of the Ammonites :- Malcham, Milcom.

Greek Strong's Number: 3434
Greek Word: Μολόχ
Transliteration: Moloch
Phonetic Pronunciation:mol-okh'
Root: of Hebrew origin <H4432>
Part of Speech: n pr m

English Words used in KJV:
Moloch 1
[Total Count: 1]

of Hebrew origin [<H4432> (Molek)]; Moloch (i.e. Molek), an idol :- Moloch.

Re: Semiramis, Nimrod, and Easter

Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:51 pm
by Firestarter
notmartha wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:27 pm
Firestarter wrote:
Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:46 pm
I don’t believe that Moloch was the “God” to which humans were sacrificed, but that originally “Moloch” symbolised the human sacrifice ritual itself...
As I said in the previous post here, the word Moloch/Molech is translated from the Hebrew noun ‏מֹלֶךְ‎ which means "king", which is from from the Hebrew verb ‏מָלַךְ‎ which means "reign." "Moloch/Molech then became symbolic of any diety or idol that required sacrifices, STATE being the most dangerous of them all.
I guess you already understand this.
In my opinion "Moloch" was wrongly translated as "King" in the KJV (and other versions of the Bible).

You can repeat your text on how "Moloch" (and variations) were translated in the KJV, but this doesn't in any way mean that the translation is correct!

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:51 am
by notmartha
Ah, ok. I did not understand your position but now I think I do. You appear to take more of an Otto Eissfeldt approach.

From wiki:
The term mlk in Punic epigraphy was given a re-interpretation by Otto Eissfeldt in 1935. Eissfeldt's suggestion was that molk was not to be taken as a theonym at all but as a term for a type of fire sacrifice. For the Hebrew Bible, he argued that seven out of the eight instances of Masoretic Molek (excising 1 Kings 11:7 as an error for Milkom) should also be regarded as the technical term for child sacrifice rather than as the name of a god, and that *lĕmōlek "as a molk-sacrifice" had been reinterpreted as the name of a Canaanite idol following the Deuteronomic reform under Josiah (r. 640–609 BC). According to Eissfeldt, this 7th-century reform abolished the child sacrifice that had hitherto been an acceptable part of the cult of Yahweh. Paul G. Mosca's Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion: A Study in Mulk and Molech (1975) similarly argued in support of the theory that child sacrifice (molk) to Yahweh was practiced until the Deuteronomic reform of the 7th century BC.
Maybe....but I don’t think so...

The act of "passing through fire" did not always include the Hebrew מ־ל־ך (M L K), aka Moloch. Moloch was only included in the passages that denoted whom the sons/daughters were passed through the fire for.

The words “pass through” are from:

Hebrew Strong's Number: 5674
Hebrew Word: ‏עָבַר‎
Transliteration: ʿābar
Phonetic Pronunciation: aw-bar'
Root: a primitive root
Part of Speech: v

English Words used in KJV:
(pass / went...) over 174
pass 108
(pass ect...) through 58
pass by 27
go 26
(put / pass etc...) away 24
pass on 19
miscellaneous translations 123
[Total Count: 559]

The word “fire” is from:

Hebrew Strong's Number: 784
Hebrew Word: ‏אֵשׁ‎
Transliteration: ʾēsh
Phonetic Pronunciation: aysh
Root: a primitive word
Part of Speech: n f

English Words used in KJV:
fire 373
burning 1
fiery 1
untranslated variant 1
fire + <H800> 1
flaming 1
hot 1
[Total Count: 379]



Deuteronomy 18:10-12
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
2 Kings 16:2-4
Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD his God, like David his father. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel. And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
2 Kings 17:17
And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2 Kings 21:6
And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2 Chronicles 33:6
And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Ezekiel 16:20-21
Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?
Ezekiel 20:24-26
Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
Ezekiel 20:30-31
Wherefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Are ye polluted after the manner of your fathers? and commit ye whoredom after their abominations? For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols, even unto this day: and shall I be enquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will not be enquired of by you.
Ezekiel 23:36-37
The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations; That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.
Passing sons or daughters through the fire was always an abomination to the Lord (YHWH).

There are a few different interpretations of what "pass through the fire" actually entailed, some believing that it wasn't a sacrifice but some other kind of ritual, like fire walking. I tend to think that it was a sacrifice because the sons/daughters were devoured by the fire according to verses above.

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:13 pm
by Firestarter
notmartha wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:51 am
Ah, ok. I did not understand your position but now I think I do. You appear to take more of an Otto Eissfeldt approach.

From wiki:
The term mlk in Punic epigraphy was given a re-interpretation by Otto Eissfeldt in 1935. Eissfeldt's suggestion was that molk was not to be taken as a theonym at all but as a term for a type of fire sacrifice. For the Hebrew Bible, he argued that seven out of the eight instances of Masoretic Molek (excising 1 Kings 11:7 as an error for Milkom) should also be regarded as the technical term for child sacrifice rather than as the name of a god, and that *lĕmōlek "as a molk-sacrifice" had been reinterpreted as the name of a Canaanite idol following the Deuteronomic reform under Josiah (r. 640–609 BC). According to Eissfeldt, this 7th-century reform abolished the child sacrifice that had hitherto been an acceptable part of the cult of Yahweh. Paul G. Mosca's Child Sacrifice in Canaanite and Israelite Religion: A Study in Mulk and Molech (1975) similarly argued in support of the theory that child sacrifice (molk) to Yahweh was practiced until the Deuteronomic reform of the 7th century BC.
Maybe....but I don’t think so...
Firestarter wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:33 pm
In 1935, German archaeologist Otto Eissfeldt argued based upon excavations in Carthage that Moloch wasn’t a “god” but refers to the act of human sacrifice itself.
If this is true a large number of Biblical interpreters have mistranslated the term.

According to the Bible, there is a close relationship between Moloch and Ba'al (some even claim that they’re one and the same). Ba'al is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, referring to burnt offerings to Ba’al himself. See for example Jeremiah 32.35:
And they built the high places of the Ba‘al, which are in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire Mo'lech; which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Moloch
See the following quote:
It was widely held that Moloch was a god until 1935 when Otto Eissfeldt, a German archaeologist, published a radical new theory based upon excavations he had made in Carthage. During these excavations he made several telling discoveries, most importantly that of a relief showing a priest holding a child, as well as a sanctuary to the goddess Tanit comprising a cemetery with thousands of burned bodies of animal and of human infants. He concluded that mlk in Hebrew was instead a term used to refer to a particular kind of sacrifice, rather than a specific god, since mlk (molk) is a Punic term for sacrifice. This sacrifice, he claimed, involved humans in some cases. The abomination described in the Hebrew writings, then, occurred not in the worship a god Moloch who demanded that children be sacrificed to him, but rather in the practice of sacrificing human children as a molk. Hebrews were strongly opposed to sacrificing first-born children as a molk to Yahweh himself. Eissfeldt also speculated that the practice may also have been conducted by their neighbors in Canaan.

Eissfeldt's theory is supported by classical sources and archaeological evidence that suggest the Punic culture practiced human sacrifice. Thus, Eissfeldt identified the site as a tophet, using a Hebrew word of previously unknown meaning connected to the burning of human beings in some Biblical passages. Similar tophets have since been found at Carthage and other places in North Africa, as well as in Sardinia, Malta, and Sicily. In late 1990 a possible tophet consisting of cinerary urns containing bones, ashes, and votive objects was retrieved from ransacking on the mainland just outside of Tyre in the Phoenician homeland.[1] Thus, a body of evidence exists in support of the theory that Moloch actually refers to the act of human sacrifice itself.

To me it doesn't make sense that in many verses of the Bible Moloch and Baal are mentioned in the same sentence. To me this can be explained when you consider that Baal is the "God" and the Moloch is the sacrifice "ritual".

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:56 am
by notmartha
Firestarter wrote:
Wed Jun 26, 2019 5:13 pm
According to the Bible, there is a close relationship between Moloch and Ba'al (some even claim that they’re one and the same). Ba'al is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, referring to burnt offerings to Ba’al himself. See for example Jeremiah 32.35: And they built the high places of the Ba‘al, which are in the valley of Ben-hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire Mo'lech; which I did not command them, nor did it come into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Moloch
It helps to read the context around a verse to better interpret it:

Jeremiah 32:26-35 (KJV)
26 Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah, saying,
27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
28 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the Chaldeans, and into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and he shall take it:
29 And the Chaldeans, that fight against this city, shall come and set fire on this city, and burn it with the houses, upon whose roofs they have offered incense unto Baal, and poured out drink offerings unto other gods, to provoke me to anger.
30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.
31 For this city hath been to me as a provocation of mine anger and of my fury from the day that they built it even unto this day; that I should remove it from before my face,
32 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.
34 But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it.
35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

earlier -

Jeremiah 11:12-13 (KJV)
12 Then shall the cities of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem go, and cry unto the gods unto whom they offer incense: but they shall not save them at all in the time of their trouble.
13 For according to the number of thy cities were thy gods, O Judah; and according to the number of the streets of Jerusalem have ye set up altars to that shameful thing, even altars to burn incense unto Baal.

The Israelites worshipped many deities, two of which were Baal (a Phoenician deity) and Molech (the chief deity of the Ammonites).

The common noun "gods" meant deities, but was more often used as a proper noun, "God", meaning the one true God. In the same way, the word "baal" means "master" and it was sometimes used as a proper noun, i.e. Baal the deity, and sometimes it was used as a common noun, i.e. baal the husband, master, owner, captain, etc. In this sense, Molech could be a "baal" without being the "Baal". "Baal" and "Molech" were gods without being God.

Hebrew Strong's Number: 1168
Hebrew Word: ‏בַּעַל‎
Transliteration: baʿal
Phonetic Pronunciation:bah'-al
Root: the same as <H1167>, Greek <G896>

English Words used in KJV:
Baal 62
Baalim 18
[Total Count: 80]

the same as <H1167> (ba`al); Baal, a Phoenician deity :- Baal, [plural] Baalim.

Hebrew Strong's Number: 1167
Hebrew Word: ‏בַּעַל‎
Transliteration: baʿal
Phonetic Pronunciation:bah'-al
Root: from <H1166>
Part of Speech: n m

English Words used in KJV:
man 25
owner 14
husband 11
have 7
master 5
man given 2
adversary 1
archers 1
babbler + <H3956> 1
bird + <H3671> 1
captain 1
confederate + <H1285> 1
miscellaneous translations 12
[Total Count: 82]

from <H1166> (ba`al); a master; hence a husband, or (figurative) owner (often used with another noun in modifications of this latter sense) :- + archer, + babbler, + bird, captain, chief man, + confederate, + have to do, + dreamer, those to whom it is due, + furious, those that are given to it, great, + hairy, he that hath it, have, + horseman, husband, lord, man, + married, master, person, + sworn, they of.

Hebrew Strong's Number: 430
Hebrew Word: ‏אֱלֹהִים‎
Transliteration: ʾelōhîm
Phonetic Pronunciation:el-o-heem'
Root: plural of <H433>
Part of Speech: n m p

English Words used in KJV:
God 2346
god 244
judge 5
GOD 1
goddess 2
great 2
mighty 2
angels 1
exceeding 1
God-ward + <H4136> 1
godly 1
[Total Count: 2606]

plural of <H433> ('elowahh); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative :- angels, × exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), × (very) great, judges, × mighty.

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:21 pm
by Firestarter
notmartha wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:56 am
It helps to read the context around a verse to better interpret it:
notmartha wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:56 am
Jeremiah 32:35 (KJV)
35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
I fear that this discussion is leading nowhere.

The context that I see - and because I don't know (ancient) Hebrew I could be wrong - is that it doesn't make sense that the Baal worshippers would sacrifice to Molech.
Here's what I make of Jeremiah 32:35:
"And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto IN THE Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."

notmartha wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:56 am
The Israelites worshipped many deities, two of which were Baal (a Phoenician deity) and Molech (the chief deity of the Ammonites).

The common noun "gods" meant deities, but was more often used as a proper noun, "God", meaning the one true God. In the same way, the word "baal" means "master" and it was sometimes used as a proper noun, i.e. Baal the deity, and sometimes it was used as a common noun, i.e. baal the husband, master, owner, captain, etc. In this sense, Molech could be a "baal" without being the "Baal". "Baal" and "Molech" were gods without being God.
Because we have a different "believe", we even interpret the word "God" differently. To you "God" is the one true supreme being.
Three of my main problems with the "God" of the Tanach (Old Testament) are:
1) "God" made man in His image. So when I think logically the "God" of the Tanach is similar to a human male. If that isn't an insult to THE supreme being I don't know what is!
2) Why would THE supreme being find it necessary to "write" a book. The same "God" that can make earth quakes, floods happen and can create the Earth with everything on it in 6 days, resting on the 7th (why would he even need a rest?).
3) The "God" of the Tanach is vicious, orchestrating genocide, slavery, sexual abuse, incest, paedophilia, and ordering Abraham to kill his one and only beloved son Isaac:
Genesis 22: 1, 2
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

The sections on the children of Abraham and Sarah really don't add up!
I've read stories from Laurence Gardner (at one time an associate of Nicholas de Vere) claiming that Isaac was the son of Pharaoh Abimelech (they were even married for a while, as Abraham said that Sara was his sister, which wasn't even a lie!)...

Genesis 17: 16 - 23
And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

Genesis 20: 2 - 4
And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?

Genesis 20: 1 - 3
And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken.
For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.

According to the Tanach, Ishmael was Abraham´s earlier son by Sarah's slave Hagar (for some reason it isn´t necessary to mention daughters!)...
Genesis 20: 9
And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:54 pm
by notmartha
Firestarter wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:21 pm
I fear that this discussion is leading nowhere.
Sorry you feel that way. I'll then post for other readers that may get confused by your inaccuracies.
Firestarter wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:21 pm
The context that I see - and because I don't know (ancient) Hebrew I could be wrong - is that it doesn't make sense that the Baal worshippers would sacrifice to Molech.
The Israelites were at times polytheistic. They were a stiff necked people who at times believed in many gods. (Quoted above in Jeremiah 11:12-13) They worshipped and/or sacrificed to the gods they thought could best provide what they wanted - power, prosperity, fertility, etc. They worshipped both Baal and Moloch, among others.
Firestarter wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:21 pm
Because we have a different "believe", we even interpret the word "God" differently. To you "God" is the one true supreme being.
We weren’t talking about what I “believe” but what was believed in the context of the words written in the Bible. The writers.translators of the books I quoted believed that God was the one true God and differentiated between him and other gods by using uppercase or lowercase letters.
Firestarter wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:21 pm

Three of my main problems with the "God" of the Tanach (Old Testament) are:
1) "God" made man in His image. So when I think logically the "God" of the Tanach is similar to a human male. If that isn't an insult to THE supreme being I don't know what is!
2) Why would THE supreme being find it necessary to "write" a book. The same "God" that can make earth quakes, floods happen and can create the Earth with everything on it in 6 days, resting on the 7th (why would he even need a rest?).
3) The "God" of the Tanach is vicious, orchestrating genocide, slavery, sexual abuse, incest, paedophilia, and ordering Abraham to kill his one and only beloved son Isaac:
Genesis 22: 1, 2
1. So one of your main problems with God is that you don’t like the way men look?!
2. God wanted books written as memorials (Ex 17:14). Books of law, history, prophesies, were all expected to be written and handed down through generations so the people would not forget. Obviously God's memory is pretty dang good (which will be a problem for many...)
3. I’ll just address the Abraham issue because it was the only one you sourced…
If you read further, after the temptation Abraham was stopped from hurting his son. It was a test to see how loyal he would be. God never intended for Abraham to kill Isaac, who lived till he was 180 years old.

Genesis 22:11-12 - And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Firestarter wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:21 pm
The sections on the children of Abraham and Sarah really don't add up!
That is because you are reading them (and quoting them here} out of order and out of context.

Sara was barren. She gave her handmaid to Abraham to bare his child. Hagar, the handmaid, bore Ishmael when Abraham was 86 years old.

Genesis 16:15-16 15 - And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

Thirteen years later, when Abraham was 99 and Ishmael was 13, they were circumcised.

Genesis 17:24-25 - And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

Sara's womb was then open. She bore Abraham a son, Isaac, when he was 100 years old.

Genesis 21:1-5 - And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him. And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.
Firestarter wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:21 pm
I've read stories from Laurence Gardner (at one time an associate of Nicholas de Vere) claiming that Isaac was the son of Pharaoh Abimelech (they were even married for a while, as Abraham said that Sara was his sister, which wasn't even a lie!)...
Nonsense. Sara was in fact Abraham's half sister, but Abimelech never touched Sara.

Genesis 20:3-7 - But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife. But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her. Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

BTW, the name Abimelech means literally "father of the king."

Hebrew Strong's Number: 40
Hebrew Word: ‏אֲבִימֶלֶךְ‎
Transliteration: ʾabîmelek
Phonetic Pronunciation:ab-ee-mel'-ek
Root: from <H1> and <H4428>
Part of Speech: n pr m

English Words used in KJV:
Abimelech 67
[Total Count: 67]

from <H1> ('ab) and <H4428> (melek); father of (the) king;

This is an example of the point that I was trying to make earlier. Melek, aka moloch, could be a proper noun or a common noun meaning "king.' Abimelech was the father of a moloch, but not likely the father of THE Moloch.

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:39 pm
by Firestarter
notmartha wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:54 pm
Sorry you feel that way. I'll then post for other readers that may get confused by your inaccuracies.
The Bible is filled with more inaccuracies than my posts...

notmartha wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:54 pm
1. So one of your main problems with God is that you don’t like the way men look?!
I've always interpreted that God made man in his "image" as more than only a visual thing...
I still think that way, which means that God, like humans, is hypocritical, dishonest and greedy. It's very obvious that the writers of the Bible - God's word - were greedy. The Bible is filled with appeals to human greed for mind control purposes.
The Jews must be obedient, so that they get some "reward" (or be punished, controlled like Pavlov's dogs!)...

notmartha wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:54 pm
2. God wanted books written as memorials (Ex 17:14). Books of law, history, prophesies, were all expected to be written and handed down through generations so the people would not forget. Obviously God's memory is pretty dang good (which will be a problem for many...)
I wasn't referring to God's lacking memory for the need to write a book.
It contradicts the whole idea of Him being almighty, if he would need a book to keep his flock of humans in control, like some human slavedriver!

notmartha wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:54 pm
3. I’ll just address the Abraham issue because it was the only one you sourced…
If you read further, after the temptation Abraham was stopped from hurting his son. It was a test to see how loyal he would be. God never intended for Abraham to kill Isaac, who lived till he was 180 years old.
I didn't claim in any way that he "intended for Abraham to kill Isaac". Why would God want his flock of believers to be so obedient that they would commit the most horrible sins, like murdering one's son?
I would've respected Abraham more if he would have refused to sacrifice his son!

notmartha wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:54 pm
That is because you are reading them (and quoting them here} out of order and out of context.
You've missed some of the apparent contradictions!
Firestarter wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:21 pm
Genesis 22: 1, 2
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Abraham already had a son from Hagar (at the suggestion of Sarah, who ordered Abraham to send Hagar away after she bore Isaac).
notmartha wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:54 pm
Sara was barren. She gave her handmaid to Abraham to bare his child. Hagar, the handmaid, bore Ishmael when Abraham was 86 years old.
Maybe you could invent some newspeak to explain "thine only son Isaac"?

Firestarter wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:21 pm
I've read stories from Laurence Gardner (at one time an associate of Nicholas de Vere) claiming that Isaac was the son of Pharaoh Abimelech (they were even married for a while, as Abraham said that Sara was his sister, which wasn't even a lie!)...
notmartha wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:54 pm
Nonsense. Sara was in fact Abraham's half sister, but Abimelech never touched Sara.
According to the Tanach, it was Abraham himself that called Sarah his sister. Because he was afraid that he would otherwise be killed if the "Egyptians" (this was in Egypt wasn't it?) wanting to take the "beautiful" Sarah from him.
Sarah was 90 years (or even older at the time)... this was after God promised to make her bear a son (Isaac)!
So Abimelech married her and then "never touched Sara"? I have read this in the Tanach, but like I said it doesn't add up!

notmartha wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:54 pm
BTW, the name Abimelech means literally "father of the king."
notmartha wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:54 pm
This is an example of the point that I was trying to make earlier. Melek, aka moloch, could be a proper noun or a common noun meaning "king.' Abimelech was the father of a moloch, but not likely the father of THE Moloch.
This is another example, on how you take a word - "Abimelech" - and then use for evidence of its meaning how it was translated. That the Strong book describes how words have been translated from the Hebrew Tanach to the English KJV doesn't in any way "prove" that it was translated correctly...
I once read that the KJV is actually a translation from the Greek translation, but don't know if that's true.

Even if you believe that the original Hebrew Tanach and Roman New Testament is/are God's word, it's obvious that the English translation could only be "newspeak"...