Bible Interpretation - Part 2

Do you know where the word cannibal originated? It comes from the expression for priest of Baal. The Canaanite priests have been etymologically remembered by their practice of eating the flesh of their human sacrifices.

Neologist,

The word "cannibal" has absolutely nothing to do with the Phoenician god Baal. The real etymology can be easily found (if you bother to look).

Real etymology

There is no evidence that the Pheonicians ate human sacrifices. There is great doubt among historians whether the Pheonicians even practiced human sacrifice.

The only record of the practice are from people who were trying to justify their hatred of other religions. This inclused Jeremiah (in the Bible) who obviously was trying to paint people he considered enemies as evil.

There is no record of the practice from any unbiassed ancient writers and the archeological evidence is inconclusive.

Christians today use exaggerations and outright errors to justify hatred of other religions. This seems to be a trait of religious people that has been going on for thousands of years.

Actually a lot earlier than that:

"Hence, the priests of Nimrod or Baal were necessarily required to eat of the human sacrifices; and thus it has come to pass that "Cahna-Bal," * the "Priest of Baal," is the established word in our own tongue for a devourer of human flesh."
*(in footnote) The word Cahna is the emphatic form of Cahn. Cahn is "a priest," Cahna is "the priest"

From The Two Babylons Alexander Hislop. 1858

Full text of chapter may be found HERE Search for 'cahn.'

Double post award:

Neologist,

The Hislop work is Christian mythology. Religious writers (Christians included) always invent the "truth" with no real historical sources and this is no exception.

You will note that there are no non-religious sources that will give your invented etymology.

The real etymologists who have looked at real sources give this explanation.



In general you have to make a decision... accept blindly the "facts" handed to you by your religion, or look with an open mind at the real evidence whether or not it supports your religious beliefs.

In these posts you seem to have chosen the former.

The question is whether or not the Spanish word existed before Columbus "corruption' of the word 'Carib.'
An interesting quote may be found HERE

"The cannibal name is a corruption of caribal, the Spanish word for Carib. There is verbal confluence here. Christopher Columbus originally assumed the natives of Cuba were subjects of the Great Khan of China or 'Kannibals'. Prepared to meet the Great Khan, he had aboard Arabic and Hebrew speakers to translate. Then thinking he heard Caniba or Canima, he thought that these were the dog-headed men (cane-bal) described in Mandeville. Others (Samuel Purchas, Hakluytus Posthumus, Volume XIV, 1905: 451) claim that "Cannibal" meant "valiant man" in the language of the Caribs. Richard Hakluyt's Voyages introduced the word to English. Shakespeare transposed it, anagram-fashion, to name his monster servant in The Tempest 'Caliban'. The Caribs called themselves Kallinago which may have meant 'valiant'."

I appreciate your input and see where more research is needed.

I think we can safely say 'No'. All the evidence points to the fact it originaled with Columbus.

Incidently I did a little digging on Hislop (I had heard the name before but couldn't remember where).

Hislops mission was to defame Catholicism. The point of "The Two Babylons" was to "prove" that the Catholic Church was a secret pagan religion (i.e. Baal worshipers).

His book was full of examples where he twisted words to make dubious points-- including claiming that the "IHS" on Catholic communion wafers stands for "Isis, Horeb and Seth" (Egyptian gods).

I wouldn't use Hislop in any further discussions if you want to be taken seriously by informed people.

That the act of eating human flesh goes back to earliest historical times, the can be no doubt. The Jews were warned against it; and, in fact, actually practiced it during the seige by the Romans in 70 C.E. and at other times.

I agree with your evaluation of Hislop. He had many things wrong. I just assumed he had that one right.

That the religion of the Canaanites was depraved, there is no doubt, even to the practice of child sacrifice. Sadly, the Jews resorted to this at times as well.

The point I flubbed in trying to make was that, if you take the account in Genesis to be true, even in allegory, the wars and crimes and plagues and deaths we have endured throughout history are not God's fault.

If you want to find out what God is really like, look to the one who fulfilled the law.

Chai Tea: Now that we've gone thoroughly off topic, I think you're searching for a logical, sensible reason for fundamentalism, but none exists. Having had the ill fortune of attending a fundamentalist church in my youth (fundamentalist Baptist, in this case) and watching my family self-destruct as the result of religious differences (my parents were Methodist until circumstances led my father to fundamentalism), one might suppose that I harbor ill will towards fundamentalist folks. I don't and many close friends of mine after my parents split up have been fundamentalists (obviously of the stripe who can agree to disagree and are content to win others over by example rather than preaching). To you (I gather from you posts) and I, what fundamentalists believe seems little different from someone claiming a devout and literal belief in, say, Greek mythology. There simply isn't a logical defense of fundamentalism. Perhaps some people just need to feel superior to others, maybe some feel so tossed about by the currents of life that they really need a raft of spiritual certainty to stay afloat, and maybe some were just raised with it and can't imagine living or believing any other way (or some combination of the three). One of my fundamentalist friends defended his belief system by saying something to the effect of "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God" (which I believe comes from I Corinthians, but I can't remember the chapter and verse). The gist of this is that one really can't understand God soley through human wisdom; the conclusion, of course, is that any alleged inconsistencies in the Bible are somehow the result of human error (lack of true wisdom) and resolved through faith. True faith, after all, requires neither proof nor logic.

Just as ancient Greeks truly believed Hercules was the son of the deity who controlled lightning and ruled over the other gods, that Perseus slew a horrible monster whose gaze could turn men to stone, and that Achilles was impervious to attack save for his heal, fundamentalist Christians believe that Adam and Eve were cast out of Eden for eating the fruit of knowledge, that Noah had at least two of every animal on the ark, and that somehow Samson's great strength was a direct result of his hair.

Well thank you Mills!

After checking in with this thread every couple of days, and witnessing the abortion of my original, simple question, someone finally addresses it without reading something into my every word. For that I am grateful.
Very quickly my basic question was picked apart, letter by letter, and in the couple attempts I made to clarify just gave fuel to the fire. for instance, someone at one point wrote something about if I "wanted to understand the bible, then......"
Where did I ever say this is what I wanted?!
I was just asking why PEOPLE took a certain stance.

As I said originally, lately I tend to avoid this forum, and this thread is a prime example of why.

Actually I knew what was going to happen, but, as I just quoted in the neverending haiku thread "dum spiro spero"

I truely believe there is some sort of competition here of who can contort something into a totally unrecognizable form in the least amount of time.
It's like it's some exclusive club that if you can't express yourself in 10,000 words or more, where 10 words would do, you can't be a member.

It is actually painful to have to figure out how some manage to form their word pretzels.

ANYWAY -

Your answer makes sense Mills, mostly the part of that's just the way they were brought up, and some don't bother to look beyond that. When having casual coversation with someone who does believe, for instance a rib was taken from adam to make eve, sometimes something strange happens.
We won't be talking about adam, eve, a rib (that was just an example) but apparantley I'll say something that goes agains their belief of what the bible said happened, and you can just see this curtain drop over their face. At that point, coversation stops.
My thoughts on that are: What are you afraid of, someone else's words aren't going to damn you, we were just having a conversation for cryin' out loud.

THAT is the type of fundamentalist I'm talking about.

It's really hard coming on this forum for a lot of people fellas, because some are just tryin' to express themselves in a comfortable, non confrontational way, and get accosted by others who drown them in rhetoric, so finally, you just give up and go away, because it's not worth trying to get past all the bible gurus to get a simple answer.

Hey, I like that - "Bible Gurus"

You surely allowed for a wide range of answers in your original post, Chai.

Sorry if fundamentalism bothers you. It bothers me too, but that's a different story.

Sorry it took so long to get back.
So, I guess we can simply assume coincidence that the juxtaposition of the Hebrew words cahn and baal sound so convincingly familiar.

I just saw this. This is bullshit. In the King James version, Chapter Five, Verse 18:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Till heaven and earth pass away, Boss, until heaven and earth pass away. This is an excellent example of the problem of interpretation. The law, as found in the Pentateuch, is inconvenient for the love fest Christians of today, so they just declare "all" to be fulfilled, and then they can ignore both that the putative Jesus was a believer in the law, and that his actions and sayings contradicted that. How convenient!

Matthew, BTW . .
Starting with verse 17:
"17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place. "
Is that two contradictory thoughts? I think not.

Where in scripture does it say that he has fulfilled the law, and that it therefore no longer applies?

I think the best answer can be found at Galatians 2: 23-25:
"23 However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. 25 But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor."

Ah, yes. The Great Usurper, Paul!

What JPB said . . . allow me to be more precise. Where in the four canonical gospels does it say that your boy Jesus had fulfilled "all" (a vague way of putting it) and that therefore the law no longer applied?

I don't get why it is so important for you to see it in the gospels, but perhaps this passage from John ch 19 may help.

"28 After this, when Jesus knew that by now all things had been accomplished, in order that the scripture might be accomplished he said: “I am thirsty.” 29 A vessel was sitting there full of sour wine. Therefore they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a hyssop [stalk] and brought it to his mouth. 30 When, now, he had received the sour wine, Jesus said: “It has been accomplished!” and, bowing his head, he delivered up [his] spirit. "

On the basis, therefore, of that weak reed (hyssop, if you prefer), you allege that "all" (never defined) has been fulfilled, and the law no longer applies?

I consider this important because Christians are so quick to disavow the brutal law of the Pentateuch, saying that it doesn't apply to them. The most unpleasant aspects of the god of the bible can be glossed over, and Christians can pat themselves of the back for their loving god and their loving religion. Quite apart from how bizarre it is to offer the vision of a reformed god who is now a nice guy, it's wonderfully convenient.

I objected to the reference to the epistles because Paul was selling his religion to the Hellenistic world. At the council of Jerusalem in circ 50 CE, the necessity for circumcision was dropped for those who would convert. Paul spent a good deal of his efforts denying that Christians would be required to follow those aspects of the law which might be offensive to his chosen audience.

So the question is whether or not you boy Jesus ever specified what the "all" to be fulfilled was, and how it was to be fulfilled. That's why i call this passage you quote a weak reed. It doesn't mention the law and whether or not it still applied. This goes to the heart of exegesis--there is little or no unambiguous testimony upon which anyone can rely. I could go much further into the subject of early Christian exegesis, such as why Origen chose the texts he asserted as the true canon, but i'll leave that to the side. The fact of the matter is that there is no clear, unambiguous statement of what would have to be fulfilled and how it would be fulfilled in order to set aside Jewish law. Christians' personal exegesis in our age has become a sort of Chinese menu--choose one from column A and one from Column B. It's easy in such a method to discard anything unpleasant which doesn't accord with the idea of a loving god and a religion of love.