Thursday, December 11, 2014

Genesis 2: There are no "Angels" in the Bible

Genesis 2 verses 1 & 2 do not say G'd finished the heavens and earth.
These two verses merely states that He enabled a purpose for the Universe. A commission.

השמים והארץ
וכל צבאם

And He completes
the heavens and earth
and all  their forces/vectors

ויכל אלהים
ביום השביעי
אשר עשה*
וישבת ביום השביעי
אשר עשה

And G'd completes
on the 7th day
His task-commitment
which He did
and rested/ceased on the 7th day
from all
His task-commitment
which He did 

Here is the meaning of the Hebrew:

לאך LAK a task 
מלאך MLAKh piel intensive-participative = to perform a task, to be committed to a task. A person committed to task.
מלאכת MLAKheT the participial of מלאך/MLAKh.
The consequence of being a מלאך/MLAKh.
מלאכי MLAKhI The gerundive act of fulfilling commitment to a task.
Also chronologically the last book of my Bible which I read in Hebrew.

צבא TsVA force 
צבאם TsVAiM masc plural - forces. Or gerund of being a force.
צבאות TsVAOT fem plural - forces. Or verbal-noun - entities that are forces.

In Genesis 2, we read in Hebrew that on the 7th/fulfillment day, G'd completes
  • the heavens and earth 
  • and all the vectors/forces therein
  • and His {מלאכת / MLAKheT} , i.e., His commitment to His task.

Of note is the word I translated as complete is {יכל / YKhoL} - meaning having all. So, G'd had completed all that He had to put into Universe, but that does not mean the Universe was finished. (Qabalah notes that humans have taken over the role of completing the Universe which is biblically accurate to the Hebrew text of Genesis 2).

When the shipmates frightened by the storm asked Jonah, most English translations say that they asked him "what is it that you do? What is your work?"

But if you read the Bible in Hebrew, his shipmates were actually asking him,
"What is your  {מלאכת = MLAKheT = commission}? What is your purpose (of your trip on the ship)?"

When Jacob returned from Lavan, he sent his henchmen {מלאכים MLAKhIM} to meet his brother Esav.

The issue here is with the word {מלאך/MLAKh} which in Hebrew means being committed to a task or someone that is committed to a task.

It is not even "messenger". This is one concept which I disagree even with certain Jewish biblical authorities. I am unable to find  evidence for the word [לאכ] that would mean "transmit message", to allow us to prefix a causative inflection to produce the word "transmitter of message". Perhaps, someone could produce archaeological evidence for this word in Phoenician or Aramaic. If {מלאך/MLAKh} did mean "messenger", then does that mean that G'd was merely a "messenger" in Genesis 2 ???

Rabbinic authority does realise that [לאכ] means "task", not "message", But out of bad habit, rabbis simply ignore the pagan significance, and persist on using the word "angel" when teaching in English, for the sake of being understood by non-Jews, or Jews contaminated by Christian pagan lingo.

But in the meantime, we cannot ignore the meaning and occurrences of word {מלאכת MLAKheT} all over the Bible, especially in Genesis where G'd is attributed to have performed {מלאכת MLAKheT} . Unless we reinterpret the meaning of {מלאכת MLAKheT} , so that G'd did not do any creation "work" - I urge Jews and especially rabbis to stop using the pagan term "angels".

Therefore, {מלאך MLAKh}(erroneously "angel") actually means someone commissioned towards His fulfilling-task.  {מלאך MLAKh} grammatically would be "participating in fulfilling a task".

So then, why do English translations translate {מלאך/MLAKh}  as "angel", Why do Greek translations have מלאך as "anggelos" ?

Angels are of pagan origins
"Angel", Greek {anggelos  ἄγγελος} is actually from Greeko-Persian paganism - horse mounted messenger demigods. "Angels" are of pagan origin. There are no "angels" in he Hebrew text of rhe Bible, but "persons committed to tasks" of G'd.

Therefore, what is erroneously translated as the pagan messengers. should be translated as "commissioners" of G'd. There were more suitable Greek words to translate "task commissioner", but why did the Greek translators deliberately used a pagan term to sneak in the pagan concept of messenger demigods?

Malakhi is the last chronological book of the Bible
It is accepted the Malakhi was not the actual name of the writer of the book, who was probably Ezra. Rather, {מלאכי MLAKhI} is actually the subject title of the book. Malakhi is the summary of the promises and warnings of the Bible. {מלאכי MLAKhI} means "commissioned with tasks". In Hebrew, gerundization into participles and collective verbal-nouns is performed on the plural. The commissionings are assigned, and here is the summary of the Bible, go forth and fulfill them.

If it were not assigned then it would have to be in the incomplete/exhortative/predictive state {ילאכים YLAKhIM} = commissionings that shall be assigned.

[מלאך MLAKh] being Human agents
All across the Bible (the Hebrew Bible where the last chronological book is Malakhi), {מלאך MLAKh} and its plural {מלאכים MLAKhIM} are also applied to human agents.

For example, the English hopelessly mistranslates Haggai 1:13 due to succumbing to the Hellenistic and ancient Persian pagan roles of  "anggelos" as "messengers".

The actual meaning of Haggai 1:13 is

ויאמר חגי So says Hagai
מלאך יי a commissioned agent of the LORD
במלאכות יי  in commission of the LORD
לעם לאמר to people to say
אני אתכם I Am with you.
נאם יי declares the LORD

So, Haggai was the commissioned agent of the LORD. But in your English translation, you would have to say that Haggai was an "angel" of the LORD. But of course, you people twist the Hebrew, to say that Haggai says that an "angel" of the LORD says - but the simplicity of the Hebrew does not say that. You people twist the translation of the Hebrew, to squeeze out the doctrine you want the Bible to exude.

Qabalistic Note:
  • When you place Hebrew elements together (albeit using Aramaic char set), the side effects are just as significant.

    {מלא ך} = {מלאך} = your fulfilment. The person tasked with the commission is expected to be the fulfillment of you the assigner. {מלאך MLAKh} = {מלא ך MLE Kha} = Your commissioned agents are also Your fulfilment.

  • Note that if you remove the alif [א] from [מלאך] malakh,
    you would get [מלך] (melekh) king.

    That is, if you remove the purpose from the commissioned agent, you get a king.

    The messiah cannot be a king. A messiah who is a king has no purpose but to destroy. 1 Samuel 8 says that, G'd was displeased with Israel for wanting an anointed king, like the rest of the nations around them. G'd warned them through Samuel that a king would oppress the people and ultimately destroy Israel.

    The kingdom of G'd does not require a human king. The kingdom of G'd is meant to follow Jethro's (father-in-law of Moses) enunciation of representative democracy. Reading the Hebrew text of Exodus 18:20-21, Jethro actually told Moses, "warn the people of the judgments and laws in whatever they do, and expect from them righteous representatives." The English/Greek translations may say "Jethro asked Moses to appoint representatives", but the actual Hebrew says Jethro told Moses to take steps towards expecting the people to properly choose their representatives.

    The kingdom of G'd, according to Jethro, is a representative democracy. Actually it is not a "kingdom", but an administration or government.


  1. Hey I'm new here and absolutely enthralled. I've wanted to find something like this for ages. I've wanted to study ancient Hebrew, but I barely know where or how to start. But reading your posts is like scratching an itch. I've always felt something was off about the English Bible, though that it was rooted in truth if that makes sense. And it's always amused me how people go into great discussion and get worked up over little tiny phrasings, when the English text is not even word for word translated from the original source. So thank you, first off. I just had a question? So forgive my ignorance but I'm guessing that what you write has to do with what the mainstream views as "the old testament"? What in your opinion constitutes the entirety of the Bible? What are your views on the "New Testament"? Because mostly my questions pertaining to this particular post source from New testament stories about angels such as Gabriel announcing Jesus' birth or the host appearing and singing. Are any of the new testament books reliable to your knowledge? Is there a promise of a savior in the old texts? What to your understanding is the message of the Hebrew Bible? I so wish I could sit down with you and hear all your thoughts. Thank you again!

  2. Coin Casino: 50 FS Bonus Code for Free Spins, No Deposit
    , and this is a free spins offer that is available to 인카지노 all online casinos in Australia. It 온카지노 gives the player to place any wager, including the worrione