Tuesday June 6, 2023
SNc Channels:

About Salem-News.com


Nov-17-2010 00:46printcomments


In the very first Covenant (Gen 15), young Abram obtained from "God" the abolition of circumcision. In the Covenant of Genesis 17, "God" FORCED circumcision upon old Abram!


(PARIS, France) - After the staggering breakthrough that Moses's Second Commandment forbids circumcision, which Salem-News published in 2008:

Sigismond received the support of Professor Thomas Römer, the tenant of the chair Biblical circles of the Collège de France, the highest French academic institution:
"..., you are right asserting that Gn 17 presents another vision of circumcision than Gn 15 or the Deuteronomy. The "lay" writers were seemingly less interested by this practice, and even opposed to it. The expression "circumcision of the heart" might even contain a polemic stand against "circumcision of the flesh."[1]
Put on the way by the distinguished exegete who makes Moses a forerunner of Saint Paul, Sigismond could make a second discovery that, through reinterpreting Genesis 15 then Genesis 17, removes that contradiction, often used by opponents of circumcision to say that Genesis 17 would be a posterior, unauthentic addition to the Bible. We are going to see that it is nothing of the sort.
Genesis 17:
"I shall maintain my Alliance with you,..." (17: 2)
alludes to Genesis 15 that is definitely the first Covenant between the "Eternal" and Abram:
"On that day, the Eternal concluded a pact with Abram, saying: "I granted your race this land, - from the stream of Egypt until the great river, the Euphrate river... " (Genesis 15: 18)
It is made in Egypt and the matter is neither exile to the land of Canaan, neither shortening Abram's and his people's penises, nor lengthening his name.
Both findings back upon that, extraordinary, by Egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah[2], [3], which they strengthen: the Jews are an Egyptian sect banished with its chief Moses to a former Egyptian colony to conquer again, because of its monotheism (and abandonment of circumcision that, at the beginning, they considered a pagan custom). The Sabbah brothers showed that Abraham was the Pharaoh Akhenaton (Amenophis IV) and that "God" was the regent Ay (Adonay, the Joseph of the Bible), become Pharaoh after Akhenaton's death. Moses (who became Ramses 1st – Ra-Mesou – at the death of Ay) took up the torch of monotheism and was an adversary of circumcision. He forbade it his whole life long and only after his death was it reestablished in Gilgal.
However, a few hundred years later, in the jails of Babylon, the Jews had to stop the practice of circumcision again because it was a custom of the Egyptians, the worst enemies of the Assyrians. Employing a coded language and changing names and dates so that Nebuchadnezzar could not guess that they originated in Egypt, they wrote the Bible in order to distinguish themselves from the Egyptians and make the Assyrians believe that the Egyptians had imposed circumcision on them by force, which is a true false lie, as we shall see.
But let us come back to the origins, to chapter 15 of Genesis:
"I am the Eternal, who took you out of Our-Kasdim, to give you this country as a legacy(*)." He answered: "God-Eternal, how shall I know that I inherit it?" He told him: "Prepare a three years old heifer, a three years old goat, a three years old ram, a turtledove and a young dove for me." Abram took all these animals, divided each one of them by the middle, and put each half in front of the other, but he did not divide the birds. Birds of prey swooped down on the bodies; Abram put them to flight." (15, 7-11)
It must be interpreted like Judaic rituals, feast meal menus for instance, that use every opportunity as a pretext to symbolically recall the law. In a colourful way, indecipherable by the Assyrians, it tells the very first Covenant between young Abram and his Lord. Putting birds apart alludes to their absence of foreskin so that the non-splitting of the birds and the splitting of the other animals symbolizes circumcision. Similarly, the abolition of the sacrifice of the elder son (Isaac) to the God-Pharaoh, another old Egyptian custom, was replaced by the sacrifice of a ram (M. and R. Sabbah).
So, the first Covenant abolishes circumcision and substitutes an animal sacrifice for the human one. Through cutting other animals than birds into two equal parts and taking care that they should remain on display for the people, Abram expresses his horror of the barbarity of both sex sexual mutilation practised in Egypt. He testifies of the importance he grants the integrity of the human body and gives an olfactory image of the disgust that these barbarous customs inspire him with.
Of course Akhenaton-Abraham was not born in Ur but in the royal palace of Thebes, the capital of Egypt. The Hebrews invented that lie in order to obtain their liberation through making the Assyrians believe that they originated in Assyria.
Abram, very religious, was not interested in ruling Egypt. He had left the power to the Regent Ay who had become the "Lord" and "God" of the country. Then, Abram's heresy was provoking disorders. Genesis 17 counts the setting of circumcision back into practice by Ay, upon children in order to avoid all resistance. Abram was forced to obey him but a strong resistance developed within the people because the circumcision of babies in doubtful hygiene conditions provoked numerous deaths. The Sabbah brothers state that it was the tenth plague. So, after Abram’s death, in order to be able to follow their beliefs in peace, the heretics, under Moses's commandment, preferred to leave Egypt and their city of Akhetaton.
So, the Sabbah brothers exposed the biggest lie of the Bible: that or a circumcision by divine right. No God ever came and challenge human identity. A tyrant alone could ever imagine such an abomination. Only mentally sick persons can pretend the contrary.
This finding and that about the Second Commandment strongly relativize circumcision as a fundamental of Judaism. The great lesson to draw from this new interpretation of the Book of Genesis is that original, authentic Judaism was born in reaction to circumcision.
'Thou shalt not circumcise', The 2nd Commandment abolishes circumcision
A Biblical breakthrough : Moses' son forcibly circumcised

[1] Römer T. Personal correspondence. 2010.
[2] cf. the 20 September 2000 front page of Le Figaro.
[3] Sabbah M. and R. The secrets of the Exodus. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002. New York: Helios press; 2004.
(*) rather than "possession" in the translation from Hebrew by the French Rabbinate, according to American rabbis who so bring a new argument to the Sabbah brothers' thesis that Abram was the son of the Pharaoh Amenophis III. The sacrifice symbolizes the maintenance obligation that the Pharaoh asks Abram in exchange of a land that is not the land of Canaan but an Egyptian land: the city of Akhetaton.

Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux (Sigismond) is the author of "Sexual mutilation: excision, circumcision, the victims' point of view", for free at circabolition.multiply.com; he is an Independent psychoanalysis researcher (Chercheur indépendant en psychanalyse) based in Paris, France, who works with Salem-News.com to help raise awareness of the massive societal problems connected to the blindly accepted, mutilating practice of circumcision. He says, "Non violence is as fundamental as violence, love and hatred, justice and injustice. But power is at the tip of the tongue and the sweet violence of speech, if one takes hold of it, can silence weapons."

(La non violence est aussi fondamentale que la violence, l'amour et la haine, le juste et l'injuste. Mais le pouvoir est au bout de la langue et la douce violence de la parole, si l'on s'en empare, peut faire taire les armes.)

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Rajeev March 17, 2012 4:52 am (Pacific time)

Good point Brian. I think the guys at DG stuck this excerpt onnlie because of it's timely and funny Avatar reference: And that's not even in the manuscript. I imagine Piper might be preaching on being obedient to God's call for us to live lives of humility and to be seen as Christians, from Philippians 6:12-18. Perhaps he was tying in 2Tim3:16-17, to tell us that the scriptures are sufficient for instructing us to be competent for this.I think, maybe what might be throwing some viewers off (especially if they're not familiar with Piper) is his God is telling you today rhetoric. He's not one for speaking on behalf of the Lord much, except for what the Lord has spoken through the scriptures. So I imagine he's got some texts in mind (that didn't make it to this two-minute clip) to validate his invitation from God to spend time in the scriptures and be shaped by them.Would that make sense?

Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-B November 25, 2010 9:52 am (Pacific time)

Laura won't answer; She is sheltering behind the millenary sectarism and dogmatism of her religion. We thank her all the same because she's served the cause of the child, unconscioulsly it is true, but usefully.

Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-B November 23, 2010 8:47 am (Pacific time)

I may not have expressed myself very clearly saing that birds are "excluded from the sacrifice", which is wrong. Actually, they are put apart. My hint is that this symbolizes the fact that birds do not have a foreskin and, therefore, are not divided.

Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-B November 20, 2010 1:11 am (Pacific time)

A last point: the Jewish commentaries quoted by Lisa are all taken from Books of the Bible that are very posterior to Genesis, which makes a relationship with it totally irrelevant.

Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-B November 19, 2010 5:55 am (Pacific time)

I'coming to thank Lisa again; she is bringing a formidable information with her translation by American rabbis; indeed, they speak of "a land to inherit" whereas the French rabbis speak of a simple "possession". This supports the thesis of the Sabbah brothers that the "God" in question in Gen 15 and Gen 17 is not an immaterial God but the man-God, the Egyptisn pharaoh. Thank you, Lisa.

Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-B November 18, 2010 8:41 am (Pacific time)

Sorry, in my second message the words: "the third one" (is reported) are missing.

Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-B November 18, 2010 8:38 am (Pacific time)

"All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed; Then it is violently opposed; Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860

Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-B November 18, 2010 7:43 am (Pacific time)

By the by, my translation is an absolutely litteral translation into English from the French Rabbinate one (from the Hebrew). It is therefore just as authorized as yours. Anyway, it is very little different from it.

Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-B November 18, 2010 7:14 am (Pacific time)

That makes 3 and not 2 Covenants. The first one is granted by Abram's God-father, the second one is imposed and a reported in the Book of Deuteronomy, is from equal to equal: "The Eternal talked with you face to face…" (5: 4), which is very different from a Covenant with Abram lying with his face on the ground as in the prior Covenant.

Sigismond November 18, 2010 7:05 am (Pacific time)

Thanks, Lisa, for giving us the Orthodox interpretation, very Orthodox indeed! However, your official comment does not explain the differences between Gen 15 and Gen 17, which I am the first to do.

Lisa November 17, 2010 2:40 pm (Pacific time)

Let's try this from an accurate Jewish translation of Torah:

Breishit 15:7-11

And He said to him, "I am the Lord, Who brought you forth from Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it." And he said, "O Lord G-d, how will I know that I will inherit it?" And He said to him, "Take for Me three heifers and three goats and three rams, and a turtle dove and a young bird." And he took for Him all these, and he divided them in the middle, and he placed each part opposite its mate, but he did not divide the birds. And the birds of prey descended upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away.

Now, let's see the Jewish commentary about the significance of not dividing the birds:

but he did not divide the birds: Since the idol-worshipping nations are likened to bulls, rams, and goats, as it is said (Ps. 22:13): “Many bulls surrounded me, etc.,” and Scripture states (Dan. 8:20): “The ram that you saw, the one with horns, represents the kings of Media and Persia,” and Scripture states (ibid. verse 21): “And the he-goat is the king of Greece.” And the Israelites are likened to young doves, as it is said (Song of Songs 2:14): “My dove, in the clefts of the rock.” Therefore, he divided the animals, as an allusion that the nations will gradually perish. “But he did not divide the bird,” as an allusion that Israel will exist forever. [from Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer , ch. 28; Targum. Ps. 22: 13]

This section has absolutely nothing to do with circumcision which is clearly specified to be a part of the Jewish covenant with HaShem.

Luke Easter November 17, 2010 3:19 pm (Pacific time)

More on the NIVIntroduction to the updated NIV Translators’ notes for the updated NIV The Committee on Bible Translation Translation detail and copyright information Editor's Picks Zondervan NIV Matthew Henry Commentary $32.99$21.99 You Save $11 (33%) Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets $23.00 NIV Life Application Study Bible: Limited Anniversary Edition, Hardcover $29.97$26.99 You Save $2.98 (10%) See more books at the Bible Romans 2:17-29 (New International Version) "The Jews and the Law" 17) Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18) if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19) if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20) an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth, 21) you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22) You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23) You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24) As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” 25) Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26) So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27) The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. 28) A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29) No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

Anonymous November 17, 2010 11:13 am (Pacific time)

I had my appendix removed..they cut me open and removed an organ. I remember as a kid. We were a poor family, could not afford a dentist. I had teeth that were eaten to the gums. The first dentist I visited was in Navy boot camp, they basically had me tied up, and the dentist guy was laughing about how much he drank the night before while opening my gums. I dont remember the circumcision trauma, felt like I was a very balanced kid. The navy boot camp dentist tho? 30 years later, and it still haunts me. Just to put things in perspective.

[Return to Top]
©2023 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.

Articles for November 16, 2010 | Articles for November 17, 2010 | Articles for November 18, 2010
Click here for all of William's articles and letters.

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar


Sean Flynn was a photojournalist in Vietnam, taken captive in 1970 in Cambodia and never seen again.