Christians, and those who wish to join the Christian religion should never forget this basic and simple fact. They should keep it uppermost in their mind because it is very important.

Why is it important?

Because as Christianity is founded on the roots of Judaism, the core basics of the Christian religion are founded on and revolve around the old Jewish God, YHWH (Jehovah).

Today we have a group within the Christian community who advertise this fact quite openly, taking the name of this god and calling themselves after him - Jehovah's Witnesses, but even though they are probably the only ones who thus advertise it in such a way, the fact still remains that the rest of Christianity accepts that the god Jehovah is indeed the one true God.

So, let us take a look at the god Jehovah.

According to the writer of Exodus Jehovah spoke to the man called Moses and introduced himself -

"And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." Exodus 6:2-3

Jehovah here claims that he is the LORD, that he is the one who appeared unto Abraham Isaac and Jacob by a different name - by the name "God Almighty" but not by the name Jehovah. He here introduces himself to Moses under this new name.

This is the same Jehovah, who, according to the record of the Bible instructed Moses regarding the setting up of the Jewish legal, ceremonial and sacrificial system that the Israelites had to adhere to. But before you can offer up a sacrifice one first needs to build an altar, so let us take a look at Jehovah's instructions to Moses regarding the building of an altar -

Exodus 27:1 "And thou shalt make an altar of shittim wood,"

Okay - so the structure itself was made out of wood and we know the type of wood.

"five cubits long, and five cubits broad; the altar shall be foursquare: and the height thereof shall be three cubits."

According to Jewish sources regarding the measurements and the cubit -

"The dimensions of the altar were thus 7 1/2' x 7 1/2' x 4 1/2' (Rabbi Yose, Zevachim 59b; Josephus 3:6:8). According to others, the altar also had a base that was 7 cubits high, and therefore, it stood 10 cubits (15') high (Rabbi Yehudah, Ibid.; Yad, Beth HaBechirah 2:5)." So it was a box about 71/2 feet square, 4 1/2 feet deep and a base which overall raised it off the ground so it stood about 15 feet high.

Okay - so we have the exact measurements.

Exodus 27:2 "And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners……"

Whoa there. Whoa, slow down a minute.

What did Jehovah instruct there? "Thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners." What horns?

Ah well, maybe it will become apparent as we read on -

"And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof: his horns shall be of the same: and thou shalt overlay it with brass." Exodus 27:2

No, hang on will you, not so fast. You are just hurrying on here, but we haven't got the horns sorted out yet. What horns? Are they straight horns, curved horns, curly wurly horns, what type of horns? Are they pointed, blunt, do they curve inwards or outwards, how big should they be? The questions just go on and on.

These are all extremely valid questions to somebody who is being given EXACT instructions on the layout, the measurements, the type of wood and the building of an altar, but by the way that the text reads, having been given the exact instructions of the type of wood to use and the actual measurements, the fact that the horns were to be made in one piece of wood with the altar sides, etc it seems to be taken for granted that Moses already knew that it had to have horns, how to make them, what they looked like and their particular measurements.

An enquiring mind could ask - where did these horns come from? Why the horns? Do all altars have horns? Is it taken for granted that when we build an altar we stick horns on it? And if not - why did this one have horns? What sort of horns?

The point is why did the altar built to Jehovah have horns at all? This is important. It is a very basic question. Handles are an obvious requirement if the altar has got to be carried around, the grating to carry the coals, the fire pans etc to clear away the ashes are all self explanatory, but why horns?

These four horns which were to be built one on each corner of the altar of burnt offering were to be made of one piece with the altar according to the Hebrew Tanach, and were made of shittim (acacia) wood. They were overlaid with brass (bronze or copper). The altar of incense also had four horns, but in this case they were covered with gold (Exodus 37:25).

Let us not just pass by the fact that this altar had horns. Let us not just dismiss it, because it was a very important feature of the design of the altar to Jehovah.

The truth of the matter is that all altars did not have horns. Make no mistake about it. This is made quite apparent from much of the archaeological evidence and uncovering of ancient altars, but the altars built for the purpose of sacrificing to Jehovah did. They were an integral part of the building of the altar, not an add on, but a part of the actual structure.

Some Christian writers have suggested that the use of these horns was so that people could cling on to them. This suggestion is made because it is recorded later on in the Bible that people ran into the temple and clung to them as a way of obtaining sanctuary from the king or whoever was chasing them and trying to kill them. An example of this can be found in 1 Kings.

"Then tidings came to Joab: for Joab had turned after Adonijah, though he turned not after Absalom. And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of the LORD, and caught hold on the horns of the altar." I Kings 2:28

This report on how Joab did this is certainly in the record of the Bible, but I suggest that this use of the horns was obviously the reaction of a quick thinking person who was being pursued, and not their original purpose at all. It is certainly not listed as the purpose, or even one of the purposes of the horns, and there is certainly no evidence that anybody else did what Joab did, and his time of existence wasn't until the days of Solomon.

I know that many Christians will simply shrug their shoulders and say - "So what? Who cares whether the altar had horns or not?" but that is their problem, not mine. Ignorance, or a "could not care less attitude" has been the downfall of many people for many years, and will undoubtedly continue to be so for many years to come, but the more discerning of us should note -

1. All altars of the time did not have horns, but the altars of Jehovah did.

2. These horns were not just an add on, they were an integral part of the altar, built out of the same piece of wood as the altar. They were a design feature of the actual altar itself.

3. Even though very careful instructions were given regarding the absolute dimensions of the altar, the wood to be used in its construction, the overlaying of it with metal and which metal to overlay it with, the dimensions of the horns or their fashioning was not given.

But this latter third point is not quite true. It seems to be true, but that is just down to a terrible mistranslation or misunderstanding of the text. It is the way that the verse has been constructed that gives rise to the difficulty.

The KGV of the Bible states -

"And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof: his horns shall be of the same: and thou shalt overlay it with brass." Exodus 27:2

Whether this translation is deliberately misleading or whether it is just an error, I do not know and am not going to speculate, but I maintain that because of the way that these few words have been constructed and presented they have been terribly misunderstood. I say that these few words are in fact an explanation and description regarding the horns as one would expect from such a detailed set of instructions which include the type of wood to use and the dimensions.

So let's get down to it and see what I am saying.

The middle part of the statement "his horns shall be of the same" I say is in fact the description regarding the fashioning of the horns of the altar. The description and building regulations of the horns is right there in those few words "his horns shall be of the same". It is just because of the terrible way the words have been translated that it appears confusing.

Firstly, notice how the emphasis changes from the object emphasis to the masculine emphasis. The altar is referred to as an object, an "it" as in - "And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof" but the words that follow change the emphasis from an object to the masculine - "his horns shall be of the same", and then the general description of the overlaying of the whole altar including the horns with brass continues with - "and thou shalt overlay it with brass." reverting back to the object emphasis again.

It is this - "his horns shall be of the same" statement which is in the masculine, and it is this statement which is the instruction regarding the fashioning of the actual horns themselves.

This part of the description should not be understood to mean - "his horns shall be of the same," but rather - "they shall be the same as his horns."

The whole revised statement now reading -

"And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof. They shall be the same as his horns. And thou shalt overlay it with brass". This makes the statement "they shall be the same as his horns" to be a description enough for the builder to follow as long as they know what "his horns" look like.

This is a little bit like telling somebody today to build a device for moving goods from one place to another and saying - and you will need to build a steering wheel, like a car steering wheel, on it. The description is fine as long as the builder knows what a car steering wheel looks like in the first place so that they can copy it.

And in the case of building the horns of the altar upon the altar - the instruction to build the horns to be the same as "his horns" was a good enough description to the builder as long as they know who or what the "his" refers to for them to copy the design, and it is here presumed that Moses knew exactly what was being described.

The horns of the altar are simply described by many Christian sources today as "protrusions". This is terribly misleading and totally inaccurate, because the word in translation literally means "horns." Even Jewish sources which are often not any more happy than Christianity to look too closely at the fact are a lot more honest regarding them, and they tell us -

"These were hollow boxes, one cubit square, and 5 handbreadths high (18' x 18' x 15') (Zevachim 54a; Yad, Beth HaBechirah 2:8; Maaseh Choshev 6:3). Others say that while this was true of the altar in the Temple, it may not have been true of the altar in the desert (Ralbag), and there the 'horns' may have been round and horn-shaped (Avraham ben HaRambam)."

The common simple reference to them simply being protrusions by so many Christian sources is, I believe quite deliberate. These Christians are not stupid. They know full well that the word is literally translated as "horns". They are also (if they are theologically trained) probably well aware of what the Jewish sources say about them, but they avoid the fact like the plague and play it down by simply referring to them as "protrusions" because to visualize horns on the altar of Jehovah does not go down too well in their imagination.

So, we do know the exact dimensions of the altar. We do know what it was to be constructed of and what it was to be covered with. And we do know that at each corner there was to be a horn constructed and the horns were to be fashioned in a like manner to "his" horns.

What we don't know is who the "his" was referring to, but I suggest that it was a direct reference which Moses would already have been well aware of or else the instructions on their sizes and how to build them would have been given. So the command to build the horns in a like manner to “his horns”, meant that they were to be built in a like manner to the horns of the animal that the god of the altar was represented by, and would be sanctified for the use of, because whether you like it or not YHWH, Jehovah was a bull god.

Now, if any "satisfied with their religion" Christians who do not want to be disconcerted about their religion have ignored all of the warnings on the opening page of this site and have proceeded to this point, there is still time to turn back and exit! Because you are not going to like what follows on from this. This is a site that has no vested interest in Christianity, it has no interest in conning or manipulating you. I say it as I see it, so if you are feeling nervous or starting to feel uneasy then get the hell out of here.

For the rest who are still here, I repeat -

Whether you like it or not YHWH was a bull god.

In Moses' day throughout all of Canaan, Egypt, indeed the whole land, the worship of bull gods was commonplace, and YHWH was no exception.

The Argument

Up until now there have been two sides to this argument as there are for most arguments. On the one hand we have the archaeologists working their cotton socks off, laying trenches and digging up sites in Canaan trying to show the evidence. And on the other hand we have the Christians just sitting there and denying that the evidence is conclusive. This is a very comfortable place for the Christians to be because no matter how much circumstantial evidence is discovered they can and always simply respond with – "it is all circumstantial".

So before we actually kick the Christians off their comfortable fence let's take a quick look at the circumstantial evidence just for the fun of it.

There are quite a number within the archaeological / scholarly community who now accept that in Moses' day YHWH, (Jehovah) was already an established god which existed in the Canaanite pantheon of gods referred to by the Canaanites as YW.

It is certain that the god YW existed among the Canaanite Pantheon. He was a son of AL, who was their main God. He was the brother of and adversary of Baal.

According to the legend of the Canaanite Pantheon AL was the big boss. He was the father God. AL's consort was Asherah and between them they gave birth to many sons. Two of these sons were Baal and Yamnahar. Baal many of you will have heard about often enough if you have read any Bible. He is constantly mentioned throughout the Bible as an arch enemy in the God worshipping stakes to YHWH.

Well, strangely enough, he was also the arch enemy in the Canaanite pantheon to his brother Yamnahar.

Yamnahar often shortened to "Yam" is now widely recognized amongst many archeological scholars to also have been known as YW. This is contested in some quarters and more often by the Christian archeologists because of course they do have a vested interest to play this one down. So why do some archeologists believe that Yamnahar and YW were the same God?

Because according to the Canaanite legend, Baal and Yamnahar (two of the Sons of AL) were arch enemies. They were both constantly vying for pole position and at some point in time AL the father of the gods chose his son Yamnahar to be the "king of the gods". Baal was pretty pissed off about it and for quite some time after they were even worse enemies.

And in the Canaanite document KTU 1.1 IV 14 from the Ugarit. It reads -

"SM . BNY . YW . ILT"... Which translated means -

"The name of my Son is YW"

So we do know that AL chose Yamnahar to be king of the Gods over Baal and we do know that in that Ugaritic document we have AL naming his son as YW and therefore, given that AL chose Yam as "king of the gods" and AL named YW as "his Son" it is logical to assume that YW and Yamnahar were one and the same.

And if you are a Christian who has stayed to read on and are now getting a wee bit angry by the conclusions that I am drawing - don't email me with your frustrations - get off your arse and do some homework. I will make it easy for you -

KTU 1.1 IV 14

Just highlight the above text and do a ctrl+c to copy it and go and paste it into a search engine and do a search. You will find more than a few pages of current study on the Ugaritic texts there to keep you busy for a while and will understand the reasoning a lot more when you have done some reading and studying.

For the rest of us who are reasonably happy with the suggestion - how do we get from YW to YHWH? Because the Christians who argue against it say that while YW and YHWH may sound similar there is no evidence that they were one and the same god.

1. Because in the Canaanite pantheon YW was the arch enemy of Baal and historically throughout the Bible YHWH was also the arch enemy of Baal.

2. Because according to the mythology of the Canaanite pantheon two of the sons of AL - Baal and Yamnahar (YW) always vying for pole position had a retinue of believers and priests who were also always continually vying for pole position and throughout the Bible we have a blow by blow account of the continual battling of the priests of Baal and the priests of YHWH for pole position.

3. Because of the Canaanite document KTU 1.1 IV 14 from the Ugarit where it reads -

"SM . BNY . YW . ILT"... Which translated means -

"The name of my Son is YW" and it is commonly thought to have been pronounced as: YeH-oo; of which the long form YHWH pronounced as: YeH-oo-aH – see where it is going - YeH-oo-aH - JeH-oo-aH - Jehovah.

And there are quite a few other points but I am not going to go into them all - go and read up on it yourself by examining the Ugaritic stuff online.

Because again, even though the evidence is strong and growing stronger as the archaeology is extended for the argument that YHWH was an old Canaanite deity it will always give the Christians room for argument and dissent with the argument that it is all circumstantial.

You see, I know these Christians only too too well. I know how over the last 2000 years they have plotted, connived, covered up and lied in an attempt to keep their own religion in pole position. And I know how they can just sit on the fence with their fingers in their ears going "humm de humm de humm" to drown out the evidence and still feel justified because after all as they grinningly point out - all of the evidence is still only circumstantial. Indeed even if a new tablet was found stuck in a wall in Canaan with the name YHWH inscribed on it – they would still no doubt argue that it could not be proven that the two references referred to the same god, and on and on it would go.

Now I am not an archaeologist, or a professor of Canaanite deities, nor even a scholar of antiquities, but hey you Christians – I do know the Bible.

You are the ones who keep on pounding away with the arguments that what the Bible says is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so in order to knock you off the fence where you are sitting so prettily with your fingers in your ears, I will use your own book - the Bible. You don't like and neither will you admit that the archeological evidence is enough? Then my argument will leave you no room for dissent whatsoever because it is really very simple and can be found without any problem from the writings of the Bible itself.

So lets get to it -

The Biblical Account

A long long time ago in a far distant land there was this chap called Abram (in the future to be re-named Abraham. And there was Abram minding his own business in Haran which is in modern Turkey when God appears to him and says –

“Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee, and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.” Genesis 12: 1 – 5

Why was he instructed to go to the land of Canaan?

Because this was the home place of the God that was instructing him.

Which god was it that had this conversation with Abraham and wanted him to get himself off to Canaan?

According to the Bible - it was the god “AL”.

"AL" is the name that is often rendered "EL" in the Old Testament. And it is the name for the God who spoke to Abraham. The word "God" in the English versions of the Holy Bible, is translated from the Canaanite proper name "AL" 213 times. For example, the God of Abraham is called '"AL / EL" fifty-six times in the Book of Job alone, for instance -

"AL/EL thunders with His voice"...-JOB 37: 5

The proper name of the God of 'Abraham was "AL / EL "

In GENESIS 33:20 Jacob (who was also called Israel) built an altar to him. - note the word of what he built - an AL tar

"And he pitched his tent there, and erected an altar, and called it “Alohi Yshra'al ('AL, Divine of Israel)"

And again in Genesis chapter 46 -

"And AL / EL spoke to Israel (Jacob) in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob. And he said, Here am I. Then He said to him, I am 'AL, the 'ALHYM of your father." GENESIS 46: 2-3

The phrase "'AL, the 'ALHYM (God) of your father" makes it clear that the proper name of the God of the patriarchs ('Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) was "AL" or as it got changed in the Hebrew language to “EL”.

Remember that “AL” was also the proper name of the Supreme God of the Canaanite pantheon. He is mentioned in numerous passages of the Ugaritic texts. So we should consider it no surprise that when AL calls Abram and tells him to up sticks and move, that the place he is destined to go is to Canaan because Canaan was the home of AL / EL.

Ok so far? Now here is the cruncher -

When God introduces himself to Moses he says -

"And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God ALmighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." Exodus. 6 2-3

A more proper translation of this text is -

"And AL spoke to Moses and said to him, I YHWH, Who appeared to 'Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of 'AL Shaddai; but My name YHWH I did not make known to them."

Read it and weep Christianity and hey - this is from your own Bible.

Your options are now limited to 2 possibilities and only 2 possibilities

1. There is more than one God. There is the god AL/EL and the god YHWH

2. Or there is only one God. And AL/EL and YHWH are different names for the same God.

I say - Remember how according to the Canaanite myth - Baal wanted to be the king of the gods. and AL, the ruler of the gods, chose Yam (YW) to become the king of the gods instead. Well here you are seeing the result of the Canaanite legend being worked out in the legend of the Old Testament. You are seeing YHWH who had now been promoted by EL to be "king of the gods" introducing himself to Moses as YHWH in his new pole position, taking over the position of EL.

But it is you who have got the problem, because according to my reasoning and workout of the legend, the Bible is doing no more than copying or adopting parts of the Canaanite pantheon and it is talking of two gods - EL and the son of EL, - YW / YWHW.

It is you lot that is sitting prettily on the fence with your fingers in your ears going humm de humm de humm and claiming that it is all circumstantial. So now where has your "its only circumstantial" got you? According to this text you have got 2 choices - you have either got to admit that there is more than one god because there is AL /EL and YHWH, or you have got to claim that they are one and the same god.

You see - there is no need for argument or dissent. There is no need to take part in a multitude of debates and wrangling over the similarities between YHWH and Yam. No need to point out that the same consort Asherah was the same consort to YHWH and AL / EL. No need for the Christians to stick their fingers in their ears and grinningly point out that all of the evidence is circumstantial. The argument and discussion ends right there with the Bible's own statement –

"And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (AL), but by my name Jehovah (YHWH) was I not known to them." Exodus. 6 2-3

And if you stick to your - there is only one god. And AL / EL and YHWH are just different names for the same god then now you have the answer to why there were horns on the altar.

Because the god Al /EL was a bull god.

I repeat - AL / EL was the head of the Canaanite pantheon who according to the Canaanite myth had chosen his son YW to become the king of the gods instead of Baal, and AL / EL was a bull god – by this I mean his symbol of power was a bull. So if El was an old Canaanite bull god and he declared himself to Moses to be the same god who is also known by the name YHWH, then YHWH is an old Canaanite bull god as well.

The Canaanite god AL was the chief of the Canaanite pantheon. Some of his titles included – “Father of Humanity”, “the Creator of Creatures”, “the King”, “the Father of Time” etc. Do they sound familiar? From the Bible known as EL, He also receives the titles: “Creator”, “Eternal Father”, “El the Eternal One”, and “Ancient of Days” etc.

Now, as EL / YHWH was a bull god perhaps you can see why there seems to be a bit of a horn fetish among the building of his altar. And now perhaps you can see why Moses was supposed to have trailed those Israelites around the desert for forty years always promising them a return to the promised land filled with milk and honey.

Which promised land? Where was it?

The Land of Canaan of course.

Why?

Because this was the home of the god they were worshipping. He originated from Canaan. He was a Canaanite god who according to Moses wanted to take those who worshipped him back to the home of his origin - Canaan - the promised land. Just the same as the Abram experience where the god of Abram wanted to take him back to the land of Canaan as well.

Getting To Grips With Those Horns On The Altar

I say that the AL-tar had horns because the thing had been built for the purposes of sacrificing to the god AL - degenerated to EL in the Bible who was represented by a horned animal - a bull. The Christians come back with their reasons why the altar had horns – usually with the suggestion that the horns on the altar had nothing to do with a horned god or a god whose imagery was fashioned or had anything to do with the horns of a bull but had a perfectly practical application. They were used as a tethering post to tie the animals to whilst they were being killed ready for the sacrifice. And this reasoning they back up because of the text of Psalms -

"God is the LORD, which hath shewed us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar." Psalms 118:27

Really? I could say -

If the suggestion that the horns on the altar were a representation of a horned god is quite without foundation and cannot be proved, then neither can the practical application that they were used to tether the animals to whilst they were being slaughtered. We are not told in the original planning of things - "and thou shalt use the horns to tether the animals to whilst they are being slaughtered".

The fact that the Psalmist records them being used for such a purpose many years later does not prove that this was the primary or even a secondary purpose of them at all. To suggest this would be like saying their practical purpose was so that people who were being pursued by the King could cling on to them and thus receive sanctuary, because this also happened as I have before said.

But let's not bother with arguments like that – let's just shoot their whole argument down in flames so that it comes spiraling down out of the sky of their wild imaginings in a billow of smoke.

How?

By pointing out that the second altar - the altar of incense which was used for the burning of incense only, and upon which no slaughtered animal was ever offered or tethered also had horns.

“Thou shalt make also an altar to burn incense, of setim wood. It shall be a cubit in length, and another in breadth, that is, four square, and two in height. Horns shall go out of the same. And thou shalt overlay it with the purest gold, as well the grate thereof, as the walls round about, and the horns. And thou shalt make to it a crown of gold round about,” Exodus 30 1 - 3

Those horns did occasionally have the blood of a sacrificed animal wiped upon them in a similar manner to the altar of sacrifices, but no practical application of the tethering of animals there I am afraid because no animal was ever sacrificed on it – incense only.

Wiping the blood of the sacrificed animal upon the horns was certainly a designated use of the horns in the case of both altars, and the purpose for which they were built, for this use is recorded and mentioned more than once. It was all a part of the ritual. Slaughter the animal and wipe some of its blood upon the horns of the altar.

I suggest that this was the primary use of the horns. They were built because they were a part of the offering ceremony itself, an offering of blood to the god that the altar had been built to sacrifice to, in this case – the bull god EL / YHWH - JEHOVAH.

The link between the sacrifice being slaughtered, and the acceptance of the sacrifice by the god was the blood which was shed and then wiped upon the horns of the altar because the horns on the altar were representative of the god and AL / EL YHWH – Jehovah was a bull god. Bull gods had a bit of a horn fetish, and these were clearly and factually represented by the horns which were built on his altars.

The horns were one of the symbols of the god's anger and strength and the horns of the altar which were an integral part of the altar were a very important and integral part of the ceremonies which were to be carried out on and at the altar. For instance they were smeared or touched with the blood of the sacrifice in the case of a sin offering for a high priest, or for the whole congregation, if they had sinned unwittingly (Leviticus 4:7,18).

The actual use of these horns and their integration into the ceremonies and rites of the worshippers of Jehovah becomes a lot more clear and apparent when we do a detailed study concerning some of the rituals and sacrificial ceremonies that took place at this altar and the part that the horns had to play. So let's take a look.

One of the most important, if not the most important of all rituals was the consecration of the very priests themselves who were set apart and chosen to be the priests of Jehovah, so let us look there.

"And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock. And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Exodus 29:10 -11

A bullock? Are you beginning to get the picture now? Is the penny beginning to drop yet?

A bullock was the horned animal which was slaughtered as part of the ritual of consecrating priests to Jehovah.

"And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar." Exodus 29:12

Now the light truly begins to shine upon the matter. For now, during one of the most important of all ritual ceremonies - the consecration of the very priests of Jehovah we have the instruction to take the blood of the sacrificed "horned" animal (a bullock) and wipe its blood upon the "horns" (which were fashioned in like manner to his horns) of the altar.

As an interesting codicil here I asked a non-Christian to proof read through this page for any obvious grammatical errors that I had missed and he said "Oh, right, now I get it."

"Get what?" I asked.

"I think I understand what they were trying to do with the sacrifice and the horns and all that." And he continued to explain the thought that had dawned on him.

The altar had horns because they were representative of the strength and power of the God to whom the altar had been built. In this case - AL - who we know was associated with bulls because of their power and strength. When the sacrifice was killed, some of its blood was smeared on the horns and the rest of it was poured out beside the bottom of the altar so in a ritualistic way it was as if the altar had killed the sacrifice. By smearing the blood on the horns it was as if the horns had gored the sacrifice and thus it was a display of the power of the god of the altar. The whole thing was a ritualistic way of showing the power of the god that the altar was consecrated to. (Credit to my proofreader).

And I must admit it all sounds very feasible to me.

So you see - what Moses was doing here was introducing to these people an old Canaanite bull deity AL / EL here called YHWH, now more commonly referred to a "Yahweh" or "Jehovah". He was a bull god in the true sense of the word. His altar had horns which were fashioned in like manner to the horns of a bull. When his priests were consecrated to serve at the altar and ordained as priests the ceremony called for the sacrifice of a bullock, which was killed, and its blood smeared upon the horns of the altar as a sign of respect or power or allegiance or whatever.

The Golden Calf

So given that Jehovah was a Canaanite bull god there may be a few who are therefore asking - then why did both Jehovah and Moses get so upset when Moses was up at the top of the mount receiving the ten commandments and the people built an idol of a golden calf? Surely this would have pleased Jehovah, not upset him? I mean they would have been honouring him by such a deed, wouldn't they? So why did Moses throw such a paddy?

To ask such a question is proof that they do not understand the complexity of this bygone age. Many people think that they were backward, behind the door, virtually just out of the caves type people. They weren't. They were a highly evolved society. Let us remember some of the engineering feats of Egypt that we could not even match at this day!

These people were not stupid. They were not backward. And neither were the Canaanites. They were as intelligent as you or I. And to think that worshipping a golden calf and worshipping a God whose power was represented by a bull are the same thing is to not understand the very often fine divisions of worship in these early believers.

The backbiting and the continual fighting and arguments between the priests and followers of the different factions was an ongoing thing, a bit like it is today among many Christian sects. We are being constantly made aware of the hatred and animosity between factions of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in certain parts of the world right now and they are both supposed to worship the same God. And just as today we have vast splits in religion over a very small difference of opinion, so they also had their differences.

Remember - the Canaanite god EL / YHWH was the chief of Canaanite pantheon. Some of his titles included – “Father of Humanity”, “the Creator of Creatures”, “the King”, “the Father of Time” etc. From the Bible He also receives the titles: “Eternal Father”, “El the Eternal One”, and “Ancient of Days” etc.

He was a masculine male god – the Father of all the Gods. He was an adult god, a bull god. He was not a cow god, nor a calf god. His strength virility and power were symbolized by bulls and bullocks not cows and calves.

The inaccuracy of confusing a calf with a bull is a little bit thinking that the Egyptian Ibis cult was just a bird cult. They weren't! They did not worship starlings, blackbirds and all sorts of our feathered friends, they were very specific. They worshipped the Ibis!

In Egypt where Moses was brought up the most important animal cults were the bull cults. These appear in Egyptian writings as far back as the First Dynasty. The ancient Egyptians believed that the power of the bull represented the power of the king. Slate palettes dating back as far as 3100 BC even show kings as bulls. The bull symbolized the king’s power, his courage, great strength, virility, and fighting spirit.

But to imagine that any old bull would do is sheer ignorance of the matter. These were highly sophisticated structured beliefs.

Purely for interest, for instance, the Apis bull worshipers of Egypt had some very specific beliefs and requirements.

Firstly, they believed that a flash of lightning descended upon the cow from heaven, and this causes her to receive “Apis".

The Apis calf could be identified by certain distinct markings and these were highly evolved and very specific! The calf had to be black with a white diamond on its forehead, an image of an eagle on its back, double the number of hairs on its tail, and a scarab mark under its tongue. And as the cult evolved over the years some of these features also evolved and changed with it. So you see how involved and specific it could all get.

And to further explain this matter and to add even more reasoning and emphasis it must also be understood that "golden calf" was one of the names which was ascribed unto Baal / Moloch.

Moloch went by many names including Baal, Golden Calf, Chemosh and many others. He was widely worshiped in the Middle East. His emblem or likeness was that of a calf or an ox, or sometimes he was depicted as a man with the head of a bull.

So when the children of Israel made themselves a golden calf what they were in fact doing was making an idol to Baal.

And you are asking me why Moses got his knickers in a twist when the people reared up a golden calf to worship? You obviously do not understand the complexity of the issues surrounding any god worship of the day and think that any old bovine would do. You are incorrect in your assumption.

It is also quite evident that the Jehovah worship that Moses was inaugurating was not to include the production of idols. Horns on the altar to represent the deity - yes, but idols? No!

I personally believe that this was a very astute move by Moses, because it meant that to worship Jehovah the people could not do it privately in front of their own idol in their tent, but ONLY in the presence of the congregation at the tabernacle under his direct control or under the control of his priests. But more of this in another section.

Over their history Israel did produce idols, and many of them, but the cult that Moses was setting up was not going to be a cult where the possession of personal idols was going to play a part.

Now whether Moses was just simply off his head, making all of this up, and designing an altar with horns because he thought it was a good idea and followed in the tradition of altars built to bull gods, or whether Jehovah actually existed/exists as a god and instructed it, I do not know and am not going to speculate. The Bible certainly tells us that he did require it and instructed it to be carried out in the manner which it was carried out, but on top of this we certainly do need to take a very careful note of Jehovah's character as it is portrayed in the Bible, which we shall now do, because many of the gods of the different cultures were quite demanding and bloodthirsty, and Jehovah was by no means an exception. In fact, to be perfectly honest Jehovah was probably a lot more bloodthirsty than most. In all actual reality he was a nightmare from hell for those who worshipped and followed him. He demanded blood to be spilled frequently and in copious amounts.

So click below to go to the next section and let us go and take a quick look at the nature of the god Jehovah as it is recorded in the Bible.