Poseidon was the God of Moses.
Aggie-Tom
LXX Exodus 3:
14 kai eipen o yeov prov mwushn egw eimi o wn kai eipen outwv ereiv toiv
uioiv israhl o wn apestalken me prov umav
Jewish Publication Society Exodus 3:
14 And God said unto Moses: ‘I AM THAT I AM’; and He said: ‘Thus shalt thou
say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.’
Now this will knock you for six.
Translation of the ORGINAL GREEK:
*And the God said to Moses, I am Poseidon, and he said, say this to the sons
of Israel: Poseidon has sent me to you.
As I always said Jehovah was the Canaanite God El, the father of Baal, ie.
Poseidon to the Greeks, the father of king Belus.
And heres the entry for "wn" in Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical
Greek.
ôn IG4.211, al. (Corinth), Poteidaôn GDI5085 (Crete, iii B.C.): also
Poti^das or Poteidas (codd. vary), gen. a Eup.140, acc. an Epich.81, dub. in
Aristoph. Ach. 798 (Megarian), voc.aSophr.131:--
Boeot. Poteidaôn (leg. Poti_daôn) Corinn.1, cf. Corinn.Supp.2.26 (BKT5
(2)p.31); gen. [Pot] i_daônos IBID=au=BKT 76; but dat. Poteidaoni IG7.2465
(Thebes):--
Arc. Posoidan ib.5(2).95 (Tegea):--
Lacon. Phooidan ib.5(1).1228, al.:--
Aeol.(?) Potoidan Schwyzer 642 (Pergam., v B.C.):--
ti=Schwyzer Poseidon.
PS: Theos in Greek was always considered both Singular and Plural. Figure
that. The "Jewish" religion was NEVER Monotheistic. Infact the Maccabites
worshiped Uranus (Ouranos, the Sky god).
The President
ionian Pos-eidao, if I weren't wrong). Btw, Jahweh appeared several times as
different gods bunched within a unique name (Mars as a leader, Apollon as
pest-driver, and so on). Thus, no wonder if he was also Poseidon (obviously,
according to a polycultural system of rendering).
"Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:963ujn$q80$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Agamemnon
"The President" <lur...@nopay.it> wrote:
> Maybe, Aggie; infacts, Poseidon means "Lightning Image" (maybe archaic
> ionian Pos-eidao, if I weren't wrong). Btw, Jahweh appeared several
times as
> different gods bunched within a unique name (Mars as a leader,
Apollon as
> pest-driver, and so on). Thus, no wonder if he was also Poseidon
(obviously,
> according to a polycultural system of rendering).
>
If the text was orginaly written in Hebrew then "Wn" would have
read "El" the name of the Canaanite God who was the father of Baal.
If the orginal Hebrew word was El then it would have been translated
like all other instances of El as Theos in the Greek version.
Why not in this case, why "Wn" ????
If the original word was "Jehovah", then it would have been replced in
translation by the Greek word "Kyrios", like in all other cases of its
apearence.
Why not in this case, why "Wn" ????
The Reason is OBVIOUS.
The Bible was originally composed in GREEK. Any linguistic analysis of
the word forms will tell you this.
El and Jehovah did NOT exist in the orginal Bible text in any form. The
only words used were the Greek words Kyrios and Theos.
Moses worshiped Poseidon who the Canaanites called "El" the father of
Baal, thus the use of the name "Wn" in the ORIGINAL Greek text denoting
Poseidon.
The Jews who tranlated all instances of "Theos" into "El" knew full
well that "El" was also the proper name of Moses God, so they couldnt
use the same name twice, thus they used YHWH, which probably stood as
an abreviation for "I am that I am" or for any name of God, a name mask.
In other words the entire Jewish religion CONCOCTED after Alexander the
Great came to power.
Having read Macabees it is abudently clear that the this religion was
based entirly on the FICTITIOUS parables that Judas Macabee told to his
gang of terrorists to encourage them to revolt and murder innocent
Greeks, Syrians, and Palastinians including his own people. The best
paralel is that of Mohammed and his own band of cut-throats.
--
DJ Agamemnon
INSPIRATION FM - Live and Direct on 105.8
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
tr...@my-deja.com
"Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
> And heres the entry for "wn" in Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of
Classical
> Greek.
>
> ôn IG4.211, al. (Corinth), Poteidaôn GDI5085 (Crete, iii B.C.): also
> Poti^das or Poteidas (codd. vary), gen. a Eup.140, acc. an Epich.81,
dub. in
> Aristoph. Ach. 798 (Megarian), voc.aSophr.131:--
>
> Boeot. Poteidaôn (leg. Poti_daôn) Corinn.1, cf. Corinn.Supp.2.26 (BKT5
> (2)p.31); gen. [Pot] i_daônos IBID=au=BKT 76; but dat. Poteidaoni
IG7.2465
> (Thebes):--
>
> Arc. Posoidan ib.5(2).95 (Tegea):--
>
> Lacon. Phooidan ib.5(1).1228, al.:--
>
> Aeol.(?) Potoidan Schwyzer 642 (Pergam., v B.C.):--
>
> ti=Schwyzer Poseidon.
>
although i looked i could not find the above quote from L&S (could you
give edition and page to help my search, i may have an older edition)
I did however in Englishman's Greek find the word listed several times
as a form of "eime", which is the word "to be"? However admittedly EG
is koine not classical.
bud
remember no good deed ever goes unpunished
*****************************
"Nemo me impune lacessit"
Forgive my spelling,i have a Freud keyboard,my fingers keep slipping
Matthew
"Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
>
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/981865911.html
--
Agamemnon
You're spelling it wrongly.
It's "WN" "Omega""Ni/u", NOT "ON" "Omicorn""Ni/u"
LSJ:-
http://perseus.csad.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/resolveform
> bud
shain...@my-deja.com
In article <964h3j$q9k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
shain...@my-deja.com
question that the Hebrew Torah advocates monotheism and only monotheism.
In fact, in the Hebrew original, the commandment for monotheism couldn't
be clearer.
Very amusing, how those Greeks (mis)translated the Torah into their
culture. :)
In article <963ujn$q80$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
"Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Matt Giwer
Read The Fine Thread.
The original was in Greek where it makes sense.
> There is no
> question that the Hebrew Torah advocates monotheism and only monotheism.
Then you have never read it. No other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
> In fact, in the Hebrew original, the commandment for monotheism couldn't
> be clearer.
Which you have obviously never read.
> Very amusing, how those Greeks (mis)translated the Torah into their
> culture. :)
Very amusing it does not make a lick of sense from the Hebrew but is
quite reasonable in Greek.
Yes, you are a true believer and impervious to reason and science.
> In article <963ujn$q80$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
> "Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
> >
> > LXX Exodus 3:
> > 14 kai eipen o yeov prov mwushn egw eimi o wn kai eipen outwv ereiv
> toiv
> > uioiv israhl o wn apestalken me prov umav
> >
> > Jewish Publication Society Exodus 3:
> > 14 And God said unto Moses: ?I AM THAT I AM?; and He said: ?Thus
> shalt thou
> > say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.?
--
Some peoples' memories only work backwards.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 63
Matt Giwer
Actually it is your primitive superstitious religious beliefs that are
crazy. But then so are all religious beliefs so you are not alone.
I have learned history. No Moses, no Hebrews, no time in Egypt. And
that is before science shitcans all of them.
Get an education and join the real world.
> > > > 14 And God said unto Moses: ?I AM THAT I AM?; and He said: ?Thus
> > shalt
> > > thou
> > > > say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.?
--
What is there about "Congress shall make no law" that you
do not understand?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 152
tr...@my-deja.com
no i did realize how it was spelled "wn",and i still can't find it.
but then the print is small, and my eyes aren't what the were.
bud
remember no good deed ever goes unpunished
*****************************
"Nemo me impune lacessit"
Forgive my spelling,i have a Freud keyboard,my fingers keep slipping
x99s...@my-deja.com
"Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>
> 14 kai eipen o yeov prov mwushn egw eimi o wn kai eipen outwv ereiv
toiv
> uioiv israhl o wn apestalken me prov umav
>
> Jewish Publication Society Exodus 3:
> 14 And God said unto Moses: ‘I AM THAT I AM’; and He said: ‘Thus
shalt thou
> say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.’
>
> Now this will knock you for six.
>
> Translation of the ORGINAL GREEK:
>
> *And the God said to Moses, I am Poseidon, and he said, say this to
the sons
> of Israel: Poseidon has sent me to you.
>
nonsense. WN is the present participle, nominative singular of the
verb EINAI, to be. Thus, the phrase is translated literally as "I am
the one who is." It bears no relationship to the word ON, rather like
in English saying that heard and herd are the same word.
Iain Parkinson
x99s...@my-deja.com wrote on 11/2/01 18:50:
Don't accuse Aggie of not knowing Greek - he'll respond with the devastating
critique that you need to go to the pub more and that the key to it all is a
knowledge of contemporary Cypriot pop-songs.
When you catch him out on points of grammar or attempting to fool those with
no knowledge of Greek by his dodgy 'translations', he'll call you an
ignoramus.
Iain
Matt Giwer
While it is quite proper to discuss the books of the bible, old and new
testaments, as mythology these responses are rather incomprehensible.
As we _know_ they are myths it is certainly the reasonable thing to
give more weight to burial shrouds than angels. While burial shroud may
not be correct we know flat out angels is nonsense.
And as we know they are myths there is no rational basis for giving the
version written in a mideastern variation upon Linear B any greater
weight than the version written in the Greek variation upon Linear B.
Could you explain your response?
If you are a believer, none of these newsgroups are appropriate.
--
Any law passed for political reasons is the creation
of a political crime.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 21
Iain Parkinson
> The original was in Greek where it makes sense.
>
>> There is no
>> question that the Hebrew Torah advocates monotheism and only monotheism.
>
> Then you have never read it. No other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
>
But it is what used to be termed 'henotheism'. Following one God out of the
many possible. That ancient Judaism continued at the very least to breach
this command is clear from the Biblical texts. In fact one can read the
Prophets and the Histories as showing that the history of ancient Israel's
religion was chiefly polytheist with a marginalised group of henotheists,
whose ideas became increasingly monotheistic, only (re)gaining control after
the various partial returns from exile. It is perhaps only after Ezra that
monotheism was securely established.
ie
There are other gods but we are following this one. (Abraham, Moses etc)
The other gods are pathetic (cf Elijah vs Baal)
The other gods are man made. (Isaiah? - I can't remember but the bit about
making a god out of part of a bit of wood and a bowl out the rest of it)
Only our God is real, therefore ours is God of the universe.
If anyone does want to advocate the total concoction of Judaism they'd be
better off following Giovanni Garbini's sceptical writings than the ravings
of certain contributers here.
He's wrong too of course but one gets the impression that he can read the
Bible in Hebrew and knows his Classical and Koine Greek.
Iain
Trotter960
>Now this will knock you for six.
>
>Translation of the ORGINAL GREEK:
>
>*And the God said to Moses, I am Poseidon, and he said, say this to the sons
>of Israel: Poseidon has sent me to you.
It has already been pointed out that WS is a Greek participle, not a name for
Poseidon. I take back my previous compliment of your Greek skills.
BTW, the numismatic allusions to Poseidon are signs of the inroads made by
Hellenism against Judaism.
>As I always said Jehovah was the Canaanite God El, the father of Baal, ie.
>Poseidon to the Greeks, the father of king Belus.
The deity's name was Yahweh. He and El have a major distinction. El is not a
god of battle as is Yahweh. BTW, Yahweh is known in the second millenium. He
far outdates the scenarios you propose for his adoption by the Jews.
>PS: Theos in Greek was always considered both Singular and Plural. Figure
>that. The "Jewish" religion was NEVER Monotheistic. Infact the Maccabites
>worshiped Uranus (Ouranos, the Sky god). >>
This is wrong. Have a look at Liddell and Scott. Even in Homeric Greek THEOS
can be a singular deity or a certian god as in THEOS TIS.
The family of Judas Maccabeus is known as Maccabeans or Hasmoneons but never
as Maccabites.
There three ways to show the priority of one translation of one writing over
another. One is to establish the earliest text of each. In this case, Hebrew
textual witness precedes Greek by 4 centuries.
A second is to use the testimony of ancient witnesses. Both Jewish and
non-Jewish sources agree that the Bible was translated from Hebrew into Greek.
The LXX itself agrees with this. See the prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus bar
Sirach where the writer says that words spoken originally in Hebrew are not as
effective as when they are translated into another language.
A third means of establishing the priority of one translation over another is
to compare the two languages. Thus far only the lexicography has been compared.
The examples cited have been faulty.
Moreover no cognizance has ben made of the fact that some lexicography has to
be chosen in the target language. For example, the phrase "Ich habe kein Angst"
has a far different meaning in German than it does in English.
Comparing grammar is a far better means of establishing priority. Here is where
the LXX shows itself to be a translation from Hebrew. For example, in the LXX,
there is a repetition of the pronoun after the relative pronoun. In English
this would be something like "the land which they possessed it." In Greek this
is an anomaly. It comes from a literal following of the Hebrew text.
There is no basis for claiming that the Hebrew Bible is derived from the Greek
translation.
Trotter
Trotter960
>If the orginal Hebrew word was El then it >would have been translated
>like all other instances of El as Theos in >the Greek version.
>
>Why not in this case, why "Wn" ????
The name for the Hebrew deity is not always El in the HBible.
Do you read Hebrew at all?
Trotter
Trotter960
> I have learned history. No Moses, no Hebrews, no time in Egypt. And
>that is before science shitcans all of them.
>
> Get an education and join the real world.
Your opinions of the historical value of the OT are over-stated.
Perhaps as many as 60 persons named in the OT are known from extra-canonical
sources. Some of these are doubtful identifcations. At last year's SBL
conference in Nashville, L Mykytiuk showed his taxonomy during which he showed
that *some* of the identifications were dubious.
Nevertheless that leaves many names (see Larry's soon to be published book)
which have an interesting characteristic: the OT narrative and the
extra-canonical
sources agree on the times in which these persons lived. That's called history.
A lot of noise has been made lately about the effect of the Copenhagen School
of the historicity of the Bible. Recently Thomas Thompson's _Mythic Past_ was
published in the United States. None other than Lester Grabbe took him to task
for
an ambiguous use of the primary sources of the Inter-testimental Period.
This is a charge that is also valid here on this newsgroup. Sources are deni-
grated when they support the Bible and utilized when they disagree with the
Bible. Again even Grabbe concedes that for whatever the Kings narrative has,
whenever it can be checked, the order and approximate time periods of the kings
are confirmed. (You can read Grabbe's 22-page response to Thomas' book in SJOT
14, #1.)
Trotter
Matt Giwer
>
> > The original was in Greek where it makes sense.
> >
> >> There is no
> >> question that the Hebrew Torah advocates monotheism and only monotheism.
> >
> > Then you have never read it. No other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
> >
>
> But it is what used to be termed 'henotheism'.
It starts as monotheism and only monotheism and becomes henotheism, a
term invented solely to salvage the idea the OT folks were monotheists.
This discussion is proceeding under the known facts from science. The
summation of that is, the books of the bible recite mythology well known
by science to be false.
--
Holocaust museums are a tax scam? How else can clothing no
reputable charity would touch be turned into a valuable
tax deduction?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 285
Matt Giwer
>
> Matt,
>
> > I have learned history. No Moses, no Hebrews, no time in Egypt. And
> >that is before science shitcans all of them.
> >
> > Get an education and join the real world.
>
> Your opinions of the historical value of the OT are over-stated.
You mean they are less than myth?
> Perhaps as many as 60 persons named in the OT are known from extra-canonical
> sources. Some of these are doubtful identifcations. At last year's SBL
> conference in Nashville, L Mykytiuk showed his taxonomy during which he showed
> that *some* of the identifications were dubious.
Get with the program. It has been stipulated the post Babylon period
has a touch of connection with the rest of the world. The discussion has
been regarding prior to that time.
It is not required in a far ranging discussion such as this to restate
the same stipulation in every post. However I am familiar with the
tactic of pouncing upon the failure to restate a particular stipulation
every time as a means of attempting to salvage true beliefs.
The few for which there is external reference are immaterial to the
essentials. None of them are mentioned in the Torah, Joshua, Kings or
any book purporting to describe events in "biblical" Israel.
> Nevertheless that leaves many names (see Larry's soon to be published book)
> which have an interesting characteristic: the OT narrative and the
> extra-canonical
> sources agree on the times in which these persons lived. That's called history.
> A lot of noise has been made lately about the effect of the Copenhagen School
> of the historicity of the Bible. Recently Thomas Thompson's _Mythic Past_ was
> published in the United States. None other than Lester Grabbe took him to task
> for
> an ambiguous use of the primary sources of the Inter-testimental Period.
> This is a charge that is also valid here on this newsgroup. Sources are deni-
> grated when they support the Bible and utilized when they disagree with the
> Bible. Again even Grabbe concedes that for whatever the Kings narrative has,
> whenever it can be checked, the order and approximate time periods of the kings
> are confirmed. (You can read Grabbe's 22-page response to Thomas' book in SJOT
> 14, #1.)
You folks insist upon refering to a bunch self-styled scholars and
refusing to deal with science. Science trumps "scholars."
--
Neo-fascists nor neo-nazis killed no one. Never changed
Marxists, communists, socialists killed over 100 million.
You be the judge.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 171
Trotter960
> It is not required in a far ranging >discussion such as this to restate
>the same stipulation in every post.
As far as methodology is concerned, one does not make categorical statements
when one means to exempt a sizable portion of the data.
As far as the historicity of the Bible is concerned, the time of the kings of
Israel
fills the bill just as well as any ancient document.
So I would agree with you that there is no evidence in favor of an Exodus nor
of a Conquest. Nothing in Genesis should be considered history. But that leaves
a sizable portion of the data.
As far as "true beliefs" are concerned, if you can find a confessional type
statement from me on any post at any time, bring it up. In the mean time, let
me point out that
so-called "non-believers" have just as much of an agenda as "believers." To
them if it
supports any contention of the credos of Xianity, it has to be attacked and can
not be true. These latter and Fundies are both prejudiced though for opposite
reasons.
>None of them are mentioned in the Torah, >Joshua, Kings or
>any book purporting to describe events in >"biblical" Israel.
This is just plain wrong. Have a look at the Sennacherib Stela as an
example.(ANET,
p 287).
>Science trumps "scholars."
This is just plain wrong, too. Science, or the study of a discipline, is what
scholars do.
Now why am I qualifying this? Because
history is never a science. It is the study of
events which can not be duplicated as can events in what we commonly call the
natural sciences. In history agents of causation are never determinative, but
always contributory.
Archaeology is sometimes a science. once it crosses the line from a description
of the data into cause and effect or into a descrip-
tion of times past, it introduces an element of speculation.
Is archaeology a science? If so, then its scientists should be able to arrive
at the
same conclusions just as easily as chem-
ists do. Instead we see that once upon a time, those buildings in Meggido were
thought to be stables and now they are per-
haps a marketplace.
Trotter
Trotter960
> Then you have never read it. No >other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
Iain is quite right in that henotheism would be a better term. Now if you will
have a look at Paul Schafer's _Judeophobia_ you will
see that one of the cause of hatred of the jews in antiquity was that they
would not adopt the gods of the countries in which they resided. There are some
counter-
examples to this such as Elephantine
where there is apparently some religious syncretism, but that particular charge
was leveled at the Jews often enough during the
Greco-Roman period.
>Very amusing it does not make a lick of >sense from the Hebrew but is
>quite reasonable in Greek.
Okay, I'll bite. What do you *not* see in Hebrew that you can see in Greek?
Trotter
Aggie-Tom
"Iain Parkinson" <ia...@parko.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B6ACD078.AD3F%ia...@parko.demon.co.uk...
Since you have never lived in Greece or associated with Greeks I doubt that
you can really understand their language which inseparable from their
culture.
>
> Iain
>
patrick burke
"Trotter960" <trott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010211233520...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
What Matt have an agenda? *sarcasm* Your point is well taken and true,
but in Matt's case it is axiomatic. Matt is a rabid anti-semite. And I don't
mean a rhetorical, he disagrees with some Israeli policy anti-semite. I mean
a vicious, nasty, bigoted one. He has little knowledge of history, and his
only interest in it is to in some way diminish the legitimacy of Jews. He
will embrace ANY crackpot theory that does this, or can be twisted into
doing this.
I don't think I agree with that. Social sciences are valid sciences in
that they are rational disciplines. No they are not as reliably predictable
as chemestry, but then even physical sciences can get muddy at the edges.
>
> Trotter
>
>
>
>
Agamemnon
You are spelling it wrongly. WN (with and Omega) is compleatly
different from ON (with and Omicron).
Look up WN with an Omega in the LSJ
http://perseus.csad.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/resolveform
WN is a common contraction for Poseidon.
Aggie-Tom
>
> > The original was in Greek where it makes sense.
> >
> >> There is no
> >> question that the Hebrew Torah advocates monotheism and only
monotheism.
> >
> > Then you have never read it. No other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
> >
>
> But it is what used to be termed 'henotheism'. Following one God out of
the
> many possible. That ancient Judaism continued at the very least to
breach
> this command is clear from the Biblical texts. In fact one can read the
THE WERE NEVER ANY ANCIENT JEWS.
The ORIGINAL Biblical texts that were written in GREEK are NOT referring to
God at all.
These are historical texts referring to the reign of the Assyrian Kings over
the Hittites and Syrians. Kyrios which the so-called "Jews" replace with
Jehovah, is infact a reference to the Kings of Assyrian or to any other
kings or lord or general that is in the same context. Read it that was an
the texts makes sense, read differently and it is nonsense.
When the Hittites who were very tolerant of ALL Gods began to worship the
Gods of the Assyrian King they were doing all that was right in the eyes of
the Lord, not Jehovah but the Assyrian king. When the Hittites worshiped
other deities that the Assyrian kings has banned then they were doing all
that was wrong.
The Bible as interpreted by the so-called "Jews" is nothing but a
continuation of the TYRANNY and BIGOTRY of the Assyrian Kings.
> Prophets and the Histories as showing that the history of ancient
Israel's
> religion was chiefly polytheist with a marginalised group of henotheists,
> whose ideas became increasingly monotheistic, only (re)gaining control
after
> the various partial returns from exile. It is perhaps only after Ezra
that
> monotheism was securely established.
Exile RUBBISH.
The was NEVER any exile.
Read Herodotus.
[3.92.1] From Babylonia, and the rest of Assyria, were drawn a thousand
talents of silver, and five hundred boy-eunuchs. This was the ninth satrapy.
This is the levy the Persians imposed on the Assyro-Babylonians which
corresponds to the Biblical account of Daniel. These Eunuchs were NEVER
considered as being put into Exile, they were TRIBUTE. The Jews are NOT
mentioned once by the Persians.
> ie
>
> There are other gods but we are following this one. (Abraham, Moses etc)
Not according to the 10 Commandments which acknowledges other gods. Worship
no other Gods before El (ie. Poseidon).
> The other gods are pathetic (cf Elijah vs Baal)
Baal is not used a reference to Baal-Marduk but a reference to the living
GOD-KING
> The other gods are man made. (Isaiah? - I can't remember but the bit
about
> making a god out of part of a bit of wood and a bowl out the rest of it)
> Only our God is real, therefore ours is God of the universe.
Isaiah was an Assyrian General not a prophet. He was talking about living
God-Kings compared to bits of wood.
> If anyone does want to advocate the total concoction of Judaism they'd be
> better off following Giovanni Garbini's sceptical writings than the
ravings
> of certain contributers here.
>
> He's wrong too of course but one gets the impression that he can read the
> Bible in Hebrew and knows his Classical and Koine Greek.
>
> Iain
Since the Bible was composed entirely in Greek reding it in Hebrew is
irrelevant.
The Greek text indicates that the Bible is the dissembled account of
Assyrian historical texts, which have become even more dissembled in the
illiterate Hebrew (a made up language that was never even spoken)
translation.
All of this LIE was concocted by Judas Maccabe. Its PURE FICTION founded on
the local Isaiah superstition.
Even the Temple in Jerusalem, the Citadel, was built by the Greeks as a
Barracks.
In fact Juda Maccabe worshiped the Greek God Uranus (Ouranos) whose name can
be corrupted to Jehovah as I have shown last year. His Brothers Jonathan and
Simon considered themselves as Living Gods, ie so-called High Priests. Their
so-called Monotheism was nothing more than fanatical nationalism. The custom
of Circumcision cam about because Judas Maccabe inflicted it on the children
of his victims (of his own tribes) when he ransacked their cities. It was no
different to the Red-Indian practice of Scalping.
That is where the Jewish religion derives from, a religion of Bandits with
the same roots as Islam.
Zimri
devastating
> critique that you need to go to the pub more
He's right. I just read some of his posts and oh boy do I need a
drink.
> and that the key to it all is a
> knowledge of contemporary Cypriot pop-songs.
-- about Macedonia.
--
-- Zimri
***********
"No adult human really knows anyplace. You have to crawl everywhere
you can crawl, lick anything interesting, trace all the smells to
their sources, listen to ants trooping across walls, and eat a few
spiders before you really know a place."
-- Corey the Cat ("All Too Familiar", J Robert King, Dragon #259)
Aggie-Tom
> Tom,
>
> >Now this will knock you for six.
> >
> >Translation of the ORGINAL GREEK:
> >
> >*And the God said to Moses, I am Poseidon, and he said, say this to the
sons
> >of Israel: Poseidon has sent me to you.
>
> It has already been pointed out that WS is a Greek participle, not a name
for
> Poseidon. I take back my previous compliment of your Greek skills.
> BTW, the numismatic allusions to Poseidon are signs of the inroads made by
> Hellenism against Judaism.
Look in the LSJ.
http://perseus.csad.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/lexindex?lookup=wn&lang=greek
.
"WN" is another name for Poseidon and has nothing to do with the word "ON"
meaning a being.
Argure this out with the LSJ not with me.
The fact that it means Poseidon fits perfectly into the context of the
Biblical quote and the fact that the Bible was original composed in Greek.
>
>
> >As I always said Jehovah was the Canaanite God El, the father of Baal,
ie.
> >Poseidon to the Greeks, the father of king Belus.
>
> The deity's name was Yahweh. He and El have a major distinction. El is not
a
> god of battle as is Yahweh. BTW, Yahweh is known in the second millenium.
He
El-Saboath is the God of Battle. The Bible in its original Greek make NO
reference to Jehovah. Jehovah was and INVENTION of the Jews who replaced all
references to the Assyrian King, Kyrios with YAHWEH. This is a PROVEN FACT.
In the earliest Original version of Daniel which was written in Greek one
can see that Kyrios refers to the Persian kings and the text makes sense. In
the Greek follow up, which is clearly dissembled since the pattern of the
earliest original version can easily be seen, the word Kyrios is seen to
take on a secondary meaning of God, and the text makes NO sense. In the
Hebrew translation the dissembling grows in magnitude and Kyrios is now
completely transformed into Jehovah.
> far outdates the scenarios you propose for his adoption by the Jews.
This is no different from the adoption of the ancient Persian deity Mythras
by the Romans and his association with Perseus, Osiris, Attis, Adonis,
Dionysus and then his transformation into Jesus.
>
>
> >PS: Theos in Greek was always considered both Singular and Plural.
Figure
> >that. The "Jewish" religion was NEVER Monotheistic. Infact the
Maccabites
> >worshiped Uranus (Ouranos, the Sky god). >>
>
> This is wrong. Have a look at Liddell and Scott. Even in Homeric Greek
THEOS
> can be a singular deity or a certian god as in THEOS TIS.
I have look in the LSJ. Theos has always considered as a JOINT
"Singular-Plural". Anyone who natural speaks Greek knows this. When a Greeks
says "O theos" one asks him "Which God ?" "Pios theos"
>
> The family of Judas Maccabeus is known as Maccabeans or Hasmoneons but
never
> as Maccabites.
>
> There three ways to show the priority of one translation of one writing
over
> another. One is to establish the earliest text of each. In this case,
Hebrew
> textual witness precedes Greek by 4 centuries.
Hebrew is a completely made up language. No independent records show that is
was ever spoked prior to the Maccabite period.
> A second is to use the testimony of ancient witnesses. Both Jewish and
> non-Jewish sources agree that the Bible was translated from Hebrew into
Greek.
No mention of the complete Bible is made by the Romans prior to the adoption
of Christianity in the 4th C AD.
The Christian and Jewish dissemblers such as Eusebius cannot be regarded as
credible witnesses.
> The LXX itself agrees with this. See the prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus
bar
NO IT DOES NOT.
> Sirach where the writer says that words spoken originally in Hebrew are
not as
> effective as when they are translated into another language.
Because the Hebrew version is an illiterate copy of the original Greek.
Have you ever read the LXX in Greek. If you have done so you will realise
that the Greek makes mores sense than the Hebrew.
I am not arguing that part of the LXX was translated into Greek. but is was
NOT translated form Hebrew. Hebrew simply did not exist as either a spoke or
written language.
The Seleucids Greeks when they too power preceded to translate ancient
Akkadian and Aramaic historical records of the Syrians into Greek. Copies of
these records were obtained by the Maccabites, possibly when they took the
citadel and dissembled to created the entire old testament - IN GREEK, since
the sources were Greek. After this was accomplished it was translated very
badly into Aramaic and this illiterate Aramaic is what became Hebrew. Too
many Greek words exist the Hebrew for it to be an independent language. It's
bastardised Greco-Aramaic.
> A third means of establishing the priority of one translation over another
is
> to compare the two languages. Thus far only the lexicography has been
compared.
> The examples cited have been faulty.
Nope. The example have not be faulty. Read the two original Greek texts of
Daniel yourself and compare them with the Massoret text and tell me which
order is the most logical. How come the Greek text makes no mention of any
kind of prophesies but reads mundanely where as the Massoret is completely
wild an unbelievable. Daniel 10 was composed of two Court Transcripts of
the same event. Daniel was found out of his mind on the bank of the Tigress
by a Persian soldier and put on trial for disorderly behaviour. This account
is repeated twice, one after the other, since two translations were found by
the Bibles original dissemblers. It refers to the period of Alexander the
Great since it closes with "the Greeks are coming". The Hebrew versions is
an obvious copy which has been extensible dissembled from the Greeks since
an intermediate Greek copy exists showing how this was done.
> Moreover no cognizance has ben made of the fact that some lexicography has
to
> be chosen in the target language. For example, the phrase "Ich habe kein
Angst"
> has a far different meaning in German than it does in English.
Going by the Lexicography the txt was WITHOUT QUESTION composed in Greek
since it only makes sence in Greek. A CLEAR pattern emerges, as I have
shown, of the scribes playing common words game which can ONLY make sense if
the original text was GREEK.
> Comparing grammar is a far better means of establishing priority. Here is
where
> the LXX shows itself to be a translation from Hebrew. For example, in the
LXX,
> there is a repetition of the pronoun after the relative pronoun. In
English
> this would be something like "the land which they possessed it." In Greek
this
> is an anomaly. It comes from a literal following of the Hebrew text.
I have already state that the original Greek text used to compile the Bible
were translations of Akkadian and Aramaic historical records. Of cause the
grammar is not going to be perfect. This is why Herodotus chose to
paraphrase the texts he used for his Histories rather than quote them word
for words. It is obvious even to Herodotus that the scribers were playing
word games to make up fantastic creatures that have no place in reality.
>
> There is no basis for claiming that the Hebrew Bible is derived from the
Greek
> translation.
The is EVERY basis that it was so.
>
> Trotter
>
Roge
I just cannot comprehend how nightshirt and donkey desert
peoples can be worshipping a greek god of the oceans.
Can anyone list any civilizations who have an ocean god instead of a god of
light
Roge
<x99s...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:966mtv$crc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Agamemnon
"Roge" <ro...@down52.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> The whole lot of this greek bible business is really crap.
> I just cannot comprehend how nightshirt and donkey desert
> peoples can be worshipping a greek god of the oceans.
> Can anyone list any civilizations who have an ocean god instead of a
god of
> light
Poseidon was also the God of Earthquakes, and Horses. He was also once
the Sky god and the God of light long before Zeus or the Aryian Deios
came on the scene to replace hims. He was analogous to the Canaanite
God El.
Moses if he existed, rather than being a fiction of Judas Maccabee
would have worshiped El.
> Roge
Trotter960
>
> I don't think I agree with that. Social >sciences are valid sciences in
>that they are rational disciplines. No they >are not as reliably predictable
>as chemestry, but then even physical >sciences can get muddy at the edges.
Okay. I can live with that idea of science(s),
too. regardless, "science" does not "trump
scholars" as Matt was trying to say.
Trotter
Trotter960
>These are historical texts referring to the >reign of the Assyrian Kings over
>the Hittites and Syrians. Kyrios which the >so-called "Jews" replace with
>Jehovah, is infact a reference to the Kings >of Assyrian or to any other
>kings or lord or general that is in the same >context. Read it that was an
>the texts makes sense, read differently >and it is nonsense.
What you have written above and elsewhere is hard to understand because you
have written such poor English.
I don't mind saying that I can't disprove it....
because (here comes the old adage) one can not prove a negative.
What I understand about what is written above is shear drivel. There is no
proof for it. No scholar that I have read over the last
25 or so years has ever suggested such an idea.
In defending the idea all that you have
offerred as evidence is your twisted inter-
pretation of the LXX. No extra-canonical
historical sources have been cited (I'll give you credit for LSJ). The sum
total of your
evidence has been to read the LXX as you do... which is wrong.
You don't dialogue with other scholars in your thinking. Your opinion alone has
been the sole source of information.
Therefore the theory is a product of your imagination and nothing more.
Trotter
Trotter960
>Since you have never lived in Greece or >associated with Greeks I doubt that
>you can really understand their language >which inseparable from their
culture.
Remember I once made a remark about your ethnocentricism?
It is true that language does convey culture. But language and culture are not
insepara-
ble. For example, one might learn Russian on one's own and never really gather
much of the culture.
At the same time, the above argues that your interpretation of Ex 3.14 is
correct. It is not. The above is partially true about language and culture but
it does not apply to your translation of the text.
Trotter
Trotter960
>Look in the LSJ.
I have no argument with LSJ. I have an edi-
tion and find nothing wrong with what they have said.
What is wrong is how you apply that info.
WN is a participle. Have a loom at Moulton's analytical lexicon, Machen's
grammar, or any number of other sources.
It looks like you can't parse.
>Argure this out with the LSJ not with me.
As I said, my argument is not with LSJ, but with how you misuse their info.
To be continued later.....
Agamemnon
trott...@aol.com (Trotter960) wrote:
> Tom,
>
> >These are historical texts referring to the >reign of the Assyrian
Kings over
> >the Hittites and Syrians. Kyrios which the >so-called "Jews" replace
with
> >Jehovah, is infact a reference to the Kings >of Assyrian or to any
other
> >kings or lord or general that is in the same >context. Read it that
was an
> >the texts makes sense, read differently >and it is nonsense.
>
> What you have written above and elsewhere is hard to understand
because you
> have written such poor English.
Microsoft OE5 spellchecker, keeps corruptiog my perfeclty good
spellings and replacing them with words I didn't type.
> I don't mind saying that I can't disprove it....
> because (here comes the old adage) one can not prove a negative.
> What I understand about what is written above is shear drivel. There
is no
> proof for it. No scholar that I have read over the last
> 25 or so years has ever suggested such an idea.
That the Hebrew god did not exist. I doubt it.
> In defending the idea all that you have
> offerred as evidence is your twisted inter-
> pretation of the LXX. No extra-canonical
I have read the LXX as it was written. Now why havent you commented on
my translation of Daniel which make more sence thant the Jewish/KJV
tranlations.
KJV version
LXX version
*Tranlation of LXX
Daniel 10:
1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto
Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but
the
time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had
understanding
of the vision. {long: Heb. great}
1 n tw eniautw tw prwtw kurou tou basilewv perswn prostagma edeicyh tw
danihl ov epeklhyh to onoma baltasar kai alhyev to orama kai to
prostagma
kai to plhyov to iscuron dianohyhsetai to prostagma kai dienohyhn auto
en
oramati
*In the presence (or stead) of the first lord of the king of Persia,
bowing
down Daniel accepts the title of Baltasar and the trappings of the
position,
and the salary. The great multitude give their tribute, and this
unfolds in
ceremonial fashion.
(or "In the first year of Cyrus the king.....")
2 In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. {full.: Heb.
weeks
of days}
2 en taiv hmeraiv ekeinaiv egw danihl hmhn penywn treiv ebdomadav
*In those days from thence I/we Daniel gave-penance three weeks
3 I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth,
neither
did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.
{pleasant.: Heb. bread of desires}
3 arton epiyumiwn ouk efagon kai kreav kai oinov ouk eishlyen eiv to
stoma
mou elaion ouk hleiqamhn ewv tou suntelesai me tav treiv ebdomadav twn
hmerwn
*I ate no permitted bread and meat and wine did not enter my mouth. I
burned
no oil until the three weeks ended to the day.
4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the
side of the great river, which is Hiddekel;
4 kai egeneto th hmera th tetarth kai eikadi tou mhnov tou prwtou kai
egw
hmhn epi tou ceilouv tou potamou tou megalou ov esti tigrhv
*And so came to pass the twenty fourth day of the first month and I was
on
the great river Heilous until it reached the Tigiris.
5 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man
clothed
in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: {a.: Heb. one
man}
5 kai hra touv ofyalmouv mou kai eidon kai idou anyrwpov eiv
endedumenov
bussina kai thn osfun periezwsmenov bussinw kai ek mesou autou fwv
*And I rubbed my eyes and looked out, and I saw a man clothed in linen
and
his loins were held in linen and from inside him there was light.
6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of
lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet
like in
colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a
multitude.
6 kai to swma autou wsei yarsiv kai to proswpon autou wsei orasiv
astraphv
kai oi ofyalmoi autou wsei lampadev purov kai oi bracionev autou kai oi
podev wsei calkov exastraptwn kai fwnh laliav autou wsei fwnh yorubou
*And his body was like Tharsis, and his face was like the appearance of
shinning light and his eyes like lamps of fire and his arms and feet
like
shining brass and the voice of his words like the voice thunder.
7 And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw
not
the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to
hide
themselves.
7 kai eidon egw danihl thn orasin thn megalhn tauthn kai oi anyrwpoi oi
ontev met emou ouk eidosan thn orasin tauthn kai fobov iscurov epepesen
ep
autouv kai apedrasan en spoudh
*And I Daniel saw the great sight that was, but the men who were with
me did
not see the sight that was, and great alarm came to them, and they left
in
haste.
8 Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there
remained
no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption,
and I
retained no strength. {comeliness: or, vigour}
8 kai egw kateleifyhn monov kai eidon thn orasin thn megalhn tauthn
kai ouk
egkateleifyh en emoi iscuv kai idou pneuma epestrafh ep eme eiv fyoran
kai
ou katiscusa
*And I was left alone, and I saw the great sight that was, and no
strength
was left in me so my breath retuned to me like a torrent, and I passed
out.
9 Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his
words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the
ground.
9 kai ouk hkousa thn fwnhn laliav autou egw hmhn peptwkwv epi proswpon
mou
epi thn ghn
*And I did not hear what his voice spoke. I/we was fallen with my face
on
the ground.
10 And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and
upon the
palms of my hands. {set: Heb. moved}
10 kai idou ceira proshgage moi kai hgeire me epi twn gonatwn epi ta
icnh
twn podwn mou
*And I saw a hand take hold of me and it lifted me to my knees and the
balls
of my feet.
11 And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the
words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now
sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.
{greatly.: Heb. of desires} {upright: Heb. upon thy standing}
11 kai eipen moi danihl anyrwpov eleeinov ei dianohyhti toiv
prostagmasin
oiv egw lalw epi se kai sthyi epi tou topou sou arti gar apestalhn epi
se
kai en tw lalhsai auton met emou to prostagma touto esthn tremwn
*And he said to me, Daniel, man of pitty, underdressed the meaning of
what I
say to you, and stand in your place. I just reached you in time. And
from
the words he said to me of what occurred it looked terrible.
12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that
thou
didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy
God,
thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
12 kai eipen prov me mh fobou danihl oti apo thv hmerav thv prwthv hv
edwkav to proswpon sou dianohyhnai kai tapeinwyhnai enantion kuriou tou
yeou
sou eishkousyh to rhma sou kai egw eishlyon en tw rhmati sou
*And he said unto me, don't fear Daniel for from the first day you gave
your
face, it is understood and reckoned with the lord your god. He herd your
words and he sent me as of your words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty
days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I
remained there with the kings of Persia. {chief: or, first}
13 kai o strathgov basilewv perswn anyeisthkei enantion mou eikosi kai
mian
hmeran kai idou micahl eiv twn arcontwn twn prwtwn ephlye bohyhsai moi
kai
auton ekei katelipon meta tou strathgou tou basilewv perswn
*And the soldier of the king of Persia stayed with me twenty and one
days.
And I saw Michael in the man who was the only one to help me, and then
the
one there went with the army of the king of Persia.
14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people
in
the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.
14 kai eipen moi hlyon upodeixai soi ti upanthsetai tw law sou ep
escatou
twn hmerwn eti gar orasiv eiv hmerav
*And he told me there have come letters of what your people say
concerning
the day that you had a vision in the morning.
15 And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the
ground, and I became dumb.
15 kai en tw auton lalhsai met emou ta prostagmata tauta edwka to
proswpon
mou epi thn ghn kai esiwphsa
*And in that discussion with me, (were) the things that happened (to me
when) I set my face on the ground and I went silent.
16 And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my
lips:
then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before
me, O
my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have
retained no
strength.
16 kai idou wv omoiwsiv ceirov anyrwpou hqato mou twn ceilewn kai
hnoixa to
stoma mou kai elalhsa kai eipa tw esthkoti apenanti mou kurie kai wv
orasiv
apestrafh epi to pleuron mou ep eme kai ouk hn en emoi iscuv
*And (I recalled) I saw something like the a hand of a man touch my
lips and
I opened my mouth and spoke and said to the one that stood before me,
lord,
and like a vision it returned to my side, inside of me, and not in me
was
any strength.
17 For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for
as
for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there
breath left in me. {the.: or, this servant of my lord}
17 kai pwv dunhsetai o paiv lalhsai meta tou kuriou autou kai egw
hsyenhsa
kai ouk estin en emoi iscuv kai pneuma ou kateleifyh en emoi
*And how is it possble the servant asked his lord. And I (was) withered
and
inside of me was no strength and the breath run out of me.
18 Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a
man,
and he strengthened me,
18 kai proseyhke kai hqato mou wv orasiv anyrwpou kai katiscuse me
*And it happend that stood in front of me, like of a miracle, (was) a
man,
and he came down to me.
19 And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be
strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was
strengthened,
and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.
19 kai eipe moi anyrwpov eleeinov ei mh fobou ugiaine andrizou kai
iscue
kai en tw lalhsai auton met emou iscusa kai eipa lalhsatw o kuriov mou
oti
eniscuse me
*And he said to me man of pity, do not fear, come on act like a man, and
have strength, and from words [with me] I was strengthened, and I said
out,
my god strengthened me.
20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will
I
return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth,
lo, the
prince of Grecia shall come.
20 kai eipen prov me ginwskeiv ti hlyon prov se kai nun epistreqw
diamacesyai meta tou strathgou basilewv twn perswn kai egw exeporeuomhn
kai
idou strathgov ellhnwn eiseporeueto
*And he said to me, do you know what happened to you, and now I (have
to)
return to fight with the army of the king of Persia, I have to go back,
look
the Greek soldiers are in motion.
21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth:
and
there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your
prince.
{holdeth: Heb. strengtheneth himself}
21 kai mala upodeixw soi ta prwta en apografh alhyeiav kai ouyeiv hn o
bohywn met emou uper toutwn all h micahl o aggelov
*And an unfortunate outcome (has came) to you the first of the writing
of
truth. And no one else was to help me except for him, and the messenger
Michael.
> historical sources have been cited (I'll give you credit for LSJ).
The sum
> total of your
I sited the Black Obelisk of Shalamneser, Tacitius, and Herodotus, plus
Robert Graves and Apllodorus.
> evidence has been to read the LXX as you do... which is wrong.
> You don't dialogue with other scholars in your thinking. Your opinion
alone has
> been the sole source of information.
> Therefore the theory is a product of your imagination and nothing
more.
Read the Bible in its ORIGINAL GREEK and you will see it makes more
sence than in the Hebrew translation.
>
> Trotter
Agamemnon
trott...@aol.com (Trotter960) wrote:
> Tom,
>
> >Look in the LSJ.
>
> I have no argument with LSJ. I have an edi-
> tion and find nothing wrong with what they have said.
> What is wrong is how you apply that info.
WN meaning Poseidon fits perfectly into the Biblical passage. God gives
his name and it is Poseidon.
Of the word "WN" meant "Being" then why not use the common spellin "ON".
> WN is a participle. Have a loom at Moulton's analytical lexicon,
Machen's
> grammar, or any number of other sources.
> It looks like you can't parse.
WN as opoesed to ON is clearly a contraction of Poseidon to fit into
the the same space as "El" who is his Canaanite alter ego.
>
> >Argure this out with the LSJ not with me.
>
> As I said, my argument is not with LSJ, but with how you misuse their
info.
>
> To be continued later.....
>
> >The fact that it means Poseidon fits >perfectly into the context of
the
> >Biblical quote and the fact that the Bible >was original composed in
Greek.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Agamemnon
If you understood anything about Minoan culture you would recognise
that Poseidon was their supreme male deity, the God of light, the
earth, the sun and the moon, the underworld and earthquakes.
If as I've shown from Tacitus, Herodotus, Maccabees and Shalmanesers
Obelisk, the Jews were Carian Hittites originating from Crete in Minoan
times then they too would have worshiped Poseidon as their supreme God.
Their women would have been taken by the Mycenaean's as wives and this
would justify the Maccabite claim that the Spartans were of the family
of Abraham.
Iain Parkinson
12/2/01 1:50:
> Iain Parkinson wrote:
>>
>>> The original was in Greek where it makes sense.
>>>
>>>> There is no
>>>> question that the Hebrew Torah advocates monotheism and only monotheism.
>>>
>>> Then you have never read it. No other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
>>>
>>
>> But it is what used to be termed 'henotheism'.
>
> It starts as monotheism and only monotheism and becomes henotheism, a
> term invented solely to salvage the idea the OT folks were monotheists.
>
> This discussion is proceeding under the known facts from science. The
> summation of that is, the books of the bible recite mythology well known
> by science to be false.
Hmmm, sorry I thought you were a serious minded fellow. What known facts
from science are you talking about? How do they undermine my points about
henotheism? Perhaps you are being just as daftly dogmatic as Aggie or as the
average fundamentalist?
I am grinding no theological/metaphysical axe here but perhaps you are. If
as you say you have 'done the history' you should be aware that what I wrote
is the almost universally accepted line amongst non-confessional scholars.
I'm not sure what 'the books of the bible recite mythology well known
by science to be false' is supposed to mean. There are many reputable
scholars of the ancient near east who would doubt the veracity of what is
usually thought to be the 'biblical account'. However there are also plenty
who would see it as a broadly plausible account of the origins of
Israel/Judah. History method involves debate - there is no place for the
imposition of dogma - that of 'believers' 'unbelievers' or whoever.
> It starts as monotheism and only monotheism and becomes henotheism, a
> term invented solely to salvage the idea the OT folks were monotheists.
What do you mean by this? Clearly there is movement from polytheism to
monotheism within the myth and practice of ancient Israel. Whatever value
you ascribe them as sources for history surely you must at least
acknowledge them as sources for the 'history of belief'?
Iain Parkinson
> Iain Parkinson wrote:
>>> In article <963ujn$q80$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
>>> "Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now this will knock you for six.
>>>>
>>>> Translation of the ORGINAL GREEK:
>>>>
>>>> *And the God said to Moses, I am Poseidon, and he said, say this to
>>> the sons
>>>> of Israel: Poseidon has sent me to you.
>>>>
>>> You might actually try learning Greek before spouting this sort of
>>> nonsense. WN is the present participle, nominative singular of the
>>> verb EINAI, to be. Thus, the phrase is translated literally as "I am
>>> the one who is." It bears no relationship to the word ON, rather like
>>> in English saying that heard and herd are the same word.
>>>
>> Don't accuse Aggie of not knowing Greek - he'll respond with the devastating
>> critique that you need to go to the pub more and that the key to it all is a
>> knowledge of contemporary Cypriot pop-songs.
>>
>> When you catch him out on points of grammar or attempting to fool those with
>> no knowledge of Greek by his dodgy 'translations', he'll call you an
>> ignoramus.
>
> While it is quite proper to discuss the books of the bible, old and new
> testaments, as mythology these responses are rather incomprehensible.
If you mean my responses then I can only say that you've not argued with
Aggie before. I am merely citing his method of refutation as seen on
alt.mythology for ages and ages.
> As we _know_ they are myths it is certainly the reasonable thing to
> give more weight to burial shrouds than angels. While burial shroud may
> not be correct we know flat out angels is nonsense.
Hello? What are you talking about here?
>
> And as we know they are myths there is no rational basis for giving the
> version written in a mideastern variation upon Linear B any greater
> weight than the version written in the Greek variation upon Linear B.
> Could you explain your response?
Not being an expert on Linear B I couldn't comment I'm more comfortable
with Koine and Classical Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic ('imperial' and that of
the Targums)
> If you are a believer, none of these newsgroups are appropriate.
And if you are an unbeliever?
Come off it there is no neutral ground - all we can do is try to operate
with an undrstanding of our presuppositions and an attempt to prevent them
unfairly skewing our research methods and conclusions.
Any clearer?
Iain
Matt Giwer
>
> Matt,
>
> > It is not required in a far ranging >discussion such as this to restate
> >the same stipulation in every post.
>
> As far as methodology is concerned, one does not make categorical statements
> when one means to exempt a sizable portion of the data.
As you should know, the media of the newsgroup is not the same as that
of a dissertation or professional publication. The newsgroup media
expects its participants to know what has gone before as it avoids the
common tactic of the "dedicated" to try to start over every so often or
as in this case to pretend early parts of the discussion have not
occurred and attempt to score points with the pretention.
> As far as the historicity of the Bible is concerned, the time of the kings of
> Israel fills the bill just as well as any ancient document.
The time of Kings David and Solomon do not and are equivalent to King
Arthur. Biblical Israel and Camelot are also equivalent. The issue has
been the essentials of its pretense to historicity. Leaving out all but
the post Babylon period reduces it to modestly interesting corroboration
of other sources with no paraticular interest in and of itself.
> So I would agree with you that there is no evidence in favor of an Exodus nor
> of a Conquest. Nothing in Genesis should be considered history. But that leaves
> a sizable portion of the data.
There is much evidence totally contradicting everything from Genesis up
to the post Babylon period. You acknowledge a very small fraction of
what a knowledge of archaeology requires.
> As far as "true beliefs" are concerned, if you can find a confessional type
> statement from me on any post at any time, bring it up. In the mean time, let
> me point out that
> so-called "non-believers" have just as much of an agenda as "believers." To
> them if it
> supports any contention of the credos of Xianity, it has to be attacked and can
> not be true. These latter and Fundies are both prejudiced though for opposite
> reasons.
The issue here is science, specifically archaeology although several
others are involved as they related to archaeology. The few contrary
posts have been from those expressing a Schule or Sunday School level of
knowledge of the subject.
Whether or not a person is an atheist or a believer has no bearing upon
the evidence contradicting the pre-Babylon material.
> >None of them are mentioned in the Torah, >Joshua, Kings or
> >any book purporting to describe events in >"biblical" Israel.
>
> This is just plain wrong. Have a look at the Sennacherib Stela as an
> example.(ANET,
> p 287).
Perhaps you could quote that and highlight just what you think supports
your position.
> >Science trumps "scholars."
>
> This is just plain wrong, too. Science, or the study of a discipline, is what
> scholars do.
You are ignoring, presumably to give them standing, bible "scholars" of
all sorts whose efforts are directed towards establishing either its
literal truth or that it is "really" true after torturing the
_translations_ until they confess.
> Now why am I qualifying this? Because history is never a science.
Archaeology is.
> It is the study of
> events which can not be duplicated as can events in what we commonly call the
> natural sciences. In history agents of causation are never determinative, but
> always contributory.
> Archaeology is sometimes a science. once it crosses the line from a description
> of the data into cause and effect or into a descrip-
> tion of times past, it introduces an element of speculation.
If anything is established in Archaeology it is dating particularly in
continuous strata. Fact is the signs of civilization in Jerusalem peter
out before one gets to the time of David and Solomon. That is far beyond
interpretation. That is fact.
Bible scholors concocting the most elaborate, tortured arguments based
upon bible myths are not going to put signs of civilization where there
are none. They have about as much chance of changing the dating methods
of archaeology based upon bible verses.
> Is archaeology a science? If so, then its scientists should be able to arrive
> at the
> same conclusions just as easily as chem-
> ists do. Instead we see that once upon a time, those buildings in Meggido were
> thought to be stables and now they are per-
> haps a marketplace.
Called stables for no better reason than so called in bible stories is
now more accurately identified.
--
Now I'm kind glad I was cast in hell
Because it's Christmas time in hell.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 427
Carl KICE Brown
Iain Parkinson wrote:
If you mean my responses then I can only say that you've not argued with Aggie
before. I am merely citing his method of refutation as seen on alt.mythology for
ages and ages.
It only seems like ages --
Matt Giwer
> Matt,
> > Then you have never read it. No >other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
> Iain is quite right in that henotheism would be a better term.
And I am correct in the word being invented solely to avoid admitting
it is a description of polytheism. Mono and poly have nothing to do with
worship. _other_ gods from the The Himself is as clear as it can be.
Before you get all bent out of shape the worship of Astarte the consort
of Jahweh has been well estabilshed in Jerusalem until the Romans threw
them out. Worship is the Deific Duo is not in question.
> Now if you will
> have a look at Paul Schafer's _Judeophobia_ you will
If that is to mean phobia as in fear one is hard pressed to find a
legitimate example of it at any point in history supported by
archaeology.
> see that one of the cause of hatred of the jews in antiquity was that they
> would not adopt the gods of the countries in which they resided.
If you mean ancient as meant by this newsgroup there is no basis for
any belief there was any such hatred save from their own writings. As we
have seen their own writings are of Greek origin any nonsense when read
in other but the Greek originals. And since created at such a late date
given the other glaring nonsense they contain there is no reason to take
any claim of hatred seriously.
As to not adopting the local gods that is exactly what was expected of
all foreigners. A people and their gods were the same. It would be very
interesting were archaeologists to find them singled out as the only
people considered different for that reason as all other groups were the
same.
> There are some counter-examples to this such as Elephantine
> where there is apparently some religious syncretism, but that particular charge
> was leveled at the Jews often enough during the Greco-Roman period.
I will be very interested in you quoting Roman and Greek sources of
such charges as in indictments rather than as observations.
> >Very amusing it does not make a lick of sense from the Hebrew but is
> >quite reasonable in Greek.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. What do you *not* see in Hebrew that you can see in Greek?
Burial shrouds instead of angels is one of the most obvious examples
posted recently. Why don't you read some of them?
--
If the entire world is against you, you know you are
correct.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 51
Chris Camfield
wrote:
[snip]
>If you understood anything about Minoan culture you would recognise
>that Poseidon was their supreme male deity, the God of light, the
>earth, the sun and the moon, the underworld and earthquakes.
What a load of complete and utter nonsense!
For starters, we don't have any written records from Minoan times that
have been translated with a general level of acceptance. (I mean,
there have been *attempts* to translate Linear A...)
Further, the archaeological evidence for their religion (a) primarily
shows female deities, and (b) is generally agricultural in nature.
Chris
Matt Giwer
It is always a relief, particularly when discussing science, to realize
the anti-science true believers have run out of reasoned resonses. That
is evidenced by the use of antisemite. Pro or anti and neutral does not
in any manner change the facts.
Nor is the message ever changed by the character of the messenger or by
attacks upon same.
As anyone following the discussion knows this has only been an attempt
to identify the origin of the OT books. This approach may be totally
wrong.
However, Genesis and Exodus remain total garbage and gibberish as
evidence by being replete with miracles. That refers to all forms of
miracles, not just the obvisous ones. Absent the miracles those two
books have no significance even if true. Science also has negated any
biblical Israel regardless of any explanation of who stories about it
started.
--
Weyland-Yutani. Making space a better place to scream.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 325
Matt Giwer
> Pat,
Darwin trumped Bible scholars debating the manner in which creation was
accomplished. Naturalists working the New World post Columbus made
rather short work of Noah. And the benchmark for the origin of the
science of Archaeology was breaking from the rich man's hobby of
verifying the Bible as history with the common recognition what they
were discovering contradicted the Bible as history.
Trump is a very polite way of saying it.
--
The difference between chads and chaos is od.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 384
Matt Giwer
>
> in article 3A874182...@ij.net, Matt Giwer at jul...@ij.net wrote on
> 12/2/01 1:50:
>
> > Iain Parkinson wrote:
> >>
> >>> The original was in Greek where it makes sense.
> >>>
> >>>> There is no
> >>>> question that the Hebrew Torah advocates monotheism and only monotheism.
> >>>
> >>> Then you have never read it. No other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But it is what used to be termed 'henotheism'.
> >
> > It starts as monotheism and only monotheism and becomes henotheism, a
> > term invented solely to salvage the idea the OT folks were monotheists.
> >
> > This discussion is proceeding under the known facts from science. The
> > summation of that is, the books of the bible recite mythology well known
> > by science to be false.
>
> Hmmm, sorry I thought you were a serious minded fellow. What known facts
> from science are you talking about?
The worship of Astarte the consort of Yahweh in Jerusalem until the
Romans threw them out is well know.
> How do they undermine my points about henotheism?
I'd say that is a fair start.
And you ignore my primary response, the term was invented solely to
address the obvious polytheism in the Bible. Making up a new name so you
don't have to call it polytheism is not intellectually honest where
there is in fact scientific evidence of polytheism. I realize the term
was invented so bible "scholars" could avoid addressing the obivous
polytheism in the statement from the THE Himself regarding the other
gods.
Mono or Poly has nothing to do with worship.
> Perhaps you are being just as daftly dogmatic as Aggie or as the
> average fundamentalist?
>
> I am grinding no theological/metaphysical axe here but perhaps you are. If
> as you say you have 'done the history' you should be aware that what I wrote
> is the almost universally accepted line amongst non-confessional scholars.
> I'm not sure what 'the books of the bible recite mythology well known
> by science to be false' is supposed to mean. There are many reputable
> scholars of the ancient near east who would doubt the veracity of what is
> usually thought to be the 'biblical account'. However there are also plenty
> who would see it as a broadly plausible account of the origins of
> Israel/Judah. History method involves debate - there is no place for the
> imposition of dogma - that of 'believers' 'unbelievers' or whoever.
As archaeology has flatly contradicted biblical Israel your statement
has no meaning.
> > It starts as monotheism and only monotheism and becomes henotheism, a
> > term invented solely to salvage the idea the OT folks were monotheists.
>
> What do you mean by this? Clearly there is movement from polytheism to
> monotheism within the myth and practice of ancient Israel.
There was no ancient Israel.
> Whatever value
> you ascribe them as sources for history surely you must at least
> acknowledge them as sources for the 'history of belief'?
It can not be history when the story contains enough blantant
anachronisms to demonstrate beyond all doubt it is a creation centuries
after the purported events.
--
If I am the One, who is the Two?
You are Number Six.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 88
Zimri
>
> There is no basis for claiming that the Hebrew Bible is derived from
the Greek
> translation.
One can however say that some books of the LXX (I am specifically
thinking of Jeremiah) are based on better texts than those that became
the current Hebrew Bible. But even then those texts are Hebrew (ok ok,
and Aramaic, in rare cases). So er... "me too".
Trotter960
>And I am correct in the word being >invented solely to avoid admitting
>it is a description of polytheism.
No.
>Before you get all bent out of shape the >worship of Astarte the consort
>of Jahweh has been well estabilshed in >Jerusalem until the Romans threw
>them out.
I suppose you like to think that you bend me out of shape but what you write
does not do so. Every so often I like to read something that is totally absurd.
_Pass-
over Plot_ is an example here. So are you.
So you think that the worship of Astarte
was well established in Jerusalem until the
Romans? Okay, I'm all ears. tell me all about it and please do not give me just
one
tidbit of evidence. I want to hear it all.
>If that is to mean phobia as in fear one is >hard pressed to find a legitimate
example >of it at any point in history supported by
>archaeology.
I doubt anyone would consider the etxs found at Elephantine to be other than
archaeology in nature.
Since you offer a general staement in re-
sponse, no doubt you have considered a
number of illegitiamte claims. Again I am all ears.
>If you mean ancient as meant by this >newsgroup there is no basis for
>any belief there was any such hatred save >from their own writings.
No, I mean Antiquity as in the time before the demise of the classical world,
usually
the end of the 5th century BCE.
The sources... are also non-Jewish. Need some anti-Jewish sentiment from non-
Jewish sources?
>As we have seen their own writings are of >Greek origin any nonsense when read
>in other but the Greek originals.
What is yet to be seen is the ability of Tom to show that he has any knowledge
of Hebrew at all.
>As to not adopting the local gods that is >exactly what was expected of
>all foreigners.
Nope. If you think so, tell me all about it.
>> There are some counter-examples to this such as Elephantine
>> where there is apparently some religious syncretism, but that particular
>charge
>> was leveled at the Jews often enough during the Greco-Roman period.
>
> I will be very interested in you quoting Roman and Greek sources of
>such charges as in indictments rather than as observations.
Bargain day.... tomorrow. Tonight it is late
for me.
Trotter
Zimri
> Matt,
>
> >And I am correct in the word being >invented solely to avoid
admitting
> >it is a description of polytheism.
>
> No.
>
>
> >Before you get all bent out of shape the >worship of Astarte the
consort
> >of Jahweh has been well estabilshed in >Jerusalem until the Romans
threw
> >them out.
>
> I suppose you like to think that you bend me out of shape but what
you write
> does not do so. Every so often I like to read something that is
totally absurd.
> _Pass-
> over Plot_ is an example here. So are you.
I'm killfiling both Giwer and Aggie.
Iain Parkinson
13/2/01 2:13:
>>> This discussion is proceeding under the known facts from science. The
>>> summation of that is, the books of the bible recite mythology well known
>>> by science to be false.
>>
>> Hmmm, sorry I thought you were a serious minded fellow. What known facts
>> from science are you talking about?
>
> The worship of Astarte the consort of Yahweh in Jerusalem until the
> Romans threw them out is well know.
Really? Until the C1 Jewish revolt or until Bar Cochba? I presume you mean
the latter as there were plenty of Jews in Jerusalem until then.
What evidence do you have in mind that is so well known?
I have no problem with such mingling of Asherah/Astarte/Yahweh/the heavens
etc in the earlier period - cf the Elephantine correspondence and, for the
pre-exilic period, the sources you affect to despise - Kings, Judges and
Samuel.
In fact my point about the trajectory of Israelite religion was that the
monotheism that established itself as dominant after Ezra/Nehemiah was
until that point very much a minority view.
Yes, ancient Israel was polytheistic - its own sacred texts clearly state
and decry what archaeology confirms. Yes they may have been written or at
least finally edited long after the events but so what? A few do not
discredit the whole lot - it just makes the work of studying the
religion/myths and history of the Jews all the more difficult.
>> How do they undermine my points about henotheism?
>
> I'd say that is a fair start.
>
> And you ignore my primary response, the term was invented solely to
> address the obvious polytheism in the Bible. Making up a new name so you
> don't have to call it polytheism is not intellectually honest where
> there is in fact scientific evidence of polytheism. I realize the term
> was invented so bible "scholars" could avoid addressing the obivous
> polytheism in the statement from the THE Himself regarding the other
> gods.
>
> Mono or Poly has nothing to do with worship.
OK I see where you are coming from - but 'before' while not necessarily
requiring worship of only one God does, in the context, fit well with
'henotheism'. Of course 'henotheism' is a scholarly construction - so are
most terms we use in these discussions - that doesn't mean that the
terminology has no referent.
>> There are many reputable scholars of the ancient near east who would doubt
the veracity of what is
>> usually thought to be the 'biblical account'. However there are also plenty
>> who would see it as a broadly plausible account of the origins of
>> Israel/Judah. History method involves debate - there is no place for the
>> imposition of dogma - that of 'believers' 'unbelievers' or whoever.
>
> As archaeology has flatly contradicted biblical Israel your statement
> has no meaning.
Actually archaeology can't flatly contradict anything - and is always
capable of a variety of interpretations. Anyway the methodology which
rigidly seperates 'dirt' from 'text', while understandable in reaction to
the theologically tinted 'biblical archaeology' is itself at constant risk
of skewing the data the other way. There's a constant debate about this in
the literature by the way - try the JSOT Annual from 1975 (?) for an
outline and then most things by Thompson and Lemke for more sustained
argument along the sceptical line. The standard histories usually contain
good discussions of this methodological problem - Bright, Soggin etc.
You might even try 'conservative' writers.
>>> It starts as monotheism and only monotheism and becomes henotheism, a
>>> term invented solely to salvage the idea the OT folks were monotheists.
So where did this fully fledged monotheism spring from?
> There was no ancient Israel.
But this is just tendentious grandstanding - sure the archaeology has not
produced much positively to support the 'traditional' reading of the Bible -
but I'm not defending that view, although others might and quite well.
Incidentally - what have you read that disagrees with your position?
Iain
Trotter960
>And the benchmark for the origin of the
>science of Archaeology was breaking from >the rich man's hobby of
>verifying the Bible as history....
Just exactly when do you think this happened?
Trotter
Trotter960
>The newsgroup media expects its >participants to know what has gone
>before....
To begin with, "media" is a plural.
Other than that there is no such commonly
accepted rule on newsgroups. There are some posters who will write that they
have already explained such and such before (and therefore the matter is
settled), but such is sheer arrogance.
College profs repeat the same courses semester after semester to incoming stu-
dents. But some newsgroup posters think that once they have written it...
somewhere in cyberspace... the subject never needs to be addressed again.
Trotter
Trotter960
>One can however say that some books of >the LXX (I am specifically
>thinking of Jeremiah) are based on better >texts than those that became
>the current Hebrew Bible. But even then >those texts are Hebrew (ok ok,
>and Aramaic, in rare cases). So er... "me >too".
See if you can pick up a copy of Eugene Ulrich's _The Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Origins of the Bible_. There was pluriformity
in the books which became the Bible before the turn of the era. Some portions
were even composed in Greek. But getting from there to saying that the OT was
composed in Greek is a long way.
Trotter
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 06:22 AM, "Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP>
said:
>The ORIGINAL Biblical texts that were written in GREEK are NOT
>referring to God at all.
The original texts were written in Hebrew and Aramaic.
>These are historical texts referring to the reign of the Assyrian
>Kings over the Hittites and Syrians. Kyrios which the so-called
>"Jews" replace with Jehovah,
Wrong again. Jews have never referred to God as "Jehovah". That is a
Christian misreading of Yod Heh Vav Heh, which we pronounce as Adonai
(our Lord.)
>Not according to the 10 Commandments which acknowledges other gods.
>Worship no other Gods before El (ie. Poseidon).
Wrong again. In fact, the form El isn't even used there, much less
refer to Poseidon.
>Since the Bible was composed entirely in Greek reding it in Hebrew
>is irrelevant.
The Septuagint was a translation from the Hebrew, not the original
text.
>In fact Juda Maccabe worshiped the Greek God Uranus (Ouranos) whose
>name can be corrupted to Jehovah as I have shown last year.
No doubt it could, but we have never used such a word. It is a
Christian misreading.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
spam...@library.lspace.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 11:49 PM, Iain Parkinson <ia...@parko.demon.co.uk> said:
>But it is what used to be termed 'henotheism'. Following one God out
>of the many possible. That ancient Judaism continued at the very
>least to breach this command is clear from the Biblical texts.
What is clear is that Jews, including kings, periodically violated
this and many other mitzvoth. But that is a very different proposition
from saying that the theology condoned it.
>There are other gods but we are following this one. (Abraham, Moses
>etc)
I can see how you could read it that way, but there are alternative
readings.
>The other gods are pathetic (cf Elijah vs Baal)
He wasn't saying "They are pathetic."; he was satirically saying "They
don't exist."
Trotter960
>Hebrew is a completely made up >language. No independent records show >that is
was ever spoked prior to the >Maccabite period.
This is wrong. If you think so have a look at _History of the Hebrew Language_
by Angel Saenz-Badillos or at least have a look at _Writings from Ancient
Israel_ by
Klaas Smelik.
>No mention of the complete Bible is made >by the Romans prior to the adoption
>of Christianity in the 4th C AD....
Tell me all about it. Then have a look at
Lee McDonald's _The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon_.
The odds are there was no such thing as a
"complete Bible" before the 4th century.
>> The LXX itself agrees with this. See >>the prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus
>>bar
>>
>NO IT DOES NOT.
Yeah, it does. Just have a look at Sirach.
>Have you ever read the LXX in Greek. If >you have done so you will realise
>that the Greek makes mores sense than >the Hebrew.
I used to have the time to have both the
Hebrew Bible and the LXX side by side on
a table and compare the translations.
Does the Greek make more sense? Only if you know more Greek than Hebrew. Ask
an Israeli if the LXX makes more sense.
>The Seleucids Greeks when they too >power preceded to translate ancient....
This is just a flight of your imagination. Have you ever considered that C-14
dating of some of the DSS places their dates in the 4th century BCE?
Did you know that the earliest textual evidence for the Hebrew Bible is
pre-Exilic?
Did you know that there are Babylonian records which tell of the welfare of a
colony of exiles near Babylon? We know they are Jews by their Hebrew names.
Some names even match those found in the Bible.
The rest of what you wrote is rhetoric save for one point. Time and again you
appeal to the idea that if one could read it in Greek and that it makes better
sense in Greek.
Like I said above: ask an Israeli.
However you do point out that Herodotus
chose to paraphrase rather than quote his sources word for word in many
instances.
I think you will find that the Bible does not restrict Hebrew grammar to
sources used.
Rather the LXX has Hebrew grammar inter-
jected into the stream of the texts.
Trotter.
Trotter960
>Of the word "WN" meant "Being" then >why not use the common spellin "ON".
OUSA is also a form. Why was that not used?
Trotter
Trotter960
>the Jews were Carian Hittites originating >from Crete in Minoan....
You may have thought that you have shown this but you are alone in thinking so.
This time you can not appeal to scholars (more than one) of time past for
support.
Trotter
Trotter960
>For starters, we don't have any written >records.....
You have a couple of points there that I had
not thought of.
Trotter
Trotter960
>Microsoft OE5 spellchecker, keeps >corruptiog my perfeclty good
>spellings and replacing them with words I >didn't type.
Yet there have been times when words were deleted that should have beeen there.
>That the Hebrew god did not exist. I doubt >it.
Yahweh is known from sources which date to the second millenium.
> Now why havent you commented on
>my translation of Daniel which make more sence thant the Jewish/KJV
tranlations.
I did. I said that the KJV used an alternate Greek text. Do the translators of
the KJV
miss the mark? No, all they do is use another Greek text.
This says to me that you are not paying any attention to other forms of the
Greek text of the LXX.
Have a look at Rahlf's LXX.
Trotter
Chris Camfield
Hmm, well, maybe I'll try to write up a more informational posting on
the subject, then.
Chris
Omri Schwarz
> > The original was in Greek where it makes sense.
> >
> >> There is no
> >> question that the Hebrew Torah advocates monotheism and only monotheism.
> >
> > Then you have never read it. No other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
> >
>
> But it is what used to be termed 'henotheism'. Following one God out of the
> many possible. That ancient Judaism continued at the very least to breach
> this command is clear from the Biblical texts. In fact one can read the
> Prophets and the Histories as showing that the history of ancient Israel's
> religion was chiefly polytheist with a marginalised group of henotheists,
> whose ideas became increasingly monotheistic, only (re)gaining control after
> the various partial returns from exile. It is perhaps only after Ezra that
> monotheism was securely established.
>
> ie
>
> There are other gods but we are following this one. (Abraham, Moses etc)
> The other gods are pathetic (cf Elijah vs Baal)
> The other gods are man made. (Isaiah? - I can't remember but the bit about
The destruction of the Golden Calf is out of
step with that succession.
Just ssayin'
> making a god out of part of a bit of wood and a bowl out the rest of it)
> Only our God is real, therefore ours is God of the universe.
>
> If anyone does want to advocate the total concoction of Judaism they'd be
> better off following Giovanni Garbini's sceptical writings than the ravings
> of certain contributers here.
>
> He's wrong too of course but one gets the impression that he can read the
> Bible in Hebrew and knows his Classical and Koine Greek.
>
> Iain
>
--
Omri Schwarz ---
Timeless wisdom of biomedical engineering:
"Noise is principally due to the presence of the
patient." -- R.F. Farr
Aggie-Tom
"Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Matt Giwer" <jul...@ij.net> wrote in message
> news:3A888C64...@ij.net...
> > Trotter960 wrote:
> >
> > > Matt,
> >
>
> >
> > As to not adopting the local gods that is exactly what was expected of
> > interesting were archaeologists to find them singled out as the only
> > people considered different for that reason as all other groups were the
> > same.
>
>
> did not respect the gods or the people they lived with but they did not
> allow foreigners to worship their Gods either.
>
> The Greeks, Romans and Egyptians respected the local deities of other
people
> and identified them with their own.
>
> They Jews were completely isolationist. The were to all intents and
purposes
> biggots.
>
> They thought they could indefinitely play one side of against the other,
> which is what the did during the regna of the Seleucids. When the Romans
cam
> along, this game didn't work, so their God Jehovah got wiped out by
Jupiter.
>
>
>
Aggie-Tom
> Tom,
>
> >Hebrew is a completely made up >language. No independent records show
>that is
> was ever spoked prior to the >Maccabite period.
>
> This is wrong. If you think so have a look at _History of the Hebrew
Language_
> by Angel Saenz-Badillos or at least have a look at _Writings from Ancient
> Israel_ by
> Klaas Smelik.
There was NO Ancient Israel.
If there was then the Egyptians and Herodotus would have mentioned it. Where
were its ports and its centres of trade ? The is NO archaeological evidence
to justify that there was such as unified entity, let alone even a
Jerusalem. Herodotus mentions the Assyrians but no Israel and no Jews.
What you refer to as "Ancient Israel" was the land of the Canaanites ie the
Phoenicians - Palestine and had nothing to do with the biblical Israel which
was Assyria. I have already shown that the biblical Jerusalem could not have
been in its present location, by virtue of Isaiah referring to it being
flood.
>
> >No mention of the complete Bible is made >by the Romans prior to the
adoption
> >of Christianity in the 4th C AD....
>
> Tell me all about it. Then have a look at
> Lee McDonald's _The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon_.
> The odds are there was no such thing as a
> "complete Bible" before the 4th century.
>
>
> >> The LXX itself agrees with this. See >>the prologue of the Wisdom of
Jesus
> >>bar
> >>
> >NO IT DOES NOT.
>
> Yeah, it does. Just have a look at Sirach.
I have read the LXX in the original Greek and it makes more sense than the
Hebrew based KJV.
>
>
> >Have you ever read the LXX in Greek. If >you have done so you will
realise
> >that the Greek makes mores sense than >the Hebrew.
>
> I used to have the time to have both the
> Hebrew Bible and the LXX side by side on
> a table and compare the translations.
> Does the Greek make more sense? Only if you know more Greek than Hebrew.
Ask
> an Israeli if the LXX makes more sense.
It is impossible for the Hebrew to make more sense than the Greek since it
is pure Fantasy.
As I have shown already, with the original Greek version of Daniel, the
correct reading of Kings, and the invention of Serafin from the Greek "Se
Rafin" (Latin "Serif") Cherubim from the Greek "Mahairo-Romfaian", the Greek
always reads mundanely.
The notion of the Hebrew God and the Angels is a PURE INVENTION based on the
misreading of the Greek. The Hebrew mistranslation offers NO way out of this
Fantasy. The Greek ORIGINAL text DOES.
This is all a result of a children's word game that was common among the
Greek scribes. The misinterpretation came about out of a JOKE when scribes
used to replace perfectly mundane Greek words with others which had double
meanings to produce double entendres. This is very common in Greek
literature and this proves that the Bible was originally composed in Greek,
based of Assyrian and Aramaic historical source text that made NO reference
to God. God was read in by the Maccbee "Jews" and originated from "Kyrios"
which was the standard mundane reference to the king of Assyria.
There are NO Hebrew equivalent words to the Greek words that were
mistranslated from the LXX that have a mundane secondary meaning.
Take 1Kings 20:30 (LXX numbering is different from AV numbering)
30 (21:30) kai efugon oi kataloipoi eiv afeka eiv thn polin kai epesen to
teicov epi eikosi kai epta ciliadav andrwn twn kataloipwn kai uiov ader
efugen kai eishlyen eiv ton oikon tou koitwnov eiv to tamieion
Dissembled Church translation.
30 (21:30) And the rest fled to Apheca, into the city; and the wall fell
upon twenty-seven thousand men that were left: and the son of Ader fled, and
entered into {1} an inner chamber, into a closet. {1) Gr. the house of the
chamber}
True Translation.
*And the remainder left for Afeka, to the city, and the wall was demolished
by the twenty-seven thousand men that were there and the son to Ader left
and went into the central building into the treasury.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Aders son locked himself up in a
box and allowed a wall to fall 27,000 on his men. What do you think this
was, the Heisel stadium ? He raided the "Tamieion" the TREASURY in Afeka.
The treasury of the King of Assyria (the was NO Israel) and then presented
terms to the defeated King.
>
> >The Seleucids Greeks when they too >power preceded to translate
ancient....
>
> This is just a flight of your imagination. Have you ever considered that
C-14
> dating of some of the DSS places their dates in the 4th century BCE?
Error Margin +/- 200 years.
> Did you know that the earliest textual evidence for the Hebrew Bible is
> pre-Exilic?
There are no complete or even partial records that resemble the text of any
book of the bible that date before the 1st C AD. What you say is sheer
speculation. Publish the text is you think it resembles that of the bible.
> Did you know that there are Babylonian records which tell of the welfare
of a
> colony of exiles near Babylon? We know they are Jews by their Hebrew
names.
> Some names even match those found in the Bible.
They were names common to provinces of the Assyrian kingdom.
> The rest of what you wrote is rhetoric save for one point. Time and again
you
> appeal to the idea that if one could read it in Greek and that it makes
better
> sense in Greek.
> Like I said above: ask an Israeli.
>
> However you do point out that Herodotus
> chose to paraphrase rather than quote his sources word for word in many
> instances.
> I think you will find that the Bible does not restrict Hebrew grammar to
> sources used.
There is no such thing a Hebrew grammar. This misconception came about
through the flawed translation of the LXX into Aramaic. This text littered
with Greek word combinations which the translator could not (or would not)
translate is what you call Hebrew.
> Rather the LXX has Hebrew grammar inter-
> jected into the stream of the texts.
The LXX was an elementary translation of Assyrian, Aramaic (Syrian) historic
texts. If I went about translating Homer word for word into English taking
little notice of how the grammar in English would sound I would get the same
result. Would anyone call that a new Indo-European language. Certainly not.
>
> Trotter.
Aggie-Tom
> Tom,
>
> >Microsoft OE5 spellchecker, keeps >corruptiog my perfeclty good
> >spellings and replacing them with words I >didn't type.
>
> Yet there have been times when words were deleted that should have beeen
there.
That too. How am I supposed to know what its doing when it doesnt display
the words in context and it cant tell the difference between quoted and
typed text below the header. It assumes everything is spelled correctly
unless you highlight it and thats when this start going wrong. MS Word would
be of more use but I cant use it with newsgroups.
>
>
>
> >That the Hebrew god did not exist. I doubt >it.
>
> Yahweh is known from sources which date to the second millenium.
So is Poseidon. In fact he dates to the third millennium in ancient Crete
and out ranks Zeus.
>
> > Now why havent you commented on
> >my translation of Daniel which make more sence thant the Jewish/KJV
> tranlations.
>
> I did. I said that the KJV used an alternate Greek text. Do the
translators of
> the KJV
> miss the mark? No, all they do is use another Greek text.
The fact that there are two Greek texts and that the text I quoted predate
the text used by the KJV should thus convince you of the manner by which the
text was dissembled.
> This says to me that you are not paying any attention to other forms of
the
> Greek text of the LXX.
> Have a look at Rahlf's LXX.
This says to me that you are deliberately ignoring the fact that the text
that I quoted makes perfect sense, whereas the KJV text makes no sense
because it resorts to fantasy. Even the pattern of this fantasy follows the
same pattern a the text I quoted, thus indicating that the mundane version
that I translated was the original source. Since the KJV version matches the
JPS Massoretic version it is obvious that the Hebrew bible was a translation
of the altered Greek text used by the KJV which was based on the earlier
Greek text I quoted. Thus the Bible was originally composed entirely in
Greek.
>
> Trotter
>
>
>
Aggie-Tom
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:3a894890$16$fuzhry$mr2...@va.news.verio.net...
> In <967vfk$2tm$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, on 02/12/2001
> at 06:22 AM, "Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP>
> said:
>
> >The ORIGINAL Biblical texts that were written in GREEK are NOT
> >referring to God at all.
>
> The original texts were written in Hebrew and Aramaic.
>
> >These are historical texts referring to the reign of the Assyrian
> >Kings over the Hittites and Syrians. Kyrios which the so-called
> >"Jews" replace with Jehovah,
>
> Wrong again. Jews have never referred to God as "Jehovah". That is a
> Christian misreading of Yod Heh Vav Heh, which we pronounce as Adonai
> (our Lord.)
Since it appears as Kyrios in the Original Greek no doubt you would.
>
> >Not according to the 10 Commandments which acknowledges other gods.
> >Worship no other Gods before El (ie. Poseidon).
>
> Wrong again. In fact, the form El isn't even used there, much less
> refer to Poseidon.
>
> >Since the Bible was composed entirely in Greek reding it in Hebrew
> >is irrelevant.
>
> The Septuagint was a translation from the Hebrew, not the original
> text.
>
> >In fact Juda Maccabe worshiped the Greek God Uranus (Ouranos) whose
> >name can be corrupted to Jehovah as I have shown last year.
>
> No doubt it could, but we have never used such a word. It is a
> Christian misreading.
>
IMPOSSIBLE.
The Maccabees were ALL composed in GREEK. Nobody argues with this.
Trotter960
>If there was then the Egyptians and >Herodotus would have mentioned it.
Herodotus wrote at a time when Judea was in its infant stages. Neither Nehemiah
nor Ezra would had arrived on the scene at this time.
Also Palestine was not the focus of the work of Herodotus.
Israel is attested in various inscriptions that predate Herodotus. They include
the Mesha Stela, the Siloam Tunnel inscription, the
Sennacherib Prism, etc. israel is fiirst mentioned in the second millenium.
>Hebrew is a completely made up >language. No independent records show
>that is was ever spoked prior to the >Maccabite period.
There are hundreds of examples of Hebrew
from times prior to the Maccabean (no such thing as Maccabite) period. If
nothing else,
go to Amazon.com and look for Klaas Smelik's book. KAI has numerous exam-
ples and ANET has numerous examples translated into English.
>I have read the LXX in the original Greek >and it makes more sense than the
>Hebrew based KJV.
So you are saying that you have not looked at the OT in Hebrew?
>There are NO Hebrew equivalent words to >the Greek words that were
>mistranslated from the LXX that have a >mundane secondary meaning.
This is a precarious methodology. For example, the LXX translators did not know
any better how to translate Urim and Thummim than as DELOSIS KAI ALE-
THEIA. here is an example of something that might make better sense in Greek
than in Hebrew, but that happened because the translators made a hard to
understand concept easier to understand.
Translators frequently make things easier to understand in the target language.
For example, the Pauline epistles use a lot of participle phrases which create
sentences
that sometimes consume half a page. In English, it is impossible to render any
sort of word for word translation. So translators chop up Paul's sentences into
ones that are more intelligible in English. Translations such as the NIV give
the impression that
sentences start with each verse. In Greek they do not.
>There are no complete or even partial >records that resemble the text of any
>book of the bible that date before the 1st >C AD. What you say is sheer
>speculation.
They are numerous and may be found in books such as Tov's _Textual Criticism of
the Hebrew Bible_ and Wurthwein's _Text
of the Old Testament_. This type of information ought to available on the web
someplace.
>> Did you know that there are Babylonian >>records which tell of the welfare
>>of a colony of exiles near Babylon? We >>know they are Jews by their Hebrew
>>names. Some names even match those >> found in the Bible.
>
>They were names common to provinces of the Assyrian kingdom.
Babylon not Assyria. But since you think that these names were common to pro-
vinces of Assyria, I would be most interested in where you found which names.
>There is no such thing a Hebrew >grammar. This misconception came about
>through the flawed translation of the LXX >into Aramaic.
On one hand you have said that the LXX uses Aramaic sources. Now you say that
the LXX was translated in a flawed way into Aramaic. Which was it?
Do you read Aramaic?
Trotter
Iain Parkinson
ocsc...@mit.edu wrote on 14/2/01 6:39:
> Iain Parkinson <ia...@parko.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> The original was in Greek where it makes sense.
>>>
>>>> There is no
>>>> question that the Hebrew Torah advocates monotheism and only monotheism.
>>>
>>> Then you have never read it. No other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
>>>
>>
>> But it is what used to be termed 'henotheism'. Following one God out of the
>> many possible. That ancient Judaism continued at the very least to breach
>> this command is clear from the Biblical texts. In fact one can read the
>> Prophets and the Histories as showing that the history of ancient Israel's
>> religion was chiefly polytheist with a marginalised group of henotheists,
>> whose ideas became increasingly monotheistic, only (re)gaining control after
>> the various partial returns from exile. It is perhaps only after Ezra that
>> monotheism was securely established.
>>
>> ie
>>
>> There are other gods but we are following this one. (Abraham, Moses etc)
>> The other gods are pathetic (cf Elijah vs Baal)
>> The other gods are man made. (Isaiah? - I can't remember but the bit about
>
>
> The destruction of the Golden Calf is out of
> step with that succession.
>
Is it? - If you see the Golden Calf as worship of a rival God to that of
Moses then it fits fine - that God is 'real' but rejected by Moses.
Alternatively, is the problem that in producing an image - as the bearer of
YHWH perhaps - the Hebrews are more in danger of a literal idolatry than of
worshipping another? Mind you, perhaps the details of the story are
projected back in time from the disputes about religious practice between
Judah and Israel - weren't there Golden calves in Samariaa or Dan? (I'll
have to look that up - it's just a recollection at present.)
Iain
Omri Schwarz
> in article oct8zn9...@mint-square.mit.edu, Omri Schwarz at
> ocsc...@mit.edu wrote on 14/2/01 6:39:
>
> > Iain Parkinson <ia...@parko.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >>> The original was in Greek where it makes sense.
> >>>
> >>>> There is no
> >>>> question that the Hebrew Torah advocates monotheism and only monotheism.
> >>>
> >>> Then you have never read it. No other gods BEFORE is not monotheism.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But it is what used to be termed 'henotheism'. Following one God out of the
> >> many possible. That ancient Judaism continued at the very least to breach
> >> this command is clear from the Biblical texts. In fact one can read the
> >> Prophets and the Histories as showing that the history of ancient Israel's
> >> religion was chiefly polytheist with a marginalised group of henotheists,
> >> whose ideas became increasingly monotheistic, only (re)gaining control after
> >> the various partial returns from exile. It is perhaps only after Ezra that
> >> monotheism was securely established.
> >>
> >> ie
> >>
> >> There are other gods but we are following this one. (Abraham, Moses etc)
> >> The other gods are pathetic (cf Elijah vs Baal)
> >> The other gods are man made. (Isaiah? - I can't remember but the bit about
> >
> >
> > The destruction of the Golden Calf is out of
> > step with that succession.
> >
> Is it? - If you see the Golden Calf as worship of a rival God to that of
Well, it fits the 'other gods are man made' phase.
But if you change your theory from a
gradual development of the religion to
a gradual adoption of the religion by the
general Israelite populace, then
the story does not challenge it.
> Moses then it fits fine - that God is 'real' but rejected by Moses.
> Alternatively, is the problem that in producing an image - as the bearer of
> YHWH perhaps - the Hebrews are more in danger of a literal idolatry than of
> worshipping another? Mind you, perhaps the details of the story are
> projected back in time from the disputes about religious practice between
> Judah and Israel - weren't there Golden calves in Samariaa or Dan? (I'll
> have to look that up - it's just a recollection at present.)
>
> Iain
>
--
Matt Giwer
The bronze serpent god does the curing all by itself.
> But if you change your theory from a
> gradual development of the religion to
> a gradual adoption of the religion by the
> general Israelite populace, then
> the story does not challenge it.
There was never an Israel nor Israelites. We are not dealing with myths
in this discussion.
--
In WWII Britain used the old "start a world war to prevent
a world war" trick. Some say it worked better than could
have been imagined.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 28
Trotter960
>So is Poseidon. In fact he dates to the >third millennium in ancient Crete
>and out ranks Zeus.
Ah, but Yahwism is extant plenty long enough to be the legitimate religion of
the Israelites. It does not matter that
Poseidon may be attested from some
locale at an earlier date.
>The fact that there are two Greek texts >and that the text I quoted predate
>the text used by the KJV should thus >convince you of the manner by which the
>text was dissembled.
One of the ways which I mentioned by which one might prove the priority of one
translation over another is by the dating of the known textual witnesses.
However this
favors Hebrew.
> are deliberately ignoring the fact that the >text that I quoted makes perfect
sense, >whereas the KJV text makes no sense...
Yes, I am. I don't see how the KJV comes into play in establishing the priority
of either
the Hebrew or Greek translation.
>....because it resorts to fantasy....
Bear in mind that the KJV relies upon a
Greek text in the instance that we pre-
viously mentioned.
Trotter
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 09:49 AM, "Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP>
said:
>Since it appears as Kyrios in the Original Greek no doubt you would.
What original Greek? The Septuagint is a translation.
>IMPOSSIBLE.
>The Maccabees were ALL composed in GREEK. Nobody argues with this.
What does that have to do with the status of the Tanach? The books of
the Maccabees are part of the Christian scriptures, not part of ours.
Matt Giwer
>
> In <967vfk$2tm$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, on 02/12/2001
> at 06:22 AM, "Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP>
> said:
>
> >The ORIGINAL Biblical texts that were written in GREEK are NOT
> >referring to God at all.
>
> The original texts were written in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Why do they make sense in Greek and gibberish in Hebrew? Unless of
course you believe in angels and gods and magic that is.
--
Abortion is eugenics.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 311
M&M Grossman
Matt Giwer wrote:.........
There was never an Israel nor Israelites. We are not dealing with myths
> in this discussion.
>
I told you to go back to reading the Protocols and the "reality" your Nazi kind should
like. You really belong in the subliminal Valhalla with Nilus, Schtreiher, Rosenberg
and Nasser.
M&M Grossman
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote:
> What does that have to do with the status of the Tanach? The books of
> the Maccabees are part of the Christian scriptures, not part of ours.
>
The book of the Maccabees (I and II) is a part of Christian Orthodox and
Catholic 2nd canon in their Septuaginta and Vulgate. But the text was not
invented by the Christian writers and is well reported in the Jewish
sources (take Josephus for a change). Just because some Christians (not
the Protestants) placed these writings in their bibles must not make them
less important for us.
P.S. How about Ezdra: he is not in the Tanach either.
Matt Giwer
>
> Tom,
>
> >Hebrew is a completely made up >language. No independent records show >that is
> was ever spoked prior to the >Maccabite period.
>
> This is wrong. If you think so have a look at _History of the Hebrew Language_
> by Angel Saenz-Badillos or at least have a look at _Writings from Ancient
> Israel_ by
> Klaas Smelik.
If there was an ancient Israel, why did it leave no trace? Another of
those useful miracles invoked to deal with unpleasant facts of science?
To deal with the embarassing lack of evidence?
> >No mention of the complete Bible is made >by the Romans prior to the adoption
> >of Christianity in the 4th C AD....
> Tell me all about it. Then have a look at
> Lee McDonald's _The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon_.
> The odds are there was no such thing as a
> "complete Bible" before the 4th century.
That is correct, under Constantine. We note however only the first five
books of the Christian Bible which constitute the Torah as considered
sacred by Jews. The rest chosen by Christians were later elevated by
Jews to quasi-sacred status.
--
I am not a physician. I am not licensed to tap
the knees of liberals with a mallet.
But I am licensed by Black & Decker.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 18
Matt Giwer
>
> at 09:49 AM, "Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP>
> said:
>
> >Since it appears as Kyrios in the Original Greek no doubt you would.
>
> What original Greek? The Septuagint is a translation.
If it does not make sense in Hebrew and does make sense in Greek, which
is the very poor translation?
> >IMPOSSIBLE.
> >The Maccabees were ALL composed in GREEK. Nobody argues with this.
>
> What does that have to do with the status of the Tanach? The books of
> the Maccabees are part of the Christian scriptures, not part of ours.
Why is it barely six months ago people who jumped in with both feet
attacking the historicity of Jesus are now gung ho for texts with even
less support?
Be that as it may, only the first five books of the Christian Bible are
considered sacred by Jews. Those leave off with Moses been shown the
Promised Land an dying. Then starts the non-sacred Joshua in a land a
week's walk from the Nile and which could not have been seen as
described by Moses as there is no such mountain.
If you love the Torah, Joshua was in the wrong country.
--
If gays want to get out of the gene pool there is
obviously nothing lost.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 229
Matt Giwer
Your type is the first to jump in attacking the historicity of Jesus
and the first to lose by using the N-word when it comes to your sacred
myths.
--
World War II was the first war where the truth
was not the first victim.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 220
Matt Giwer
>
> Matt,
>
> >And the benchmark for the origin of the
> >science of Archaeology was breaking from >the rich man's hobby of
> >verifying the Bible as history....
>
> Just exactly when do you think this happened?
Exactly why do you care as you know the OT and Torah are absurd if for
no other reason than the magic and miracles?
No rational person takes seriously any story containing miracles and
magic.
But you are desperate to salvage them. Why? You are coming across as a
fundie.
--
Haaretz headline
Our victims are stories. Their victims are statistics.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 266
nisse
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote:
>
> In <967vfk$2tm$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, on 02/12/2001
> at 06:22 AM, "Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP>
> said:
>
> >The ORIGINAL Biblical texts that were written in GREEK are NOT
> >referring to God at all.
>
> The original texts were written in Hebrew and Aramaic.
>
> >These are historical texts referring to the reign of the Assyrian
> >Kings over the Hittites and Syrians. Kyrios which the so-called
> >"Jews" replace with Jehovah,
>
> Wrong again. Jews have never referred to God as "Jehovah". That is a
> Christian misreading of Yod Heh Vav Heh, which we pronounce as Adonai
> (our Lord.)
So???
I really doubt that Aggie-Tom has any point in this at all, BUT isn't
the Hebrew name of God "forgotten" according to tradition? And, being
forgotten (approx) at the destruction of the Temple, as the "inner
circle (perhaps only some 2 persons)" that knew the (secret) name of
God (the correct pronounciation of JHWH) was scattered/killed?
(how ironical, if the pronounciation *would* be the same as the name of
a Greek god....)
// N
Iain Parkinson
14/2/01 22:49:
Assuming that reported of worshipping the golden calf isn't shorthand for
worshipped Baal or someone else for whom the calf may have been a
representation.
> The bronze serpent god does the curing all by itself.
Interesting story isn't it. The serpent however isn't described as a god.
>> But if you change your theory from a
>> gradual development of the religion to
>> a gradual adoption of the religion by the
>> general Israelite populace, then
>> the story does not challenge it.
>
I've no problem with that. In any case I wasn't trying to suggest the
transition was straightforwardly linear.
In practice there's not much difference between 'development of' and
'adoption by' both would look the same from this distance.
Iain
Trotter960
>But you are desperate to salvage them. >Why? You are coming across as a
>fundie.
That's one of the hazards of writing on a newsgroup when there are so many
people with agendas of their own. There are fundies who insist that each and
every word of the Bible is literally true. There are also
those of an opposite exteme that concoct
all sorts of explanations designed to deny
the Bible any sort of accuracy or authority.
In between these extremes are folks like me who find no reason to deny that
Jesus
ever existed or that the OT history of the kings of Israel is in the same
league as the chronicles of nearby peoples.
Take the Mesha Stela as an example. I don't recall that anyone on any newsgroup
I have ever read has tried to take one of the extreme positions toward it. No
one has ever asserted that Mesha and his kingdom of Moab are fictional writing
and no more.
On the other end of the spectrum, I know of no one who believes in Chemosh.
With a certain amount of detachment, everyone thinks that there once was a
fellow named Mesha who believed that a deity named Chemosh was responsible for
the change in the political fortunes of his country. It is my opinion that the
same detachment ought to be exercised toward
the study of the Bible as a historical document.
M>> >And the benchmark for the origin of the
>> >science of Archaeology was breaking from >the rich man's hobby of
>> >verifying the Bible as history....
>>
T>> Just exactly when do you think this happened?
>
M> Exactly why do you care as you know the OT and Torah are absurd if for
>no other reason than the magic and miracles?
So when do you think this happened?
Trotter
Trotter960
>If there was an ancient Israel, why did it >leave no trace?
I would disagree with this and say taht ancient Israel did leave signs of its
existence. In fact it left more than many
other. For example, there are 21 ostraca
which are correspondence sent between Lachish and Jerusalem during the time
of the Babylonian invasion of 587 BCE.
The military commander in Jerusalem is
questioning his subordinate in Lachish as to whether the latter is involved in
an attempt to have Jerusalem surrender to
the Egyptians rather than Babylon.
Trotter
Trotter960
> BUT isn't the Hebrew name of God >"forgotten" according to tradition?....
Just according to tradition. In fact this was not so. There are a couple of
Church Fathers who provided transliterations such as IAUE thus confirming the
scholarly guess of Yahweh.
Trotter
Matt Giwer
Making extrabiblical assumptions is for Van Daniken.
> > The bronze serpent god does the curing all by itself.
>
> Interesting story isn't it. The serpent however isn't described as a god.
It cures as gods do. Next question.
> >> But if you change your theory from a
> >> gradual development of the religion to
> >> a gradual adoption of the religion by the
> >> general Israelite populace, then
> >> the story does not challenge it.
> >
> I've no problem with that. In any case I wasn't trying to suggest the
> transition was straightforwardly linear.
> In practice there's not much difference between 'development of' and
> 'adoption by' both would look the same from this distance.
>
> Iain
--
If Israel really wanted peace they would cease
the criminal military occupation of lands
outside of Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 413
Matt Giwer
> Matt,
> >But you are desperate to salvage them. Why? You are coming across as a
> >fundie.
> That's one of the hazards of writing on a newsgroup when there are so many
> people with agendas of their own. There are fundies who insist that each and
> every word of the Bible is literally true. There are also
> those of an opposite exteme that concoct all sorts of explanations designed to deny
> the Bible any sort of accuracy or authority.
The observation that there in no physical evidence for its claims even
discounting the magic without which it could not have occurred is not an
alternate theory. It is a fact.
I know there is a generic fear of the "no physical evidence" route as
it applies to everything and to some clearly off topic things brought up
in this newsgroup.
Because of that fear many falsely portray the observation as an
alternate explanation. I suggest you learn to adopt it and not fear
where it leads you.
And that just gives the magic believers the best of it. Any rational
person not raised with the magic would put it in the fantasy pile with
the first read.
> In between these extremes are folks like me who find no reason to deny that
> Jesus
> ever existed or that the OT history of the kings of Israel is in the same
> league as the chronicles of nearby peoples.
You deliberately confound the observation of lack of physical evidence
with some conspiracy to deny. There is nothing to deny that does not
exist in physical evidence first. As it does not exist in physical
evidence it is not worth more than the observation of non-existance.
> Take the Mesha Stela as an example. I don't recall that anyone on any newsgroup
> I have ever read has tried to take one of the extreme positions toward it. No
> one has ever asserted that Mesha and his kingdom of Moab are fictional writing
> and no more.
> On the other end of the spectrum, I know of no one who believes in Chemosh.
Belief is of no bearing as billions believe in miracles.
> With a certain amount of detachment, everyone thinks that there once was a
> fellow named Mesha who believed that a deity named Chemosh was responsible for
> the change in the political fortunes of his country. It is my opinion that the
> same detachment ought to be exercised toward
> the study of the Bible as a historical document.
Which is of no bearing to the first five books of the Bible also call
the Torah which are flatly contradicted by every science and by
experience for that matter.
> M>> >And the benchmark for the origin of the
> >> >science of Archaeology was breaking from >the rich man's hobby of
> >> >verifying the Bible as history....
> >>
> T>> Just exactly when do you think this happened?
> >
> M> Exactly why do you care as you know the OT and Torah are absurd if for
> >no other reason than the magic and miracles?
>
> So when do you think this happened?
Why should I try to give credibility to myth?
--
Israeli lies are as thick as the fleas on their women.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 442
Matt Giwer
>
> Matt,
>
> >If there was an ancient Israel, why did it >leave no trace?
>
> I would disagree with this and say taht ancient Israel did leave signs of its
> existence.
Present the physical evidence.
--
Rocks were non-lethal at Kent State. The are lethal in the
occupied territories. Who increased the lethality of rocks
and what is the patent number?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 258
Trotter960
>Present the physical evidence.
As I recall, I did post an example of evidence in the last post on this thread.
On the other hand, since the general asser-
tion is yours, may I invite you to explain why you think that Israel never
existed. The rub of the matter is that I could cite items such as the Merneptah
Stela. Why would you not accept such as physical evidence?
Trotter
Trotter960
>The observation that there in no physical >evidence for its claims even
>discounting the magic without which it >could not have occurred is not an
>alternate theory. It is a fact.
I'm not sure that I understand your point here.
However as far as the historicity of the monarchy is concerned, it is my
opinion that the historicity is just as well attested
as many in the ANE and better than many.
Don't like the sources? Okay, but they are better than most. Have a look at the
sources for some other perons or events from the ANE.
Trotter
Aggie-Tom
"Iain Parkinson" <ia...@parko.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B6B17834.B232%ia...@parko.demon.co.uk...
> >>>> The destruction of the Golden Calf is out of
> >>>> step with that succession.
> >>>>
> >>> Is it? - If you see the Golden Calf as worship of a rival God to that
of
> >>
> >> Well, it fits the 'other gods are man made' phase.
>
> Assuming that reported of worshipping the golden calf isn't shorthand for
> worshipped Baal or someone else for whom the calf may have been a
> representation.
> > The bronze serpent god does the curing all by itself.
Oh dear dear dear.....
The Golden Calf was made for the Goddess Io (Greek "Ioun")
Herodotus.
[2.41] The male kine, therefore, if clean, and the male calves, are used for
sacrifice by the Egyptians universally; but the females they are not allowed
to sacrifice, since they are sacred to Isis. The statue of this goddess has
the form of a woman but with horns like a cow, resembling thus the Greek
representations of Io; and the Egyptians, one and all, venerate cows much
more highly than any other animal. This is the reason why no native of
Egypt, whether man or woman, will give a Greek a kiss, or use the knife of a
Greek, or his spit, or his cauldron, or taste the flesh of an ox, known to
be pure, if it has been cut with a Greek knife.
Ioun, (latin Luna) or Io was the moon Goddess, was brought to Greece by the
Phoenicians. From there the Ionian Hellenes took her worship to the
colonises they founded in Asia-Minor, Syria, Libya and Egypt as recalled by
the myth of the abduction of Io by Zeus. This makes the Ionians, or
worshipers of Ioun, the Sea-People who conquered the Egyptians and the
Hittites.
The Persians called these sea people the "Yauna", which is exactly the same
name the Ottoman Turks gave to the Greeks of Anatolia, the "Yuni"
So we have 5 names for Io, Ioun, Yauna, Luna, and Yuni.
"Ba yauna" is also the Persian name for the Philistines whoe the Cretan
Greeks who settled Phoenicia.
Now funnily enough the so-called "Jews" used the reference of "Yewanim" to
justify that they were in captivity. But the IONIANS WERE GREEKS !!!!
Yet again the so-called "Jews", a corruption of the world Hittites, and
according to Tacitus a Cretan tribe that settled in Phoenicia, possibly
Minoan Carian Hittites, have manufactured a LIE.
The were NEVER any "Jews", "Israelis" or "Hebrews". These names were STOLEN
from other peoples historiies. The Hittites, the Syrians of the city of
Assur, and the Arab Bandits known to the Greeks as the "Hebraii" literally
meaning to Terrorise, Rebel or go Crazy.
The name of their so-called "god" YHWH is quite obviously derived from the
name of Io, Ioun or Yauna.
Put the pieces together people.
The God of Moses was POSEIDON, as CLEARLY stated in the Bible. He comes down
from taking the 10 Commandments and sees his people following the cult which
the Sea People, the Ionian Greeks brought to the entire middle east after
destroying the Hittite kingdom that was there prior.
Pharaoh Ramsess III, a name meaning "beholden of Tamouzi" or Moses kicks the
Sea People or Yauna out of Egypt at about the same time that the so-called
Exodus is supped to take place.
YAUNA stripped of its vowels and leaving in the breath marls gives you YHUNH
or YHWH in the concocted "Hebrew" language.
EVERYTHING in the Pentateuch is based on GREEK Mythology from the Flood of
Deukalion (Noah) to the Journey of Io (Exodus).
And the reason for this FAKE history.
Simple.
After the Romans brought about the downfall of the Seleucids, who were
having serious problems with Arab Terrorists in their southern provinces, of
the sort referred to by Herodotus and Josephus and the Koran, i.e. Attacks
of Trade Caravans, Kidnapping and Hostage Taking for Ransom, the Maccabite
Bedouin Bandits petitioned the Romans for control of the land. These
Maccabite FAKED the entire history of the so-celled "Jews" so as to make an
ancestral claim to the land of the Greeks. EVERYTHING in the bible from
Genesis onwards was composed in GREEK from this time onwards, approximately
135BC, and incorporated Assyrian, and Babylonian texts translated into
Greek and later dissembled and illiterately translated into Aramaic so badly
that this dialect, with barley any Adjectives or Adverbs, became known as
"Hebrew"
Everything in Jewish history is a LIE.
Iain Parkinson
> Making extrabiblical assumptions is for Van Daniken.
But this isn't 'extrabiblical' - people who make statues for worship usually
have some deity in mind. I stated the position as it stands in the text,
that the calf was in some sense representational of YHWH. Some scholars have
suggested that the image stood for another deity, others that the story is a
polemic against 'heretical' worship of YHWH in the northern kingdom.
Given that you seem to think that there was no ancient Judaism at all I
wonder which of us is adopting Von Daniken's 'methods'?
>>> The bronze serpent god does the curing all by itself.
>>
>> Interesting story isn't it. The serpent however isn't described as a god.
>
> It cures as gods do. Next question.
Now that is an example of Von Daniken logic.
Now who's making extra-biblical assumptions? You might want to suggest that
the serpent represents some lost early Israelite deity but that is not the
role it plays in the text as it stands.
Iain
Iain Parkinson
cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP wrote on 16/2/01 11:07:
>
> "Iain Parkinson" <ia...@parko.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B6B17834.B232%ia...@parko.demon.co.uk...
>> in article 3A8B0B5C...@ij.net, Matt Giwer at jul...@ij.net wrote on
>> 14/2/01 22:49:
>
>>>>>> The destruction of the Golden Calf is out of
>>>>>> step with that succession.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Is it? - If you see the Golden Calf as worship of a rival God to that
> of
>>>>
>>>> Well, it fits the 'other gods are man made' phase.
>>
>> Assuming that reported of worshipping the golden calf isn't shorthand for
>> worshipped Baal or someone else for whom the calf may have been a
>> representation.
>>> The bronze serpent god does the curing all by itself.
>
>
> Oh dear dear dear.....
>
> The Golden Calf was made for the Goddess Io (Greek "Ioun")
>
Guff,guff,guff.
This is alt.mythology (and others) guys, not anti-semites anonymous.
Iain
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 12:19 AM, M&M Grossman <gro...@ix.netcom.com> said:
>The book of the Maccabees (I and II) is a part of Christian Orthodox
>and Catholic 2nd canon in their Septuaginta and Vulgate. But the text
>was not invented by the Christian writers and is well reported in the
>Jewish sources (take Josephus for a change).
Certainly, but when he is disputing the authenticity of the Tanach,
the status of the Tosephta is not relevant.
Aggie-Tom
>
> > Making extrabiblical assumptions is for Van Daniken.
>
> But this isn't 'extrabiblical' - people who make statues for worship
usually
> have some deity in mind. I stated the position as it stands in the text,
> that the calf was in some sense representational of YHWH. Some scholars
have
> suggested that the image stood for another deity, others that the story is
a
> polemic against 'heretical' worship of YHWH in the northern kingdom.
> Given that you seem to think that there was no ancient Judaism at all I
> wonder which of us is adopting Von Daniken's 'methods'?
YHWH was none other than the Cow Eyed Goddess Io, Ioun or YAUNA. This is the
only explanation which fits in with the historic and archaeological record.
Moses wanted to worship Poseidon instead, indicating a change from a
Matriarchal to Patriarchal system of belief.
Why not just accept thay the so-called "Jews" were polytheistic. Monotheism
only developed at the time of the Maccabees when the High Priests claimed
they were Gods.
It was NEVER a Jewish invention.
Herodotus.
[2.172] After Apries had been put to death in the way that I have described
above, Amasis reigned over Egypt. He belonged to the canton of Sais, being a
native of the town called Siouph. At first his subjects looked down on him
and held him in small esteem, because he had been a mere private person, and
of a house of no great distinction; but after a time Amasis succeeded in
reconciling them to his rule, not by severity, but by cleverness. Among his
other splendour he had a golden foot-pan, in which his guests and himself
were wont upon occasion to wash their feet. This vessel he caused to be
broken in pieces, and made of the gold an image of one of the gods, which he
set up in the most public place in the whole city; upon which the Egyptians
flocked to the image, and worshipped it with the utmost reverence. Amasis,
finding this was so, called an assembly, and opened the matter to them,
explaining how the image had been made of the foot-pan, wherein they had
been wont formerly to wash their feet and to put all manner of filth, yet
now it was greatly reverenced. "And truly," he went on to say, "it had gone
with him as with the foot-pan. If he was a private person formerly, yet now
he had come to be their king. And so he bade them honour and reverence him."
Such was the mode in which he won over the Egyptians, and brought them to be
content to do him service.
Aggie-Tom
Oh my, oh my, oh my....
Instead of addressing the substance of my revelations you resort to the
"a-s" word, which you don't even know the meaning of.
Hares the original source of the Golden Calf Myth.
Herodotus:
[2.129] After Chephren, Mycerinus (they said), son of Cheops, ascended the
throne. This prince disapproved the conduct of his father, re-opened the
temples, and allowed the people, who were ground down to the lowest point of
misery, to return to their occupations, and to resume the practice of
sacrifice. His justice in the decision of causes was beyond that of all the
former kings. The Egyptians praise him in this respect more highly than any
of their other monarchs, declaring that he not only gave his judgments with
fairness, but also, when any one was dissatisfied with his sentence, made
compensation to him out of his own purse, and thus pacified his anger.
Mycerinus had established his character for mildness, and was acting as I
have described, when the stroke of calamity fell on him. First of all his
daughter died, the only child that he possessed. Experiencing a bitter grief
at this visitation, in his sorrow he conceived the wish to entomb his child
in some unusual way. He therefore caused a cow to be made of wood, and after
the interior had been hollowed out, he had the whole surface coated with
gold; and in this novel tomb laid the dead body of his daughter.
[2.130] The cow was not placed under ground, but continued visible to my
times: it was at Sais, in the royal palace, where it occupied a chamber
richly adorned. Every day there are burnt before it aromatics of every kind;
and all night long a lamp is kept burning in the apartment. In an adjoining
chamber are statues which the priests at Sais, declared to represent the
various concubines of Mycerinus. They are colossal figures in wood, of the
number of about twenty, and are represented naked. Whose images they really
are, I cannot say - I can only repeat the account which was given to me.
[2.131] Concerning these colossal figures and the sacred cow, there is also
another tale narrated, which runs thus: "Mycerinus was enamoured of his
daughter, and offered her violence - the damsel for grief hanged herself,
and Mycerinus entombed her in the cow. Then her mother cut off the hands of
all her tiring - maids, because they had sided with the father, and betrayed
the child; and so the statues of the maids have no hands." All this is mere
fable in my judgment, especially what is said about the hands of the
colossal statues. I could plainly see that the figures had only lost their
hands through the effect of time. They had dropped off, and were still lying
on the ground about the feet of the statues.
[2.132] As for the cow, the greater portion of it is hidden by a scarlet
coverture; the head and neck, however, which are visible, are coated very
thickly with gold, and between the horns there is a representation in gold
of the orb of the sun. The figure is not erect, but lying down, with the
limbs under the body; the dimensions being fully those of a large animal of
the kind. Every year it is taken from the apartment where it is kept, and
exposed to the light of day - this is done at the season when the Egyptians
beat themselves in honour of one of their gods, whose name I am unwilling to
mention in connection with such a matter. They say that the daughter of
Mycerinus requested her father in her dying moments to allow her once a year
to see the sun
Roge
particular
the Hymm to Aten and Psalm 104
I don't think that you understand that there are a lot of similarities
between the religion of
the egyptians, mayas,celts,greeks,for example the greeks got their ideas
about reincarnation
when pythagoras went to live amongst the celts and that started their
philosophy
I don't think the greeks invented anything to do with religion.
The jews got their religion from egypt and they got theirs from the european
monolith builders
Roge
"Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote in message
news:96j1l0$i9f$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Aggie-Tom
"Trotter960" <trott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010215171422...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
THIS WAS NOT ISRAEL
Israel DID NOT exist.
Why does Herodotus mention the Arabs and Syria extending from the borders of
Egypt BUT NO Judea or Israel.
The archaeology does not even fit. Jerusalem was just a Minor encampment.
Herodotus.
[2.158] Psammetichus left a son called Necos, who succeeded him upon the
throne. This prince was the first to attempt the construction of the canal
to the Red Sea - a work completed afterwards by Darius the Persian - the
length of which is four days' journey, and the width such as to admit of two
triremes being rowed along it abreast. The water is derived from the Nile,
which the canal leaves a little above the city of Bubastis, near Patumus,
the Arabian town, being continued thence until it joins the Red Sea. At
first it is carried along the Arabian side of the Egyptian plain, as far as
the chain of hills opposite Memphis, whereby the plain is bounded, and in
which lie the great stone quarries; here it skirts the base of the hills
running in a direction from west to east, after which it turns and enters a
narrow pass, trending southwards from this point until it enters the Arabian
Gulf. From the northern sea to that which is called the southern or
Erythraean, the shortest and quickest passage, which is from Mount Casius,
the boundary between Egypt and Syria, to the Gulf of Arabia, is a distance
of exactly one thousand furlongs. But the way by the canal is very much
longer on account of the crookedness of its course. A hundred and twenty
thousand of the Egyptians, employed upon the work in the reign of Necos,
lost their lives in making the excavation. He at length desisted from his
undertaking, in consequence of an oracle which warned him "that he was
labouring for the barbarian." The Egyptians call by the name of barbarians
all such as speak a language different from their own.
Apries = Wahibre 589-570BC.
Why is there NO mention of any Jews.
THE JEWS DID NOT EXIST.
[2.161] Psammis reigned only six years. He attacked Ethiopia, and died
almost directly afterwards. Apries, his son, succeeded him upon the throne,
who, excepting Psammetichus, his great-grandfather, was the most prosperous
of all the kings that ever ruled over Egypt. The length of his reign was
twenty-five years, and in the course of it he marched an army to attack
Sidon, and fought a battle with the king of Tyre by sea. When at length the
time came that was fated to bring him woe, an occasion arose which I shall
describe more fully in my Libyan history, only touching it very briefly
here. An army despatched by Apries to attack Cyrene, having met with a
terrible reverse, the Egyptians laid the blame on him, imagining that he
had, of malice prepense, sent the troops into the jaws of destruction. They
believed he had wished a vast number of them to be slain in order that he
himself might reign with more security over the rest of the Egyptians.
Indignant therefore at this usage, the soldiers who returned and the friends
of the slain broke instantly into revolt.
> Trotter
>
Trotter960
>THIS WAS NOT ISRAEL
>
>Israel DID NOT exist.
In fact "Judah" is mentioned in inscriptions by Tiglath-Pileser III,
Sennacherib, Esar-
haddon, Ashurbanipal, Sargon II, and Nabo-
polasser among others.
One text from Babylon tells that the five sons of the King of Judah (captive)
are to receive 2 1/2 sila.
>Why does Herodotus mention the Arabs >and Syria extending from the borders of
>Egypt BUT NO Judea or Israel.
Herodotus traveled widely in the east and returned to Halicarnassus sometime
around 454 BCE. Archaeological evidence shows that between 520 and 450 BCE the
Persian province of Yehud/Judah was impoverished.
So Herodotus paid Judah no notice be-
cause at the time he traveled, there was nothing to notice. But by 407 BCE a
peti-
tion from Elephantine to Jerusalem begins with the following words: "To our
Lord
Bagoas, governor of Judah, (from) your servants Yedoniah and his colleagues,
the priests who are in the fortress of Elephan-
tine...."
So Judah was an important enemy of more than one Assyrian king. Its leaders
were taken captive and transported to Babylon.
The land was impoverished until sometime after 450 BCE when it again became im-
portant enough for someone elses to re-
quest help from it.
>The archaeology does not even fit. >Jerusalem was just a Minor encampment.
Have a look at the work by Ephraim Stern.
Trotter
Trotter960
>If that is so then how are the psalms so >much like egyptian texts, in
particular
>the Hymm to Aten and Psalm 104
It is widely accepted that these the Hymn to Aten and Psalm 104 bear some
similar-
ities. But you said that psalm_s_ are like Egyptian text_s_. Which others did
you have in mind?
Trotter
Matt Giwer
>
> > Making extrabiblical assumptions is for Van Daniken.
>
> But this isn't 'extrabiblical' -
Having read the book I have you at a great disadvantage.
Even giving credibility to the totally incredible stories in Genesis
and Exodus, the Hebrews in Egypt are faced with some clown claiming to
be the first person to communicate with their family diety in over 400
years. That diety gave them essentially nothing but ritual genital
mutilation to remember him by.
> people who make statues for worship usually
> have some deity in mind. I stated the position as it stands in the text,
> that the calf was in some sense representational of YHWH.
Out of no where (presuming they read Genesis of course :) they come up
with the calf to represent a voice in a tree.
> Some scholars have
> suggested that the image stood for another deity, others that the story is a
> polemic against 'heretical' worship of YHWH in the northern kingdom.
> Given that you seem to think that there was no ancient Judaism at all I
> wonder which of us is adopting Von Daniken's 'methods'?
Obviously you as you bear the burden of producing evidence for it
existance in ancient times other than books riddled with anachronisms
clearly written hundreds to a thousand years after events.
> >>> The bronze serpent god does the curing all by itself.
> >> Interesting story isn't it. The serpent however isn't described as a god.
> > It cures as gods do. Next question.
> Now that is an example of Von Daniken logic.
You have not read Van Daniken, Van not Von.
> Now who's making extra-biblical assumptions?
The cures are in the Exodus.
> You might want to suggest that
> the serpent represents some lost early Israelite deity but that is not the
> role it plays in the text as it stands.
Israelites do not come into existance until the latter half of Exodus.
--
If Hollywood is behind it you know it is a crock of shit.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 274