Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Fortuna · 02-11-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Now let’s look at how Yahweh is presented. The first time we can approach Yahweh as a being of substance is in chapter 2 when he rests from his labors of creation. Such a human image, the worker, hot and tired who needs relief from the strain of toiling in the fields. And he has the need as well to stop and reflect on his work. To admire his work. To experience the sense of satisfaction that comes after the work is done.

Um, that wasn't Yhyh. Yhyh is not mentioned by name at all from Ber(Gen) 1 through 2.3 . The first mention of Yhyh is in the introduction to the second creation story at Ber 2.4 (Gen 2.4). Strangely in B2 the god of the story is called by the title Yhyh Elohim.

The standard explanation from the DH is that these stories come from different sources and were woven together.

These stories are likely from polytheistic origins.

arnoldo · 02-11-2008, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMan121

Quote:

Witches are ofcourse very hostile to christianity and God of the Bible which explains your threads

Of course they are. I would too if you tried to burn me alive.

To be honest we don't know for a fact that the evil people who burned witches at the stake were real christians or not. Have you ever heard that the word "witch" in the King James Bible is actually an mistranslation for the word "poisoner?" In any event the evil people who burned innocent people were certainly not following the example of Yeshua when he was confronted with the attempted execution of a woman caught in the act of adulterly. Yeshua told the frenzied mob "Ye without sin cast the first stone."

WVIncagold · 02-11-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMan121

Of course they are. I would too if you tried to burn me alive.

To be honest we don't know for a fact that the evil people who burned witches at the stake were real christians or not. Have you ever heard that the word "witch" in the King James Bible is actually an mistranslation for the word "poisoner?" In any event the evil people who burned innocent people were certainly not following the example of Yeshua when he was confronted with the attempted execution of a woman caught in the act of adulterly. Yeshua told the frenzied mob "Ye without sin cast the first stone."

Actually we cant really be sure that references to witchcraft were not inserted at an even later date then the original text. I wonder if any of the notable scholars here can know at what time in history did the reference to witches actually showed up in the bible? It is interesting to note that one theory is early medical professionals fearing for their livelihoods brought about the witch fear to remove midwives in the 1400-1800. but there are many different reasons from land grabs to government dominance. here is a good article http://departments.kings.edu/womens%5Fhistory/witch/

Casper · 02-11-2008, 08:37 AM

Beezlebub?

Is that a post-Babel spelling or something?

Toto · 02-11-2008, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

... Have you ever heard that the word "witch" in the King James Bible is actually an mistranslation for the word "poisoner?" . . .

I had not heard this, but it seems to be a prevalent rumor.

This source exwitch states:

Quote:

In the Old Testament, the three main Hebrew words used for "witch" and "witchcraft" are kashaph, kesheph, and qecem.

Exodus 22:18 (Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live) uses kashaph, which translates to "to practice witchcraft or sorcery; use witchcraft; sorcerer, sorceress".

...

... in Daniel 2:2, the word kashaph is used: "Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king. "

...

The word kesheph similarly means "sorcery, witchcraft." Qecem means "divination, witchcraft" of the nations, Balaam; of false prophets; or (once) in a good sense (king's lips as oracles). Still nothing about poisoning.

In direct contrast to all of this discussion of witchcraft, the Hebrew words for "poison" are Chemah, which means "rage" and only means poison as a figure of speech, and Ro'sh, "gall, venom, bitter, poisonous". Neither of these words is used in Exodus.

Now we need to look forward into the New Testament, which uses Greek, rather than Hebrew. Here, the word "witch" is expressed three ways: existemi, baskaino, pharmakeia.

...

Pharmakeia may where the witch="poisoner" myth from the King James began. It means: "the use or the administering of drugs; poisoning; sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it; metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry". That is a very broad definition – poisoning AND idolatry AND magick.
...

More here.

Robert Byers · 02-11-2008, 06:47 PM

The great point here is that the bible intimately sets out that the languages changed and how the peoples of the world were separated.
What other accounts in the world address such important matters. No others even give a few words to the subject. The bible has confidence and intelligence to know it matters.

If indeed there is some vague Summerian reference to the splitting of languages well thats what one would expect from the closest and most ancient country. They are right there and migration shouldn't erase memory. They must record what everyone knows about however vaguely.
Certainly to say Hebrew shepards invented the story out of the air is put to reast with the summerian story.
Rob bYers

DaMan121 · 02-11-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

The great point here is that the bible intimately sets out that the languages changed and how the peoples of the world were separated.
What other accounts in the world address such important matters. No others even give a few words to the subject. The bible has confidence and intelligence to know it matters.

The 'peoples of the world' were 'separated' A LONG TIME BEFORE this story was supposed to have taken place. And yeah, the bible should be given credit for pioneering the field of linguistics, like it did with the origins of the universe

Quote:

T In any event the evil people who burned innocent people were certainly not following the example of Yeshua when he was confronted with the attempted execution of a woman caught in the act of adulterly. Yeshua told the frenzied mob "Ye without sin cast the first stone."

Well lucky for you, you were not there to tell them that because they would have burned you too!

neilgodfrey · 02-12-2008, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

This ancient sumerian text seems to have a story similar to the biblical tower of babel

Source cite: Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta

Quote:

At such a time, may the lands of �*ubur and Ḫamazi, the many-tongued, and Sumer, the great mountain of the me of magnificence, and Akkad, the land possessing all that is befitting, and the Martu land, resting in security -- the whole universe, the well-guarded people -- may they all address Enlil together in a single language! For at that time, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, Enki, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings, for the ambitious lords, for the ambitious princes, for the ambitious kings -- Enki, the lord of abundance and of steadfast decisions, the wise and knowing lord of the Land, the expert of the gods, chosen for wisdom, the lord of Eridug, shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one.""

Another translation with an opposite conclusion is found here.

Quote:

Once, then, the lands of Shubur-Hamazi, polyglot Sumer,
that land great with the me [5] of overlordship,
Uri, the land with everything just so,
the land Martu, resting securely,

the whole world—
the people as one—
to Enlil in one tongue gave voice.

Then did the contender—the en (Lord)
the contender—the master
the contender—the king
the contender—the en
the contender—the master
the contender—the king
Enki, en of hegal (Lord of Abundance),

the one with the unfailing words,
en of cunning, the shrewd one of the land,
sage of the gods, gifted in thinking,
the en of Eridu, (Lord of Eridug)

change the speech of their mouths,
he having set up contention in it,
in the human speech that had been one. [6]

So which is the correct translation?

The first translation says that Enki will unite the different languages so just the one language can be used to worship. The second translation says that a single language was divided.

So which is the correct translation?

JayW · 02-17-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

DaMan121
The 'peoples of the world' were 'separated' A LONG TIME BEFORE this story was supposed to have taken place. And yeah, the bible should be given credit for pioneering the field of linguistics, like it did with the origins of the universe

That's true, but at the tme it actually happened noone knew how to write,and at the time it was written down, people had little concept of long spans of time. The Biblical table of nations is accurate in a lot of ways according to language experts. The Sumerians also believed there was a time when only one languge was spoken,as seen in the inscription of Enmerker:

The whole universe, the people in unison
To Enlil in one tongue [spoke].
(Then) Enki, the lord of abundance (whose) commands are trustworthy,
The lord of wisdom, who understands the land,
The leader of the gods,
Endowed with wisdom, the lord of Eridu
Changed the speech in their mouths, [brought] contention into it,
Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.”

The ancient Hebrews knew languages sprang from one common tongue, thousand of years before modern man attempted to prove it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-11-2008, 08:37 AM	#24
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Beezlebub? Is that a post-Babel spelling or something?

02-11-2008, 06:47 PM	#26
Robert Byers Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto. Ontario, Canada Posts: 921	The great point here is that the bible intimately sets out that the languages changed and how the peoples of the world were separated. What other accounts in the world address such important matters. No others even give a few words to the subject. The bible has confidence and intelligence to know it matters. If indeed there is some vague Summerian reference to the splitting of languages well thats what one would expect from the closest and most ancient country. They are right there and migration shouldn't erase memory. They must record what everyone knows about however vaguely. Certainly to say Hebrew shepards invented the story out of the air is put to reast with the summerian story. Rob bYers

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.