Jaliet
now you can have a soft copy of the atrahasis to, and a really good sumary of all the Sumerian/Babylonian myths:
http://www.ianlawton.com/mesindex.htm
to read the Atrahasis
http://www.piney.com/Atrahasis.html
lots of cool stufF!

Stephanie Dalley has a book 'Myths from Mesopotamia' which has many of these translations to.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
Rodahi,

What I think is so funny is that you completely ignore what the actual Hebrew text says, and you make up (or dig up) poor translations that don't even follow correct Hebrew grammar to support your points.

My points have nothing to do with current Hebrew grammar. They have to do with ancient historical records.

Ish: Tell me exactly why I am supposed to back my points about Gen. 1:1 up considering I have the actual Hebrew text working for me?

I presented what I think is what the original writer intended and thought. I also think the version that is in the Christian Bibles is what Christians want to think the writer meant. It is that simple.

Ish: I think you are the one left with something to prove.

I have nothing to prove here. I simply gave my opinion and gave several quotes from historians who agree.

Ish: Crack open a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) and tell me exactly where the variants are in this verse that support your point.

Ish should crack open a history book and see what historians think of the Genesis myths.

Ish: The reason he won't talk about the underlying Hebrew is either: (1) He doesn't understand it or (2) He may know that the Hebrew doesn't say what he wants it to and never has because there is no evidence of variation in any other ancient copy of the OT in Gen. 1:1.

Ish has no idea what the original writer intended, nor do I. Also, I don't pretend to know. Further, I have never claimed to be an expert on the Hebrew language, but I do know it is debatable what the original writer meant in the opening of the creation myth.

Ish: Oh and by the way, the other bad translation you quoted with the "Tehowm" stuff is pure speculation on the part of the translator and is even worded incorrectly.

There are numerous Hebrew words in the OT of which the precise meaning is unclear.

Ish: I think it said "shapeless Tehowm", but the Hebrew says tohu(without form) va(and) bohu(void) - "without form and void". How did the translator come up with "shapeless Tehowm" when the word behind shapeless is tohu, the very word that the translator is apparently attempting to forcefully equate with Tiamat? And what about the "and" between the two words?

I haven't spoken to the translator. Perhaps Ish would like to speak to him.

Ish: Rodahi, please work from translations of the Bible that accurately reflect the languages...

For the fifth time, I am not concerned with the Hebrew as it appears in the OT. I AM concerned with the history behind the creation myths in Genesis.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited June 14, 2001).]

On the History Channel's 3 hour special 'Who wrote the Bible' one of the Rabbi's admitted outright that no one today knows the true meaning of 25% of these ancient words.

Ish
I think history is much more important and all-encompassing than semantics. Let it go.

Truethinker
I am waiting for you. make your closing arguments before we lay your arguments to rest. In pieces.

Or should I terminate this thread - my first purpose having been achieved and my second purpose being evidently achieved - without me trying my hand at it, thanks to Marduck, rodahi and the way christians have handled this topic?

I wish I could find a christian who claims he/she undestands the bible and who would also be able to explain what the bible means. Itd be real fun. I could even pay for it.

This (the pathetic way christians do not even understand the bible) is one of the reasons so many people are becoming atheists - besides a host of a hell of a lot other reasons.

We derive our all-encompassing history from those semantics that you want to ignore.

History as we know it comes from those ancient texts.

Are you really looking for truthful answers in this thread, jaliet?

Ish

Ostensibly, Pfeiffer, Kramer, and Smith (as only a few examples) were more familiar with the languages of those who wrote ancient texts than is Ish. And, of course, they were historians and, as such, their concern was with history, not Christian apologetics.

Are we to presume that historians are more credible than Ish? Each reader can decide for him/herself.

rodahi

Ah... But there are many scholars who know just as much or more and are at least as credible as the scholars you quote, yet they don't agree.

If others happen to perceive that I know more about the languages, then maybe I also know more about which scholars incorrectly represent the facts.

You're right though, Rodahi, everyone must decide for themselves... Either they choose sides out of faith, or they investigate the facts completely for themselves.

Ish


[This message has been edited by Ish (edited June 15, 2001).]

Honest to God Ish, I am looking for truthful answers. You could be having a point. I havent checked out any links you have given (if any) but I beleive (from what I have read, including the bible) most evidence points to the fact that polytheism preceeded monotheism and also to the fact that the OT has been painfully contrived to bring out the idea of one god.
With disastrous results.
I mean, just look at this topic.

But then again, my aim in this topic was not to find out what the original hebrew texts meant or said. That was just by the way.
My main interest is to demonstrate that christians do not understand the bible.

By the way Ish, are you a christian? coz they all seem to have fled or are reading this thread and are scared of my questioning. I have always thought that someone who knew something and understood it would only enjoy answering questions about that thing that they love.

Where are the christians when God needs them to tell atheists what is said in his book?

Yes, I am a Christian. No, I am not scared.

These two sentences sound like taunts and not like a truthful search for answers. They sound like an attempt at making a trap for those who haven't looked very deeply into the issues. Shame on you.

Ish

They are not taunts - they are what I call challenges. You do not seem to take challenges too well Ish.
Taunt has a negative connotation - think positive!
Yes, they are a trap for those who havent looked deeply into what you call "the issues"
Have you looked deeply into "the issues" Ish? If you have, you are all I need, not people like Andrew and Truethinker and Tercel. So tell me, have you Ish dear?