Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did the Deluge ever happen?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
So God created The Steppe (Eden) Dwellers, which is
the older translation (akkadian), since the newer one
(the babylonian one) is Habitation, I think The Steppe
(Eden) Dwellers is more legit. How soon you forget.


[edit on 6-4-2007 by undo]


Old Babylonian is a term used to describe the period of Mesopotamian history between the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2000 BCE) through the end of the first dynasty of Babylon (c. 1600).

The term actually refers to the Akkadian language, which during this period was referred to as "Old Babylonian." Although Sumerian remained the dominant language used for literary compositions and legal texts,

en.wikipedia.org...
let me see now
you are claiming that 2500bce is akkadian which is about 200 years before Akkad actually existed
are you factoring in Time travel again Beth ?

Adam starts off as "Habitation"
then becomes "steppe dweller"
and then with the advent of Judaism becomes and individual steppe dweller
i.e. biblical Adam
it doesn't work the other way round does it
you are claiming that it starts off as "steppe dweller"
then becomes "habitation"
and then becomes bibical adam

here it is in the lament for Unug which dates from 2500bce

maš-gana2 a2-dam-bi mu-/un-gul\-gul-lu-uš du6-du6-ra mi-ni-in-si-ig-eš

which means

destroyed its settlements and habitations, they razed them to ruin mounds

etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
it means habitation and habitation alone

so shall I now tell you again that at some point you might think to research properly rather than deciding on a theory and then distorting the facts to fit it but seeing as you haven't listened the other 100 or so times I've already told you this I won't bother
keep posting in ignorance and have fun


[edit on 6-4-2007 by Marduk]




posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
adam [HABITATION] (37x: Ur III, Old Babylonian)
Third Dynasty of Ur arose soon after the fall of the Akkad Dynasty.


adam [HABITATION]
Akk. namû "living in the steppe, steppe-dweller".



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I already posted that information
it was where you saw it

you are still claiming that Akkadian dates from 2500bce
en.wikipedia.org...
when like I already said
it didn't exist until Sargon created it

The Akkadian Empire was the state that grew up around the city of Akkad north of Sumer, reaching its greatest extent under Sargon of Akkad. Although ascertaining exact dates during this period is subject to significant disagreement, the Akkadian Empire lasted from about 2350 BC to 2150 BC—approximately 200 years.

do you understand this surprisingly simple concept yet ?
i.e. that something doesn't exist until it is created

just so's you cant continue to make errors
this is the actual text that the 1 reference from 1500bce comes from
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...#
a hymn to Nanše
go to line 56 and hold the cursor over the word a-dam on the following line

56. kurun a2-dam-ta u3-um-de6

what does it say Beth
doesn't say steppe dweller does it



[edit on 6-4-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Habitation is UR III. UR III didn't arise till after the fall of Akkad.
Adam as Steppe (eden) Dweller is Namu and it is Akkadian, which means its from Akkad. Because it is Akkadian, it is before UR III. That means
Adam as Steppe (Eden) Dweller predates, Adam as Habitation.

I used the same sources as you to find this.

UR III
The Third Dynasty of Ur arose soon after the fall of the Akkad Dynasty
en.wikipedia.org...

and

Adam
Akk. namû "living in the steppe, steppe-dweller".
psd.museum.upenn.edu...



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
posting in ignorance again Beth
old babylonian used Sumerian for literature as I already proved
and 2500bce is not Akkadian. Akkadian as a language didn't exist in 2500bce
its Sumerian
like duh
for your erroneous understanding to work (which it doesnt) you have to allow for time travel in linguistics
I fail to see how you are failing to grasp this amazingly simple concept
except of course because you don't want to understand it because you have no interest in the truth because you have no interest in real history
you are just interested in furthering your ideas in pseudohistory
like
1. the gods were lizards from another planet (disproved)
2. the bible stories are an accurate portrayal of early mesopoitamian history (disproved)
3. the gate of god referenced in Babylon is a interdimensional star gate to other planets (disproved)

now please if youre not interested in real history
don't bother posting in a forum that is



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
okay, one more time, just in case you didn't understand me the first time.

the word in question is adam.

there are two options on the adam page of the penn state sumerian dictionary.

one is adam as UR III old babylonian. it is stated as habitation.

the other is adam as Akkadian, it is stated as steppe-dweller (which means, eden dweller)

according to wiki, UR III didn't begin, and therefore the definition of Adam as Habitation, didn't begin, until the fall of Akkad and the beginning (At the very least) of UR III.

Prior to being known as Habitation, it was known as Steppe-Dweller. The prior time when it was known as Steppe-Dweller, was Akkad. Akkad came before UR III.

All that other stuff you just said, is not addressing what the Penn State Sumerian dictionary is saying. I'm using the same references as you. What's the problem ?



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
youre still not listening
steppe dweller is not "Adam" in akkadian
steppe dweller is namû
which is why at the bottom of the page it says

Akk. namû "living in the steppe, steppe-dweller".

Adam means "habitation" period,
i understand that you don't read Sumerian too well
but I thought that you did read English
you know I hate being wrong



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
adam means habitation ur III
a2-dam Akk. namu

it sounds like to me that it was either or, after UR III, but before UR III, during Akkad,it was namu, which is Steppe Dweller.

why bother putting it on the page at all , and giving it the original meaning of Eden Dweller, if that's not what it meant?

namû
adam [HABITATION] wr. a2-dam "habitation" Akk. namû


namu means adam, habitation and also steppe (eden) dweller. you say it only equals steppe dweller. but the text says it also equals adam and a2-dam and habitation. maybe you're just being too literal.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
how am I being too literal
its a damned dictionary Girl
lolol
dictionaries tend to be literal
and it quite clearly says that Adam means habitation and Namu which is the Akkadian equivalent means "steppe dweller"
you already know that Adam in the next language down means

Biblical name of the first man, from Heb. adam "man," lit. "(the one formed from the) ground" (Heb. adamah "ground");


so you have
Habitation
steppe dweller
ground

see how it changed over the millenia

it originally never had anything to do with Adam and Eve
I think we agree on that point
so your original claim



posted by Beth
The Adam was the first race

is clearly now erroneous
according to pretty much everyone the first race were the gods
and Adam was never one of their number



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
marduk, since i already know that you think abraham didn't have a son named isaac at all, none of your attempts at discrediting his ancestors, surprises me.

what does surprise me, however, is that your conscience would be so completely seared that you cannot see anything at all except that one focal point - to prove the hebrews had no legitimate claim on anything and that the bible is evidence of that. you do this, regardless of how many times you're proven wrong, even flat out denying the evidence in front of your eyes. i seriously don't know how anyone could be in that much denial.

before you do that though, you collect a set of straw men to burn in effigy, pretending that they represent the christian viewpoint, exclusively, and/or the viewpoint of anyone who believes the biblical texts are actually historical.

it's impossible to debate or even discuss anything with you because half the time you're making windmills to tilt and the other half, concocting fabricated scenarios about what other people believe, just so you can say SEE, you're wrong!

Newsflash: I don't believe the entire bible or even the entire old testament was penned by Moses from God's hand. There's strawman number 1. But you insist, right out of the starting gate, that's the way christians believe and then proceed to try to disprove it.

I believe, and you've heard me say this countless times, that they maintained an oral history, just like it says in Deutoronomy. And it stayed that way, until the first five books were verified and polished on the mount. I have no clue what happened up there. What DID happen up there, Marduk? Or wait, i know how you are, you'll say nothing happened and that's your point. Rather, tell me what was said to have happened up there by the biblical writers? Can you quote me passage/verse, please?

I'll leave it there for now, because you have hundreds of strawmen erected in your OP and I plan on going threw it, one at a time. Don't make any new ones. I'm blonde. You'll confuse me.

Oh and this is in regard to your "Bible recent hack job post. " So move hither to answer. thanks

Nevermind. You seem to want to talk to someone of higher scholastic caliber. I suggest Michael Heiser.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by undo]



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
so you admit you got it wrong then and are now desperately skirting this issue with a thinly veiled personal attack
way to go Beth
you're finally starting to understand
this bit made me laugh though




to prove the hebrews had no legitimate claim on anything and that the bible is evidence of that

they didn't exist much before 1200bce
so what exactly are you pretending they had a claim to ?
they are claiming that their god si the only god and that they will inherit the earth
are you saying thats true
also I have failed to see anywhere that they claim that YHWH is an alien who needs a stargate to travel between worlds
iirc one particular sect claims that YHWH uses a rocket chair to travel from the Pleaides but thats about as close as they get to your belief system

nothing wrong with being blonde Beth
I am as well



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Nevermind. You seem to want to talk to someone of higher scholastic caliber. I suggest Michael Heiser.

And I don't believe YHWH is a space alien. that's what, strawman 90999999? i believe He's interdimensional, omnipotent, and all that jazz. I think the sons of God, are space aliens.

You appear to want discussion but then seem bent on nothing but personal attacks. It's an odd mix. I think i'll just leave you to yelling at your own reflection or something



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   


Nevermind. You seem to want to talk to someone of higher scholastic caliber. I suggest Michael Heiser.

got that T shirt thanks



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   
This is simple. The hebrew word used in Genesis describing the area of the flood does not mean the earth. Its simply the the immediate area.
So the flood of Genesis was a flood of Mesopotamia aka the Fertile Crescent.

Thats what happens when you get poo poor translations and people taking those translations literally. You can thank the Apostle Paul, Emperor Constantine, and King James for the mess.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
the word used in the Hebrew bible most definitely does mean the whole earth
this is why it claims that the water reaches the mountain tops when there are no mountains in Mesopotamia



17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered.


its in the flood stories that predate the Gilgamesh epic that the flood does not cover the entire earth, the bible story is derived from these through a long line of stories told over millenia

each time the story is retold it gets exaggerated

e.g. the ark starts off as the wall of a reed hut



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
the word used in the Hebrew bible most definitely does mean the whole earth
this is why it claims that the water reaches the mountain tops when there are no mountains in Mesopotamia



17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered.


its in the flood stories that predate the Gilgamesh epic that the flood does not cover the entire earth, the bible story is derived from these through a long line of stories told over millenia

each time the story is retold it gets exaggerated

e.g. the ark starts off as the wall of a reed hut



Kol Eretz does not mean the entire earth, it means a region. Now for Mountains in the Bible, it describes the hills around Jerusalem as Mountains in English. No one in their right mind would call one of those hills a mountain. I would also argue that there are mountains in Mesopotamia. I have seen one first hand in Iraq about 50 miles north of Tikrit near the Euphrates.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   
youre taking it out of context, it also states
tachat kol hashamayim (all the high mountains under the entire heavens) which is not a limited geographical area
mesopotamia is not the fertile crescent
it is just the land in between the rivers (meso - middle potamia - rivers)
it is a flat silt plain and it has no mountains
mountains do border its edges though as you can see from the map I posted on page 1





mesopotamia is the very flat green area just above the persian gulf



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
youre taking it out of context, it also states
tachat kol hashamayim (all the high mountains under the entire heavens) which is not a limited geographical area
mesopotamia is not the fertile crescent
it is just the land in between the rivers (meso - middle potamia - rivers)
it is a flat silt plain and it has no mountains
mountains do border its edges though as you can see from the map I posted on page 1




[im]
www.gly.uga.edu...[/im]
mesopotamia is the very flat green area just above the persian gulf


You can see the elevation north of Tikrit on this map. Its small and left of Iran. South of Kurdistan. Maybe thats considered outside of Mesopotamia, but it is within the two rivers. Almost the entire area is farmland. Except for some odd placed mountains. One of them Saddam had all kinds of crap built inside of it. There is a road that goes up it and through it. The closest town to it is Bayji.

My point is that the English explicity tries to say it is the entire planet, while the Hebrew is much more ambigious. It can go one way or another. The word used for mountains is later used for hills. Kol Eretz could mean a number of things including people. Many other verses in the Hebrew point to a regional flood from the Dove sighting the mountain tops to the "whole earth" being dry. My conclusion is that its ambigious and the English translation is bad.

In reality there is not enough water on earth to have covered the Himalayas. Just from that point of the view the flood could not of been global.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Adding to that thought,

the ancient texts frequently referred to the ziggurats and pyramids as mountains and holy mountains.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
do they
thats interesting
can you link to that evidence please
cheers






top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join