reply to post by the2ofusr1
he's helpful. if i encounter real tough points, after checking every language text i can find, i ask him if he has come across the word and what it
originally meant. for example, i had this dilemma regarding EN.LIL. i had come across a website that had done an etymological study on the name,
and he did it to prove to himself and his readers, that the muslims were worshipping a pagan god, who he called EN.LIL. the etymology was rock solid,
but it had a flaw: it refused to acknowledge, as part of its root etymology the "EL" root. this is because if he acknowledged the EL root, he would
be forced to come to grips with the potentiality of EL ever being a pagan god or worshipped by pagans in any way, shape or form.
Here's where he really went off track. The word pagan was (sigh) developed by the catholic church to denote anyone who wasn't christian or jewish.
In effect, there's really no such thing as a pagan. Each belief system really needs their own name, not a one size fits all stamp. Not only is
inaccurate, it's unfair and evidence of generational bias of a magnitude of unbelievable proportions. Sadly, once again, this teaching of calling
anything non judeo-christian, pagan, has caused no end of confusion. And the EL problem is an example of a very bad one. Modern day judaism is
even confused by it. As modern jews are no more representative of ancient hebrews than modern christians are representative of the disciples of
as i was trying to unravel it, i made a thread about it here on ats, called Ba'al vs. Bel. This is the jist of it:
the etymology chart for enlil
The root form of IL is not EL, it's LIL, because EnLIL came before (timeframe wise) IL, which is the contracted form of LIL and so on and so on.
So, I'm thinking what about this BEL fellow. Everytime I look it up, I get the same etymology - Bel was a form of Ba'al. What makes them think so? How
does "EL" become "AL"? Are they making the mistake of assuming that AL' was derived from the root "EL" when it was derived from "LIL"? Or, is it a
mistake? How is it that LIL is the rootform of IL, but not the rootform of EL, and yet we have BEL, from BA'AL?
Where's a language expert when you need one!!!
According to the chart I linked in the OP, Enlil resolves to AL'LAH, but never resolves to EL. The reasoning given is that the root form of IL, which
is in the etymological tree of AL'LAH is not EL it's LIL, as it was derived from EnLIL. Since EnLIL and therefore LIL predates the contracted form of
'IL, this appears to be the etymology of 'IL not EL.
Yet, here we have an explanation the link in the second post, that claims the dialects of two different semitic groups, south and north, had two
different ways of spelling Ba'al. One spelled it BEL and the other spelled it BA'AL. This would mean that the contracted form of 'AL is the same as
EL. But according to the chart in the OP, AL is resolved from LIL and therefore the contracted 'IL.
I need info on how 'AL ends up being EL. Anybody got the etymology for this please? Even across dialects, there should be some etymological trail!
I don't get how we end up with the supreme god, EL, being the same as Enlil. The etymology is different until Bel, anyway. Which is even more
confusing. Enlil resolves to IL, not EL, but yet you're saying it does resolve to EL in a different dialect. How, i have no idea.
Did they know him as EnLEL? Or LEL? Before they knew him as BEL?
NEEeeeed the etymology of BEL.
So i contacted dr. michael s. heiser and this is what he had to say:
Bel is Baal because (1) Baal was rendered into Greek as Bel (the "e"
being the long "e" - the "eta" in Greek - as opposed to the short "e"
the epsilon); and (2) When the Greek spelling was transliterated into
English (when various texts from the ancient world got translated), the
transliteration was "Bel" since English transliteration doesn't
distinguish between the short and long "e" of Greek. A scholar would
use diacritical marks to distinguish them, but translations of these
texts were meant for the wider English reading audience, who could care
less about such precision (and it was easier to typeset too).
edit on 21-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)