reply to post by netkomm
Yes, he does really logical conclusions, that he expresses are "not known". By the same token, that is true of the bible in our homes. That
translation was an opinion or even driven by a certain family, and yet they really "don't know".
But when he draws his conclusions, he still bases it on some real words that are known in a default fashion.
But he goes further. He also applies logic, and cross disciplinary research which coordinates with other great scholars as well. At first he didn't
even speak it thinking who was he to notice this. Until in such a lecture with a guru in the field, this man aslo brought up what he himself had
noticed.
When you cross reference to history, and what is known and you have a match. Ie. Sumerian and Judaic, not Sitichin or a fringe translation, but
academia, and they dovetail to each other,
you have a probability of higher accuracy.
It's just logic.
And to site Catholic definitions, possibly buried deep in scholarly texts. But there nonetheless as to some definitions, because, like I said in my
OP, this is probably not just his opinion or translation, but the obvious one. We're the ones not getting the most obvious and logical.
edit
on 1-2-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)