Did the Romans (Etruscans) write the Old Testament?

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
In Greek, the Etruscans were known as Τυρρηνοὶ (Tyrrhēnioi).
Also, the Greek word, "Tyrannos (τύραννος) means "tyrant-lord".
The city of Tyre (" Τύρος, Týros") is a related word.
The Norse god "Tir" is "Mars", who is the god of war, the Iron (Man)/Age, or, "Yahweh Sabaoth".
Mars is said to be the father of Rome, of Romulus and Remus; his symbol is the wolf.
The Etruscans worshipped the god of the sky, "Tin(ia)", the equivalent to Jove/Jupiter/Zeus.
"Taranis" is the Celtic/Gaulish god of thunder, also known as Jove; Tin/Tir
Taranis was represented by the six-spoked sun disc, which is also the symbol of Ea/Ia, the Canaanite Yahu/Yaw. The Futharc rune "Iar" means "eel/serpent".
Tyrannosaurus Rex is Latin for "Tyrant Lizard King", another word for the Great Serpent King.

Jove, the original name of Roman Jupiter, was originally pronounced, "Iowe", or "Yahweh".
Yahweh was also known by the symbol of the sun disc.
In Hebrew gematria, "Shamesh Yahweh", שמש יהוה
meaning, "Sun-Lord" = 666. The Roman sun god was Sol Invictus.

The city of Tyre in Phoenician is "TSUR" very close to Phoenician "STUR" = 666, and symbolizes the planet Saturn. The city of Rome was orignally "Saturnia".
The Hebrew pronunciation of Tyre is "Sur", which is very close to what we call those knighted by the Crown, "Sir". "Crown" is "QRN" in Hebrew, and means "horn". "Holy Crown" also has a value of 666.
"Crown" is also a derivative of "Cronus", an alias of Saturn.

According to Irenaeus, in Greek gematria, "LATEINOC" totals 666 and means, "the Latins/Rome".
And in Hebrew gematria, the Latins are called ROMIITH, which also equals 666.

I question whether or not the Romans either inserted the name, "JOVE" into the Hebrew religious texts during Old Latin translation in place of "El Elyon". That, or, through Roman Jews such as Josephus and Philo, completely fabricated the OT to perpetuate worship of JOVE/YHWH/Mars: the Ironman; lord of war, god of the earth, harvest/fertility.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Aesir26 because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-12-2012 by Aesir26 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aesir26
 


You're suggesting the Etruscans revised the OT so the people would worship their god instead, the god of war?

...frighteningly, that actually makes sense.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Proto-Hebrew IS Phoenician, and modern "Hebrew" script is nothing other than "Aramaic", or Babylonian...
Etruscan evolved out of Phoenician...Are the Romans and the Jews actually one and the same?

Why was it so important for Rome, " the so-called enemy of the Jews", to sell JOVE, I mean, YHWH, as the Heavenly Father of Jesus? Wasn't the crucifixion of Jesus a joint-Jewish/Roman collaboration?

The people of Israel today certainly don't look Semitic to me, at all.
I'd venture to say they seem a whole lot more Italic in appearance...

How about that "Roman Hook Nose":
houseofconstantinecoins.reidgold.com...
edit on 8-12-2012 by Aesir26 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aesir26
 


It is doubtful that they wrote the document that mentions them (Etruscans) by trade. . This is the thing that will be hard to escape about the Bible. It is a uniquely Hebrew book, yet is written in a heptadic style. Not only is it heptadic, there is a unique technique used throughout the Bible called Chiasmus. This is a unique literary technique that creates perfect parallels in the text. Not only do these parallels show up in the local areas of text, but across the entire story of the Bible. Here is an example of a Chiasmus.

Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed.

This structure is very basic in this verse and can be seen like a mirror below.

1. Whoever sheds
...........2. the blood
..................3 of man
..................3 of man
...........2 shall his blood
1. be shed

The middle is the central truth of the matter. One side takes or gives and the other side answers.

Here is a larger version.

Creation Cycle in Genesis

1. Creation and the Universal Plan Gen 1
....2. Garden of Eden and the Fall Gen 2-3
.........3. Cain and Able Moral Failing Gen 4
...............4. Idolatry and Spurning the Ruler of the Earth Gen 4
....................5. The Book of Man - Gen 5 Ten generations all die in a short period of time; man realizes he is mortal.
................4. Sexual Immorality Gen. 6 and Divine Beings
..........3. Flood, Moral Failing, Total Corruption Gen. 6-9
......2. The Twower of Babel, Fall of civilization Gen. 11
1. Abramah and the National Plan Gen. 12

These parallels are all throughout the Bible and I could list hundreds. They span across from Genesis to Revelation, with the center verse of the Bible denoting the middle point of the story from Genesis to Revelation.

Psalm 118:8. It reads as follows: It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.

This is also the point at which Christ returns to Earth fully and the 1000 years of peace begins. This chapter of the Bible marks the ending of tribulation to come. Seven Years and Psalms 111-118 are 2011 - 2018

Notice the parallels in the verse yet again.

1. Better to trust
..........2. in the Lord
..........2. in Man
1. Confidence

Garden of Eden Cycle

1. Thorns Thistles. Creation of man from dust. Genesis 2
..........2. The Garden of Eden formed for man. Genesis 2
..................3. God's command to man forbidding the eating of the tree. Genesis 2
..........................4. Man names Animals. Formation of Woman.
..................................5. a. They were both naked....
..........................................b. The man and his wife.
..........................................b. Now the Snake.....
.......................................a, Was cunning.....
...........................4. The snake corrupt the woman. Gen 3
....................3. Man violates God's command and eats. Gen 3
............2. God curses mankind; paradise lost. Gen 3
1. Thorns and thistles will grow from ground; the eventual return of man to the dust of earth. Expulsion from Garden.

Like I said, Genesis is the pattern that the other authors also follow, which is only one literary technique that is found in the entire Bible. We know the origin of the authors for the most part and the languages they used and the unique cultures the come from, yet one unique author emerges as God inspires the writing.

No human could have written this book alone.

Consider the very first verse.

Genesis 1:1
In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

The video shows the heptadic structure and the mathematics encoded into this verse alone. Imagine the rest of what we could find by looking deeply.



As if this were not enough, the Bible then proclaims that all of what we see in this world is WORD (Programming / Information). Consider the oak tree enfolded into the acorn. Is the acorn the tree or the tree the information in the acron?

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.



edit on 8-12-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aesir26
 


blah blah blah blah blah blah....

No.

I can't even imagine anyone wasting their time arguing this point. But hey, that's just me. I have much better things to do with my time. Sorry to be so blunt, but I suppose you just lucked out and caught me on the wrong day to express appalling, surreptitiously circumventing ignorance.

Let's ask Batman, shall we?

BAT DEDUCTION

Batman: Pretty fishy what happened to me on that ladder.
Gordon: You mean, where there's a fish, there could be a Penguin.
Robin: But wait! It happened at sea! See? "C" for Catwoman!
Batman: Yet — that exploding shark was pulling my leg!
Gordon: The Joker!
O'Hara: It all adds up to a sinister riddle... Riddle-er. Riddler?

edit on 8-12-2012 by stupid girl because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Aesir26
 



Did the Romans (Etruscans) write the Old Testament?

Write it? Probably not. Edit it? Maybe. Now the new testament may be a different story. There are some possibilities there. The True Authorship Of The New Testament.

This historically important book was written by an author who was wondering why slick former Jews were getting into the evangelism business and fleecing Christians of their money, all in the name of Jesus. His 35 year research has uncovered the whole horrible truth, namely that Christianity was created by the Calpurnius Piso's of Rome. It is a fictional story used by the Piso's to take over Rome, which they eventually did after 136 c.e. They also forced the Jews to insert into their religious books many of Piso's own works to create prophecies for the coming of his fictional character, Jesus.

Source

Personally, I think there may be at least some amount of truth to it, but how much is up to each individual to decide for themselves.
edit on 12/8/2012 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by stupid girl
 


You really need to develop your understanding concerning philology and theology in lieu of simply slandering the painstaking research of others with vacuous and trite remarks. Please spend time studying history and philosophy instead of reading comic books.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aesir26
reply to post by stupid girl
 


You really need to develop your understanding concerning philology and theology in lieu of simply slandering the painstaking research of others with vacuous and trite remarks. Please spend time studying history and philosophy instead of reading comic books.


Your philology is clandestine and subversive.
My post may be subjective, no doubt, but it is abysmally far from slanderous.
However, IMO, your painstaking research was a vain attempt at slander.
I don't read comic books.

And Sugar, I have probably spent more time studying history than you have had your driver's license.

My studies of philosophy I consider a gross waste of my time, as I have no regard for the pontificating efforts of men in smug aggrandizement of their flawed intellect.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stupid girl
 


Please do not attempt to derail my thread.
If you disagree with the etymological links I've sourced then PROVE otherwise.

For example, prove that the there is no connection between the Roman god Mars and the Norse deity Tyr, god of the Law and of the sky, after whom Tuesday (Latin: Dies Martis) is named, symbolized by the Elder Futhark rune, "Tiwaz", an upward pointing arrow. Demonstrate the absurdity of the notion that the one-armed, pre-Islam Arabic god of the arrow, Hubal,has absolutely nothing to do with either Tyr or Mars.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Aesir26 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Your star is from me.
I always appreciate the objectivity of your posts [well, more so than not, anyway], despite your previous experience of the Christian faith.

All the best, Brother. I truly emote encouragement towards the working-out of your endeavor of Truth and whatever that may encompass.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aesir26
reply to post by stupid girl
 


Please do not attempt to derail my thread.
If you disagree with the etymological links I've sourced then PROVE otherwise.




LOL...if anything, I have bumped your thread and created additional debate.

All my posts are comprehensively relative to the OP.

My Batman Deduction best expresses my disagreement with your, erm, well, the whole she-bang.

Consider this my last post in your thread, and my apologies for pointing out the elephant in the room.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by stupid girl
 


Okay, okay -- forgiven.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 



Psalm 118:8. It reads as follows: It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.


It's hard to prove an invisible man screwed you over.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Do you honestly believe YHWH/JOVE is the Heavenly Father of whom Jesus spoke?;

That we ought to be worshipping the gods of the killers of our Saviour?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 



Personally, I think there may be at least some amount of truth to it, but how much is up to each individual to decide for themselves.


No, there is absolutely no truth to it -- the "Roman Piso" theory was invented in the 1970s by a kook in Kent, Washington who uses the pseudonym Abelard Reuchlin. It is rarely refuted because it is "over the top" ridiculously invalid and only someone who wanted it to be true would believe it after doing a little research.

See On the "Roman Piso" theory.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Thanks adjensen, I'll take a look see. I haven't researched this for awhile. Some new info will be nice to peruse.

Ah yes, I think I have this in my bookmarks somewhere, but hadn't been through it all yet. Thanks for the reminder.



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Deleted. Petty ATS arguments not worth the energy.
edit on 9-12-2012 by conspiracy88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aesir26
 


No,

and the notion that they did shows a stupendous lack of historical knowledge and this entire thread appears to be completely void of Truth



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by godlover25
reply to post by Aesir26
 


No,

and the notion that they did shows a stupendous lack of historical knowledge and this entire thread appears to be completely void of Truth


Then PROVE it. Or, at the very least, make some kind of attempt to demonstrate that Proto-Hebrew has nothing to do with Phoenician; show that Aramaic script was not the lingua franca of Babylon and that it is entirely unrelated to Hebrew; provide evidence that the Hebrew months are not based on the Babylonian lunar-solar calendar. Edify me as to how Mary Queen of Heaven is independent of Isis, and Astarte, and Inanna and Asherah. Or, tell how Esther and Mordecai are not Ishtar and Marduk. Or, Abraham and Sarah vs. Brahma and Sarasvati...

Ad hominems like "stupid", and "untruthful", won't suffice.

(By the way, have you read Josephus the Roman's "Antiquities of the Jews"?)
edit on 10-12-2012 by Aesir26 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
You might want to read the newsletter from this month at
www.thechronicleproject.org...
I can't post it because the Hebrew font won't carry, but read the article:

Discovering Double Correction in Self Defining Hebrew

It shows that there is a system set up in the Hebrew so complex that a. It will show if a word is mistranslated (and they are)
b. What the correct word is



And that was the key. If you have properly split a word, it will give you an action. Improperly split, you get the outcome, BUT.... That's the point. The language, (and don't ask me how it was done) has a dual built in definition correction system. If you have properly defined a word, when the word is divided properly you will always get the action. Then divide it another way and you will get the outcome of that action. If the definition for that word is not correct, the action and outcome will not match.

and...

This is the part that becomes mindblowing. This effect would have to be created before the construct of the language so that it could be developed in. So each level of the language has built in concept check, with or without prefixes and suffixes. If you had told me that a language could be created doing that, I would have told you it was impossible. No human could have done this without a computing system light years beyond anything we presently have, and so I will say with absolute affirmation one more time, This language is not a planet created language. It did not and could not have evolved. This is a language created by someone way more advanced than Earth.


That alone should show it was not written by humans.
edit on 10-12-2012 by winterkill because: added material





top topics
 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join