It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

baphomet

page: 18
2
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   


EL = HIM




No one cares about Venetian, you said Latin. Stop making things up, it is childish.

I am not making things up, EL as a root equals him



'El' is not a word in Latin. You have yet to provide a source to refute this. As a matter of fact, the source you linked verifies that there is not Latin word 'el'. And considering '-ellum' is the nueter of the word and implies NO GENDER how can it have 'he' in there?

It is so, you have been provided with the description in Latin.



If you spoke/read/understood Latin you would not have wasted everyone's time with trying to invent a word that does not exist.


www.orbilat.com...

el he




As for where EL-LU originates is from ancient langueges venetian is a mixed with latin and ancient languages.


www.websters-online-dictionary.org...
Venetian, Veneto la she (ela, la). Consider also: he (el, lu), it. Additional references: Venetian, Italy. (volunteer & more translations)

ELLUM from EL-LU is ELLU.

Venetian shares it's ancestry from Veneto.


www.thefreedictionary.com...
Ve·net·ic (v-ntk)
n.
An extinct Indo-European language known from short inscriptions in Veneto dating from the sixth to the first centuries b.c. and possibly belonging to the Italic branch.


It is mixed with Classical latin, the language is exctinct but as you can see, you can see in it the definition of ELLUM, from EL-LU, ELLU.



edit on 18-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Pepsi, you simply HAVE to admit that you are wrong in so many areas.
If you can't admit that you're wrong, you'll never learn anything at all.
We're all trying to tell you, from our respective areas of expertise, that you are wrong.
Just admit it, move on, learn something.

I can see that English is not your first language, and that you have severe problems with reading comprehension.
Every time you quote a source to refute one of us, it merely reaffirms what we are trying to tell you.

Your trouble is that you've made up your mind about things that you haven't understood at all.
You need to go right back to the drawing board on all of it, start again, try and understand it all properly.
Instead of clinging to your erroneous assumptions, and supporting them with made up words and made up facts.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I am not making things up, EL as a root equals him.


There is no Latin word 'el'. If there is link a Latrin dictionary entry.


It is so, you have been provided with the description in Latin.


There is no Latin word 'el'. If there is link a Latrin dictionary entry


www.orbilat.com...

el he


Venetian is NOT Latin. Even a infant can differentiate that.


As for where EL-LU originates is from ancient langueges venetian is a mixed with latin and ancient...
Venetian shares it's ancestry from Veneto.


Venetian is NOT Latin. Even a infant can differentiate that. From your source which you obviously did not read completely:


Venetic should not be confused with Venetian, a Romance language presently spoken in the same general region


It is telling you not to do exactly what you are doing now.


Words are not numerous to judge about the vocabulary in general.


But I am sure that it will not stop you and your unscholarly and juvenile speculation.


It is mixed with Classical latin, the language is exctinct but as you can see, you can see in it the definition of ELLUM, from EL-LU, ELLU.


No one can see that because you used Venetian which came after Latin and is not related (as your source indicates) to Veneti. Sorry, you made an anus of yourself again because YOU DO NOT READ BEOFRE YOU POST.

There is no Latin word 'el' otherwise you would have a Latin dictionary defintion by now instead of misread sources.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
This book on the Venetic Language has nearly every word taken from all known Venetic inscription of which they have a definition. There is no word 'el' or pronouns indicating a masculine gender that are even remotely close to what you mistakenly suggested.


The limited number of Venetic sentences presents us with only two examples of pronouns
mego and te.i. which we interpret as first and second person plural, possibly used in a
formal singular way.


No third person pronouns are known (He/she/it). Sorry, this is a total failure on your part. Total and complete.







edit on 18-7-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   


Pepsi, you simply HAVE to admit that you are wrong in so many areas.
If you can't admit that you're wrong, you'll never learn anything at all.
We're all trying to tell you, from our respective areas of expertise, that you are wrong.
Just admit it, move on, learn something.

There is nothing to to admit, it's just your perspective.



I can see that English is not your first language, and that you have severe problems with reading comprehension.
Every time you quote a source to refute one of us, it merely reaffirms what we are trying to tell you.

My English is just fine, pick on my English as you ran out of arguments ?




Instead of clinging to your erroneous assumptions, and supporting them with made up words and made up facts.

I'm not adding, you are, mixing cultures, adding what is not there, it is you not me. With apsu chronus and marduk, putting pairs that they don't belong. As a satanist you won't get very far.
edit on 18-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 

You have been provided from the source.
EL=HE ELA=SHE

If you chose to agree or not agree that is your problem

www.orbilat.com...

El he




www.websters-online-dictionary.org...
Venetian, Veneto la she (ela, la). Consider also: he (el, lu), it.


You know lus is a surffix, you do know what a surffix is ? don't you, you do understand it's an addition to the original word ? You do understand that the female is an addition.

For example.
Like MAN and WO-MAN.



www.archive.org...
(el-)Ia, (el-)l8B,/ .

(el-)lum, (el-)li, it.

(el-)lus, (©l-)li, m.

El is the root word, the rest is just a surffix.

edit on 18-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
You have been provided from the source.
EL=HE ELA=SHE

If you chose to agree or not agree that is your problem


You have provided no source that gives a Latin defintion of the word you claim despite repeated requests.


www.orbilat.com...

El he




www.websters-online-dictionary.org...
Venetian, Veneto la she (ela, la). Consider also: he (el, lu), it.


Venetian is not Latin. It came centuries AFTER Latin and therefore can not have influenced the development of Latin. It is idiocy to suggest otherwise.


You know lus is a surffix, you do know what a surffix is ? don't you, you do understand it's an addition to the original word ?


I know what a suffix is (it is not suRffix, learn how to spell like an adult) and a suffix can not have a suffix. '-Ellus' is not two words, it is a suffix. There is no root word as you claim otherwise you would have posted a link to a Latin dictionary that supports your assinine claim. I already gave you the closest word to 'him' in Latin (ille) but you choose to ingore this.

Just like you ignored your moronic mistake of trying to link Venetian to Venetic when the site you linked explicitly warned against doing so. CAN YOU READ?

You can end the whole debate now, post a link to a Latin dictionary that shows there is a word 'el' that means 'him'.



edit on 18-7-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


No, it's not my perspective. Facts are not subjective.
And I think we do need to address your comprehension of the English language, because you are not understanding what you are reading, or what any of us are saying to you.

I have explained everything to you very simply.
There is nothing else I can do for you, until you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You are ignorant on the subject of every religion you have been trying to debate here, along with the languages you are referencing. Anyone who would mix up Adonis and Yahweh is ignorant in the extreme. There just aren't even words for it.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   


You have provided no source that gives a Latin defintion of the word you claim despite repeated requests.

Venetian is a mix of classical latin and Ancient indo european.
All the langueges state the same.


Just looking at words you can see this.


dictionary.reference.com...
origin) + -eau noun suffix (earlier -el < Latin -ellus )

Just because the word is not part of classical latin does not mean it's not part of latin, Classical latin came after
other forms of Latin.



Venetian is not Latin. It came centuries AFTER Latin and therefore can not have influenced the development of Latin. It is idiocy to suggest otherwise.

Not only is it part of Latin but it's part of the ancient language that has gone extinct.



Just like you ignored your moronic mistake of trying to link Venetian to Venetic when the site you linked explicitly warned against doing so.

Venetian is a mix of venetic and Latin, The language may have gone exctinct, it does not mean words are not found in venetian.

Something you can't deal with, LUS and all other are surffixes (additions)


Just looking at words you can see this.


dictionary.reference.com...
origin) + -eau noun suffix (earlier -el < Latin -ellus )



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   


No, it's not my perspective. Facts are not subjective.
And I think we do need to address your comprehension of the English language, because you are not understanding what you are reading, or what any of us are saying to you.

You mixed cultures up, no sources, mixed elements up, went wrong again and again, maybe you should go back and correct your mistakes. With Chronus being the Apsu, with the Abzu being a deity. Mixing pairs up.
You came with no facts, no sources at all, you just spoke your imagination.




You are ignorant on the subject of every religion you have been trying to debate here, along with the languages you are referencing. Anyone who would mix up Adonis and Yahweh is ignorant in the extreme. There just aren't even words for it.

I am not ignorant at all, that is strictly your opinion.

edit on 18-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The interpretation of facts is subjective... (just saying)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


I sent you to *the* source - the tablets themselves. There is no better source than that.

I mixed nothing up.
I told you the closest thing to Chronus would be Abzu.
I told you the two Sumerian deities that the god Marduk came from.
I said the creation story was rewritten when Marduk came into prominence.
I told you which books to read (believe it or not, not everything is posted on the internet. Sometimes you have to read a book or two.)
I gave you the names of the gods that were synchretized, when they originally were different.
I explained the mistakes you were making.
I told you to try and understand that the deities and the things they represented were one and the same to the Sumerians.
I used your own sources to contradict you, except for the ones where they just made up a bunch of new-age mumbo-jumbo.

So far you have managed to mix up El, Yahweh, Adonis, Anubis, Venus, Ninhursag, Ki, An, Abzu, Enki; all into just two jumbled, splintered deities. It's mind-boggling!



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schrödinger
The interpretation of facts is subjective... (just saying)


Oh, I agree, but I would further that by saying: if your own interpretation of the facts negates the facts themselves, then you're in the wrong.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, Pepsi78--

You WROTE: "Then you also agree that it was first EL-YON, EL-OHA and EL-YAHWEH, same as ADON.
It's the same definition. What you say does not disprove anything at all. It does not only go by the name of YAHWEH, but different names, Elyon, Adonai. I am not confused about anything..."

UNQUOTE

Wow, having now awarded myself a major stomach-ache from laughing so hard, I can't believe you actually typed in the last part of your post above - were you just kidding?

In fact, you are the MOST utterly confused person on ATS at the moment (and that is saying something...)

First off, if you want to point out a Latin prefix or suffix (or even mid-fix), and want to relate it to later languages based on ancient Latin, then use the word ROMANCE languages - i.e. which are later languages based on Latin...

At any rate we are certainly NOT talking about LATIN in the Hebrew Scriptures - which (in case you've forgoten?) were written down much later than the events they relate in various forms of paleoHebrew (and without expressed vowells too - did you even know that?) and sometimes (in later writings like parts of Daniel or Ezra) in Aramaic - so stay away from Latin ( which is at any rate an ancient language which you have not learned yet, clearly)...

Now back to this discussion : I WROTE (if you recall) a little earlier (I hate to repeat myself, but this discussion got derailed again by your gross ignorance of not only LATIN but also modern English !)

"The name of the post exilic clan god of Israel 'YHWH' (or YAHWEH) is related etymologically to the verb 'to be' or 'to live' apparently, but NO ONE (not even the Rebbes) knows for sure.

It bears NO relation grammatically to the words : EL or EL-ELYON (which are ancient Cannanite clan gods like EL SHADDAI (another Cannanite clan god which may well have been imported into Canaan via Assyria...)

...In the late Masoretic Text Version (MT) of Exodus chapter 3 the name of the clan god in the story seems to be something like [ALEPH-HE-YOD-HE] 'a'eyei' as in aHeyei A-SH-R a'eyei - (which literally could be rendered into English something like "I am ASHUR I am),

So it was originally NOT written as YHWH at all, but 'A-H-Y-H' only later in the verse to be morphed into YHWH by later editors working on their ancient fragmentary texts as they copied and thought about them--which after the time of EZRA (post c. 440 BCE) used a NEW aleph-beth which further eroded the destruction of any original readings (this process certainly did not help matters any...)

Or it could also be (depending on what vowells you insert !) 'Heyei ASHER Heyei which could mean in English

('I AM who I AM' in other words, it would mean, colloquially, ''Mind your own damned Business, I'm NOT going to telling you my real name !' - can you imagine someone asking your name at a party and you saying, I am who I am, so there !!")

Here is a sampling of the paleoHeb MT text for you to look at from the (in places) impossibly ungrammatical (or at least 'difficult') paleoHebrew in Exod. chapter 3

"And Mosheh spoke unto ELOHIM saying, When I approach the Sons of Yisro'el andd tell them, the clan-god of your fathers has sent me to you...and when they ask me, so what is his Name then, what then shall I say to them?

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-הָאֱלֹהִים, הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָא אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתִּי

לָהֶם, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם; וְאָמְרוּ-לִי מַה-שְּׁמוֹ, מָה אֹמַר אֲלֵהֶם.

And Elohim spoke to Mosheh saying, 'I AM [ASHER] I AM'; and said: 'Thus you will tell the sons of Yisro'el that I AM hath sent me unto you
...

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה; וַיֹּאמֶר, כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶהְיֶה, שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם


&tc.

So be very careful about the original meaning of YHWH - AHYH - from what we can see from Assyrian inscriptions (discovered recently) the name YHWH (and its cognates) is NOT Cannanite at all, but Syrian or Assyrian (some would posit Akkadian or even Hurrian from the Anatolian regions) i.e. from the east during the invasions of the more sophisticated empires into Eretz Yisroel between BCE 721 and BCE 331 especially Assyria who brought into the Levant the cult of ASHER & ASHERAH (the latter became one of the wives of YHWH - e.g. inscriptions in Canaan which read along the lines of e.g. 'This site is sacred to YHWH and his Asherah....'

All of which shows the various cults of YHWH in the Levant and the Assyrian cults of the Assyrian clan-gods Ashur & Ashurah had already begun to be assimilated into a single temple cultus (probably after 721 BCE when Assyria destroyed the Northern 'clan-kingdom' of Yisro'el) - in much the same manner that the earlier Canaanite/Ugaritic cults of EL and EL-Elyon - which had already long- penetrated the local 'pagan' cults at Jebus/Jerusalem centuries before the invasion of the so-called benei Yisro'el - had merged with the 'desert-tent dwelling' invader-clan god YHWH...

The settled city-state-based (temple-based) clan god of the Syro-Phoencians at Ugarit (e.g. Bull EL and his extensive Pantheon) along with its linguistic cognates (e.g. Ba'AL and the Ba'Alim, or even the god/dess ELOAH) were originally NOT RELATED to the tent-dwelling desert wandering nomadic 'Moveable Tabernacle' clan-god YHWH who began to settle in the Canaanite highlands c. 1400 BCE...

It was only at a later date (beginning with the nomadic 'Yisroelite' migrations into Canaan c. 1400 BCE) that the tent dwelling YHWH and his Mobile Tabernacle Shrine became gradually (over centuries apparently) mixed into the cults of EL and BA'AL and their temple priests inter-marrying and combining liturgies...

This process of amalgemation of separate multiple (i.e. smaller) clan-god cults into fewer (and larger) and sometimes singular temple-cults in antiquity is called SYNCRETISM - a process which is gradual and often hard to dis-entangle after centuries of it have taken place (and the writings of the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures were not written down in recogniseable form until after the time of Ezra (c. 450 BCE) by which time the cults had been inextricably merged.

Does this help your evidently muddled thinking?

A quick example would be from Egypt, where the many local cults along the Nile gradually grew over time and began to be melded into syncretistic larger temples, e.g. the cult of HAPI (Greek: Apis) I and the cult of WUSIR (Greek: Osiris) were joined into a single larger temple Cult of the newly-combined/syncretistic god SERAPIS, who had his own Mysteries after the Greek invasions under Alexander the Great and was [by the time the Christians came along, especially] very popular among the masses...even as far afield as Rome (I particularly like what the Roman satirist Decimus Junius Juvenalis had to say about the situation c. 90 CE = 'iam pridem Syrus in Tiberim defluxit Oronte...' !)

You seem a little (shall we say) addle-brained about even basic theological facts (and have shown little evidence in your confused posts that you know anything at all about ancient history or even archaeology....have you thought about taking a college course (assuming you're old enough to do so)...?






edit on 18-7-2011 by Sigismundus because: sssorrry my keeyboarrdd stuttersss when I typepee ttoo fassstttttt



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   


I told you the closest thing to Chronus would be Abzu.

You said Chronus is the Abzu, I told you that Chronus resides in the abzu is another story.



I told you the two Sumerian deities that the god Marduk came from.

There is no story with marduk killing tiamat, these are sumerian invetions, there is no source for this.



I said the creation story was rewritten when Marduk came into prominence.

The enuma elish is babylonian, not summerian.



I used your own sources to contradict you, except for the ones where they just made up a bunch of new-age mumbo-jumbo.

YOu did not contadict me, if there is something post the source, and I will explain it to you.



So far you have managed to mix up El, Yahweh, Adonis, Anubis, Venus, Ninhursag, Ki, An, Abzu, Enki; all into just two jumbled, splintered deities. It's mind-boggling!

I did not mix up EL with YAHWEH EL is a representation of YAHWEH wiky plus infinite sources state the same thing. The name the name "HE-BREW" and ISRA"EL" From EL-YON that is in the bible, and EL-O-HIM all personifications of the lord, because of the phonician EL



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   


Wow, having now awarded myself a major stomach-ache from laughing so hard, I can't believe you actually typed in the last part of your post above - were you just kidding?

Just by taking a look at the name hebrew and Israel I can prove you are wrong.



In fact, you are the MOST utterly confused person on ATS at the moment (and that is saying something...)

I am not confused at all. Besides this BS do you got something better ?



First off, if you want to point out a Latin prefix or suffix (or even mid-fix), and want to relate it to later languages based on ancient Latin, then use the word ROMANCE languages - i.e. which are later languages based on Latin...

EL=HIM as in Masculine god. Now take a look at the name EL-O-HIM and tell me what you see.
This can not only be seen in Latin based langueges, but in arabic, hebrew and other langueges.


At any rate we are certainly NOT talking about LATIN in the Hebrew Scriptures - which (in case you've forgoten?) were written down much later than the events they relate in various forms of paleoHebrew (and without expressed vowells too - did you even know that?) and sometimes (in later writings like parts of Daniel or Ezra) in Aramaic - so stay away from Latin ( which is at any rate an ancient language which you have not learned yet, clearly)...

Latin is an example where the name has traveled from, there are other examples from other languages where Latin is not present making the same case.


Now back to this discussion : I WROTE (if you recall) a little earlier (I hate to repeat myself, but this discussion got derailed again by your gross ignorance of not only LATIN but also modern English !)

Where is the ignorance ?


"The name of the post exilic clan god of Israel 'YHWH' (or YAHWEH) is related etymologically to the verb 'to be' or 'to live' apparently, but NO ONE (not even the Rebbes) knows for sure.


Syrian sources state the same smart guy, "EL" it's from your own source. Now for EL SHADDAI that you talk about. ELSHADDADI in phonician/cannan.


Yahweh was originally combined with El as "El-Yahweh", like "El-Shaddai" and "El-Elyon" - El was the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon



Now for the rest.
Your statement, remember it, it was:


YHWH' (or YAHWEH) is related etymologically to the verb 'to be' or 'to live'


and I say.....
EL= TO GO in indo european langueges, you do know what IE Langueges are don't you ?
Are you familiar with the term Walk with me


www.etymonline.com...
arly 14c., from O.Fr. ambler "walk as a horse does," from L. ambulare "to walk, to go about, take a walk," perhaps a compound of ambi- "around" (see ambi-) and -ulare, from PIE base *el-"to go" (cf. Gk. ale "wandering," alaomai "wander about;" Latvian aluot "go around or astray"). Until 1590s used only of horses or persons on horseback. Related: Ambled; ambling. As a noun, from late 14c.


TO GO = THE CYCLE. ask Augustus, you may not disagree with him on this.
EL=AD from adam, to go= to add, from AD-ON.
Adam is a guy, EL=HE



It bears NO relation grammatically to the words : EL or EL-ELYON (which are ancient Cannanite clan gods like EL SHADDAI (another Cannanite clan god which may well have been imported into Canaan via Assyria...)

The name ELYON is used in the bible, the NAME ISRA-"EL" is the equivalent of the "HE"-BREW



So it was originally NOT written as YHWH at all, but 'A-H-Y-H' only later in the verse to be morphed into YHWH by later editors working on their ancient fragmentary texts as they copied and thought about them--which after the time of EZRA (post c. 440 BCE) used a NEW aleph-beth which further eroded the destruction of any original readings (this process certainly did not help matters any...)

Variations of the names does not disprove anything, there are early versions of the name YAHWEH with EL-YAHWEH found.

This are found in the texts they are not made up.


Yahweh was originally combined with El as "El-Yahweh", like "El-Shaddai" and "El-Elyon" - El was the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon, and El-Yahweh is still found in a few places in the Old Testament (in psalm 50:1, for example).




Or it could also be (depending on what vowells you insert !) 'Heyei ASHER Heyei which could mean in English

ASHER is something else, part of the JEHOVAH , something you may not understand.
ASHER was consort of Jehovah, the name ASHERAH and Jehovah were used as in a collective until the rupture of Jehovah from Asher.


For the rest of your quotes I have responded, you posted the same thing again.

edit on 18-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 





You said Chronus is the Abzu, I told you that Chronus resides in the abzu is another story.


And for the millionth time, I pointed out that residing in the Abzu and being the Abzu are not separate for the Sumerians.




There is no story with marduk killing tiamat, these are sumerian invetions, there is no source for this.


No, that's not what I said. What I DID say was "Marduk is the Babylonian assimilation of Asarluhi and Ninib (Ninurta)." Can you try to understand that?




The enuma elish is babylonian, not summerian.


Yes, which is exactly what I was referring to when I said: "the creation story was rewritten when Marduk came into prominence." Again, can you understand that?




YOu did not contadict me, if there is something post the source, and I will explain it to you.


Are you kidding me? I pointed out where your own sources contradicted you on the matter of Adonis/Yahweh and Asherah/Astarte. Neither of these pairs are the same person.




I did not mix up EL with YAHWEH EL is a representation of YAHWEH wiky plus infinite sources state the same thing. The name the name "HE-BREW" and ISRA"EL" From EL-YON that is in the bible, and EL-O-HIM all personifications of the lord, because of the phonician EL


As I've tried to point out before, the terms "El" or "I" or "Im" can be both specific or generic. They are often followed by another word describing an attribute. Yes, "El" sometimes refers to the Phoenician head deity, but it also refers to his son, and many other gods in the near and middle east.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Venetian is a mix of classical latin and Ancient indo european.
All the langueges state the same.


Venetian came after Latin so it is irelevant as it could not have influenced Latin.


Just looking at words you can see this.


dictionary.reference.com...
origin) + -eau noun suffix (earlier -el < Latin -ellus )

Just because the word is not part of classical latin does not mean it's not part of latin, Classical latin came after
other forms of Latin.


What matters is the words you are quoting are in another language and came after Latin. You claimed 'el' means 'him' in Latin. You have yet to provide a Latin dictionary link proving this.


Not only is it part of Latin but it's part of the ancient language that has gone extinct.


What, Venetic? Your source made it very clear not to confuse the two but we all know that your are quite susceptible to confusion due to reading comprehension issues.


Venetian is a mix of venetic and Latin, The language may have gone exctinct, it does not mean words are not found in venetian.


No it is not. There are only 600 words known in Venetic and even the experts can not make that claim. Only an arrogant fool would make an assertion such as yours. Additonally, I provided the Venetic lexicon which does not have a word close to what you claim and also has only two pronouns, neither of them being third person pronouns such as 'him'. Stop making things up.


Something you can't deal with, LUS and all other are surffixes (additions)


So what does 'lus' and all the others mean? Is that in your vast Latin language repitoire as well? Give me the various declinations with a defintion.


Just looking at words you can see this.


dictionary.reference.com...
origin) + -eau noun suffix (earlier -el < Latin -ellus )



And you will notice that it does not indicate the Latin word as two seperate words but as a suffix, hence the hyphen (-).

Are you enjoying your self-created death spiral down the blackhole of ignorance?



edit on 18-7-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer.



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78

Ho Humm, Pepsi78-!

Try to gain a clear understanding of the ideas behind the word 'Syncretism - for one, it is a process it often occurs gradually when cults or tribes or clan-states join themselves into tribal amphyctionies i.e. they often take place in distinct STAGES over time, and not at once -

Only THEN will you ever be able to understand the larger issues at stake here on this thread about which you speak so ignorantly, so often...

Time for another ancient history lesson, I'm afraid !

The various and sundry ancient 'western' Ugaritic-Canaanite state temple cults of Bull-EL and EL-Elyon (and EL-Shaddai and EL-Olam etal.) were beginning to have their already-ancient (but originally much smaller) local temple cults of various and sundry deities (both male & female) in greater Canaan (e.g. at ancient shrines such as Megiddo, Tel-Dan, Gaza, Ba'al Peor, etc.) joined syncretistically into larger (& fewer) cult centres long before the Benei Yisro'el ('sons of Yisro'el') began to invade/settle in the Canaanite highlands c. 1400 BCE - we can see this from the archaeology of the Levant by examining the remains of temples of hundreds of temple clan-god-cults...the repeated syncretistic pattern of combining gods and their cults into larger cul centres over time is very clear.

Later, we can see from the archaeology that the roving marauding, heavilly armed/ warlike nomadic 'eastern' tabernacle ('tent')-bearing desert cults of YAH/YHWH began slowly to merge syncretistically with the already merged cults of EL/ELYON/SHADDAI/OLAM etc.after the settlements in the highlands began to pick up steam probably based on changing weather patterns and some severe periods of prolonged droughts which pbrought nomads westward towards Canaan in search of ever 'greener pastures' for their herds (say, roughly after 1400 BCE but could have started earlier in places...) - and they carried their mobile tent-dwelling god(s) with them.

Eventually the established & now-combined Canaanite EL/ELYON/EL-Shaddai/EL-OLAM etal. temple cults began to merge (albeit gradually) with the invading nomadic highland tent-dwelling armed-hordes from the desert who carried the cult of YHWH with them in a Tent ('tabernacle') - along with other gods in their own growing pantheon - they seemed to have picked up new gods as they went when they inter-married with the non Israelite people they came across, naturally...) and when they began the process of finally 'settling' into Cannan, started to build more permament towns andd shrines (as opposed to temporary summer-heat dwellings and, well..tents !) and mixed their own local desert clan god YHWH into the local cults - forming new cults (e.g. YHWH-ELOHIM) - and recent archaeology bears this syncretistic proccess out unmistakably.

So when we see YHWH and YAH (which the King James English Version of the Bible mistranslates as 'The LORD') was combined in LATER WRITINGS (post Ezra) with the generic term for 'clan god' i.e. ELOHIM (using the 'plural of majesty' but governing a singular Verb) which the King James 1611 Version of the Bible mistranslates to the word 'God' it forms in all your bad English translations (of Heb. YHWH-ELOHIM ('lit the clan god-YHWH') as 'The LORD God' which makes for lots of confusion, especially for persons like you on ATS who have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs...or even a basic understanding of the rudiments of Israelitish history...

You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid...

And take the time to go out and learn what the word 'Syncretism' actually means as it applies to expressions like Amun-Ra or Serapis or YHWH-Elohim (or 'The LORD God') - it might put you on the right track to lessen some of your evident addle-brained confusion...


edit on 18-7-2011 by Sigismundus because: typping too fassst means keeyboard troublesss !



posted on Jul, 18 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   


And for the millionth time, I pointed out that residing in the Abzu and being the Abzu are not separate for the Sumerians.

I know what you are getting at, but merging with the abzu does not make you the abzu.
It's not what you said anyway you mixed the apsu with the abzu stating the abzu is a deity, (I say it's wrong)
Being Lord in the pound does not make you the pound.
Maybe you should research something that states the mountain is the mountain, and the clouds are the clouds but they depend on eachother. Far away from what you state.




No, that's not what I said. What I DID say was "Marduk is the Babylonian assimilation of Asarluhi and Ninib (Ninurta)." Can you try to understand that?

Nintura does not kill Nammu, there is no battle, there is no Nibiru in sumeria, this is a babylonian story.
Nintura would have to kill nammu(tiamat) slay her, there is no such thing in sumerian myth.



Yes, which is exactly what I was referring to when I said: "the creation story was rewritten when Marduk came into prominence." Again, can you understand that?

Can you understand that the creation stories from sumeria are different from the babylonian ones ?

In the babylonian version they kill tiamat and make humans out of her, marduk does it.

In the sumerian version the eridu genesis and other forms the mother goddess mixes the clay from the abzu (the abzu is not tiamat) and creates humans, it's her and enki that does it.

So from the start, in babylon the creation myth tiamat(nammu) is slayed and humans pop out of her.
In sumeria the abzu is used for creation, and it's nammu that does it with enki, there is no marduk.

It's contrary to the enuma elish, a whole different story.
]
So it's far away from what you state.




Are you kidding me? I pointed out where your own sources contradicted you on the matter of Adonis/Yahweh and Asherah/Astarte. Neither of these pairs are the same person.

Asherah/astarte is venus, I have shown you this, it's the same deity.

Adonis is the small version of yahweh the child hood, there for the name adonai from the bible, they all come from the same phonician adon.




As I've tried to point out before, the terms "El" or "I" or "Im" can be both specific or generic. They are often followed by another word describing an attribute. Yes, "El" sometimes refers to the Phoenician head deity, but it also refers to his son, and many other gods in the near and middle east.


That is because his son is also a HE just like him, but the name is used with an extension EL-LORD so you know it's him. EL-YAHWEH

EL=AD.
AD=EL ON=LORD. from EN EN=ON.
Don't make me bring up the dictionary.




edit on 18-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join