Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Table of Nations (Genesis 10) |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Arthur-Robin 
General 
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Table of Nations (Genesis 10)Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 22:41 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin:
It is good how you holistically check all the references in the bible which I keep forgetting to do. OK so perhaps Kittim is less likely to be Scythian/Cathay (orig Mongol not Chin) but from what you said it could well still be Keftiou/Catti (Britain). Are there any maps on internet with Assyrian and Egyptian empire people/place names? (I lost my maps when my notes/resources got destroyed). Some modern readings can be wrong: Enlil?/Insakh?, Ninib?/Ninurta?/Uras?/Nindara?, Suedin?/Subartu?/Sumasti?, Zababa?/Zagaga?/Zamama?, etc. Ok so what we have to do then is see if there are any common language or race etc connections between all of the 1st gen "sons" of Ham or Shem or Japet or of their sons, as well as/not just geographical. (Or it could mean that they were persons/deities not (also/instead) peoples/places and that the names were adopted by peoples/for places?) Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia are all Hamite but what about others. Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, Sumer are all Mediterranean but what about others. Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, Philistine, Canaan, Phoenician, Hittite, Babylon, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria are all connected geographically like you say. But if they are only geographical then waht about overlaps and names then appear under more than one of 3 branches? How could we draw maps of connected brothers range? I'll have to check if what you said about Amorites in that topic doesn't contradict what you say here about Canaanites etc. If they are lumped as you say then it may be like Goyim/Gentile lumps all non-Jews together. Re Caucasic etc: The connections may be be at superfamily level? Hebrews and Mitanni/Hatti both Armenoid/Assyrioid. Re since the earliest times: Egyptian has Dravidian elements in it. Sumerian has been connected with Dravidians. What race/lang were pre-/proto-Hittite/-Hattites? Faint resemblance of Heth to Ethiopia tho I know supposedly classical for burnt +face (ops) Re Ear Br Ag: you know I don't agree with orthodox time-scale "synchronisms". Eg Kenyon's stratigraphy might be right but her (or others based on her) dating of Israelites is wrong, Garstang's placement of Israelite invasion is closer to the truth even if his stratigraphy was poss wrong, perhaps the "Amorites" strata?? Jacob is no later than 12th Eg dyn at latest. Not "obersvable" but only what has been observed, some things may be shown were observable in future which were not observed now. Similarities and/or differences can both be either from one common origin or later convergence. Great distance can appear in short time. Not just place-names and words but what about deity names and person/kings names? If Hebrews adopted language then when? Word write appears 1st time at Dophkah after Red Sea crossing. Sinai insriptions have mixture of languages (trilingual?) (not the Egyptian mines, I mean the alledged Israelite ones various places around Sinai (Grant Jeffries/eys).) Didn't you argue against Hebrew language change in Ur of Chaldees topic? Also if changed then whats problem re Caucasic vs Semitic. Also have you considered matrix of all languages theories on what original language was esp Xtian theory that it was Hebrew. Also maybe babel doesn't mean confusion (separation) but mixture of languages? Also cp polyglotic Sumerian? Sailors in the Syria/Arabian desert? (Danaus?) Are there any Elishah/Alasia like place names in Cyprus? Well the list of 10 citys does seem prove Iadnana was Cyprus unless namesakes (like of Atlantis/Sea Peoples). The name Iadnana also sounded a little like Athens or Etna. Is there any name in Cyprus like Iadnana not just the city ones. Where does name Adana (and/or Aydin) come from though? Sarmast's Atlantis-Cyprus theory extends ancient csts ne Cyprus and se Turkey (adana) quite close together. 10 city kings?! In midst of sea?! (Yam). Iadnana and Iamani (Amanus?) recalls Aati and Aamu? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain 
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 03:36 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
More references to Kittim:
1. It is near Sidon (Isaiah 23:12)
2. List of several local nations trading with Tyre (Ezek. 27:1-9). Among them, Kittim and Elishah.
Just do an "image search" in any search-engine like Google.
But, most modern readings seem to be much better!!! Your point?
We know that there are overlaps of names in Arabia (descendants of Cush and Shem) as well as overlaps of names in or near the Fertile Crescent (among the posterity of the sons of Shem). Conversely we see that some of an ethnic group were derived from one son but another portion from another line (cf. Aramaeans derived from Shem and Kemuel). It may be that the Hebrews knew of more than one tradition, and tried to synthesize them into a coherent system. How many Shebas and Dedans are there?
You know better than to lump together linguistic classifications with anthropological ones. One does not compliment the other. Caucasic is to Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) as Afro-Asiatic is to Indo-European. No superfamily level.
No it doesn't.
Only in the fact that they are both agglutinative languages. But, this characteristic is common also to Hurro-Caucasian and Ural-Altaic languages as well. Yet, they are all separate families of languages with no "superfamily". Sumerian is as different from Dravidian as it is with English.
Let's begin with what we know, shall we? We know that the native language of central Anatolia was a language related to Caucasian languages. Therefore, any speculation as to the supposed "race/language" of the "pre/proto-Hattians/Hittites is meaningless, since we don't have any records as to what was the ethno-linguistic situation, before. We can only assume that the Hattians were present from an indefinite time before the arrival of the Hittites.
You mean the very name "Ethiopia"? Come on, you answered your own question.
And you know that I do generally except the "orthodox time-scale". It's not perfect, I'll agree to that, but there are very rational reasons to except any particular version of it. There's then really no point in discussing time-issues with you, then, since some of identities of some of the nations involved also involve time issues.
Semantics!!! I refer to what is "observable" today.
Yes but if the differences can be seen to have been from different origins (which was the usual case in the archaeological record) then we have an observation. For instance, we can "observe" that cultural differences between Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations developed from their respective regions: no "common origin" observed. Same thing with their respective languages: no "common origin" observed.
Deity-names tend to transcend linguistic backgrounds. The same with personal names.
If the ancestors of the Hebrews came from Mesopotamia, and if we begin with the Abraham tradition, then they adopted the "language of Canaan" when Abraham settled in Canaan. We note that Abraham's relations remained in "Aram Naharaim" and thus retained the name "Aramaeans" (though an anachronistic reference).
They are completely two separate language families, hence, no common origin. Here's the problem. Suppose that Sidon and Heth originally spoke Hamitic. Who then is the son/or descendant of Noah who first spoke Canaanite and Hattian/Hittite? In the example of Abraham, he stepped from one region of one language into another region of another language. Like most immigrants, he adopts the language of his new home. But in the case of Sidon and Heth, there are no antecedants. They are the first to enter vacant lands. Where did they learn to speak the languages named after them?
From an historical perspective, all the families of languages were already formed. Therefore, to speak of the "ursprache" is unhistorical. It only belongs in the realm of hypothesis which postulate an origin in the 10s of thousands of years.
Sumerian is not as "polyglottic" as you think. The reverse is rather true - other neighboring languages adopted Sumerian vocabulary.
No.
I believe there is a reference to an Alesia on Cyprus, and there is the Bronze Age reference to Alashiya in both Hittite and Egyptian inscriptions which surely corresponded to Cyprus. However, the Table of Nations seems to reflect the political situation of between the 8th and 6th centuries in date, since many of the political entities named were not in existence in the Bronze Age, but were in the later time period. Hence, Alashiya may have ran out of usage and replaced by Phoenician/Hebrew Kittim, after Kition, the earliest Phoenician settlement on Cyprus. Another case against Elishah not being identified with Cyprus, is that it is only mentioned 3 times in scripture. Kittim is mentioned 10 times. Surely Kittim's more frequent mention points to its proximity to the Promised Land.
Why make things more complex than what they actually are? Cyprus was obviously within reach of the Assyrians, and logically the next step in dominating the eastern Levant, after subjugating Phoenicia and Que/Adana.
Unknown. The Assyrian records speak of a district on Iadnana, called Ia', but that's it.
It was originally a Luwian kingdom called Ataniya conquered by the Hittites in, c. 1650 BC. It became part of the Hittite Lower Land province, until about 1550 BC when it was conquered by the Hurrians, and the region became known as the kingdom of Kizzuwadna. Kizzuwadna remained independent of the Hittites until about 1350 BC when the Hittites regained possession of it. In about 1250 BC the Hittite royal house established a collateral dynasty there and part of the region became known as the kingdom of Tarhuntassa. Tarhuntassa probably did not survive the Sea People invasions, but by the time the Assyrians appeared in the region, the region was again known as Adana according to native inscriptions, but the Assyrians (and Hebrews) knew it as Que. Under Assyrian domination, it became a bone of contention between them, and other local Anatolian powers but ultimately it was absorbed by the growing kingdom of Cilicia.
Iadnana, in the midst of the sea, with 10 kings.
No.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 11:12 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kittim & Sidon: Perhaps Kettu (and Mesaru), (Mishor and) Sydyk/Sidon.
Iadnana & midst of sea & 10 kings: I meant Atlantis. Also Urantia people believe Cyprus was Eden (Iadnana?) Caucasic: Nostratic inclds Ind-Eur, Ural-Alt, Eski-Aleut, Chukchi-Kamchat. Eurasiatic incls Ham-Sem, Ind-Eur, Ural-Alt, Elam-Dravid, Amerind? I can't remember since I lost my notes but is Dene-Causcasian (name?), Na-Dene and Sino-Tibet supposed to be related? Perhaps Ham and Shem limited to N Afr and SE Asia (mod "Hamitic" is only a convenient/arbitrary grouping), with all others coming from Japheth since Japetites settled Isles (continents) of Gentiles. Egypt/Dravidian: Source was Newnes encycl atlas. Ia: There is a similar place named Jaa in Sinuhe account. Caucasic: I meant if Hebrews did not orig speak Semitic then there is no clash with Caucasic and them. Son 1st spoke/Languages already formed: the languages said to have become different at Babel. Hamitic is only a convenient/arbitrary grouping. (I think Donnelly says something about switching of Semitic and Hamitic in Egypt?) Canaan cursed to become a slave to Shem. Invasions of Chedorlaomer, Gilgamesh, etc. (Giants?) Overlaps: There may be more than one Sheba (Saba, Sabians, Asebi (Assos/Asia or Isuwa/Issus), and one in Ethiopia/Kenya.) There are arguements against Hebrews adopting language eg you said all names of their ancestors were Semitic. Different origins: There is a certain amount of evidence that all races/languages/religions came from one common original. Alot of similarities are not recoginsed by the establishment. Take the word cow in my signature for eg. Take the deity correspondences I posted in Euro language topic/thread. Take the common mythological themes I am shortly going to post on my new free web site. But you are right that [within the overall commonness that] some peoples are further/closer (simil/diff) to each other than others. There are similarities between Egypt and Sumer but you may be right or not that they are confluence [&/or overall common origin] rather than (below overall) origins. Eg Khensu = Enzu (moon). Ka(ui) = Gud (cow). Taui = Tab (two). Etc. I'll leave the remaining 3 "paragraphs" (polyglotic, Hatti, agglutinative) for now til next time. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King 
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 21:37 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Egypt has a more or less continous history since about 3100BC (1st Dynasty), which if you count for 5 children 25 years a generation, and a population of about a million for the civilisation means that you can't place it before 3350BC (5^10 = 9,765,625). According to Egyptian History alone. I haven't checked others. And I haven't check pre-dynastic egypt. This means that Ibrahim(pbuh) must be born around 2950BC (392 years between Ibrahim(pbuh) and Shem(pbuh)). We have according to matthew 40 generations between Ibrahim(pbuh) and Jesus(pbuh) or 56 according to Luke (they contradict). If we assume normal 25 year generations and not miracolosly long ones, that gives 2950-40*25=1950BC or 2950 - 56 *25 = 1550BC. Well over 1500-2000 years out of sync. How are you doing your chronology? Edited by Omar al Hashim - 15-Jun-2006 at 21:38 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 00:25 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Again, why make things more complicated than what they actually are? We know the i.d. of Sidon. Let's go from there, otherwise, there's really nothing more to say on this subject.
Why are you using some obscure cult as an historical source? Irrelevant. As for a comparison between Atlantis and Iadnana, I don't see it. At this point, this is irrelevant. What is relevent is that Iadnana was described as an island within easy reach of the Assyrians. I may add that Sargon II of Assyria installed a stele on Cyprus (which was described in an inscription, and actually found in all places Citium, itself.
All these classifications are not even recognized within linguistic circles. They mostly are theorized upon outside of the mainstream of linguistic studies. Languages are added or substracted from each supergroup according to a set of conventions, and one "school" may not agree as to which languages belong to a certain supergroup with another "school". In the end, none of the research is relevant to the study of history, since by the dawn of writing, every language group was already represented, and each linguistic culture had a unique culture or cultures in existence, according to the archaeological record.
All other sources, don't make such a connection.
Yaa was a borderland within the land of Upper Retenu (in Canaan).
Well, the tradition does not allow for the ancestors of the Hebrews to have spoken Caucasian languages.
You are speaking in the realm of legends. These are unhistorical. What is historical is that at the beginning of history we already have unconnected language and cultural groups.
Probably because the Hebrews knew of more than one tradition regarding their southern neighbors.
Correct, the names of their ancestors were Semitic, but they could have originally spoken Akkadian or Amoritic but when they entered Canaan, they adopted the local Semitic language of the region.
"Similarities" can be judged in many ways. One civ. may adopt or imitate something from another civ. for instance, or a facit of culture may have "similarities" with a similar facit of culture of another civ., but independently arrived at. As it stands, Egyptian and Sumerian civs. cannot be shown to have arisen from some parent culture. On the other hand some motifs from Sumerian culture can be shown to have been adopted by the Egyptians.
Disputable.
Also disputable.
Mythological themes are like today's sci-fi stories. An author is bound to arrive at the same themes as another author. The story itself may be unique but the theme has been explored hundreds of times before, by hundreds of different authors. Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces explores those common mythological themes.
The differences way outnumber the similarities. Edited by Sharrukin - 16-Jun-2006 at 00:33 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 02:45 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim:
How am I doing my chronology? -I try to find horizontal/contemporary synchronisms and vertical/consecutive relationships. I guess I have to give away another of my discoveries to illustrate point: Eg Jacob can't be later than 12th Egytpian dynasty because Shechem is mentioned in 12th dyn records while in bible it was founded in Jacob's days (unless one counts reference to variant of name shechem in Abram's time) (C) SWB. I try to synthesise bible, myths, archaeology, etc. For another example see my new web page (please excuse poor presentation/design it is in early stages) at: http://www.lifetradition.freewebpages.org/history.htm (There may be some problems with those stupid eclipsing advertisers some times.) Sharrukin: "Egyptian and Sumerian civs. cannot be shown to have arisen from some parent culture."?? I guess you have still not read Makers of Civilisation by LA Waddell? I admit I am possibly/wrong about a quite a number of things, but if you are so dismissive of such strong evidence like the common myths of Joseph's drought, Tower of Babel, Flood, etc as if they are only independently arrived at due to common humanity, then no amount of evidence of similarity will ever convince you accept for the ones you want to accept (no personal offense intended). Campbell actually seems to agree with diffusion rather than independent origins, or at least a middle way between the 2. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 03:04 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nice site, Arthur, you have certainly done a lot of research.
Site: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ We already have the flood story, similar but not identical to the biblical one. Many authors have stated that the differences are significant in that they make the story historically plausable. As I said before, many Christian denominations are adopting the Muslim story of the flood. Edited by Omar al Hashim - 16-Jun-2006 at 03:05 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 04:40 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Later Execration texts which date from the later 12th Dynasty already mention Shechem (Sakmemi). Sesostris III (c. 1878-1843 BC) conducted a campaign in Palestine in which one of the places recorded was Shechem. Archaeologicaly, Shechem may have been urbanized since about 1950 BC.
I've read far too many other books to draw such a conclusion.
What I'm "dismissive" is that you identify "Joseph's dought" with a specific event, when there were many instances of "drought" in Egyptian history.
"Divine intervention" to "confuse the tongues" is simply ahistorical, and has no place in historical discourse, but on the synagogue or church pulpit.
The Mesopotamian evidence shows not just one flood, but many floods. Hence the Mesopotamian "account" may have been a contraction of many flood events put together to make it more "universal" than what it actually was.
I am willing to bet, that if there was no Bible, you would not have been able to arrive at not even a fraction of this so-called "evidence of similarity", despite the fact that it is virtually all of a mythic or legendary nature. No true history can be drawn from it. However, since you are willing to accept those myths as historical fact, no amount of opposing evidence will ever convince you otherwise, accept for the ones you want to accept. (No personal offense intended, likewise).
He, at least recognizes that there was the possibility of independent origins.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 16:31 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Omar: (reminds me of the chant "Omar, Omar, Omar" on a TV program I once saw!)
Yes I know that Adites not in Flood in some/various sources, but I have also seen sources (lost specifics/details when my study notes/resources got destroyed) that also/alternatively say that it was a Flood. Few different sources have different catastrophes. I recently recovered a copy of "Koran" about a month ago. In any case Ad/Urem is definately connected with tower of Babel if not also flood. Sharrukin: Joseph: I certainly did not mean that I thoght that Pharaoh Djoser and Vizier Joseph are directly connected (as opposed to Lake Dwellings & Joseph), but I did mean that it may mean that the story of Djoser's drought may poss been mixed up with Joseph tradition and so confirming it. There are only 2 possibilites (unless it is (unlikely) Hebrew plaigiarism): either coincidence is only due to 2 english transliterations of Hebrew & Egyptian names, or the seven yr drought of Josef tradition was transfered to Joser due to similarity of names & perhaps closeness of times. I personally place Joseph after 1st dyn and before 12th, which is earlier than anyother source I've seen (other than those that connect name with Djoser or Souphis.) (I prefer name may resemble Inyotef?) Babel: My evidence shows it is not "unhistorical/unscientific" at all. Just because eye witness/memory is oral not written (or not pottery/etc) you won't accept it as evidence? It may well or may not be true that without bible I would not have arrived at some discoveries (would have to be any way so I can't boast before God). But regardless I still have those stories in many myths without the bible versions, the bible is seemingly the only one that we have where we have the whole story of human time/world/history from beginning to end. Re "No amount of opposing evidence will ever convince you otherwise, accept for the ones you want to accept": I accept it is possible that just as I accuse the world/establishment/orthodxy/evolutionists/atheists of this that it may possibly also be true for me too? But I don't believe/think that I am equally or more closed as them. (I don't want to believe that I am going to hell....) I believe/think have always wanted to proove what the truth is more than to proove a fiction. I have amended my views where people like you have shown me wrong. I did not want to attack you but I was amazed at how you and others could be dismissive of such glaring evidence/proof by saying things like it is only coincidentally arrived at due to common humanity. Mesopotamian floods: Yes so none can be same as the bible flood which was only one. Question/Query: I'm not sure that the plural floods of Iraq is correct as opposed to them being one and same: how could only one site be flooded each time (since there is only one flood strata at sites I thinnk??) No it can't be a conflation of Iraq floods because that wouldn't explain the myths all round world with very similar details, etc. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 00:09 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Interesting, I'm not that familiar with the Tower of Babel, why is it important/what is it? Edited by Omar al Hashim - 17-Jun-2006 at 00:11 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 03:13 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin: I happened to come across another mention of Dravidians in east Africa in UNESCO prehistory of Africa volume while looking at something else. Omar:
The Tower of Babel story occurs in Gensis 11 (and 10). I don't think I can give a very good summary, but basically after the flood people moved in/to/from (depending on version) the east and settled in land of Shinar (Sumeria) where they built a city and a tower in order to reach to the clouds/heavens but God came down (sense in orig lang text is humourous) to see the tower and then confused their languages (they all spoke same language til then) and scattered them over the earth. The city/tower was called Babel (Babylon) meaning gateway+god or confusion. According to Gen 10 Nimrod who was a mighty (Gibbor) hunter built 3 or 4 cities in Shinar incld Babel, and he or Asshur built 3 or 4 cities in Assyria, probably = the 7 cities of various myths. So the tradition is that Nimrod (one meaning being Rebel) or Cush built the Tower of Babel.
There a alot of parallels with the city of pillars/brass city/Urem/Ad some of which incld: Sheddad a mighty man & desc of Ham, Urem (Ur/Rome for Babylon)?, gardens (hanging gardens/Babylon indentified with Eden), shortly after flood, destroyed in catastrophe (almighty shout or flood or ... depending on source), (Bab-el-Mandeb ~ Babel??), pillars/columns/tower, etc.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 04:05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
You don't "confirm" something when the information is "mixed up". Nothing can be drawn from such. Only speculation.
Not quite sure what you mean by the first, but as for the second, we note many periods of drought in Egypt. Just because the drought recorded in Djoser happened to have been seven years means nothing since any one of the succeeding droughts may have lasted that long. If Joseph's drought was real, it may not even have been worth recording by the Egyptians, because according to the story, Joseph's plan prevented Egypt from suffering through that famine, but which obviously affected Palestine.
The Egyptians were quite particular in recording the names of foreigners. There wouldn't have been a mistake in confusing Joseph with Inyotef.
But of course not. Oral memories are always dubious. Remember that game you played as a kid, of being in a line of children. At the beginning of the line, you (the original source) tells the first kid a story in a soft voice. That kid then tells the story to the next kid in line in the same manner, and that second kid tells the story to the next one, and, etc., etc.. At the end of the line, the last kid then recites the story, which is so corrupted that it barely resembles the original story. Try doing that several times using several stories, and the results are always the same.
The story as we have it now, speaks of divine intervention which spontaneously made everyone speak different languages. Once we come to the realm of such "miracles", one comes to the realm of timeless legend and myth. Anything regarding "natural development" is thus thrown out the window. We can then no longer determine was is fact and fiction. I'm reminded of a Native American story of how the first man for formed. The first man was a lizard which became parallyzed and "transformed" into a man. It sounds a lot like the theory of evolution, but I'm not for a moment going to believe that story. So, tell me, should I believe that story or not? You see what my (and the majority of others) dilemma is, can you?
From an objective viewpoint, the Bible is only one of many books where we have (somewhat) the whole story of the world (really mainly the Promised Land) from beginning to end. And then, because there are many stories of origins, how do we know that the Biblical account is the right one?
I've already dealt with this subject with you before and I don't find it necessary to deal with you about it again. From the beginning of this thread, I was afraid (and many others, also) that it may wind up getting reduced to pointless arguments about the historicity of legendary events. As it goes, you've seem to have accepted the idea that languages of peoples not represented in the Table of Nations was the result of "divine intervention". God caused Canaan, son of Ham, to speak Canaanite, and caused Canaan's son, Heth to speak Hattian, or Hittite. I have a better idea. Canaan was son of Ham, because Canaan had intimate ties with Egypt - as a matter of fact, Canaan was under Egyptian sovereignty. Heth, was son of Canaan, because when the Israelites conquered Canaan they found Hittites there which bore Semitic names and were speaking Canaanite. Heth and Hittite in relation to Canaan are therefore anachronisms, reflecting the world of the 8th to 6th centuries as the Hebrews knew it.
Don't you believe that many things can be arrived at coincidently? There is very little evidence, for instance that the cultures of east Asia developed from anywhere else. Their agricultural and technological development seemed to have been generally independently developed.
Have it ever occured to you that the "great flood" myths all around the world were the result of "local great floods"? For instance, the "great flood" of the ancient Greeks does not match chronologically or in specific details that of the biblical flood. You deny the scientific data showing that the flood level of one Sumerian city does not match that of another. This is what I'm talking about, and you proved it. If the data does not agree with your belief, then the data must be wrong. Let's take the opposite extreme. If 5,000 years from now archaeologists were to uncover the "flood level" of New Orleans and the "flood level" of the Indonesian islands and determine rightfully that they occurred at the same time, should they then theorize that they were the same flood? After all, New Orleans and Indonesia are on opposite sides of the world. It must have been a "world-wide great flood", but the reality was that they were "local great floods".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 04:52 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ah, now I know what Babel is! Its ...باب ال baab al- door (of) the ... This means babel is a really common name, you could find it anywhere. Door of the (house), Gate of the (city) etc The tower of Babel could easily mean: "The Tower of the Gateway of the West" ie the tower over the west gate, or something. Edited by Omar al Hashim - 17-Jun-2006 at 04:53 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 17:43 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Omar:
No, no. Perhaps I should have cut and paste the verses from Genesis instead: Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from/to/in the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another (a man said to his neighbour), come/Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to/come, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the LORD came down (humourous) to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one anothers speech. 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel (confusion/gateway of god); because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth Genesis 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land went forth Asshur [or he went forth into Asshur], and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, 12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city. (Is the gateway of the west a specific place?) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Jun-2006 at 20:13 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin:
I am annoyed at how almost everyone on net forums is/are so arch-sceptical. I believe the reason is not because people genuinely believe the counter evidence is more than the pro evidence but because of political correctness (Hitler, and Judaeo-Xtianity). You yourself said without bible I would not have arrived at independently my discoveries, yet you claim diverse cultures could. The fact is that many "independent" witnesses around world agree in even minor details of the stories. Djoser: I meant that the stories have not only 7 yrs drought in common but seeming similarity of names, but acknowl that Djoser is only english transliteration and Joseph is only english transliteration (yet the coincidence of the transliterations can not necessarily be totally dismissed). Inyotef: I only meant that name(s) like Inyotef (or Djoser, Souphis) may be evidence of Egyptian pharaohs taking/given similar name to Joseph in honour/memory. (Perhaps cp/contrast Hyksos names?) Oral: (I was never a "kid" that swear-like word has only been forced on us in last no of yrs (in NZ at least).) You forget that ancient's genetics/memories were better than now. Look at how people can memorise Koran, phone books, Iliad, scriptures, etc (and not just autistic savaunts). Look at how Jewish scriptures were preserved. Your pass rumour rnd circle example would only be valid if two different games with 2 orig diff lines arrived at same details. Also, what if the persons making up line were specially selected for their relevant abilities instead, or line was passed on between groups not individuals? Also, some of the myths are very early not late. Miracles: There is evidence that mircales have happened in history and present. Some miracles may not be as incredible as we think cp Velikovsky. "Natural" Developement: Sure there must be natural development in history. But did races/languages/religons evolve or devolve? But did we evolve or created? Whole story: I don't know for sure if you are right or not that we do have other whole world/human history/time myth stories from beginning to end or not. The bible at least does seem far more orderly. "How do we know bible is right one?" Because my/others discoveries happen to confirm that conclusion as likely. Canaan: You may well be right that the table represents not racial/linguistic but cultural/economic/political. I don't remember hearing about Hittites speaking Semitic/Canaanite before (not that I'm denying it if it is so). Coincidence: Sure I believe it is possible for coincidence/independent, but I also see that people are just using this "possibility" to dismiss/deny contrary evidence. Cultures might independently develop but may still also not have independently originated. While establishment insists cultures spontaneosly evolved yet those same cultures themselves tell us they had outside origins (Egyptian, Maori, Chinese, Americans, etc.) Flood: You are half right and half wrong. Wrong - There is no way that the universal flood myth is only an illusory combination of local flood myths because as I have already told either you or someone else the stories (incl Greek) agree in minor details like bird sent out 3 x, sacrifice, 3 sons, etc; and other reasons I won't repeat unless necessary (incl why would a local event be so important to preserve). Right - I agree there was/were (an)other regional/global scale flood(s) (but not as absolutely global as the great flood) which stories have been combined with Noachian flood. The differences do not cancel out the similarities, I acknowledge the differences (must be explained) as well as the similarities. I did not deny the flood strata of different sites was different, only question it/consider either possible. You're example of Orleans and Indonesia flood strata can be answered in that you would also have the tradition/record 5000 yrs from now too. A careful study/analysis of both the 2 traditions and the 2 starta would show whether they were one global or 2 local floods (but with extra possibility it/they combined with pervious flood/s memory/ies.) Quote "If the data does not agree with your belief, then the data must be wrong." This half-lie makes me very angry (but I suppose maybe I did similar to you?) The truth is that I constantly question the data and also my (historical) "beliefs", while most others just accept the data without question and oppose others "beliefs". My "beliefs" are based on all the types of evidences/proofs/data of life I have seen/heard in my life. But it is true that there is certain amount of reluctance to change "belief" for "data". If I had not been so reluctant I would have gone along with orthodox "data" and never made some of my discoveries. What harm is there in trying to find out if alternative theories are true or not? * so it is not necessarily my "beliefs" vs orthodox "data", but rather: my evidence/data/theories/beliefs/interpretations vs orthodox theories/beliefs/data/evidence/imterpretations. In some cases I will be wrong/belief and/vs orthodox right/data, in others orthodox will be wrong/belief and/vs me right/data. But in the end the data/evidence like I have/am/will posted on my free web site is going to be more convincing/weighty than these philosophical arguemments. Edited by Arthur-Robin - 17-Jun-2006 at 20:36 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 02:34 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks Arthur,
However I am certain that Babel is a corruption of Baab al. Baab meaning door/gateway. Which purely means that based on name alone you cannot link this to any other places or sites. Since this is as common as a door (pardon the pun). No, the 'gateway of the west' is not a specific place, I made it up. It would be 'the west gate' in english and there was probably one in every city. Gateway of God in Arabic would be baab-al-lah, however this is not necessarily going to be the same in other semetic languages.
Yes, lets, not very well really. Well, on one hand we still have them which is a tremendous feat, but on the other they have been extensively modified over the centuaries.
Doesn't necessarily prove its the right one, possible only close to the right one.  But thats my personal bias of course.
hmmm? I am under the impression that the bible doesn't agree with itself on the minor details of the flood. (Taking my ideas from the Bible, the Qur'an and Science). There are actually two descriptions of the flood, one written in the 9th centuary BC the other in the 6th. That have been placed side by side in an alternating fashion. They have many differences, the number of animals (1 pair or 7 of the pure and 1 of the unpure), difference lengths of time (40days or 150years) etc.
Its true there are all too few people who actually think about what they believe in. Most people just follow the masses or their childhood influences. Edited by Omar al Hashim - 18-Jun-2006 at 02:35 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yiannis
Sultan 
Joined: 03-Aug-2004 Location: Neutral Zone Online Status: Offline Posts: 2329 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 07:44 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's a notion that there were a series of floods, caused by the melting of the last ice-age glaciers in the Balkans. Deucalion's story does not involve him rescuing animals but bears similarities to other stories as in the bible of in Gilgamesh' story.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 20:54 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Would you please stop. There maybe some truth to what you're saying but at least I have much more legitimate reasons for "believing the counter evidence". Heck, I deal with "political correctness" and "nationalism" all the time, and I tell you, they are very similar to your own mindset. They have their own particular "sacred cows" (i.e. core beliefs which they can never really see past), which don't allow them to objectively look at good evidence to the contrary.
I didn't say that.
I didn't say that either.
That's not even true.
You cannot use "similarities" of "transliterated" names to prove anything, either.
Not only are the names disimilar enough, but the circumstances in the careers of these people do not match.
Whose talking about swearing. I'm talking about the nature of oral transmission of information. It get's corrupted as soon as the first witness tells his story to the next. I remember my father telling us about our grandfather serving under a legendary general. After I was able to ask the right questions and doing some independent research on my own, I discovered that my grandfather didn't serve under that legendary general but under another general with a less illustrious career. Oral tradtion is unreliable.
Nevertheless, these oral traditions often took centuries of transmission before finally being written down. In the intervening time, corruption would have set in.
That's not true.
But the reality was that the tradition was transmitted by regular folk, perhaps from father to son, without "qualification" for their "abilities".
Groups are made up of individuals, hence a "group" may have a "group" of traditions, which conflict, hence the group tries to reconcile these "traditions" into one story, which ultimately still does not match the original story.
Which means that the earlier the myth, the more corruption would have been in the myth.
Here's the problem with "miracles". They are mostly anecdotal. I have read of people who have witnessed (outside of hospitals) people coming back alive through some religious ritual. The other problem is that these stories of "miracles" tend to happen in third-world countries, where education is low and so people tend to believe anything.
The only question relevent here is if languages evolved. The evidence is quite conclusive. Based on the evidence of written languages alone, we can see that languages change. The English of 1000 years ago is virtually incomprehensible to the English of today. Persian has gone through an evolution. Egyptian evolved into Coptic. Etc., etc. This is really a no-brainer.
You realize that we can't go by that. The operative word here is "confirm". Thus far, you haven't been able to confirm anything. For every factoid you produce, a lot of questions can be raised as to the authenticity of said "confirmed evidence", as well as if the word "confirm" can even be used for said "evidence". Your level of what satisfies you as something that is "confirmed" is simply not on par with what satisfies the majority. Your accusation of the reasons why your "proofs" are not accepted may have some truth to them, but I've already explained why legendary or mythological events cannot be accepted as fact by researchers. Which legendary or mythological events can be accepted? There is no control over how to determine that. That "lizard to man" myth is just one example as to how a story seems to mimic or is similar to scientific research. Again, should I accept that "lizard ot man" myth?
When Abraham's wife Sarah died, Abraham was able to purchase a burial place for her among the Hittites of Palestine who bore Semitic names. When David sent one of his subjects, the Hittite husband of Bathsheba to the battlefront, he bore a Semitic name.
Thus far, I've given several reasons why there had been some "coincidences" among some myths or legends. These are enough to cast doubt as to the alleged "similarities" among certain stories. Don't get me wrong, even I can see how a tradition from one culture can be adapted by another culture which make it their own. The problem with legends of "natural disasters" is that "natural disasters" are universally experienced by anyone, no matter where they live.
So what? Has it occurred to you that "minor details" only means that people may react the same in any given situation. Again, it's like science-fiction: more than one author has the same theme. In major details the stories are different, but in "minor details" they can be uncannily alike.
You are still going to deny that local floods can be blown out of proportion to look as if they seem "worldwide". Again, from the point of view of a local village or tribe, it would seem that the world (as they knew it) was gone.
Oh but you do. The "Great Flood" is a core belief of yours. It's one of those things you cannot change because of your faith. "I'm not sure if the plural floods in Iraq is correct". Your reasoning is flawed. A river can inundate a specific region, not necessarily all of it. The Mississipi River is known to inundate but only at specific places.
Oh, the irony of your objection. You appealed to "a careful study/analysis [of the] two local floods", yet you reject the "careful study" of the various flood levels in southern Iraq!!! You even rejected coincidences, yet you would have still appealed to the "careful study". I don't think that if you lived in that future, you would have not accepted the two simultaneous local floods as "coincidence".
In this case the data in question is the dates given to the various flood-levels of the Babylonian cities. One city has a flood-level of Ubaid date. Another city has a flood-level of Uruk date, yet another city has a flood-level of Early Dynastic date. Not only are you questioning the dates, but you are questioning the stratigraphy as well. It then becomes quite academic after that. No matter how you try to rationalise your objections, the scientific data cannot be ignored. I stand by my statement without reservation, that (in this case) that you ignore the scientific data because it does not conform to your belief.
The problem is that, thus far, the "evidence" for these alternative theories can be explained in more than one way. Much of the "evidence" is not even evidence at all, merely speculation or inference. It is speculation built upon speculation and thus the conclusion is only more speculation. The real harm is that people accept the conclusion as fact, when all the "evidence" behind it is either vague or misapplied. They then live a lie, and you know what happens when a person lives a lie.
I don't think so. It starts with a conviction you then set out to substantiate. You use other "flood" accounts regardless as to how different they really are. But these differences really mean nothing, do they. So what if Ziusudra or Ubartutu or Deucalion had different names than Noah, as long as there was a "flood" motif they must be the same thing. What "world" meant long ago isn't necessarily what "world" means today, anyway. How would they know the "whole world" was flooded? Isn't it funny that despite the Biblical flood, there was still nephilim in the land? According to the Greek account, only a man and a woman survived, yet other Greek myths show that other people survived as well, including whole tribes. Pelasgians don't even figure in the flood accounts.[/quote]
In the end there are much more simpler reasons why the Table of Nations is as it is. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 937 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 02:29 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(damn lost my reply, it logged out and went to page one.)
Omar: Remember Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah almost identical to modern reading of text. Genesis says 2 of unclean and 7 of clean so no contradiction. I had not heard of 150 yrs version can you point me to where I can find out more? It is true that different cultures have different lengths: bible 40 days, Mesopotamian 7 days (from 7 days of creation), Greek 9 days (same as egyptian Shu tempest 9 days), Atlantis day and night. But as I said to Sharrukin there is no problem because I agree there were other lesser large scale catastrophes which were combined with Noachian flood thus explaining both the similarities (in minor details) and the differences (also due to corruption). Sharrukin: You should not totally dismiss the lizard-man myth, nor should we totally acept it. I am sick of this stupid arguing. This is not getting us anywhere and is only wasting time and effort/energy. It is dividing instead of reconciling. We need to step back and start from what we can agree on. What are my reasons for believing global flood. What are your reasons for not believing global flood? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1314 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 03:11 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
And so here's the problem - which part should we accept and which part shouldn't we accept, and why?
"Reconciling" is your priority, according to your beliefs. My priority is to weigh and question alleged evidence. However, I'm at least in agreement that we've been disputing over things which divert from our discussion on the topic subject.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.
