Table of Nations (Genesis 10)
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mesopotamia, Near East and Greater Iran
Forum Discription: Babylon, Egypt, Persia and other civilizations of the Near East from ancient times to 600s AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12548
Printed Date: 24-Apr-2024 at 23:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Table of Nations (Genesis 10)
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Subject: Table of Nations (Genesis 10)
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 14:58
|
(1.) My research over the last 2 yrs has found that some of the traditional/orthodox identifications of the names in the Table of Nations are possibly wrong. So it seemed good to me to put out the topic for people to debate and give their opinions/evidences/discoveries. (2.) Also, in light of the latest theories on "genetic/ethnic" (PC for racial) and and linguistic origins & developement we may soon be in a place where we can confidently identify the 3 sons of Noah with racial and linguistic super-/families. I am hoping some of you others will have somethings to contribute/say here (after the disappointing no replies/responses to my similar names topic in hist amusement subforum), and I myself will in coming posts in this topic/thread also give some of my own hunches/findings on these 2 points/questions. (I hope this chart posts alriight without mucking up spacing/alignments.) Noah/madjnun. | Japheth. |-Gomer | '-Ashkenaz(im); Riphath; Togarmah. |-Magog/Gog/Og |-Madai |-Javan | '-Elishah; Tarshish; Kittim; Dodanim. |-Tubal |-Meshech/Mash '-Tiras. Noah/madjnun | Ham/Cham/Kham |-Cush/Chus | |-Seba | |-Havilah | |-Sabtah | |-Raamah | | '-Sheba; Dedan | |-Sabteca | '-Nimrod |-Mizraim | |-Lud(im) | |-Anamim | |-Lehabim/Lub(im) | |-Naphtuhim | |-Pathrusim | |-Casluhim | | '-Philistim | '- Caphtorim |-P(h)ut '-Canaan '-Sidon; Heth; Jebusites; Amorites; Girgash*tes; Hivites; Arkites; Sinites; Arvadites; Zemarites; Hamathites. Noah/madjnun | Shem/Seth |-Elam |-Asshur |-Arpachshad/Arphaxad | '-Shelah | '-Eber/Heber | |- Peleg | '-Joktan | '-Almodad; Sheleph; Hazarmaveth; Jerah; Hadoram; Uzal; | Diklah; Obal; Abimael/Mael; Sheba; Ophir; Havilah/Emlak; | Job(ab). |-Lud(im) '-Aram '-Uz; Hul; Gether; Mash/Meshech. Noah | Shem | Arpachshad/Arphaxad | Shelah | Eber/Heber | Peleg | Reu/Ragau | Serug | Nahor | Terah/Azar |-Har(r)an | '-Lot | '- Moab; Ben-Ammi. |-Abram/Abraham | |-Ishmael | | '-Nebaioth; Kedar; Adbeel; Mibsam; Mishma; | | Dumah; Massa; Hadad; Tema; Jetur; Naphish; | | Kedemah. | |-Isaac | | |-Jacob/Israel | | '-Esau/Edom | | '-.... | |-Zimran | |-Jokshan | | |-Sheba | | '-Dedan | | '-Asshurim; Letushim; Leummim. | |-Medan | |-Midian | | '-Ephah; Ephir; Hanoch; Abida; Eldaah. | |-Ishbak | '-Shuah. '-Nahor |- Uz |- Buz |- Kemuel | '- Aram. |- Chesed |- Hazo |- Pildash |- Jidlaph |- Bethuel | '- Rebekah; Laban. |- Tebah |- Gaham |- Tahash '- Maacah. ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Replies:
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2006 at 19:39
|
Some examples of my new/other's old identifications include: Lehabim => Nekhab (cognate with Negeb/Negev) (or Rahab) not Libya. Lud(im) => Luristan or Lydia. (Cp also Nod?) Lubim => Nubia or Libya. Laban = Lebanon (cp Leshan?) or Albania (Trans-Caucasian). Pathrusim = Atur-res (Pathros). Asshurim = Asir. Madai => Mari or Media or Mardi, Magyar (pronounciation). Elam => Ahlamu (Aramean), not Elamtu. Dodanim => Dardanelles not Rhodes. Elishah => Pelasgian/Hellas (cp Elis, Eleusis, Elysium) or Elche or Alshe (Alzi/Lazica), Anshan, not (Cyprus). Jetur = Ituraea or Jethro or Getulia or Geshur. Riphath => Riffians or Rephaim (Rapuwai), Rhaetia, not . Dedan => Dhu Raidan/Aden. Ishmael = Main or Mari or . Bethuel => Bithynia. Mash/Meshech => Damascus, mt Mashu (cognate with Meru and Macchu Picchu), Mari, Massagetae, Mysia, Moesia, Meshwesh, Mexico, Sumasti (Subartu/Suedin), mt Masis, not Moscow. Eber => Iberia (Transcaucasia), Habor, Hebrew, Habiru, Ebla, Cabiri, Subartu. Magog => Magi, Magan, Magyar (tho pronounced ), Magos, Macae, Mahra, Makran, Mykenae, Mecca, Ma'an. Cush = Kesh/Kush, Bit-Agusi, Caucasus, Kassites, Khuzistan, Hindu Kush, Kushana, Kur, Kish. Tubal = Kittim = Keftiou, Cathay, Scythians. Javan = Ionians, Jaminus, Jamnia, Java, Japan, Sevan, . Tarshish = Tartessos/Tarhuntassa, Tarsus, Tarraconensis, Taurus. Phut = Putaya, Buto, Pythia, Bhutan, Punt. Nimrod = Namri, Narmer, mt Nimush (Nisir), Ninurta, Nibiru, Nimruz, Nimrud, . Anamim = Namu, Jenam, Janhamu. Philistines = Palestine, Falasha, Pelasgians, Pali, Persians, Frisians. Caphtorim = Kaptara, Keftiou, Egypt, Cappadocia. Hamathites = Hamazi, Carchemish, Hama. Kedar = Cedraei, Gedrosia, Gadeira/Agadir, Kedarus. Nebaioth = mt Nebo, Nabataeans. Serug = Sargon, Sarku, not Syria. Reu = Rages, Deucalion. Peleg => Pelasgians, Palaites, Paphlagonia, Phrygia, Belgae, Phoenician. Abimael => Main, Mari. Note that the r/d and n/l and l/r and s/t (and b/sh) interchanges are known of in Hamito-Semitic but generally not considered hitherto when studying the Table of Nations. The r/sh interchange is my own discovery and is undeniably prooven. A third question I forgot to put in opening post was: In light of developments/discoveries in last no of years, to what extent can the table of nations still be considered to be limited to the near/middle east or not? On the one hand the table is truly supposed to represent all the nations of the whole world, but on the other hand the nations spread out/sprouted from the original region/nations. (Most people in this forum seem to be evolutionists and sceptics (cp Atlantis) so I don't know if this topic will get going. But consider that the table of nations can have historical/scientific value regardless of whether you believe in the religious message of the bible.) ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 04:36
|
Gomer - Cimmerians
Magog - unknown
Madai - Medes
Javan - Greeks (or specifically Ionians)
Tubal - Tabal
Meshech - Phrygians
Tiras - unknown
Ashkenaz - Scythians
Riphath - unknown
Togarmah - Tilgarimmu, Tegerama
Elishah - Hellas, Greece
Tarshish - Tartessus?
Kittim - Cypriots?
Rhodanim - Rhodians?
Cush - ancient Ethiopia
Mizraim - Egypt
Put - Libya
Canaan - Palestine
Seba - unknown
Havilah - central Arabia? northern Cush?
Sabtah - unknown
Raamah - either in Arabia or Ethiopia
Sabteca - unknown
Sheba - southern Arabia
Dedan - northern Arabia
Ludites - unknown
Anamites - in Egypt
Lehabites - Libyans (of Egypt?)
Naphtuhites - southern Egypt
Pathrusites - northern Egypt
Casluhites - in Crete?
Philistines - Philistines
Caphtorites - Cretans
Sidon - Phoenicians
Hittites - Hattians?, IE Hittites?
Jebusites - hill Amorites?
Amorites - eastern Palestine, etc.
Girgash*tes - in Canaan
Hivites - in central Palestine
Arkites - Phoenicians of Arqa
Sinites - Phoenicians of Shianna
Arvadites - Phoenicians of Arvad
Zemarites - Phoenicians of Simirra
Hamathites - Hittites of Hamath
Elam - Elamites
Asshur - Assyrians
Arphaxad - Arrapkhans
Lud - Lydians
Aram - Aramaeans
Uz - Aramaeans in/or near Edom
Hul - Aramaeans of unknown region
Gether - Geshurite Aramaeans?
Meshech - Aramaeans near the Kedarites?
Shelah - unknown
Eber - Hebrews?
Peleg - unknown
Joktan - southern Arabs
Almodad - unknown
Sheleph - unknown
Hazarmaveth - Hadramaut
Jerah - unknown
Hadoram - unknown
Uzal - near Damascus?
Diklah - unknown
Obal - unknown
Abimael - unknown
Sheba - Sabaeans (southeastern Arabia)
Ophir - southeastern Arabia?
Havilah - west-central Arabia?
Jobab - unknown
|
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 05:40
Hmm, i can be wrong but some medieval historians said that one of the Japhets son's name whas Turk, "Tur" is what whas called by the Persians to one of Japhets son. Also i found a translation of one of the medieval sources of Ulug Begh, here:
It is known that all the Ottoman sultans had a such big ancestry-three wich did go back to prophet Noah. ------------- Bu m覺nt覺ka'n覺n Day覺's覺 http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2006 at 17:28
| It was actually very common for medievel rulers to claim their origins to the sons of Noah. Arab rulers claimed geneologies back to Ishmael, son of Abraham, for instance. European rulers claim descent from any of the sons of Japhet. The problem with such "unbroken" bloodlines is that they are purely Medievel in origin. In the case of "Turk, son of Japhet", it is purely an add-on. All manuscript materials of the earliest part of the Bible do not mention "Turk". It then goes to reason that the "Table of Nations" is simply a review of the world as known by the Hebrews, which was simply the Middle East, the Levant, Anatolia, northeastern Africa, and the shores of the Mediterranean. They did not know about more northerly Europe, central and eastern Iran, India, southeast Asia, China, Mongolia, and central Asia, much less any of the Americas. |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2006 at 02:28
|
There are some web sites that have some of the sort of medieval and ancient geneaologies & king lists you 2 mentioned. Before my notes got destroyed 1-2 yrs ago I had some others collected from books over the previous 15 yrs. From memory there was Anglo-Saxon kings from Sceaf born in ark. Histion son of (Japet?) (Bulfinch). Georgians from Japet. Adites from Ham. Hayk/Ara/Armenak from (Togarmah?). (10?) Turk tribes from Togarmah (= "Turk" son of Japet). Cp mediaeval Khazar geneaology. Menelik from Solomon (really = Menes of Egypt &/or moon god). They resemeble the Greek geneologies from Zeus/etc, and Celtic from Troy//(Magog?). It doesn't mean the traditions are wrong/doesn't disproove the bible, it seems that they just grafted different cultural traditions on to the table of nations eg Tur of son of Feridun/Thraetaona becomes son of Japet (incidentally 3 sons of Feridun do match 3 sons of Noah), and Istaevon son of Mannus becomes Histion s of (Japet?) (again 3 sons Mannus match 3 sons Noah). (Query: Ogus Khan was only mediaeval times wasn't he?) (I'm not sure if it was a mistake but I think I've also seen Khan (Kon/King?) spelt Kham in one or more sources?) Those web pages are: www.tertullian www.ldolphin.org/franz-ellawz.html www.earth-history.com/Various/Compendium/index.htm www.cga.net/coglinks/wcglit/hoehcompendium/hhc1ch20.htm http://cgca.net/coglinks/wcglit/hoehcompendium/hhc2toc.htm PS Interesting coincidence: dark Laman(ites) of Book of Mormon resembles Olman/negroid Olmecs! ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2006 at 07:13
Thanks Sharrukin and Arthur Robin for your responces, anyway Arthur-Robin it is believed that Oghuz Khaan lived not in medievals,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz Also Arthur-Robin, the word "Kham", "Kam" or "Qam" is used for Shamanistic teachers, preachers by Turkic people (also Koreans i think). ------------- Bu m覺nt覺ka'n覺n Day覺's覺 http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2006 at 09:33
|
Thanks for that about Ogus/Oghuz. Actually I asked somewhile ago on this or another forum if any one could tell me about Ogus Khan who "invaded Egypt" (Fitzgerald-Lee) but no one responded (I also asked about Tamo Vasta and Tulay Zanadu), so I did a google search and it came up with what seemed to be mediaeval references. Adrian Room also mentions an Ogas/Ogus as 1st patriarch of Uigurs but I wasn't sure if it was the same person. (The name may relate to 1st king Cush?) Tani Jantsang mentions the Iki-Ogus who she tries to connect with Hyksos. (Cp Og of Bashan, Gog/Magog.) ---- Sidon = Zidon/Tidana, Sardinia, Sion, Sirion, Cydonia (Crete), Sithonia (Thessaly), Cedraei. Arvadites = Ruad/Aradus(Tripoli), Arvad/Arpad/Arad. Jobab = Argob, Gubi, Gobi, Upe, Jaffa, Joppa, Haifa, Al Jawf/jawb/Jawa, Zobah, Negeb, Shuba. Uzal => Awzal (Sana), Ugarit, Gozan, Italy. ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2006 at 11:14
------------- Bu m覺nt覺ka'n覺n Day覺's覺 http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 00:53
Yes, Armenians claim descent from Togarmah.
Sidon is a no-brainer. It was Sidon, the great Phoenician seaport.
Arvadites rightfully refer to another Phoenician seaport, Arvad, which the Greeks called Aradus.
Jobab is problematic, however, going by the rule of association, which the Table of Nations seems to follow, it would be located somewhere in Arabia
Uzal is also problematic, but an identification with Awzal (Sana) would be within an acceptable parameter. It fits a location within Arabia, better than my idea.
|
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 08:32
Someone replyed this on "questions" section of this forum:
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12639 So Khazars claimd that they originated from Togarmah? ------------- Bu m覺nt覺ka'n覺n Day覺's覺 http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 19:53
|
Thanks both of you (and visitor). DayI: Thanks I didn't know about visitors/questions forum. So which Ogus spelling is considered the most correct or original/oldest? There is also Germanic ogres and Uggr (Odin) from Indian Ugra. I've still got to try and find The Key by Cohane which apparently has stuff on 'Og' names like Ogham, Magog, Gog, Bog (Bey?), etc. Do you mean you haven't heard of Hyksos, or else who do scholars think they were? The Hyksos/"Shepherd Kings" were the unknown foreign rulers of Egypt (and Crete) in the 15th & 16th dynasties who are most usually thought to be Semites or Aryans tho Sharrukin told recently me the latter belief was only due to their horses and chariots. I myself don't yet have an opinion on who they were, but their name seems similar to Kassites or even Khazar!? Velikovsky believes they (Aamu) were Amalekites (Omaya). Iki-Ogus was apparently a Turanian people/tribe (iki smimilar to Hurrian/Greek suffix) name but I don't have anymore info than that on them esp since I lost my 15yrs studies. Sharrukin: I actually had in mind some of your comments from the various debates we have had eg Ugarit 2ndary possibility for Uzal since you said "near Damascus?"; Ahlamu for Elam as alternative to Elam(tu) since you said the latter spoke not Semitic language. It seems you may have done similar: last time when I said Elishah could be Hellas not Cyprus you sided with Cyprus saying Greece was already Ahhiyawa/Achaea or Javan/Ion, but I noticed above you said "Hellas?" Unfortunately unlike the others the Awzal connection is one of the ones I can't claim credit for having adopted it from a "book" in Logos/Libronix bible software scholar's library. Perhaps Job has connection with Ayyubids? or Libyan king/island Juba? visitor: Fitzgerald-Lee mentions Ghenghis Khan had (red?) hair and green eyes, and Encycl Americana or Britannica mentions some Turkic tribes had blond hair and blue eyes. But Tani Jantsang disputes the Ghenghis Khan info saying he was pure Mongol/Tatar, tho she also declares that Turanians have reddish hair and skin that can get as white as paper. The Togarmah/Turk idea seems to be that they supposed a metathesis/transposition of the r and the g/k, or via Tocharians. Togarmah = Teucrians (Troy), Tocharians, Tjekker/Zekarbaal/Yeharbaal (Dor/Hamath/Sea Peoples/Sth Amer fan palm/Wen-Amun), Tilgarimmu, "Turks", Tegarama, Dzungaria. (Notice the double connection Teucrian/Troy - Tjekker/Dor.) ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 00:06
Only because there is one scripture which shows a relationship between Damascus and Uzal (Ezekiel 27:19). Thus in order to fulfill both an obvious location somewhere in or near Arabia, with a place near Damascus, I was thinking perhaps the Syrian Desert. The problem is, of course, that the scripture merely talks about a trading relationship and cannot really be used as evidence of a possible location. Awsal sounds pretty much more appropriate since we know that one of Uzal's brother's Hazarmaveth is probably Hadramaut, also in southern Arabia.
You are right, the Elamites did not speak Semitic languages. But, we have many examples of "kin" in the Table of Nations whose languages had no bearing on their relationships with other "kin". I think that while generally the Table of Nations follows some sort of ethnology, its primary purpose is to show which nations were geographically assocated with other nations, despite linguistic differences. How can a Hittite be a Semite? How can a Philistine be a Hamite?
In the case of "Elam" we note that his immediate "brothers" were Asshur and Arphaxad, names cognizant with northeastern Mesopotamian nations of the Assyrians and Arrapkhans. Since southern Mesopotamia is treated differently, the next possible assocation would be Elam, on the fringe of Mesopotamia, itself. We also note that the one ruler of Elam which we have a name for in the Bible, Chedorlaomer, bares a striking resemblance to known Elamite names. The first element resembles Elamite Kudur- (or Kutir-) and the second element resembles Lakamar, the name of an Elamite deity, hence a reconstructable *Kutir-Lakamar. We don't have records of this ruler, however we do have records of Elamite kings such as Kutir-Nahunte, Kutir-Shilkhakha, and Shilkhina-Khamru-Lakamar.
I think I understand your confusion. There is both a time-element as well as an place-element for the usage of the three terms. The earliest of these terms was Ahhiyawa. It was used by the Hittites to designate the Greeks of the late Bronze Age. The contemporary Egyptians used the term Akawasha (or Ekwesh) to designate the same people. It may have been derived from Akhaiwoi, (the Achaeans) one of the Homeric names of the Greeks of the late Bronze Age.
When trade was restored in the wake of the discommunication caused by the Sea People invasions, the Phoenicians reencountered Greeks in the Mediterranean, mostly likely the Ionians, which in the period in question were known in their Greek dialect as the Iavones, hence the Phoenicians knew the first Greeks they encountered as Yavan. This name was then adopted by the greater part of the Middle East for all Greeks.
When I was speaking about Elishah as Hellas, I was speaking in terms of Elishah/Hellas as being one of the lands of Yavan/Greeks. The Assyrian name of Cyprus was Iadnana (which of course came from Phoenician, Yavan). However, the Table of Nations already had a name for Cyprus, the Kittim (or Chittim). It was one of the lands of Yavan just as well as Elishah, since both Kittim and Elishah were brothers. "Hellas" meant European Greece, not Asiatic or island Greece.
According to the Table of Nations most of the siblings and other relatives of Togarmah were located in Anatolia. Hence, Togarmah was more than likely located in Anatolia. The Hittites knew of a place in the eastern part of its empire near the Euphrates, called Tegerama. Later, the Assyrians knew a place in the same region called Tilgarimmu. A hint to its When Ezek. 38:6 locates Togarmah in the "far north" it is more than likely it is refering to a position from the stand-point of the Promised Land. The "far north" could have meant any point beyond the Taurus Mts., and if one follows the coast of the Mediterranean beyond the Taurus Mts., one finds himself near the Euphrates where the Hittite and Assyrian evidence locates Togarmah.
|
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 02:38
|
Moses says they were family branches and languages not just geographical. But many ancient lands had previous inhabitants (natives/indigenes/aborigines) and it could be the names get adopted like British for English. Heth may be pre-/proto-Hattite/-Hittite rather than IE Hittite (brachycephal incidentally), and name may relate to mount Khazzi which may relate to Attis. (Was there a place near Mari with similar name?) The problem is Semite and Hamite etc are modern labels. Semite (modern): Akkad, Babylon, Assyr, Canaan, Phoenic, Hebrew, Punic/Carthag, Arab, Ethiopia, Ugarit, Aramaic, .... Semite (biblical): Aramaic, Assyri, Hebrew, Chaldean, Elam/Ahlamu, Lydia/Luristan. Hamite (modern): Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia. Hamite (biblical): Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, Canaan, Babylon, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Philistine, Phoenician, Hittite. The key is perhaps that original Hebrews were either Mediterranean/Orientalid or Armenid/Assyioid, so Semites were either Med or Armen. Egyptians were also Mediterranean, so that could mean that either (1) that the Semites were Medit (and later had Armen blood mix in) and Egyptians later had Medit blood mix in, or (2) Semites/Hebrews were Armenoid and later had Medit blood mix in (eg in bondage cp Asenath/Hagar/Zipporah) and the Hamites may have been Mediterranan or also not (also have Medit blood mixed in later)? Another key question did Hebrews adopt Canaanite lang (if so must be said so somewhere in bible) or did Canaanites adopt Hebrew? The Pelasgians (Philistines?) could be Hamites via Libya? According to Sitchin and one of those early authors (Pinches? Maspero? Rawlinson?) Chedorlaomer has been found in insriptions/records. Perhaps the t- of Togarmah is a prefix like til-? There are Germa... names in Anatolia but I lost list I once made. Wasn't Ekwesh/Ahhiyawa was used for one of sea peoples? J Jewell reckons Hivite = Achaean. Yeah Sanchuniathon mentions Jaminus, Kotilus and Kedarus which Keller thought were sailors names but I immediately saw they were people names Javan/Jamnia, Getulian? and Cedraei/Kedar (Moses)/Gadeira (Plato/Necho)/El Khadir (Moslem/Arab). Elishah could also be Pelasgian with p- prefix as in Egyptian? I'm not convinced that Kittim is Kition/Citium. I prefer Kittim = Keftiou/Catti, Scythian/Cathay. How is it linguistically possible for dn/Iadnana to become/from v/Yavan? Iadnana sounds like Adana on near by Turkey coast. Do you think Kathar of Egypt/Crete in Phoenician myth could be Kaptara/Caphtor? ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 03:32
|
Wow, I'm really impressed. If rather lost as to what your exactly doing. I think your identifing historical people with their names in the bible and then attempting to match them to the bibles geneology. Is that right? If that it the case I have a couple of questions. 1) Which interpretation of the flood are you using? I have been told several by Christians: The whole world was flooded in 2100BC thereabouts, with only Noah and his family surviving. The whole world was flooded at an unknown time, with only Noah and his family surviving. The above two, but with several others surviving as well. The muslim story (which christians are increasingly adopting I find) that only Kurdistan/Armenia was flooded and many others survived. This story is often backed up by archelogical evidence placing it at 10000BC ish. 2) How accurately can you take (or are you taking) the bible's geneology? Isn't it rather unreliable? In the second vatican council the OT was labelled "containing incorrect and obsolete material" ------------- |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 11:13
|
I am approaching it on the one hand that I believe that the bible (and certain interpretations such as global flood) is true for various reasons (all the different types of evidences in the world/life I have seen/heard) and am trying to discover ("proove") missing pieces of the puzzle (theory) that will synthesise the bible, myth, history, linguistics, archaeology, etc. But on the other hand I recognition that bible/I/evidence could be wrong (trying to discover the truth). Like I/my evidence could be wrong and must be tested, so can the evidence that alledgedly conflicts with (interpretations of)the bible. So the same sorts of questions should be asked like how accurate is radiometric dating methods? (Sphinx, Ice Age, Cro-Magnon, etc). Aren't they rather unreliable? Various scholars have shown radiometric dating to incorrect. Did the Vatican council actually say what the incorrect/obsolete material was? The names in Genesis 10 could be both/either persons & /or peoples. The evidence for Global Flood/8 souls is stronger than evidence for local flood(s)/other survivors, and includes: Flood is universal myth (Noah, Deucalion, Manu, Hud, Utnapishtim, Maui, Japanese, Yima, Ymir, Bennu, Nun, Numatorum, etc. Egyptian Ogdoad matches 8 souls in ark. Only one Flood but more than one Ice Age (10000 was last one). -> The (whole) bible seems to make it clear that the flood was global not local (and gives no hint of any other survivors*), the use of the different word for "earth" is rather explained by the whole earth excepting the ark and its (8) passengers (man = dust). Traditions of the Cainites not being effected by the flood, and of the giant Og of Bashan surviving the flood by perching on top of the ark or due to his grt height (cp Ogyges) may rather be mythologised references to the wives/mother(s) of Noah/son(s)*, which perhaps also explains traditions of Noah having fallen angel blood in contradiction to the bible saying that Noah was of pure, uncontaminated lineage (also cp traditions that Adam was a giant & taught by angel Rasiel). (It may possibly be implied that mixing went on with animals too (why were animals wiped out/saved too) cp clean & unclean, and there are creation myths that have composite beasts/monsters eg Omoroka/Thalath.) *2 alledged arks have been discovered to date. *Nimrod was a Gibbor (giant); perhaps also traditions can be explained in that the tower of Babel was alledgedly built to raise men up to heaven &/or to bring the gods down. The repeated references of survivors finding refuge in the heights may be any/all of: Mtns of Ararat, Tower of Babel (trad built as refuge in case of another flood), giants, Mars/heaven; since bible implies only low/hills before/during flood (cp Maui). I personally believe the flood was ca 3000 and the creation ca 5000 from a synthesis of a number of ancient calendar traditions (Irish, Jewish, Maya, Alexandria, Anglo-Saxon chronicle, etc.) ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 12:29
Now about that "iki-ogus" name, im very sure about that its an Turkic tribe name; first because there where many Turkic tribes with such similar names "toquz-oghuz" toquz = nine (9) , "oniki-oghuz" oniki = twelve (12). second if you look at the word iki-ogus "iki" = two (2) and "ogus" = oguz
Arthur-Robin or Sharrukin can you give me some typical Hyksos names or are there anything left from them till now? ------------- Bu m覺nt覺ka'n覺n Day覺's覺 http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg - |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2006 at 14:55
|
Magog could well be Magi or Magyar (despite d pronounciation) then? Some sources connect Gog and Goth (cp Gu/Guti/Gutian/Gutium, Goiim/Goyim). It is orthodoxly connected with a king Gagi of Anatolia. Hyksos names do mostly seem Semitic: god - Sutekh (Tani Jantsang connects with Turan boar deity); kings - Anat-her, Salitis, Yakobaam, Apachnan, Yakob-her, Khayan, Iannas/Ianassi, Bnon, Khamudy, Sheshi, Assis, Aseth; peoples/tribes - Aamu?, Aati? ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 09:43
But beyond Moses, one can see that some names just don't belong to others but rather are grouped together because of geographic proximity. Canaan was Semitic, yet it was counted as Hamitic.
The problem is that taking the Biblical timescale, we already have Semites bearing the Canaanite self-identification in the early Bronze Age.
We already know that Hattic was probably related to Caucasian languages, hence, again, not related to either Semitic or Hamitic.
True, however, we can observe that since the beginning of history the regions of Hamitic and Semitic languages has largely remained the same (until the time of the Arab invasions into Africa.) There is no evidence of Hamitic languages native to Palestine and Syria, much less Anatolia.
And the modern is what is observable
From the very beginning of history, many of these cultures already had different customs and language. There is no way that Sumerian was related to Hamitic, for instance.
If it was just a case of "Mediterranean identity", then all Middle Eastern societies should have been more related to each other, than the Table of Nations demands. Yet there are historical, cultural, and linguistic factors which set them apart. These simply cannot be explained away by "racial" factors. The modern view takes all these into account. The Table of Nations, as it stands, transcends linguistic boundaries. It, however on another hand, seems to group nations into geographical classifications.
The evidence of place-names seems to indicate that Canaanite had been the language of the land for a very long time. If (as the Tradition says) the Hebrews came from another part of the Middle East, then it is more likely that they adopted the Canaanite language.
The identity of the Philistines is far too problematic to come to any solid conclusion. The very word "Pelasgians" could be used generically to lable any "pre-Greek" or "native non-Greek" people regardless of origin. As for the Philistines, their identity has been speculated to have ranged from being Luwians to being central Europeans.
That inscription is now read as In-Shammar.
Perhaps.
Yes.
He ignores the rule of geographic association. "Hivite" relates to a place in the hill-country of the Promised land.
Yeah Sanchuniathon mentions Jaminus, Kotilus and Kedarus which Keller thought were sailors names but I immediately saw they were people names Javan/Jamnia, Getulian? and Cedraei/Kedar (Moses)/Gadeira (Plato/Necho)/El Khadir (Moslem/Arab). If Sanchuniathon has anything similar to the Table of Nations, then Jaminus and Kotilus are in the Arabian/Syrian desert, just like Kedarus (Qedar).
Unlikely.
There are four references to Kittim in the Bible. According to Genesis 10, Kittim is associated with Javan (Greeks). We know that Greeks inhabited Cyprus. Scythians and China are therefore excluded. According to Numbers 24:24, ships come from there to subdue the Middle East ("Eber and Asshur"). Neither the Scythians nor the Chinese were sea-powers. That simply leaves Cyprus.
The Assyrian name for Adana, was Que, and so Adana is excluded. In the Assyrian records, Iadnana was known specifically as "in the midst of the sea" and as "Iamani" (Greek). < oops, I got it wrong - it is Yamani which is the Assyrian loan from Phoenician Yavan. > Another Assyrian inscription lists 10 city-kingdoms of Iadnana, including those of "Ituandar, king of Pappa" (Eteander of Paphos), "Pilagura, king of Kitrusi" (Pylagoras of Chytri), "Unasagusu, king of Lidir" (Onasagoras of Ledri), "Damusu, king of Kuri" (Damasus of Curium), and "Ekishtura, king of Edi'al" (Aegisthus of Idalium). These cities were on Cyprus.
Caphtor would be better id'd with Crete. In the Egyptian Late Kingdom times they traded with the Keftiu, and Minoan objects have been found in Egypt during those times. The "ships of Keftiu" of the Egyptian inscriptions were prised ships for the sailing of the Mediterranean, just as the later "ships of Tarshish" were prised for their length and durability.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2006 at 22:22
I am not sure if the vatican council was refering to a specific part or not, this quote was provided to me by a book that was examining the bible scientifically. The author was talking at lot about problems in the geneology and chronology of the bible.
Otherwise I know that I am bunni Ismael (family of Ishmael) as are many northern and central peninsular arabs. Which is why many arab rulers claim decendecy from Ismael as its these same families that have been circling the power circuits for a while now. ------------- |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date 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. |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date 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. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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? ------------- |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date 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. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date 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. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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? ------------- |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date 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. |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date 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".
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date 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 #_ftn1 - , 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 #_ftn2 - 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 #_ftn3 - (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 #_ftn4 - - #_ftnref1 - #_ftnref2 - (Is the gateway of the west a specific place?) #_ftn2 - - ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date 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. ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date 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.
http://www.greece.org/poseidon/work/argonautika/cosmo1_1.html - http://www.greece.org/poseidon/work/argonautika/cosmo1_1.html ------------- 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 |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date 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. |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date 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. |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 04:27
As far as I know (which isn't very much) they date from 200BC and are only the old testament. I have not heard anyone claim that there have been any major modification of the OT since then.
Genesis, 6:19 And of every living thing of flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee: they shall be male and female. Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take of thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of the beast that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Thats a condradiction. You can't have two of the every sort AND seven of the clean sort.
Sorry he said 150 days. But actually after a read of Genesis 6-10, its not as clear cut as that. One part says 40 days of rain then 7days of this and 7 of that. Another says total 150days. I want to have a closer look and do the maths to see if these two actually agree. It may not be a contradiction at all. The author who said it is: Maurice Bucaille, the Bible the Quran and Science c1978 North American Trust Publication
Remember that it is quite possible that the biblical version has been corrupted. Maurice Bucaille says that there are two different accounts of the flood inter-twined in the bible. Written at different times.
I believe in the flood simply because the Qur'an has never been wrong before. Whether it was local or global is not stated, it could be either. Currently I believe what archeology has shown- that there was a big flood in the Armenia Kurdistan region in 10000BC. This could be the flood. But not necessarily. ------------- |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2006 at 22:05
|
The 2 or 7 will only be an apparent minor contradiction I guarantee there will be an explanation in the original language text. For example perhaps 2 of each kind means gender. Yes it is possible the bible could be corrupt but that leads to the bigger question of whether Juddaeo-Xtianity is true or not. If it is true then the original language version can't be corrupt. I personally don't believe the documentary hypothesis that Genesis is comb of J and E, but I believe Moses wrote the original Genesis as Jesus said he did. I had to delete my free website because it turns out those people send us stupid advertising/spam emails which can only opt out of by "upgrading" from free to paid for site. Sharrukin: do you know of any "alternative" (creationist, "nationalist" (not stormfront)) forums since all the forums I have tried so far are mainly atheists, evolutionists, sceptics etc and I need/want to find people that not only always disagree but sometimes also agree? (I got expelled from stirpes forum for a stupid unfair reason.) ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 02:18
Well, yes, thats rather the point of Islam. That Judaism and Chrisitian scriptures have been corrupted, thus God reissued the original version. But anyway, my point was that the bibles that we have today (which are not the original language version), are not necessarily perfect. They have been transmitted to us by people who did not understand the content of what they were writing. Therefore when you are searching for matching the table of nations to history, you should remember that neither our knowledge of that period of history nor the bible is perfect. I personally don't believe that the ancient Hebrews made up nations. They must exist, its just a matter of identifing them. 997 ------------- |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2006 at 10:41
No, I don't know any. I've always purposefully looked for forums which aren't bent either to nationalist or religious dogmas. The only thing that would happen is ceaseless debate.
|
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 06:30
|
Riphath poss. Dravidians
------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 06:37
|
Sidon was also POsidon-Ea-Enki, son of Cronus-Anu, who was son of Uranos-Ham. Some inference may reveal Ouranus was son of Neptune-Noah, but I cannot vouch for that yet.
------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 06:45
|
Yes TOGARMAH: Try this... NOAH (Ural-Altaic, Turanian) + Wife Jobab (Wht. Prim.Matriarch All Fairskin, Sumerian Ling.Stock.) | Togarmah = Sumerians of Cent. Herding Region. Arabian Thamy-deni and Thamy-ditae, and Tocharians of Cent. Asia. See John D Pilkey, "Kingship AT Its Source" and "Origin of Nations". ------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 07:12
|
PELASGUS: In Thessaly, Pelasgus was described as the father of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chlorus&action=edit&redlink=1 - Chlorus , and as the grandfather of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemon - Haemon , or as the father of Haemon, and as the grandfather of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessalus - Thessalus , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgus#cite_note-15 - [15] or again as a son of Poseidon and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larissa_%28mythology%29 - Larissa , and as the founder of the Thessalian Argos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgus#cite_note-16 - [16] - wikipedia. PELASGUS son of Poseidon-Sidon, son of Canaan. NOAH - Apsu - (Neptune?) HAM - Anshar - Ouranus CANAAN - Anu - Cronus & Rhea Sidon - Ea/Enki - PoSeIDON Salah - (Bel)-Marduk - BELUS Poseidon + wife Libya (Sidon + Jerah, White d. of Obal) = sons: 1-Agenor (Amor, Amorite) 2-Belus (Salah) 3-Lelex ? An's origins. Later he is regarded as the son of An禳ar and Ki禳ar, as in the first millennium creation epic En贖ma eli禳, also known as the Enuma Elish (Tablet I, 11-14). wikipedia In Thessaly, Pelasgus was described as the father of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chlorus&action=edit&redlink=1 - Chlorus , and as the grandfather of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemon - Haemon , or as the father of Haemon, and as the grandfather of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thessalus - Thessalus , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgus#cite_note-15 - [15] or again as a son of Poseidon and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larissa_%28mythology%29 - Larissa , and as the founder of the Thessalian Argos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgus#cite_note-16 - [16] wikipedia See John D Pilkey Origin of Nations, Kingship At Its Source. -Am Azon ------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 07:15
|
Forgot...ADDITION: OAH - Apsu - (Neptune?) HAM - Anshar - Ouranus CANAAN - Anu - Cronus & Rhea Sidon - Ea/Enki - PoSeIDON |-----------------| Salah - (Bel)-Marduk - BELUS PELASGUS (Genesis-10 identity yet unknown) ------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 07:27
|
Dear Arthur-Robin; My God man, you think like we do... See my professor's works which I am publishing on Amazon I can senbd FREE review copies PDF's for your review. You need to convert to John D Pilkey's Euhemerist interpretation of mythology, and his Genesis-10 reconstruction. No one else has the answers yet to this GREAT extent. John has don a complete TIMELINE from the Flood to the end of the Isin Dyn. of the Sum. Kinglist'ing. All the Genesis-10-14 identies are correlated to ALL the pagan gods and goddesses. EX: Ea-Enki-Poseidon-SIDON a no brainer... With these resources, you want be left in the dark again. BOOKS: John D Pilkey, published by myself.... 1-Origin of Nations (Out of print but for collectables) 2-Kingship At Its Source 3-A Designed World 4-Noah's Family Speaks 5-A Continuous Post-Diluvian Timeline 6-A Continous Post-Dilvian Narrative 7- MY BOOK: The Genesis-10 Patriarchs ------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 07:48
|
CANAAN + Red Matriarch HAVILAH | HETH
< ------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 07:54
<
------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 08:09
ETHNIC WIFE
------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 08:12
<
------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 08:24
|
GENESIS-10 RECONSTRUCTED by John D Pilkey & Ross S Marshall Cont..... ETHNOLOGY WIFE
------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 29-Nov-2017 at 08:39
|
The Above (or below?) RECONSTRUCTION of Genesis-10 Table of Nations come from these sources: by Dr. John D Pilkkey & Ross S Marshall 1. Origin of Nations, 1985 2. Kingship At Its Source, 2007 3. Partriarchs of Genesis-10 OTHER followup sources based on the above... Vol-3 A Designed World (Gundestrup Caldron according to Genesis-10 Vol-4 Noah's Family Speaks (Gund Caldron and Sumer. Kinglist) Vol-5 Timeline of Postdiluvian World Vol-6 Continuous Narrative of Postdiluvian World Here is John's CONTENTS of above his KINGSHIP. THIS INFORMATION should help all Euhemerists in their attempts to reconstruct ancient history according to Genesis-10-14. Any questions, post a reply??? :o) I will post more quotes from these resources as time goes on. Kingship at Its Source A Study of the Early Postdiluvian Age by John Davis Pilkey 2007 CONTENTS Chronological List of Colonizations x 1 The World in Two Halves 3 21 The War of Uruk and Aratta 4 23 Effects of the War 7 27 Struggle for Control of the Hamitic Linguistic Stock 9 29 Two Kinds of Early Postdiluvian Traditions 12 33 Indo-Europeans and Europe 15 37 2 Punitive Exile 22 45 Timetable of the Arabian Exilic Process 23 46 The Egyptian Ennead 26 50 Rebellion against the Exilic Process 29 54 Centum Aryans and the Teutates Panel 32 58 Harappan Civilization 40 68 Black Africa 42 71 3 To the Ends of the Earth 46 76
Five Sons of Ur-Nanshe 47 77 Ashkenaz and the Ural-Altaics 49 80 The Austronesian Linguistic Stock 54 86 Colonization of Africa 57 90 Colonization of the Americas 61 95 Mesoamerican Identities 64 99 Colonization of North America 71 107 4 The Elite of Genesis 10 81 119 The First Kish Order 83 121 Induction of the Noahic Elite 86 125 Feudal Titles in Genesis 10 93 132 Ethnology of the Aratta Schism 98 138 Ethical Themes of the Feudal Clans of Eleven 103 144 5 Narmer and His Enemies 107 149 Dynasties of the Sumerian Dynasty III Period 111 154 Akkadians and the Battle of Teutates 114 158 First Four Egyptian Dynasties 117 162 6 The Twenty-Second Century and Egyptian Chronology 122 167 Egyptian Chronology 124 170 The Gutians 128 175 Amorite Kings 131 178 Egyptian Dynasties of the Twenty-Second Century 133 181 The Abrahamic Ward and the Sumerian Restoration 136 183 Retrospect on Sumerian Chronology 143 191 The Antediluvian Dynasties 147 195 7 Identities of the Noahic Elite 150 198 The Japhethite Section 153 202 The Hamite Section 158 207 The Shemite Section 166 216 8 Ur-Nanshe, the Akkadians and L. A. Waddell 181 233 L. A. Waddells View of Ur-Nanshe 183 235 Hittite Mythology 189 243 Waddells View of the Akkadians 194 248 Waddells Ukhu City 203 260 9 The Living Noahic World 206 264 Japhethites 208 266 Hamites 213 272 The Taranis and Medb Panels and Xia Dynasty 219 278 Shemites 232 292 Colonization of Teutonic and Danubean Europe 238 298 Antediluvian Ethnology 245 307 10 Profiles of the Noahic Elite I: Male Antediluvians and Japheth 250 313 Colonization of Celtic Western Europe 259 323 From Empire to Nation: The Turning Point of 2158 262 326 11 Profiles of the Noahic Elite II: Hamites 290 357 Contents iv Olympian Empire in the Aegean 306 377 Members of the First Kish Dynasty 314 386 Labors of Herakles and the Argonautic Tradition 320 393 12 Profiles of the Noahic Elite III: Shemites 324 398 Ghost Phonemes and Casual Etymologies 331 407 The Satem Aryan Expedition 339 417 Arphaxad and the Tradition of the Gundestrup Caldron 343 421 The Colonization of Egypt 350 429 13 Summary Chronology 359 438 Twenty-Fourth Century 360 440 Twenty-Third Century 363 443 Twenty-Second Century 366 448 Appendix I: An Analysis of Pantheons 371 455 Appendix II: The Problem of Japheth and Kali 386 471 Appendix III: Tribal Divisions of Northern Albania 387 473 Appendix IV: A Selection of Constructs 389 477 477-Noah. The Ukko; The Didanu; 478 The Etana-Balih; 479 Shem. The Dadasig; 479 Ham. The Havilah; Ham. The Titan-Olympian. 482 Japheth. The Sheba; The Suilap; 483 The Fornjot; The Svarog 484 Magog. The Gutian Japhethite; 484 Ashkenaz. The North- American 485 Togarmah. The Kudai Bai Ulgon; 486 An. The Sumerian High Pantheon 488 Sidon. The Inanna; 489: The Javanite 491 Inanna. The Cainan 492 Shelah. The Shemite 493 Joktan. The Sarmatian Joktanites Appendix V: A Replication in Ptolemys Eastern Germany 403 497 Appendix VI: A Replication in Southeast Asia 405 501 ------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2017 at 21:18
|
The following is a compacted version of Genesis-10 list reconstruction. By Ross S Marshall (Dr. John Pilkey) ------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2017 at 21:19
|
John D Pilkeys Reconstruction of Genesis-10 Part-1 wives > Matriarchal Daughters ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (W) = White/Turanian/C/Asian Ural-Altaic = JOBAB > d. Hamath (B) = Black African = OPHIR > d. Arvad (Y) = Yellow Oriental = SHEBA > d. Sin (R ) = Red/ Amerind = HAVILAH > d. Zemar --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAH (Dedan) Ural-Altaic/ Turanian Indonesians \NOAH w/ JOBAB (W) All Fairskin, Sumerian Ling.Stock w/ Jobab (W) Shemite = SHEM (W/y) w/ Jobab (W) Japhetic = JAPHETH / Sheba-2 (Wy/y) w/ Jobab (W) = d. HAMATH Ww/y w/ Jobab (W) = TOGARMAH Sumrians, C. Herding Region Arabian Thamy-deni & ditae Tocharians, C. As.
w/ Sheba (Y) = d. SIN Y/Y Yw/Y w/ Sheba-I (Y) Sino-Tibetn = ASHKENAZ Wy/Y Budini, Sarmatia Gedrosians, Iran Arabian Macaei, Manitae Mannai, Caucasus Mongols, Tartaria
w/ Ophir (B) = All Blacks/ Austranesian Ling. Stock w/ Ophir (B) = d. ARVAD Wy/B w/ Ophir (B) = RIPHATH Wy/B Dravidians, Indus
w/ Havilah (R) = All w/ concavity, Aquline nose, Amer..Ling Stock w/ Havilah (R) = SABTECA (Sabtecha) Wy/R Amerindians N.W. America Zepotec, Mex. Papuans by Sabtecah w/ Hamath (W) Danaan Greeks, thru RODAN Egyptians of SAIS E. Teutons thru ELISHAH Sino-Tibetn.Mongoloids, All Brachycephalic Sheba-I (Y) Formosans by Sheba
w/ Sin d. Yw/Y Sumerians of ISIN Tibetians, Bautae
w/ Arvad Wy/B (d. of Ophir) Cushite Lang Stl thru SEBA Cushite SAB, Somalia Egyptians of Hermopolis Magna
w. Zemar d. Wy/R = Andian Stock S. Amer Andian Aymara, Bolivia
NOAH w. Hamitic Havilah (R) red Matriarch = son HAM (Havilah-2) (Wy/R)
HAM + w/ Sheba-I (Y) = s. MIZRAIM W/Y/r Panopolis, Egyptns Polynesians by / as Tangaroa Japanese Mizraim w/ Jobab (W) = d. CAPHTAR W/y/r Mizraim w/ Jobab (W) = s. MASHLAH W/y/r Lycaonians, As. Min. Lukayo, Caribbean Massylians, Algeria Pelasgi Vlachs, Gr.Yugoslv. Macedn,Rumani Philistines, Palestine Sumerians of Kish OLD ID. [Mizraim + w/ Uzal W/Y = d. Pathrus ? X w/y/r Is shifted to Japheth + Uzal = d. Pathrus]
HAM + w/ Ophir (B) = s. CUSH Wy/B/r AFRICAN/E.ASIAN Hamitic CUSHITES Nilotic African Anuak, Sudan Sudanic Gurma, Up.Volta Galla, Cush.Ethiop Bantu Haya, Tanzania Manchus, Manchuria, Ural-Altaic Cush.Mandari, Lk. Chad Nilotic Mandari, Sudan
CUSH + w/ Arvad d. Wy/B = d. LEHAB wy/B/r Bantu Lubi, Zaire Lullubians of Iran Teheus of Libya [RAAMAH / Shem ? DEDAN-Noah Indonesians by Dedan (Noah) SHEBA-2/Japheth ? X HAVILAH-2/Ham w/ Arvad d. Wy/B [= d. Lehab ? ]
CUSH + w/ Jobab- (W) = s. PHUT Ww/y Hellenes, Greece by / as Iapetus Finno-Ugrian Hungarians by Macareus Lapps Votyaks Ural-Altaic Samoeds by Salmoneus Ural-.Altaic " Kalmuks by Halmus = s. JEBUS ? X = s. ARCUS ? X = s. HIV ? X = s. HUR/Hor/Seir- Jasher 10:28 = s. JERAH ? X = d. Almodad ? X
------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2017 at 21:21
|
RECONSTRUCTION (RSM) PART-2 HAM + w/ Jobab (W) = s. CANAAN W/y/r WHITE CANAANITES Canaanites, Palestine Dorians, Greece Sudanic Gu, Nigeria Sudanic Kundu, Cameroon Teutonic Lygians, Poland Nilotic Sudanic Shilluks Nilotic Turkana, Kenya Turks-Huns, C. As. Bantu Turu, Tanzania
CANAAN w/ Lehab (d. of Cush & Arvad) = s. NIMROD Wy/B/Rr/w Blk/Red AFRICAN CANAANITES-Nimrodites Afr. Sudanic Anyang, Cameroon Sudanic Anyi, Ivory Coast Nilotic Yangere, C. Afr. Rep. Bantu Yeke, Zaire Africans, Sudanic Gude, Nigeria Afr. Nilotic Iteso, Uganda Bantu Kuba, Zaire Micronesians by Nimrod
NIMROD (Helius-Orion) w/ wife _____? [ = s. AEETES Y/B/r AEETES w/ ______? = d. Chalciope d. of AEETES [Aeetes was the son of sun god Helios and the Oceanid Perseis (a daughter of Oceanus), brother of Circe and Pasipha禱, and father of Medea, Chalciope and Absyrtus.]
[= d. NAPHTAH ?
[= s. SEBA (Ur-Nanshe) w/ Arvad d. Wy/B] X Sumerians of Lagash; as Ur-Nanshe
[ s. SABTAH w/ Uzal W/Y = s. JEBUS W/y/r Romans thru Jebus
JEBUS w/ Jerah (d. of Obal) W/y = s. HIV-ites w/y/r WHITE CANAANITE-HIVites Egyptians of Edfa, of Jebus HIVites, Palestine Hurrians, Subaria Afr. Sudanic Chamba, Nigeria Afr. Sudanic Mambila, Nigeria Afr. Khoisan Hukwe, Botswana
[JEBUS w/ Ophir (B) BLACK OPHIRITE-CANAANITES-Ark = s. ARCUS (Ark, Arkite) Wy/B Sudanic Arago & Margi, Nigeria Australian Aborigines, Aranda-Aruna Arcadians, greece Khoisan Kindiga, Tanzania Bantu Rundi, Burundi] CANAAN w/ Halivah (R ) = s. HETH Wy/R RED HETHIAN CANAANITES Hittites, Hattians, Hatti-Anatolia Teutonic Chatti, Germany Amerinds, Dakota, N. Amer. Sudanic Ekiti, Nigeria Nilotic Ikasa, Congo Bantu Kota, Congo Bantu Kutshu, Zaire
HETH w/ Jerah (d. of Obal) W/y [ = s. GIRGASH ? X WHITE/RED HETHIAN Girgashites Afr. Bantu, Cogo, Tanzania Cushite Goroa, Tanzania Sudanic Igala & Iyala, Nigeria Khoisan Koroca, Angola Albanian Ghegs Koreans, Korea
HETH w/ wife ??? = s. ELISHAH ?
CANAAN w/ Jobab (W) White Matriarch = s. SIDON (Poseidon) W/yr WHITE SIDONIAN-CANAANITE
SIDON w/ Hamath- (W) Red Matriarch = s. ELISHAH Ww/yr Caribbean, Arawak, Carib Caddoans, Louisiana, Eyeish Cush.Ethiop., Arusi Bantu Zaire, Lele Bothic Europe, E. Teutons Amerindians by Khetm Egyptians of Heliopolis, by g.s. Rodan Sumerians of S. Marshes, people of Enki E. Teutonic SIDONIANS, Sidones, thru Elishah W. Teutons thru g.s. Kitt
SIDON w/ Jerah (d. of Obal) W/y = s. AMOR (Agenor) WY/r Amorites (Amurru), Martu Afr. Sudanic Akyen, Nigeria Nilotic Moru, Sudan Teutonic Oqueni, Germany
AMOR w/ Caphtor- w/y/r = s. KHETM (Kitl/Kitt) W/y/r Amerindians: N.Amer. Caddoan,Elishah, Eyeish, La. N/Amer.Kitt. Cado, Tx NAmer. Tarshish.Pawnee, Nebraska Cypriotes of Citium W. Teutons.SaxonyGermanyHolland.Eng. Cush.Ethiop. Ittu Bantu Tanzania, Kisi Macedonian Maedi Thrace
AMOR w/ Caphtor- w/y/r = s. TARSHISH W/y/r Gauls Bantu Zaire, Buye Cush.Ethiop. Darasa Gailic Europ. Boli Nebraskan. Darazhazh-Pawnee Phoenicians N. Teutons, Scandinavia ------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: weirdvideos2008
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2017 at 21:22
|
RECONSTRUCTION PART 3 SIDON w/ Uzal W/Y = s. SALAH (Arphxd-2) W/y Celtic Gauls, Gaul, Galacia Afr. Nilotic Banda, C. Afr. Rep. Bantu Sele, Angola
SALAH w/ Jerah (d. of Obal) W/y = s. HAZAMAREVETH W/y Khazars, C. Asia Arabs Hadramaut, thru Hazarmaveth
SALAH w/ Ophir (B) Black Matriarch, 翻 BLACK HAMITES = s. ELAM wy/B Elamites, Iran Austronesians Malagasy, Nova, Sakalava Bantu, Giryama, Kenya Bantu Ha, Tanzania Bantu Ila, Zambia Khoisan Nama, Nambia Nilotic Nyima, Sudan Sudanis Tusyam, Up. Volta
SALAH w/ Jerah (d. of Obal) W/y = s. ASSHUR w/y Assyrians Rhenish German, Batavi " Chauci " Franks, by PRANSU son of MANU " Frisians by PRISHADRA son of Manu " Hermiones, by son of Mannus " Ingaevones, thru son of Mannus Usipetes Bantu Aushi, Zambia Sudanic Sia, Up. Volta Nilotic Suri, Sudan
SALAH w/ Havilah-I- (R) = s. RODAN wy/R Danaans, Greece Anag, Nilotic Sudan Angas, Cush.Nigeria Danakil, Cush.Ethiop Gushi, Bantu Tanzania Egypt. of Heliopolis Rhodians, Rhodes
SALAH w/ Havilah-I- (R) = s. EBER (Tubal) wy/R Borusci, Prussia Georgian, Caucas.Japhetic Cephenes, Persia Hebrew, Palestine Iberians, Spain
EBER w/ Pathrus w/y/r = d. Almodad W/y/r
EBER w/ Caphtor- w/y/r = s. TIRAS W/y/r Etruscans., Rasena Italy Sumerians, S. Orch. "Damu" Tyrsenoi, As. Min Thracians, Tirasia Tiras's Bantu Sena, Mosambique
EBER w/ wife ___?? [= s. LUD ? X
EBER w/ Uzal W/Y = s. JOKTAN (ARAM) W/y/r Armenians, Armenia Carians, As. Min. Beni-Khitan, Arabia Khitans, Inner Mongolia Sumerians of Farming Region
EBER w/ Pathrus w/y/r = s. PELEG (Lud) wy/R N.A. Algonquians, by Reu N.A. Iroquoians Mushogians, by g.s. Rimish Ind-Eur. BURGUNDIANS, Vistula & Burgandy Lydians Phrygians, Phrygia Afr. Iraqw, Cush. Tanzani
EBER w/ _____? [= d. ABIMAEL ? X] Kurds, Kurdistan Polynesians by Havilah
EBER w/ Chalciope w/b/r = s. RUE Ry/wbr #NAME? Argives, Greece Nilotic Nzakara, Kara, Sokoro C.R. Afr. & Chad Bantu Sagara, Tanzania N.A. Algonquians, by Reu RUE w/ Tashlultum ? = s. SERUG, Asa-Manja N. Amer. Cherokee, Shawnee Egyptians of Thinis Nilotic Manja, C. Afr. Rep. Bantu Tussi, Uganda
= s. NAHOR-I w/ Tutashar-libbish Sumerians of Lunar Cult of UR
= s. TERAH w/ _____? HEBREWS of UR = s. ABRAM Nahor-I Haron LOT RIMISH? Mushogians, by g.s. Rimish
NOAH w/ Jobab (W) = s. SHEM (RAAMAH) (W/Y) Malays by Raamah (Shem) Cushite Afr. Atta of Algeria Sudanic Mum, Cameroon
SHEM w/ Hamath- w = s. MASH W/Y Nilotic Madi, Uganda Sarmatians, Sarmatia
SHEM w/ Hamath- w = s. GETHER W/Y Agathyrsus, Hellenic Sarmatia Nilotic Alur, Uganda
SHEM w/ Ophir (B) = s. HUL WY/B Blk/Wht SHEMETIC-OPHIR-HULites Nilotic Acholi, Uganda Bantu Nkole, Uganda OLMECS, Mex.
SHEM w/ Havilah-I- (R) = s. UZ WY/R Aramaeans (Akhlamu), Syria Cuman Uzea, C. As. Galindae, Sarmatia Meso-Amer., MAYANS, Uto-Aztecans Nilotic Lendu, Zaire
SHEM w/ Sheba-I (Y) = s. ARPHXD-I/Hadoram Y/w Adorsi, Prussia Latini, thru Saturnus to Latinus Bantu Shone, Zimbabwe Tai, Thailand
ARPHAXAD-I w/ ______? = d. SWARA y/w
ARPHAXAD-I w/ Jobab (W) = s. DIKLAH Y/W Scoloti, Sarmatia Siculi, Sicily Aurtronesian Tagala, Phillipines
= d. Uzal Y/W Oscan Italoi, Italy Osyli, Sarmatia Romans, thru Jebus Sumerians of Herding Reg, thru Togarmah
[= d. Almodad d. ?]
ARPHAXAD-I w/ Jobab (W) = s. OBAL Y/W and KAINAN (Septuigent) Apulians, Italy Egyptians of Xois Ophlones, Sarmatia
OBAL w/ Almodad w/y/r = s. SHELEPH Y/w Slavs, E. Europe
OBAL w/ Uzal W/Y = s Jerah (d. of Obal) Y/W Arabs Hadramaut, thru Hazarmaveth Hurrian-Subarians thru HIV Semites of Ugarit
NOAH w/ JOBAB (W) White Matriarch = s. JAPHETH (Tudia-Seth)(Sheba-II) W/Y Austroasiatics, people of Lac Celts - listed in Gen 10: 2-4 Cushite Africans Kaoshans, Tiawan Lacedaemonians, Sparta Teutonic Swabians, Germany
JAPHETH w/ Uzal W/Y = s. MEDIA (Agni) W/Y Iverni, Ireland Cushite Somalia Yao, S. China, Vietnam Bantu, Mosambique Madai's Nilotic Masai (Tanzania)
MEDIA w/ Swara W/Y = s. MESHECH w/y Gutians, Iran Scythians, C. As. Meshach's Bantu Ganda (Uganda)
JAPHETH w/ Havilah R = s. MAGOG (Rudra) Wy/R Amaz/Carib, Amer. Gaels, Brit Hyrcanians, Iran Kung, Khoisan Nambia Magog's Harari, Ethiopia
JAPHETH w/ Sheba-I Y = s. GOMER (Himavan) Y/w Cimmereral, AsMin Cymru, Brit Egypt. Memph Chinese, Hui Lurs, Iran Shans, Burma Cushite Afr. Gomer's Gimira, Etrhiopia
GOMER w/ Caphtor- w/y/r = s. JAVAN W/Y/r Javan's Somali, Somalia
JAVAN w/ Uzal W/Y = s. Abilael W/Y
JAPHETH w/ Ophir (B) = s. SEBA w/y/B Blk/Wht JAPHETIC-Ophirites Andamese by Seba Sudanic Adamawa, Camroon Tiv, Nigeria Negroid Colchians (Heroditus) Bantu, Kikuyu, Kenya Cushite Siwa, Afr. Egypt (Oceanic Blks, see Sabtah)
SEBA w/ Arvad Wy/B = s. SABTAH w/y/b Blk/Wht JAPHETIC-Arvadites Melanesians by Sabtah Austronesian Stock of Cushite Clan Andamese by Seba Polynesians by Havilah Melanesians by Sabtah Malays by Raamah (Shem) Papuans by Sabtecah Formosans by Sheba Indonesians by Dedan Micronesians by Nimrod JAPHETH w/ Uzal W/Y = d. NAPHTAH Up. Egyptians of Diospolis Parva
JAPHETH w/ Uzal W/Y = d. PATHRUS w/y/r Phrygians, thru Peleg (Horus, son of Seth)
JAPHETH w/ Ophir (B) = s. ZUD w/y/B Blk/Wht JAPHETIC-OPHIR-ZUDITES Amazonian Indians
ZUD w/ NAPHTAH w/y/b = s. ANAM (Hanuman) w/y Chinese, Han
------------- Ross S Marshall |
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2017 at 15:38
|
Interesting, thanks. Sorry i am not able to reply at present because i broke my rib and can't sit & strain at computer as i usually do, plus i am abit busy with studies at present. But if i am able i may reply a few things, but will take time to read and to reply any. If i may make a suggestion though, perhaps it would be easier for us to only do one name/nation (of the 70/72 names in Genesis 10) at a time. I also am not finished my own research yet so can't say much with certainty. Just will give you a few tenuous theories to consider in the meantime: Cush ~ Congo? Mizra-im (Egypt) ~ Niger? Naptuh-im ~ Ba-ntu? Casluh-im ~ (Kwa-)Zulu? Caphtor(im) ~ Kafir? P(h)ut (Punt?) ~ Mbutu (Pygmy)? ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |