Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

Expand Messages
  • praesto12
    The plurality has never been an embarasment to Christianity or Judaism; read prior email. Israelites being in Babylon proves nothing but the fact that
    Message 1 of 32 , Jun 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      The "plurality" has never been an embarasment to Christianity or Judaism; read
      prior email.

      Israelites being in Babylon proves nothing but the fact that Israelites were in
      Babylon. Duh.


      I'd be interested to learn more about Enuma Elish, so please send a link. Much
      more to be said on the matter.

       Richard




      ________________________________
      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:09:25 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

       
      OK. No problem. You may be right.

      But the "restoration" DOES make some sense. Look at what they have in Gen. 1.
      Elohim of course is plural, and always has been an embarasment, especially to
      Christians, who "appropriated" the Hebrew Bible into their own. So they have
      "the supreme ones". I think this is accurate, but we probably would say "the
      gods." And it has earth pre-existing. That might make sense of the Hebrew, but
      probably not. The Hebrew is "tohu wa wahu" ("w" and "v" are the same), which
      refers to some unformed chaotic mass, like "waters" or something like that, a
      clear continuation of the Persian Enuma Elish, and we know the Israelites were
      in captivity at Babylon, where undoubtedly they first encountered this
      pre-existing myth, And there are some other renderings I think hit the nail on
      the head. When I get time, I'll go through at least the first 16 verses of
      Genesis 1. Could this have come from the Persian historian Berossus (3rd cent.
      C.E.), his Babyloniaca, which is about word for word the same as the ordinarily
      translated Hebrew of Genesis 1-11? We also have good reason to think the whole
      Tanakh was written in the Hellenistic era, corresponding with both Berossus, and
      Manetho for Exodus.

      Someone originated this, or some group, but not this one.

      Richard

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: bestonnet_00
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM
      Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:
      >
      > I agree. I just see them playing, and not really deceiving
      > themselves.

      They don't so much look like playing to me, I think they really do believe
      they've found something revolutionary.

      > Having fun doesn't require being deceived.

      Looks to me to be more than just fun for them.

      > However, that in itself does not falsify their theory, which I
      > firmly believe didn't come from them, but rather from some other
      > source, that of scholarship. Where is it?

      Unless someone can find that other source I'm going to stick with them as being
      the originators (I'm not about to unnecessarily multiply entities here).

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Richard Godwin
      Nothing there but preaching, hardball style of a Fundie. I think this is supposed to be a discussion forum. ... From: praesto12 To:
      Message 32 of 32 , Jun 7, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Nothing there but preaching, hardball style of a Fundie. I think this is supposed to be a discussion forum.



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: praesto12
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:01 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?



        Godwin, you speak lies. I've never seen more rationalization than from the
        "Atheistic" community. I know you are not an Atheist, but generally people will,
        literally, drive themselves insane or consider anything, and I mean ANYTHING to
        the reality of God as manifest through his word in Christ. "Scientist" perfer
        theorizing about Aliens or Alien generated life being passed on Mars rock to
        the earth and then these magic living rocks survive for millions of years to
        produce your father and mother and you. It's insanity. Well, hey, the Apostle
        Paul said it best. People are willingly ignorant. "Although they claimed to be
        wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal G-d for images
        made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefor G-d
        gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts..."

        I do not know what conversations you have had with what "Christians" and I
        don't really care. You are wrong. Atheist rationalize. People of

        Anti-Christ thinking, like yourself, rationalize and lie. I believe they do so
        willingly. I don't know why you hate G-d, but I would say you should get over
        it.

        What would you like to discuss about Biblical Criticism? I am not concerned
        about your limited accessment of what you think I do or do not know. At half
        your age I believe I know as much as you. "Biblical Criticism.." Right..... Mad
        Germans in the late 1800's rewritting witness testimony in the illusion of
        academic scholarship paving the way for the horrors of the 20th century. Your
        philosophies are doctrines of devils and lead to death. Wellhausen, Nietzsche,
        Voltaire, Marx and so forth are men that lived jadded lives and most ended up
        bitter and alone, if not completely insane. A life without G-d will lead one to
        death of the Body and Spirit. I strongly encourage you to reconsider the path
        you are.

        "Educators" with ideas likethese will lead to destruction. Dont' take my word
        for it. Take Victor Frankl;

        “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well
        corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine,
        as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product
        of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man
        is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the last stage of that
        corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of
        Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but
        the product of heredity and environment–or, as the Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood
        and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz,
        Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other
        in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic
        scientists and philosophers.”

        ________________________________
        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 11:29:39 AM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?


        Oh, so you don't know the history, much very recent, in Christianity. The thing
        about Elohim being plural is very simple. The Israelites lived in Canaan (as
        proven by the Merneptah stele dated 1210, and they moved into the rough hill
        country (shown in archaeology), and they used the same concept of the gods as
        did those where they lived: Canaan. El/Elohim, interchangeable, meant the plural
        gods. Not even Israel in the Bible have monotheism. They had only one god to
        worship among the other gods, called henotheism. Later in the Hellenistic
        period, when composition took place, they took on monotheism as did the other
        cultures, such as Persian Zoroastrianism. Psalms 82 refers to the council of
        gods, headed by El/Elohim, and he kicked them out of the council for not taking
        care of the orphans and widows.

        Everything that doesn't suite the new Christianity simply is either
        re-interpreted freely, or re-written. They always can use rationalization even
        in very complicated ways for support of what they want it to be. Yes, I have
        seen many examples of Christians worrying about, being embarrassed by this
        pluralism, which is why through their method of "apologetics" they rationalize
        them, just as you showed.

        The DUH goes to you, buddy. First it would be expected for newcomers to a
        different culture to absorb ideas of that culture. This is almost a rule
        throughout all history. Second, it's obvious the Elish was involved in the
        Genesis creation account, so it would appear the author(s) used it because they
        learned it.

        You poor man, so helpless, he cannot even google "enuma elish"! It would be a
        good idea for you to get educated on everything involving your religion,
        especially on the Bible. Google "biblical criticism".

        Richard G

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: praesto12
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:10 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

        The "plurality" has never been an embarasment to Christianity or Judaism; read
        prior email.

        Israelites being in Babylon proves nothing but the fact that Israelites were in
        Babylon. Duh.

        I'd be interested to learn more about Enuma Elish, so please send a link. Much
        more to be said on the matter.

        Richard

        ________________________________
        From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:09:25 PM
        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

        OK. No problem. You may be right.

        But the "restoration" DOES make some sense. Look at what they have in Gen. 1.
        Elohim of course is plural, and always has been an embarasment, especially to
        Christians, who "appropriated" the Hebrew Bible into their own. So they have
        "the supreme ones". I think this is accurate, but we probably would say "the
        gods." And it has earth pre-existing. That might make sense of the Hebrew, but
        probably not. The Hebrew is "tohu wa wahu" ("w" and "v" are the same), which
        refers to some unformed chaotic mass, like "waters" or something like that, a
        clear continuation of the Persian Enuma Elish, and we know the Israelites were
        in captivity at Babylon, where undoubtedly they first encountered this
        pre-existing myth, And there are some other renderings I think hit the nail on
        the head. When I get time, I'll go through at least the first 16 verses of
        Genesis 1. Could this have come from the Persian historian Berossus (3rd cent.
        C.E.), his Babyloniaca, which is about word for word the same as the ordinarily
        translated Hebrew of Genesis 1-11? We also have good reason to think the whole
        Tanakh was written in the Hellenistic era, corresponding with both Berossus, and

        Manetho for Exodus.

        Someone originated this, or some group, but not this one.

        Richard

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: bestonnet_00
        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM
        Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

        --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:
        >
        > I agree. I just see them playing, and not really deceiving
        > themselves.

        They don't so much look like playing to me, I think they really do believe
        they've found something revolutionary.

        > Having fun doesn't require being deceived.

        Looks to me to be more than just fun for them.

        > However, that in itself does not falsify their theory, which I
        > firmly believe didn't come from them, but rather from some other
        > source, that of scholarship. Where is it?

        Unless someone can find that other source I'm going to stick with them as being
        the originators (I'm not about to unnecessarily multiply entities here).

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.