Genesis 1 & 2

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Genesis 1 & 2

Post by spin »

Mental flatliner wrote:
hjalti wrote:And how exactly am I lying?
I clearly stated above that "BBL" was the correct phonetic spelling for Babel.
Rubbish. It has nothing to do with phonetics. You are talking utter nonsense. "BBL" is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew characters.
Mental flatliner wrote:I clearly stated above the history of Babylonian culture overlaying Sumerian. When this happened, the names of most of the cities changed, necessitated by the change in dominance from the (now dead) Sumerian language to Akkadian.
Again, you are talking utter nonsense. You haven't read your Uruk book for you would know that you have got it all wrong. Names last millennia. you can find the name Uruk, for example, in 2nd c. BCE texts despite the name being thousands of years old.
Mental flatliner wrote:I clearly pointed out that phonetically, "BBLN" should be the correct spelling for Babylon.
Yet again, stop talking rubbish. Babylon is an Anglicization of the Greek βαβυλωνος (via Latin). The -ος is a nominative suffix, while the "ν" was added to allow the Greeks to add suffixes to the toponym. So we find the root of the town name is βαβυλω- while the Akkadian name was Bab-ilu. The Greek is derived from the Akkadian.
Mental flatliner wrote:The fact that Hebrew failed to make the change indicates that it preserves the old spelling even in apparent error.
Balderdash once again. Why do you open your mouth to keep changing feet? בבל is simply a transliteration of the consonant because Hebrew only had consonants until very late.

Babel and Babylon are renderings of the original name with different trajectories. Your fixation with these forms is irrelevant. Babel is Bab-ilu, as is Babylon.
Mental flatliner wrote:This is called an "anachronism".
No, it isn't.
Mental flatliner wrote:Your obsession with trying to find a Hebrew language source for the wrong spelling indicates you have an extremely shallow understanding of history and cross-cultural influences.
Again with the irony. You are obsessed here pulling ignorant ideas out of the air in order to seem like you know something. But it is plain that you cannot process the languages involved. You lack even rudimentary philology.
Mental flatliner wrote:Your obsession with putting meanings into my posts is a deliberate falsification of what I wrote. You always have the option of asking for clarification. You never have the option of lying about my claims.
Obsession! Irony. You're suffering from repetitive stress after a bout of your total contentless spew. Shame on you. You know nothing and yet you think you can pretend here. You're a joke.

At least get a copy of Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon and learn how to use it. Then you wouldn't consistently get these things wrong. The lexicon even features semitic variants such as Akkadian name forms.

If you went back to your peers and said this sort of piffle, would they know that you were just bullshitting or do they have as little idea as you?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Genesis 1 & 2

Post by Mental flatliner »

spin wrote:
Mental flatliner wrote:
hjalti wrote:And how exactly am I lying?
I clearly stated above that "BBL" was the correct phonetic spelling for Babel.
Rubbish. It has nothing to do with phonetics. You are talking utter nonsense. "BBL" is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew characters.
This is as far as I read.

I dictate my motives, not you. I stated them clearly.

The intentional distortion of my motives on your part is just another way of lying about what I said.
semiopen
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Genesis 1 & 2

Post by semiopen »

Mental flatliner wrote: This is as far as I read.

I dictate my motives, not you. I stated them clearly.

The intentional distortion of my motives on your part is just another way of lying about what I said.
I don't know about motives but you did write something really stupid. You've had a day or so to walk it back but it hasn't got any better. You're not exactly the clearest wordsmith on here, but your comment that started this seemed just ignorant.

It's not like people here had such an exalted opinion of you anyway.

You lied about that Genesis 1 was written in Sumerian before 3000 BCE, and now you made a statement that apparently shows a surprising lack of knowledge of common practice in biblical studies. My impression from your posts is that you have no knowledge of the OT beyond what might be found on creationist websites to feed your obsession.

For example you said Genesis 11:1 when you meant Genesis 11:2. This is not such a grave sin but what a lack of respect for a book you allegedly consider divine.

You are the second quasi-academic literalist we have seen this month. Tom Skylark enthralled us with bullshit from ancient Egypt. Personally, it seems he could have saved a lot of trouble by just claiming that Jericho fell in 1400 BCE instead of the commonly accepted 1550, but he spent an amazing amount of time with crap about Egyptian dynasties, apparently because the seemingly historical Pharaoh is not such a great candidate. Now we have you doing some Sumerian song and dance. Both of your personality types are clearly abnormal, that seems to be the most interesting thing with these encounters.
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Genesis 1 & 2

Post by Mental flatliner »

semiopen wrote: I don't know about motives
You're trying to tell me why I mentioned the alternate spelling of Babylon.

I've told you my motives several times.

Any attempt on your part to alter my reasons is dishonest. You have two choices:

--You can take my word for my reasons
--You can continue to lie about them
semiopen
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Genesis 1 & 2

Post by semiopen »

Mental flatliner wrote:
semiopen wrote: I don't know about motives
You're trying to tell me why I mentioned the alternate spelling of Babylon.

I've told you my motives several times.

Any attempt on your part to alter my reasons is dishonest. You have two choices:

--You can take my word for my reasons
--You can continue to lie about them
I guess we were so overwhelmed by your brilliance and erudition that we were reduced to unjustly convicting you of stupidity.

Isn't this always the case with the greatest among us.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Genesis 1 & 2

Post by spin »

Mental flatliner wrote:
hjalti wrote:And how exactly am I lying?
Mental flatliner wrote:I clearly stated above that "BBL" was the correct phonetic spelling for Babel.
spin wrote:Rubbish. It has nothing to do with phonetics. You are talking utter nonsense. "BBL" is merely a transliteration of the Hebrew characters.
This is as far as I read.

I dictate my motives, not you. I stated them clearly.

The intentional distortion of my motives on your part is just another way of lying about what I said.
You can stop reading wherever you like. It helps you not to learn anything. That's why you know nothing about philology, as demonstrated by the previous post here I responded to. Crap about "phonetic spelling", inanities about how Babylon should have been spelled in Hebrew. Any convenient fiction. My god, you are without hope.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Genesis 1 & 2

Post by Mental flatliner »

semiopen wrote: I guess we were so overwhelmed by your brilliance and erudition that we were reduced to unjustly convicting you of stupidity.

Isn't this always the case with the greatest among us.
Or you could have read my posts, where I repeatedly explained in clear terms.

The only conclusion I can come to is that there are some forms of knowledge that terrify you, and you can't respond any other way except to bash the messenger.
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Genesis 1 & 2

Post by Mental flatliner »

spin wrote: You can stop reading wherever you like. It helps you not to learn anything. That's why you know nothing about philology, as demonstrated by the previous post here I responded to. Crap about "phonetic spelling", inanities about how Babylon should have been spelled in Hebrew. Any convenient fiction. My god, you are without hope.
When you bring up a worthless argument, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, you have only yourself to blame.

Next time follow the thread.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Genesis 1 & 2

Post by spin »

Mental flatliner wrote:
spin wrote: You can stop reading wherever you like. It helps you not to learn anything. That's why you know nothing about philology, as demonstrated by the previous post here I responded to. Crap about "phonetic spelling", inanities about how Babylon should have been spelled in Hebrew. Any convenient fiction. My god, you are without hope.
When you bring up a worthless argument,
You have proven you are so ignorant you don't have the philological skills to discern what a worthless argument is.

Remember making a fool of yourself thus: "I clearly pointed out that phonetically, "BBLN" should be the correct spelling for Babylon." The Akkadian name existed long before the Greek version of it. Constructing a non-existent form for Hebrew is just make believe.
Mental flatliner wrote:and it doesn't turn out the way you want, you have only yourself to blame.

Next time follow the thread.
Continue to make up things for lack of substance.

(After thinking about it, as Mental Flatliner is such an intellectual coward I have placed him on ignore. Y'all can stimulate his ego.)
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Genesis 1 & 2

Post by Mental flatliner »

spin wrote:
(After thinking about it, as Mental Flatliner is such an intellectual coward I have placed him on ignore. Y'all can stimulate his ego.)
THANK GOD IN HEAVEN!

Maybe some of these discussions will have fewer completely useless tangeants.
Post Reply