hjalti wrote:Mental: Why do you say that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' and not 'bbl' in Hebrew?
More to the point, why are you saying "BBL" = Babylon when every translation I've looked at (both Jewish and Christian) reads "Babel"?
Because "Babel" is how Babylon is in Hebrew. It's like Rome and Roma, München and Munich, Florence and Firenze, Moscow and Moskva.
If you don't believe this, then please look at every other instance of Babylon in the Old Testament. Psalm 137 for example: "By the rivers of Babylon [Hebrew: Babel], there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion."
So, why do you say that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' and not 'bbl' in Hebrew?
Here's another question for you: Is Babylon ever mentioned in the Bible? Can you give me an OT verse which you think contains the word "Babylon" in Hebrew?
hjalti wrote:Mental: Why do you say that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' and not 'bbl' in Hebrew?
More to the point, why are you saying "BBL" = Babylon when every translation I've looked at (both Jewish and Christian) reads "Babel"?
Because "Babel" is how Babylon is in Hebrew. It's like Rome and Roma, München and Munich, Florence and Firenze, Moscow and Moskva.
If you don't believe this, then please look at every other instance of Babylon in the Old Testament. Psalm 137 for example: "By the rivers of Babylon [Hebrew: Babel], there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion."
So, why do you say that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' and not 'bbl' in Hebrew?
Here's another question for you: Is Babylon ever mentioned in the Bible? Can you give me an OT verse which you think contains the word "Babylon" in Hebrew?
hjalti wrote:Because "Babel" is how Babylon is in Hebrew. It's like Rome and Roma, München and Munich, Florence and Firenze, Moscow and Moskva.
If you don't believe this, then please look at every other instance of Babylon in the Old Testament. Psalm 137 for example: "By the rivers of Babylon [Hebrew: Babel], there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion."
So, why do you say that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' and not 'bbl' in Hebrew?
Here's another question for you: Is Babylon ever mentioned in the Bible? Can you give me an OT verse which you think contains the word "Babylon" in Hebrew?
Are you serious?
You don't know how I got "Babel" from "BBL"?
I didn't say that.
Now please respond:
1. Why do you say that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' and not 'bbl' in Hebrew?
2. Can you give me an OT verse that you think contains the Hebrew word "Babylon"?
hjalti wrote:Because "Babel" is how Babylon is in Hebrew. It's like Rome and Roma, München and Munich, Florence and Firenze, Moscow and Moskva.
If you don't believe this, then please look at every other instance of Babylon in the Old Testament. Psalm 137 for example: "By the rivers of Babylon [Hebrew: Babel], there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion."
So, why do you say that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' and not 'bbl' in Hebrew?
Here's another question for you: Is Babylon ever mentioned in the Bible? Can you give me an OT verse which you think contains the word "Babylon" in Hebrew?
Are you serious?
You don't know how I got "Babel" from "BBL"?
I didn't say that.
Now please respond:
1. Why do you say that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' and not 'bbl' in Hebrew?
2. Can you give me an OT verse that you think contains the Hebrew word "Babylon"?
Not interested.
The discussion is about demonstrating Genesis as Sumerian in origin and how various parts can be dated.
If you don't get how I got "Babel" from the original Hebrew, you're not likely going to be able to follow along (I assume that's why you're obsessed with these non-issues).
But I get why you get Babel from the original Hebrew. "Babel" is just a phonological representation of the Hebrew for Babylon, as you can see from every passage in the OT that mentions Babylon.
You claimed that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' in Hebrew, but not as 'bbl' (like we have in Gen 11). But Babylon is written as 'bbl' everywhere in the OT, and never (at least I haven't found a single instance) as 'bbln'.
Mental, aren't you even willing to admit that you were wrong to say that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' in Hebrew?
hjalti wrote:But I get why you get Babel from the original Hebrew. "Babel" is just a phonological representation of the Hebrew for Babylon, as you can see from every passage in the OT that mentions Babylon.
You claimed that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' in Hebrew, but not as 'bbl' (like we have in Gen 11). But Babylon is written as 'bbl' everywhere in the OT, and never (at least I haven't found a single instance) as 'bbln'.
Mental, aren't you even willing to admit that you were wrong to say that Babylon should be written as 'bbln' in Hebrew?
No, it isn't. [bet bet lamed] is an anachronism. It's the Hebrew language preserving the name of a city older than the language itself.
(You should have figured this out when you noticed that the Hebrew spells it wrong. That was my whole point.)
You're trying to make a very insignificant point personal, and you've completely missed the obvious. When the Babylonians renamed their city in their own dialect, the Hebrew kept the old (and now erroneous) spelling.
"the Hebrew spells it wrong"? He pulled that assertion out of his ass. You cannot reason with someone who fabricates reality to suit current religious needs.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes