Speaking of the Devil....

here's an example where the generic god word in mesopotamia, is in allah's name



the man who created that was trying to make the case that EL is not part of that etymology and therefore, allah is not EL and therefore not yahweh (or elohiym). but he was wrong, from what i can tell.

bel, for example, is the same thing as baal. they are just different ways to spell the same generic god word that stems from LIL, as you can see in the chart. michael heiser helped me out on that one. here's what he said when i asked if bel and baal were the same word:

Bel is Baal because (1) Baal was rendered into Greek as Bel (the "e"
being the long "e" - the "eta" in Greek - as opposed to the short "e"
the epsilon); and (2) When the Greek spelling was transliterated into
English (when various texts from the ancient world got translated), the
transliteration was "Bel" since English transliteration doesn't
distinguish between the short and long "e" of Greek. A scholar would
use diacritical marks to distinguish them, but translations of these
texts were meant for the wider English reading audience, who could care
less about such precision (and it was easier to typeset too).

a reply to: undo

Yeah, I run into the same arguments from weird sacred name cultists. They sometimes claim that the true God is named "Elhoim". they couldn't care less that "Elohim" is a pluralize title of "El" which is a generic title meaning "god".

a reply to: ParasuvO

Believing that you need to tell GOD that it is worth enough to be PRAISED, is FALSE in of itself.

Now you are telling your All-Powerful GOD it is worthy ??

Very insightful...Jehovah didnt say he was a jealous god for nothing...

another example is BAB-ILU (which is also known as BAB-EL).

ilu is a LIL god word meaning "gods" and would be the equivalent of elohim.

apparently because of the way babylon was laid out, with many city states, all with their own unique spellings of words, what was EL in one place was AL in another and IL (LIL/ILU) in yet another.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I have no clue what you're talking about. I made the point that you simply cannot make the argument that you cannot be for or against something that happened before you were born because you were not around at that time.

Oh.
OK, but that doesn't make sense, and probably why I didn't get what you meant.

It's kind of like asking someone today if they are in favor of slavery being allowed to be practiced in Kansas.
It would make sense to ask that of someone in the 1800's before the Civil War, but it is irrelevant now.

a reply to: jmdewey60

deflect attention away from the Communist Allies' war crimes and crimes against humanity in the great banker's war of 1939-45.

Not trying to derail the thread but I couldnt agree more. We see what happened to Libya and Iraq when they wanted to restore a true Gold based dinar. Wacked by the Rothschild London bankers.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I have no clue what you're talking about. I made the point that you simply cannot make the argument that you cannot be for or against something that happened before you were born because you were not around at that time.

Oh.
OK, but that doesn't make sense, and probably why I didn't get what you meant.

It's kind of like asking someone today if they are in favor of slavery being allowed to be practiced in Kansas.
It would make sense to ask that of someone in the 1800's before the Civil War, but it is irrelevant now.

You're deflecting. And it makes perfect sense in this: you commented that you can't be for or against something that happened before you were born because you weren't around when said event/s took place. But you do claim belief in the resurrection of Christ, something that happened 2,000 years ago. So you aren't logically consistent with being for things that happened before you were born.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

So you would also deny the complicity of Americans like US Senator Prescott Bush in helping Hitler?


www.theguardian.com...

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

a reply to: jmdewey60

What they do is say, "this is fiction, so we can make any claim we want to without backing any of it up". Then once you view the fictional accounts, then you are told, "if you do not believe all of it as fact, then you are a racist and will be so shunned from society", or if you live under allied occupied territory, like Germany, then there are threats of imprisonment for questioning the official narrative.

This is what always stuns me. We have laws on the books against discrimination and racism and yet we need extra specific laws clearly defined as "anti-semitic" The not so funny part is that the Jews are now committing anti-semitism, against the Palestinians adn other Arabs

a reply to: vethumanbeing

who actually funded the Nazi regime

Thats easy Colt Industries (USA) Harriman Bush ( USA) among others

www.globalresearch.ca...

In the 1920s many big American corporations enjoyed sizeable investments in Germany. IBM established a German subsidiary, Dehomag, before World War I; in the 1920s General Motors took over Germany’s largest car manufacturer, Adam Opel AG; and Ford founded a branch plant, later known as the Ford-Werke, in Cologne. Other US firms contracted strategic partnerships with German companies. Standard Oil of New Jersey — today’s Exxon — developed intimate links with the German trust IG Farben. By the early 1930s, an élite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gilette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT. Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America’s investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman.

The Union Bank was intimately linked with the financial and industrial empire of German steel magnate Thyssen, whose financial support enabled Hitler to come to power. This bank was managed by Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was allegedly also an eager supporter of Hitler, funnelled money to him via Thyssen, and in return made considerable profits by doing business with Nazi Germany; with the profits he launched his son, the later president, in the oil business. 6 American overseas ventures fared poorly in the early 1930s, as the Great Depression hit Germany particularly hard. Production and profits dropped precipitously, the political situation was extremely unstable, there were constant strikes and street battles between Nazis and Communists, and many feared that the country was ripe for a “red” revolution like the one that had brought the Bolsheviks to power in Russia in 1917.

However, backed by the power and money of German industrialists and bankers such as Thyssen, Krupp, and Schacht, Hitler came to power in January 1933, and not only the political but also the socio-economic situation changed drastically.

Soon the German subsidiaries of American corporations were profitable again. Why? After Hitler came to power American business leaders with assets in Germany found to their immense satisfaction that his so-called revolution respected the socio-economic status quo.

The Führer’s Teutonic brand of fascism, like every other variety of fascism, was reactionary in nature, and extremely useful for capitalists’ purposes. Brought to power by Germany’s leading businessmen and bankers, Hitler served the interests of his “enablers.” His first major initiative was to dissolve the labour unions and to throw the Communists, and many militant Socialists, into prisons and the first concentration camps, which were specifically set up to accommodate the overabundance of left-wing political prisoners.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

No Conscription?
Ended with slavery? I think you like creating your own revisionism


en.wikipedia.org...

This effort did not receive congressionally approved funding until 1934 when Major Lewis B. Hershey was assigned to the organization. The passage of a conscription act was opposed by some, including Dorothy Day and George Barry O'Toole, who were concerned that such conscription would not provide adequate protection for the rights of conscientious objectors. However, much of Hershey's work was codified into law with the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (STSA).[20]
World War II[edit]
By the summer of 1940, as Germany conquered France, Americans supported the return of conscription. One national survey found that 67% of respondents believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, and that 71% supported "the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men".[21] Similarly, a November 1942 survey of American high-school students found that 69% favored compulsory postwar military training.[22]
The World War I system served as a model for that of World War II. The 1940 STSA instituted national conscription in peacetime, requiring registration of all men between 21 and 45, with selection for one year's service by a national lottery. The term of service was extended by one year in August 1941. After Pearl Harbor the STSA was further amended (December 19, 1941), extending the term of service to the duration of the war and six months and requiring the registration of all men 18 to 64 years of age. In the massive draft of World War II, 50 million men from 18 to 45 were registered, 36 million classified, and 10 million inducted.[23]
President Roosevelt's signing of the STSA on September 16, 1940, began the first peacetime draft in the United States. It also established the Selective Service System as an independent agency responsible for identifying and inducting young men into military service. Roosevelt named Hershey to head the Selective Service on July 31, 1941 where he remained until 1969.[20] This preparatory act came when other preparations, such as increased training and equipment production, had not yet been approved. Nevertheless, it served as the basis for the conscription programs that would continue to the present. The act set a cap of 900,000 men to be in training at any given time and limited military service to 12 months. An amendment increased this to 18 months in 1941. Later legislation amended the act to require all men from 18 to 65 to register with those aged 18 to 45 being immediately liable for induction

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I can't believe a holocaust-denying fascist d.....s is being allowed to post on

This is why Anti Semitism laws are forced on historians that dare question the sanctioned history. You would also probably deny that Churchill knew of the Jewish treatment that his Intelligence people made him aware of and yet he chose not to see the humanitarian aspect as important. Even with the Stalinist exterminations of Soviet people Churchill saw fit to divide Germany post WW2 with the butchers. You would also probably deny that the Balfour Declaration created a Jewish nation out of already occupied Palestine.


www.rense.com...

At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that 'Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.' (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).

As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.

According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):

'It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all, this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press - all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the 'Aryans' who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed - and lavishly displayed - by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.'

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Are you a Nazi sympathizer?

No he simply studies, something you obviously lack..with that rude comment. Try reading the transcipts of the Nuremburg trials, it may open your eyes.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Are you a Nazi sympathizer?

Are you...whatever? You did create a thread "Dinosaurs and The Bible" Where you used the fraudster Horvind to peddle some trivia
(www.abovetopsecret.com...)

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Dont forget the many Fasces in US buildings. House of Reps and Senate, the Great seal of the US dollar bill to name a few.

a reply to: jmdewey60

That, and the fact that these ideas are not pushed for no good reason, that there is actually a pay-off for those behind it, and not to the benefit of the regular person.

Its no coincidence that Germany still to this day makes financial reparations to the "victim mentality" looters 2 generations after WW2

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Eventually it was beaten back into the Abyss, thanks to Russians, Brits & Americans (not forgetting the Commonwealth & Gurkha types, etc, too many to mention...)

Never mind that the "good person" Stalin exterminated 5-7 million of his own people. You do realize with so many post 911 Laws being passed in the US that effectively the Leader of the Free World has become the very fascist state it deplores in others. Or that Britain have something like 1.85 million cameras on their own citizens. Talk about the Abyss...pfft

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

i know you're intent on proving your point and that's all fine and dandy but what was the original point you were trying to make before this debate about anti semitism arose?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

after hitler invaded moscow (and all points inbetween germany and moscow), stalin started killing jews as well, mostly doctors and scientists, which added to the increasing death toll of stalin, who far outdid hitler in terms of poor treatment of human beings (i mean he starved the people of the ukraine to death, slowly, in their own homes. if they weren't quite dead yet, his guys would just bury them alive with the people who were dead. "the ground was moving", said one person who survived. they were paid for each person they buried. yeah... he made hitler look like a kindergartner and we didn't hear a thing about it till recently.)

BUT FIRST, before they could do that to the ukrainians, first they had to convince the russian soldiers who would carry out the deed, that the ukranians were awful people.

so what happened to the author of the op? i'm interested in his take on my info about zeus.