What's in a Lamassu? - ISIS Destroys artifact(s) - A glimpse inside & WAR - A Cover?

a reply to: Byrd

Actually, it's a very viable and energetic field - and connected with Biblical archaeology. There's weekly reports of new discoveries (if you happen to be on the mailing lists for scholars.)

You went right over what I was actually saying:

...there are relatively few researchers in comparison

I didn't say non-existent. I said relatively few in comparison. Maybe that's not the best way to express it, instead, there is a lot more money and interest in politically relevant doctrines/histories. More appropriate? Even when history is rewritten there are many political groups that are slow to react or fully appreciate, acknowledge or accept certain changes unless beneficial or entirely impossible to ignore.

There are also religious scholars who get involved in other historical studies to do what appears, mental gymnastics to keep their own histories in tact. Like Mike Heisner, the anti-Stitchin proponent.

Here's a paper on him explaining Elohim as singular (but also plural) even though it's plural

Right away he opens with confirmation bias: you know that I believe in the Trinity just like most of you who are reading this book.

And then admits a logical argument against his position:

I related how certain members of the divine council are explicitly called gods in the inspired text, but that these gods were inferior to Yahweh, the God of Israel...When I came to realize that there were other G-O- D-S in a heavenly council, it seemed (and that’s an important word) as though Yahweh was just one among equals. That bothered me.

Then proceeds to ignore it and here comes the mental gymnastics:

Yahweh is an elohim (a god), but no other elohim (gods) are Yahweh.

Yahweh can be part of the class of elohim and still be “species unique” as I described in the last chapter.

Here it comes....

How can Yahweh can be part of the class of elohim and still be “species unique”? Answering this question is actually not difficult, but it requires two adjustments in your thinking:

"I can explain entirely why Im right, you just have to believe these other things first and stick to the preconceived conclusions."

And for the landing:

(1) that elohim as a term does not speak of a range of attributes with which we would
only associate Yahweh; and (2) that the term refers only to a being’s proper plane of existence. The second consideration is crucial, in that it is the key to sorting out how various beings can be described as elohim and yet only one Yahweh exists.

OR...Yvwh could just be a name. Simple solution. No mental gymnastics required. Mauro Biglino had something interesting in his literal translation of the Leningrad Codex, which he did commissioned by the Vatican. He noted that the reason when god spoke to regular people, prophets and so on, the reason for saying, "I am the Lord, bringer up this, doer of that, bla bla bla I made this and that and such and such..." (Paraphrased) was because he was giving his calling card. Why would god have to give a calling card? Well, if many other Elohim were around, it makes sense. So they know which one they are talking to. There's a bunch of other arguments for the same thing in the literal translations.

I guess my gripe is with people who are doing mental gymnastics who are basically working for the church, or their respective organizations, whether it be Egyptology or various modern religions, relying on preferred interpretations so as not to damage their current position. One that has already been moulded over a 1000+ years by burying and controlling information.

and connected with Biblical archaeology

Too connected in some cases, the amount of mental gymnastics some biblical or Semetic language scholars go to push their own interpretations in to every discipline so as to make sure their systems remain intact. Just a generalization.

Speaking of biblical archeology though...

Egyptologists don't use Biblical dates to date anything.

I was quoting David Rohl who's a former egyptologist and set up a forum open to others to discuss problematic issues with conventional Egyptian chronology.

Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis "100% nonsense."[36] By contrast, other Egyptologists recognise the value of Rohl's work in challenging the bases of the Egyptian chronological framework. Professor Eric Hornung acknowledges that "...there remain many uncertainties in the Third Intermediate Period, as critics such as David Rohl have rightly maintained; even our basic premise of 925 [BC] for Shoshenq’s campaign to Jerusalem is not built on solid foundations."[37] Academic debate on the New Chronology, however, has largely not taken place in Egyptological or archaeological journals. Most discussions are to be found in the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences' Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (1985–2006).[38]

Link to timeline

www.newchronology.org.../volumes/01

Im not claiming to be an expert or anything, that wasn't the point of my statement. I'm not even saying I have a personal problem or that I truly care about the Egyptian chronology, I just thought it was interesting it's even possible to upheave an entire timeline with various interpretation.

There's more than one Sumerian kings list, and none is complete. There are contradictions and overlaps.

Right, there are enough versions to find commonality though and:

Throughout its Bronze Age existence, the document evolved into a political tool. Its final and single attested version, dating to the Middle Bronze Age, aimed to legitimize Isin's claims to hegemony when Isin was vying for dominance with Larsa and other neighboring city-states in southern Mesopotamia.[1][2]

...is kind of the whole point. Not only was it the first record of kings and kingship, but it also was the very basis of divine rights to rule over peoples. This alone is a huge shift in the very nature of man and what could be considered the glue of early civilizations. It was so important and politically powerful that later versions were likely edited for the power a documented lineage could provide.

There is very little discrepancies from the antediluvian records in between the 18 tablets though (from what I recall). You can go over this transliteration and clicking the numbers in the margin explain the differences between tablets, many of them are later on, and really not relevant to the pre flood or early post flood years (which are the most relevant).

As for the other recommendations I will keep them in mind and do appreciate them. Cheers.

a reply to: boncho
Sumeria is not likely the oldest civilization. Catal Huyuk and Jericho meet most if not all of the criteria for it and predate Sumer. There are also likely others we have yet to discover. Not to mention the fact that many scholars believe China, India, Egypt, etc as contenders for oldest civilization. There is much to learn.

There are biblical dates used to date Egyptian history,

There is no archaeologist I have ever heard of who used the Bible to date Egypt.

The Sumerian Kings List, like many other Sumerian texts, is very literal. And it dates back to pre-flood times.

Not quite. Which texts exactly are prediluvian? It is my understanding that most of them actually come from Assur - which is long after the Sumerian civilization ended. Even based off of an earlier tradition, anything written after the complete annihilation of an area would be based on memory at best, and thus subject to error.
You also neglect to mention the important fact that the Sumerians wrote in
Base 60 numeric system, and so the Semitic inheritors of their history interpreted the numbers larger than intended.


Great, Urquhart thought that a flood could wash away thousand ton blocks the world over, yet not in Lebanon. He was clearly biased with his religious views. He even believes that all the world's species could fit on a large cube... well, a more reasonable explanation is in your own link:

Archaeologists believe the limestone blocks date back to at least 27 B.C., when Baalbek was a Roman colony and construction on three major and several minor temples began, lasting until the 2nd century A.D.

“Massive stone blocks of a 64-foot length were used for the podium of the huge Temple of Jupiter in the sanctuary,” the archaeologists said.

Only portions of the temple remain, including six massive columns and 27 gigantic limestone blocks at its base. Three of them, weighting about 1,000 tons each, are known as the “Trilithon.”

This actually ties in with your Easter Island anecdote - the largest stones were stuck in situ as they were too big to move, and abandoned. Eyes bigger than their stomach.

But you're mixing up "public belief" with scholarly opinion. Just because a media outlet claims something is "solved" (like Moai walking) doesn't mean that all archaeologists believe it. That's a complete fallacy.

The biggest problem with modern interpretation of archeology/anthropology is where they start a preconceived conclusion, then move from there.

Another complete fallacy. Archaeologists don't make up their minds before discovering things. It is purely logical discourse. We have found NO evidence whatsoever of aliens, gods, demons, high technology. No bodies, no elements not found on earth, no technological machinery, no hybridization laboratories. So forgive us for not buying into the most ridiculous theories at the expense of more plausible ones.

One colleague of mine liked to say, "when you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras".

Same with Egyptology, as Egypt is heavily dependent on tourism, and keeping Egypt histories as they are.

It is absoluetely heavily dependent on tourism, and that negates your next claim. Egyptian authorities like the mysterious absurdities because it entices more crazy people to attend. Zahi Hawass himself was funded by Edgar Cayce's foundation, whose goal was to find some prophesied Atlantean records hidden within the sphinx. Why else do you think they are so eager to announce discoveries before accurately identifying them?

interaction with gods and god-kings, not just some metaphorical or allegorical meaning.

Do you believe it more likely that the hero Achilles was literally invincible aside from his heel, which was shot by a goddess? Or do you think something more prosaic, say, that he was a grand warrior who died from a minor wound infection, and followers made up an explanation less pitiful?
Religion and sacred stories can never be taken completely literally, by nature. In the case of kingship, EVERY culture has to justify the disparity of wealth with some divine preference, even modern day! It's merely a ruse to dupe the populace.

The whole point I was making is that there was a disinformation initiative, an obvious one. Not just with the efforts of those involved in that account, but plenty others as well.

Great, so the book completely exposes the lies of Bauval and Hancock and others, and since you agree with them the dissenting opinion must be disinformation. I suggest you read it before making that judgement, instead of siding with the pyramids-on-mars guys.

the CIA has been in control of the media in respect to the UFO/Alien topic since the 50s/60s.

This would be why we have never heard of aliens, correct? Christ, every cartoon shows aliens, every news channel reports on UFO sightings, even the discovery and history channels created mainstream pro-alien shows. So much for your theory.

As to the Ephod, it is wholly possible it served as some method of communication - quartz is, after all, used in cell phones. However, it is just as likely a piece of trickery, like the snake staff or river blood, to convince followers of magic. If the Hebrews actually had battlefield help it did not show. Remember how they lost repeatedly to the Philistines? They even captured the Ark!

originally posted by: boncho
You went right over what I was actually saying:

...there are relatively few researchers in comparison

Actually, I didn't. I just assumed that you weren't on any mailing lists for Near East archaeology and may not be aware of just how many teams are out there and how much research is being done. It's not a real glamorous subject and reports of "the team was digging again" isn't out there much.

For anyone listed, here's some public digs that accept volunteers (details in the links) digs.bib-arch.org...

There are, of course, more university digs that do not take volunteers.

Here's a paper on him explaining Elohim as singular (but also plural) even though it's plural
(snip)
I guess my gripe is with people who are doing mental gymnastics who are basically working for the church, or their respective organizations, whether it be Egyptology or various modern religions, relying on preferred interpretations so as not to damage their current position. One that has already been moulded over a 1000+ years by burying and controlling information.

He's just one source. Have you checked out the other 4,000 papers on Elohim and Yahweh published since 2000 (I ran a search on Google scholar to get that number.) I browsed through a number of them and learned that the interpretation had to be gleaned from other contexts since the word could be singular or plural (an English example of this would be the word, "deer"which could mean one beastie or a whole stampede of them - or "pants", "underwear", "bison,"scissors", etc)

Egyptologists don't use Biblical dates to date anything.

I was quoting David Rohl who's a former egyptologist and set up a forum open to others to discuss problematic issues with conventional Egyptian chronology.

Professor Kenneth Kitchen, formerly of Liverpool University, who called Rohl's thesis "100% nonsense."[36] By contrast, other Egyptologists recognise the value of Rohl's work in challenging the bases of the Egyptian chronological framework. Professor Eric Hornung acknowledges that "...there remain many uncertainties in the Third Intermediate Period, as critics such as David Rohl have rightly maintained; even our basic premise of 925 [BC] for Shoshenq’s campaign to Jerusalem is not built on solid foundations."[37] Academic debate on the New Chronology, however, has largely not taken place in Egyptological or archaeological journals. Most discussions are to be found in the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences' Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (1985–2006).[38]

Notice that they are not saying that they use the Bible for Egyptian chronology. While they don't accept Rohl's work, they do discuss other challenges to the timeline. There was a recent revision to Nefertiti, for example.

There is very little discrepancies from the antediluvian records in between the 18 tablets though (from what I recall). You can go over this transliteration and clicking the numbers in the margin explain the differences between tablets, many of them are later on, and really not relevant to the pre flood or early post flood years (which are the most relevant).

That suggests a common origin story and cultural traditions, but doesn't guarantee accuracy.

Just dropping off a link to a paper about the Genisis genology and how the Sumaritan Kings lists might fit each other .

Is there evidence elsewhere in ancient Near Eastern literature of the deliberate addition of a seven to numbers? It is conspicuously present in the lists of pre-diluvian rulers known as the Sumerian King List. In two of the three editions that have been preserved, the ancient scribe expressed the total of reigns in terms of a standard symbolic number plus an additional number seven (see Table 2, below). As for biblical literature, consider the case of the number of provinces in the Persian Empire. Internal records list from 20 to 30 of them at the time of Darius, whereas the Bible states that there were 120 (Dan. 6:1). However, at the time of his successor (Ahasuerus), there were 127 of them (Est. 1:1). Nothing prevents an empire from expansion, but why precisely by seven? Then, consider the ages of the patriarchal figures (Table 1). Keep in mind that the ‘ideal’ age among the Egyptians was variously stated to be 110 or 120, and that the maximum lifespan allowable by the Bible is also 120 (Gen. 6:3). Curiously, only those persons who attain precisely those ages have been residents of Egypt (Joseph and Joshua at 110 and Moses at 120). One might be astonished, therefore, to notice that Sarah attains the age of 127! These concerns apply to the ages of the post-diluvians as well, although less conspicuously so (Table 1):15 cases out of 27. It is also evident in most of the other numbers in the early chapters of Genesis, among them the following: the dimensions of Noah’s ship (300 × 50 × 30), rain for 40 days and 40 nights, water covers the tops of the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits and endures for 150 days. Calculation in Base-60 The second fundamental observation to be made is that a substantial number of the ages involve the number 60. For example: Enoch’s 300 years is 60 × 5, Kenan’s 840 years is 60 × 14, Moses’ 120 years is 60 × 2, Methuselah’s 187 years is (60 × 3) + 7, Sarah’s 127 years is (60 × 2) + 7, Enosh and Sarah’s 90 years is 60 + 60/2, and Shelah, Peleg and Serug’s 30 years is 60/2. Fixation with this same number is evident in many other places in the early chapters of Genesis and conspicuously so in the dimensions of Noah’s ark. Its volume is 450,000 cubic units, which can be expressed as 602 × [(60 × 2) + 5] cubic units. That this focus on the number 60 represents a common ancient Near Eastern convention, rather than biological reality, becomes clear from a comparison with the Sumerian King List (Table 2). Table 2: The Sumerian King List

drmsh.com...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Cool! Saving link to read later!