Did God create Iberia in Genesis 1:9? And where was it?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Did they believe the Earth was flat? I think you have misunderstood the Bible and Hebrew completely (as have many others, even writers included in the Bible itself). Eretz doesn't mean Earth. It means Land. Is a Land globular? And is a map necessarily a globus?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
Just read ANY modern commentary on the book of Genesis.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Discotech

I don't believe in deities. I understand the biblical God as the forces of nature or the forces of the Universe, to me the Biblical God is an anthropomorphism of the origin of space, time, life and the rest of the universe. If a person wins the lottery, he may say «Thank God!», but it wasn't any deity that made that person win, it was a case of random coincidence that made him/her win.

This is not a place of preaching, but a place to research conspiracies and origins of such. I see religion as the greatest conspiracy the world will ever see.

So can we cut the mumbo-jumbo and discuss the matter I've presented?

i do appreciate this expansion of your position, but you have not answered my question as to your credentials and qualifications to speak on these matters. What is your academic background and if you have none, what special qualifications do you have to consider your thoughts on this to be valid?

That you ask me this is in conflict with the Terms of Use here on ATS, but since you ask, I have studied linguistics on university level, but I quit, since I found the lectures way too dogmatic and boring, so I continued on my own and consider meself an amateur linguist. I have also studied religion for a few decades (and when I started I was sort of religious and thought I had found God, but as time went by and I learned more I drifted away from faith and ended up being an atheist with religion as sort of a hobby) and especially Biblical ones-- on my own, because I am an atheist and most such studia are far too dogmatic and involves such things as unscientific personal faith, dogma and liturgical stupidity I find repulsive. My line of work is graphic design, would you like to have my phone number and address too?

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
Just read ANY modern commentary on the book of Genesis.

Like my own? I prefer to make up my own mind about things like this. As I explained in another one of these replies in this thread directed at my supposed belief and agenda, I do my own studies. As should you and others. Question the sources and the authors of such commenters' backgrounds and bias. My interest in esp. the Bible is linked to linguistics mostly, but I'm a sucker for smacking religious trolls and biased people like yourself.

When they will write about our current civilisation in the far future, they will probably say we believed in all sorts of crap, were solar worshippers and believed in Zeus and Odin. Look at our names for our months and days of the week, our names for planets and stars and constellations. No doubt in my mind, the future scientists will believe we were far less advanced than we really are. Especially since very little of our technology and stuff like buildings etc. will survive if (or rather when--) this (like all previous) civilisation(s) falls and turns into dust and climatic Hell.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Woodcarver

OBS: I edited the text of the OP to include the patriarch Eber, who is seen as the father of the Hebrews. So perhaps not Iberia, but simply Eber/Heber the nation of the Hebrews.

That aside, and back to your reply:

Indeed. And I never claimed that. The first chapter of Genesis may have been inspired by the Enuma Elish or other early writings the Hebrews had available. Most likely the oldest (not necessarily the first chapters, but the oldest parts of the...) Torah was written around the first millennium BC. There may have been oral traditions predating this, but the earliest linguistic evidence suggest a date around 1000 BC for the oldest bits.

I personally believe Genesis 1 was written down around the time of the Babylonian exile around 600-500 BC.

And what sort of understanding of the world around them do you think these people had? Were these people sophisticated scientists? Or were they superstitious and primitive in their ideas of how the world worked?

I believe the ancients were far more advanced than the vast consensus of scientists like to admit. The ancient Indus library describe flying machines (as does the Bible in some people's opinion) and what seems to be nuclear explosions. I believe there have been several highly advanced civilisations that have been ended by ice-ages or other climatic or violent phenomena. I believe the Pyramids of Giza are far older than what the consensus of scientists have agreed upon. And these structures are (or rather were, since their outer layers have since been removed to build fancy buildings elsewhere) so complex and impressive that there are serious doubts that we could manage to replicate them even with modern machinery. Same goes with certain structures elsewhere, like in South America.

Why do i remember us being at odds before? It seems like our world views are similar.

Yes, and thanks for revealing your bias towards me. If I discuss a religious text or let's say Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet, I speak on terms of the written words, that doesn't believe I believe in some supernatural God or fancy suicides, eh?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Discotech

I don't believe in deities. I understand the biblical God as the forces of nature or the forces of the Universe, to me the Biblical God is an anthropomorphism of the origin of space, time, life and the rest of the universe. If a person wins the lottery, he may say «Thank God!», but it wasn't any deity that made that person win, it was a case of random coincidence that made him/her win.

This is not a place of preaching, but a place to research conspiracies and origins of such. I see religion as the greatest conspiracy the world will ever see.

So can we cut the mumbo-jumbo and discuss the matter I've presented?

i do appreciate this expansion of your position, but you have not answered my question as to your credentials and qualifications to speak on these matters. What is your academic background and if you have none, what special qualifications do you have to consider your thoughts on this to be valid?

That you ask me this is in conflict with the Terms of Use here on ATS, but since you ask, I have studied linguistics on university level, but I quit, since I found the lectures way too dogmatic and boring, so I continued on my own and consider meself an amateur linguist. I have also studied religion for a few decades (and when I started I was sort of religious and thought I had found God, but as time went by and I learned more I drifted away from faith and ended up being an atheist with religion as sort of a hobby) and especially Biblical ones-- on my own, because I am an atheist and most such studia are far too dogmatic and involves such things as unscientific personal faith, dogma and liturgical stupidity I find repulsive. My line of work is graphic design, would you like to have my phone number and address too?

Asking about your experience level is not against t&c. It is a fair request when speaking with people who have an alternate view of academic fields such as history and biblical literature. As an amateur linguist, how far do your ideas veer from what is commonly accepted? (Not that academia is always correct.).

I have looked back through your previous threads and there is a lot of hoojoo presented as possible alternative explanations. How long have you considered yourself an atheist?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Woodcarver

OBS: I edited the text of the OP to include the patriarch Eber, who is seen as the father of the Hebrews. So perhaps not Iberia, but simply Eber/Heber the nation of the Hebrews.

That aside, and back to your reply:

Indeed. And I never claimed that. The first chapter of Genesis may have been inspired by the Enuma Elish or other early writings the Hebrews had available. Most likely the oldest (not necessarily the first chapters, but the oldest parts of the...) Torah was written around the first millennium BC. There may have been oral traditions predating this, but the earliest linguistic evidence suggest a date around 1000 BC for the oldest bits.

I personally believe Genesis 1 was written down around the time of the Babylonian exile around 600-500 BC.

And what sort of understanding of the world around them do you think these people had? Were these people sophisticated scientists? Or were they superstitious and primitive in their ideas of how the world worked?

I believe the ancients were far more advanced than the vast consensus of scientists like to admit. The ancient Indus library describe flying machines (as does the Bible in some people's opinion) and what seems to be nuclear explosions. I believe there have been several highly advanced civilisations that have been ended by ice-ages or other climatic or violent phenomena. I believe the Pyramids of Giza are far older than what the consensus of scientists have agreed upon. And these structures are (or rather were, since their outer layers have since been removed to build fancy buildings elsewhere) so complex and impressive that there are serious doubts that we could manage to replicate them even with modern machinery. Same goes with certain structures elsewhere, like in South America.

Why do i remember us being at odds before? It seems like our world views are similar.

Yes, and thanks for revealing your bias towards me. If I discuss a religious text or let's say Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet, I speak on terms of the written words, that doesn't believe I believe in some supernatural God or fancy suicides, eh?

I haven't attacked or even opposed anything you have said in this thread. Don't get offended at me trying to get a measure of you. My hobby is getting to the root of people's beliefs and how they come to form them.

a reply to: Woodcarver

You are wrong imho. Look up §15, letter e) clause ii)
-- quoted below from www.abovetopsecret.com...

You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to collect or ask for the personal information (data mining) about forum members, including email addresses and "real life" names, in any manner whatsoever, or for any reason whatsoever.

Asking about my profession, education etc. does fall into conflict with several paragraphs in ATS's terms the way I interpret this rule and others. Besides, why would it matter what education and profession I have? This is a trivial forum based on people being allowed to remain relatively anonymous, it's not a bloody academy or some peer reviewing society. My impression is that the vast majority of users here in the religious conspiracy chamber at ATS, most likely hardly completed high-school, and seeing how few people here writes neutrally and/or on terms of the material they write about, like basing their argumentation on scientific method and sound academic procedure-- and typically never mention sources other than spurious websites or some holy book-- pay credit to my assumption that only a handful has continued beyond high-school.

There. Good enough for ya?

a reply to: Sahabi

Originally, ex. the Torah was written without the mesora (you know those streaks and dots, often called niqquds) or different ones. It was written in completely different scripts and alphabets, even whole different languages. Also the words weren't separated with blank spaces, no punctuation or signs signalling clauses, stops or similar, but written as one long serpent from beginning to end, one syllable after the other. There were books that no longer are contained or even known, and others (like Deuteronomy) that were added at some later point in time. You must also take into account that the Torah especially developed quite drastically over time, with many sources collected in many versions of the texts (look up Friedman's Documentary Hypothesis for instance). These texts were written and rewritten, redacted, edited, engineered, transformed fitted and back-fitted over a great span of time and in different periods of varying intentions, theologies, rulerships, even different religions altogether, different influences and rulers. Different languages and varying dialects even. The Bible is so faceted and redacted that I can hardly think of any book corpus of comparative fragmentation.

Ex.: When you write a text in an Abjad language like Hebrew without spaces and vowels, many strange things happen, like new words forming in between etc. If I wrote IAMANEWMAN, without spaces etc. you can detect several words in between the actual words meant.

Truth is, we simply don't know what the texts originally said, we can only assume or assert, theorise and analyse in order to bring light to this corpus of text. What I am demonstrating in many of my threads and posts, are attempts at backward-engineering this Hydra-headed dragon called the Bible into actually making at least some fragmented sense. I am trying to discover or re-discover at least fragments of the true or original meaning these texts once held.

I hope that made at least some sense to you.

ETA: Sorry if I seem a bit angry, there have just been so many users attacking my person and question my supposed authority and agenda in this and other threads, that I get a bit frustrated. Sorry I don't mean to offend.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Woodcarver

You are wrong imho. Look up §15, letter e) clause ii)
-- quoted below from www.abovetopsecret.com...

You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to collect or ask for the personal information (data mining) about forum members, including email addresses and "real life" names, in any manner whatsoever, or for any reason whatsoever.

Asking about my profession, education etc. does fall into conflict with several paragraphs in ATS's terms the way I interpret this rule and others. Besides, why would it matter what education and profession I have? This is a trivial forum based on people being allowed to remain relatively anonymous, it's not a bloody academy or some peer reviewing society. My impression is that the vast majority of users here in the religious conspiracy chamber at ATS, most likely hardly completed high-school, and seeing how few people here writes neutrally and/or on terms of the material they write about, like basing their argumentation on scientific method and sound academic procedure-- and typically never mention sources other than spurious websites or some holy book-- pay credit to my assumption that only a handful has continued beyond high-school.

There. Good enough for ya?

I don't see anywhere that it prohibits me asking about your education or experience on a subject that you thought prudent to bring to these boards. Your interpretation of the t&c's is not the t&c's.

I think these points are very relevant when discussing any topic that deals with an academic field of study. You say yourself that the majority of users here barely have a highschool understanding, i agree and want to know people's level of study before taking them seriously. You have to admit a majority of your threads are about complete nonsense.

The fact that you would think that your experience and education are not important to any discussion tells me that you have an adverse reaction to your story being scrutinized. Put up or shut up is the appropriate reaction to those who refuse to source their ideas.

a reply to: Discotech

God wrote the bible?

The Bible is obviously not gods word. It has signatures and sign offs of the scribes who scribbled down the ramblings of men attempting to know God.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
Your on a bit of marshy land there with your "extra" translation. This is one of those segments that the Jews use to prove their right to the land they live on.
ie. not any other translation, but the only one "the land of the twelve" which re-enforces their claim to the land. ie. through the twelve tribes of Israel. That explanation only.

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
a reply to: Discotech

God wrote the bible?

The Bible is obviously not gods word. It has signatures and sign offs of the scribes who scribbled down the ramblings of men attempting to know God.

Spot on! This is the level of discussion here in the Heaven-and-Hell-section of ATS called Conspiracy in Religion. Most of the debaters are far too biased and indoctrinated to understand much anything being discussed in more serious manner. They use this forum to preach and stigmatise their fellows and even more are simply mocking and stupifying, attacking the messengers and honest attempts at making sense of senseless material handed down from pre-Antiquity and use this place to preach faith and dogma.

Keep up the good work!

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Again, you are biased and obviously don't understand how I work with these texts and how the Hebrew language developed over thousands of years.

Biased? I'm sorry you feel that way about me. I am not here to attack; I am here to engage you in pleasant and intellectual conversation. I would hope that my own threads and posts illustrate my proficiency in Arabic, Qur'an, Bible, and through understanding Arabic; a decent grasp of Hebrew.

• New Proposed Etymology: "Israel"

• IX. Light

• Part 5: Hijazi Defective Script; Not Classical Arabic Script or Kufic

My questions were oriented toward sparking mutual conversation, not to challenge or attack you.

I'm in a similar boat as you, floating down the same stream; I am non-religious, but passionately enjoy the etymological, semantic, and historic comparative study of world religion; especially the Hebrew Scriptures in particular.

You spoke of dual nouns, so I am simply asking your view on the specifics of Genesis 1. I don't understand how I warranted the personal attack of being bias.

Yes, and I am sorry. I was frustrated trying to reply to most or all the replies here. Please read my text again, I soon understood I was being a bit too rude, and deleted the part you quoted, but you were a bit too fast in your reaction. Sorry. I was just being frustrated. I agree with you, I was not being fair with you

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
Your on a bit of marshy land there with your "extra" translation. This is one of those segments that the Jews use to prove their right to the land they live on.
ie. not any other translation, but the only one "the land of the twelve" which re-enforces their claim to the land. ie. through the twelve tribes of Israel. That explanation only.

Fair enough, but Ishmael also had twelve sons ending up as tribes. Zeus had a consortium of twelve lesser gods below himself, and I could mention even more examples, like how EU is symbolised with twelve stars and how the year has twelve months, the Zodiac has twelve main constellations &c &c. Before the Moors taught us to count with groups of tens, we typically counted with twelves.

Besides. There should be no doubt that the Bible serves sort of proofs, circumstantial as they may be, that there were Hebrew presence and rule in the Holy land, long before ex. Islam became a religion. However, the mostly Muslim Syrians and Palestinians &c have by far much more Hebrew blood in their veins than those calling themselves Jews. The question one must ask, is who are these Hebrews today who once lived down there? My research has lead me to understand that the majority of Israel's population has about no relevance or right to occupy the Land and fuzz about as they do down there. Modern science has shown that the indigenous population (Palestinians and Samaritans &c) are by far more Jewish than the «Jewish» elite ruling the Promised Land treading those who have lived there for thousands of years-- under foot.

Point is, «Land of the Twelve» I refer to in my OP can relate to a whole lot more than Jacob and his twelve sons.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Woodcarver

OBS: I edited the text of the OP to include the patriarch Eber, who is seen as the father of the Hebrews. So perhaps not Iberia, but simply Eber/Heber the nation of the Hebrews.

That aside, and back to your reply:

Indeed. And I never claimed that. The first chapter of Genesis may have been inspired by the Enuma Elish or other early writings the Hebrews had available. Most likely the oldest (not necessarily the first chapters, but the oldest parts of the...) Torah was written around the first millennium BC. There may have been oral traditions predating this, but the earliest linguistic evidence suggest a date around 1000 BC for the oldest bits.

I personally believe Genesis 1 was written down around the time of the Babylonian exile around 600-500 BC.

And what sort of understanding of the world around them do you think these people had? Were these people sophisticated scientists? Or were they superstitious and primitive in their ideas of how the world worked?

I believe the ancients were far more advanced than the vast consensus of scientists like to admit. The ancient Indus library describe flying machines (as does the Bible in some people's opinion) and what seems to be nuclear explosions. I believe there have been several highly advanced civilisations that have been ended by ice-ages or other climatic or violent phenomena. I believe the Pyramids of Giza are far older than what the consensus of scientists have agreed upon. And these structures are (or rather were, since their outer layers have since been removed to build fancy buildings elsewhere) so complex and impressive that there are serious doubts that we could manage to replicate them even with modern machinery. Same goes with certain structures elsewhere, like in South America.

Why do i remember us being at odds before? It seems like our world views are similar.

Yes, and thanks for revealing your bias towards me. If I discuss a religious text or let's say Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet, I speak on terms of the written words, that doesn't believe I believe in some supernatural God or fancy suicides, eh?

I haven't attacked or even opposed anything you have said in this thread. Don't get offended at me trying to get a measure of you. My hobby is getting to the root of people's beliefs and how they come to form them.

No, and that's actually the main problem with your approach here. This place is to discuss topics like the one I have posted here. Name one single bastard who has even remotely shown interest in the topic at hand, or elements of the OP, well, I can point out two, perhaps three posts in this wall of shame most debaters have produced in this thread.

Most are like you, questioning and criticising the person behind it i.e. me, and not even remotely discussing the topic at hand, except for some fool claiming I am trying to be God, a person (i.e. this God character) that in my opinion is either stone dead or non-existing altogether. I am honestly posting serious research here, and all the majority of people here wanna know or has objections about are their opinions about whether I have striped or spotted shirt. And yes, that is an abstract thought.

So can we please discuss seriously and drop the ad hominem cow-dung and your curiosity about my supposed faith, my level of education and profession, can't you simply quit playing around playing PI's and inquisitors? Research matter, not person damnit!

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

It was to serve a point to not take it as "gospel"

I see you conveniently ignored my elaboration on what I meant though which is ironic as throw your platitudes about bias around, you cannot use the bible as a historical record

Much like you cannot use Plato's account as a historical record for proof of the existence of Atlantis