baphomet

I'm only going to quote you on what is relevant./

So when we see YHWH and YAH (which the King James English Version of the Bible mistranslates as 'The LORD') was combined in LATER WRITINGS (post Ezra) with the generic term for 'clan god' i.e. ELOHIM (using the 'plural of majesty' but governing a singular Verb) which the King James 1611 Version of the Bible mistranslates to the word 'God' it forms in all your bad English translations (of Heb. YHWH-ELOHIM ('lit the clan god-YHWH') as 'The LORD God' which makes for lots of confusion, especially for persons like you on ATS who have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs...or even a basic understanding of the rudiments of Israelitish history...

This is an error, Because the name it's self EL is connected to the name YAHWEH, can you understand this ?
Since EL=TO GO that means the cycle. It's a direct representation of the name YAHWEH ? Get it ?
Because the name yahweh it's self is "TO BE" as in alive.


I'll post it again

www.etymonline.com...
arly 14c., from O.Fr. ambler "walk as a horse does," from L. ambulare "to walk, to go about, take a walk," perhaps a compound of ambi- "around" (see ambi-) and -ulare, from PIE base *el-"to go" (cf. Gk. ale "wandering," alaomai "wander about;" Latvian aluot "go around or astray"). Until 1590s used only of horses or persons on horseback. Related: Ambled; ambling. As a noun, from late 14c.

YAHWEH=TO BE(TO GO)
TO GO=EL.

Originally posted by pepsi78
I am not making things up, EL as a root equals him...

Good. If you are not making it up then provide everyone with a Latin dictionary definition of the word. I mean, if you are not making it up it should be easy to find. Right?

Remember, Latin dictionary. Not another. Latin.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


EL comes from indo eu and enters latin. As EL then EL-LUS and other forms, EL is a masculin form.
I have posted above it's marked in red.
"TO GO" from YAHWEH. EL. It's masculine.
Remember"TO GO" it's your TO GO if I remember ?

EL=to go.

I have provided examples from other langueges, and from Latin based langueges mixed with ancient Italic langueges, lik venetian, they all state the same.

The other words are a surffix.

Classical latin is not it, there are other forms of latin before classical latin, but the old latin dictionary is incomplete.

You can't state otherwise, see the LUS and all others are surffixes.
What you can do is make pretend that you don't know about this.

Originally posted by pepsi78
EL comes from indo eu and enters latin.

Is that so? Sorry I had to catch you making things up again:

PIE had personal pronouns in the first and second person, but not the third person...source

Third person pronouns (he/she/it) do not exisit in Proto Indo European nor in Latin in a way that would be familiar to English speakers. Even poor ones.

I have provided examples from other langueges...

You said the 'el' means 'him' in Latin. I could care less about the other languages. Where is this written in a Latin dictionary?

Classical latin is not it, there are other forms of latin before classical latin, but the old latin dictionary is incomplete.

If it is incomplete than how do you have the balls to try and assume something is there when it is not?

You can't state otherwise, see the LUS and all others are surffixes.
What you can do is make pretend that you don't know about this.

The word is suffix, not surffix, learn how to spell.

If '-lus' is a suffix then what does it mean? Is this also in your secret Latin dictionary?

Third person pronouns (he/she/it) do not exisit in Proto Indo European nor in Latin in a way that would be familiar to English speakers. Even poor ones.

Where did you see me state that EL= directly he in IE ? Quote me where.

I stated that EL=TO GO that is the interpretation of the masculin, a HE, this proves my point where it comes from in the ancient word. As a result in hebrew, phonician EL=masculin, god as a he.

You said the 'el' means 'him' in Latin. I could care less about the other languages. Where is this written in a Latin dictionary?

It does mean EL, but not in classical latin, there is latin predating classical latin and after classical latin.
You see romans deluded them selfs with terms like LUS, US, to make the word more interesting.
After that they got rid of it. Venetian Pronouns shows what the word is composed of.
Other sources state what the word is composed of and that it is a suffix.

The word is suffix, not surffix, learn how to spell.

Still not making a point

If '-lus' is a suffix then what does it mean? Is this also in your secret Latin dictionary?

I'll tell you what it means, it means that EL is the root word, you know what a suffix is ?
Is it an addition to the word ?

What is this (EL)-LUM, (EL)-LUS. ?

reply to post by pepsi78

I know what you are getting at, but merging with the abzu does not make you the abzu.
It's not what you said anyway you mixed the apsu with the abzu stating the abzu is a deity, (I say it's wrong)
Being Lord in the pound does not make you the pound.

No, as I stated, Abzu and Apsu are differentiated in transliteration only. The babylonian priests spoke everything religious in the Sumerian language. And, YES, in SUMERIAN CULTURE being the Lord of the Abzu and being the Abzu are identical.

Nintura does not kill Nammu, there is no battle, there is no Nibiru in sumeria, this is a babylonian story.
Nintura would have to kill nammu(tiamat) slay her, there is no such thing in sumerian myth

No, I never said anything of the sort. What I did do is point out that Marduk is a combination of two different Sumerian deities. This is where your reading comprehension is doing you in, Pepsi. There isn't this story in Sumerian mythology, because it is the creation epic that was re-written to make Marduk the hero. Here is where the "slaying of the dragon" type myths occur for the Sumerians (dated around 3rd millenium BCE):

The first story, and probably the oldest: Enki battles Kur, when the latter steals away the young Ereshkigal. There is only a small amount of this myth recovered, and so the details are pretty sketchy.

The second, and THIS is most likely the be the basis for the Babylonian story: The god Ninurta is addressed by his weapon Sharur (see what I mean? Sharur is both his weapon, and the anthropomorphic personification of his weapon - just like Abzu), and Sharur, for reasons unclear, tells him he must attack Kur. Ninurta tries once, fails, tries again, and prevails. Of course, this has its own complications for the land.

The third: Inanna demands that Kur submit to her, else she will destroy Kur.

Now, as we know, Kur and Abzu are contained within each other. They are one and the same. And they are both the thing and the Lord of the thing.

NOW: can you understand what I've written here? You have no idea what you're talking about regarding Sumerian mythology.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Where did you see me state that EL= directly he in IE ? Quote me where.

Why, right below.

I stated that EL=TO GO that is the interpretation of the masculin, a HE...

'He' (him) is a pronoun. A pronoun or the concept of a pronoun are the same thing. You can not imply that Latin or Proto Indo European had the concept of a pronoun without a pronoun or vice versa.

It does mean EL, but not in classical latin, there is latin predating classical latin and after classical latin.
You see romans deluded them selfs with terms like LUS, US, to make the word more interesting.
After that they got rid of it. Venetian Pronouns shows what the word is composed of.
Other sources state what the word is composed of and that it is a suffix.

What that grammatically retarded paragraph boils down to is; 'I will pretend it exists in a form of Latin that I do not ever have to provide proof of, nor can anyone ever cite to refute me because it exists in only one place, MY HEAD.'

From now on, when you decide to give everyone a disertation of your vast Latin knowledge you should preface it by saying it is not Classical, Medieval, etc just call it Ficto-Latin. Then we will all know it is like some language similar to what babies do when they still can not speak properly. Goo-goo anus. Goo-goo el. Goo-goo lus.

Still not making a point

I will have if you start spelling it correctly.

What is this (EL)-LUM, (EL)-LUS. ?

Nothing.

However, '-ellus' and '-ellum' (no brackets) means diminutive when added to a word.

I know what you are getting at, but merging with the abzu does not make you the abzu.
It's not what you said anyway you mixed the apsu with the abzu stating the abzu is a deity, (I say it's wrong)
Being Lord in the pound does not make you the pound.

No, you mixed the apsu with the sumerian abzu stating:

Chronus' closest tie to Sumerian mythology would be Apsu

Making chronus the apsu, you stated the abzu is a deity.

And, YES, in SUMERIAN CULTURE being the Lord of the Abzu and being the Abzu are identical.

No it's not, you may use the abzu but you are not the abzu.
If you state otherwise come with a summerian source

No, I never said anything of the sort. What I did do is point out that Marduk is a combination of two different Sumerian deities. This is where your reading comprehension is doing you in, Pepsi.

Marduk is not a sumerian figure

There isn't this story in Sumerian mythology, because it is the creation epic that was re-written to make Marduk the hero. Here is where the "slaying of the dragon" type myths occur for the Sumerians (dated around 3rd millenium BCE):

The dragon is nammu, this happens no where in sumerian culture, then you agree with me that it has nothing to do with any of what you say.

Now, as we know, Kur and Abzu are contained within each other. They are one and the same. And they are both the thing and the Lord of the thing.

They are not one and the same, the abzu is the abbys, it's not a deity.
Only in babylon it becomes that. The abbys is a place of rest, it's not alive, Enki go's into it to rest, the babylonians have animated because they had a wild imagination.

The term abzu is defined as a restful place, it's about it, and remember the abzu is not the underworld.
The lord ENKI go's to rest in it, to sleep, as for his other family members as well his mother included.
They all live in the abzu and come up at day from it.

Why, right below.

I stated that EL=TO GO that is the interpretation of the masculin, a HE...

That is right, it's what it means EL=TO GO, it is a interpretation of a masculine form.
The IE does not use as you said direct forms, but to go is a masculine form, it's what it means.

'He' (him) is a pronoun. A pronoun or the concept of a pronoun are the same thing. You can not imply that Latin or Proto Indo European had the concept of a pronoun without a pronoun or vice versa.

The source of EL comes from there, if latin has a suffix with the root word EL it's clear that it is the root word, and that the suffix is an addition that came later.

What that grammatically retarded paragraph boils down to is; 'I will pretend it exists in a form of Latin that I do not ever have to provide proof of, nor can anyone ever cite to refute me because it exists in only one place, MY HEAD.'

You want to flame go ahead, it's your problem/

From now on, when you decide to give everyone a disertation of your vast Latin knowledge you should preface it by saying it is not Classical, Medieval, etc just call it Ficto-Latin. Then we will all know it is like some language similar to what babies do when they still can not speak properly. Goo-goo anus. Goo-goo el. Goo-goo lus.

It's not ficto -latin
The term suffix, EL(LUS) EL(LUM) contains the root word and the suffix. LUS, LUM are suffixes.
You asked where does EL appears in latin, it's right there, can't you see it, behind the suffix,.

What is this (EL)-LUM, (EL)-LUS. ?

Nothing.

I thought so, good answer.

Originally posted by pepsi78
The source of EL comes from there, if latin has a suffix with the root word EL it's clear that it is the root word, and that the suffix is an addition that came later.

It does not have a root word otherwise you would have linked it by now. Stop making things up.

It's not ficto -latin

Sure it is. It only exists in your head. Goo-goo anus. Goo-goo el.

Link something if it is real. Oh, right. The Latin dictionary does not have a word 'el'. But we already knew that.

The term suffix, EL(LUS) EL(LUM) contains the root word and the suffix. LUS, LUM are suffixes.
You asked where does EL appears in latin, it's right there, can't you see it, behind the suffix,.

Well, at least I got you to spell 'suffix' properly. However, words do not come BEHIND a suffix, they come BEFORE. Will my labors never cease?

Now. Since you insist that 'el' means 'him' in Latin why does it appear in both the feminine and neuter declensions?

What is this (EL)-LUM, (EL)-LUS. ?

Nothing.

I thought so, good answer.

Why would anyone acknowledge your Ficto-Latin words? The real ones are actually in the dictionary and not in some delusional person's head. Goo-goo lus.

You WROTE more garbage recently:

QUOTE

“These versions is [sic] just part of a version of a myths, [sic[] the other side is Venus/Ishtar/Astera killing Tammuz or Adonis. We know that she sends tammuz [sic] in the underwolrd [sic] to spend six months, we know that adonis also has to spend six months. It's the same thing just different culture.

Tammuz/Adonis/Jehovah…”

Why is it garbage ?

Again (!) you seem quite confused judging by your mis-informed (and highly ungrammatical) postings on this thread. Why do you insist on stabbing in the dark on matters about which you are not equipped to discuss intelligently?

I see you ran out of arguments ?

From the above QUOTE, are you actually claiming that the ancient Levantine ‘dying and rising vegetation fertility god’ Tammuz(i) which crops up under various spellings in the ancient Levantine literature from Egypt to Elam (BCE 2500 to 500 CE) as :

That is exact, but you have no idea what it means, and I'm not going to help you find out.
Why don't you work on that spin theory a little more, maybe you will find out.

is somehow magically to be equated syncrestically with the warlike YHWH, the desert clan god of post-Exilic Judaiesm – ?!!!!

YHWEH=EL
EL=YHWEH

They are identical but with slight variations. since adding and going may mean the same El and Lord.
I',m glad people like you do not understand. I rather loose the debate then you find out what it means.

The name would be in english HE-LORD that would be the complete name.

If so, how can this verse in Hezekiel be explained. (see Hez. 8:14 in the Masoretic and Septuaginta) which shows the worship of Tammuzi/Adonis to be ‘ritually Toq’ebah’ i.e. cultically abominable/hateful/unclean to the clan-god YHWH:

It can be explained that they were worshiping the same god under different names.
What was tammuz doing in Israel ? Who came with tammuz in israel.
They addopted another version of the same god.

reply to post by pepsi78

Making chronus the apsu, you stated the abzu is a deity.

YES, AND HE IS.

No it's not, you may use the abzu but you are not the abzu.
If you state otherwise come with a summerian source

I did give you a Sumerian source. I told you not to mix up where Abzu refers to the deity/thing, the temple of Enki, and the freshwater areas of the land. READ THE TABLETS THEMSELVES.

Marduk is not a sumerian figure

I KNOW. I've been trying to tell you that, and have even shown you where Marduk comes from. There's really no other way to put it, because your comprehension is so bad.

The dragon is nammu, this happens no where in sumerian culture, then you agree with me that it has nothing to do with any of what you say.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you about anything at all! Nammu is the primordial sea which gives birth to heaven and earth. Kur is the dragon to the Sumerians. He is the one to conquer. It is the Babylonians who you are referring to when you speak of Tiamat being slayed. In the Sumerian myths, it is Kur who is slayed. And he was considered the dragon. I pointed out the Sumerian myth which most likely influenced the Babylonian epic of creation.

They are not one and the same, the abzu is the abbys, it's not a deity.
Only in babylon it becomes that. The abbys is a place of rest, it's not alive, Enki go's into it to rest, the babylonians have animated because they had a wild imagination.

The abyss is a deity. Just as Ninurta's weapon is a deity. Again, your comprehension is abysmal.

It does not have a root word otherwise you would have linked it by now. Stop making things up.

It does , it's EL-LUS, lus is a suffix, I'm not making it up, a suffix is composed of an addition with the root word.

Let me explain, sort of WO-MAN from MAN, or HE-R, from HE as in her a she created from a HE.
And god ripped adams guts and created her from him, meaning "HE"-R the "R" from the HE.
Just like EL created EL-A, El and Ela that you have been provided by so many examples, venetian, other latin based langueges, other ancient langueges. It may not exist in classical latin, and who cares, the word started in latin and developed later with suffixes.

El=to go in indo european. It's the notion of the year, the one we have been debating.
To go is to move forward, to add. I like to see how hipocritical you are now, how you try to deny that to go is not the cycle, year. I wonder what ADAM would have to say.
I think AD-AM would be pissed off at you.

Remember the rest is just suffix.

I have never seen a thread with over 300 posts and no flags...amazing...really!

I know this is off topic and I expect my post to be removed promptly...but dang...this has to be some kind of ATS record?

On topic..Baphomet seems to me after some research to equal the likes of voodoo...no harm in that I suppose!

Making chronus the apsu, you stated the abzu is a deity.

YES, AND HE IS.

No he is not, the abyss, he may reside into the Abzu, not the abzu.
Source please.

I did give you a Sumerian source. I told you not to mix up where Abzu refers to the deity/thing, the temple of Enki, and the freshwater areas of the land. READ THE TABLETS THEMSELVES.

It does not state that it is the abzu, Enki lives in the abzu and comes out of it at day time, at night
he go's back to rest in it.

I KNOW. I've been trying to tell you that, and have even shown you where Marduk comes from. There's really no other way to put it, because your comprehension is so bad.

He is not who you say, he does not take part in battle with the mother goddess, there is no Nubiru.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you about anything at all! Nammu is the primordial sea which gives birth to heaven and earth.

Yes, but where does Nammu get slayed, and where is Marduk making children out of her in sumerian myth.
I'll tell you it does not happen, she is with enki making things.

The abyss is a deity. Just as Ninurta's weapon is a deity. Again, your comprehension is abysmal.

Source please, the Abzu is a resting place.

reply to post by pepsi78


You statement "Nintura does not kill Nammu, there is no battle, there is no Nibiru in sumeria, this is a babylonian story.
Nintura would have to kill nammu(tiamat) slay her, there is no such thing in sumerian myth. "

Are you confusing the word "assimilation" with 'assassination" ? it appears so. Use that dictionary you have that you claim you dont need, 'k?

Are you confusing the word "assimilation" with 'assassination" ? it appears so. Use that dictionary you have that you claim you dont need, 'k?

Nammu does not battle marduk in the sumerian epics.
In the Babylonian epic, they battle it out with weapons, this guy Marduk is loaded with a bunch of things, in the end she dies, he manages to kill her, he slays her and makes children out of her, humans.

Here it is:

www.sacred-texts.com...
Then advanced Tiamat and Marduk, the counselor of the gods;
To the fight they came on, to the battle they drew nigh.
The lord spread out his net and caught her,
And the evil wind that was behind him he let loose in her face.
As Tiamat opened her mouth to its full extent,
He drove in the evil wind, while as yet she had not shut her lips.
The terrible winds filled her belly,
And her courage was taken from her, and her mouth she opened wide.
He seized the spear and burst her belly,
He severed her inward parts, he pierced her heart.
He overcame her and cut off her life;
He cast down her body and stood upon it.
When he had slain Tiamat, the leader,

Of course this is far off from the Sumerian myth where she is alive and fine, making humans with Enki by mixing stuff into the Abzu. A whole different perspective.

Oh I forgot, in babylonian culture Ea (Enki) kills Apsu. In the Sumerian version his house is in the abzu, he go's into it to sleep, get rest.

This is nothing but a interpretation of night and day. Rest and Wake.

Originally posted by pepsi78
...I'm not making it up...

You keep telling yourself that.

Let me explain...

Oh, by all means. This should be killer.

...sort of WO-MAN from MAN, or HE-R, from HE as in her a she created from a HE.
And god ripped adams guts and created her from him, meaning "HE"-R the "R" from the HE.
Just like EL created EL-A, El and Ela that you have been provided by so many examples, venetian, other latin based langueges, other ancient langueges. It may not exist in classical latin, and who cares, the word started in latin and developed later with suffixes.

Wow. That was as scatter-shot as I thought it would be. I really enjoy when you do not let me down. Maybe you should stick to story-telling instead of trying to teach others Latin?

El=to go in indo european. It's the notion of the year, the one we have been debating.
To go is to move forward, to add.

According to the Proto Indo European Lexicon you linked in one of your prior posts this is also incorrect:

At: To go; the going round of the year, a period gone through

You spew so much idiotic nonsense that you can no longer keep track of your rantings. But I remember. And I like to remind you.

I like to see how hipocritical you are now, how you try to deny that to go is not the cycle, year.

See, I do not forget what I post regarding Latin and languages. Do you know why? Because I actually know it. You on the other hand have no clue and resort to making things up like your Ficto-Latin. Goo-goo el.

I wonder what ADAM would have to say.
I think AD-AM would be pissed off at you.

Huh? You know. When you try to be clever and witty it just comes across as lame and sad.

Remember the rest is just suffix.

And remember that Ficto-Latin is only real to you. Once you leave the land of make-believe you need to break out a Latin dictionary and show everyone where the word 'el' is contained within.

According to the Proto Indo European Lexicon you linked in one of your prior posts this is also incorrect:

No it's incorrect because you state it's incorrect not because it's incorrect, it's what you do with dictionaries and other relevant sources when you run out of facts, you name them incorrect, I have seen this before.

At: To go; the going round of the year, a period gone through

You spew so much idiotic nonsense that you can no longer keep track of your rantings. But I remember. And I like to remind you.

##SNIP##
But here let me help you:

Proto-Indo-European Etyma
www.utexas.edu...
el- 'to go, move, drive' (3) (2) (1); reflexes: (3) (2) (1)

Fast, call it invalid.

www.fjkluth.com...
el-', 'to go, move, drive'

See, I do not forget what I post regarding Latin and languages. Do you know why? Because I actually know it. You on the other hand have no clue and resort to making things up like your Ficto-Latin. Goo-goo el.

It does not seem so.

And remember that Ficto-Latin is only real to you. Once you leave the land of make-believe you need to break out a Latin dictionary and show everyone where the word 'el' is contained within.

There is no fiction about it, it's a suffix, meaning the root is "EL" and the suffix is the addition of the word.
Remember EL+suffix, it's how it works, root+suffix.

en.wiktionary.org...
* (Classical) IPA: /ˈ-el.lus/

[edit] Suffix

-ellus m. (feminine -ella, neuter -ellum); first/second declension

1. Alternative form of -lus.

en.wiktionary.org...
Suffix

-lus m. (feminine -la, neuter -lum); first/second declension

Originally posted by pepsi78
No it's incorrect because you state it's incorrect not because it's incorrect, it's what you do with dictionaries and other relevant sources when you run out of facts, you name them incorrect, I have seen this before.

I know you have seen this before. It is your source from another thread. It says you are wrong. But this is not the first time you have linked a source that contradicts your outlandish claims. Remember, this is your source.

But here let me help you:

Proto-Indo-European Etyma
www.utexas.edu...
el- 'to go, move, drive' (3) (2) (1); reflexes: (3) (2) (1)

Fast, call it invalid.

There are fourteen different words used for 'to go' on the source I reminded you that you previously posted. However, the only one that refers to 'to go' in relation to a 'year' or 'cycle' is 'an'. Look it up. Your old source may refersh your stagnated memory.

It does not seem so.

Really? Am I the one who had to invent a form of Latin (Ficto-Latin) that no one but you knows about where your special word 'el' hides from the prying eyes of Latin scholars everywhere? Hmmm.

There is no fiction about it, it's a suffix, meaning the root is "EL" and the suffix is the addition of the word.
Remember EL+suffix, it's how it works, root+suffix.

That is why you can not locate it in a Latin dictionary, right? Because it is so real. Goo-goo el. Goo-goo lus.

[edit] Suffix

-ellus m. (feminine -ella, neuter -ellum); first/second declension

1. Alternative form of -lus.

Wow. You really can not be that dense, can you? It says right there that the ENTIRE word is a suffix. There is no mention of a root word called 'el'. You just used ANOTHER source that disproves your Ficto-Latin word. Keep it up, I love you, you amuse me. Goo-goo anus.