Comments for PaleoBabble

Comment on Exposing the Work of Zecharia Sitchin, Part 2: Does the Bible Have the Gods Creating Humankind? by MSH

MSH — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:32:22 +0000

Shiloh: “Creations” is ruled out because b-r-’ with that meaning doesn’t appear as a noun in the Hebrew Bible. Yes, they can be plural.

Comment on Exposing the Work of Zecharia Sitchin, Part 2: Does the Bible Have the Gods Creating Humankind? by Shiloh

Shiloh — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:30:43 +0000

Interesting - few ?’s - Could it be translated ‘creations’ and if it is from another root how would we translate it? I could definately see it being #1 or #2 as springs or waters (pleasures from your wife of your youth, ect.) before the silver cord is loosed v.6, before all your vigor is gone in the difficult days which are coming and you have no pleasure in them. The context actually seems to favor one of the latter 3 options. But can you still have one of these in a plural form instead of singlar?

Comment on New Inscription and the Jewish Roots of Christianity: The “Aaargghh! Award” by Shiloh

Shiloh — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:50:39 +0000

So typical of certain scholars - they set up false dichotomies and straw man arguments and then procede to publish articles to tickle their ego and make themselves out to be some sort of trailblazers of intellectual thought - when as you said DUH!!!!

Comment on New Inscription and the Jewish Roots of Christianity: The “Aaargghh! Award” by OJA

OJA — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:34:15 +0000

The Jesus-myth/Zeitgeist groupies seem to be enjoying the article; this sort of thing really steams their dumplings. I noticed it at 2 sites within five minutes. What becomes of this tablet doesn’t matter, the article has served its purpose.

Comment on Exposing the Work of Zecharia Sitchin, Part 2: Does the Bible Have the Gods Creating Humankind? by MSH

MSH — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:34:33 +0000

Shiloh: I’d never seen this, so this was cool. I did some digging on it. The form of the Hebrew word behind what basically all translations have as “your creator” is *possibly* plural in form (a plural participle), but this is not definitely the case. If plural, it can be understood as a plural of majesty. It may be singular, though - - a “lamedh aleph” verb that was vocalized as a “lamedh heh” verb. This happens elsewhere, so it is possible. There is also uncertainty whether the lemma is bara’ (“to create”). Other options for the lemma (“root word”) include: (1) bry (“health, vigor”); (2) b’r, “well/spring” (cf. Prov 5:15 where this word is a metaphor for one’s wife; (3) b’r, “pit/grave,” suggested by the context of death. None of these options has won general consensus, so most scholars are content to see this as a plural of majesty, something not infrequent for nouns referring to deity.

Comment on It Isn’t Just Me That Thinks Indy 4 was Horrible by MSH

MSH — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:22:18 +0000

rode: Wow - I have to see this now; the trailer looked good, but this is right up one of my research alleys (along with “Heroes”). Thanks!

Comment on Ancient Astronauts on Heckler Spray by MSH

MSH — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:20:53 +0000

Yep - conditioning it is.

Comment on It Isn’t Just Me That Thinks Indy 4 was Horrible by Debra

Debra — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:04:56 +0000

I read this NY Times online article and…well..oh my goodness. I’m not sure if “OJA” posted you the link but in case not here ’tis: nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?hp- Perhaps you recognize some of the scholars names involved? Beyond the peer-review journalism protocols is the “hush hush” part of normal procedure? In any case I’m glad to see that “OJA” brought this up and am anxious to hear your thoughts about this further “shaking going on”!
Debra

Comment on Exposing the Work of Zecharia Sitchin, Part 2: Does the Bible Have the Gods Creating Humankind? by Shiloh

Shiloh — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:07:02 +0000

Hey Mike what is your take on Eccl. 12:1 ‘Remember now your Creators…’

Comment on It Isn’t Just Me That Thinks Indy 4 was Horrible by rode

rode — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:43:06 +0000

Mike, have you seen the new will smith movie called Hancock?… they just keep feeding this whole thing of super humans…. will smith is a ’super hero’, he is a bumb with amnesia.. at the later part of the movie you find out he has a ‘partner’, she tells him that they were “built” and they are what people used to call Gods and Angels….. more nephilim but now they are super heroes….kind of made me think of Superman or i should say Ka-El….i wonder what Ka means.??…. anyways….its just very intriguin to see more and more movies projecting the same theme….