Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

Evidence of the Babylonian conquest found

888 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

VastLand
10 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

because a lot of what he says is wrong.

as to what are you speaking about? what is he wrong about?

If he is speaking on the matter of Ebionites, Paleo-hebrew, or Eastern philosophy, there is no room for debate. It is fundamental, and he gets the fundament part right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand

wow, are you telling me people are not making the connections in what I wrote? Seriously?

How can I figure these things out, if Benner's Fundament is full of poop, as some here have said?

Easy for you to say, but I doubt anyone here has given him a good look before formulating their opinions. (cause if they had, they would not doubt him, due to the fact that Fundaments can not be argued, because they have to fit just so, in order to function in a way that aligns to the Paleo-hebrews.= You can't fudge data, and expect a proper result)

And Yes, Poliltics is the biggest influence on the Scholar Arena. Keeping peace with the kabal, in Chabad, for their self gain, to perpetuate ignorance, so that common folk can not connect necessary links to our past.

Edited by VastLand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
26 minutes ago, VastLand said:

How can I figure these things out, if Benner's Fundament is full of poop, as some here have said?

It's only the Mormons who say Natives are Hebrews. So I'd say he's full of poop. 

28 minutes ago, VastLand said:

Easy for you to say, but I doubt anyone here has given him a good look before formulating their opinions. (cause if they had, they would not doubt him, due to the fact that Fundaments can not be argued, because they have to fit just so, in order to function in a way that aligns to the Paleo-hebrews.= You can't fudge data, and expect a proper result)

@Alchopwn  Is a well known translator for archaeologists. He knows what he's talking about. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand
1 minute ago, Piney said:

It's only the Mormons who say Natives are Hebrews. So I'd say he's full of poop. 

where has he said that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand
2 minutes ago, Piney said:

 

@Alchopwn  Is a well known translator for archaeologists. He knows what he's talking about. 

I don't even know him. Does he know? Does he know how Semitic started, or how the language system works? Or does he need a refresher course? I have no Idea, I have not seen his work.

But I do know fundaments are essential, and you can't fake them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
35 minutes ago, VastLand said:

wow, are you telling me people are not making the connections in what I wrote? Seriously?

You may have to consider you’re not a great writer. 
 

...my tutoring services start at $40/hr, but I’m booked up the rest of this quarter. Try me again in January. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand

Yahweh & Astaroth.jpg

22 hours ago, VastLand said:

Fun little notation about this Yahweh and Asteroth subject:

Ashterotha is from a root word "Ashtar" a transliteration of the Akkadian word "Ishtar", which has been interpreted to mean "Godess", and does not denote a particular goddess, but functions as a noun. However later in time, "Goddess" became a word of mention for a particular one, we call this the stigma of a word, and the Goddess being "Inaana". This does not mean however, that all mention of "Ashtar", in the Semitic languages, refers to "Inaana", the daughter of "Naana", the moon God. Further, some mentions of "Ashtar", might regain some of her semblance to the former noun, connoting the representation of any "Goddess". Or perhaps, the Goddess herself, may simply have been used as a symbol to represent another thing?

Ancient Israel was of course, allowed to know the existence of other divine parsons, they simply were "not to bring another one of power in front of [his(Yahweh)] face"1, which, in regard to their philosophy2, is understood through the actions of concrete happenings. So, take a look with me, to see what that is like: You look up into the sky, and see great "Shumash"3, the morning star, where is said to be the face of Yahweh peering through the sky, and my how he is bright! You notice that things which are not as bright as him, cast shadows, and you look at your own hand before you, and you see, your very hand casts a shadow... Now imagine, you have a statue of one of your favorite gods, and you hold it up, in front of the face of the sun. What happens? A shadow is cast upon your face, and you are blinded, or obstructed from seeing the sun...

And so, Israel was told not to put another one of power, in front of the face of Yahweh, as it would blind them from seeing his countenance. 

Now, onto the point of my post, Ancient Israel, as a nation, understood that their nation, Israel, as a conglomerate stood as one person, the servant4 of righteousness, a feminine character, being the land, or earth, and that she was the concubine to Yahweh, in a Covenant. Therefore, she (Israel/ Earth) was represented by the "Mother Deity", as Asherah, and it was by this understanding, that the Israelites made the pillars of Asherah throughout the land, to signify, the Father in the Sky5, held her tent (house) up. Also, in the depiction, you can see what appears to be a bull, with calf suckling his fallice, this then represents the Sky father, who's children ingest, or eat, his Semen6. No, not the way you think perverted minds, the deity of Israel was portrayed as masculine and feminine, a completion, and balance, and who's names exemplify this understanding. Such as "El Shaddai"7, meaning, "My Breast of Power", representing the divine spirit, who's Milk, or Oil, her children suckle, to gain understanding. Remember that Ancient Israeli were concrete speakers, conveying abstracts in this manner, and so, this depiction is simply portraying the "Seed planted in the Earth", the "semen in Asherah's womb", the "milk children suckle from god", and the "oil that anoints Israel". Israel did not take this literally, and they did not commit to obscene acts. The Ox bull is the symbol for Divine, and this word for "Ox" and "King", and "God", is the word "El" in Semitic, literally meaning the "Ox whom you shephard", or the "Shephard of Ox", and more abstractly meaning "power", as the one who "Shepherds Oxen" must be "powerful", in order to yoke the necks of such mighty beasts. The Calf is the younger other, who is to be Yoked8 to the much older ox, in a covenant, to learn the way of tilling the field, as an offspring to the older (he is the father). And for the last of all, I have waited to explain that the Israelites are not the only ones who represented the sky father giving his children semen, but the Egyptians did also, and this represented both a concrete and abstract thing, for one, it represented the priestly bread that the gold smith made from white snot, containing alkaline substance, part of which was monatomic gold, baked into bread, and fed to the initiates; the other thing it represented was the Spirit seed, represented by semen, planted into the womb, to make all life9. Yes, even the Israelites, after departing egypt, were given white bread from their mighty "El", called "Manna"10, which was said to be created, in part, by grinding down gold, and was eventually made by the goldsmith for the show bread rack as part of the Levitical rights and responsibilities.

 

Additional notes:

a: called Ashtarte in Northwest (Greek, Phoenician) and West Semitic, Asherah in Ugarit Semitic (in relation to Hittite Hannahanna, and in connection to Ashtarte), and Ashteroth in Northwest Semitic, and Ashtar in Semitic, Ishtar in East (Akkadian) Semitic, possibly Nin-an-ak in Sumerian, and Hannahanna in Hurrian society, an Indo-European group.

1: Mechanical translation of Ten Commandments, inside Jeff A. Benner's book, Paleo-Hebrew Lexicon, and here: https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/biblical-history/ten-commandments-in-hebrew.htm 

2: For more on Eastern Philosophy, you can visit Jeff A. Benner's various works: https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/language/philosophy-of-the-hebrew-language.htm

3: Also "Shamesh", proposed to mean, "[He] named fire", from root word "Sham", the ideogram of "Breast(later tooth)-Liquid", literally meaning, "Breath" which is the "character", or "name" of any entity in Semitic culture, as a breast protrudes, it goes forth over the water, as wind does, over the earth, or maybe more sensibly, the tooth represents "Fire", and is the hot over the land, which the Eastern folk know, is the Hot "wind".

4: In Paleo-West-Semitic, "servant" is the same word as, "Sun", being "Shamesh", only, pronounced differently with vowel sounds, perhaps, "Shemash, or Shamash". The reason being, it was believed, the "Sun" was the attendant to the earth, giving her warmth as his concubine, and so, any "Servant, or Attendant", was named after the character of the sun, "Shamash", as an attendant of the Earth.

5: The very word "Father", in Semitic, is spelled "A-v", and is the Ideograms of the "Ox-Stick", or in other words, the "strong pole", which upholds the Nomadic tents of the descendants of Abraham. This then, represents the father, who has to hunt, and labor all day, that the tent may continue to stand, for if the land is barren, the woman will have to drop tent, and move somewhere else.

6: Semen, is an english word that comes from a Semitic word, which can be pronounced "Semen", and mean the same thing, except, in Semitic, this can also be pronounced numerous different ways, to connotate different meanings, such as "Shemen", which means "Oil", and this is where, we see "Oil" as a offering in supplication to "god", or as salv-ation, or the anointing of prophets.

7: "El Shaddai", from "El" meaning "power", and "Shad" meaning "breast", with an "i" suffix, noting possession. As "Shad" is the depiction of the "two breasts moving back and forth".

8: In Semitic culture(s), one would bring a younger ox, and yoke him to the plough with a much older ox, sometimes the father ox, in order to teach the youth, how to plough the field from beginning to the ending destination. Thereafter the Israelites made it a poetic representation of their people in a covenant with their god, going to the destination  of heaven.

9: Story of "Ptahotep", where is explained that he created with semen and spit.

10: "Mana" to the Israelites, is also said to be called "Shamanah" among other groups, in egypt and mesopotamia.

Some sources:

Inanna daughter of Nannahttps://www.britannica.com/topic/Ishtar-Mesopotamian-goddess , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna

Later called Ishtarhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna

Meaning of Ishtarhttp://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/dosearch.php?searchkey=5231&language=id

Hebrew Lexiconhttps://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ahlb/aleph.html

Asherah, pillars of Asherahhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

Ptahotep

Allen, James PGenesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts. New Haven, 1988.

Gunn, Battiscombe GInstruction of Ptah-Hotep and the Instruction of Ke'Gemni: The Oldest Books in the World. 1998 Google books

Rothöhler, Benedikt. Neue Gedanken zum Denkmal memphitischer Theologie. Heidelberg, 2006 www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/7030

Sandman Holmberg, Maj. The God Ptah. C. W. K. Gleerup, 1946.

Thompson, Dorothy JMemphis Under the Ptolemies, Second Edition. Princeton, 2012.

Zivie, Alain-Pierre. Memphis et ses nécropoles au Nouvel Empire. Éditions du CNRS, 1988

Gold breadhttps://youtu.be/nJfCyjUHkGc

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
18 minutes ago, VastLand said:

But I do know fundaments are essential, and you can't fake them

Yes you can.

I saw it done with Algonquian when some schmuck was trying to say it was Norse and Celtic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
28 minutes ago, VastLand said:

I don't even know him. Does he know? Does he know how Semitic started, or how the language system works? Or does he need a refresher course? I have no Idea, I have not seen his work.  But I do know fundaments are essential, and you can't fake them

You may have seen my work, it is mainly for academic release. Needless to say I am not in a hurry to release my identity, as unlike billions of people in the world, I value my anonymity unless it is on a paper I have edited for release.  Suffice to say I have studied several languages to fluency, including a number of ancient ones, including Aramaic, Ancient Greek, and Ancient Hebrew.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand
8 minutes ago, Piney said:

Yes you can.

I saw it done with Algonquian when some schmuck was trying to say it was Norse and Celtic. 

Yes, you can trick the simple. Really what I am trying to say is, if some understand the basics of Near East philosophy, and they observe bits of data, say some words, or a cultural custom, the data can not be faked, because if it is even slightly out of alignment, it will not go with the grain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
1 hour ago, VastLand said:

as to what are you speaking about? what is he wrong about? If he is speaking on the matter of Ebionites, Paleo-hebrew, or Eastern philosophy, there is no room for debate. It is fundamental, and he gets the fundament part right.

Somehow I don't think you have an open mind about this.  Also, explaining it to you feels too much like unpaid overtime.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand
9 minutes ago, Piney said:

It was posted by James Brian Marshall, and Benner said, " If it is original, this proves that a Semitic people, probably Hebrews, arrived in the Americas long before Columbus or the Vikings.". key words, "If it is original"; now, is that him jumping to conclusions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 minutes ago, VastLand said:

Yes, you can trick the simple. Really what I am trying to say is, if some understand the basics of Near East philosophy, and they observe bits of data, say some words, or a cultural custom, the data can not be faked, because if it is even slightly out of alignment, it will not go with the grain.

Except he's Christocentric and doesn't understand the origins of Judaism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 minutes ago, VastLand said:

It was posted by James Brian Marshall, and Benner said, " If it is original, this proves that a Semitic people, probably Hebrews, arrived in the Americas long before Columbus or the Vikings.". key words, "If it is original"; now, is that him jumping to conclusions?

Why would he question such a obvious fraud? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand
3 minutes ago, Piney said:

Why would he question such a obvious fraud? 

Right, yeah, I did not say I was his fan boy, or his devout worshiper. He is a man, men make mistakes, and sure, I do not believe everything he says. I can even point out some of his mistakes, of his own work. None of that, is my point, the issue, I am bringing up, is the Principles he expresses. Which are in line with the actual Eastern Philosophy. That is one of the countable things he is right about.

No doubt he is wrong sometimes. No doubt.

Edited by VastLand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand
4 minutes ago, Piney said:

Except he's Christocentric and doesn't understand the origins of Judaism. 

that may be true, but he does not need to understand this, for me to understand this.

I take the grains of truth he gives, and use it, in my own discovery, and I do understand, at least in part, the origins. But I cast out his rotten chaff, and I am not a 100% believer of benner folks.

There is a misunderstanding, and my whole reason for saying all that I have, was to give validity to my previous post on the Petroglyph, and how the fundaments utilized to make the conclusions, are correct. I did not say benner is a perfect boy. So quite using that as leverage to derail my own validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand
15 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Somehow I don't think you have an open mind about this.  Also, explaining it to you feels too much like unpaid overtime.

I explained above^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
11 minutes ago, VastLand said:

Which are in line with the actual Eastern Philosophy.

Except there are many different ones, influenced by Greek, Hindu, Semitic and Buddhist philosophies which were being spread far and wide by the Ptolemies and later Eastern Romans. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
29 minutes ago, VastLand said:

It was posted by James Brian Marshall, and Benner said, " If it is original, this proves that a Semitic people, probably Hebrews, arrived in the Americas long before Columbus or the Vikings.". key words, "If it is original"; now, is that him jumping to conclusions?

Ahh you see, a line out of context can be used for any purpose. Ancient Aliens routinely asks questions like “if this isctrue, could ancient aliens have worn fedoras and spoken with a clear a Bostonian accent?” and invitsbly follow it with “Ancient Astronaut Theorists say yes”.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand
2 minutes ago, Piney said:

Except there are many different ones, influenced by Greek, Hindu, Semitic and Buddhist philosophies which were being spread far and wide by the Ptolemies and later Eastern Romans. 

 

Yes, there are different countries, who's philosophy may vary from place to place, and from time to time. Great point Piney!

And you know, that with a little study on the matter of Origins, I can see a sphere of influence, that started Near Mesopotamia, which is evidenced, by such clues, as that of the original Chinese and Egyptian scripts, both of which, started out with Semitic letters, which were eventually transformed or omitted. But the Philosophy is directly linked to the language, and although the languages changed, the philosophy remained embedded. This of course is where the variation grows, as a language changes, but, the fact that all Eastern countries have a few basics in common, reveals, a common connection. 

Of course, in regard to Benner, he teaches on the subject of a generalized "Eastern philosophy", purely commenting on the common fundaments, of the east, then he discusses the "Paleo-hebrew" language and culture, namely, that of "West-Semitic language", and "Abrahamic culture".

So, despite the fact that there are different philosophies, we can judge what they have in common, and where they started. There should be no issues with understanding the distinction? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VastLand
2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Ahh you see, a line out of context can be used for any purpose. Ancient Aliens routinely asks questions like “if this isctrue, could ancient aliens have worn fedoras and spoken with a clear a Bostonian accent?” and invitsbly follow it with “Ancient Astronaut Theorists say yes”.

Yeah, but it is not out of context bud. He is giving information concerning the Las Lunes stone, as possible evidence, and says he does not jump to conclusion, by making it apparent, he is not sure it is original...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, VastLand said:

Chinese and Egyptian scripts, both of which, started out with Semitic letters,

WRONG!!!!! 

The Oracle Bone Script has no relations to Semitic whatsoever.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
3 minutes ago, VastLand said:

original Chinese and Egyptian scripts, both of which, started out with Semitic letters

@third_eye  Would you care to explain the origins of your writing system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
1 minute ago, VastLand said:

Yeah, but it is not out of context bud. He is giving information concerning the Las Lunes stone, as possible evidence, and says he does not jump to conclusion, by making it apparent, he is not sure it is original...

Yeah, it is out of context as it is a single sentence from presumably a longer conversation. I could cherry pick a sentence from Adolf Hitler to make him look like a fluffy dog lover, doesn’t mean that there’s a wider context. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.