Political Crossfire Forums

[mattwa33193]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Alternate theory for the "Tower of Babel" is that it is a mis-translation. What we believe was a tower was actually a (relatively) low building that was used as an astronomical observatory, much like Stonehenge is believed to have been used.

Credit - Neal Stephenson :)

Bab= portal
El= God

Perhaps it wasn't a really tall building that is being described there.
That's a very interesting idea, although I'm not sure if the Hebrew works out quite that way. I believe that in Hebrew, "Babel" is spelled "beth-beth-lamed" while "El" is obviously spelled "aleph-lamed".. In other words, in Hebrew you're not going to be able to extract an "el" out of "Babel", at least not in the written script. Such extraction is an artifact of the English transliteration, moreso than the Hebrew characters themselves.

However, phonetically, what you say is true enough. It sounds (to the ear) like those are the two words which are compounded together to form the word "Babel".. Maybe there's something to it.

Very interesting.. :-D

Since these stories are all derived from oral histories, maybe the phonetic translation makes sense...

[cap'n queasy]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Alternate theory for the "Tower of Babel" is that it is a mis-translation. What we believe was a tower was actually a (relatively) low building that was used as an astronomical observatory, much like Stonehenge is believed to have been used.

Credit - Neal Stephenson :)

Bab= portal
El= God

Perhaps it wasn't a really tall building that is being described there.
That's a very interesting idea, although I'm not sure if the Hebrew works out quite that way. I believe that in Hebrew, "Babel" is spelled "beth-beth-lamed" while "El" is obviously spelled "aleph-lamed".. In other words, in Hebrew you're not going to be able to extract an "el" out of "Babel", at least not in the written script. Such extraction is an artifact of the English transliteration, moreso than the Hebrew characters themselves.

However, phonetically, what you say is true enough. It sounds (to the ear) like those are the two words which are compounded together to form the word "Babel".. Maybe there's something to it.

Very interesting.. :-D
Well, actually the word is Bab El. Not one word.
Which word is Bab El?

In the Torah, "Babel" (i.e., the place where the "tower" was and the seat of where Babylon was) is always spelled as one word, beth-beth-lamed (בבל).

Check the wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel

Interestingly enough, the wikipedia gives the same explanation of Babel as you do ("gate of god"), at least so far as the Akkadian is concerned.

It's two words.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: psholtz wrote: Which word is Bab El?

In the Torah, "Babel" (i.e., the place where the "tower" was and the seat of where Babylon was) is always spelled as one word, beth-beth-lamed (בבל).

Check the wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel

Interestingly enough, the wikipedia gives the same explanation of Babel as you do ("gate of god"), at least so far as the Akkadian is concerned.

It's two words.
Check your Torah, my friend.. :lol:

[Nathyn]

mattwa33193 wrote: psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Alternate theory for the "Tower of Babel" is that it is a mis-translation. What we believe was a tower was actually a (relatively) low building that was used as an astronomical observatory, much like Stonehenge is believed to have been used.

Credit - Neal Stephenson :)

Bab= portal
El= God

Perhaps it wasn't a really tall building that is being described there.
That's a very interesting idea, although I'm not sure if the Hebrew works out quite that way. I believe that in Hebrew, "Babel" is spelled "beth-beth-lamed" while "El" is obviously spelled "aleph-lamed".. In other words, in Hebrew you're not going to be able to extract an "el" out of "Babel", at least not in the written script. Such extraction is an artifact of the English transliteration, moreso than the Hebrew characters themselves.

However, phonetically, what you say is true enough. It sounds (to the ear) like those are the two words which are compounded together to form the word "Babel".. Maybe there's something to it.

Very interesting.. :-D

Since these stories are all derived from oral histories, maybe the phonetic translation makes sense...
Most historians believe that the Old Testament came from oral histories. But Jews and Christians believe that the Torah was given to Moses by God and the rest was written by respective prophets.

[cap'n queasy]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: psholtz wrote: Which word is Bab El?

In the Torah, "Babel" (i.e., the place where the "tower" was and the seat of where Babylon was) is always spelled as one word, beth-beth-lamed (בבל).

Check the wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel

Interestingly enough, the wikipedia gives the same explanation of Babel as you do ("gate of god"), at least so far as the Akkadian is concerned.

It's two words.
Check your Torah, my friend.. :lol:

*sigh* You are so obtuse.

Tell me what it means again?

A direct translation in english is Bab-El.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: psholtz wrote: Which word is Bab El?

In the Torah, "Babel" (i.e., the place where the "tower" was and the seat of where Babylon was) is always spelled as one word, beth-beth-lamed (בבל).

Check the wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel

Interestingly enough, the wikipedia gives the same explanation of Babel as you do ("gate of god"), at least so far as the Akkadian is concerned.

It's two words.
Check your Torah, my friend.. :lol:

*sigh* You are so obtuse.

Tell me what it means again?

A direct translation in english is Bab-El.
:lol:

* The Babylonians didn't speak English, did they?
* The ancient Hebrews didn't speak English, did they?
* Why are you even bringing English into the mix?

Let me repeat myself, louder this time:

psholtz wrote: In the Torah, "Babel" (i.e., the place where the "tower" was and the seat of where Babylon was) is always spelled as one word, beth-beth-lamed (בבל).

"Babel" is one word, my friend.

I care not one whit for your "translations" into the pagan English tongue..

However, as has already been pointed out, these words came originally from oral traditions, and in these traditions it's quite likely that the one word "babel" was originally meant to signify the "gate of god" or "portal of god", as you were saying.

Honestly, I don't see what or why you're arguing here.. You're right about everything, except for your strange idea that "Babel" is two words, not one.

[sLiPpY]

Ever seen Oprah without make-up? Sheez' now that's what I call magic!

[Clara Listensprechen]

UrielsFyre wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: Quote: I don't your point as being valid.

:D
I don't about that.

The trick in magic is knowing the technology of it. Try reading Mark Twain's "Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court" as a primer. The works of Mark Twain, while literary classics, are hardly primers on magick.

It's a primer on technology that's been labeled magic. Your magic is somebody else's technology. No, magick is magick...it is spiritual and energy. There is nothing technology about it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You also must believe in the booogieman under your bed. And astrology as preferable to astronomy; and alchemy in preference to chemestry....etc...etc..

ROTFLMAO!!! Superstitious rot.

[Clara Listensprechen]

psholtz wrote:

In the Torah, "Babel" (i.e., the place where the "tower" was and the seat of where Babylon was) is always spelled as one word, beth-beth-lamed (בבל).


The Torah, which version?

[ideal]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: John wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Alternate theory for the "Tower of Babel" is that it is a mis-translation. What we believe was a tower was actually a (relatively) low building that was used as an astronomical observatory, much like Stonehenge is believed to have been used.

Credit - Neal Stephenson :)

Bab= portal
El= God

Perhaps it wasn't a really tall building that is being described there.

The movie stargate is a play on the idea.




How involved was Macgyver in the orginal tower of bable?

Who else could have built it with such limited technology?

[Enoch]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Clara Listensprechen wrote: Quote: I don't your point as being valid.

:D
I don't about that.

The trick in magic is knowing the technology of it. Try reading Mark Twain's "Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court" as a primer. The works of Mark Twain, while literary classics, are hardly primers on magick.

It's a primer on technology that's been labeled magic. Your magic is somebody else's technology. No, magick is magick...it is spiritual and energy. There is nothing technology about it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You also must believe in the booogieman under your bed. And astrology as preferable to astronomy; and alchemy in preference to chemestry....etc...etc..

ROTFLMAO!!! Superstitious rot. Simply using a string of emoticons doesn't make your argument suddenly more valid.

If you don't believe in magick, that's fine. I am not going to try to convince you. You offered your perspective, I offered mine. There was no reason to get sarcastic and immature.

[Clara Listensprechen]

What's immature about not believing in superstitious rot? It's hilarious!!!! The hilarity is genuine, not invalid, I assure you. You got me laughing so hard my sides still hurt. Perchance you belong to the Flat Earth Society, too.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

[Enoch]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: What's immature about not believing in superstitious rot? It's hilarious!!!! The hilarity is genuine, not invalid, I assure you. You got me laughing so hard my sides still hurt. Perchance you belong to the Flat Earth Society, too.

ROTFLMAO!!!! Again with the sarcasm and immature responses.

If you don't believe what I do, that is fine. If you think what I believe is silly, that is fine. If you think I am being superstitious, that is fine. But, is the sarcasm and immaturity really necessary?

[Clara Listensprechen]

I see--you yourself are the practicer of "dark arts". To what end do you practice, I wonder I wonder? To get to Carneghie Hall? ROTFLMAO!!!

And now you're gonna stick pins in a voodoo doll cuz you got me laughing so hard, I betcha I betcha!!!

[Enoch]

Clara Listensprechen wrote: I see--you yourself are the practicer of "dark arts". To what end do you practice, I wonder I wonder? To get to Carneghie Hall? ROTFLMAO!!!

And now you're gonna stick pins in a voodoo doll cuz you got me laughing so hard, I betcha I betcha!!! Actually, I don't practice any black magick, or "dark arts." Thank you.

And voodoo dolls are not a part of my faith.

[wormwood]

Quote: You also must believe in the booogieman under your bed. And astrology as preferable to astronomy; and alchemy in preference to chemestry....etc...etc.. Astrology is intertwined with the development of astronomy, and alchemy is the forerunner to chemistry...these things are not so separate as you imagine. Since you seem to be "in the know" about arcanum, why is alchemy fake exactly? :wink:

ideal:
Quote: Who else could have built it with such limited technology?
:lol:

Quote: Simply using a string of emoticons doesn't make your argument suddenly more valid. Sure it does Uriel... check this out:
the earth IS flat 8:) :-D :) :( :? :-| :wink: :twisted:

:lol:

[psholtz]

wormwood wrote: Quote: You also must believe in the booogieman under your bed. And astrology as preferable to astronomy; and alchemy in preference to chemestry....etc...etc.. Astrology is intertwined with the development of astronomy, and alchemy is the forerunner to chemistry...these things are not so separate as you imagine. Since you seem to be "in the know" about arcanum, why is alchemy fake exactly? :wink:
Yes, and in fact Carl Jung wrote rather convincingly about how alchemy was never intended to be interpreted as a "physical" science for converting lead into gold, but rather that it was a "spiritual" science for those seeking enlightment. In his model, the jargon of the alchemists was an allegorical cover behind which they hid deep and powerful truths of the human psyche.

It's an interesting read, if you ever get a chance.

[Clara Listensprechen]

wormwood wrote: Quote: You also must believe in the booogieman under your bed. And astrology as preferable to astronomy; and alchemy in preference to chemestry....etc...etc.. Astrology is intertwined with the development of astronomy, and alchemy is the forerunner to chemistry...these things are not so separate as you imagine. Since you seem to be "in the know" about arcanum, why is alchemy fake exactly? :wink:


Ask any chemist. Forerunners to stuff are just that--forerunners. Real scientists dropped forerunners for many reasons. Check with them on the subject.

You care to defend any of them as legitimate science? Do you still prefer bloodletting and leeches to a real physician?

[wormwood]

Quote: Ask any chemist. Forerunners to stuff are just that--forerunners. Real scientists dropped forerunners for many reasons. Check with them on the subject.

You care to defend any of them as legitimate science? Do you still prefer bloodletting and leeches to a real physician? I wasn't asking because I don't know, I was asking to demonstrate that you don't know 8:) . Leeches and bloodletting are actually part of what was considered medicine, and not alchemy. Alchemy was, among many other things, a system for mixing elements such as in alloys, with the ultimate goal of creating a philosophers stone...the key to immortality or at least extremely prolonged life and renewed youth...kind of the same thing modern chemists are attempting :wink:

You seem to have many misconceptions and half truths in your posts.

[Clara Listensprechen]

Well, likewise is observed of you, but unlike me, you have the protection of a Topic Cop that just jumped all over my @$$ just for responding. Because I don't like my @$$ jumped on on a charge of being off topic when I wasn't, I'm not going to respond any further.

Not because you're correct, which you aren't, but because I've been the subject of unwarranted intimidation in this thread. Buhbye.