samedi 21 décembre 2013

Atta and Fadar

1) Barry Cunliffe's theories and mine (Celts and post-Babel), 2) Etruscans, hlaf-laib-leipä, Gullah, Hungarian Origins, 3) Scythian Debate to my Lithuania Blog, 4) Altaic Chauvinists and Patristic Backup, 5) Atta and Fadar, 6) Thrown Out of Group, 7) Answering LAM, 8) Attacked on Evolution of Languages Disproves Tower of Babel Subject Again

Starting with IC again, and note how he does not want his bishop to read this discussion. I am not so shy about what I state on internet when it comes to bishops or priests I am concerned with.

Fadar/Fathar turns Atta, just by two letters go away/försvinner and a sound change in middle. In gothian/guthans all Fadar/Fathar and Atta are use for Father. Yes I know: "Atta unsar dhu in himinam...."

I do not think that I contact him for a simple facebook-discussion. It is not in my map. He is not either part of the group. Well if, just if, I remeber to bring it up , I might ask him about it.

Where in Bible it is written that; Kain, Abel and Set married there sisters? I can not find it. Also, where in Bible is written that God not created more humans after Adam and Eve?
Fascinating subject. I have his most recent work on my wishlist.
It is written that God created Adam and, from his rib, Eve. It is written that God created Adam on the sixth day after creating the Light we see on earth. It is written that Cain and Seth had children. It is also written that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. What would you normally conclude from that?

As for not contacting your bishop for "a simple FB discussion", it has gone on for quite a while and touched Holy Doctrine more than once. I thought he might know better than you what Church Father had taught (in the Christian Anthropology) that humans had married "other hominids" or that that is he reason for there being other races those close to Middle East/Mediterranian. So I am offering him a chance to substantiate that by pointing to a definite quote from a Church Father, preferrably on at least one of the links I gave.

And if the problem is simply that it is troublesome to write it out, I have transcribed it to my blog, basically word for word, deleting nothing except small and early comments about Cunliffe and his book that were not arguing but praising.

And the blog where I transcribed our discussion in so far four parts is here:

[linking back to part 1, as you read this, this is the fifth part, added after the four]

The link is to part one, and each post links to all four of them. I think that link may be easy enough to forward to your bishop, unless you know yourself exactly which one of the Church Fathers said something about "other hominids".
About Adam & Eve, Kain, Abel, Seth: My conclusion from all that would be that God created other humans later than Adam and Eve, also that Kain and Seth not married their sisters but daughters of other families. Than Kain was expelled/landsförvisad by God, he was worried that someone would kill him. Because he should leave and not the others of his family, it must be other people. I would not believe that they married sibblings if not so written.

Well I do not what Church Father this Christian Anthropology came from. I did not need to ask a Bishop about that, I believed it was all true of course. True in a sence that it was the old Christian Anthropology. I have to see and think if I can ask the Bishop polite enough about this. Acording to the codex of warrior and codex of chivalry.
I have heard one variant that among the sons and daughter of Adam only the twin sister counted as sister to a son of them and only a twin brother as brother to a daughter of them. I am not sure if this has Patristic authority. I am sure this is what Muslims think (they say Cain and Abel quarrelled because Abel was hesitant to marry off his twin sister to Cain, which is probably wrong), but I seem to have seen something similar in Historia Scholastica.

I have seen neither direct Scriptural nor Patristic authority for them marrying for instance elves.
Well, I had not yet read the Classical explanation of whom Seth and Cain married while I had to defend Holy Writ on this exact account in a boarding school, I could not ask ma, I was (and remain) quite a fan of CSL and JRRT.

If you want my more recent thoughts about what elves could be, have a look at the relevant chapters in my fan fiction novel:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones
Chronicle of Susan Pevensie : In a Fairy Mound?
It seems that you, Hans-Georg Lundahl, have read the _Space Trilogy_.
Hans-Georg Lundahl ,I would conclude the bible is full of ***, pardon my french.
I have. ShV And the Narniad. And The Hobbit, LotR including appendices, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and took a look at the HoME part which includes Lost Road. But I have one DB to take on, if you will excuse me.

DB, I pardon your French but not where you are using it. Any proofs for your outrageous blasphemy? Apart from linguistics, where I think I have made my point about Tower of Babel being clearly possible as a scenario.
Hans, I'm sure you're a perfectly nice christian. But anyone with the power of a google search engine knows the vast majority of the bible has been debunked. There is no need for me to cover the scientific proof as it is readily available and much more well stated by the likes of Phil Zuckerman, Christoffer Hitchens, Neil Tysondegrasse, and many others. I'll just throw 2 fun facts out to you

Right from the start, genesis has been proven to be a ***. The bible says that all material things, including our sun, the earth , and all living beings were created in 7 days....false. From measuring the edge of the universe and its rate of expansion we know the universe is 14.5 billion years old. The sun and its planets were not even created til about 4 billion years after that. Life did not start on earth for another 1-5 billion years after that. Then, single cell organisms, early sea animals, amphibians and dinosaurs lived for hundreds of millions of years before humans evolved from small mammals. You would think that god would have mentioned that. Secondly, don't you think god would have told his followers that the earth was round???? But instead, Christians burn anyone at the stake for 1,500 years that suggest the world is round or that the earth revolves around the sun (contrary to the catholic church teachings that the world was the center of the universe....oops!). I'm sorry, I said 2 points above but here are some more fun facts you probably already know. The bible largely steals its stories from other older religions. The virgin birth was lifted from Egyptian religion, the flood ( which there is NO archeological evidence of!) was lifted from the Sumerian epic of Gilgamash, the birth, death, and rebirth was present both in Greek and Egyptian traditions. I could go on ad nauseum but as I said above, the 80% of scientists around the globe who are atheists have said it all before and better than I.
Thank you Danny! I am really grateful for your words. I did not want to follow this discussion for ages because it went quite much somewhere where I do not want to go ever.
[smiles at STh]
"Christians burn anyone at the stake for 1,500 years that suggest the world is round or that the earth revolves around the sun (contrary to the catholic church teachings that the world was the center of the universe....oops!)."

Your Medieval History is vastly inaccurate. Bruno not only said Earth turned around the sun and each star being a solar system, he also taught each star was the god and soul of its solar system. Galilei did not get burned. Earth being round was accepted.

You mentioned Genesis being inaccurate, which it is not:

Creation vs. Evolution

You mentioned a universe so wide it must have started expanding 14 billion years ago, but that presupposes its expanding from a single point. It also presupposes the lightyears away are anything like accurately measured.

Well, Kent Hovind and I differ on how to answer that one:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind Q and A session, featuring Geocentrism on my part and probable evidence of his innocence

[That blog is usually debates like this one from yahoo boards or netscape forums or from youtube comments, but in some cases - like this - youtube comments of mine get to be a commentary on the video only, point after point.]

"The bible largely steals its stories from other older religions."

Covered in some places in this blog:

somewhere else
It is absolutely inaccurate and does not have anything to do with proper research. You know very well that it is many tell tales patched and patched and copied from all over a very large area. You are constantly giving blog pages and they are only opinions as yours are. I am so sorry. I was so happy following this discussion before it went completely and very far away from real historical research. Now I am not following this page anymore very much because of this discussion that continues and continues without any cense.
(continuing answer to DB and then turning to STh)
And as for Gilgamesh Epic being original, that has been covered earlier in this discussion: [linking, once again, to first part of the blogposts with this discussion]

STh, the comment section is open for comments, on all blogs of mine to anyone having wordpress or blogger accounts and on some to anyonymous and and name plus url.

If in any single blog post of mine you find a single opinion without any backing in fact or logic, you are fully entitled to comment on that.

That is also one reason why I link to them.
Everything I have been writing here has been plucked from information that has been accepted by many instances such as universities as well as specialists of the subject in question and which I have read from several widely accepted books. Naturally we all have different approach to information and different grades of acceptance of knowledge or what we believe as knowledge. You have yours and I have mine.
Funny how the bible left these fellows out:

Ancient Origins : Entire Neanderthal genome finally mapped – with amazing results

[Read with caution on that site/HGL]
Oh, if you ask creationists about Neanderthals you will get the answer they descend from Adam.

STh, heard of Emperor's New Clothes?
@Hans, you may believe in god sir, but Ill wager you look both ways before crossing a street, you wear a seatbelt in your car, and you go to a doctor when you are sick; all instead of just placing your faith in god.

And creationists would be patently wrong Hans.
Wrong according to you is a patent fact - about you. And placing ones faith in God has nothing to do with being careless.

"And least consequential of all, the Neanderthal woman’s parents were related, possibly half-siblings, or an uncle and niece. As evolutionary biologist Mattias Jakobsson stated, the incest finding “is more of an anecdote”. The results from one individual cannot be applied to an entire species, in the same way that the recent discovery of an incest family in Australia does not apply to the whole of the human race."

Some would say such relations were acceptable before the flood. Actually even Abraham and Sarah were halfsiblings, and it seems Joseph in Egypt married a niece. Obviously in this view Neanderthals and Denisovans would have been partial ancestry of two of the three daughters in law of Noah. And the "totally unknown species" mentioned earlier would have been men not giving offspring through Noah's sons to our days.

Simple as that.

Any harder nut to crack?
Speaking of incest...where did Cain and Able get their wives from again???
Naturally, Hand-Georg, and I recognise it as a fairy tale as all the other invented stories. Believing is not a knowing issue. It is just a story in your head like religions and gods and goddesses. They are there making for you something comprehensible that you do not have enough correct information to know. I prefer to get to knowledge and I compare it from very many different sources and then sieve from that information the nuggets of proper knowledge. I really do not do the easy way out and just believe and I want to know precisely with all the information available today. This is a page about knowledge in Indo European history and not a theological page, if I understand correctly.
And by the Hans, why dont you believe in Zeus or Thor? There are plenty of books (evidence!!) about their existance.

Personally, Baal is my favorite god. He didnt take shit from anybody!

[Extreme bad joke or is he serious?/HGL]
My neighbour just died and he was for years horribly and terribly afraid of hell. Why? Because, as he said, he was a good Christian. Baal is a good choice. I do not have anything against gods and goddesses as well as spirits and whatever a human mind can think of, as long time they make people think positively and they do not make religions around them. I am badly allergic to religions.
Oh! I almost forgot this lovely diety: [link to flying spaghetti monster]
I believe in some of the biblical accounts as being very feasible historically. I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. However many accounts were greatly exaggerated and fabricated in my opinion simply because they were written by human beings. We do exaggerate and outright lie in our lives. It is human nature to do so even for the supposed greater good both in the current age and certainly then. Therefore I accept whatever actual history can be verified and much has. Everything else I take with a grain of sand. I do not accept humans living 800 years which is why I will never accept a genealogy dating to Adam and Eve. To Japeth perhaps as he lived a normal and believable lifespan.
I like all of JRR Tolkiens books, and think I read them all.
IC, have you also read C. S. Lewis or George Macdonald?
I prefer George RR Martin
I like a lot of author's work, but I was still thinking about Hans-Georg Lundahl elf comment
Yes I read CS Lewis Narnia-books, than I was a child. Martins and MacDonalds books I have not read.

Like I stated before, if the Bible, or other religious books, not fit the science. It is only we who not have devine intellect. I have never considered to have a atheist view. It would feel like give away ones soul and spirit.
You mirror my thoughts on the subject IC
HGL (turning to several of previous, numbering for ease of distinction)
"However many accounts were greatly exaggerated and fabricated in my opinion simply because they were written by human beings. We do exaggerate and outright lie in our lives."

That is of course a thing that happens.

Now, interesting stuff is, how does someone's exaggerated account become accepted by a community if they had other and more correct accounts of their own recent history?

Remember, the Bible is not ONE account by ONE man. It is a long series of accounts by many different men. As to Genesis, I read an article stating writing was done from the first, and Moses only put inherited books together. But even if they had been oral accounts, spread throughout Sethite community, between Flood and Babel community, Hebrew post-Babel community and preserved through a few centuries in Egypt too, the chapters are short enough for rhapsodes to have learnt by heart and preserved correctly each chapter, each set of chapters and after years of training the whole story.

That means the series of accounts starts with one claiming to deal with the earliest men created after only five whole days and beginning of the sixth day and it is implied either that Moses received this in a vision or that already Adam was told this, or both. And this rules out the possibility of any time when a novel was found and mistaken for a history book. We are not dealing with Rosicrucians reading Fama Societatis rediscovered after being hidden for centuries!

DB, I do not know if Abel had time to marry before getting killed. Cain was presumably not married before doing the killing. But their wives, as I have defended against IC were simply other children of Adam and Eve. In that generation that was not yet incest. Later even cousin marriage became so.
"I do not accept humans living 800 years which is why I will never accept a genealogy dating to Adam and Eve."

Different explanations are possible:
  • God shortened telomeres meaning they wear out sooner after flood
  • God heightened the cosmic radiation, which hastens free radicals which are active in shortening telomeres throughout life
  • God made the vitamin-C production gene not work after flood (which counteracts free radicals, so vitamin C shortage after flood as compared to before)
  • God reduced the caecum after flood
  • there is less oxygen as compared to nitrogen and less air pressure after the flood.

Or God changed the natural speed for telomere deletion. Any or any combination of these or maybe others would be proximate cause for lesser life span after Flood, meaning the higher one before remains credible.
"This is a page about knowledge in Indo European history and not a theological page, if I understand correctly."

If I recall correctly, I was interested in Barry Cunliffe's theory about Celtic origins, because it matches mine about IndoEuropean origins (linguistically) which I find interesting because a supposed Proto-Indo-European dating to before Flood would either mean Tower of Babel was wrong or that teh pre-Flood language was Indo-European rather than Hebrew or Aramaic. THEN I have been challenged on diverse issues about this and I have responded. INCLUDING on linguistic possibility of my own parallel to Cunliffe.

It illustrates the adage "Theologia Regina Scientiarum".
"And by the [way] Hans, why dont you believe in Zeus or Thor? There are plenty of books (evidence!!) about their existance."

I believe Odin and Thor came to Upsala and presented themselves as Gods and accepted as such.

If by books about Zeus you mean Iliad, he is not so much on stage on the passages that Homer could have verified. If you mean Theogony, Hesiod took it in faith from Nine Muses that I trust as little as a certain Jibreel adressing a certain Muhammed. A man who even by non-Christian secular Western standards arguably got Jesus wrong in Sura 5 and Alexander the Great wrong in Sura 18, as I just found out thanks to Hovind citing it.

Holy Bible is God very much on stage and very much proving He is God almost all of the time. Since I trust it as history (as I trust earthly and visible parts of Iliad) I must believe God actually did reveal Himself.
Speaking of linguistics, since IC will not accept my scenario that languages can borrow very impotrant words like father (which is to the point for my creationist version of when and how IE common traits arose), there is this:

"In gothian/guthans all Fadar/Fathar and Atta are use for Father."

Can you link to one single Gothic text, like from Holy Bible, where the word is actually Fadar?

But supposing there is one, that does not make Atta a derivative of Fadar any more than Papa in German is derivative of Vater. Papa is borrowed from French, and Atta from some Uralian or Altaic language. Or from Slavonic. Of course, Slavonic can have gotten its form from Atir if that is the original Celtic version of the word. Or Celtic could have gotten Atir as a compromise between Patir and Atya and from then started deleting the P-s in their Indo-European and other words. If Cunliffe is right.
I actually must update this, since I made a google on "fadar gothic" and found a lexicon giving it as a hapax legomenon, once only, namely "abba, fadar".

This is the one place in the Bible where a translator would use a word meaning daddy, since that is what abba means.

In Gothic atta=father, fadar=daddy.

So much for the theory words for relations cannot change over time in a language. They can and do. Fadar is the IE and Germanic word, Atta is the Hungarian word. And it is Atta which is the normal word.

PS, debate went on after my posting this message.

"In that generation it was not yet incest"....well how convenient for them!
The problem with this hypothesis lies in the folklore and mythology. How can you have an "indigenous" language match words and stories match tales of I-E languages without the "Celtic" language being I-E? It doesn't make any sense and smacks of nationalism.
Please, Hans-Georg Lundahl, can you explain the 'abba'? I was taught that it meanr 'daddy', so wouldn't atta as well?
ShV, look again. Atta is used in Our Father and in every other usage of the word father in the Gothic Bible. It is Fadar which is used once only, when translating "abba".
In that generation it was not yet incest

"....well how convenient for them!"

How convenient for us. Otherwise Adam's and Eve's children could not have made any grandchildren to them and we would not be around.
I am definitely not from them! Absolutely not!
LAM, for my part I am not saying Celtic is not Indo-European. Cunliffe says it starts out like a lingua franca but if IE langs a were included in those between which it was used and b were themselves getting more similar due to an earlier lingua franca, then it matches. And Celtic langs take up sufficiently much from IE langs to become such.
STh, do you really prefer being from a first human being mating with a not yet quite human being and making children that were less human than himself or herself and humanity reemerges as these mate between them (because not yet human beings would have no taboo against incest) or as their children mate with cousins? Do you prefer to think the first real human persons were living along with animals having their looks and nearly their mentality but no real reason? I do not.

Update after the dialogue took place:

In the oldest well known Indoeuropean language, i e in my definition not a) "language descending from Proto-Indo-European and showing it by diverse traits" but rather b) "language with many traits common to many languages of those known as Indo-European because of this, by linguists often presumed to descend from Proto-Indo-European", which is Nesili, by us often called Hittite (but Hattili is another language altogether), the word for father is not among the "pater" type words, it is rather close to ata, atta, ojczec, according to following quote:

There is also some evidence for the existence of true geminate, or doubled, stops, for example perhaps at-ta-as 'father' [attas], though the distribution of such sounds is disputed.


Section 1.3 of Hittite Online Lesson 1 (University of Texas at Austin)
Sara E. Kimball and Jonathan Slocum

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire