User:Shimirel/Archives

Welcome

Hello, Shimirel/Archives, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 14:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mother Demon

Hey Shimirel, sorry for not adding all the tags, i actually tagged all the monsters in the Category:Doom_creatures another editor made List of Doom enemies but left a few of the more minor ones off because he felt the list had gotten too big rather than splitting off from the list a more notable enemy like the Cyberdemon. Discordance 07:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Book of Enoch

I removed "most likely" and "as you might expect" (very unencyclopedic language to say "as you might expect") yet again; I would like to know what source this view of the animals in the dream is, but we can't say it is "most likely". For example, in my own interpretation, the sixteen animals would correspond with the sixteen grandsons of Noah; the elephants giraffes and camels are the extinct races that perished in the flood... The procedure on wikipedia is that everything must be verifiable, and not a place for our own speculations, please read WP:NOR and WP:CITE... Thanks... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To Shimirel:

First, I would like to know where the name "Antares" comes from. What text of Enoch that has been translated into English includes this name? Please list a link to it in the article (that is, if such a text actually exists). You complain about my usage of the term 'Nephilim' as I defend below but yet neither Charles' or Laurence's translation contain the name "Antares".

Second, it's true that none of the texts of Enoch that we currently possess have 'Nephilim' but it's very likely that such is the case since all scholars agree that it would have been written in Hebrew; the term 'giants' comes from the Greek word 'gigantes', which means 'Earth-born'. The word 'Nephilim' comes from the root word 'naphal', which means to fall. It's widely agreed that the term giants is a corruption of Nephilim but scholars don't know when this error was incorporated into the Greek Septuagint or why. Therefore 'Nephilim' would indeed be the original reading; yes, these beings were giants but this isn't what the word means in its context. The term denotes that these beings are truly fallen in nature; they are corruptions of humans, which were made in the image of God.

Third, even if I Enoch wasn't written by Enoch (which you can't prove because we don't even have Hebrew texts, let alone the original), it represents a Holy Tradition that had been passed down orally by the Jews until it was decided to be put into writing possibly during the 2nd or 3rd century. St. Jude quotes Enoch 1:9 and he attributes prophecy to the Book:

"Enoch, the 7th from Adam, prophesied about these men, saying: 'Behold, the Lord will come with tens of thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement on all of the ungodly, to convict all of the ungodly for all of the ungodliness that they have ungodly committed, and for all of the hard words that ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." Jude 1:14-15

Some scholars believe that the Book of Daniel and [at least] some of the Psalms weren't written by whom these Books claim that they were written by; therefore these works would be considered Pseudepigrapha as well- but you won't reject them will you? The fact of the matter is that you will only accept works that the post-Yavneh Pharisees accept regardless of their [supposed] authorship; your canon is influenced by the decisions of those that weren't and aren't Christians. Furthermore, if you do some research, you will find that many early Christians accepted this work. Search 'Tertullian' on askjeeves or google and read what he has to say about this Inspired Book.

Finally, buy or use a Strong's Greek and Hebrew Concordance; search for 'El' or 'Elohim' and you will find that the term means 'God' in the basic sense.

PS. Why bother to use Azâzêl instead of Azazel for example? The use of an 'â' is merely for pronounciation; it isn't necessarily needed. But I won't edit such usages out any longer.

Mr. Ohio

Sorry for not replying on your talk page but with you only being an anon ip you never know who's going to find and or delete it!

1. -Antares- its not my addition its been their since I started editing the page and your quite right it appears in no translation I've seen. I haven't removed it because the translations of the names vary wildly so it would possibly exist in some version or another. The table I've put up combines a number of different versions as I've listed on the page. But the table 'doesn't' include it you will notice.

2. Their is an Aramaic original its dated 200-150 B.C.E. you can see it yourself at [1] it says giants of course Milik may have not translated it correctly but I'm not going to argue with him! Notice this is the earliest form of Enoch found so the translation mistakes in other versions don't apply to it.

"European scholars and academics consider the Ethiopic version to be translated from Greek which was in turn translated from the Aramaic (possibly Hebrew for chapters 37-71)."

3. It has always been considered to be pseudepigraphal and apocryphal not just by recent scholars but going way way way back to early Christian scholars. Jude does quote it because the 'book' of Enoch would already exist then! In its various incantations, I seem to recall its said Jude most likely used the Greek Enoch. As the page shows it appears that different parts were written at different times, parts of it might have been passed on orally but theirs no proof. You would have the same problem as many North American Indians who's large history relies on stuff that cannot be proven. But it has been shown that parts of Enoch were possibly written at different times which would mean its unlikely to have a single author.

4. Oh I'm sure your right I bet theirs literally hundreds of books that may or may not be written by who they claim to be.

"but you won't reject them will you?"

I really don't know anything about that book(s) so really don't know. Basically what I was saying was -not- that the book is 'said' to be by Enoch and may or may not be. What I was saying was we should use 'it' etc because the book is classified as pseudepigrapha. For example say I wrote a book and published it as being by Jesus!, am I that person no of course I'm not. So what you where doing in the article was going "Enoch says blah blah blah" its the same as someone taking my theoretical pseudepigrapha book and going "Jesus says blah blah blah". Can you imagine what people would make of that! That's what I'm getting at, it would just be wrong to claim something as being by Enoch when we have no proof that it is.

5. 'El' or 'Elohim' - Yes I know that's what I said to you on the talk page I shouldn't have forced its usage so I've altered it to generic God. I was misguided to take each one to mean a particular sense. The new table I hope will meet with your approval it took quite a bit of work to put it together.

6. Why bother to use Azâzêl - Because I'm under the impression that the accented versions are the way they should be presented in scholarly material. You can see another discussion on this on the Talk:Samyaza page. That's what I've been told, its true that the other pages use Azazel etc but that doesn't necessarily make them correct. But then it doesn't mean my version is either I'm just trying to do what I think is best. If two or more editors were to say we think that we should stick to Azazel then by all means do so. I just wanted to make it as good a reference for people learning about the subject as possible. :)

Metatron's Cube

I made it from scratch, so maybe I messed up! Or maybe they did. --Tydaj 19:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
So from what I can tell by looking here, the version I duplicated seems to be the most used. The major difference is that in this version the center of every circle is connected to the center of every other circle via straight line. However, there are some other versions that are similar to the one on Cubicao.tk like this one. I'm a bit skeptical of Cubicao, though, because it expounds the Time Cube theory. --Tydaj 19:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shimirel, I posted a message on User talk:Tydaj about the Metatron's Cube and the CubicAO version. Check it out.

Fool (The Fallen Angel)

I'm sorry; I can't provide you with a specific reference. All I can tell you is that there is an obscure footnote in the English translation of the Catholic New Testament that gives a brief reference to Fool.

I think that I will remove the tag. Thank you for the notice.

Satan: Removing Cites

Hi Shimirel- Thanks for the heads up on the Satan content. I suppose I should have moved faster on transfering information in order to maintain version control. Listen, it would be a great favor if you could copy the Satan material that you edited into the corresponding section in Devil in Christianity. You know which sections you edited. I don't mean to get all personal on you, but my wife's in the hospital, and if I have to do the content swapping, I don't know when I'll get to it. Jonathan Tweet 05:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shimirel- Thanks for your help on the Devil in Christianity page. I really appreciate it. I see a place for the "Satan" article alongside "Devil." "Devil" is the broadest category. "Satan" is then about the term Satan and its use, rather like the "Lucifer" article. Jonathan Tweet 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Help fight systematic bias

Dear Shimirel,

I would like to draw your attention to the discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Popsicle. If you are interested in helping to counter systematic bias towards North America, and instead establish Wikipedia as an international website, then please feel welcome to contribute with your opinions. Thank you. EuroSong ^talk 13:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)