1981 Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1–11. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93.Parunak, H. van D.1983 Tran

n Rad, G.1962 Old Testament Theology. New York: Harper & Row.1972
Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Old Testament Library). Philadelphia: Westminster.Weiss, M.1984 The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation. Jerusalem: Magnes.Wenham, G.J.1988 Genesis: An Authorship Study and Current Pentateuchal Criticism. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42: 3–18.Footnotesa. toledot is the Hebrew word for “generations.”­Ed.1. The best introductions to these Mesopotamian stories are still Heidel 1949 and 1963. See also Speiser’s translations of “The Creation Epic” (“Enuma elish”) and “The Epic of Gilgamesh” (1969:60–99) and the most recent translations by Dalley (1991: 109–20 [“Gilgamesh” XI]; 233–74 [“Enuma elish”]).2. See also Dalley 1991: 9–35.3. For a critical edition of the text, see Jacobsen 1939: 69ff.4. See Miller 1994: 144–46 for the appropriateness of the label “Eridu Genesis.”5. For other examples, see Livingstone 1986, chap. 4, “Works in Standard Babylonian explaining state rituals in terms of myths.” Note also C.H. Gordon’s view that the genealogies of Genesis which are usually attributed to P, “should not be detached from the narrative,” as indicated by Homeric epic (1965: 284). 6. Oden (1981:197–98) gives “a fairly comprehensive list” of studies in “Atra-Hasis” and its relevance to the Old Testament.7. He summarizes three views of the “noise” of humans, on pp. 206–207:a. G. Pettinato: the noise of their rebellious activity. Human rebellion consisted of not submitting to the divinely established order, and this lack of submission made the gods, particularly Enlil, restless.b. A.D. Kilmer, also Moran: behind the noise made by humans lay simply the problem of too many humans. In other words, the epic deals with the problem of overpopulation.c. Von Soden: the crime that occasioned the Flood was not simply human rebellion, as Pettinato argued, but more precisely the human tendency to reach ever higher to approach ever closer to the gods.8. E.g., Greenberg 1983:18–27; Weiss 1984.9. Cf. Clines 1994.10. Eg., Clark 1971: 205–206.11. In Thompson’s terminology, it is “an expanded genealogical narrative” (1987: 83).12. eg., Anderson 1994.13. Wenham 1988:13. Wenham notes here the observations made by Y.T. Radday et al. (1985).14. Later, however, in his commentary on Genesis, he ends his discussion of the Biblical primeval history with 12:9 as a “transitional paragraph” like 6:5–8 (1972:165).



In Search of Mt. Sinai
This article was first published in the June 2007 ABR E-Newsletter.Surprisingly, the location of Mt. Sinai, one of the most significant places in the Bible, is not known with any degree of certainty. Over the years some two dozen sites have been proposed, none of which meets the Biblical requirements. The site favored by most scholars is Gebel Musa (Mountain of Moses), or one of several nearby mountains, in the high-mountain region of southern Sinai.This problem is of utmost importance, since finding the correct location of Mt. Sinai is at the heart of the question of the historicity of the Exodus account. Scholars today largely discount the Biblical account of the sojourn in Egypt, Exodus and wilderness wanderings as fictional. They reach this conclusion because they say there is no concrete evidence that Israel ever was in Egypt or the Sinai.The identification of Gebel Musa as Mt. Sinai is a Christian tradition originating in the fourth century. We have no preserved Jewish tradition for the location of Mt. Sinai. Thus, there is a gap of 1800 years between the receiving of the law on Mt. Sinai (1446 BC) and the beginning of the Christian tradition. What is more, there is no documentation in any Christian source as to why this particular mountain was chosen.The only Jewish tradition we have concerning Mt. Sinai is that it is a low mountain (Babylonian Talmud and BaMidbar Rabbah). Gebel Musa, on the other hand, is very high (7,497 ft.). There are a number of other difficulties with a southern Sinai location for Mt. Sinai. To begin with, it is in the opposite direction from the Promised Land! Moreover, it is much too far from Midian (east of the Gulf of Aqaba) for Moses to have been shepherding Jethro's flocks there (Exod. 3:1). A third difficulty is that Mt. Sinai (also called Mt. Horeb) was located in the territory of Edom (Deut. 33:2, Judges 5:4; Hab. 3:3), which did not extend south of the north shore of the Gulf of Aqaba (Crew 2002). The most serious objection to the traditional location, however, is that it is too far from Kadesh Barnea for
the Israelites with their livestock (Exod. 13:38) to have made the journey in 11 days (Deut. 1:2; Wood 2000: 99).The Bible gives detailed information as to the stopping places of the Israelites on their way to, and after they left, Mt. Sinai, including travel times. But very few of the stopping places can be identified with confidence. It is possible, however, to determine the general area of Mt. Sinai from the Biblical data.When Moses journeyed from Midian to Egypt in obedience to God (Exod.4:19–20), he would have traveled by way of the Trans-Sinai Highway, which goes from the northern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba across the Sinai Peninsula to the northern end of the Gulf of Suez. Back in Egypt, God appeared to Aaron and commanded him, "Go into the desert to meet Moses" (Exod. 4:27a). Aaron likewise would have traversed this same road since it was the most direct route from Egypt to Midian. And where did Aaron meet Moses? "So he met Moses at the Mountain of God and kissed him" (Exod. learn english

Tags: gilgamesh, nimrod, kish, khorsabad, uruk, genesis 10, huwawa, cush, tiglath pileser, ziggurat, enkidu--> This article was first published i

f Ham were: Cush, Mizraim. Put and Canaan. Mizraim became the Egyptians. No one is sure where Put went to live. And it is obvious who the Canaanites were. Cush lived in the “land of Shinar” which most scholars consider to be Sumer. There developed the first civilization after the Flood. The sons of Shem, ­the Semites­, were also mixed, to some extent, with the Sumerians.We suggest that Sumerian Kish, the first city established in Mesopotamia after the Flood, took its name from the man known in the Bible as Cush. The first kingdom established after the Flood was Kish, and the name “Kish” appears often on clay tablets. The early post-Flood Sumerian king lists (not found in the Bible) say that ‘‘kingship descended from heaven to Kish” after the Flood. (The Hebrew name “Cush,” much later, was moved to present-day Ethiopia as migrations look place from Mesopotamia to other places.)The Sumerians, very early, developed a religio-politico state which was extremely binding on all who lived in it (except for the rulers, who were a law unto themselves). This system was to influence the Ancient Near East for over 3000 years. Other cultures which followed the Sumerian system were Accad, Babylon, Assyria, and Persia, which became the basis of Greece and Rome’s system of rule. Founded by Cush, the Sumerians were very important historically and Biblically. Found at Khorsabad, this eighth century BC stone relief is identified as Gilgamesh. The best-known of ancient Mesopotamian heroes, Gilgamesh was king of Uruk in southern Mesopotamia, His story is known in the poetic Gilgamesh Epic, but there is no historical evidence for his exploits in the story. He is described as part god and part man, a great builder and warrior, and a wise man in the story. Not mentioned in the Bible, the author suggests Gilgamesh is to be identified with Biblical Nimrod (Gn 10:8-12).Was “Nimrod” Godly or Evil? First, what does the name Nimrod mean? It comes from the Hebrew verb marad, meaning “rebel.” Adding an “n” before the “m” it becomes an infinitive construct, “Nimrod.” (see Kautzsch 1910: 137 2b, also BDB 1962: 597). The meaning then is “The Rebel.” Thus “Nimrod” may not be the character’s name at all. It is more likely a derisive term of a type, a representative, of a system that is epitomized in rebellion against the Creator, the one true God. Rebellion began soon after the Flood as civilizations were restored. At that time this person became very prominent.In Genesis 10:8-11 we learn that “Nimrod” established a kingdom. Therefore, one would expect to find also, in the literature of the ancient Near East, a person who was a type, or example, for other people to follow. And there was. It is a well-known tale, common in Sumerian literature, of a man who fits the description. In addition to the Sumerians, the Babylonians wrote about this person; the Assyrians likewise; and the Hittites. Even in Palestine, tablets have been found with this man’s name on them. He was obviously the most popular hero in the Ancient Near East.This face supposedly represents Huwawa who, according to the Gilgamesh’s Epic, sent the Flood on the earth. According to the story, Huwawa (Humbaba in the Assyrian version) was killed by Gilgamesh and his half man­half beast friend, Enkidu. The author suggests Huwawa is the ancient pagan perspective of Yahweh (YHWH), the God of the Bible. About 3 in (7.5 cm), this mask is dated to around the sixth century BC. Of an unknown provenance, it is now in the British Musuem. The Gilgamesh Epic The person we are referring to found in extra-Biblical literature was Gilgamesh. The first clay tablets naming him were found among the ruins of the temple library of the god Nabu (Biblical Nebo) and the palace library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh. Many others have been found since in a number of excavations. The author of the best treatise on the Gilgamesh Epic says: The date of the composition of the Gilgamesh Epic can therefore be fixed at about 2000 BC. But the material contained on these tablets is undoubtedly much older, as we can infer from the mere fact that the epic consists of numerous originally independent episodes, which, of course, did not spring into existence at the time of the composition of our poem but must have been current long before they were compiled and woven together to form our epic (Heidel 1963: 15).Yet his arrogance, ruthlessness and depravity were a subject of grave concern for the citizens of Uruk (his kingdom). They complained to the great god Anu and Ann instructed the goddess Aruru to create another wild ox, a double of Gilgamesh, who would challenge him and distract his mind from the warrior’s daughter and the noblemen’s spouse, whom it appears he would not leave in peace (Roux 1966: 114).The Epic of Gilgamesh has some very indecent sections. Alexander Heidel, first translater of the epic, had the decency to translate the vilest parts into Latin. Spieser, however, gave it to us “straight” (Pritchard 1955: 72). With this kind of literature in the palace, who needs pornography? Gilgamesh was a vile, filthy, man. Yet the myth says of him that he was “2/3 god and 1/3 man.”The Babylonian Flood Story is told on the 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic, almost 200 lines of poetry on 12 clay tablets inscribed in cuneiform script. A number of different versions of the Gilgamesh Epic have been found around the ancient Near East, most dating to the seventh century BC. The most complete version came from the library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. Commentators agree that the story comes from a much earlier period, not too long after the Flood as described in the story.Gilgamesh is Nimrod How does Gilgamesh compare with “Nimrod?” Josephus says of Nimrod: Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah­a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny­seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence upon his own power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers! (Ant. I: iv: 2)What Josephus says here is precisely what is found in the Gilgamesh epics. Gilgamesh set up tyranny, he opposed YHWH and did his utmost to get people to forsake Him.Two of the premier commentators on the Bible in Hebrew has this to say about Genesis 10:9: Nimrod was mighty in hunting, and that in opposition to YHWH; not ‘before YHWH’ in the sense of according to the will and purpose of YHWH, still less,...in a simply superlative sense...



The name itself,points to some violent resistance to God...
English Rosetta Stone

But that does not stop him from steering the reader

toward a more positive assessment of Tabor’s idea than the evidence can sustain. Tabor’s argument is further hampered—and I would say undone—by two considerations: (1) We have no proof that the Yose of the tomb is actually related to any of the other people named on the tomb’s ossuaries; and (2) even if Yose is related to the other people in the tomb—which is a reasonable guess, but a guess nonetheless—we have no idea HOW he was related since Yose’s ossuary lacks any patronym, or statement of kinship relation.This is perhaps a good place to highlight the need for clear thinking with regard to the Jesus tomb theory and the names in the tomb. The Jesus tomb theory is only compelling if two considerations are true: (1) that the Jesus of the tomb’s Jesus ossuary was in fact Jesus of Nazareth, and (2) the names of the people in the tomb are related to the Jesus of this tomb in the same way that people with those names were related to the Jesus of the New Testament. Both of these are inextricably linked. We can only embrace the Jesus tomb theory if its Jesus figure was Jesus of Nazareth, and that in turn can only be established if the other people in the tomb are the people who knew Jesus of Nazareth. Hence, the Jesus figure of the tomb only takes on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth if it can be established that the other people in the tomb were related to the Jesus figure the way the New Testament describes. The inscriptions must match the New Testament record to “get Jesus in the tomb,” so to speak. If they do not, there is no case.This means that from the outset, the reader must make a basic decision before embracing or rejecting the Jesus tomb theory. You must decide if you are going to make your decision to embrace or reject on the basis of data that actually exist, or data that are speculated to have once existed. The former is real; the latter is the domain of the imagination. This decision is fundamental to processing the inscriptions in the Talpiot tomb in terms of what we can actually know and what we imagine might be knowable. The data provide us with six ossuaries with the following inscriptions:• Mariamenou [e] Mara (“Mary, who is Martha / lord”); or(Mariamē kai Mara; “Mary and Martha”) (Pfann 2007)• Yhwdh br Yshw’ (“Judah/Jude, son of Jesus”)• Mtyh (“Matiyahu”; “Matthew”)• Yshw’ br Yhwsp (“Jesus, son of Joseph”)• Ywsh (“Joseph/Yose”)• Mryh (“Mary”)Notice that only two of the names have what is called a patronym—a descriptive phrase denoting family affiliation or ancestry (e.g., “Jude, son of Jesus”; “Jesus, son of Joseph”).What this means is that, in terms of data that actually exists,the Talpiot tomb tells us only that we have a Jesus who was the son of a Joseph, and a Jude who was the son of a Jesus. We know nothing about the other relationships of the other people in the tomb. Despite this paucity of information, Jacobovici and his associates know how the mind works. Since millions around the world are familiar with the names of Jesus, Mary, Joseph,and Mary Magdalene—whether because of Biblical literacy or The DaVinci Code—the creators of the Jesus Family Tomb documentary assume correctly that when a person hears those names presented together, the mind will immediately cluster them in a manner associated with the New Testament. The mind therefore “defaults” to the supposition that these people are related in the way the New Testament describes, and so the mind is predisposed to equate them with the actual New Testament characters. But that is not what the data from the tomb tell us, since there are no patronyms that produce that conclusion—it is just where the mind goes subconsciously. The data speak to two family relationships. Now here is what we do not know, based on the lack of patronyms, not on where our mind wanders:• We do not know if all or even most of the people in the Talpiot tomb are related. It is assumed that the Talpiot tomb is a family tomb, but we do not actually know that. It is probably a fair guess, but it does not lend any clarity to the situation.• We do not know who among the named occupants of the tomb were immediate or distant relatives. We have only two sonship patronyms on six ossuaries, but that is not as helpful as it has been assumed.• We do not know if the people in the ossuaries were adults or children. There is nothing inscribed on any of the ossuaries that tells us anything about the age of the occupants.• We do not know if the two Jesus names on the ossuaries are one and the same. That is, we do not know if Joseph, Jesus, and Jude are grandfather, father, and son. Those relationships are assumed by the defenders of the Jesus Family tomb theory, but they are actually only speculation. These three individuals could be unrelated in terms of immediate family, but still belong in the family tomb because they are more distantly related to the immediate family members in the tomb.• Though it is assumed, we do not know that Mary (not the Mariamenou) in the tomb is the mother of Jesus. There is no patronym that conveys this information. That Mary mayhave been the sister of the tomb’s Jesus, or an aunt, or a grandmother.• It is also assumed that Mariamenou, considered to be Mary Magdalene, was married to the Talpiot Jesus. Positing such a relationship is based purely on speculation, not on what the ossuaries actually tell us.• We have no way of knowing from the data that actually exists if either Mary was married to the Joseph in the tomb who was supposedly the father of Jesus.The general point to be made by these observations is important. If we have no data with which to match the family relationships that existed between the people who bore these names in the New Testament and the named individuals in the Talpiot tomb, we cannot make an evidence-based claim that this is the Jesus Family Tomb. That conclusion cannot be drawn from the existing data; it must be supplied by means of the imagination.Tabor would respond that the mitochondrial DNA evidence lends support to his view of the names in the tomb. We read from a different blog post:There are two “Marys” in this tomb, known by different forms of that name, namely Maria and Mariamene. The mitDNA test indicates the Mariamene in this tomb is not related to Yeshua as mother or sister on the maternal side. That leaves open the likelihood that Maria could well be the mother, especially if we have two of her sons, Yeshua and Yose, in this tomb. It would make sense that she would be buried with her children in this intimate, small, family tomb and that her ossuary would be inscribed Maria (2007a).Yes, this would make sense—if the data actually told us that Yeshua and Yose were the sons of Mary—but of course there are neither patronyms nor DNA evidence for that. The absence of patronyms means that this Mary could be the wife, sister, or cousin of Yeshua or Yose. The fact that the mitDNA test indicates the Mariamene in this tomb is not related to Yeshua as mother or sister on the maternal side does not rule out a host of other possibilities, including sharing the same father. Yeshua and Mariamne could have had the same father with different mothers or could be paternally related as cousins, aunts-uncle, grandparents, or father-daughter. They could even be close family friends. I can think of several adjectives that would characterize this line of argumentation, but “compelling” is not one of them.THE STATISTICAL RARITY OF THE COMBINATION OF THE NAMESTabor’s second argument is that the combination of names on the ossuaries is statistically improbable, and so the Talpiot tomb is likely the Jesus family tomb. Anyone who has followed the debate over the Talpiot tomb knows that this statistical argument has been forcefully disputed, chiefly by Dr. Randy Ingermanson, whose expertise is computational physics,a field that requires professional experience in statistics.Dr.

Rosetta Stone Chinese

mystery man who informed him of a fifth anchor

And a sixth anchor found off the Munxar Reef.After his investigations, the author had a problem. He had no tangible proof of the anchor stocks to show the world. The first of the anchor stocks was melted down; the second, third and fourth were in private collections; and the fifth and six had been sold. According to the Maltese antiquities law, it was illegal for the private citizens to have the anchor stocks in their possession, a fear expressed by each diver/family that told their stories about the anchor stocks in his or its possession (Cornuke 2003: 108, 112, 126). A strategy, however, was devised that would get those who possessed the anchor stocks to reveal them to the public. The aid of the US ambassador to Malta, Kathy Proffitt, was enlisted to convince the President and Prime Minister of Malta to offer an amnesty to anyone who would turn over antiquities found off the Munxar Reef (2003: 221-223). The pardons were issued on September 23, 2002. This resulted in two anchor stocks being turned over to the authorities. Now the book could be written. Thorough Research?When I first read the book, I was disappointed to find that Mr. Cornuke does not interact with, or mention, some very important works on the subject of Paul’s shipwreck; nor are they listed in his bibliography. The classic work on this subject is James Smith’s The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. In fact, the noted New Testament and classical scholar, F. F. Bruce said this book was "an indispensable handbook to the study of this chapter [Acts 27]" (1981: 499), and elsewhere, "This work remains of unsurpassed value for its stage-by-stage annotation of the narrative of the voyage" (1995: 370, footnote 9). Yet nowhere in his book does Mr. Cornuke mention Smith’s work or even discuss the information contained therein. Nor is there any mention of George Musgrave’s, Friendly Refuge (1979), or W. Burridge’s, Seeking the Site of St. Paul’s Shipwreck (1952). There are some scholars who do not believe Paul even was shipwrecked on the island of Malta. Nowhere in Mr. Cornukes’ "Lost Shipwreck" is there an acknowledgment or even a discussion of the Dalmatia or Greek sites.James Smith identifies the place of landing as St. Paul’s Bay, others suggest different beaches within the bay. Musgrave suggested the landing was at Qawra Point at the entrance to Salina Bay. Burridge places the shipwreck in Mellieha Bay. Those who reject the island of Malta as the place of the shipwreck point out that the Book of Acts uses the Greek word "Melite" (Acts 28:1). There were two "Melite’s" in the Roman world: Melite Africana, the modern island of Malta, and Melite Illyrica, an island in the Adriatic Sea called Mljet in Dalmatia (Meinardus 1976: 145-147). A recent suggestion for the shipwreck was the island of Cephallenia in Greece (Warnecke and Schirrmacher 1992).Did the sea captain and crew recognize the land? (Acts 27:39)Luke states, "When it was day, they did not recognize the land; but they observed a bay with a beach" (Acts 27:39a). The sea captain and the sailors could see the shoreline, but did not recognize the shoreline and where they were. It was only after they had gotten to land that they found out they were on the island of Malta (Acts 28:1).Lionel Casson, one of the world’s leading experts on ancient nautical archaeology and seafaring, describes the route of the Alexandrian grain ships from Alexandria in Egypt to Rome. In a careful study of the wind patterns on the Mediterranean Sea and the account of Lucian’s Navigation that gives the account of the voyage of the grain ship Isis, he has demonstrated that the ship left Alexandria and headed in a northward direction. It went to the west of Cyprus and then along the southern coast of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) and headed for Knidos or Rhodes. The normal route was under (south of) the island of Crete and then west toward Malta. Thus the eastern shoreline of Malta was the recognizable landmark for them to turn north and head for Syracuse, Sicily and on to Puteoli or Rome (1950: 43-51; Lucian, The Ship or the Wishes; LCL 6: 431-487).Mr. Cornuke correctly states: "Malta itself was well visited as a hub of trade during the time of the Roman occupation and would have been known to any seasoned sailor plying the Mediterranean" (2003: 31). Any seasoned sailor coming from Alexandria would clearly recognize the eastern shoreline of Malta.He also properly identified two of the many ancient harbors on Malta as being at Valletta and Salina Bay (2003: 32). The ancient Valletta harbor was much further inland in antiquity and is called Marsa today, and is at the foot of Corradino Hill (Bonanno 1992: 25). Roman storehouses with amphorae were discovered in this region in 1766-68 (Ashby 1915: 27-30). When Alexandrian grain ships could not make it to Rome before the sea-lanes closed for the winter, they wintered on Malta (see Acts 28:11). They would off load their grain and store them in the storehouses of Marsa (Gambin 2005). Sea captains coming from Alexandria would be very familiar with the eastern shoreline of Malta before they entered the harbor of Valletta.The city of Melite was the only major city on Roman Malta, there were however, villas and temples scattered throughout the countryside. Today Melite lies under the modern city of Mdina / Rabat. The main harbor for Melite was Marsa, not Salina Bay (Said-Zammit 1997: 43,44,132; Said 1992: 1-22).Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian who lived in the First Century BC, states regarding Malta: "For off the south of Sicily three islands lie out in the sea, and each of them possesses a city and harbours which can offer safety to ships which are in stress of weather. The first one is that called Melite [Malta], which lies about eight hundred stades from Syracuse, and it possesses many harbours which offer exceptional advantages." (Library of History 5:12:1-2; LCL 3: 129). Note his description, "many harbors." Many includes more than just two; so where are the rest?Knowledge of Arabic can give us a clue. The word "marsa" is the Arabic word for harbor (Busuttil 1971: 305-307). There are at least three more harbors that can be added to the list. The Marsamxett harbor within the Grand Harbor of Valletta; Marsascala Bay just north of St. Thomas Bay; and Marsaxlokk Bay in the southeast portion of Malta all would be Roman harbors. The last bay was a major Roman harbor / port that served the famous Temple of Juno on the hill above it and was also a place for ships to winter.Any ancient Mediterranean Sea captain, or seasoned sailor on the deck of a ship anchored off the Munxar Reef, immediately would recognize the eastern shoreline of Malta with these Roman harbors and anchorages. Malta was the landmark for sailors traveling from Crete and about to turn north to Sicily. The eastern end of the island would be what they saw first and it would be a welcome sight.There are at least four recognizable points that could be seen from the outer Munxar Reef had this been the exact spot of the shipwreck of Paul as Mr. Cornuke argues. The first was the entrance to Marsaxlokk Bay where a Roman harbor / port was, the second, the entrance to Marsascala Bay where another Roman harbor was located. The third point would be the dangerous Munxar Reef (or small islands or peninsula in the 1st century AD) that any sea captain worth his salt would recognize because of its inherent danger. The final point, and most important, was the site known today as Tas-Silg. This was a famous temple from the Punic / Roman period dedicated to one goddess known by different names by the various ethnic groups visiting the island. She was Tanit to the Phoenicians, Hera to the Greeks, Juno to the Romans, and Isis to the Egyptians (Trump 1997: 80, 81; Bonanno 1992: Plate 2 with a view of St. Thomas Bay in the background).In preparation for my January 2005 trip to Malta I studied this important temple. It was a landmark for sailors coming from the east. Could this temple be seen from the outer Munxar Reef? On the first day I arrived in Malta, Tuesday, January 11, a fellow traveler and I went to visit the excavations.

Rosetta Stone Japanese

10 Mar 11 The History Of Enrolled Agents

The History Of Enrolled AgentsBy: Sawyer Adams .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet Enrolled Agents are provided with special privileges for representing others in settling claims with the government. Since the implementation of the federal ine tax in 1913, the job of an EA has involved representing taxpayers with the Internal Revenue Service. Consequently, an EA is monly referred to an IRS enrolled agent because the IRS now regulates EA standards regarding registration, continuing education, and professional conduct.However, the EA designation actually predates the federal ine tax. Enrolled agents were created by an act of Congress in 1884. The purpose of the legislation was empowering enrolled agents to advocate claims of citizens against the government relating to confiscation of property during the War Between the States. The intent of this legislation was administering with fair treatment the many petitions against the federal government. This remained the authorized purpose of an EA until the ine tax was implemented.Today, enrolled agent jobs involve settling inquiries, disputes, and claims for payment between the IRS and taxpayers. In addition, the role of an EA has eventually expanded to include preparing various tax forms. Therefore, enrolled agents are required to plete EA hours of tax preparation education.As the tax code has evolved to include greater detail, EA ethical standards imposed by the IRS bee increasingly important. An EA must conduct reasonable inquiry into taxpayer information in order to avoid misstatements of taxable ine and tax deductions. Most enrolled agents meet ethics CPE requirements by pleting ethics continuing education online.Revisions to Circular 230 in 1951 permitted enrolled agents to represent taxpayers in actually negotiating with the IRS. This expanded the role of an EA in an IRS audit of a taxpayer.In 1959, the Special Enrollment Exam was created. To attain registration as an EA, passing this exam became the new requirement. It replaced an exam previously prepared by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.Enrolled agents formed the National Association of Enrolled Agents in 1972. This organization was created to represent the collective interests of enrolled agents in matters involving IRS rules and congressional legislation affecting their professional tax practices.Article Source: abcarticledirectoryFast Forward Academy is a leading publisher of enrolled agent CPE. Visit us online for FREE EA CPE.Note: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, Sawyer AdamsRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About Auditing via RSS!Additional Articles From - Home Accounting AuditingWhat you need to know about Auditing from the experts.- By : john newportCulture and business proposition- By : foxhatsNavigating Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions- By : Sawyer AdamsAbout The National Association Of Enrolled Agents (NAEA)- By : Sawyer AdamsThe Canon Sd780is Black Silver Gold Red - Very Nice Christmas Gift- By : ArticleSubmit AutoIRS Increasing Enforcement Activity- By : Sawyer AdamsDestination Military Surplus Products- By : Ali Khan5 Tips For Getting The Right Health Insurance For Your Needs- By : danica12 Quick Tips For Eye Shadow- By : Ali Khan10 Simple Steps To A Clearer Skin- By : Ali Khan Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!

5 Mar 11 The Ultimate Secret to Being a Successful Internet Marketer

The Ultimate Secret to Being a Successful Internet MarketerBy: Matt OConnor .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet Internet marketing is a term often confused. Let's face it, slapping up a website and sticking Google adsense ads on it, is not really marketing is it? Unfortunately every method or system to make money via the net tends to be lumped under the term "internet marketing".No matter, because it's not the systems you choose to work with that will make you sucessful beyond your wildest dreams. It's not theHockey Jersey
software you use or the ebooks you read that will make you rake in the cash. It's certainly not the forums you frequent and the amount of time you spend idly daydreaming about how much you'll make...eventually.But then that much you knew.So what is (in my humble opinion) the number one factor in making your chosen home based career a success. Well, it's discipline, it's focus and most of all it's the ability to stick at one thing until you have success with it.How many times have you started off on one course of action, full of enthusiasm, dollar signs in your eyes only to get distracted. Another bright and shiny offer comes into view, another "guaranteed" way to make money and you're off again.Someone once told me that success is like a the outside of a sphere and we are at the centre of it. If you keep going in the same direction, eventually you'll see success. If you keep changing direction then of course you're doomed to stay in the sphere going around and around never achieving your goals.This is so true!If you want to roll a car down a hill (metaphorically speaking!) and all you do is give one a little push before moving onto another, they're never going to get down that hill! If you stick to the one car and keep pushing and pushing then, yep, it's gonna go rollin'!Alright, that last metaphor was a bit ropey but I hope you see my point.Keep moving in the right direction and eventually you'll see success.But how do we know which is the right direction? Look around forums, follow other marketers and see what they do. Don't copy their work, merelyCalgary Flames jersey
their techniques, apply them to a niche of your own choosing.If it's working for them, then you can make it work for you. What one man can do, another can do.It's not the particular system or method that's the problem, it's your dedication. How much do you really want it? How much do you want to escape the daily grind? The power is in your hands - make a decision today to start your own venture.Article Source: http://www.shop-on-sale.com Hungry for internet marketing success? Matthew, the author of this article runs a site dedicated to internet marketing product reviews. Check out the brand new Niche Marketing On Crack Review.Note: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, Matt OConnorRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About Affiliate Programs What Cloth Diaper Provides The Top Match For Newborns?- By : mirtagaylWhat is Affiliate Marketing and Why You Should Do It?- By : James A AndersonEarning Money Quickly With Email Marketing - True or False?- By : chad buistMoney Creating Tips For Individuals Involved In An Online Affiliate Marketing Home Business- By : Flames jersey
Johnny BarrellGlobal Success Club And How To Make Money Online- By : Don SeanMake Cash Over The Internet With Affiliate Marketing- By : Leroy WheelerWhich Affiliate Networks To Look Out For When Promoting ?- By : Elsa Braxton Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!

24 Jan 11 Ohio State-Illinois: Buckeyes Are Big Favorites Over Illini

Jamie Sabau/Getty ImagesThis Saturday the No. 2-ranked Ohio State Buckeyes will head to Champaign to take on the Illinois Fighting Illini.The Buckeyes cruised to a 73-20 win over Eastern Michigan last week, while the Fighting Illini came away with a 28-22 win at home over Northern Illinois.If you Reebok San Francisco 49ers #21 Frank GORE Realtree camo Jersey
are thinking about betting on the game this weekend, the current college football odds have the Buckeyes favored by 17.5 points over the Fighting Illini on the road.Ohio State (4-0, 0-0 Big Ten)The Buckeyes look about as good as you can look four games into the season, as they have won by at least double digits in every game this season. The offense comes in averaging 49.3 points per game this season, and the defense has been awfully good as well, allowing just 14.5 points a game.Quarterback Terrelle Pryor really helped out his Heisman hopes with a monster game against Eastern Michigan last week, as Pryor threw for 224 yards and four touchdowns, ran for 104 yards and a touchdown, and even caught a touchdown pass in the win. Pryor has thrown for 939 yards and 10 touchdowns and run for 269 yards and three scores.Dane Sanzenbacher had a monster day receiving the football last week, as he caught nine passes for 108 yards and four touchdowns.Illinois (2-1, 0-0 Big Ten)The Fighting Illini will have their hands full this weekend Reebok Washington Redskins #98 ORAKPO Realtree camo Jersey
against Ohio State. Even though Illinois has won its last two games, both games were against pretty easy opponents.Last week the Illini had a tough time against Northern Illinois, as they led 21-19 with six minutes left in the game. The Illini, however, were able to secure the win with a 29-yard touchdown run by Mikel LeShoure with just under two minutes to go.Quarterback Chandler Harnish was efficient, completing 19 of 25 passing for 208 yards throwing the football, but was really effective running the ball, as he had 117 yards and a touchdown on just 11 carries. Harnish will need a lot of help this weekend against Ohio State if the Fighting Illini want any chance of pulling off another big upset against the Buckeyes.Looking at the OddsIn my opinion this is about as easy as it gets this weekend, as I see no reason why the Buckeyes won win this game by at least 20 points. The Buckeyes have held the Fighting Illini to 10 points or less in each of the last seven meetings.The Illini have done most of their damage on the ground this season, Reebok Pittsburgh Steelers 43 Troy Polamalu Realtree camo Jersey
averaging 229 yards a game, but that wonbe the case this weekend against the Buckeyes defense, as Ohio State allows just 70 yards a game on the ground.Get your money in now, as the Buckeyes are going to roll over the Illini this weekend. My final score prediction is Ohio State 38, Illinois 16.Interested in making some money this football season? Check out what our expert college football handicappers have to offer in their weekly college football picks.