Talk:Moloch

message: Ronnie James Dio, of the heavy metal band Black Sabbath, recalls his grandmother referring to Moloch when she made the sign for the 'evil eye', index finger and pinky finger extended, that he then popularized during concerts and has now become the universal sign of heavy metal in pop culture[citation needed].
This cannot be sourced, as it is from VH1's "Rock Docs: Metal", a TV special with no webpage (AFAIK). --71.34.12.223 08:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: ===  Two year Review of Article ===
This article has gone DOWNHILL since the Jallan rewrite.  It needs to be re-written.  It is pretty awful.--Blue Tie 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC
:: The whole section on Molech in popular Culture is worthess.  Peope will NOT read this article to find that stuff.  If anything, they will hear the name Molech in popular culture and look up what it ACTUALLY means, not all the places the name turns up.   That section should GO!
::  The section about the Bohemian Grove is nonsense.  Having now just wasted an hour and a half watching the expose film, I can guarantee that the only connection between the Bohemian Grove ceremony depicted there and Molech is that Molech was an idol and there was a fire associated with him.  But that was true of many many many many gods, including the God of the Bible sometimes. The name Molech is not used in the Bohemian Grove ceremony, it is only the fundamentalist Christian editor trying to make a claim who makes this accusation, but with almost no evidence for it.  Indeed, his evidence rests almost exclusively upon his interpretation of a cartoonish drawing of the "Cremation of Care" which is DEFINITELY NOT represented as though it were a child and, in fact, is not specifically human, but is rather an anthropmorphicly represented concept of "Dull Care".  Like Love or Hate.  The voice of Dull Care is not that of a child but is that of a fully mature (deep booming voice) man.  The figure is not "Molech".  It is "The owl of Bohemia".  And the whole ceremony is far more druidic than anything else.  Even the Christian researcher admits that.   This whole section should go.  It is irrelevant to the Molech article.
--Blue Tie 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhm, it's just that the owl of Bohemian grove (logo and the idol statue) as well as the owl on the US senate grounds (seen from the air) both are representations of Moloch or Molech. This is no christian conspiracy theory, however, I guess/know you will not believe that... I'm from Norway myself, and two owls can also be observed here in Oslo, as ornaments on a building located very close to the kings castle. I even suspect the owl often used as symbol of education/universities, represents the same thing. Then again, I'm just a 'crazy' conspiracy nut, so I guess you can just ignore me... (I'm not saying this should go into the article, though, I'm just saying its the truth... so sue me ;) -- A-ixemy 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rewrite by Jallan 

message: This article has gone DOWNHILL since the Jallan rewrite.  It needs to be re-written.  It is pretty awful.--Blue Tie 22:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC
:: The whole section on Molech in popular Culture is worthess.  Peope will NOT read this article to find that stuff.  If anything, they will hear the name Molech in popular culture and look up what it ACTUALLY means, not all the places the name turns up.   That section should GO!
::  The section about the Bohemian Grove is nonsense.  Having now just wasted an hour and a half watching the expose film, I can guarantee that the only connection between the Bohemian Grove ceremony depicted there and Molech is that Molech was an idol and there was a fire associated with him.  But that was true of many many many many gods, including the God of the Bible sometimes. The name Molech is not used in the Bohemian Grove ceremony, it is only the fundamentalist Christian editor trying to make a claim who makes this accusation, but with almost no evidence for it.  Indeed, his evidence rests almost exclusively upon his interpretation of a cartoonish drawing of the "Cremation of Care" which is DEFINITELY NOT represented as though it were a child and, in fact, is not specifically human, but is rather an anthropmorphicly represented concept of "Dull Care".  Like Love or Hate.  The voice of Dull Care is not that of a child but is that of a fully mature (deep booming voice) man.  The figure is not "Molech".  It is "The owl of Bohemia".  And the whole ceremony is far more druidic than anything else.  Even the Christian researcher admits that.   This whole section should go.  It is irrelevant to the Molech article.
--Blue Tie 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uhm, it's just that the owl of Bohemian grove (logo and the idol statue) as well as the owl on the US senate grounds (seen from the air) both are representations of Moloch or Molech. This is no christian conspiracy theory, however, I guess/know you will not believe that... I'm from Norway myself, and two owls can also be observed here in Oslo, as ornaments on a building located very close to the kings castle. I even suspect the owl often used as symbol of education/universities, represents the same thing. Then again, I'm just a 'crazy' conspiracy nut, so I guess you can just ignore me... (I'm not saying this should go into the article, though, I'm just saying its the truth... so sue me ;) -- A-ixemy 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Two year Review of Article 

message: User:Jallan has done an outstanding rewrite here. more than a rewrite. This sets a Wikipedia standard. Wetman 05:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Entries under this Heading 

message: Could this be "El Molek" that is "l" before "mlk" acting as the definite article. Thus "passing through the fire lmlk" could mean passing through the the fire of Molek.
El is a definite article in Romance languages, not Semitic ones.67.135.40.34 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  lmlk 

message: Could this entry now be given an opening paragraph that approximately answers the average reader's question: "Who or what was Moloch?" with the briefest sense of where interpretive disagreement lies? Then the interested reader might continue, into the entry as it exists. --Wetman 19:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: For the Wikipedia reader

message: The following section (now in the popular culture section of the article) seems problematic to me:
Compare ancient Moloch worship (offering one's children as a burnt sacrifice) to modern suicide-attack tactics of blowing one's self up with explosives within the same region in which, historically, the inhabitants have worshipped Moloch, and that there is strong documentation of parents encouraging their children to "pass through the fire" caused by self-detonation by explosives worn on the body. This seems to indicate that although his name is no longer used, the old habits remain, much as in the same manner in which European Christians (and their American progeny) continue ancient Pagan practices in Christmas and New Year's observances (evergreen trees, mistle-toe, etc). 
Apart from the fact of the odd placement within the pop culture context, the linkage of ancient and modern behaviours seems tenous, speculative and implicitly racialist in tone; some ancient Jews are thought to have worshipped Moloch, but there is no suggestion of similar behaviour as a carry-over of ancient practises by modern Israelis, nor is there any explanation of how this alleged motivation of suicide bombers in the Levant could explain similar behaviour outside the areas where Moloch was worshiped (such as Iraq, Chechnya, Indonesia etc).--Centauri 05:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though well written, this looks like (a) a highly personal viewpoint with no citable references, (b) a thinly veiled anti-Palestinian message (e.g. "the old habits remain") and (c) an anonymous user. I'm removing. --Air 09:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: problem section

message: Problems with this addition by -Ril-:
"Morlocks (based heavily on Molochs) feature as technologically advanced, but physically weak, enemies, in the famed novel The Time Machine by H.G.Wells"
# "based heavily on Molochs" - what does this mean? Moloch is a god (singular) with no physical representation.
# "technologically advanced" - no, H.G.Wells' Morlocks are technologically backward.
# "physically weak" - no, Morlocks are physically strong.
# "enemies" - of whom exactly?
The link between Morlock and Moloch has been pointed out in one or two places but I don't see a point of any depth.
In any case I think speculation on the origins of Wells' Morlocks should be in Morlocks, not here. I'm moving it. --Air 18:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If In the video game Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, the boss-character Moloch... has a place in the pop culture section, I'd say Morlocks do, but I agree the sentence above is weak. --zippedmartin 02:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morlocks 

message: Moloch or "moloch horridus" is also the scientific name of a kind of horned lizard also known as thorny devil.
See e.g. http://digimorph.org/specimens/Moloch_horridus/head/
I put a mention of that on the disambig when I overhauled the article. See thorny devil. Sam Spade 08:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More meanings 

message: I removed the prominent mention of this from the opening paragraph but didn't touch the section itself. Surely it's enough to have a long section on the naive and spurious identification with "Moloch" (made by the film crew?) of the mumbo-jumbo antics at Bohemian Grove, which simply mark the start of their "care-free" retreat. The owl is too familiar as an emblem of Wisdom to need identifying; laid before it, slips of paper on which Bohemian Club participants have written their secret worries and fears are ceremonially immolated. Putting a reference to this in the opening paragraph gives it unwarranted prominence.  --Wetman 20:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I gave it prominence because of its current nature (one of the best aspects of the wiki). In 10 years or so if Alex Jones gets forgotten and some new breakthru interpretations of the Molech concept comes out, I would assume it would take his special status on the cutting edge of Molech info. Sure, it sounds wacky, but such wacky theories regarding freemasons were of signifigance historically, even resulting in an anti-masonic political party in the united states, and anti-mason persecutions in europe. Sam Spade 20:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Interpretations?"  You dispute these claims then, Sam? GeorgeC 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I think nearly everyone disputes all these claims. Don't you? Its irrelevant tho, since my opinions are not notable in the context of the article. Sam Spade 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't imply that they were. I don't have a problem believing them given the well-documented flirtation with astrology and occultist activities in the White House. GeorgeC 04:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: ...um, just maybe the journalists are confusing Moloch with Mammon. The connections to Moloch are too tenuous to be presented in the opening paragraph, but I didn't touch the section itself. --Wetman 10:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alex Jones definitely means Molech, the dull care ceremony involved binding a child on an alter in early years, and currently the burning of one in effigy. Here is a link, which has various information, as well as some video clips www.infowarscom/bg_order_of_death.html . You may also want to read Bohemian grove, Skull and bones, bilderberg group and etc... if you want to know more. Sam Spade 10:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bohemian Grove

message: The idol Moloch that devours its follower's children has appeared in at least two modern works of art. In Fritz Lang's 1927 dystopian film  Metropolis, the hero, Freder, when he first witnesses the proletariat workers horrible conditions and watches an accident occur, has a delusion where the enormous machines of the city become anthropomorphic, with flaming mouths. The workers carry their children to the machines and cast them in, and Freder calls "Moloch!", recognizing the ancient god.
:Is the above inaccurate? Sam Spade 22:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I based it on a recent viewing of the new restoration of Metropolis. It is merely descriptive. I'll reinstate it. --Wetman 10:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do, I found it to be a portrayal of Molech in significant contemporary art (as opposed to video games ;) The wording was rather nice as well, and I think it added to the article. Sam Spade 12:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this removed? 

message: I added the following, 
"Moloch was a member of the Spookhouse organization along with your character, The Stranger, in the 1999 PC game, Nocturne (Game). He was portrayed as a large red demon with three horns (his top right horn was broken off) framing his face, two torn and shredded wings on his back, and hoofed feet. He fought other supernatural threats alongside humans because his fellow demons cast him out of hell centuries before (he claims to have been cast out of Heaven as well). He drew his power from heat and blood (nonhuman as they don’t have enough blood to satisfy him), had great physical strength, the ability to make people’s eyes see a normal man instead of a demon, and could even create a duplicate of himself, so as to throw off pursuers."
My first time adding something so big; is it alright?
--Gero 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UT
:: Gero, your add was ok, for that section but the section itself is worthless.  It should go.  What possible reason can exist for that virtually useless collection of information? --Blue Tie 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what reason is Moloch's appearance in Golden Sun: The Lost Age, that Mortal Kombat game, ADOM, or any number of other appearances worth mentioning? I admit looking back at what I wrote, the section is too long, but it shouldn't go. It should just be shortened. ...And done. --Gero 05:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gero, first, let me be very clear, I was not criticizing your edit.  You were fine, though I think your new version is even better. I was not criticizing any edit in particular.  But I felt that the section regarding popular culture just did not belong.  However, with the removal of the previous section, the popular culture section does not look quite so bad.--Blue Tie 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, I apologize if my response came across as too sharp. I was under the impression that you were attacking my edit; "virtually useless collection of information" would be quite harsh after all. As it is, I simply misunderstood you. Again, sorry. --Gero 19:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added piece in popular culture section. 

message: Was the sacrifice named molchomor?
...by analogy with the (Ukrainian) Holodomor? What language are you referring to?
Matttoothman (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molchomor 

message: I have moved popular culture section to its own page, but included a summary and a link.  Reason:  References to video games and novels distracts from the more scholarly information related to the ancient deity.  I think the link is sufficient for the more curious while those who are interested in popular references can go directly to that page. --Blue Tie 23:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved Popular Culture References 

message: It seems odd that Ginsberg gains no mention in this article, when the phrase Moloch is used dozens of times in the poem Howl, and likely remains one of the first associations one can make with this word.142.58.24.196 (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting that "Moloch" turns up in the poem doesn't add much; it's the kind of thing that gets cleaned off periodically from those "Trivia" sections. But why not add a solid referenced paragraph on what has been said in print of Ginsberg's use of "Moloch" in "Howl"? That would be a useful addition. --Wetman (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be in here as part of "Molech in popular culture".  However, that section was moved to its own page on the grounds that it was considered to be a separate issue from the historical god "molech" and the scholarly material covering that matter.  The article "Molech in Popular culture" contained many other references, chiefly in video games but also movies.  Later, it was reviewed by a large number of editors.  The question was, whether "Molech in Popular Culture" should be deleted, kept or merged back into this article.  I argued to keep it. But consensus deemed it to be not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia at all.    I would suggest that you start an article on "Howl" if one does not exist and then link to this article.  I would not suggest that you add Howl to this article... it does not belong. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ginsberg and ''Howl''

message: Look, sorry for this, but isnt the first mention of Moloch (or Molech in the "Sunrise Good News Bible") first found in Levticus 18.21 as "do not hand over any of your children to be used in the worship of Molech, because that would bring discrace on the name of God, the Lord". Incase you havent read the bible, the whole of Leviticus 18 is calles Forbidden Sexual Practices. Just saying that it is logical to think that it has something to do with child sex or perhaps (going back to the article saying that it was to do with a red hot idol placed in the childs hands) some tourture to do with a childs reproductive reagons such as a red hot idol being placed between a naked childs legs. Just a thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnecromancer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Guidelines 

message: The obvious linguistic connections with malik and malakh are omitted. Would mention of them elicit howls of denial? Why is this article still so resolutely without references to professional literature? I'd stick one of those "No References" tags on it, if I were a tagger. --Wetman (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: The article currently says there was no difference in the spelling of Moloch & melek (king) but I was under the impression, from certain authors, the Moloch was an older spelling for king that was "מולך" (with a letter vau) and Melek came about by dropping the vau in ancient times (before the spellings in the bible) to form just "מלך" for an non-pagan interpretation of the word as "lord". 67.5.157.160 (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phoenician uses Adonai lord rather than Melik king Rktect (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moloch & Melek 

message: The image caption showing a moloch altar says that it's a depiction based on a description from the old testament. I'm fairly versed in the old testament, and know of no such description. The article includes a description from rabbinical tradition which matches the image, my guess is that this is the true source of the image.
I'm going to remove the caption until someone can find a proper citation in the old testament.
--Ecnassianer (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image caption say "description from Old testament". Needs citation 

message: "Including, but not limited to" is lawyer-speak and is unnecessary since "including" implies additional items already. --Unimath (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  including, but not limited to 

message: I'm a little suspicous of the reference to a Moloch in Egypt; the citation is mentioned as questionable, and is to what looks to be a rather general and not necessarily accurate book. To my knowledge there is no Egyptian god called Moloch; further, Egyptian appears to contain no letter "l" (generally, this is replaced with 'r', or 'nr' in later texts - I can't think of a mrk or <mnrk</i> either), and the root m-l-k isn't used for kingship in Egyptian, either - the term nsw or nsw-bity is more typical. Can anyone confirm the point? 89.240.141.98 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say that Moloch was an Egyptian god as in the Egyptians were the original worshippers, but that Moloch was worshipped in Egypt.  Egypt and Canaan were right smack dab next to each other, and deities tended to cross borders then as now.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moloch being merely a title ("king") but not an Egyptian word, the reference does needs some citation of a "Moloch" worshiped in Egypt, perhaps confined to the Late Period of ancient Egypt. For now, let's remove "Egypt" from its prominent place in the opening. --Wetman (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Egyptian Moloch?

message: "Milkom" redirects here.  This is disingenuous, as Milkom and Molech are not necessarily the same god.  Milkom is attested as the god of the Ammonites, whereas Molech is associated with human sacrifice; identification of them as the same god depends on one passage of the Masoretic text in I Kings that does not agree with the LXX or with other biblical references.  Milkom should be a separate article.--76.78.57.66 (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And what might that article consist of? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milkom 

message: Some Catholics, I think Peter Kreeft is one, have called Moloch, "the god of abortion." Might this be notable? --134.193.112.148 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "god of Abortion"? 

message: The film and novel Cabiria are based on a novel by Italian author Gabriele D'Annuzio. Apparently not even the authors of the Cabiria page are aware of this, despite the fact that D'Annuzio's name appears on posters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.24.33.227 (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabiria Poster Image 

message: There's enough and very little if any has any relation to the Ancient Near East. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The middle of the article could be [[Moloch in literature]]

message: * The British sludge metal band Moloch took their name from the Moloch mythos.
* Moloch played a heavy role in Jeff Lindsey's third Dexter book, Dexter in the Dark.
* Moloch features in season one, episode 8 "I, Robot... You, Jane" of the television series Buffy: The Vampire Slayer.
* In The Mortal Instruments, a series of novels, there is a demon species called a Moloch Demon.
* In the PC game Disciples 2: Dark Prophecy, Moloch is a unit on the Legion of the Damned faction, the third level of evolution of the unit Devil.
* Moloch is a demon in the Felix Castor novels written by Mike Carey.
* Moloch is a vision of a demon-machine in the 1927 film Metropolis directed by Fritz Lang.
* Moloch is an evil System Lord in Stargate SG-1. In this portrayal he demands all female children be burnt alive at birth.
* Moloch is featured as a Djinn summon in the Game Boy Advance game Golden Sun: The Lost Age and its sequel Golden Sun: Dark Dawn for the Nintendo DS.
* Moloch is one of the names given to Corky Laputa in Dean Koontz's novel The Face.
* In Robert A. Heinlein's novel Job: A Comedy of Justice the main characters join a church pastored by "Reverend Dr. M. O. Loch".
* Appears in the song "Molochwalker" off the album Noctourniquet, performed by the The Mars Volta.
* Appears in Video Game Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance as a three eyed oni creature.
* In the PC game Nethack, Moloch's Temple has four stacked unaligned altars and Priests of Moloch. The High Priest of Moloch holds the main quest item, the Amulet of Yendor, at the bottom of Gehennom.
* Moloch is a class of enemy ship in the PC Game Freespace 2
* Moloch is featured as a playable character in Mortal Kombat: Armageddon.
* Moloch is an Epic Creature character in the MMORTS game Lord of Ultima.
* In the comic series Watchmen, there is an old supervillain of the costumed vigilantes known as "Moloch the Mystic" (a.k.a. Edgar William Jacobi) whom had retired due to old age and terminal cancer.
* Moloch von Zinzer is a supporting character in the webcomic Girl Genius.http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20120817
........This is already duplicated anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: And this belongs in [[Moloch in popular culture]]?

message: I've been trying to build this article into something that gives an actual account of scholarly literature on the topic, but so far I have stashed this away under "modern interpretation". 
In my view, the entire article is to be based on "modern interpretations" (i.e. scholarly literature) on its topic. But, as is common practice on Wikipedia, the article as it stands begins with a quote-dump of biblical text and classical authors. I don't know if this is the case because people actually want this, or just because it's the cheapest way to produce at least some sourced material when starting the page. In my opinion, we can lose the dump of bible passages, as Wikipedia articles on biblical topics aren't supposed to double as a biblical concordance, and instead give some structure to the various aspects of academic debate. 
But in case people actually want the full text of relevant Bible passages dumped on them, I have structured them properly, distinguishing Masoretic Molek from LXX Molokh and the extended Malkam ("Milcom"). --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotefarm

message: I went to a pretty pretentious college, but I have no idea how to interpret the phrase "dysphemic vocalisation of a theonym based on the root mlk "king"". The link to dysphemism is offensively unhelpful. Can someone tell me what on earth this means? If so, I will rewrite it in English.
*A dysphemism is "a derogatory or unpleasant term used instead of a pleasant or neutral one." 
*A theonym is "the name of a god". It derives from the Greek term "theos" (god). 
*The term "mlk" is a Semitic term for "king". We have a main article "Malik" which covers the term and its variations: "Melik, Malka, Malek or Melekh"
The name "Moloch" seems to be a variation of Malik. It may have been used by the Hebrew writers as an insulting term for another people's deity. Instead of pronouncing the actual name of the deity, they modified it to a derogatory term. Dimadick (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholastic Gibberish

message: Currently this is on the page:
LXX Μολοχ (Moloch, Molech)
The Septuagint uses Μολοχ three times, rendered by KJV as Moloch or Molech, in 2 Kings 23:10, Jeremiah 32:35 (both verses have Masoretic molek, cited above), and Amos 5:26 (where the Masoretic text has melek "king"). In the other instances of Masoretic molek, LXX has βασιλεύς basileus "king". 
Okay so 1)the KJV is not based on the LXX, and 2) Μολοχ shows up three times in Lev. 20 alone. So, this short section needs to be fixed. I would, but I'm not sure its intent.24.114.39.37 (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: LXX = KJV?

message: Just a note on my progress. I don't consider anything done yet, but the article is still missing information on the minority opinion that Moloch sacrifice was some sort of harmless rite of passage. I will add this when I can.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section on theories is now in fairly good shape, though I will of course keep expanding as needed. At this point, it's Moloch in art and literature that needs the most work.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: , there are two problems with your edit. 1) You keep adding the etymology of Astaroth after Kerr's criticism of proposal of the name being a Qal participle, when that has nothing to do with Astaroth, whose etymology is related instead to Geiger's boshet theory; 2) you're adding an argument about the etymology of Moloch that is not found in the sources. Day does not defend the etymology of Moloch with the vocalization from boshet by pointing to Astaroth, and unless you can find a source that explicitly does so, that is wp:SYNTH.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The Original Septuagint was of the 5  ooks of Moses and only that....they did not translate the prophets. Your claim the the Septuagint translates Amos is incorrect 69.143.34.242 (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that’s not true. See Septuagint.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Only the first 5 books can be conclusively dated to 1st-3rd century BCE. The other may have been written later and may have been subjected to editing by Christians (this is a common claim in Jewish apologetics). Whether they were translated later, or if the earlier versions of the translations were lost so that we can only date the later translations, isn't really known. It may have been composed over a period of time as well, but that doesn't mean the Prophets are not part of the "original Septuagint". The myth of the Septuagint is that it was translated all at once by seventy scholars, however that's not necessarily true, that there was just some instantaneous work that produced a definable "original Septuagint".2601:140:8900:61D0:400A:A562:4597:FEFF (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Septuagint