spin

Only in the first chapter? -- think again. (And yes, bara, BR) is the word.)

No, thait comes from a misunderstanding of Gen 1:1. The state of the world when god began his creation was that the earth was without form and void.

The first creative act is in Gen 1:3, when god turned on the lights on the first day. There was already the material necessary, the primal chaos -- the darkness and the waters out of which came the land.

It is not the extended translation, it is the accurate translation, making it the only relevant information.

I'm sorry. What is incorrect? And please supply evidence for your claims.

You are not making sense. You were talking about alphabets, then you drifted onto books and you are now confusing dates.

The Phoenicians were not a united political organization. The bible only talks about Tyre, not "the Phoenicians". Sidon was Phoenician, Beirut, coastal Arad, Byblos and a host of other city states.

There is no datable Hebrew text older than Phoenician. You are talking rot. Here, read up about the Phoenician alphabet.

The earliest Hebrew books come from Qumran.

Non sequitur.

I'd get your rubbish disposal unit checked out. It's coming out the wrong end.

I accept that there was no desire to preserve Phoenician texts because the politics of the area and the loss of various aspects of the Phoenician culture. Stop projecting your own looniness onto this conversation.

There is no problem affirming the alphabet. It's just your arbitrary criterion of having books, a criterion that is as irrelevant as it is not thought out.

Show me any Hebrew archives before Qumran.

Buy a copy of Budge's "Book of the Dead" (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Other people might just check Transliteration of Ancient Egyptian to see the fundamentally alphabetical nature of Egyptian hieroglyphics.

A "generic peasant tongue"?? Can you cite a world class Semitic scholar on the ridiculously amateurish description?

OK, I get the idea now, that you are not about to make coherent analyses. You don't know the material you are dealing with and are now making overtly erroneous but faith-based claims.

You are confusing scripts with languages. Something written in the Aramaic script doesn't have to be Aramaic. Something written in the Hebrew script doesn't have to be Hebrew. It is convenient for scholars who have access to software with the Hebrew alphabet to transcribe Aramaic into Hebrew characters. That is not writing it in Hebrew. It's still Aramaic, just as the Aramaic in Daniel and Ezra are written in Hebrew square script.

I'm glad you find that meaningful, but it has nothing to do with what you were trying to talk about.

Why the fantasy and slavish lack of analysis? You persist in this fairyland crap about alphabetic books. The bible wasn't the first book, it wasn't the first alphabetic book, but you aren't interested. What exactly are you doing here at an infidel site talking your religious beliefs?


spin

IamJoseph

Only in the first short creation chapter of Genesis. The word is replaced with 'formed' thereafter in all the remaining five books - which negates any possibility of a typo.

The unformed and void is surplanted with its formation - thereafter it cannot apply.

No, the first creative act is in 1/1, when all the heavens and the earth was created in a singular instant. IOW, all was created to become actualised, qualified with 'IN ITS DUE TIME - THE EARLY RAINS AND THE LATTER RAINS'. No one can write a new song unless it is already existing in potential form; the same with all inventions [better, discoveries]; the sun could not produce light if light essence was not already existant in potential form ['There is nothing new'/Solomon]. It sounds like a contradiction, but when deeply contemplated, it is correct. The 3rd verse, activating light, is post-verse 1 - and cannot be rendered superflous [a violation].


The number of words in the Hebrew does not equate with the additional words in english; it is derived at from inflections and alphabets highlighted. E.g. that the Mosaic begins with IN THE BEGINNING can be inferred that THE BEGINNING preceded the Creator - but this is subtly negated because the first word begins with the 2nd alphabet - meaning the first alphabet is not within creation but transcendent and precedent of it. Thus THE BEGINNING can only refer to 'In the beginning of the created universe'. The first alphabet represents the Creator, which is separate and transcendent - a logical conclusion, made without adding or subtracting anything from the text [a violation].

My point is that if it is claimed Phoenecian is older by virtue of alphabets being seen as resembling early Hebrew alphabets - it must be backed by a continuing display of grads, in phoenecian as we see in the Hebrew. And if we do not see similar phoenecian alphabetical books - it becomes non-credible; an anomoly. The notion of the Phoenecians being non-united does not satisfy - they prevailed for 800 years after Israel emerged; nor was Israel united till King David, and that too for a brief period only. The period of Judges was not a united one.

There is an anomoly here, you have to grant me this. Whether that anomoly concludes what I say is a debatable factor. I would like to see older alphabetical books to clear this anomoly and get a clarified thread of history as posited by many assessments - but I do not see this. Your rejection of a hovering anomoly is not credible.

The scrolls package, which are made of alphabetical 'BOOKS' [multi-page continuing narratives], date back to 200 BCE - which is not the date of their writings or source points; these are again not books written in 200 BCE, but books written throughout the generations and preserved, their narratives clearly evidencing more ancient history with dates, names and events which are cross referencable. Aside from this, we have a number of incomplete but substantial pieces of writings, coins, monuments and edifices with passages of alphabetical Hebrew. The sources you refer to also agree the Hebrew is among the first three alphabetical writings, some citing it is derivitive to ancient canaanite, but again - where are the canaanite phoenecian aphabetical books?



.
Notably, the canaanites never spoke Hebrew - not did the Phoenecians or Egyptians.

This is an ubsurd response. It begs the question, no desire and politics - compared to whom - the wondering Hebrews?! The fact is - they have none - despite predating and post dating the Hebrews. A blatant anomoly whether you like to admit it or not.

There IS a problem affirming any grads of an alledged older alphabet which did not graduate to alphabetical books: I put on the table the Hebrew, the greek, the indian and most languages. Restricting to bits of alphabets as older becomes questionable and an anomoly. Its like one being stuck in the copper age with no desire to enter the Bronze and Iron age.

I dont know of any complete books but I know of many instances of alphabetical writings in coins, relics and monuments. The issue here is, you cannot come up with phoenecian books - supposedly older writings. Otherwise I have no problem applying this to Canaan or Phoenecia - these were far older nations. Allign this with the Arabs claiming descendent from Ishmael [4000 years], and they have no archives [alphabetical or cuni] older than 340 CE; but the Coptics, a smaller and older peoples, do have writings older than the Arabs. I say, the Arabs, as an identifiable ethnic group, never existed pre-500 BCE, namely till after Greece conquered Persia. A devastating premise but one I suspect is true.

They also have to check that Egypt was a mighty, most advanced nation, obsessed with etching her history to glorify its Pharoahs, and negate any negative descriptions. They will find an anomoly this mighty nation did not graduate to alphabetical books. No desire again - or political issues?!

LOL. Its common knowedge. When Rome forbid Hebrew in the 1st C, the people spoke Aramaic - because this was the generic Arabian tongue which one need not know how to writre or be educated: foreigners and market stall people spoke it. This is also the reason why christians make Jesus speaking aramaic, as opposed to his mother tongue. A Jew cannot pray in aramaic nor recite the last supper [passover] liturgy in that tongue!

I don't use faith based claims, nor mention anything but historical archives as evidence. I dn't accept as roof anything from the NT or Quran equally - if its not backed by historical evidence.

Totally incorrect. The scrolls is in Hebrew, with some stray bits of the later dated ones containing some Greek and Aramaic. This evidences a long historical thread of Hebrew

The Hebrew bible should NOT be the first alphabetical books - I agree. But my research shows there is no older ones around. That is an anomoly - not fantasy or lack of analysis. Check all your debatings - you have only given a host of excuses - but no older alphabetical books. And I cannot honestly accept your excuses as credible [no desre; political instabiity; etc]. Another answer is encumbent here. I believe the fact that Egypt or Canaanite or the Phoenecians never spoke Hebrew - says something, and this points to another answer applying than the one concluded by most European scholars - who are famed for their errors and distortions concerning Israel. No fantasy again. Also, the variant of Monotheism among all its surrounding nations, namely the variance as opposed all the other similarities, also says something.

At the vest least, we have a set of alphabetical books, making a claim of an entire period of history - 3000 years of it - its verses and words full of specific historical details of dates and numbers - and almost nothing like it elsewhere. If, for example, one wishes to check the diets of ancient Egypt - whther they had garlic or melons or horses - there is only ONE source where this can be derived; the entire history of Abraham, and all his generations via various offspring - is not available outside of the Hebrew bible. All such data, should be seen in Egyptian, Phoenecian or other writings as well - but its not! What happened here!?

PS! If one checks those graphs showing canaanite and phoeneciean, then hebrew - and examine the alphabets, we find those predating list of alphabets do NOT contain the 'V' alphabet as does the Hebrew. That ABraham is thus later spelled with a B instead of the original V [AVraham], also says something.

spin

So you'd find it a shock to know the verb is in Gen 5:2 and Deut 4:32.

This statement is too unclear for me to glean its significance.

This is utter rubbish. The text is quite clear from the Hebrew:

In the beginning of god's creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void, and darkness hovered on the face of the waters, while the wind of god hovered over the face of the waters.

The scene is set for god's creation which starts on day one: let there be light. Each day starts with an act of creation through divine fiat. Each of the six days. The first is no exception.

This has nothing to do with the text.

BR)$YT	BR)	)LHYM	)T-H$MYM	W)T-H)RC
in the beginning of	create	god	the heavens	and the earth

Couldn't filter much out of this to use.

The Hyram sarcophagus features Phoenician script. That's as old as the time Solomon is supposed to have lived. We have no Hebrew from this time.

Your insistence on "alphabetical books" is arbitrary and meaningless. There were obviously texts well before the Hebrews emerged. Some of them were alphabetical. Even Ugarit had an alphabetical script.

So you agree that the earliest copies of Hebrew books are from Qumran. Before that you have to conjecture.

Again with this alphabetical book rubbish.

If you want to find out about Phoenician, why don't you start with Phoenician language?


Hebrew is a Canaanite language just as Phoenician was. Egyptian was from a different family of languages.

Ubsurd, eh?

Texts are preserved because there is the desire to copy them. If there is no desire to copy them, they don't get preserved. You are making heavy-going of a simple issue. With the amount of trampling through of various armies and the amount of commerce and transient population, the Phoenician culture suffered terminally, so that there no longer was the desire to preserve the culture and the language went extinct circa 700 BCE.

Get over it.

Inscriptions are sufficient to show the language and alphabet at work. Your insistence on books is ridiculous.

Cultures come to an end, if you hadn't noticed. We no longer have an Assyria or a Babylon. And they were big cultures with a good literary heritage that has survived. Smaller cultures didn't have the resources and they left some inscriptions and the rest is lost.

So you drop the crap about books and are able to look at any written form??

What do you want? If you won't go and find out about Phoenician inscriptions, then you will remain knowledgeless. Read the Wiki page I cited for information about inscriptions. I can give you scholarly references, but you couldn't use them.

The Copts spoke a late form of the language of Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Think again. There was an Arab king at the battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE.

Egypt had possession of the entire Canaan area for quite a while from Tuthmosis III to at least Ramses II. Egyptian inscriptions have been found in Palestine. The Egyptians had a treaty with the Hittites in Anatolia, a treaty recorded in both cultures. Egypt regularly trampled through Palestine. While Judah huddled in the hills Egypt went up and down the coast. Shoshenq I trampled throughout Palestine. An Egyptian king Necho II was bothered by Josiah, so the pharaoh defeated him and Josiah died. The only time Egypt didn't romp through Palestine was when the Philistines and other sea peoples settled on the coast, circa 1170 - 980 BCE.

You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the late Assyrian empire as well as the Persian empire. The Jews of Elephantine in Egypt wrote in Aramaic. Your terminology is ridiculous and reflects a deep lack of knowledge.

You've used almost no archaeological or historical evidence. You seem only to rehash bible interpretations, so "faith-based claims" seem to be your forte.

I've seen no scholarly references to anything from you. No sources. Only assertions.

You didn't understand what you were responding to. Try again.

No older books that 200 BCE.

Have you heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh? The Enuma Elish? I've mentioned the Book of the Dead.

Books obviously existed. You refuse to acknowledge them, clinging only late literature from the Jews. You've given nothing that you can show existed before 200 BCE. The walls of temples in Egypt were covered with writings for centuries before the end of the 18th Dynasty.

You cannot accept scholarship because you are unread. There are classic collections of texts available if you wanted them, ARE (Ancient Records of Egypt), ARAB (Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon), with hundreds of texts translated for you if you wanted to go to a suitable university library.

Yes, they weren't Hebrew.

As you have demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of history, I can understand you thinking this. You know nothing about Assyria, Babylon, Phoenicia, Egypt, or Persia. All you seem to know about is some of the stuff in the bible, which you don't seem to understand.

Ignorance is bliss. As I said, you are oblivious to history. For example you know nothing about the vast collection of Assyrian inscriptions, texts and letters.

Absurd ignorance. Go and look at some of the wall paintings in Egypt. You'll see the foods available. Read medical texts. Read travel journals. Read religious texts. Read political records. Shite, you are just so lacking in any knowledge of the area. Why don't you just shut up for a while and find out a bit about the world?

Ignorance again. Total shameless ignorance. If you look at any ancient biblical text, Abraham is always spelt with the letter BET. The rubbish you are claiming is based on a later sound change. There is no V letter in Hebrew. The best you'll get is the WAW which later Jews call VAV and Abraham is not spelt with a WAW. (Take a look for yourself here.) Who is the idiot that has fed your head with such utter drivel??


spin

semiopen

Joseph, it is humbling to see the volume of your writings, especially in that you have never admitted to making an error or (at least to my knowledge) citing a single learned source.

Forgive the ignorance this comment displays, but Aramaic was the standard diplomatic and commercial language of the middle east probably from before the two kingdoms.

Isaiah 36:11 goes something like this:

When discussing early Judaism, it is possibly worth mentioning the Ugaritic culture, language and literature, which is discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit#Ugaritic_Language

The language is very similar to Hebrew and the religion seems to be proto Israelite in several imnportant respects.

IamJoseph

No shock whatsoever: you will see these are only quotes of the word 'create' which is in the first chapter. They are not new acts of creating, same as you would quote the first chapter:


No more creation [something from nothing] occured aside from the first chapter in Genesis. We use the term create today not in its technical mode; technically speaking we are not creating but forming [something from something else]. It is quite a remarkable proposition, signifying the exacting focus of the writings on what is says.

Don't fall into the same trap many anti-creationists like to be in: the 'days' pre the calendar are cosmic days and not 24 hour days, representing epochs of time only. The sun's lumonsity occured in cosmic day 4 [signifying these cannot be 24 hour days]; the Hebrew calendar starts after the cosmic days - it is the oldest and most accurate calendar in existence.


We have numerous Hebrew even from the time of David, which is pre-Solomon, and also we have pre-david.

We can agree to disagree on the importance of alphabetical writings and the lack of subsequent books as its derivitive with the phoenecian. We have to agree though - there are no alphabetical books from Phoenecea even when they prevailed 800 years after the Hebrew emerged. I believe there may even be some Greek alphabetical books post-Septuagint [must check it again]. I stand by the anomoly premise, while not insisting it proves the phoenecian alphabeticals did not exist; I also reject you reasons why this anomoly is so.


I don't know of any pre-dating 'books'. But this does not validate the phoenecian is thereby equivalently validated by the same criteria.


Why? Language is very difficult to date precisely, and the criteria of writings is not ambigous. Its an important issue, thus should be given critical measures not subject to manipulation. Equally, my premise can also be KO'd by a new discovery. 90% of all archeological verification is via writings.

Certainly there is ubsurdity here, which most accept without noticing the anomolies. Egypt, a close kin and ruler of Canaanites well before the Hebrews emerged - did not speak Hebrew, which you claim came from the Canaanites! Its like saying the english language came from Madagaskar or Hawaii 1000s of years ago - even if this language was never spoken there till recently.

The reverse is the case. The ancients were obsessed in preserving their history - to the extent each Phaoroh would eraze any negative writings, even the names of the previous kings. And the scribe had to bring at least 12 versions of glorifying the Phaoroh for his approval. The stone etchings on the pyramids, those etchings taking decades to create - hardly affirms your statements. In any case, the required items of proof do not exist and you should admit this without the embelishments you apply. get over it.

Very unlike the Hebrew, right?

But this anomoly is not limited to small nations - they pervade the greatest ones also.

Are you aware that ancient picture writings, including half man/half beast symbols, would have been forbidden in a book which forbid images for worship - think about it, and why this is condusive for adapting from picture to abstract alphabets!?


What makes you say he was 'arab' as per the group which emerged after Greece conquered Persia? The term Arabian and Arab are not related.


None of them spoke Hebrew.

The missing factor here is, the Philistines were finally defeated by David 3000 years ago in their underground fortress of Gaza. None of the other nations could confront the iron armour they introduced in Arabia.

Aramaic was a generic lingo, and the Jews used it whenever Hebrew was forbidden or to communicate with other nationals. The other language used later was Greek, but never Latin.

I posted a whole list of archeological references in this forum. I can do so again. I do not use theological evidence. For the same reason, I do not accept NT evidences to prove NT claims; same with the Quran.



None of those are alphabetical, and their datings are also in dispute. The book of the dead is an etching on a slab.


I did not refer to writings, but aphabetical books only. There is no contest that the Hebrews arrived late in the ancient scene or that writings predated them. My point is, there is an anomoly that the alledged older alphabeticals did not graduate to alphabetical books - as did the Hebrew. Nothing more than that. At the same time, your reducing this factor by embellishments [desire; political fractions; etc] is not valid at all. Whatever your reasons, you should acknowkedge there is an anomoly here.

Nor were they in the advanced aphabetical mode as with the scrolls. I am not unread.

I know more than average of those nations and studied their history for many years. I can date them all and list all their major events and wars.

The Tel Dan is an Assyrian inscription, and it proves the House of David. Hello?




I don't know if the pyramids list foods and diet - but I do know this is contained in no other book than the Hebrew bible, as with the history of Abraham. The Hebrews missed the fleshpots of egypt, the garlic, the melons, and the fish for naught [the nile never ran dry]. You are asserting this is mentioned in the Pyramids, while negating what is written in the Hebrew bible - why?



You are talking Latin here. The original Hebrew spells it with a V. The arabic did not contain the V and used W instead; with Abraham - this was taken into the arabic from the Latin [Abraham; Ibrahim] - the latin predated the arabic. The romans and arabs spoke no Hebrew.

I can produce you absolute proof I am correct: but will it make any difference - will it be seen as another anomoly if the ancient Hebrew contained the V and the Phoenecian did not? Else why bother? :notworthy:

IamJoseph

These are alphabet charts, better seen in the links provided. They represent the ancient Hebrew, Phonecian and canaanite alphabetical charts. Only one of them has the mysterious V - and its not the two which is claimed the Hebrew prototype. An anomoly? - you tell me!

spin

I've decided to put this user on ignore. He

1. is clearly reason-challenged,
2. cannot analyse argumentation, or understand evidence,
3. is totally unable to research ancient history, or even perceive it, and
4. does not understand how to use a spell-checker, or consistently write sentences that can be parsed.

Join me on this one.


spin

IamJoseph

Try biting the bullet - its the correct mode when engaging in forum debates. You were tended with links from your own used wiki source:

No 'V' in the phoenecian or canaanite languages, and the use of B in Abraham is 2000 years after the original V spelling [AVraham] in the Hebrew. And no alphabetical books predating the Hebrew. Targeting the messenger personally won't change the facts. :wave:

Jayhawker Soule

Creation ex nihilo - Not

Jayhawker Soule

Parenthetically, I found this worth reading ...


{mod note: In the Beginning: A Short History of the Hebrew Language (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Joel Hoffman}