Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Untranlatable ""hebrew" discovered; more proof positive of E

Matt Giwer · Guest

Jack Linthicum wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 7:06 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
You didn>t read the article did you?
I actually lifted quotes from it. Kind of you to notice.
Recognizable Hebrew words were seen spelled out
in the proto-Caananite characters.
When you put it that way, it>s like getting excited about
finding Greek words in a Greek script.
After all, you>re claiming to have found regional words in
a regional script!

Can you expand on "regional"? If I recall correctly there were several
groups of people mentioned in the region, each with their own
language. Note: proto-Canaanite alphabet had vowels, modern Hebrew
doesn>t. Someone got tired of people like you asking dumb questions, I
guess.
[/quote]
What does modern Hebrew have to do with the subject? Modern Hebrew dates to
the Masoretic, no earlier.

--
If abortion is murder the woman should receive
the death penalty.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4074
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8

Matt Giwer · Guest

Jack Linthicum wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 3:27 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
It>s a bit like finding a few lines of ancient Greek and
declaring that it>s English.
If it spells out English words and uses English grammar,
its English.
Ironically, you just made my point for me, because NOBODY
is talking about "Grammar" here.

As for "spells out English words," that>s a joke. Right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_words_of_Greek_origin

You didn>t read the article did you? Recognizable Hebrew words were
seen spelled out in the proto-Caananite characters. If I spell a
Russian or Japanese word using Latin characters it is still readable
as a Russian or Japanese word.
[/quote]
Archaeologists have found no people who called themselves or who were called
Canaanites. That means they another of the bible fictions. Therefore they had
no language, spoken or written, because they did not exist.

As to calling this language "hebrew" even if it is the early form of the
language of the people who created the pack of lies in either the 6th or 2nd
c. BC, it is absurd to 'back date' it and call it hebrew. The hebrews were
invented by the pack of lies. It is only a religion. The idea of a jewish
people was invented barely a century ago and has no place in any discussion of
antiquity.

The inherent problem is there is nothing intrinsic in any of the writings
found which identifies it as belonging. As the religion was invented much
later there is an inscription in hebrew identifying the people who wrote it as
worshiping both Yahweh and Ashara. Clearly the religion identified as Hebrew
had not been invented yet. The pack of lies, aka OT, chooses to ignore Ashara
worship. Even today believers ignore Astarte>s temple in Jerusalem.

Whoever these people were they worshiped at least those two gods. Thus the
exclusive worship of Yahweh cannot be any more than a religion and it does not
represent the people as they existed. Again, the invention of a jewish people
is quite recent. It is nothing but a religion.

--
The greater Israel>s atrocities the more antisemitic
it is to mention them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4070
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4

Weland · Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Proto-Canaanite is an alphabet, not a region.

Man, you are retarded....

"Caananite" would either be a region or a people.
[/quote]
No. Canaanite would be an adjective meaning "of or pertaining to the
people or region of Canaan". Canaan is the region. Canaanites are the
peoples living in Canaan. Proto-Canaanite is a term used to distinguish
and describe an alphabet developing in the region.

Either
[quote]way, it ain>t "Hebrew."
[/quote]
That actually isn>t true. The Canaanite or Hebraic language group (its
been termed both) is a subdivision of the NW Semitic language group.

It goes like this: Afro-Asiatic (of which there are several subgroups.
This is...)>Semitic (of which there are several subgroups. This
is...) > NorthWest Semitic (of which there are 3 subdivisions: Aramaic,
Ugaritic, Canaanite), > Canaanite which is divided into Ammonite,
Edomite, Moabite, Phoenician, and Hebrew languages.

All that to say, that claiming that Canaanite isn>t Hebrew language is
false since Hebrew is classified as a Canaanite language...i. e. a
language in the geographical region of Canaan.

Dragonblaze · Guest

On 3 Nov, 05:24, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[snip]

[quote] Archaeologists have found no people who called themselves or who were called
Canaanites. That means they another of the bible fictions. Therefore they had
no language, spoken or written, because they did not exist.
[/quote]
Matt>s memory is again working at its usual efficiency....

This is what I posted some time ago on the subject to Matt:

"Kinahhu? I guess you>ve NEVER head of that word. That is what it is
in
Akkadian, and it is Ka-na-na in Egyptian.The Ebla texts have the
ethnic name ga-na-na. Really, if you want to debate this issue, TRY
and do a little reading.

And Phoinica comes from a Greek term that means 'purple.' There are
no
words resembling it in any early sources - I guess by your logic that
should mean there were no people living in there then."

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <0750e419-80a3-405b-b2d1-31f361b59db2@n33g2000pri.googlegro
ups.com>
Cormac <cormac.bradaigh@hotmail.com> wrote:

[quote]David and Solomon remain myths unles evidence for their existence is
found.

Evidence? You mean, like the Moabite Stone or the House of David
Stele?

Neither provides evidence for the existence of David or Solomon
[/quote]
Both refer to the "House of David", a phrase which is best explained
by postulating the existence of David.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <490e6f59$0$17068$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org>
Weland <giles@poetic.com> wrote:

[quote]No. Canaanite would be an adjective meaning "of or pertaining to the
people or region of Canaan". Canaan is the region. Canaanites are the
peoples living in Canaan. Proto-Canaanite is a term used to distinguish
and describe an alphabet developing in the region.
[/quote]
In the first place, what you are all missing out on is that while
"proto-Canannite" is indeed used to describe a particular alphabet and
style of writing, it is only an assumption (a reasonable one, of
course) that it has anything to do with the Canaanites.

In the second place, the experts say that this particular ostracon is
in Hebrew (or possibly proto-Hebrew). It is only Matt the Pratt who
claims that it is Canaanite - and we know what his opinions are worth.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Jack Linthicum · Guest

On Nov 3, 2:37 am, Kendall K Down <webmas...@diggingsonline.com>
wrote:
[quote]In message <0750e419-80a3-405b-b2d1-31f361b59...@n33g2000pri.googlegro
ups.com
Cormac <cormac.brada...@hotmail.com> wrote:

David and Solomon remain myths unles evidence for their existence is
found.
Evidence? You mean, like the Moabite Stone or the House of David
Stele?
Neither provides evidence for the existence of David or Solomon

Both refer to the "House of David", a phrase which is best explained
by postulating the existence of David.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ==============> | Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
=======================================================
Whoever that might be.[/quote]

David Johnson · Guest

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:e010c89d-2004-4552-86d9-b956dc071eb5
@b31g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

[quote]Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Proto-Canaanite is an alphabet, not a region.

Man, you are retarded....

"Caananite" would either be a region or a people. Either
way, it ain>t "Hebrew."
[/quote]
So I guess since we>re using the Latin alphabet here, we>re all Latins...

David

imipak · Guest

On Nov 3, 2:52 pm, David Johnson <trolleyfan_nos...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote]JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e010c89d-2004-4552-86d9-b956dc071eb5
@b31g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Proto-Canaanite is an alphabet, not a region.

Man, you are retarded....

"Caananite" would either be a region or a people. Either
way, it ain>t "Hebrew."

So I guess since we>re using the Latin alphabet here, we>re all Latins...

David
[/quote]
I have never quite figured out why "Latin" is the name given to those
descended from the people of Latium. Wouldn>t Latish or Latiun be more
in keeping with convention? Of course, the first of those sounds like
someone in dodgy movies, but then so do most of the Romans described
by Roman historians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latium

Weland · Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:

Canaan is the region. Canaanites are the
peoples living in Canaan.

No, not according to biblie thumpers.

According to them, there is a *Huge* difference between
"Caananite" people and, say, the ancient Jews, and the
two are not the same at all.
[/quote]
Not much interested in bible thumpers.

[quote]That actually isn>t true.

It is true. Context, baby, context.
[/quote]
Even in context it remains a false statement.

[quote]
You>re responding to the words and not the message.
[/quote]
Both actually.
[quote]
If you>re autistic you>ve got an excuse. If not, it looks
like you>re grepping for some dick fencing...

All that to say, that claiming that Canaanite isn>t Hebrew
language is false since [...]

Again, you>ve completely lost the context.
[/quote]

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <3c742da1-62f9-4a30-9136-51c35cfeca25@d36g2000prf.googlegro
ups.com>
Dragonblaze <dragonblaze@apexmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Archaeologists have found no people who called themselves or who were called
Canaanites. That means they another of the bible fictions. Therefore
they had no language, spoken or written, because they did not exist.

Matt>s memory is again working at its usual efficiency....
[/quote]
There>s nothing wrong with Matt the Pratt>s memory: the problem is
that he lies as naturally as he breathes. Tell him something and he
will blandly deny that you ever said it..

[quote]This is what I posted some time ago on the subject to Matt:
"Kinahhu? I guess you>ve NEVER head of that word. That is what it is
in Akkadian, and it is Ka-na-na in Egyptian.The Ebla texts have the
ethnic name ga-na-na. Really, if you want to debate this issue, TRY
and do a little reading.
[/quote]
You know that Canaan is ancient, I know it, probably Matt the Pratt
knows it too - but see above. He will deny it.

[quote]And Phoinica comes from a Greek term that means 'purple.' There are
no words resembling it in any early sources - I guess by your logic that
should mean there were no people living in there then."
[/quote]
So much for Matt the Pratt the philologist.

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Weland · Guest

JTEM wrote:
[quote]Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:

JTEM wrote:

way, it ain>t "Hebrew."

That actually isn>t true.

It is true. Completely true. And not just within the proper
context, which you erased. Here, I>ll restore it:

Here>s the URL supported by the person I was resplying to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm

The claim is that this text is from the biblical Hebrews
(a people) and even supports the biblical accounts of
David.

It does not.
[/quote]
That>s only the larger background of the thread. The specific context
to which I responded was your explicit statement that proto-Canaanite
can not and does not refer to Hebrew and Hebrews. Well, it just in fact
may.
[quote]
Secondly, it>s not even "Hebrew" within YOUR context.
[/quote]
It could be, it remains to be seen. However, your claim that "its not"
or "cannot" be Hebrew is what was being addressed. It could be.

Sure,
[quote]written Hebrew is supposed to have roots within the proto-semitic
scripts of the region,
[/quote]
You>re confused. Hebrew is a language. "proto-semitic scripts" are
writing systems. A writing system may be used to represent a language,
or any number of languages.

but that doesn>t make those scripts "Hebrew"

It does if the script is in this case writing Hebrew. And a unique verb
in Hebrew on the shard suggests that it is Hebrew, if that proves to be
the case on further examination.

[quote]any more than the fact that you & your siblings share an ancestory
in your grandparents makes you your grandparents.
[/quote]
But that>s not the claim being made.

[quote]It>s laughable.
[/quote]
The claim is overblown, I agree, but let>s not go just as overboard the
other direction, which is what I>m trying to prevent you from doing.

imipak · Guest

On Nov 3, 9:28 pm, Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
[quote]imipak wrote:
On Nov 3, 2:52 pm, David Johnson <trolleyfan_nos...@earthlink.net
wrote:

JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e010c89d-2004-4552-86d9-b956dc071eb5
@b31g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Proto-Canaanite is an alphabet, not a region.

Man, you are retarded....

"Caananite" would either be a region or a people. Either
way, it ain>t "Hebrew."

So I guess since we>re using the Latin alphabet here, we>re all Latins....

David

I have never quite figured out why "Latin" is the name given to those
descended from the people of Latium.

Because its likely the other way round: the people gave their territory
the name Latium, because they were descendants of Latinus.

Wouldn>t Latish or Latiun be more

in keeping with convention? Of course, the first of those sounds like
someone in dodgy movies, but then so do most of the Romans described
by Roman historians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latium
[/quote]
Wikipedia sayeth:

"The name is most likely derived from the Latin word "latus", meaning
"wide", expressing the idea of "flat land" (in contrast to the local
Sabine high country) but the name may originate from an earlier, non
Indo-European one."

Thus, no Latinus. Sorry.

Matt Giwer · Guest

Jack Linthicum wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 2:37 am, Kendall K Down <webmas...@diggingsonline.com
wrote:
In message <0750e419-80a3-405b-b2d1-31f361b59...@n33g2000pri.googlegro
ups.com
Cormac <cormac.brada...@hotmail.com> wrote:

David and Solomon remain myths unles evidence for their existence is
found.
Evidence? You mean, like the Moabite Stone or the House of David
Stele?
Neither provides evidence for the existence of David or Solomon
Both refer to the "House of David", a phrase which is best explained
by postulating the existence of David.

Whoever that might be.
[/quote]
The issue is simpler. Every use of BT or BYT is a literal place to live from
house to palace to temple, from neighborhood to region. There is no use of BYT
to mean dynasty. So find out what DWD meant and it is most likely the land of
DWD.

--
The moral test of a revealed religion is if its
founder condemned the evil of slavery.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4066
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a9

JTEM · Guest

Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:

[quote]JTEM wrote:

It is true. Context, baby, context.

Even in context it remains a false statement.
[/quote]
Not at all. In fact, it>s usually considered quite dishonest
to respond to words outside of their proper context. If
you want to claim that you originally did so out of ignorance
instead of malice, fine, but that would require you to stop
doing so.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Archaeology Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 3 of 5