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

JTEM · Guest

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

[quote]JTEM wrote:

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.

That>s only the larger background of the thread.
[/quote]
No. It>s exactly what I was responding to.

[quote] The specific context to which I responded
[/quote]
Is the above.

Stop pretending otherwise. That>s dishonest.

Matt Giwer · Guest

Weland wrote:
[quote]JTEM wrote:
....
Sure,
written Hebrew is supposed to have roots within the proto-semitic
scripts of the region,

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]
Archaeologists find neither Canaanites nor Hebrews. The only source for
Hebrews is in the pack of lies called the OT among other things. That means
Hebrews are a myth until there is physical evidence of their existence.

Therefore it is not reasonable to backdate 1000BC material with a name that
will not appear in myth until centuries later.

If you do claim there is physical evidence for "hebrews" existing at the time
of this inscription (or at any time for that matter) you are free to present
it for examination and discussion.

Hint: Apiru is not hebrew absent physical evidence they both refer to the same
group.

--
God is a single parent who sent his son to earth on a suicide mission.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4065
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9

JTEM · Guest

Kendall K Down <webmas...@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

[quote]In the second place, the experts say that this particular
ostracon is in Hebrew (or possibly proto-Hebrew).
[/quote]
This isn>t true at all. It>s a bold faced lie. I know Giwer is a
worthless Nazi piece of shit, but that>s no excuse for sinking
to his level.

: This is the first time that we have a Proto-Canaanite
: inscription dated in [the context of] an archaeological
: site from the 10th century B.C.," Garfinkel said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081103-hebrew-text_2.html

: The characters are written in proto-Canaanite, a precursor
: of the Hebrew alphabet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm

Heck, even the dizziest of the bible thumpers say it is a
"proto-Caananite text"....

: Earliest known Hebrew text in Proto-Canaanite script discovered
: in area where David slew Goliath
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/thuo-ekh110208.php

Fair & Balanced, Fox "news" style....

: The shard was found near the stairs and stone washtub of an
: excavated home. It was later discovered to bear characters known
: as proto-Canaanite, a precursor of the Hebrew alphabet.
:
: The Israelites were not the only ones using the proto-Canaanite
: characters, and other scholars suggest it is difficult — perhaps
: impossible — to conclude the text is Hebrew. However,
: Garfinkel based his identification on a three-letter verb from the
: inscription meaning "to do," a word he said existed only in
: Hebrew.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvDRcyHTRV3RgDYTzWHtRJTOToMQD94589IG0

And frigging ancient Greek is a precursor to the English
Alphabet... SHEESH!

JTEM · Guest

David Johnson <trolleyfan_nos...@earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]So I guess since we>re using the Latin alphabet here,
we>re all Latins...
[/quote]
Which makes a lot more sense than, "Say, this isn>t
Hebrew, so it must be Hebrew!"

Matt Giwer · Guest

Dragonblaze wrote:
[quote]On 3 Nov, 05:24, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
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....

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]
And from the Romans we find the Kanana was the name for the peasants around
Carthage. Thus, if one wants to torture this word to be the same as Canaan
then it refers to a social class or perhaps generically to farmers.

But your memory does not recall that response posted many times.

[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]
Others called them by that name. I always phrase it as 'called themselves or
were called that by others.'

--
Of all the views of the afterlife including none at all, not a single one of
them suggests anyone dead gives a shit about being remembered.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4062
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6

Weland · Guest

Kendall K Down wrote:
[quote]In message <490e6f59$0$17068$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org
Weland <giles@poetic.com> wrote:

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.

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.
[/quote]
In the first place, there wasn>t any claim that it did, in fact the
explanation was an attempt to separate the two.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Not all experts, however. And I certainly wasn>t claiming anything
about it, much less what Giwer "thinks", I use the term loosely.

Larry Swain

Weland · Guest

imipak wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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
[quote]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]

Martin Edwards · Guest

Matt Giwer wrote:
[quote]Dragonblaze wrote:
On 3 Nov, 05:24, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
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....

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 from the Romans we find the Kanana was the name for the peasants
around Carthage. Thus, if one wants to torture this word to be the same
as Canaan then it refers to a social class or perhaps generically to
farmers.

False inference from the facts. The Romans called them "Kanana" because[/quote]
they called themselves that, and still spoke Punic, ie Canaanite, even
after the destruction of the city.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From â€œRollerballâ€

Dragonblaze · Guest

On 4 Nov, 01:20, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[snip]

[quote] And from the Romans we find the Kanana was the name for the peasants around
Carthage. Thus, if one wants to torture this word to be the same as Canaan
then it refers to a social class or perhaps generically to farmers.

But your memory does not recall that response posted many times.
[/quote]
Which would not surprise me in the slightest, since the peasants
around Carthage were of Phoenician/Punic stock (even the name of the
city is Phoenician/Canaanite, Kartihadast, 'New City') - which also
was Canaanite in origin. Did you not realize this?

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <490f9e8e$0$17052$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[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.
[/quote]
Apart, of course, from those places where BYT is used to mean
"dynasty". Remember, folks, this is Matt the Pratt, philologist
extraordinaire, the guy who thinks that "Phoenicia" is the ancient
name for "Canaan".

Ken Down

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

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <490fdb32$0$17070$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org>
Weland <giles@poetic.com> wrote:

[quote]Not all experts, however. And I certainly wasn>t claiming anything
about it, much less what Giwer "thinks", I use the term loosely.
[/quote]
Disagreement among experts is nothing new - though one thing is
certain: none of them are claiming that the language on the ostracon
is "phoenician".

I know what you mean about Matt the Pratt. Reminds me of the story of
some movie director married - I think - to Jane Mansfield. Hearing a
member of the film crew yell for powder because "Miz Mansfield>s
sweatin'" the director rebuked him: "Horses sweat, women perspire,
Miss Mansfield glows!"

How about "Scholars cogitate, people think, Matt the Pratt suffers a
brain storm"?

Ken Down

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

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <490fa0ad$0$17063$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[quote]Archaeologists find neither Canaanites nor Hebrews. The only source for
Hebrews is in the pack of lies called the OT among other things. That means
Hebrews are a myth until there is physical evidence of their existence.
[/quote]
Hey, Matt the Pratt! What happened to the Phoenicians? Or have you
decided to put a curb on your stupidity now that Dragonblaze is back?

Ken Down

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

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <490fa36d$0$17048$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[quote]And from the Romans we find the Kanana was the name for the peasants around
Carthage. Thus, if one wants to torture this word to be the same as Canaan
then it refers to a social class or perhaps generically to farmers.
[/quote]
If true - and I wouldn>t trust Matt the Pratt to know what day of the
week it is - all it proves is that the Phoenicians were known as
Canaanites. In other words, the exact opposite of what you have been
claiming.

I guess Matt the Pratt is wrong. Again.

Ken Down

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

Italo · Guest

Dragonblaze wrote:
[quote]On 4 Nov, 01:20, Matt Giwer
jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:

[snip]

And from the Romans we find the Kanana was the name for
the peasants around Carthage. Thus, if one wants to
torture this word to be the same as Canaan then it
refers to a social class or perhaps generically to
farmers.

But your memory does not recall that response posted
many times.

Which would not surprise me in the slightest, since the
peasants around Carthage were of Phoenician/Punic stock
(even the name of the city is Phoenician/Canaanite,
Kartihadast, 'New City') - which also was Canaanite in
origin. Did you not realize this?
[/quote]
The oldest part of the city, the citadel, was called Bursa.
Which is the same as Hebrew 'perazah', '(unwalled-)town'.
But, IMO, it is a loanword from Philistine, because of
similar pre-Greek toponyms.

--
Boycott American products

Michael Kuettner · Guest

"imipak" schrieb :
<snip>
[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.
[/quote]
That>s because "Latin" is the English abbreviation of the Latin form
"vir latinus" (man from Latium); or "lingua latina", the Latin language.
Latinus(,-a,-um) is an adjective.
Compare Roma and "civis Romanus" (Roman citizen).

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner


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 4 of 5