Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood

Religions > Atheism > Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 6 of 9

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Bear"
Date:	11 Oct 2005 05:16:05 AM
Object:	Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood

http://jesusneverexisted.com/babylon.htm
--
Bear
"Do good, for good is good to do; Spurn bribe of heaven and threat of hell."
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	29 Oct 2005 12:12:43 AM

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

It means there is no known example of any proto or paleo hebrew save in the minds of bible
believers. When Phoenician is found where the bible says the Judeans lived it is called proto-hebrew
instead of Phoenician when in fact both are Phoenician.

But that is a different subject.
You assert that the Greek text is the original.
That does not explain

I said thre is no evidence of an older text. You keep trying to turn it around. Stop trying to do
that.

1. the fact that the other texts are not reverse translations
2. the fact that anomalies in the NT are corrected via a reverse
translation to Aramaic

Ritual religious Hebrew existed when the Gospels were written. That says nothing about the
Septuagint which appeared four centuries before the gospels.
And also I asked you for examples of this as I have not heard this before. As I said I do know the
NT references are to the Septuagint not any Hebrew version, whenever that appeared.
--
This emergency requires we do something.
This is something.
Therefore we must do it.
That is the war on terrorism in a nutshell.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3524
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	29 Oct 2005 03:39:44 AM

Matt Giwer wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

But that is a different subject.
You assert that the Greek text is the original.
That does not explain

I said thre is no evidence of an older text. You keep trying to turn it around. Stop trying to do
that.

Then state such without suggesting that the texts come from the Greek
version and there shall be no controversy.

1. the fact that the other texts are not reverse translations
2. the fact that anomalies in the NT are corrected via a reverse
translation to Aramaic

Ritual religious Hebrew existed when the Gospels were written. That says nothing about the
Septuagint which appeared four centuries before the gospels.

it only suggests that the Egyptian Jewish audience was reading Greek as
a vernacular.
incidentally Qumran has text fragment which are practically
contemporary to the Septuagint, barely a century

And also I asked you for examples of this as I have not heard this before. As I said I do know the
NT references are to the Septuagint not any Hebrew version, whenever that appeared.

the New Testament preferring the Septuagint over the Masoretic only
tells me that the redactors were working with the Septuagint when they
decided to put together the nonsense to "prove" their Messiah.
if you notice there is much residue of the text where the speakers use
Aramaic.
`elohi elohi lama shavaktani` and `talita kumi` are unnecessary if one
is not working with an Aramaic source.
the Peshitta is Syriac and if one has made the effort to translate from
Greek to Syriac [a later dialect of Aramaic] why is it incomprehensible
to some that the original texts were in Aramaic in the first place.
i do not say those sources looked much like the Greek version with its
clumsy logical proofs trying to cite the TaNaKh in septuagint form.
One thing i will add is that the Roman Catholic pseudepigrapha contains
a sefer 'Yeshua Ben Sira' or The Wisdom of Jesus which was written in
Alexandria in Hebrew circa 180 BCE
There you have a sacred text or wisdom text in hebrew [not simply
Aramaic] possibly older than the Septuagint.
and in Alexandria the center of Jewish hellenism.
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	31 Oct 2005 02:05:52 AM

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

But that is a different subject.
You assert that the Greek text is the original.
That does not explain

I said thre is no evidence of an older text. You keep trying to turn it around. Stop trying to do
that.

Then state such without suggesting that the texts come from the Greek
version and there shall be no controversy.

No one can say that as there is no evidence for anything but the Greek being the original. Stating
facts does not require leaving open the possibility of baseless traditions.

1. the fact that the other texts are not reverse translations
2. the fact that anomalies in the NT are corrected via a reverse
translation to Aramaic

Ritual religious Hebrew existed when the Gospels were written. That says nothing about the
Septuagint which appeared four centuries before the gospels.

it only suggests that the Egyptian Jewish audience was reading Greek as
a vernacular.

There is also nothing but "tradition" saying the origin of the Septuagint is Alexandria so you have
no basis for that statement.

incidentally Qumran has text fragment which are practically
contemporary to the Septuagint, barely a century

Contemporary and "barely a century" are rather an eternity in dating ancient materials these days.
And nothing dates older then the 1st c. BC whereas the Septuagint is 3rd c. BC. Some have _argued_
that a fragment or two can be _seen to be_ older than mid 1st c. BC no evidence supports it.

And also I asked you for examples of this as I have not heard this before. As I said I do know the
NT references are to the Septuagint not any Hebrew version, whenever that appeared.

As with most religious works what is "says" is in the eye of the believer or unbeliever in your case.

if you notice there is much residue of the text where the speakers use Aramaic.
`elohi elohi lama shavaktani` and `talita kumi` are unnecessary if one
is not working with an Aramaic source.

If I look that up I will also identify which of the accepted four gospels was written in Aramaic.
All the gospels including the accepted four differ markedly in details.
But as I said we have no quibble if it is Aramaic.

the Peshitta is Syriac and if one has made the effort to translate from
Greek to Syriac [a later dialect of Aramaic] why is it incomprehensible
to some that the original texts were in Aramaic in the first place.

And what do later and datable translations have to do with the subject?

i do not say those sources looked much like the Greek version with its
clumsy logical proofs trying to cite the TaNaKh in septuagint form.
One thing i will add is that the Roman Catholic pseudepigrapha contains
a sefer 'Yeshua Ben Sira' or The Wisdom of Jesus which was written in
Alexandria in Hebrew circa 180 BCE

The RC material is replete with well known forgeries.

There you have a sacred text or wisdom text in hebrew [not simply
Aramaic] possibly older than the Septuagint.

Off by a some 70 years in any event.

and in Alexandria the center of Jewish hellenism.

That is often considered a tradition.
--
Italian-American cooking. Anything with pasta and too much oregano.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3514
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	01 Nov 2005 02:13:48 AM

Matt Giwer wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

But that is a different subject.
You assert that the Greek text is the original.
That does not explain

I said thre is no evidence of an older text. You keep trying to turn it around. Stop trying to do
that.

Then state such without suggesting that the texts come from the Greek
version and there shall be no controversy.

No one can say that as there is no evidence for anything but the Greek being the original. Stating
facts does not require leaving open the possibility of baseless traditions.

Have you been up to date on all the fragments of hebrew texts
discovered during last century ?
No sarcasm intended.

1. the fact that the other texts are not reverse translations
2. the fact that anomalies in the NT are corrected via a reverse
translation to Aramaic

Ritual religious Hebrew existed when the Gospels were written. That says nothing about the
Septuagint which appeared four centuries before the gospels.

it only suggests that the Egyptian Jewish audience was reading Greek as
a vernacular.

There is also nothing but "tradition" saying the origin of the Septuagint is Alexandria so you have
no basis for that statement.

i do not mind if we assume the earlier Septuagint is a product of Syria
or Anatolia or even Jerusalem.
the Apocryphal text ben Sira talks about the seferot so they existed

incidentally Qumran has text fragment which are practically
contemporary to the Septuagint, barely a century

No that is false ; Qumran fragments precede the currently agreed date
of Septuagint

And also I asked you for examples of this as I have not heard this before. As I said I do know the
NT references are to the Septuagint not any Hebrew version, whenever that appeared.

As with most religious works what is "says" is in the eye of the believer or unbeliever in your case.

again the contents are not the issue beyond the fact that we are
talking about a hebrew torah existing prior to septuagint
and * especially * the Septuagint you obviously have in mind when
referring to NT,
but i assume you mean the earlier one here in this context

if you notice there is much residue of the text where the speakers use Aramaic.
`elohi elohi lama shavaktani` and `talita kumi` are unnecessary if one
is not working with an Aramaic source.

Luke is not and neither would be John, just look at the nomenclature
being used and the main message being Greek
the question would be of Matthew and that is sufficient

And what do later and datable translations have to do with the subject?

point would be if the Greek language was the language of the source
authors the Syriac version would be a project in itself.
if such a project is undertaken to rewrite the Greek sources in Syriac
the same is also possible for a project to rewrite the Aramaic sources
in Greek.

i do not say those sources looked much like the Greek version with its
clumsy logical proofs trying to cite the TaNaKh in septuagint form.

One thing i will add is that the Roman Catholic pseudepigrapha contains
a sefer 'Yeshua Ben Sira' or The Wisdom of Jesus which was written in
Alexandria in Hebrew circa 180 BCE

The RC material is replete with well known forgeries.

would and do agree with you there but this is not the question.
NT is part forgery part redaction
not a complete forgery out of thin air.
take for example the Ossuary of Yaqov forgery in recent years.
people are able to show it is nonsense because we have a knowledge of
what is going on in first century Jerusalem.
which is why the NT blunders reveal the ignorance of the NT redactors
who mistakenly translate from an Aramaic source the wrong words into
Greek.

There you have a sacred text or wisdom text in hebrew [not simply
Aramaic] possibly older than the Septuagint.

Off by a some 70 years in any event.

is this nonsense? "It is now well known that the fragment which Mrs
Agnes Lewis showed Schechter in May 1896, and which inspired his
expedition to Egypt, was a tenth-century Hebrew version of the
Apocryphal book of Ben Sira (or Ecclesiasticus), first written in the
second century BCE.
Schechter surmised that if more such texts reflecting an early Hebrew
style could be discovered, it would provide convincing evidence of the
widespread use of an authentic Hebrew Ben Sira and refute the theory of
some of his contemporaries that the Greek text was nearer the author's
original.
So many more fragments came to light that Taylor and Schechter were
able to publish a restored Hebrew edition of the book in Cambridge in
1899 and a handsome portfolio of beautifully produced facsimiles two
years later."
[source http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/GF/3/ ]

and in Alexandria the center of Jewish hellenism.

That is often considered a tradition.

well i do not know which you mean -- hellenism in Alexandria or the
location of the authorship
if the location of the authorship is in Jerusalem as the text itself
claims that is fine
if you mean that Alexandria was the centre of Jewish hellenism there is
no doubt about that whatsoever one need merely note the enormous
population of Jews there
back to the point:
fragments of a hebrew text which references hebrew seferot in sequence
now understood today as hebrew canon
.

User: "havoc"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	31 Oct 2005 06:48:27 AM

Matt Giwer wrote:
If I'm getting this right, it appears that your debate partner is trying
to foist upon everyone the notion that Matthew was originally written in
Aramaic. While wishful thinking might be his motive, there is no such
text in existance nor any evidence for it.
All claims in this regard that I've witnessed have been based around an
attempt to do away with the Petra vs. Petros differences inherent both
in Greek and Chaldee if Chaldee were used. There is also the implicit
claim that Aramaic doesn't preserve such a difference because it has a
generic sense of Kephas with no accompanying word to differentiate as in
the Greek. My response to that would be most enthusiastically - Hogwash!
http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi
Punch Mountain in, which is one of the definitions of the Petra form,
it is there in Aramaic. Cliff is as well. So there is no way of
arguing that Aramaic doesn't provide the provision seen in the Greek.
That would seem to cut off further attempts at this nonsense.
It amazes me the things stated by the RC clergy from the top down that
they think people are too ignorant to find out if they bother looking.
Apparently the hope is that no one will bother looking - as I've found
to be the case when discussing other matters.
As for references begging the LXX for authority, WHICH LXX? There are
Multiple versions all different in their makeup and there are no known
copies of the originals. What's more, the existing copies contain
the Apocryphals or "deuterocanon" while the Jews state factually that
those books were NEVER part of the Jewish Canon. It isn't a matter of
them having been and then later removed. They never were part of canon.
That suggests some skullduggery has gone on that would account for the
Jews getting out of sort early on.
Further, I've stated here in this NG something that should be obvious to
all as the RC church has been forced at long last to admit it - there
was no council of Jamnia. I bothered to do the legwork on that myself
and consulted Proper Jewish authority on the matter going through JLI,
IRL, Chabad and other sources to confirm. Not only was there no council
at Yavneh in 90-92ad, the canon was not touched by the rabbis of Yavneh
either to include or exclude works. Canon was set more than two
centuries prior and they state emphatically that the Talmud notes this
in several places explicitly. Jewish Canon was completed and Closed
more than a century before Christ and the Apocrypha was not part of it.
Moreover, My sources state that the majority of Rabbis state the
Apocrypha should not even be read. Has nothing to do with Christianity,
and everything to do with the fact that those books violate the old
covenant directly. The apocryphals presume to be old covenant works.
On that basis they fall to Jewish authority per God as Paul notes.
The bottom line there is that Rome may have included the Apocryphals in
their canon; but, it is illegitimate as they have no authority on the OT
canon. That authority rests with the Jews and they said flatly "no way".
I don't know if this helps any. But there it is.
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	31 Oct 2005 11:48:49 PM

havoc wrote:

I am not certain what he is after as he is responding to my statement that by the physical evidence
the Septuagint is the original Old Testament. There is only argumentation and "scholarly insights"
saying it is a translation and one line from Josephus three centuries later saying it is a translation.
I have already stated the even if one of the gospels is in Aramaic it does not matter in the least
to what I said about the Septuagint.
As to a gospel being in Aramaic, original and believed to be oldest version are entirely different
things.
I appreciate all the rest you added but it is something else entirely.
....

As for references begging the LXX for authority, WHICH LXX? There are
Multiple versions all different in their makeup and there are no known
copies of the originals. What's more, the existing copies contain
the Apocryphals or "deuterocanon" while the Jews state factually that
those books were NEVER part of the Jewish Canon. It isn't a matter of
them having been and then later removed. They never were part of canon.
That suggests some skullduggery has gone on that would account for the
Jews getting out of sort early on.

Which one? Pick one. As to a jewish canon, that is later opinion after the idea of having a "canon"
was introduced by the Christians. Judaism abandoned the clear reading of the OT to claim monotheism
only after Christians did and the Kaballah and a couple other sects are admittedly still polytheist.
They were seeking converts as hard as Christians but finally gave up the effort around 600 AD. Look
at the book about Hamen, no mention of god at all so the original purpose of creating the Septuagint
was not as a religious work but a "people" work.

Further, I've stated here in this NG something that should be obvious to
all as the RC church has been forced at long last to admit it - there
was no council of Jamnia. I bothered to do the legwork on that myself
and consulted Proper Jewish authority on the matter going through JLI,
IRL, Chabad and other sources to confirm. Not only was there no council
at Yavneh in 90-92ad, the canon was not touched by the rabbis of Yavneh
either to include or exclude works. Canon was set more than two
centuries prior and they state emphatically that the Talmud notes this
in several places explicitly. Jewish Canon was completed and Closed
more than a century before Christ and the Apocrypha was not part of it.
Moreover, My sources state that the majority of Rabbis state the
Apocrypha should not even be read. Has nothing to do with Christianity,
and everything to do with the fact that those books violate the old
covenant directly. The apocryphals presume to be old covenant works.
On that basis they fall to Jewish authority per God as Paul notes.

I never heard that rumor but good to know to discount it if I do. The priest network in Judea was
still in power and Bar Kochba and competitors were vieing to be annointed Messiah by the chief
priest and there were competitors for chief priest.
So far as I can tell the "rabbinical tradition" was backdated to several centuries prior to the
destruction of Jerusalem for the sake of authority. External reference to them is absent.

The bottom line there is that Rome may have included the Apocryphals in
their canon; but, it is illegitimate as they have no authority on the OT
canon. That authority rests with the Jews and they said flatly "no way".
I don't know if this helps any. But there it is.

If by Apocryphals you mean the Macabes, that appears to be the best guess as to who created the OT
Septuagint.
--
Bush denies torturing prisoners and opposes any law prohibiting it.
Is this supposed to make sense?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3521
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	01 Nov 2005 01:01:55 AM

Matt Giwer wrote:

havoc wrote:

???
the bottom line is that the sources are Aramaic and/or Hebrew.
there is sufficient evidence in the texts themselves, four cases you
were given.

I have already stated the even if one of the gospels is in Aramaic it does not matter in the least
to what I said about the Septuagint.

you didn't define septuagint and there are two as you know,
but it was not necessary for you to state such since you explicitly
referred to the NT quotations which would have been the later and *
younger * "septuagint."

As to a gospel being in Aramaic, original and believed to be oldest version are entirely different
things.

no one said "The Gospel" being in Aramaic and if you want to split
hairs in an effort for precision then that is inaccurate.
Luke is Greek.
Mattityahu is definitely from an Aramaic or Hebrew source.

"deuterocanon" while the Jews state factually that
those books were NEVER part of the Jewish Canon. It isn't a matter of
them having been and then later removed. They never were part of canon.
That suggests some skullduggery has gone on that would account for the
Jews getting out of sort early on.

but the significant piece of data there is that circa 180 BCE - 135 BCE
during the same time the so-called Septuagint is being invented or
translated, whichever theory one prefers, you have a writer in Hebrew
referring to the seferot in sequence.
This indicates there was a canon of Hebrew scripture prior to that
date.
and it was in Hebrew.

Moreover, My sources state that the majority of Rabbis state the
Apocrypha should not even be read. Has nothing to do with Christianity,
and everything to do with the fact that those books violate the old
covenant directly. The apocryphals presume to be old covenant works.
On that basis they fall to Jewish authority per God as Paul notes.

I never heard that rumor but good to know to discount it if I do. The priest network in Judea was
still in power and Bar Kochba and competitors were vieing to be annointed Messiah by the chief
priest and there were competitors for chief priest.

So far as I can tell the "rabbinical tradition" was backdated to several centuries prior to the
destruction of Jerusalem for the sake of authority. External reference to them is absent.

I don't know if this helps any. But there it is.

If by Apocryphals you mean the Macabes, that appears to be the best guess as to who created the OT
Septuagint.

Whether the pseudepigrapha is "legitimate" or not is another subject.
The existence of the text in Hebrew referring to seferot which are in
the sequence of the Jewish canon is evidence of a Hebrew scripture with
a Hebrew religion as we know it forming `torah` circa 180 BCE, which
fragments are found as forensic evidence.
you can pick up the trail here and see where it leads
Genizah fragment
http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/bSira.html
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	02 Nov 2005 02:29:03 AM

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

havoc wrote:

the bottom line is that the sources are Aramaic and/or Hebrew.
there is sufficient evidence in the texts themselves, four cases you
were given.

This is dragging on way to fucking long and going way far afield. Lets get it back to the basics.
Every researcher into the origin of the OT including those in universities in Israel at least
agrees is was first written no earlier than the 7th c. BC. They also agree all the famous stories
such as Abraham, Moses, Biblical Israel with David and Solomon and his temple are mythical.
So the only thing I am doing is moving the date of the creation of these myths to the 3rd c. BC
based upon the only existing physical evidence.
So our entire disagreement is when the myths were created, 7th or 3rd century in this case.
Unless you have a disgreement with Israeli university researchers and are ready to argue your case
with them to make it older than 7th c. then lets just deal with the only disagreement between us.
And as those Israelis also say the Judean religion arose from an indiginous people unless you are
disagreeing with them we have no disagreement at all as they would have used Phonicians as their
written language. And as Phoenician was replaced by Greek we would expect the earliest written form
to be either Phoenician or Greek. I simply say it was Greek and give a time frame based upon
physical evidence.
My only disagreement with the Israeli university pros is who created the original and if they are
willing to come online here I ready to debate the matter with them. As my premise is physical
evidence they will have an uphill fight to establish argumentation as legitimate.
So lets get this back to the only issue of interest, when it was created.
It is solemnly religious to claim the original was in a Hebrew language which has only one example
of existing, the hebrew bible and no place else. I am certain I can get a billion christians to
affirm the new testament was written in Latin but that is a matter of education.
--
Being drunk for decades causes no longterm harm.
Look at Dubya Bush and see for yourself.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3504
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	02 Nov 2005 02:54:38 AM

Matt Giwer wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

havoc wrote:

the bottom line is that the sources are Aramaic and/or Hebrew.
there is sufficient evidence in the texts themselves, four cases you
were given.

No the disagreement is (1) on the earliest date for a hebrew torah and
(2) whether Mattityahu is redacted from an Aramaic source.
regarding No. 1 the existence of hebrew fragments belonging to an
Apocryphal text place a hebrew canon excluding Nevi'im at minimum 200
BCE.
regarding No. 2 the Greek forger or redactor made errors and
mistranslated the Aramaic source

Unless you have a disgreement with Israeli university researchers and are ready to argue your case
with them to make it older than 7th c. then lets just deal with the only disagreement between us.

i never made claims of such they are in your imagination
even the Nevi'im text itself claims the torah was missing for more than
50 years until a kohan found it circa 625 BCE according to the
chronology of the text itself.
this is another subject and not what i was addressing.

And as those Israelis also say the Judean religion arose from an indiginous people unless you are
disagreeing with them we have no disagreement at all as they would have used Phonicians as their
written language. And as Phoenician was replaced by Greek we would expect the earliest written form
to be either Phoenician or Greek. I simply say it was Greek and give a time frame based upon
physical evidence.

My only disagreement with the Israeli university pros is who created the original and if they are
willing to come online here I ready to debate the matter with them. As my premise is physical
evidence they will have an uphill fight to establish argumentation as legitimate.

So lets get this back to the only issue of interest, when it was created.

It is solemnly religious to claim the original was in a Hebrew language which has only one example
of existing, the hebrew bible and no place else. I am certain I can get a billion christians to
affirm the new testament was written in Latin but that is a matter of education.

1. Qumran fragments older than the TaNaKh version of the Septuagint
2. fragments contemporary to or older than the torah version of the
Septuagint which refer to a hebrew torah canon in the sequence we know
today
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	04 Nov 2005 03:05:04 AM

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

havoc wrote:

the bottom line is that the sources are Aramaic and/or Hebrew.
there is sufficient evidence in the texts themselves, four cases you
were given.

No the disagreement is (1) on the earliest date for a hebrew torah and

There is no disagreement regarding the earliest EVIDENCE for the Hebrew Torah and the Greek Torah.
The Greek is earlier.

(2) whether Mattityahu is redacted from an Aramaic source.

That is immaterial to the Septuagint issue.

regarding No. 1 the existence of hebrew fragments belonging to an
Apocryphal text place a hebrew canon excluding Nevi'im at minimum 200
BCE.

That is not the Torah and it is still not as old as the Septuagint. And can you give a citation for
this? Many things are grossly overstated so I would like to read the original claim. You must know
the citation to have made the statement without qualifications.

regarding No. 2 the Greek forger or redactor made errors and
mistranslated the Aramaic source

Again, nothing to do with the Septuagint.

Unless you have a disgreement with Israeli university researchers and are ready to argue your case
with them to make it older than 7th c. then lets just deal with the only disagreement between us.

And the credible source for this claim is? Let me guess, it is the "TRADITION" that Leviticus was
found in the niche in the walls of the mythical temple of the mythical Solomon in that year. Right?

And as those Israelis also say the Judean religion arose from an indiginous people unless you are
disagreeing with them we have no disagreement at all as they would have used Phonicians as their
written language. And as Phoenician was replaced by Greek we would expect the earliest written form
to be either Phoenician or Greek. I simply say it was Greek and give a time frame based upon
physical evidence.
My only disagreement with the Israeli university pros is who created the original and if they are
willing to come online here I ready to debate the matter with them. As my premise is physical
evidence they will have an uphill fight to establish argumentation as legitimate.
So lets get this back to the only issue of interest, when it was created.
It is solemnly religious to claim the original was in a Hebrew language which has only one example
of existing, the hebrew bible and no place else. I am certain I can get a billion christians to
affirm the new testament was written in Latin but that is a matter of education.

1. Qumran fragments older than the TaNaKh version of the Septuagint

Even your claim of something other than the Torah being 200 BC is at least 50 years more recent.
Speaking of "fragments" is also amusing. There is some c. 600 BC silver scroll with "may his light
shine upon me" or some such which is taken as Israelite because it is found in bibleland. But it is
a variant on a well known incantation to Ra.

2. fragments contemporary to or older than the torah version of the
Septuagint which refer to a hebrew torah canon in the sequence we know
today

You will have to be the first to produce citations of that specific material. And while you are at
it, send the information to the researchers in Israel so they can benefit from your superior knowledge.
--
Arrakis is Iraq and the spice is oil.
Iraq is Arrakis and oil is the spice.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3516
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
.

User: "havoc"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	07 Nov 2005 12:09:24 AM

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

the bottom line is that the sources are Aramaic and/or Hebrew.
there is sufficient evidence in the texts themselves, four cases you
were given.

There is evidence that the writer decided to include statements in
Aramaic. That is all there is evidence of.

Uh, per my reading there are at least three and possibly Four. None of
them share the same table of contents. They are all different.
Further, there is no extant original; but, given that the Apocryphals
were never canon, the originals would not have included the apocryphals.

Luke is Greek.

Mattityahu is definitely from an Aramaic or Hebrew source.

There is no "definitely" about it. It may lend itself well to
translation to or from said language; but absent an aramaic or
chaldee original, you're just touting your favored dream version of
what the facts would be if you could have your way. That isn't honest.

but the significant piece of data there is that circa 180 BCE - 135 BCE
during the same time the so-called Septuagint is being invented or
translated, whichever theory one prefers, you have a writer in Hebrew
referring to the seferot in sequence.

This indicates there was a canon of Hebrew scripture prior to that
date.

and it was in Hebrew.

True. The Jewish canon was Hebrew. Therein is your problem. They
never included NT works or the deuterocanon as Jewish scripture. That
leaves you without an argument.

Whether the pseudepigrapha is "legitimate" or not is another subject.

The existence of the text in Hebrew referring to seferot which are in
the sequence of the Jewish canon is evidence of a Hebrew scripture with
a Hebrew religion as we know it forming `torah` circa 180 BCE, which
fragments are found as forensic evidence.

The torah didn't include Christian Gospels - ever. It was only OT
works. That's what you'd seem to be missing.

you can pick up the trail here and see where it leads
Genizah fragment
http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/bSira.html

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	07 Nov 2005 01:45:38 AM

havoc wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

the bottom line is that the sources are Aramaic and/or Hebrew.
there is sufficient evidence in the texts themselves, four cases you
were given.

There is evidence that the writer decided to include statements in
Aramaic. That is all there is evidence of.

False. There are anomalies where the only clean solution is via a
reverse translation to Aramaic.
at minimum Mattityahu source is Aramaic or Hebrew, more likely the
former.

The purpose of my statement is to make distinction between two texts
which are often confused as "The Septuagint" when more accurately the
Septuagint referred to the Greek Pentateuch.
The `nevi'im` and `ketuvim` were not available in Greek until much
later,
and yet Ben Sira refers to these seferot collections.

Luke is Greek.

Mattityahu is definitely from an Aramaic or Hebrew source.

if i am in doubt and trying to be a lawyer with an exit chute then i
would say such ; i am not in doubt and even if i were wrong that is
irrelevant to my honesty.
there are other reasons why i assert that it is in Aramaic source
especially where the text abruptly shifts context it seems obvious that
the Greek translator is now inserting his "proofs" for the non-Jewish
version of Messiah.
in any case you are correct that an Aramaic fragment would end the
controversy but texts reveal these things themselves sufficiently in
the absence of such forensic evidence

but the significant piece of data there is that circa 180 BCE - 135 BCE
during the same time the so-called Septuagint is being invented or
translated, whichever theory one prefers, you have a writer in Hebrew
referring to the seferot in sequence.

This indicates there was a canon of Hebrew scripture prior to that
date.

and it was in Hebrew.

True. The Jewish canon was Hebrew. Therein is your problem. They
never included NT works or the deuterocanon as Jewish scripture. That
leaves you without an argument.

i have no idea what you are talking about ; my above statement is to
point out that a work in Hebrew refers to the Hebrew seferot we now
know as TaNaKh.
you have a Hebrew canon preceding Greek versions which are obvious
translations, they are not even in the vernacular of Hellenist Egypt.

Whether the pseudepigrapha is "legitimate" or not is another subject.

The existence of the text in Hebrew referring to seferot which are in
the sequence of the Jewish canon is evidence of a Hebrew scripture with
a Hebrew religion as we know it forming `torah` circa 180 BCE, which
fragments are found as forensic evidence.

The torah didn't include Christian Gospels - ever. It was only OT
works. That's what you'd seem to be missing.

above was not referring to NT
but since you raise the aspect of the NT, the quotations in the NT from
the Greek to prop the Messiah are plucked out of a Greek text much
later than "The" Septuagint

you can pick up the trail here and see where it leads
Genizah fragment
http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/bSira.html

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	07 Nov 2005 03:13:25 AM

they are not even in the vernacular of Hellenist Egypt.

well that is not entirely accurate ; they are in koine Greek but
reflect an underlying text source in Aramaic or Hebrew
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	07 Nov 2005 10:18:50 PM

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

they are not even in the vernacular of Hellenist Egypt.

well that is not entirely accurate ; they are in koine Greek but
reflect an underlying text source in Aramaic or Hebrew

That is the assertion of a fact not in evidence.
--
Thou shalt not suffer a communist to live.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3531
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	07 Nov 2005 11:32:11 PM

Matt Giwer wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

they are not even in the vernacular of Hellenist Egypt.

well that is not entirely accurate ; they are in koine Greek but
reflect an underlying text source in Aramaic or Hebrew

That is the assertion of a fact not in evidence.

There is little i can do for you now if you think Hellenists in Egypt
were speaking a type of Greek Yiddish peppered with the Hebrew
transliterations all over the Septuagint.
The source of the Septuagint Pentateuch is Hebrew.
And besides Ben Sira fragment there is even a circa 600 BCE excerpt of
torah sefer Bemidbar.
The Hebrew torah and Ketuvim and Nevi'im with the exception of a few
seferot such as Daniel precede the Septuagint * translation. *
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	09 Nov 2005 12:16:29 AM

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

they are not even in the vernacular of Hellenist Egypt.

well that is not entirely accurate ; they are in koine Greek but
reflect an underlying text source in Aramaic or Hebrew

That is the assertion of a fact not in evidence.

There is little i can do for you now if you think Hellenists in Egypt
were speaking a type of Greek Yiddish peppered with the Hebrew
transliterations all over the Septuagint.

The source of the Septuagint Pentateuch is Hebrew.

And besides Ben Sira fragment there is even a circa 600 BCE excerpt of
torah sefer Bemidbar.

The Hebrew torah and Ketuvim and Nevi'im with the exception of a few
seferot such as Daniel precede the Septuagint * translation. *

As one example ...
HEBREW IS GREEK
THE WORK OF JOSEPH YAHUDA
A book that "mysteriously disappeared" soon after its publication.
In 1982, a suppressed, ages-old, historical truth, was resurrected through
the publication of a book by Becket Publications of Oxford, England (ISBN O
7289 0013 O). The book, published in English, and titled Hebrew is Greek,
was written by lawyer, linguist and researcher, Joseph Yahuda, the son of
Isaac Benjamin Ezekiel Yahuda, an ethnic Jew and longtime researcher and
linguist. Though Jewish both by nationality and religion, J. Yahuda could be
considered a Greek-- according to Isocrates' definition of a Hellene [see
definition below. ed.], since his decades-long, unbiased, and meticulously
thorough search reveals the linguistic relationship of numerous groups of
words in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic. Work that was published without fear or
hesitation by a scholar whose only concern was for the discovery of the
truth.
Following the book's publication, and while only a limited number of copies
circulated for a few fortunate individuals, the book disappeared from the
face of the earth. It was as if an invisible hand intervened and blocked its
circulation. It cannot be found at any public library, it is not sold at any
bookstore on earth, not even in a curiosity or antique shop. [Rare book
dealers, in the U.S. and the U.K., have told TGR that there have been
inquiries after the book, but that they have been unable to locate a copy
anywhere. ed.] The only information available about the book throughout the
world is its title. No book reviews on this book were ever published,
neither positive nor negative, moderate or offensive. Nor, it seems, has
there been any other evaluation of the work. One must eventually come to the
inescapable conclusion that every one of the copies originally published was
somehow withdrawn through some sort of a secret operation with a global
reach.
Concerns posed by another Jewish intellectual who wrote the preface of the
book.
The research published in the book covers 718 pages. The introduction was
written by Jewish professor Saul Levin, though no enthusiasm on his part was
evident in his introduction. He admits that following the 1977 publication
of his book entitled, The Indo-European and Semitic Languages, J. Yahuda got
in touch with him, and they maintained a fruitful relationship through
correspondence, though they never actually met in person. The reason for the
interest in J. Yahuda expressed by S. Levin, as he himself confessed, was
the publication of several writings by J. Yahuda, such as the La Palestine
Revisite, written in 1928, Law and Life According to Hebrew Thought (1932)
and This Democracy (n.d.), published by Pitman. Professor Levin learned of
the contents of the book [from the proofs which were sent to him from time
to time] for which he wrote the introduction gradually, as it had already
been sent to the printer. As Professor Levin disclosed: "It was J. Yahuda's
congeniality and my inherent curiosity that did not allow me to refuse the
writing of the introduction." [For a better understanding as to why
Professor Levin was not enthusiastic about writing the introduction,
consider the fact that] the black Jew, Martin Bernal, has stated: "Saul
Levin was among the many Jewish individuals who worked on the publication of
[my] book, Black Athena." A book which has been deemed to be a disgrace and
a discredit to serious scholarship by the vast majority of specialists who
have read it.
Joseph Yahuda speaks about his work
In the preface of his book, J. Yahuda notes:
This ecumenical research will be reviewed by three separate specialists, one
for each language researched, although each specialist does have knowledge
of the other two languages. This is not an error committed only by me. I
attempted repeatedly, yet unsuccessfully, to find more scholars who would be
willing to assist me in my quests. As an example of what I was up against,
at the very beginning of an hours-long meeting, one potential colleague
exclaimed: "All of this is garbage and we are all wasting our time." My
answer was: "Both you, and I, will be judged for the words we say, whenever
we discuss my work." I hold no hostility or bitterness because of such
small-minded opposition to my belief. In fact, during the progress of my
research, I twice attempted to arouse [this man's] interest, but in vain. A
little while after the meeting referred to above, I mentioned his degrading
comment to Christodoulos Hourmouzios, a graduate of the University of
Athens, and an acknowledged specialist on Homer, and he said: ' I think you
are one of the greatest linguists I know'; he promised complete cooperation
with me. Unfortunately, before we could begin our work, he passed away.
"There were others who admitted that they had been convinced; that something
did really exist in my theory. However, they did think that my belief in the
correspondence of Hebrew with Greek was rather exaggerated. They said I was
too ambitious, and suggested, for my own good, that I expect less and adopt
a 'less controversial view.' One of them, Sir Leon Simon (A British Lord of
Jewish descent), a known classicist who knew Hebrew, attended my first
lecture on the issue on the evening of Jan. 14th, 1959.He did this even
though he was old and had to travel a long distance in bad weather and heavy
fog. He introduced me, briefly and carefully, not wanting to commit himself
to any decision until the end of my speech. Then, before the audience was
asked to pose questions, he said the following, which I noted: 'I don't
believe that everyone will agree with everything J. Yahuda has told us, as
he may have thought that everyone understood what he was saying. Despite any
doubts that may exist, I am sure of one thing. He has resolved a mystery
that had created confusion for scholars for the past 2.000 years. For, if he
is correct in stating that many Greek words that begin with sk were
transformed in Hebrew as if sk was a digraph [a combination of two letters
to make one simple sound. ed.], or one of the two letters lost, then Homer
was not wrong when he left the vrachi [ abbreviated ] vowel at the beginning
of the word Skamandros, as in his famous line: 'On Cantho%n kaleousi theoi%,
a%ndre*s de Ska%mandron'. [The Gods called Xanthos, mortal men Skamandros.
ed.] I also had a fruitful interview with a scholar of international fame,
which was then followed by a series of exchanges of correspondence. This
correspondence ceased after he sent me a note, wherein he wrote: 'It could
also be possible that you would say that the English word ball comes from
the Greek ba%llw, or that you discover a connection between chow and show
since chows are exhibited at shows.
"The result was that I was obliged to fall back on my own sources, and to
depend only on my own efforts, thus devoting my free time to this research
for the past 30 years or more. Two things kept me going: the unfailing
support of my wife, Cecile, and the unprecedented emotions we felt with
every new discovery. When my wife was asked by a friend how she was sure of
my work, since she knew neither Greek nor Hebrew, she answered: 'But, I know
my husband. He hates speculating, he always insists on finding proof. As a
lawyer, he is able to evaluate this proof. He tells me that he has plenty of
proof that is convincing, and I believe him.' There is truly a plethora of
'proof that is convincing' which I have attempted to make available, not
only to those technically specialized, but also to interested,
non-specialist researchers."
Yahuda realizes the significance of Greek Civilization
"I was somewhat familiar with the Bible, as stated above. My brother,
Solomon, and I learned the New Testament in Hebrew translation from a copy
that my father had, as part of his personal library. For years, the distant
Biblical past was alive in my mind: I lived with the vision of the pyramids
to such an extent, and my passion for the Bible was so great, that I
developed hostile feelings for the Greeks and Romans. Strangely, this
hostility did not involve the Egyptians, who were our enemies, had been the
enemies of our forefathers and had so deeply influenced post-Biblical
Hebrew. Neither had I been able to learn more than the necessary Latin
needed for my law education and practice. However, my feelings for the
Greeks and Romans have changed radically since then. Now I realize that our
differences were similar to those of a civil war, as fratricidal as the
taking of Troy had been, for I became convinced that the Jews are of Greek
descent. This revolutionary transformation took place around the time I was
thirty years old, following the publishing of my book Law and Life according
to Hebrew Thought. That year (1932), I became interested in biology as a
'hobby'. During my haphazard study of the issue, I came across various Greek
words that were strikingly similar to the Hebrew words of the Bible, and I
drew the conclusion that the Greeks had borrowed them from us. I began
debating the idea of whether or not I should one day begin a systematic
comparison of the two languages. At that time, I was still fascinated with
the more traditional studies, and, like everyone else, I believed without a
doubt that the Semitic languages were Semitic and the Aryan languages were
Aryan. These two could not be mixed. At the same time, though, I was
thinking that it would be interesting to collect anddeconstruct a complete
list of groups of similar words so as to demonstrate the degree of influence
of Hebrew on Greek at the time before Alexander the Great (considering that
the reverse influence became stronger following his conquests). I knew very
little of where this research would lead me and what the results would show.
"I had such little knowledge of Greek that all I knew were the first letters
of the alphabet, knowledge that I had acquired by chance during my studies
of mathematics and geometry. I remember asking my friend Gerald Emanuel, in
a teashop in 1932, to write the whole Greek alphabet on the bottom of a
half-written page. The years passed, but when I published my book Biology
and New Medicine in 1951, I then had the opportunity to spend all of my free
time on researching those possible links that I suspected existed between
Biblical Hebrew and Greek. Following the acquisition of some rudimentary
knowledge of Greek grammar, I submerged into the translation of the
Septuagint, solely based on my memory of the meaning of the numerous pages
that I had chosen to read. Then I read Homer, comparing him to the Bible.
One page from the translation of the Iliad, one page from the Old Testament,
line for line, page by page; I started with Genesis and the first book of
the Iliad, along with the last book of the Odyssey and the 2nd book of
'Chronicles.' Day after day, the list of similar words grew longer, until it
reached 600 words -- including words related to different views and
activities of life -- which could not be attributed only to the borrowing
factor. In any case, history has not witnessed circumstances where such
elaborate borrowing would be possible on such a large scale. I was convinced
that this phenomenon went past the limits of borrowing, reaching the limits
of a genetic relationship. The door of genealogical descent stood before me
and I could not attempt to pass through it or climb above it. It should open
freely and widely and the key to this was the grammar. The only grammatical
characteristics that I knew of that were common to both Greek and Hebrew,
concerned the definite article and the dual number nouns [count nouns. ed.].
I stopped reading and began thinking and re-thinking the results of my
non-processed research. I used the materials I had: analyzing, classifying,
comparing these with the Biblical variations and the dialectic interchanges
of the Greek letters, selecting specific words to be compared. Thus, my
theory began to develop. Some of the Greek dialectic letters could be used
interchangeably, such as the letters 'k' and 't', 'o' and 'a', 's' and 'd.'
I also noted a curious transformation with Hebrew words: a suffix to a Greek
word changed to a prefix in a Hebrew word. Early on during my research, I
tested the exactness of the words and verified their meanings. As the number
of tests increased, the more effective my research became, and the
confidence in my theory rose.
"From the beginning, I based a lot of my work on Arabic. With my theory, it
became possible for me to correct the translation of the Septuagint, using
the Septuagint and the translation of the Bible, using the Bible. These
discoveries cured me of my dyslexia in relationship to Greek and Hebrew and
made me capable of reading a Hebrew word as if it had been a variation of
the word. I formed a series of phonetic and morphology rules. I gradually
gathered a number of valuable facts. Some examples are that the declension
dotiki [dative] exists in Hebrew, that the masculine plural is the same in
Hebrew and Greek, and that, in general, a compound Greek verb is equivalent
to a Hebrew compound verb. I estimate that 9 out of each 10 words of the
[Jewish] Bible can be proved to have a purely Greek equivalent. Many issues
were resolved which prove that the Greeks and Jews hold some customs and
religious convictions in common, whereas the Hebrew language is proven to be
richer and more beautiful than believed until today because of the existence
of these groups of words. This whole matter is, in practice, consistent with
the following two proposals: Biblical Hebrew is Greek; and, the Jews are
Asian Greeks. In reality, the conclusion of this massive, extended and
complicated research can be summarized in the following brief sentence:
Hebrew is 'Greek wearing a mask.'"
An example for the rest of his co-religionists
As already stated, the research of J. Yahuda restores part of a universal
truth that has fallen into oblivion for millennia. Not only is the Hebrew
language "Greek wearing a mask" (in other words, a distorted version of
Greek), but, as we have announced at international conventions, there is no
other language on the face of the earth except Greek. A few years ago, we
made this statement at a convention of the Literary Society Parnassos,
titled: "The Ecumenical Character of the Greek Language," where we used
texts and images to prove this statement. All other languages are just
descendants or distorted dialects of Greek, adopted by the peoples.
Finally, we present one of the tables compiled by the undaunted scholar, J.
Yahuda, where Hebrew letters, along with their pronunciation in Hebrew
appear on the left, the equivalent Greek letters and their pronunciation in
the middle, and the Arabic letters and pronunciation on the right. In the
preface, just above the table shown below, Yahuda's first theorem is
written, to wit: "The Greek and Hebrew alphabets demonstrate striking
similarity insofar as the order of the letters is concerned, their names,
their shapes and their pronunciation."
We cannot omit to express our admiration for this great man, who, defying
the forces of darkness and medieval ignorance, proved to be an unbiased
scholar, unburdened by preconceived dogma and purposeful deception. A man
who broke the bonds of mischievous misinformation so prevalent in [the past]
century, and dared to defy traditional nationalistic and racist fanaticism
while declaring a revolution against the international forces of power. He
has achieved the level of a true Hellene. After discovering the truth, he
struggled to make it known, he revealed it and he published it without fear.
His acts were acts of patriotism, since he has raised his compatriots to a
level approaching the Greeks. He called them "Asian Greeks." His life and
work truly pronounce him to be of equal value to a Greek, in contrast with
those of his compatriots who have denounced him and his book. Is it because
they are afraid or is it because they are unable to follow in his footsteps?
In Conclusion
Yahuda has scientifically proven that both Hebrew and Arabic are Greek in
their origin, as is true with the other languages of the world. It is to be
regretted that the speakers of this distorted Greek dialect do not take
advantage of this, so as to elevate themselves to free and Christ-loving
Greeks, as their compatriot Yahuda has done. Many of them prefer to live in
the dark; It is a fact to be pitied that some are fanatics who hate
everything Greek, especially her history and her language. In the past, many
such men appeared in the Roman State as politicians, academics or
administrators in the public sector, and fought against everything that was
Greek. Nowadays, such men cooperate with the global powers that are
propelling the world toward destruction. A destruction that can only be
avoided by a rebirth of the only salvation for humanity: Greek Civilization.
Primary Source
This article was written by the linguist and researcher, Konstantinos G.
Georganas, for Davlos. February 1999 issue, pp.12931-12937. Translation by
staff. Emphasis not in original text was added.
Note: The great rhetorician, Isocrates (436-338 B.C.), gave the following
definition of a Hellene in his Panagyricus:
Athens has so far outrun the rest of mankind in thought and speech that her
disciples are the masters of the rest, and it is due to her that the word
"Greek" is not so much a term of birth as it is of mentality, and is applied
to a common culture rather than a common descent.
--
Gold price increases and decreases. Inflation always increases.
How can gold be a hedge against inflation?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3523
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	09 Nov 2005 12:54:02 AM

Mattathias wrote
[quotation]

I also noted a curious transformation with Hebrew words:
a suffix to a Greek
word changed to a prefix in a Hebrew word.
the alphabet,

http://www.grecoreport.com/hebrew_is_greek.htm
the relation in the script was never assumed to be a relation in the
tongue.
the Hittites had cuneiform and could have used the script just as
Vietnamese use modified Latin script,
which is based on the same. Is Vietnamese a dialect of Greek ... ?
Phoenician alef-bet being Greek in origin ?
if i apply your reasoning where the earliest text is the more original,
which extant texts are older, Hellenik or Phoenician ...?

I formed a series of phonetic and morphology rules.

would you kindly provide an example of his proposed rules applying to
both languages in relation to the propostion that one is a dialect of
another ... ?

This whole matter is, in practice, consistent with
the following two proposals: Biblical Hebrew is Greek; and, the Jews are
Asian Greeks.

if this is the outcome, so be it.
but one would need to know more than merely a *linguistic* relation.
i say that as an aside.

In 1982, a suppressed, ages-old, historical truth, was resurrected through
the publication of a book by Becket Publications of Oxford, England (ISBN O
7289 0013 O). The book, published in English, and titled Hebrew is Greek,
was written by lawyer, linguist and researcher, Joseph Yahuda, the son of
Isaac Benjamin Ezekiel Yahuda, an ethnic Jew and longtime researcher and
linguist.

"TGR received an e-mail from a Mr. P. P. who tells us that he was able
to locate copies of Hebrew is Greek in the following places: Columbia
University Library in N.Y., the New York Public Library, and the
Library of the Union Theological Seminary of New York. We wish to
thank him for this information. TGR staff visited the library at
Princeton University in New Jersey, and found a copy there as well."
it may not get press coverage but someone is claiming it is available
in any case.
perhaps someone has scanned it and put it online ... ?
if so , please advise

Then I read Homer, comparing him to the Bible.
One page from the translation of the Iliad, one page from the Old Testament,
line for line, page by page; I started with Genesis and the first book of
the Iliad, along with the last book of the Odyssey and the 2nd book of
'Chronicles.' Day after day, the list of similar words grew longer, until it
reached 600 words -

i am not clear as to the intended implication,
is it the coincidence of similar words used,
or an alleged similitude in the texts .... ??
"A man who broke the bonds of mischievous misinformation so prevalent
in [the past] century, and dared to defy traditional nationalistic and
racist fanaticism while declaring a revolution against the
international forces of power. He has achieved the level of a true
Hellene. >After discovering the truth, he struggled to make it known,
he revealed it and he published it without fear. His acts were acts of
patriotism, since he has raised his compatriots to a level approaching
the Greeks. He called them "Asian Greeks.""
is the above his purpose ... ?
to absorb the Jews into Hellenism ?
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	09 Nov 2005 01:20:20 AM

Hebrew is Greek

perhaps we should follow the lead of our predecessors in testing the
relations between living languages.
what they would do is gather some basic words which apply across
cultures and observe any correspondence.
water
meat
grain
fire
sun
man
woman
father
mother
birth
life
death
son
daughter
house
chief
truth
what are the outcomes of these among Greek and Hebrew ... ?
if we cannot find some relation here, should we continue ... ?
i agree with the author that Greek is a culture not a race,
but it seems more likely that the Phoenician script is the origin.
this does not presume a language in common.
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	11 Nov 2005 05:49:42 AM

Mattathias pronounced

Hebrew is Greek

well i have read some photographed copies of excerpts of his book and
so far i think it is nonsense.
Again, the first step would be to find some relation to common words,
as there obviously exists across the "Indo European" languages.
concept eng. Germ. Gk. Lat.
[heart] heart hairto kardia cordis
[hand] manual - mane manus
[foot] foot fotu poda pedis
[water] water watar hydor unda
[fire] fire pahur pur pyra
[house] domicile - domos doma
[home] home khaim komizo -
[father] father fader pater pater
[mother] mother moder meter mater
[brother] brother brat phratra frater
[birth] gentry - genea gentiles
[grain] meal malan malakos molere
[hundred] century kund hekaton centum
[carry] bear beran phero fero
[eternity] ever aiwo aion aevum
Which Hebrew words will have some minimal relation to the above ... ?
Hebrew a dialect of Greek ?
So far we have wishful thinking along the lines of 'heaven' being
related to hebrew `aven` a stone.
You've seen these articles by people who argue for hebrew as a the
"Edenic" or original language of humans ?
this Jewish Hellenist is doing the same.
When you provide the Hebrew for the table above you will get the
picture.
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	12 Nov 2005 01:02:42 AM

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Mattathias pronounced

Hebrew is Greek

here are some preliminary suggestions
if you have others which will more closely correspond and show some
relation please provide them.

concept eng. Germ. Gk. Lat.
[heart] heart hairto kardia cordis

lamed-bet: lev, lviy, lvavcha

[hand] manual - mane manus

yud-dalet: yad

[foot] foot fotu poda pedis

resh-gimel-lamed: regel

[water] water watar hydor unda

mem-yud: may, [miy], mayim

[fire] fire pahur pur pyra

alef-shin: esh, eshvam

[house] domicile - domos doma

bet-yud-tav: beyt, beytah

[home] home khaim komizo -

same as above.

[father] father fader pater pater

alef-bet: av

[mother] mother moder meter mater

alef-mem sofit: em

[brother] brother brat phratra frater

alef-chet: ach, achiym
often, `ben amiy` (son of mother)

[birth] gentry - genea gentiles

yud-lamed-dalet: yalad

[grain] meal malan malakos molere

bet-resh: bar
[i suppose one will say this sounds like Latin `far-ina` ? ]

[hundred] century kund hekaton centum

mem-alef-heh: meah

[carry] bear beran phero fero

bet-vav-alef: boe
[not exactly, but the closest approximation i could find. i suppose if
we had a `resh` we could make it work?]

[eternity] ever aiwo aion aevum

ayin-dalet: ad
[i suppose if we change the dalet to a 'b' or 'v' sound we could make
it work?]

Which Hebrew words will have some minimal relation to the above ... ?

Answer: NONE.

Hebrew a dialect of Greek ?

You might as well be saying Welsh is a dialect of Hebrew as the brain
damaged British Israel people claim.
Looking forward to you as a 'rationalist' abandoning this "Myth."
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	20 Nov 2005 03:18:59 AM

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Mattathias pronounced

Hebrew is Greek

here are some preliminary suggestions
if you have others which will more closely correspond and show some
relation please provide them.

concept eng. Germ. Gk. Lat.
[heart] heart hairto kardia cordis

lamed-bet: lev, lviy, lvavcha

[hand] manual - mane manus

yud-dalet: yad

[foot] foot fotu poda pedis

resh-gimel-lamed: regel

[water] water watar hydor unda

mem-yud: may, [miy], mayim

[fire] fire pahur pur pyra

alef-shin: esh, eshvam

[house] domicile - domos doma

bet-yud-tav: beyt, beytah

[home] home khaim komizo -

same as above.

[father] father fader pater pater

alef-bet: av

[mother] mother moder meter mater

alef-mem sofit: em

[brother] brother brat phratra frater

alef-chet: ach, achiym
often, `ben amiy` (son of mother)

[birth] gentry - genea gentiles

yud-lamed-dalet: yalad

[grain] meal malan malakos molere

bet-resh: bar

[i suppose one will say this sounds like Latin `far-ina` ? ]

[hundred] century kund hekaton centum

mem-alef-heh: meah

[carry] bear beran phero fero

bet-vav-alef: boe

[not exactly, but the closest approximation i could find. i suppose if
we had a `resh` we could make it work?]

[eternity] ever aiwo aion aevum

ayin-dalet: ad

[i suppose if we change the dalet to a 'b' or 'v' sound we could make
it work?]

Which Hebrew words will have some minimal relation to the above ... ?

Answer: NONE.

Hebrew a dialect of Greek ?

You might as well be saying Welsh is a dialect of Hebrew as the brain
damaged British Israel people claim.

Looking forward to you as a 'rationalist' abandoning this "Myth."

well Mattathias i am not surprised that you have not replied with some
evidence of Hebrew as a Greek dialect.
Do you still believe this "Myth" to be true in spite of it all?
if so then i am curious as to the importance this myth signifies and
how it contributes to your overall theory.
it must be a key component in any case.
.

User: "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood	24 Nov 2005 02:34:44 AM

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Mattathias pronounced

Hebrew is Greek

here are some preliminary suggestions
if you have others which will more closely correspond and show some
relation please provide them.

concept eng. Germ. Gk. Lat.
[heart] heart hairto kardia cordis

lamed-bet: lev, lviy, lvavcha

[hand] manual - mane manus

yud-dalet: yad

[foot] foot fotu poda pedis

resh-gimel-lamed: regel

[water] water watar hydor unda

mem-yud: may, [miy], mayim

[fire] fire pahur pur pyra

alef-shin: esh, eshvam

[house] domicile - domos doma

bet-yud-tav: beyt, beytah

[home] home khaim komizo -

same as above.

[father] father fader pater pater

alef-bet: av

[mother] mother moder meter mater

alef-mem sofit: em

[brother] brother brat phratra frater

alef-chet: ach, achiym
often, `ben amiy` (son of mother)

[birth] gentry - genea gentiles

yud-lamed-dalet: yalad

[grain] meal malan malakos molere

bet-resh: bar

[i suppose one will say this sounds like Latin `far-ina` ? ]

[hundred] century kund hekaton centum

mem-alef-heh: meah

[carry] bear beran phero fero

bet-vav-alef: boe

[not exactly, but the closest approximation i could find. i suppose if
we had a `resh` we could make it work?]

[eternity] ever aiwo aion aevum

ayin-dalet: ad

[i suppose if we change the dalet to a 'b' or 'v' sound we could make
it work?]

Which Hebrew words will have some minimal relation to the above ... ?

Answer: NONE.

Hebrew a dialect of Greek ?

You might as well be saying Welsh is a dialect of Hebrew as the brain
damaged British Israel people claim.

Looking forward to you as a 'rationalist' abandoning this "Myth."

well Mattathias i am not surprised that you have not replied with some
evidence of Hebrew as a Greek dialect.

Do you still believe this "Myth" to be true in spite of it all?

if so then i am curious as to the importance this myth signifies and
how it contributes to your overall theory.

it must be a key component in any case.

Mattathias You seem to have some theory that the Yehudim are at root an
aspect of Hellenic culture and i would like to know what is the overall
implication, i.e. why this component is so important to whatever
overall presumption you have made.
merely curiosity at this stage since i know you will not produce
evidence that Hebrew is a dialect of Greek, there is no such
.

User: "Matt Giwer"
Title: Re: Babylon Nurtures the Jewish Priesthood