Matt Giwer wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

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.

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

I have no over-riding theory as yet. I have merely recited facts without
regard to the myths in the OT.

but your assertion that Hebrew is a dialect of Greek is not a fact

You constant attempts to refer to OT myths and traditions based upon it and to put
archaeology on an equal and at times inferior footing with the OT

No i never did such; forensic evidence is always superior to an
assertion from a text dated much later than alleged events.

you claim that the circa 600-700 BCE silver seferot are an incantation
to R3,
and nothing to do with `torah`.
when in 'fact' regardless of whether the Palestinean artifact
represents a passage lifted from Egyptian culture it reappears verbatim
in sefer bemidbar the book of numbers in torah.

you simply refuse to allow the possibility that the Hebrews had a torah
circa 625 BCE and want to assert that the Yehudim were merely an aspect
of the Greeks.


This is all in your mind, Mattathias.

so that is why i was asking you what your presumed outcome might be.

makes discussion with you of no further value.

you have many perspectives i think are correct; your notion that the
TaNaKh is an invention of Greek culture is not one of them.

You don't seem to have an open mind when it comes to anything regarding
the Yehudim.

That's unfortunate because you are losing sight of the big picture.

and thus contributing to the aggravation.

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.

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

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

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

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.

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.

The issue is finding a contemporary mention of something older
than the Septuagint.

Matt Giwer wrote:

by all the available physical evidence the Greek version of the Old
Testament is the original.

Do you have some citations to support this claim?

Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Bear wrote:

"Matt Giwer" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "Matt Giwer" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : > "Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun]" wrote
: > : > : eventually being a Jew was * illegal *
: > : > I don't disagree.
:
: > : Opinions are fine but a law making it illegal is required to establish
the claim it was illegal.
:
: > : If it was not a law then illegal does not apply regardless of what
actually happened.
:
: > : But given the whatevers you posted, assuming they were laws, we would
expect a law against Jews to
: > : have exactly the same consequences, burning synagogues and executing
all Jews in the vilest possible
: > : manner. Other than jewish legend we do not have that. We have only
rare events of mob violence and
: > : generic expulsions which may at times have been for them own good for
the wrath of the borrowers.
:
: > What makes you think that the edict (law) illegalizing Judaism didn't
come
: > later than the last date on the list?
:
: That is why I am asking for a recitation of the edict or law or whatever.
As I said, I have yet to
: find any such law. It appears no one else has either.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers1.htm

An edict or law is not necessary to persecute a group.

I did not question that. I questioned the statement that being a Jew was made illegal. That is a
very different thing. And that is what I am requesting be substantiated with a recitation of the law
or edict or whatever is equivalent.

off the internet in a google search within 0.49 seconds:
"306 The Council of Elvira bans intermarriage of Christians and Jews.
315-337 Constantine I the Great refers to Jews as the "impure beings",
members of "unclean and pernicious sect". His repressive edicts limit
their rights, forbid congregations for religious services (deemed
sacrilegious). Conversion to Judaism is outlawed. In contrast to past
despots' political motivations to crush rebellions and dissent,
Constantine and his followers pursue religious goals. "

That says a lot but does not say being a Jew is illegal.

Then by the turn of that century:
"418 The first record of Jews being forced to convert or face
expulsion. Severus, the Bishop of Minorca, claimed to have forced 540
Jews to accept Christianity upon conquering the island. "

Convert of leave does not say being a Jew is illegal. Forced conversion is not a matter of an
existing law even if it is only a claim.

This continues step by step until eventually Saint Leo III merely puts
into law what was already a general situation and formally criminalizes
Judaism.

Again, what specific civil law and terrority and so forth?

You are not embarrassing me yet. Please try harder. Maybe do a 2s google search.

Bear wrote

Judaism was left alone for many years while "pagans" were oppressed. Note
435:

excellent list so far i did not read it all

one thing i must disagree somehwat is that there immediately began in
Rome the gradual criminalization of Judaism
eventually being a Jew was * illegal *

Judaism was left alone for many years while "pagans" were oppressed. Note
435:

314 Immediately after its full legalization, the Christian Church attacks
non-Christians. The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of Goddess
Artemis.

324 The emperor Constantine declares Christianity as the only official
religion of the Roman Empire.

325 Nicene Council. The god-man gets a promotion: 'Christ is Divine'

326 Constantine, following the instructions of his mother Helen, destroys
the temple of the god Asclepius in Aigeai Cilicia and many temples of the
goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenicia, Baalbek, etc.

330 Constantine steals the treasures and statues of the pagan temples of
Greece to decorate Constantinople, the new capital of his Empire.