When Was Jesus Crucified?

[GHansen]

34 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

GHansen:  The answer to your question may be found at:

History of the Hebrew alphabet - Wikipedia

 

Can't access that website. If it has to do with the so called Protosinaitic script, there are no Biblical manuscripts that exist in that "language" that I'm aware of. What that means is that all existing Biblical manuscripts were written in the same "script." All that varies is the style of the scribe who transcribed it. MSWord has numerous Hebrew fonts. Some are more traditional in their appearance than others but they are all the same alphabet/script. If I copy a traditional Hebrew font from a document and paste it here, it comes out as a modern font. That has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the meaning of the passage.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

GHansen:

*  An alphabetic script is not a language.  a script is a specific style of a character that is used to write a language.

*  It is not true that all Biblical manuscripts were written in the same script.  The MSS of the book of Luke were written in a script that differs from the script used to write the book of Genesis.

*  Yes, the scripts used does not affect the meaning word as a script is not a language.

*  A script is not a font. 

*  If you cannot access my citation to the Hebrew alphabet, try my citation to the Roman/Latin one.

 

 

[GHansen]

35 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

GHansen:

*  An alphabetic script is not a language.  a script is a specific style of a character that is used to write a language.

*  It is not true that all Biblical manuscripts were written in the same script.  The MSS of the book of Luke were written in a script that differs from the script used to write the book of Genesis.

*  Yes, the scripts used does not affect the meaning word as a script is snot a language.

*  A script is not a font. 

*  If you cannot access my citation to the Hebrew alphabet, try my citation to the Roman/Latin one.

 

 

Stinsonmari brought forth this discussion by remarking that my Hebrew citation of Psalms 73:1 was written in a modern script rather than an ancient one. Not exactly sure what she meant but in order for it to make sense, she must have been referring to the protoSinaitic script which she  connected to the Phoenicians.  Hebrew manuscripts are all written in the same "script." A script is "a set of letters used to write a particular language." Vowels were eventually added but the oldest manuscripts, much like modern Hebrew, do not include vowel markings.  Fonts or type faces vary, as does the writing style of various scribes; however, the script remains the same. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah from the 2nd  B.C. was written in the same script as the Leningrad Codex from the 11th century A.D. apart from the vowels.

 The Greek OT and the Greek NT were both written in the same script, as evinced by the Codex Sinaiticus.

Discussions of this sort have little, if any, redemptive value which is unfortunate. I once asked David Noel Freedman about the redemptive value of discussions along these lines. His response indicated that it was a humanistic study and irrelevant to salvation.  What used to be called Biblical Archaeology is now, at least in some circles, referred to as "Ancient Near Eastern" studies to better describe the humanistic element.

[stinsonmarri]

12 hours ago, GHansen said:

I'd like you to provide an example of what you mean by "ancient script."

Proto-Sinaitic (also referred to as Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite when found in Canaan or Early Alphabetic) is considered the earliest trace of alphabetic writing and the common ancestor of both the Ancient South Arabian script and the Phoenician alphabet, which led to many modern alphabets including the Greek alphabet. According to common theory, as Proto-Semitic) repurposed Egyptian hieroglyphs to construct a different script. The script is attested in a small corpus of inscriptions found at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt dating to the Middle Bronze Age (2100–1500 BCE). The Emergence of Alphabetic Scripts, C. Rollston; Sinaitic inscriptions ancient writing, Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved; The Development of the Greek Alphabet within the Chronology of the ANE; Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 276

What needs to be made absolutely clear is the fact that what is called ancient Hebrew is nothing more than Canaanite Phoenician. The Hebrews adopted Phoenician as their own language, or, in other words, that what is called [ancient] Hebrew language was in fact "the language of Canaan." It is not merely poetic but literal and in the philological truth. One of the proofs for is taken from the Bible itself: Isaiah 19:18 says "In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD Almighty. One of them will be called the City of Destruction -- City of the Sun (that is, Heliopolis) Source: John McClintock, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature

Prof. Christopher A. Rollston is a scholar of the ancient Near East, specializing in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament Apocrypha, Northwest Semitic literature, epigraphy and paleography. He holds the MA and Ph.D. from The Johns Hopkins University Department of Near Eastern Studies. Epigraphy scholar Chris Rallston asks a seemingly straightforward question: What is the oldest Hebrew inscription? His examination requires him to address the fundamental questions of epigraphy. Is a text written in Hebrew script necessarily in the Hebrew language? And was the Hebrew language originally written in an alphabet that predates Hebrew script? Chris Rallston examined four contenders for the oldest Hebrew inscription – the Qeiyafa Ostracon, Gezer Calendar, Tel Zayit Abecedary and Izbet Zayit Abecedary – to explore the interplay between early Hebrew script and language.

Rallston continues his analyses on some other contenders for the oldest Hebrew inscription. He finds the Tel Zayit Abecedary to be fully Phoenician script, despite the excavation epigrapher claiming that the abecedary indicates the transition between the scripts. Finally, the oldest contender, the Izbet Sartah Abecedary, which dates to roughly 1200 B.C.E., predates the development of any Hebrew script, and appears to be written in Early Alphabetic script, which is not closely related to Old Hebrew script. While some scholars have presented these and other Iron Age I inscriptions as Hebrew script, Rallston suggests that we have to look to a slightly later period to find the first Hebrew language recorded in a purely Hebrew script.

In 1999, Yale University archaeologists, John and Deborah Darnell, identified an alphabetic script in Wadi El-Hol, a narrow valley between Waset (Thebes) and Abdu (Abydos) in southern Egypt. Dating to about 1900 B.C., the script bears resemblance to the Egyptian hieroglyphs, but also the much older “proto-Saharan” writing system. A similar inscription that dates to 1500 B.C. was found in Serabit el-Khadim on Africa’s Sinai Peninsula and has been deemed by linguists to be the basis for the so-called “proto-Canaanite” and “Phoenician” scripts. Ta Neter Foundation

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

Obviously, if there were "true Israelites" there were also false ones. These were the people that Jesus described as having the devil for their father rather than Abraham. In John 8, Jesus  told the Jews they were not really the children of Abraham but the children of Satan the murderer. To be a child of Abraham was/is to evince the faith of Abraham. Because the Jews of Jesus day were children of the father of lies, they could/would not believe the truth Jesus taught. All their pretensions to religiosity were lies.

Then came to YAHSHUA scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.  But HE answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the Commandment of ELOHIM by your tradition? Mat 15:1-3

One dictionary definition of the word “Pharisee” is “a sanctimonious, self-righteous or hypocritical person.” This definition is rooted in Christian tradition and the role the Pharisees played as opponents and betrayers of Jesus in the Gospels. The reality of who the Pharisees were, however, is far more complex.In Jewish tradition, the Pharisees are forerunners of the rabbis in theology and practice. This group of scribes and teachers established the foundation of Judaism for two millennia and are heroes in Jewish history. The Jerusalem Post 

This shows Rabbinic Judaism who do not believe in the truth of them putting YAHSHUA to death. People become delusional to believe a lie. The truth is they started the Rabbinic Judaism and they were against the accurate teaching of YAHSHUA!

That is why we cannot lean on their false belief system of lies. I never said anything about specifically the Bible. I said modern Hebrew Script is not the true ancient script of letters!

Thank You!

[Gregory Matthews]

There seems to be some confusion between an alphabetic script and a font.  I will attempt to illustrate the difference which does not exist, But, I will call the Matthews alphabet.

*  The 6^th letter of this Matthews alphabet can be written in the following fonts, as well as others: [NOTE:  I have deleted these as the different fonts did not copy over into this paste.]   

All of the above are different fonts of the same letter.

However, as this Matthews script is several thousand years old, over the years, it has been written in the following manner:  B,  P,  F   [These are changes in script.]

All languages are written in an alphabetic script that changes over time.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

GHansen has told us that scripts remain the same over time.  That is false.  They clearly change over time.  I have given the citation that reflect those changes for the Hebrew scripts and the Roman/Latin scripts.

 

 

 

[GHansen]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

GHansen has told us that scripts remain the same over time.  That is false.  They clearly change over time.  I have given the citation that reflect those changes for the Hebrew scripts and the Roman/Latin scripts.

 

 

 

If it is false, I apologize. I defined scripts, according to the dictionary definition as "a set of letters used to write a particular language." Perhaps if I could view your references, I could better understand my mistake. In the case of Hebrew, there was no change is script from the time of the Isaiah scroll DSS to the time of the Leningrad Codex ~ 1200 years. There may be  a change in writing style simply because as in English, each person has a unique style of writing. Again, if I'm wrong, I apologize. 

[GHansen]

5 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

What needs to be made absolutely clear is the fact that what is called ancient Hebrew is nothing more than Canaanite Phoenician. The Hebrews adopted Phoenician as their own language, or, in other words, that what is called [ancient] Hebrew language was in fact "the language of Canaan." It is not merely poetic but literal and in the philological truth. One of the proofs for is taken from the Bible itself: Isaiah 19:18 says "In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD Almighty. One of them will be called the City of Destruction -- City of the Sun (that is, Heliopolis) Source: John McClintock, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature

 

I disagree. The origins of Biblical Hebrew need not be made "absolutely clear" It doesn't matter what language the Bible was written in. What matters is the truth it contains. Most OT quotations in the NT are taken from the LXX, not the Hebrew. A Jewish friend of mine believed that one of the darkest periods  in human history was when the LXX was translated. Obviously, NT writers did not believe that, thereby evincing the substance of the Scripture was what mattered, not the exact words. Edwin Thiele rather convincingly demonstrated that the LXX had been tampered with in the area of the divided kingdom chronology; nevertheless, the LXX was a significant  source of OT quotations in the NT.

 

[phkrause]

2 minutes ago, GHansen said:

What matters is the truth it contains.

With this statement I agree 100% with you!!

 

2 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Most OT quotations in the NT are taken from the LXX, not the Hebrew.

And how do we know this?? And again I ask, does it matter??

[GHansen]

36 minutes ago, phkrause said:

With this statement I agree 100% with you!!

 

And how do we know this?? And again I ask, does it matter??

It does not matter from a redemptive viewpoint. As I mentioned above, these areas of study are not necessarily redemptive but more of a humanistic endeavor. 

One example of the difference between the Greek OT and the Hebrew is Psalms 8:2:

Ps 8:2  Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. KJV from Hebrew

Mt 21:16  And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? KJV Jesus quoting the Greek OT

Ps 8:2  [{1 }] Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger. LXX English translation

Another example:

Habakkuk 2:4  Behold, his soul [which] is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. KJV

Habakkuk 2: 4  If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but  the just shall live by  my faith. LXX English translation

Heb 10:38  Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.  Book of Hebrews  quoting the LXX KJV

H.B. Swete's Introduction to the OT in Greek contains an extensive list of OT quotes from the LXX in the NT:

An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Additional Notes. (ccel.org)

[stinsonmarri]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

I disagree. The origins of Biblical Hebrew need not be made "absolutely clear" It doesn't matter what language the Bible was written in. What matters is the truth it contains. Most OT quotations in the NT are taken from the LXX, not the Hebrew. A Jewish friend of mine believed that one of the darkest periods  in human history was when the LXX was translated. Obviously, NT writers did not believe that, thereby evincing the substance of the Scripture was what mattered, not the exact words. Edwin Thiele rather convincingly demonstrated that the LXX had been tampered with in the area of the divided kingdom chronology; nevertheless, the LXX was a significant  source of OT quotations in the NT.

 

If that's the case why did YAHWEH state Ur the land of the Chaldees. You need to read Gen Chapter 10. Ancient nations were very important to YAHWEH! This is done throughout the Bible. However, HE was not respect of any person! Archeology studies different cultures or ethnic groups. So do historians! The problem is when we do not give the proper credit to the other ethnic group. Instead, they claim ether they are that ethnic group or claim to have done their building, language or work! Example the people here in USA who call themselves Hebrews and are Black! The are not Hebrew at all. The Hebrews came from Ebner, who came from Shem. Black people came from Ham! That's the problem and it needs to stop! All Ethnic groups did great things in the past that was a tribute to society!

Finally, all ethnic group disobeyed YAHWEH! HE will save all ethnic groups in the end!

Thank you!

[Gregory Matthews]

 

The following website will give you some insight as to the ancient Hebrew writings. 

https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/Septuagint-LXX-Hebrew-ancient-earliest-writing-Bible-scripts-alphabets-origin-Mosaic-heiroglyphic-Paleo-Aramaic-Masoretic-Jewish-Greek.htm

It lists four (4) different Hebrew scripts:

*  Hieroglyphic Hebrew

* Paleo-Hebrew

*  Aramaic Hebrew

*  Masoretic Hebrew. 

The Old Testament Biblical student, who is reading the OT Bible in Biblical Hebrew will have it printed in what is formally called the Aramaic Square Script. 

What the author of the above website calls Masoretic Hebrew is simply a book written in the Aramaic Square Script, with the addition of vowel points.

I have a copy of the Hebrew OT that is commonly used for study be students of biblical Hebrew.  It is more than 1,400 pages in length.  It is printed in the Aramaic Square Script and it has the added vowel pints, as is typical for student use.

NOTE:  The Biblical Hebrew autographs would not have had vowel pints.  Those were added much later.

 

 

[GHansen]

About the Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls

First hand account of the discovery of what some  people believe to be the earliest artifact containing a Scripture reference. It is believed to be from ~ the time of Jeremiah and provides an example of an early Hebrew script.

More:

Miniature Writing on Ancient Amulets - Biblical Archaeology Society

 

[GHansen]

15 hours ago, GHansen said:

If it is false, I apologize. I defined scripts, according to the dictionary definition as "a set of letters used to write a particular language." Perhaps if I could view your references, I could better understand my mistake. In the case of Hebrew, there was no change is script from the time of the Isaiah scroll DSS to the time of the Leningrad Codex ~ 1200 years. There may be  a change in writing style simply because as in English, each person has a unique style of writing. Again, if I'm wrong, I apologize. 

The Story of the Old Hebrew Script - Biblical Archaeology Society

[GHansen]

12 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

The following website will give you some insight as to the ancient Hebrew writings. 

https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/Septuagint-LXX-Hebrew-ancient-earliest-writing-Bible-scripts-alphabets-origin-Mosaic-heiroglyphic-Paleo-Aramaic-Masoretic-Jewish-Greek.htm

It lists four (4) different Hebrew scripts:

*  Hieroglyphic Hebrew

* Paleo-Hebrew

*  Aramaic Hebrew

*  Masoretic Hebrew. 

The Old Testament Biblical student, who is reading the OT Bible in Biblical Hebrew will have it printed in what is formally called the Aramaic Square Script. 

What the author of the above website calls Masoretic Hebrew is simply a book written in the Aramaic Square Script, with the addition of vowel points.

I have a copy of the Hebrew OT that is commonly used for study be students of biblical Hebrew.  It is more than 1,400 pages in length.  It is printed in the Aramaic Square Script and it has the added vowel pints, as is typical for student use.

NOTE:  The Biblical Hebrew autographs would not have had vowel pints.  Those were added much later.

 

 

Chaplain Matthews, I tried to work my way through the website to which you linked. Not an easy task. I'm not sure just how credible it is. Contains a lot of claims and assertions but no sources cited. His claims about Samuel, for example. It's certainly possible. What evidence exists?

I noticed this quote, indicating that some of the DSS were written in paleo Hebrew:

"Most of these Hebrew Scrolls are written in the standard "square" ("Jewish") script, very similar to today’s Modern Hebrew, while several are written in paleo-Hebrew, an ancient script from the First Temple period. Interestingly, some Scrolls written in the standard script use the ancient script specifically for writing the divine name. Additionally, some Scrolls are written in cryptic scripts (Cryptic A, B, and C), which use unusual signs to represent Hebrew alphabet letters." 

The Dead Sea Scrolls - Languages and Scripts

Also:

Paleo-Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls - Home (paleohebrewdss.com)

Rather than try to explain or justify my previous view, I'll just admit that i was wrong and you were right about the changes in Hebrew script.

[GHansen]

22 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Proto-Sinaitic (also referred to as Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite when found in Canaan or Early Alphabetic) is considered the earliest trace of alphabetic writing and the common ancestor of both the Ancient South Arabian script and the Phoenician alphabet, which led to many modern alphabets including the Greek alphabet. According to common theory, as Proto-Semitic) repurposed Egyptian hieroglyphs to construct a different script. The script is attested in a small corpus of inscriptions found at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt dating to the Middle Bronze Age (2100–1500 BCE). The Emergence of Alphabetic Scripts, C. Rollston; Sinaitic inscriptions ancient writing, Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved; The Development of the Greek Alphabet within the Chronology of the ANE; Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 276

What needs to be made absolutely clear is the fact that what is called ancient Hebrew is nothing more than Canaanite Phoenician. The Hebrews adopted Phoenician as their own language, or, in other words, that what is called [ancient] Hebrew language was in fact "the language of Canaan." It is not merely poetic but literal and in the philological truth. One of the proofs for is taken from the Bible itself: Isaiah 19:18 says "In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD Almighty. One of them will be called the City of Destruction -- City of the Sun (that is, Heliopolis) Source: John McClintock, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature

Prof. Christopher A. Rollston is a scholar of the ancient Near East, specializing in Hebrew Bible, Old Testament Apocrypha, Northwest Semitic literature, epigraphy and paleography. He holds the MA and Ph.D. from The Johns Hopkins University Department of Near Eastern Studies. Epigraphy scholar Chris Rallston asks a seemingly straightforward question: What is the oldest Hebrew inscription? His examination requires him to address the fundamental questions of epigraphy. Is a text written in Hebrew script necessarily in the Hebrew language? And was the Hebrew language originally written in an alphabet that predates Hebrew script? Chris Rallston examined four contenders for the oldest Hebrew inscription – the Qeiyafa Ostracon, Gezer Calendar, Tel Zayit Abecedary and Izbet Zayit Abecedary – to explore the interplay between early Hebrew script and language.

Rallston continues his analyses on some other contenders for the oldest Hebrew inscription. He finds the Tel Zayit Abecedary to be fully Phoenician script, despite the excavation epigrapher claiming that the abecedary indicates the transition between the scripts. Finally, the oldest contender, the Izbet Sartah Abecedary, which dates to roughly 1200 B.C.E., predates the development of any Hebrew script, and appears to be written in Early Alphabetic script, which is not closely related to Old Hebrew script. While some scholars have presented these and other Iron Age I inscriptions as Hebrew script, Rallston suggests that we have to look to a slightly later period to find the first Hebrew language recorded in a purely Hebrew script.

In 1999, Yale University archaeologists, John and Deborah Darnell, identified an alphabetic script in Wadi El-Hol, a narrow valley between Waset (Thebes) and Abdu (Abydos) in southern Egypt. Dating to about 1900 B.C., the script bears resemblance to the Egyptian hieroglyphs, but also the much older “proto-Saharan” writing system. A similar inscription that dates to 1500 B.C. was found in Serabit el-Khadim on Africa’s Sinai Peninsula and has been deemed by linguists to be the basis for the so-called “proto-Canaanite” and “Phoenician” scripts. Ta Neter Foundation

Then came to YAHSHUA scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.  But HE answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the Commandment of ELOHIM by your tradition? Mat 15:1-3

One dictionary definition of the word “Pharisee” is “a sanctimonious, self-righteous or hypocritical person.” This definition is rooted in Christian tradition and the role the Pharisees played as opponents and betrayers of Jesus in the Gospels. The reality of who the Pharisees were, however, is far more complex.In Jewish tradition, the Pharisees are forerunners of the rabbis in theology and practice. This group of scribes and teachers established the foundation of Judaism for two millennia and are heroes in Jewish history. The Jerusalem Post 

This shows Rabbinic Judaism who do not believe in the truth of them putting YAHSHUA to death. People become delusional to believe a lie. The truth is they started the Rabbinic Judaism and they were against the accurate teaching of YAHSHUA!

That is why we cannot lean on their false belief system of lies. I never said anything about specifically the Bible. I said modern Hebrew Script is not the true ancient script of letters!

Thank You!

Stinson,  I'm still not entirely sure  what you were getting at regarding the quote from Psalms about the pure in heart comprising Israel. Do you expect Hebrew quotes to be presented in "ancient" Hebrew? Regardless of your expectations, I did discover that some of the DSS were written in paleo-Hebrew, which was news to me. Thanks for your help with that.

[GHansen]

On 8/27/2021 at 5:25 AM, GHansen said:

If it is false, I apologize. I defined scripts, according to the dictionary definition as "a set of letters used to write a particular language." Perhaps if I could view your references, I could better understand my mistake. In the case of Hebrew, there was no change is script from the time of the Isaiah scroll DSS to the time of the Leningrad Codex ~ 1200 years. There may be  a change in writing style simply because as in English, each person has a unique style of writing. Again, if I'm wrong, I apologize. 

The Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet | AHRC (ancient-hebrew.org)

[stinsonmarri]

On 8/26/2021 at 10:12 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

 

The following website will give you some insight as to the ancient Hebrew writings. 

https://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/Septuagint-LXX-Hebrew-ancient-earliest-writing-Bible-scripts-alphabets-origin-Mosaic-heiroglyphic-Paleo-Aramaic-Masoretic-Jewish-Greek.htm

It lists four (4) different Hebrew scripts:

*  Hieroglyphic Hebrew

* Paleo-Hebrew

*  Aramaic Hebrew

*  Masoretic Hebrew. 

The Old Testament Biblical student, who is reading the OT Bible in Biblical Hebrew will have it printed in what is formally called the Aramaic Square Script. 

What the author of the above website calls Masoretic Hebrew is simply a book written in the Aramaic Square Script, with the addition of vowel points.

I have a copy of the Hebrew OT that is commonly used for study be students of biblical Hebrew.  It is more than 1,400 pages in length.  It is printed in the Aramaic Square Script and it has the added vowel pints, as is typical for student use.

NOTE:  The Biblical Hebrew autographs would not have had vowel pints.  Those were added much later.

 

 

Where you and I differ Pastor is the time. The information you have is outdated base on recent discoveries. All languages has vowels. The Phoenicians' symbols started what we call the alphabet. The Bible scholars and writers from the rise of Catholicism throughout the early 1900 bank their information on two new social science history and anthropology. When they first started they bank a lot of information on Josephus of Antiquity and old Biblical scholars that read false Biblical information. 

In 1999, two archaeologist from Yale discovered a new older script that proved that it was the Phoenicians who the Hebrews copy from and not the other way around. Proud is the problem here trying to keep it Semitic. You and I know that Semitic was kept that means it came from Shem. The Phoenician along with Egypt created the Hamitic writing system and the truth is out:

Canaanite Phoenician and Abdu (Abydos) in southern Egypt. Dating to about 1900 B.C., the script bears resemblance not only to the Egyptian hieroglyphs, but also to the much older “proto-Saharan” writing system.

In 1999, Yale University archaeologists identified an alphabetic script in Wadi El-Hol, a narrow valley between Waset (Thebes) and Abdu (Abydos) in southern Egypt. Dating to about 1900 B.C., the script bears resemblance not only to the Egyptian hieroglyphs, but also to the much older “proto-Saharan” writing system

A similar inscription that dates to 1500 B.C. was found in Serabit el-Khadim on Africa’s Sinai peninsula and has been deemed by linguists to be the basis for the so-called “proto-Canaanite” and Phoenician scripts.

This provides proof that Phoenician writing began on the African continent. http://www.taneter.org/

The term Semite was proposed at first for the languages related to the Hebrew by Ludwig Schlözer, in Eichhorn's 'Repertorium', vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Through Eichhorn the name then came into general usage (cf. his 'Einleitung in das Alte Testament' (Leipzig, 1787), I, p. 45. In his 'Gesch. der neuen Sprachenkunde', pt. I (Göttingen, 1807) it had already become a fixed technical term. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII

Finally, the main truth is in the Bible:

These were the sons of Ḥam, according to their clans, according to their languages, in their lands, in their nations. These were the sons of Shěm, according to their clans, according to their languages, in their lands, according to their nations. Gen 10:20, 31  

Abraham came to the land of Canaan and Melchisedec. The city was before Abraham came to Canaan as Yerushalayim, or Salem both meaning YAH city of peace.

My prayer is that we keep up with the findings. Accepting the truth that these finding agrees with the Bible history!

With kind remarks of blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

On 8/27/2021 at 11:00 AM, GHansen said:

Stinson,  I'm still not entirely sure  what you were getting at regarding the quote from Psalms about the pure in heart comprising Israel. Do you expect Hebrew quotes to be presented in "ancient" Hebrew? Regardless of your expectations, I did discover that some of the DSS were written in paleo-Hebrew, which was news to me. Thanks for your help with that.

GHansen: Thank you, but Psalms that you keep bring up, it not the original one. It is hard to believe the truth, when so long you have been taught untruth. It is ashame but more and more findings reveal the language. When IsraEL took over Palestine, which is actually called the land of the Philistines; you must accept that the lingua franca was in Africa language. English is lingua franca all over the world today. The Africans invented the writing system after the flood along with pyramids and great edifices from Afrika to India, also South America! Persia, Greece, and Roman build great thing and so did Ham's children. What is wrong with that?

Blessings!

[GHansen]

2 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

GHansen: Thank you, but Psalms that you keep bring up, it not the original one. It is hard to believe the truth, when so long you have been taught untruth. It is ashame but more and more findings reveal the language. When IsraEL took over Palestine, which is actually called the land of the Philistines; you must accept that the lingua franca was in Africa language. English is lingua franca all over the world today. The Africans invented the writing system after the flood along with pyramids and great edifices from Afrika to India, also South America! Persia, Greece, and Roman build great thing and so did Ham's children. What is wrong with that?

Blessings!

Apparently you are missing the point of the verse in Psalms. It was cited in a discussion about Israel. It indicates that nationality, ethnicity, blood were/are not what was important to God. Modern slave descendants in America are not the Africans of ancient times. The "eight tray gangster crips" in L.A. would definitely be benefitted by learning about the love of God and Christ's death on the cross for their sins. Black supremacy in a cloak of religiosity would be of little benefit.

Now if you can provide an example of  Psalms preserved in a script other than "square Aramaic" I'd be interested in learning about it, mainly because I'd be interested to discover if it is identical to the Psalms as we know them today. Do you know if any of the paleo Hebrew texts among the DSS are Psalms or what books of the Bible they represent? 

If the Psalm I referred to is not the original one, I'd be happy for you to share with me the original, preferably in a script other than the 'square Aramaic":

אַךְ טוֹב לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֱלֹהִים לְבָרֵי לֵבָב

[GHansen]

On 8/23/2021 at 11:06 PM, JoeMo said:

Marri,

I refuse to comment on any more of the racist stuff you post.  You are more prejudiced than most white racists I know. You turn almost all posts to which you respond into a racial issue.  I refuse to respond. You are the main reason I post on this site so infrequently any more.

JoeMo, There is an ignore feature in a drop down menu which allows you to block certain individuals. You can access the feature by clicking your name in the upper right corner of the webpage being displayed. In the real world, we can just walk away from people we find obnoxious. Here, we can "block/ignore" them.

The problem of race is a complicated one. Strangely, some of  the most racist rhetoric I have ever heard in the States came from "religious" people. One was a young Black Muslim. The other an SDA pastor in Vallejo, CA, from the pulpit during "prayer" meeting. Racist hatred was abundant at Fuller Seminary in the 90s. The racist sentiments posted on the public bulletin board were  shocking. It doesn't even take a generation for some SDA African immigrants to identify with racist ideology in America. It's really a sad thing to have Christian friendships damaged by racist influences. It's not only race. Mexicans, for example, are divided into geographic groups such as the Nortenos and Surenos. Blacks are divided into Crips and Bloods. California prisons have accepted that racial integration is an impossibility. Inmates are segregated by race which is usually  connected to gang affiliation. In prisons where segregation is not practiced, it can lead to cross race sexual exploitation of the physically weaker inmate, violence, probably murder.

Anyway, try the ignore feature to enhance your online experience.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, Stinsonmarri, all languages have vowels.  I am not so ignorant as to ever suggest that any language did not have vowels.

In my post, I said nothing about any time.  I did not give any dates.  You have no reason to say that we differ as to time as I said nothing about time.  

I said nothing about any writing system beginning in Africa.

I said nothing about what you call recent discoveries.

Stionsonmarri, in your response you have demonstrated that you do not have the slightest idea as to what I actually posted.  I am not alone in this.  you do it to others also.

 

 

Where you and I differ Pastor is the time. The information you have is outdated base on recent discoveries. All languages has vowels.

[Gregory Matthews]

An explanation for people who may not understand some of what I said:

*  A language is both spoken and written.  The sounds of a language are called a phoneme.  In its written form, the phonemes of a language are represented by one or more symbols.

*  Some of those symbols represent phonemes that are consonants and other symbols represent phonemes that are vowels.

*  In the early days of the written Hebrew language, it was written without any specific symbols for the vowels.  All of the symbols of the written language represented consonants.  However, on occasion from two (2) to four (4) Hebrew vowel sounds were indicated in the written language by a consonant.  The other vowel sounds were not so represented.  This use of the consonants was only on a sometime basis.  Often no symbols for vowels were written.

*  Over a period of years (around 600 AD) Hebrew scholars began to introduce symbols into the Biblical manuscripts that represented the vowel sounds.  The scholars who did that are called Masoretes.  As a result, students of the Hebrew language, as used in the Biblical manuscripts study copies of the Biblical text that are written with symbols that represent consonants and other symbols that represent vowels.  It is common in spoken English to call those symbols for vowels "vowel points."

 

[stinsonmarri]

On 8/28/2021 at 10:18 PM, GHansen said:

Apparently you are missing the point of the verse in Psalms. It was cited in a discussion about Israel. It indicates that nationality, ethnicity, blood were/are not what was important to God. Modern slave descendants in America are not the Africans of ancient times. The "eight tray gangster crips" in L.A. would definitely be benefitted by learning about the love of God and Christ's death on the cross for their sins. Black supremacy in a cloak of religiosity would be of little benefit.

 

GHansen: You are not aware that slavery started with the Romans first and became worsts after that. It appears that you are missing the point.  Plus you really do not know the facts according to the BIBLE! Afrika is Black people period! Ham was Black and his son were Kush, Mitzraim, Punt and Canaan. You need to read your Bible and the descendants of all of Noah's three son. Are you going to tell me that Japheth were not various White nations, like Persia, Greece or Rome? 

Then you talk about the Crips of 1980 who many later on changed. However, you did not mention the Aryans, or the skin head, or the KKK who are still around today. Oh! by the way they are White! This the problem not facing the historical facts. Egypt is Black, Ethiopia is Black, Sudan is Black all of Afrika is Black. Greece conquered Egypt and they admired the Egyptians and mimic their culture. The Hykos did the same thing during the time of Joseph which was the intermediate period. That is why the Bible said Ahmose did not know Joseph. Ex 1:8 The Hykos did not rule all of Egypt they ruled and formed city states in the upper part of Egypt. The Egyptians ruled Thebes still during that time read your history! Joseph was governor in the largest Hykos city called Avaris. These are the people that Joseph dealt with. If you just read your Bible, Potiphar was an Egyptian and the Bible states that.

It is so amazing to me that people want to claim I am racist because I stand for truth according to the Bible. I read Ps that you stated and it is say that ELOHIYM is good to IsraEL if they have a clean heart.

On 8/29/2021 at 2:05 AM, GHansen said:

JoeMo, There is an ignore feature in a drop down menu which allows you to block certain individuals. You can access the feature by clicking your name in the upper right corner of the webpage being displayed. In the real world, we can just walk away from people we find obnoxious. Here, we can "block/ignore" them.

Here is something rude and also unkind. You are telling Joe to block me why? I do not hear anything about this being rude and I wonder why? I do not run away and I can stand my grounds. I just pray for you and Joe! I say again truth hurts! Now I have two maps showing Gen Chapter 10. One from the Seventh Day Adventist Commentary Vol. 1, and the other from The Biblical Foundations for Freedom ( BFF ). If you only just read your Bible instead of judging me.

 

[GHansen]

22 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

GHansen: You are not aware that slavery started with the Romans first and became worsts after that. It appears that you are missing the point.  Plus you really do not know the facts according to the BIBLE! Afrika is Black people period! Ham was Black and his son were Kush, Mitzraim, Punt and Canaan. You need to read your Bible and the descendants of all of Noah's three son. Are you going to tell me that Japheth were not various White nations, like Persia, Greece or Rome? 

Then you talk about the Crips of 1980 who many later on changed. However, you did not mention the Aryans, or the skin head, or the KKK who are still around today. Oh! by the way they are White! This the problem not facing the historical facts. Egypt is Black, Ethiopia is Black, Sudan is Black all of Afrika is Black. Greece conquered Egypt and they admired the Egyptians and mimic their culture. The Hykos did the same thing during the time of Joseph which was the intermediate period. That is why the Bible said Ahmose did not know Joseph. Ex 1:8 The Hykos did not rule all of Egypt they ruled and formed city states in the upper part of Egypt. The Egyptians ruled Thebes still during that time read your history! Joseph was governor in the largest Hykos city called Avaris. These are the people that Joseph dealt with. If you just read your Bible, Potiphar was an Egyptian and the Bible states that.

It is so amazing to me that people want to claim I am racist because I stand for truth according to the Bible. I read Ps that you stated and it is say that ELOHIYM is good to IsraEL if they have a clean heart.

Here is something rude and also unkind. You are telling Joe to block me why? I do not hear anything about this being rude and I wonder why? I do not run away and I can stand my grounds. I just pray for you and Joe! I say again truth hurts! Now I have two maps showing Gen Chapter 10. One from the Seventh Day Adventist Commentary Vol. 1, and the other from The Biblical Foundations for Freedom ( BFF ). If you only just read your Bible instead of judging me.

 

Stinson, my false sister, I'm going to follow my counsel to Joemo and block you. if I wanted to listen to blm type jive, I'd go down to the corner liquor store