Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 199 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Topic Options
#19448 - 03/24/07 05:02 AM Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Since the other thread became contaminated with some off-topic nonsense I thought I'd move my last post over here so we could continue in a, hopefully, troll free zone.


Wayne asks:
"Did you read the whole article, or just the beginning? The article says:"

Of course I did. Thus my comment that the author's attempt to claim it as Aramaic, rather than Arabic, is a POV (Point Of View) not held by many scholars. The vast majority of Islamic scholars hold that there was no crucifixion. I'd have found you one of their writings were it in English and as I don't ONLY post things I agree with I posted the link with what I thought the appropriate caveat.

Using the more obscure "Aramaic" rewrite may be comforting but it should not be. There are hardly any scholars that buy the argument.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
.
#19468 - 03/24/07 11:44 AM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: DA Morgan]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
I will wait to see how it is received by other Muslim scholars before making a judgement. In fact, I will wait to see how experts in Aramaic respond.

Interesting and impartial find though Dan. Thanks.

Blacknad.

Top
#19485 - 03/24/07 05:10 PM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: Blacknad]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I think it important to post things that disagree with me when they contribute to the conversation.

I've no idea whether Jesus Christ was crucified though if I had to lay down money I say he was. Lots of people were crucified and one more or less doesn't make or break a religion.

What I do find fascinating though, and I've stated this here in the forum in the past, is that substantially greater suffering, both physical and emotional, comes with the territory for many cancer patients. People, especially with bone cancer, that can be in agony for years. And their deaths and their suffering do no good, absolve no one of sins, and is the direct result of how we, and our DNA, were 'created'.

Still the importance of Jesus and Mary to Islam can not be discounted and should be explored with the goal being to determine what really happened.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#19516 - 03/25/07 05:41 AM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: DA Morgan]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Giordano Bruno was tortured for years by The Church. In fact a friend has pointed out we should regard him as a hero for the cause rather than someone who was executed for trying to encourage a political rebellion 2000 years ago.

Back to the subject. I'm not sure how different Aramaic and modern Arabic are but they were originally closely related languages. Well, possibly a but more different than German and English. Does anyone in SAGG know?

Top
#19527 - 03/25/07 12:55 PM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: terrytnewzealand]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
http://members.aol.com/assyrianme/aramaic/history.html
http://www.answering-islam.com/allah2.htm

What they don't do, for likely political reasons, is compare too with Hebrew. Which is should be noted, too, is very similar.

Salaam and Shalom to you.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#19549 - 03/26/07 03:47 AM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: DA Morgan]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Yes. I've always found it ironic that the word for peace is the same in both languages. But the bitterest fights are always those between family members.

From your second link. I've long suspected that the Phoenician and Hebrew word El and the Arabic Allah were the same word.


Edited by terrytnewzealand (03/26/07 04:01 AM)

Top
#19555 - 03/26/07 06:03 AM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Interestingly, the logo of the Israeli airline is EL AL, which literally means to the highest heights, or the power behind all that is. It combines the root word for God, in Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic.

GOD AS THE HIGHEST POWER BEHIND ALL THAT IS
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Eloha/eloha.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
It is not an easy word to translate in to English.

James Michener's great noveL THE SOURCE goes into great detail about the source of this word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Michener

God in Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#19559 - 03/26/07 04:12 PM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: Revlgking]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Dear Revlgking ... we are having a discussion ab?ut a t?pic f?r which y?u ?bviously have n? respect. We are n?t discussing airline names we are discussing the influence ?f Aramaic and Arabic ?n the interpretati?n ?f a biblical st?ry.

I understand that y?u are a pr?fessional tr?ll and have n? interest in being respectful ?f ?thers, n? interest in being ?n-t?pic, and n? interest in science.

If y?u insist ?n being here please d? us the c?urtesy ?f starting your ?wn thread and n?t c?ntaminating ?urs.

Thank you.

Please, every?ne, st?p feeding the tr?ll.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#19587 - 03/26/07 07:14 PM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
DA, bless you. Be assured that any time you make a valueable contribution to "my" favourite threads--Do we ever own a thread?--it will be treated with the respect due.
I apologize to you, and others, if my sincere contribution has no value for you all. smile

BTW, I am happy to note the frequent use of the central and eternal ?, mathematically symbolic of the the NOW point--the point without dimensions and the source all that IS.


Edited by Revlgking (03/26/07 07:33 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#19620 - 03/26/07 09:48 PM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: Revlgking]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
From the wikipedia site:

"Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood."

Does that prove the texts were altered at some stage or what? The word for gods wasn't changed but the need to narrow it down to just one meant the plurality had to be disguised.

Also from the site:

"According to many proponents of this theory, Elohim is consistently used in texts that reflect the early northern traditions of the Kingdom of Israel, whereas Yahweh ('Jehovah', Latin 'I?hova') is consistently used in texts that derive from the early southern traditions, of the Kingdom of Judah and Jerusalem."

Supports the idea that the Old Testament was first concocted by Josiah about 600 BC as propaganda. Anything earlier than his time is pure myth. No Solomon, no David, no Abraham, no Moses, no Exodus, well, no anything really.

Top
#19625 - 03/26/07 10:31 PM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: terrytnewzealand]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Revlgking wrote:
"I apologize to you, and others, if my sincere contribution has no value for you all."

I do not accept your apology as it is not sincere.

Sincere apologies are not accompanied by happy faces.

You are an unrepentant tr?ll. Please go away!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#19644 - 03/27/07 04:46 AM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
DA, do you mean: Go away from all threads to which you write? If so, what is your motivation?

BTW, I like this recent quote from you ( KNOCK Revs and Religion...Monday, 5:38 PM): "I will oppose anyone wishing to ban religion. Just as I would oppose anyone wishing to ban any other form of free speech or free expression. The danger is far greater from the ban than from what is being banned." Interesting.


Edited by Revlgking (03/27/07 05:04 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#19649 - 03/27/07 01:19 PM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: Revlgking]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Answered in a private communication. Please do not feed the troll.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#19665 - 03/27/07 10:35 PM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
From the wikipedia site:

"Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood."

Does that prove the texts were altered at some stage or what? The word for gods wasn't changed but the need to narrow it down to just one meant the plurality had to be disguised.


Terry,

You took one sentence and beat it with a hammer to construct a conclusion.

The whole section:

"Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood. Thus the very first words of the Bible are breshit bara Elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. If Elohim were an ordinary plural word, then the plural verb form bar'u בראו would have been used in this sentence instead. Such plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel)."


I am not a cosmologist, so I don't attempt to draw conclusions from little snippets of information - neither would you.

I am also not a scholar of ancient Hebrew so again, I don't attempt to make a case from a Hebrew word or sentence - neither should you.

It constantly amazes me that people think they can tread with hobnail boots all over an ancient language whilst ignoring anything that might be said by those that have made the study of such languages their life's work.

No offence meant to you my friend, I see people do this all the time with ancient religious texts.

Blacknad.

Top
#19670 - 03/27/07 11:49 PM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: Blacknad]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Even in modern Hebrew the ending "-him" indicates plural. Same as "-s" in English. I find it strange that ancient Hebrew would use a plural word form for a singular entity. Even the whole quote (which I had read of course) doesn't explain why this should be so. My guess is still that it was blasphemy to change the noun used in the original script but it was necessary to change the verb once the political situation demanded a single god. Can you provide an alternative explanation? Are there any other words in Hebrew that have the plural form but are treated gramatically as singular?

Top
#19708 - 03/29/07 04:22 AM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: terrytnewzealand]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Perhaps someone should put this question to a rabbi in their community because that is likely the only authoritative answer we will get and it is definitely an interesting question.

I'm on a business trip in Minneapolis so if someone else can do so that would be great.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#19723 - 03/29/07 10:11 AM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: DA Morgan]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Dan. I don't know of any Rabbis here. A Christian site that argues why Elohim is singular:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/God/elohimp.htm

Quote from the article:

"These examples show that elohim has a singular sense, despite its form. In order to understand how the form arose, one needs to examine the development of linguistic forms that the Israelites inherited from those who spoke Semitic languages before them. In polytheistic societies such as those of the Canaanites, Amorites, Egyptians, etc., a plural reference to the gods would be standard, and hardly out of place. As the language undergoes changes in a monotheistic society such as Israel, it is natural that older forms would be used with new senses."

Now this is exactly what I said. As it became politically useful to have just one god the verb had to change. Seems from other references that this simply involves removing one letter from the verb. Easily done by a sympathetic scribe. The writer says, "a monotheistic society such as Israel" but archeology shows Israel was not monotheistic until the time of Hezekiah, around 700 BC.

However. I have found this. Talks about strengthening the noun. May be an explanation.

http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm


Edited by terrytnewzealand (03/29/07 10:29 AM)

Top
#19738 - 03/29/07 01:42 PM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: terrytnewzealand]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I hate to say it but someone that does not speak Hebrew and has not studied the language is not in a position to comment authoritatively. Not to mention Christianity has a terrible track record when it comes to mangling the Old Testament. As I have pointed out here at SAGG in the past ... they can't even produce an accurate translation of 10 declarative sentences (the 10 Commandments).

This really should be put to someone able to give an authoritative answer.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#19763 - 03/30/07 02:41 AM Re: Arabic & Aramaic Topic continued [Re: DA Morgan]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
DA. I agree. However in order to pre-empt posts such as the ones above I got in first.

Top



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.