Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Canaanite Psalms

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    The term Canaanite can be used in a variety of ways, but they are not a single pastoral tribe. You did not really think that, did you? I asked you how you distinguised between minor pastoral tribes and major pastoral tribes, and you have tried to distinguish instead between pastoral tribes with other types of things, even the Assyrians and the Phoenicians, both of which could be considered world powers at the time. No one disputes that the Israelites were pastoral tribes and were not a world power! But if you want to distinguish between minor and major pastoral tribes, you should be comparing Clementines with Tangerines, not apples to oranges.
    Again, pastoral tribes are not major tribes, and yes a number of minor pastoral tribes were a part of the Canaanites. The Canaanites are central commercial trading major culture tribe have a long history going back to the Bronze Age of a written language, and records of trade, laws, and scripture of legends, myth and verse. Another example of a major tribe are the Phoenicians.

    None are extant, of course, but we can work with scholarly theories about the process by which the Hebrew scriptures likely came into existence and eventually took their final form. Archaeology is not an exact science. What has been actually found is very sketchy, especially in terms of written texts and libraries. The JEDP documentary hypothesis has many detractors today, myself included, but it still provides one avenue of understanding a variety of differing perspectives that eventually made their way into and can still still to be found in the pentateuch and elements in the books of the prophets and other some other writings. Differing Northern and Southern kingdom perspectives, prophetic perspectives, priestly views from Jerusalem and perhaps elsewhere.
    Put it simply, there is no evidence of libraries, extensive writings or actually only a few scraps of proto Canaanite/Hebrew writing.

    This is a bit of a false dichotomy. From about the 10th century CE, Hebrew writing at this time is pretty much the same as Canaanite and Phoenician writing. No one disputes that the Israelites and other Canaanite tribes adopted the Phoenician alphabet.
    True, what scrapes are found prior to the exile are primarily Canaanite and Phoenician writing with some proto Hebrew characters. Actually the origins of Phoenician and Canaanite is Proto-Sinaitic influenced by Greek and Egyptian, through the need of language for trade, and Hebrew developed much later from these two.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-02-2015, 03:41 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Again, pastoral tribes are not major tribes, and yes a number of minor pastoral tribes were a part of the Canaanites. The Canaanites are central commercial trading major culture tribe have a long history going back to the Bronze Age of a written language, and records of trade, laws, and scripture of legends, myth and verse. Another example of a major tribe are the Phoenicians.
      The question was how you differentiated between minor pastoral tribes and major pastoral tribes, and now you are simply saying that pastoral tribes are not major tribes. You believe that minor pastoral tribes were part of a 'central commercial trading major culture tribe'. Really? One major tribe? Regardless, this 'central commercial trading major culture tribe', if it exists, is much more than a pastoral tribe so it is just part of the same equivocation. You have not differentiated minor pastoral tribes from major pastoral tribes. You have just said that pastoral tribes are not the same as major central commerical trading entities such as city-states and much larger empires such as the Assyrian and Phoenicans.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Put it simply, there is no evidence of libraries, extensive writings or actually only a few scraps of proto Canaanite/Hebrew writing.
      No one disputes this. Although I think you would have a great deal of trouble illustrating what you mean by proto-Canaanite and Canaanite.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      True, what scrapes are found prior to the exile are primarily Canaanite and Phoenician writing with some proto Hebrew characters. Actually the origins of Phoenician and Canaanite is Proto-Sinaitic influenced by Greek and Egyptian, through the need of language for trade, and Hebrew developed much later from these two.
      The original Hebrew script was the Phoenician alphabet. It is unclear what you are referring to as 'proto-Hebrew characters'. Do you mean the square Aramaic script that was adopted during the exile and in which Hebrew manuscripts are currently still written? That is not the original Hebrew script. I've already mentioned the probable Egyptian influences on the origin of the Phoenician alphabet through proto-Sinaitic. But I do not think proto-Siniaitic script was influenced by Greek. Most everyone seems to agree that the influence was in the other direction, ie, that the Greeks adapted the Phoenician alphabet, 'though some mentioned the Egyptian origin of Phoenician alphabet. Who are you relying on when you say that Canaanite or Proto-Sinaitic was influenced by Greek?

      By the way, do you mean 'scraps' instead of 'scrapes'?
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        The question was how you differentiated between minor pastoral tribes and major pastoral tribes, and now you are simply saying that pastoral tribes are not major tribes. You believe that minor pastoral tribes were part of a 'central commercial trading major culture tribe'. Really? One major tribe? Regardless, this 'central commercial trading major culture tribe', if it exists, is much more than a pastoral tribe so it is just part of the same equivocation. You have not differentiated minor pastoral tribes from major pastoral tribes. You have just said that pastoral tribes are not the same as major central commerical trading entities such as city-states and much larger empires such as the Assyrian and Phoenicans.
        If I failed to communicate properly, I apologize. Major cultures or tribes with a written languages are more complex with significant trading such as the Canaanites and Phoenicians. The minor pastoral tribes like the Hebrews have limited evidence of writing reflecting the major cultures they are affiliated with. The Hebrews evolved from pastoral Canaanite tribes, and developed their distinctive language quite late, after the exile.

        No one disputes this. Although I think you would have a great deal of trouble illustrating what you mean by proto-Canaanite and Canaanite.
        Citing me properly would be proto-Canaanite/Hebrew. Some of the few potshard texts found are basically Canaanite with a few primitive Hebrew characters pointing an evolution of the Hebrew written language at that time.

        The original Hebrew script was the Phoenician alphabet.
        Yes, proto-Hebrew is described as abjad variant of the Phoenician alphabet, but I do not think the distinction between the early Hebrew as clearly Phoenician is clear. Phoenician and Canaanite alphabets evolved together from proto Semitic written languages. The represented the major trade languages of the two cultures.

        Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages



        The Canaanite languages are a subfamily of the Semitic languages, which were spoken by the ancient peoples of the Canaan region, the Canaanites (including the Israelites and Phoenicians), Amorites, Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites. All of them seem to have become extinct as native languages by the early 1st millennium CE (although it is uncertain how long Punic survived), although distinct forms of Hebrew remained in continuous literary and religious use among Jews and Samaritans. This family of languages has the distinction of being the first group of languages to use an alphabet, derived from the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, to record their writings.

        © Copyright Original Source



        It is unclear what you are referring to as 'proto-Hebrew characters'. Do you mean the square Aramaic script that was adopted during the exile and in which Hebrew manuscripts are currently still written?
        No, the earlier proto Hebrew alphabet found in the in the few scraps of archeological writing prior to the exile.

        [/quote]That is not the original Hebrew script. I've already mentioned the probable Egyptian influences on the origin of the Phoenician alphabet through proto-Sinaitic. But I do not think proto-Siniaitic script was influenced by Greek. Most everyone seems to agree that the influence was in the other direction, ie, that the Greeks adapted the Phoenician alphabet, 'though some mentioned the Egyptian origin of Phoenician alphabet. Who are you relying on when you say that Canaanite or Proto-Sinaitic was influenced by Greek? [/quote]

        I guess it is best to consider Greek as evolving from the Phoenician and Canaanite. The earliest written language is the Ugarit cuneiform where the first Psalms are known to occur. Aspects of the Ugarit cuneiform evolved into the Phoenician and Canaanite language. The oldest known myths and other scriptures from Ugarit and pre-Babylonian sources, and the origins of the beginnings of the Torah scripture was compiled from these sources. Languages evolved in major trading tribes and cultures, which is the reason why the Hebrew written language evolved late, as with other 'minor pastoral tribes.'

        By the way, do you mean 'scraps' instead of 'scrapes'?
        Hebrew writing is only known from scraps before the exile period.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-08-2015, 10:43 AM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          If I failed to communicate properly, I apologize.
          I'm glad you realize now just what it was I asking you.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Major cultures or tribes with a written languages are more complex with significant trading such as the Canaanites and Phoenicians.
          I'm glad you agree.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          The minor pastoral tribes like the Hebrews have limited evidence of writing reflecting the major cultures they are affiliated with. The Hebrews evolved from pastoral Canaanite tribes, and developed their distinctive language quite late, after the exile.
          I don't think most scholars would agree with you. Just because our large texts as we have them now are post-exilic is not determinative. If you only rely on physical remnants that have been discovered, you are assuming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and this is very problematic in the archaeology of this period. The few minor examples of distinctively Hebrew orthography and vocabulary from the 10th-9th century should not be ignored or minimized. The big mystery is what type of writing, record keeping took place during the time of the monarchies and we can only speculate about this.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Citing me properly would be proto-Canaanite/Hebrew. Some of the few potshard texts found are basically Canaanite with a few primitive Hebrew characters pointing an evolution of the Hebrew written language at that time.
          No, the characters cannot really be distinguised in this way at this time. There was indeed variation in how some characters were written but we can find examples of this variation within a few lines of the same text. We do not have enough Hebrew text from the early periods to demonstrate a differing alphabet and the commonalities are overwhelming.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Yes, proto-Hebrew is described as abjad variant of the Phoenician alphabet, but I do not think the distinction between the early Hebrew as clearly Phoenician is clear. Phoenician and Canaanite alphabets evolved together from proto Semitic written languages. The represented the major trade languages of the two cultures.
          It is very clear. If you read some of the ancient texts you will see this clear as day.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          The Canaanite languages are a subfamily of the Semitic languages, which were spoken by the ancient peoples of the Canaan region, the Canaanites (including the Israelites and Phoenicians), Amorites, Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites. All of them seem to have become extinct as native languages by the early 1st millennium CE (although it is uncertain how long Punic survived), although distinct forms of Hebrew remained in continuous literary and religious use among Jews and Samaritans. This family of languages has the distinction of being the first group of languages to use an alphabet, derived from the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, to record their writings. [/cite]
          How do you propose to differentiate between the Phonecian used in Canaan and Canaanite?

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          No, the earlier proto Hebrew alphabet found in the in the few scraps of archeological writing prior to the exile.
          I think you are confusing the terms 'paleo-Hebrew' and 'proto-Hebrew'. Basically, this just means the original Hebrew alphabet, which did not differ significantly from the alphabet used commonly in Canaan at the time.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I guess it is best to consider Greek as evolving from the Phoenician and Canaanite.
          Thank you for this concession.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          The earliest written language is the Ugarit cuneiform where the first Psalms are known to occur.
          Akkadian is older than Ugaritic.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Aspects of the Ugarit cuneiform evolved into the Phoenician and Canaanite language.
          Don't confuse writing systems and alphabet with languages.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          The oldest known myths and other scriptures from Ugarit and pre-Babylonian sources, and the origins of the beginnings of the Torah scripture was compiled from these sources. Languages evolved in major trading tribes and cultures, which is the reason why the Hebrew written language evolved late, as with other 'minor pastoral tribes.'

          Hebrew writing is only known from scraps before the exile period.
          No one disputes this, except your view of the Hebrew language not developing until post-exilic times. In reality, it has been known that Hebrew was a Canaanite language since medieval times, and we have evidence of some of the minor Hebrew language variations from the 10th-9th century. If you would learn Hebrew and Moabite, you would see this immediately.
          Last edited by robrecht; 01-08-2015, 04:30 PM.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            I think you are still equivocating between pastoral and nonpastoral tribes. If not, please provide an example of a pastoral tribe with a library of governmental records.
            Not equivocating, just clarification. There are no major pastoral tribes BCE.

            if you not going to ignore or deny the monarchical periods, you should probably acknowledge that the Israelites eventually did develop libraries of government records, so the distinction is not really between major and minor pastoral tribes, but earlier and later monarchies. Also, you've ignored my request that you describe exactly how the specific systems of writing differed among the various Canaanite pastoral tribes. Did they not all simply adopt the simpler writing system of the Phoenicians (who may have developed it from the Egyptians), which is still the basis of all Western alphabets?
            Yes, Hebrews developed distinctive writing quite late. Later monarchies after the exile did develop a distinctive alphabet and yes writing, the result is eventually the Torah. Before the exile we have no evidence of the Torah, nor libraries of anything.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Not equivocating, just clarification. There are no major pastoral tribes BCE.
              Not sure why you are responding to an old post. We've already established that you were not responding to the actual question I was asking you.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Yes, Hebrews developed distinctive writing quite late. Later monarchies after the exile did develop a distinctive alphabet and yes writing, the result is eventually the Torah. Before the exile we have no evidence of the Torah, nor libraries of anything.
              What do you think is so distinctive about the Hebrew alphabet used in our earliest scriptural texts? Is it not merely the Aramaic alphabet?

              The old post that you are responding to here was continuing to ask you a different question, which you've been ignoring: Exactly how did the specific systems of writing differ among the various Canaanite pastoral tribes?

              And, of course, I'm still interested in how you propose to differentiate between the Phonecian used in Canaan and Canaanite?
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Not sure why you are responding to an old post. We've already established that you were not responding to the actual question I was asking you.

                What do you think is so distinctive about the Hebrew alphabet used in our earliest scriptural texts? Is it not merely the Aramaic alphabet?
                Probably not so distinctive early on, over time the evolved first by adding characters, and later became distinctive in form.

                The old post that you are responding to here was continuing to ask you a different question, which you've been ignoring: Exactly how did the specific systems of writing differ among the various Canaanite pastoral tribes?
                No problem, they evolved first by some added characters, and eventually became distinctive alphabets.

                And, of course, I'm still interested in how you propose to differentiate between the Phonecian used in Canaan and Canaanite?
                That is a good question since they evolved together from Egyptian influence and earlier Cuneiform writing, in a broad category of Canaanite languages. It is apparent that alphabets evolved primarily in the major trading cultures.

                Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet

                The Proto-Sinaitic script eventually developed into the Phoenician alphabet, which is conventionally called "Proto-Canaanite" before ca. 1050 BC.[10] The oldest text in Phoenician script is an inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram. This script is the parent script of all western alphabets. By the tenth century two other forms can be distinguished namely Canaanite and Aramaic. The Aramaic gave rise to Hebrew.

                © Copyright Original Source



                The later proto-Sinaitic alphabets are clearly related to the earlier Ugarit and other pre-Babylonian cuneiform.

                Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic_alphabet



                At the time the Ugaritic script was in use (ca. 1300–1190 BCE),[8] Ugarit was at the center of the literate world, among Egypt, Anatolia, Cyprus, Crete, and Mesopotamia. Ugaritic combined the system of the Semitic abjad with cuneiform writing methods (pressing a stylus into clay). However, scholars have searched in vain for graphic prototypes of the Ugaritic letters in Mesopotamian cuneiform. Recently, some have suggested that Ugaritic represents some form of the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet,[9] the letter forms distorted as an adaptation to writing on clay with a stylus. (There may also have been a degree of influence from the poorly understood Byblos syllabary.[10]) It has been proposed in this regard that the two basic shapes in cuneiform, a linear wedge, as in ��, and a corner wedge, as in ��, may correspond to lines and circles in the linear Semitic alphabets: the three Semitic letters with circles, preserved in the Greek Θ, O and Latin Q, are all made with corner wedges in Ugaritic: �� ṭ, �� ʕ, and �� q. Other letters look similar as well: �� h resembles its assumed Greek cognate E, while �� w, �� p, and �� θ are similar to Greek Y, Π, and Σ turned on their sides.[9] Jared Diamond[11] believes the alphabet was consciously designed, citing as evidence the possibility that the letters with the fewest strokes may have been the most frequent.

                © Copyright Original Source

                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Probably not so distinctive early on, ...
                  Thank you for that concession.

                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  ... over time the evolved first by adding characters, and later became distinctive in form.
                  What characters do you think were added later on??? Scribal practices and orthography do develop over time, but the alphabet has not changed. A final mem and a medial mem, for example, are both still a mem.

                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  No problem, they evolved first by some added characters, and eventually became distinctive alphabets.
                  No, they did not really have distinctive alphabets. Show me examples of distinctive Canaanite alphabets.

                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  That is a good question since they evolved together from Egyptian influence and earlier Cuneiform writing, in a broad category of Canaanite languages. It is apparent that alphabets evolved primarily in the major trading cultures.

                  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet

                  The Proto-Sinaitic script eventually developed into the Phoenician alphabet, which is conventionally called "Proto-Canaanite" before ca. 1050 BC.[10] The oldest text in Phoenician script is an inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram. This script is the parent script of all western alphabets. By the tenth century two other forms can be distinguished namely Canaanite and Aramaic. The Aramaic gave rise to Hebrew.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  The later proto-Sinaitic alphabets are clearly related to the earlier Ugarit and other pre-Babylonian cuneiform.

                  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic_alphabet



                  At the time the Ugaritic script was in use (ca. 1300–1190 BCE),[8] Ugarit was at the center of the literate world, among Egypt, Anatolia, Cyprus, Crete, and Mesopotamia. Ugaritic combined the system of the Semitic abjad with cuneiform writing methods (pressing a stylus into clay). However, scholars have searched in vain for graphic prototypes of the Ugaritic letters in Mesopotamian cuneiform. Recently, some have suggested that Ugaritic represents some form of the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet,[9] the letter forms distorted as an adaptation to writing on clay with a stylus. (There may also have been a degree of influence from the poorly understood Byblos syllabary.[10]) It has been proposed in this regard that the two basic shapes in cuneiform, a linear wedge, as in ��, and a corner wedge, as in ��, may correspond to lines and circles in the linear Semitic alphabets: the three Semitic letters with circles, preserved in the Greek Θ, O and Latin Q, are all made with corner wedges in Ugaritic: �� ṭ, �� ʕ, and �� q. Other letters look similar as well: �� h resembles its assumed Greek cognate E, while �� w, �� p, and �� θ are similar to Greek Y, Π, and Σ turned on their sides.[9] Jared Diamond[11] believes the alphabet was consciously designed, citing as evidence the possibility that the letters with the fewest strokes may have been the most frequent.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  All of this is completely nonresponsive. You have not provided any basis for differentiating between the Phonecian used in Canaan and Canaanite? You should withdraw your earlier comment.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    Thank you for that concession.

                    What characters do you think were added later on??? Scribal practices and orthography do develop over time, but the alphabet has not changed. A final mem and a medial mem, for example, are both still a mem.

                    No, they did not really have distinctive alphabets. Show me examples of distinctive Canaanite alphabets.


                    All of this is completely nonresponsive. You have not provided any basis for differentiating between the Phonecian used in Canaan and Canaanite? You should withdraw your earlier comment.
                    Been there done that time to move on.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Been there done that time to move on.
                      Of course, you cannot demonstrate any of these things. Next time learn the languages you want to write about.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        Of course, you cannot demonstrate any of these things. Next time learn the languages you want to write about.
                        Likewise. I have provided my specific references, you have provide little or nothing, and ignored my references. You have a distinct habit od twisting things around, as with other threads.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Likewise. I have provided my specific references, you have provide little or nothing, and ignored my references. You have a distinct habit od twisting things around, as with other threads.
                            I have learned some of these languages. I have not ignored your references, but they simply do not say what you seem to think they say.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Likewise. I have provided my specific references, you have provide little or nothing, and ignored my references. You have a distinct habit od twisting things around, as with other threads.
                              That is obviously a post you wrote from your holiday home on Bizzaro world, right? I mean, it's basically exactly opposite to what happened in this very thread....
                              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by tabibito, 05-12-2022, 10:42 PM
                              42 responses
                              299 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by Alien, 03-31-2022, 02:43 PM
                              1,993 responses
                              10,796 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post little_monkey  
                              Started by rstrats, 02-13-2021, 12:23 PM
                              59 responses
                              512 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X