That might be true, but no such "hard evidence" has been presented. Just some cooks coming up with some bull to get their name in the spotlight.
Triumph
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 15,031
- 14
- 81
Yeah I don't get it either. "This is not a bible code!" they claim. "You just have to convert letters to pictographs, using this legend we developed, but this isn't a code!"
I would like to first thank you for the opportunity to post in this forum and on this thread. I hope that those of you who are sincere about Truth and are serious students of linguistics, and Hebrew in particular will appreciate what I am about to share. I invite all the criticism you can muster on this topic, it has been a passion of mine ever since the "pictographiles" began to muster upon the World Wide Web. I apologize in advance if any toes are stepped upon; it is only my desire to separate Truth from False, and thereby help unsuspecting persons from being misled because of personal gain, and to attain true Biblical Insights.
There are groups of individuals who make the claim that there is a deeper meaning of the Ancient Hebrew based upon the suggestion that the original Hebrew script might have been pictographic. This is really a pseudo-science and poor scholarship. Those making the claim are not trained linguists, and have no clue how languages evolved or work.
The earliest languages recorded are the Sumerian and Egyptian Hieroglyphic. Both languages are infact hieroglyphic in nature, being that Sumerian is also based on pictures. In these most ancient of languages, which utilize pictures for letters, even these did not utilize the picture as any inner meaning to the word. Ancient Egyptian can demonstrate this easiest, as everyone is sure what the pictures are and represent; as opposed to the Sumerian Cuneiform, which many cannot read, much less understand their original pictographic meaning.
The Egyptian writing method employs 134 Phonetic signs, and 180 ideographic and determinative signs. The phonetic signs are divided into: monoliteral, the sign represents one phonetic sound; biliteral, the sign represents two phonetic sounds; and triliteral, the sign represents three phonetic sounds. The entirety of Egyptian grammar is much like any other Semitic language. It uses the phonetic signs to build vocabulary, verbs, and is used in the same manner as the later alephbets are used. The ideographs and determinatives are only used to give a clearer meaning to the words built upon the phonetic signs. This is due to the fact that there are many words (in many languages) which are homophones. They are spelled and sound the same, but have different meanings. It is the ideographs and determinatives which give the reader the true meanings of these words. The Egyptian Phonetic signs are used identically to how we use our English alphabet. For instance, the phonetic signs for “i/y” is a reed, the “glottal stop ie. aleph and ayin” is a vulture, and the “w” is represented by a quail chick. Looking at them together they would be: a Reed, Vulture, Quail chick. No Egyptian would read this as having anything to do with a Reed, Vuture or Quail chick. They would understand that these are Phonetic symbols, here they are monoliteral, and represents the sounds I, 3 (glottal stop), and W or I3W. In Egyptian this can represent two different words. This is where the ideograph or determinative comes into play. The ideograph and determinative come at the end of each word to give specific meaning about the word represented by the phonetic symbol. A man leaning on his cain or staff would represent “old age”, a man standing with arms stretched toward heaven would represent “adoration/worship”. Hence, when you see the Reed, Vulture, Quail chick with a man leaning on a staff, it means “old, or olderly”, while the exact same signs with a man holding his hands toward heaven at the end would represent prayer, or adoration. Two different meanings and neither have anything in common with the actual picture representations used for the phonetic symbol. This same method is employed by the Sumerians, Akkadians, Hittites, and even the modern Chinese and Japanese.
The Hebrew language developed much later than the Egyptian, Sumerian or even Chinese. By the time the Semites developed their own alphabet, their language already employed the Cuneiform system of the Akkadians, which was a hieroglyphic type system, utilizing pictures to represent phonemes. Even if one could prove positively that the ancient Hebrew was indeed pictographic, these pictures were phonetic signs only, and the pictures had no significance to the meaning of the words in which they were employed. The names of the alphabet were used only to represent the intitial sounds. For instance, the letter Beth only represented the “b” sound, and did not have any meaning inherent in a “house” which was what the name Beth meant. This is known as acrophony: the naming of letters of an alphabetic writing system so that a letter's name begins with the letter itself. For example, Greek letter names are acrophonic: the names of the letters α, β, γ, δ, are spelled with the respective letters: ἄλφα (alpha), βῆτα (beta), γάμμα (gamma), δέλτα (delta).
Hebrew developed among the nations which utilized pictographic writing, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. It would stand to reason that if the ancient Hebrews did employ a pictographic language, then their rules would resemble those of the nations in which it developed. Indeed it does. Looking at these early languages we find that there were certain signs which were used to represent phonemes; the phonetic signs. In each of these languages, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. there are signs which represent consonants, and vowels (Egyptian excluded); these languages had verb conjugation, and noun declensions, prepositions, adverbs, participles, ect. There are strong verbs, doubling verbs, weak verbs, and doubly weak verbs.
Egyptian verbs work in a similar way to Hebrew verbs, mostly utilizing a triliteral root. For instance: SDMNF means “he heard”; which was written with the picture representation of: Bulls Ear, Owl, Water, Horned Viper (representing the “He” suffix pronoun). The perfect tense in Egyptian, like Hebrew is governed in the suffix. “I heard” in Egyptian would be SDMNI which would be written as: Bulls Ear, Owl, Water and a kneeling man (representing the “I” suffix pronoun). Hebrew works similarly to the Egyptian method. שמע Shama’ means “he heard”. It is written with the Shin (two front teeth) Mim (Water) and Ayin (Eye or Spring). “I heard” would be written שמעתי Shama’ti Shin (Two front teeth) Mim (Water) Ayin (Eye or Spring) Tav (an “x” mark) Yod (Hand). In Both Egyptian and Hebrew the 1st singular perfect is represented with an “I/Y”. Sedjemeni (I heard) Shamati (I heard).
One famous Egyptian word is MS which is written: Three Fox Skins, Piece of Cloth meaning “to bear/give birth”. This is found in famous names such as Tutmoses, and could also possibly be the origin of the name Moses. Notice the meaning of the word has no relation to three fox’s skins nor a piece of cloth.
The point I am trying to make is that even among those most ancient of languages which we all know to have used pictographs, these pictographs didn’t work the way many claim ancient Hebrew works in regard to pictographs. One final example.
In Egyptian Hieroglyphic there is no pictograph for a “dove” even though "dove" is mentioned earliest among the Hieroglyphs. The word for “dove” is PAT, which is written as a Reed Mat, Arm, Loaf. What then does a reed mat, arm and loaf have to do with a dove? Nothing at all; the glyphs only represented the phonetic signs to pronounce the word PAT.
There are groups of individuals who make the claim that there is a deeper meaning of the Ancient Hebrew based upon the suggestion that the original Hebrew script might have been pictographic. This is really a pseudo-science and poor scholarship. Those making the claim are not trained linguists, and have no clue how languages evolved or work.
The earliest languages recorded are the Sumerian and Egyptian Hieroglyphic. Both languages are infact hieroglyphic in nature, being that Sumerian is also based on pictures. In these most ancient of languages, which utilize pictures for letters, even these did not utilize the picture as any inner meaning to the word. Ancient Egyptian can demonstrate this easiest, as everyone is sure what the pictures are and represent; as opposed to the Sumerian Cuneiform, which many cannot read, much less understand their original pictographic meaning.
The Egyptian writing method employs 134 Phonetic signs, and 180 ideographic and determinative signs. The phonetic signs are divided into: monoliteral, the sign represents one phonetic sound; biliteral, the sign represents two phonetic sounds; and triliteral, the sign represents three phonetic sounds. The entirety of Egyptian grammar is much like any other Semitic language. It uses the phonetic signs to build vocabulary, verbs, and is used in the same manner as the later alephbets are used. The ideographs and determinatives are only used to give a clearer meaning to the words built upon the phonetic signs. This is due to the fact that there are many words (in many languages) which are homophones. They are spelled and sound the same, but have different meanings. It is the ideographs and determinatives which give the reader the true meanings of these words. The Egyptian Phonetic signs are used identically to how we use our English alphabet. For instance, the phonetic signs for “i/y” is a reed, the “glottal stop ie. aleph and ayin” is a vulture, and the “w” is represented by a quail chick. Looking at them together they would be: a Reed, Vulture, Quail chick. No Egyptian would read this as having anything to do with a Reed, Vuture or Quail chick. They would understand that these are Phonetic symbols, here they are monoliteral, and represents the sounds I, 3 (glottal stop), and W or I3W. In Egyptian this can represent two different words. This is where the ideograph or determinative comes into play. The ideograph and determinative come at the end of each word to give specific meaning about the word represented by the phonetic symbol. A man leaning on his cain or staff would represent “old age”, a man standing with arms stretched toward heaven would represent “adoration/worship”. Hence, when you see the Reed, Vulture, Quail chick with a man leaning on a staff, it means “old, or olderly”, while the exact same signs with a man holding his hands toward heaven at the end would represent prayer, or adoration. Two different meanings and neither have anything in common with the actual picture representations used for the phonetic symbol. This same method is employed by the Sumerians, Akkadians, Hittites, and even the modern Chinese and Japanese.
The Hebrew language developed much later than the Egyptian, Sumerian or even Chinese. By the time the Semites developed their own alphabet, their language already employed the Cuneiform system of the Akkadians, which was a hieroglyphic type system, utilizing pictures to represent phonemes. Even if one could prove positively that the ancient Hebrew was indeed pictographic, these pictures were phonetic signs only, and the pictures had no significance to the meaning of the words in which they were employed. The names of the alphabet were used only to represent the intitial sounds. For instance, the letter Beth only represented the “b” sound, and did not have any meaning inherent in a “house” which was what the name Beth meant. This is known as acrophony: the naming of letters of an alphabetic writing system so that a letter's name begins with the letter itself. For example, Greek letter names are acrophonic: the names of the letters α, β, γ, δ, are spelled with the respective letters: ἄλφα (alpha), βῆτα (beta), γάμμα (gamma), δέλτα (delta).
Hebrew developed among the nations which utilized pictographic writing, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. It would stand to reason that if the ancient Hebrews did employ a pictographic language, then their rules would resemble those of the nations in which it developed. Indeed it does. Looking at these early languages we find that there were certain signs which were used to represent phonemes; the phonetic signs. In each of these languages, Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Hittite, etc. there are signs which represent consonants, and vowels (Egyptian excluded); these languages had verb conjugation, and noun declensions, prepositions, adverbs, participles, ect. There are strong verbs, doubling verbs, weak verbs, and doubly weak verbs.
Egyptian verbs work in a similar way to Hebrew verbs, mostly utilizing a triliteral root. For instance: SDMNF means “he heard”; which was written with the picture representation of: Bulls Ear, Owl, Water, Horned Viper (representing the “He” suffix pronoun). The perfect tense in Egyptian, like Hebrew is governed in the suffix. “I heard” in Egyptian would be SDMNI which would be written as: Bulls Ear, Owl, Water and a kneeling man (representing the “I” suffix pronoun). Hebrew works similarly to the Egyptian method. שמע Shama’ means “he heard”. It is written with the Shin (two front teeth) Mim (Water) and Ayin (Eye or Spring). “I heard” would be written שמעתי Shama’ti Shin (Two front teeth) Mim (Water) Ayin (Eye or Spring) Tav (an “x” mark) Yod (Hand). In Both Egyptian and Hebrew the 1st singular perfect is represented with an “I/Y”. Sedjemeni (I heard) Shamati (I heard).
One famous Egyptian word is MS which is written: Three Fox Skins, Piece of Cloth meaning “to bear/give birth”. This is found in famous names such as Tutmoses, and could also possibly be the origin of the name Moses. Notice the meaning of the word has no relation to three fox’s skins nor a piece of cloth.
The point I am trying to make is that even among those most ancient of languages which we all know to have used pictographs, these pictographs didn’t work the way many claim ancient Hebrew works in regard to pictographs. One final example.
In Egyptian Hieroglyphic there is no pictograph for a “dove” even though "dove" is mentioned earliest among the Hieroglyphs. The word for “dove” is PAT, which is written as a Reed Mat, Arm, Loaf. What then does a reed mat, arm and loaf have to do with a dove? Nothing at all; the glyphs only represented the phonetic signs to pronounce the word PAT.
Last edited:
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 22,392
- 5,004
- 136
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Which version of the Quran is the original unchanged version? The several Othman had destroyed, or the original copies Othman had destroyed when he had his version created?
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
The OP is talking about Reconstructionist Judaism. It is a load of bunk. Judaism was created as an alphabetic language by those in Egypt who used the symbols of the hyroglyphic Egyptian language to represent sounds. Over time, the way these symbols were drawn changed, as well as the way they were pronounced, but the meanings remained the same. El mean God at the beginning of the language and still means God today. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism
EDIT: There are mistranslations in the Bible, depending on which translation you use they are minor or major. The King James Version mistranslated murder into kill in the ten commandments, for example. Most of the mistranslations are due to not understanding the culture in which the writings were done, which means even a literal translation can be incorrect. For example, if you directly translated "James Dean is cool" into another language, you can easily get "James Dean has low body temperature". It would be a correct translation from the words used, but completely wrong as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism
EDIT: There are mistranslations in the Bible, depending on which translation you use they are minor or major. The King James Version mistranslated murder into kill in the ten commandments, for example. Most of the mistranslations are due to not understanding the culture in which the writings were done, which means even a literal translation can be incorrect. For example, if you directly translated "James Dean is cool" into another language, you can easily get "James Dean has low body temperature". It would be a correct translation from the words used, but completely wrong as well.
Last edited:
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Well said.
I did a quick Internet search to see if you ripped this off from someone else and did not give them credit via a link, but all posts of it have the same name, which matches yours, so I am going to assume you are the original author.
Are you?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
crashtestdummy
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2010
- 2,893
- 0
- 0
The biggest hole in this argument is that there are only 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. If each of these are actually full words, the entire bible is written with just 22 unique words. I'm guessing that is not the case.
Besides that, though, the Hebrew alphabet is directly associated with the Phoenician and Aramaic alphabets, and the Greek alphabet is derived from the the Phoenician one. If Hebrew is completely wrong in structure, so are Aramaic and Phoenician, and the Greeks got it wrong in 900 BCE when they co-opted it (and still had living users of Phoenician to reference).
As someone who attends a Reconstructionist synagogue, you have no idea what you're talking about. Reconstructionism is about redefining your conception of God and Torah to accommodate a modern world (including, for many, rejecting the supernatural and the divine nature of Torah), but has nothing at all to do with changing the wording or written meaning of Torah. We read it the same way all other Jews do.
Besides that, though, the Hebrew alphabet is directly associated with the Phoenician and Aramaic alphabets, and the Greek alphabet is derived from the the Phoenician one. If Hebrew is completely wrong in structure, so are Aramaic and Phoenician, and the Greeks got it wrong in 900 BCE when they co-opted it (and still had living users of Phoenician to reference).
The OP is talking about Reconstructionist Judaism. It is a load of bunk. Judaism was created as an alphabetic language by those in Egypt who used the symbols of the hyroglyphic Egyptian language to represent sounds. Over time, the way these symbols were drawn changed, as well as the way they were pronounced, but the meanings remained the same. El mean God at the beginning of the language and still means God today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism
EDIT: There are mistranslations in the Bible, depending on which translation you use they are minor or major. The King James Version mistranslated murder into kill in the ten commandments, for example. Most of the mistranslations are due to not understanding the culture in which the writings were done, which means even a literal translation can be incorrect. For example, if you directly translated "James Dean is cool" into another language, you can easily get "James Dean has low body temperature". It would be a correct translation from the words used, but completely wrong as well.
As someone who attends a Reconstructionist synagogue, you have no idea what you're talking about. Reconstructionism is about redefining your conception of God and Torah to accommodate a modern world (including, for many, rejecting the supernatural and the divine nature of Torah), but has nothing at all to do with changing the wording or written meaning of Torah. We read it the same way all other Jews do.
So can anyone explain to a layman like me why this research is wrong? Clearly it must be, or it would have received greater attention.
EDIT:
@crashtestdummy
Thanks, I read the wikipedia article on reconstructionist Judaism and wondered WTF does this have to do with the OP.
EDIT:
@crashtestdummy
Thanks, I read the wikipedia article on reconstructionist Judaism and wondered WTF does this have to do with the OP.
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Sorry, I was unaware there were different kinds of reconstructionism until just now. I was referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism
Reading that showed me there are reconstructionists who accept the concept of a personal God, such as the one who spoke to Abraham and Moses.
Apparently, there is a lot of misunderstanding about reconstructionist judaism (and I fell into that category). In this way, it is much like messianic judaism - a lot of misunderstanding about it.
Have a good site where I can read up on your style of it?
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
There are groups of reconstructionists (which I thought was the entirety of them, but was wrong) who believe that every word actually means something other than what we all think it means.
PingviN
Golden Member
- Nov 3, 2009
- 1,848
- 13
- 81
"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."
Too true. Too true...
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
crashtestdummy
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2010
- 2,893
- 0
- 0
That is my "style", so to speak, but you have to understand the difference between changing the original text and changing your interpretation of it. We read the words of the text the same way, but have a very different evaluation of their meaning. Kaplan's thesis is that Judaism is best thought of as a civilization rather than a religion alone. This makes a lot of sense, since the Torah (Old Testament through Deuteronomy) is largely concerned with creating a definition of the Jewish people, outlining a foundation myth, describing ritual and law, deliniating the ways in which Jews are supposed to be different than other people, and establishing a kind of exceptionalism in calling them the "chosen people".
Within this rubric, Judaism has been "reconstructed" various times throughout history, from the priestly-driven culture of Babylonian times to the Rabbinic era of the late roman period, to the permanent minority culture of the middle ages, to the post-holocaust state of Israel we have now. It only makes sense that within those massive structural changes, our approach towards the religious aspects change as well. Kaplan, specifically, rejected a supernatural God and suggested that Jews worshiped the sum and totality of nature, spiritual or not. This is certainly not universally held among Reconstructionist Jews, but it does describe the beliefs of the movement's founder. There is no mandate on how--or if--you should believe in God (I don't even know my Rabbi's opinion). Hell, I know Orthodox Jews who are atheists.
As I said before, we still read the Torah, and it is largely the same text that you know of. The main differences are that we do not necessarily assume divine authorship or the existence of God. Halakha are thought to be useful summations of traditional wisdom, but are not seen as requirements. We do not assume that the bible is meant to be literal truth, but that does not mean we change the words.
Edit: Here is one Rabbi's interpretation of Reconstructionism. Note that it is far less atheist than my (or Kaplan's) interpretation, but it gives you some idea of the range of ethos that exists.
Edit 2: I don't want this to be a thread derail as it has little to do with the OP, but I am happy to talk more along these lines over PM.
Last edited:
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Thanks! I will read up on your link, and search for others. Knowledge is important. While I thoughouly disagree with you, I need to read a LOT more about it before having any conversations on its correct or incorrectness.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
A picture is one letter......
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Last edited:
BurnItDwn
Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 26,355
- 1,868
- 126
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA HA HAHAHAHAHA
Atheists may use mistranslations to point out flaws in the belief structure. Essentially, this can weed out some of the "false" beliefs (such as 6000 year old earth, or jesus and dinosaurs were friends), and help to teach the believers that they are wrong about certain things.
You can't "prove god doesn't exist" per say ...
You can pretty much prove that the christian god as written in the king james bible doesn't exist (using the omniscient + omnipotent paradox for example)
However, that does not prove or disprove the existence of 1 or more gods.
That being said, I think most people who are reasonable have observed that since there is 0 evidence of 1 or more gods, the probability any sort of god existing is extremely extremely extremely low. However, People who have made that observation and still believe are simply relying on faith.
And really, the whole foundation of religion isn't based upon observations or evidence or proof , it's based 100% only on faith. I don't, and never have had "faith", I'm simply not capable of comprehending it. But I realize that faith exists.
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Of course the old testament has always listed other gods in it. Even in the many translations. Old Jews were polytheistic, with the old testament in reverence to the "supreme" god of them all.
For those that don't believe me here look this up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
Just in the 10 commandments there are a few mentions of "other gods" such as not making any images of other gods in heaven. Or not bowing down to the other gods either.
Christianity is not really monotheistic either. Yeshua is revered as a God along with god. As well as other god like beings.
No matter how you want to spin a fairytale it is still one though.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter