• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Ancient Hebrew & related matters

Verifyveritas76

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Moderator note: This discussion began in response to a question regarding women preaching, and was moved here to keep things tidy, see the original threadfor the context. Note ends.

I hold much the same view. Full stop! However the answer to your question will not be fully understood until you understand spiritual covering.
In short, a woman speaking in the assembly under authority (both her Adown and the assemblies Adown) is totally acceptable. This idea assumes that it is not a passive acceptance but with full support.
A woman without that spiritual covering and support becomes a Jezebel mentioned in Revelation. Why? Because of the biblical principle of the Adown (the man standing at the door of the tent giving account) and anything with two heads is a monster.
Obviously according to Paul's restrictions she could not be a pastor or deacon in an ordained sense, but could be an appointed servant leader as Phoebe of Romans 16.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I see it, she may not be in a position of leadership over other Adowns, but is perfectly able to, and in some cases appointed to a position of influence over other women and children as in Titus 2:4. In the rare case of prophecy, she may even be able to influence nations or assemblies as Deborah did or Phillips 4 daughters
 
As I see it, she may not be in a position of leadership over other Adowns, but is perfectly able to, and in some cases appointed to a position of influence over other women and children as in Titus 2:4. In the rare case of prophecy, she may even be able to influence nations or assemblies as Deborah did or Phillips 4 daughters
What is an "Adown"?
Context seems you are saying man? Adam? first I thought typo and maybe you were writing it with German Jewish accent "Owdowm" (my father says it that way) but I saw you wrote it lots in different posts so I realized I don't know what it is.
Tnx
 
Last edited:
What is an "Adown"?
Context seems you are saying man? Adam? first I thought typo and maybe you were writing it with German Jewish accent "Owdowm" (my father says it that way) but I saw you wrote it lots in different posts so I realized I don't know what it is.
Tnx
Adown is the Hebrew root of the word Adowny more commonly known in English as Adonai. It's what Sarai called Abraham in Gen. 18 and is commended for in 1 Peter. I've been thinking about putting it in a thread but there's so much info on it once you start studying that I have hesitated because of so much typing.

Basically the word is a code that is as follows based upon paleo Hebrew
A. Aleph. The head of household
D. Daleh. The door/ the veil
W. Waw/vav. The tent stake/woman
N. Nun. The treasure, the seed, the child
Y. Yod. The right hand, authority

In short, after much study which is ongoing because I haven't exhausted it yet, I have interpreted it as follows
The man, positioned before the veil/door, giving account for those within his tent or covering- the woman, the tent stake or one who anchors her house in place and the seed or treasure by authority entrusted to him by Yah.

It's amazing how God will direct your studies. At the time I came across this, I was teaching through the feast days and was in Exodus 34 teaching on the first Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur. When I realized how important it was for the man to be positioned in the doorway i had brain hurts for the next week or so till I got it wrapped around how big this is.

I have come to believe the Isaiah 4:1 reference to the seven women laying hold upon one man will probably find fulfillment due to this principle. That they are without a spiritual covering and the judge is headed for their door
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to note that from what I have found in Hebrew culture even today a wedding is considered a personal Yom Kippur. A courtroom if you will. After this day your past will be remembered no more, you are indelibly bound to your advocate who will continue to stand before the judge for you giving account for everything that happens in his tent. This is why the aspect of putting away (not divorce) is so important to understand. Basically, as I understand it, putting away is the physical action that denotes a removal of spiritual covering. I.e. These actions are unacceptable, I will not give account for these actions so I am removing my spiritual covering for a time until these actions are corrected. Provision, and protection are still provided but fellowship and cohabitation are restricted.
The interesting part of this equation if you understand that Jesus modeled the perfect Adown, is that the man, once he accepts the responsibility may never leave or forsake. His only option is to put away. The woman who is put away, if she decides she's had enough and won't reconcile may decide to leave in which case he may grant a writing of divorcement, officially stating that she is no longer under covering.
Incidentally, the man may choose to not grant the writing of divorce which means he is accountable still and still in authority as God was in Malachi. This is why a woman put away sleeping with another Adown commits adultery. She is still under covenant till she gets the writing of divorce.
 
Last edited:
Adown is the Hebrew root of the word Adowny more commonly known in English as Adonai. It's what Sarai called Abraham in Gen. 18 and is commended for in 1 Peter. I've been thinking about putting it in a thread but there's so much info on it once you start studying that I have hesitated because of so much typing.

Basically the word is a code that is as follows based upon paleo Hebrew
A. Aleph. The head of household
D. Daleh. The door/ the veil
W. Waw/vav. The tent stake/woman
N. Nun. The treasure, the seed, the child
Y. Yod. The right hand, authority

In short, after much study which is ongoing because I haven't exhausted it yet, I have interpreted it as follows
The man, positioned before the veil/door, giving account for those within his tent or covering- the woman, the tent stake or one who anchors her house in place and the seed or treasure by authority entrusted to him by Yah.

It's amazing how God will direct your studies. At the time I came across this, I was teaching through the feast days and was in Exodus 34 teaching on the first Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur. When I realized how important it was for the man to be positioned in the doorway i had brain hurts for the next week or so till I got it wrapped around how big this is.

I have come to believe the Isaiah 4:1 reference to the seven women laying hold upon one man will probably find fulfillment due to this principle. That they are without a spiritual covering and the judge is headed for their door

Aaaaaaaah. It's been awhile since I encountered someone teaching using the Paleo Hebrew interpretations.

It's a nice mnemonic device and I think you would captivate a congregation using it in a sermon.

I would like to share though that Hebrew did not develop pictographically.
Yes, the Phoenician script did have symbols where the names of the animals/objects represented those symbols like Aleph was an oxe. I guess that's where you are getting "head of the household" because an oxe is strong? The symbol was an aerial view of an oxe and yoke.

Since Hebrew was spoken long before it adopted the alphabet of other surrounding cultures (Phoenician derivatives i.e. 'Paleo Hebrew'), the names of the alphabet letters given by those other nations (i.e. aleph) did not play a role in the meanings of the words since the words were spoken first before they were written.

Waw is transcribed in Ancient pronunciation either as a vowel: u/o or as a consonant: w. I haven't seen it transliterated as both before: ow in Adown. Doesn't mean it couldn't have been that way. I learned the ancient pronunciation from the textbook:

"A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew" by Jacob Weingreen-Oxford press if you're interested in accurately pronouncing it the ancient way (as accurately as we can at least). The typeface is not so nice as it's a bit old but still published today due to it’s tremendous job at reducing Biblical grammar down to the basics only. I used to use this text exclusively teaching Biblical Hebrew.

Ancient Egyptian does have a system where at times the symbol chosen to write the sound can add a nuance to the word, usually with names. For example if I wanted to write 'Jerod' I can choose to use the snake sign for the 'J' and a vulture for the 'e' etc.... but Jerod probably won't like having a snake in his name so if he's a friend I might prefer to choose a basket picture which represents both the 'J' and 'e' sign all at once.

So instead of snake-vulture-mouth-baby chicken-hand for his name I wrote basket-mouth-baby chicken-hand (one less symbol but no implications of being snake like). Also in Egyptian words the very last sign or two are often not read and they classify the entire word (determinative). So if you have the word for eat, or talk, etc. the last symbol is likely a mean sitting with his hand touching his mouth; the word has something to do with the mouth. Egyptian worked this way; Hebrew did not.

So the teaching you shared is very nice, we just have to be aware that with word formation in Hebrew the alphabet letters we use have no role in the meaning or nuance of the word.

If someone wanted to write אדון Adon in the ancient script, they had NO CHOICE but to choose aleph for the first letter due to the fact that aleph was the ONLY letter in the 22 letter Hebrew alphabet that made that sound. For ‘d’ ONLY dalet could make that sound so they weren’t thinking “this looks like the door to a tent’ they were thinking “I need a ‘d’ sound what can I use? That’s right daleth is my only choice”.

See what I mean? In Egyptian they had choices with their thousands of signs and one creative scribe in ancient Egypt used ALL CROCODILES (in different poses, etc.) in one of his writings!!!

So it’s a nice principle if the meanings of the paleo-letters help people to remember things, I usually tell my students use it as a mnemonic device only if that’s helpful, but don’t put any theological stock in it.

If anyone’s interested in ancient Egyptian language the primary texts I used to study are:

Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs”-Sir Alan Gardiner (THE classic grammar but outdated now, I love it’s rustic smell)
Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs”-James Allen (maybe most popular nowadays)
Heilige Zeichen. 580 Ägyptische Hieroglyphen. Die ganze Welt der Pharaonen wird verständlich und lebendig”-Betro (very cheap used but in German)
Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs-A Practical Guide”-Kamrin (harder to find but colorful)
How to read Egyptian Hieroglyphs: A Step-by-step Guid to Teach Yourself”-Collier (focus is on interpreting objects you’ll see on tours in Egypt)
(listed here because you can sometimes get these for a song on ebay or used book stores. Maybe I can pick up a study buddy believer many of those in the online groups are pagans).

The Allen text is most useful for self-instruction if you like being part of a group-it has a lot of support from online communities who work through it cyclically and submit homework assignments etc all for free.

There is a nice chart with accurate depictions of the various forms of Old Hebrew in various forms: Mesa, Seals and gems, Siloam, various coins from Maccabees etc, in

Hebräische Grammatik” by Wilhelm Gesenius. Older printings are in the public domain so you can download it. It’s written in German language (as most of the truly scholarly Hebrew references are), but the fold out chart is still clear and easily findable just after the TOC.
Beware, I've seen some of those pamphlet type books and lessons circulating about using "paleo hebrew" to understand words. A pastor friend of mine was using one here to teach. The writers are hacks often with no real Hebrew education but their presentation is grand so it can suck people in.
(I elaborated a bit more than maybe needed thinking someone here may see it and share my passion or it gets scrolled by g-bot and helps our community gain more members).
Peace
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much for that, IshChayil. We are honored.
 
Obviously I'm not as far along as you in Hebrew. You may be able to get much further with this model than I.
The spelling I used is the Hebrew form used in Genesis 18:12 when Sarah called Abraham "lord".
How it rates on the scholarly scale I don't know but I was directed to Jeff A. Benner's Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. He has several works out that are not entirely easy to understand but if you put the time in, they will shed a lot of light. He also has a website http://ahlb.ancient-hebrew.org
 
As to using Paleo for strictly mnemonics, I would reply that a key that unlocks no doors has a utility similar to mnemonics. It's obviously not good for much. However, what I have found is that understanding the Paleo has been more like having the master key to understanding much of the Bible in its Hebraic roots and culture especially as it relates to the family structure and the Adown. I think I'll keep unlocking doors till it no longer works.

Something Ive come across recently and have only looked into it a limited amount is the correlation between the Hebrew words and the divisions of Psalms 119. For instance, compare the verses in the divisions spelling out ADWNY (father) BT (daughter) BN (Son) etc. I found it interesting in at least these instances that the verses in the divisions targeted the word.
 
As to the issue of if the Phonecians were the first with the alphabet or not, I believe that the Paleo Hebrew around the base of Jabal al law (Sinai/Horeb) in Saudi Arabia does a pretty good job of disproving that theory, especially once the Exodus is recognized as being in the 1500 ish BC rather than the 1200 BC era.

He! He! I love opening big cans of worms.
 
Obviously I'm not as far along as you in Hebrew. You may be able to get much further with this model than I.
The spelling I used is the Hebrew form used in Genesis 18:12 when Sarah called Abraham "lord".
How it rates on the scholarly scale I don't know but I was directed to Jeff A. Benner's Ancient Hebrew Lexicon of the Bible. He has several works out that are not entirely easy to understand but if you put the time in, they will shed a lot of light. He also has a website http://ahlb.ancient-hebrew.org

Yes, he's one I checked out for a pastor buddy in the past (he wanted to know if the method was legitte).
That guy bases his definitions on strongs concordance. You know I've mentioned nobody should *ever* use strongs for Hebrew or Aramaic definitions...ever .... ever
I'm not aware of a single Hebrew Scholar who would mention strongs as a source for definitions. This Benner guy does. He bases his definitions on strongs and modifies or confirms if they are right based on this pictorial way of interpreting Hebrew. If you build your house on sand....(strongs)
Now you said you've found his work useful; OK. I'm not trying to take that away from you.
Maybe he has a commentary style which is edifying, I haven’t looked deeply enough to notice that.
Often people with talents in one area express it somewhere else.
Like I recently reviewed the AENT "aramaic" new testament translation (Roth) for a friend of mine.
I quickly found out that the "translator" had simply taken 2 public domain English translations, edited them (changed names to sound more Aramaic in English) and allowed people to think it was his translation (his website only said he "compared translations" not that he used them as his own and edited them). He apparently did translate part of the book of Galatians or Ephesians (I can't remember) since he didn't like the theological overtones the older English translations produced.

Now, Roth has an interesting commentary throughout his "translation". I disagreed with much of what I read but still worth reading. So in this case I told my friend read his commentary but be aware that he's not totally forthcoming about not having translated the work and he has no credentials so read the commentary critically (i.e. don't trust any claims until you verify sources, etc). Not everyone is equipped to do this.

I think maybe the same with this Benner guy. Not really a Hebrew scholar; but maybe his commentary is edifying or the way he organizes and presents information. I don't know but sounds like you do so enjoy but don't trust his definitions or etymologies as they are not-standard, and rejected by the scholarly community.

Hope I’m not upsetting anyone; I'm just trying to enlighten in the area G-d has blessed me and if that Benner resource is useful for you great; just use his work critically.

I really appreciate you and others are digging into Hebrew; it's incredible and I hope my comments will be found edifying not discouraging. Just want anyone reading if they have limited time for study to study properly. My Jr. highschool band director used to say “practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect”.

*********************next part deals with Benner's “mechanical translation”*, skip if you don't care *******************
A word about "mechanical translation" (Benner) nice idea but one problem with Hebrew is it is SOOOOO context driven. Be aware of that if you use a mechanical translation. Yes one can write a script to bang out mechanical translation using freely available resources like strongs, etc. A word does not always mean the same thing in Hebrew; many are deeply dependent on syntactic rules and other words governing them. When Job's wife says "curse G-d and die" the word in Hebrew is "bless".

Many Hebrew words have over 5 meanings so a true mechanical translation would have to enumerate them all to be of any value; not just plug in the 1st strong’s gloss.
************************************ end of boring part*****************************
 
Last edited:
Personally, I enjoy looking at paleo hebrew script partly because it's just easier to tell the difference between the letters than with the modern Babylonian written script! There's a clear linkage between paleo hebrew and the Greek and Latin alphabets, some of the letters have clearly come from the same root form (e.g. aleph), while the Babylonian script is it's own thing entirely and far harder to learn with many letters that look almost identical - not to mention the vowel pointings. I just get nowhere fast whenever I try to wrap my head around it. This is frustrating since virtually all Hebrew is written in the Babylonian script, so you don't really have a choice but to use that one.

@IshChayil, I thoroughly recognise that you have a much deeper knowledge of Hebrew than myself. But I think that you are too accepting of anti-Jewish-biased secular scholarship if you assume that Hebrew writing was adopted from the nations around. Sure the secularists will say that because they want to put down the Jews and minimise Torah. But Genesis is clearly divided into sections by the "these are the generations of" statements, and it appears likely that each of these sections were a written record that was passed down and then compiled by Moses. If so, there had to be a pre-existing written script, and Moses had to be able to read it. Therefore, Hebrew may well be the original language of Adam, the original written language, and the script from which all other scripts have been derived.

If this is the case, then the paleo script could well be closely related to the language. It would not align with the meanings of all words, but may be closely aligned with the meanings of key roots that would not have undergone too many changes over time.

I do find it helpful when trying to decipher difficult words. For instance, shiddah (H7705), which appears only in Ecclesiastes 2:8 and is translated as diversely as "musical instruments", "cups and vessels" and "concubines" depending on the translation, since there are no other verses to compare it with. But when you look into the word itself, you find it contains the word breast, and in the paleo hebrew appears to basically say "look at the breast" or "one who reveals the breast" - which very clearly suggests a meaning of "wives" or "concubines". I've already discussed that over here. So it appears to be a useful tool. Whether this way of using it is correct or not, I couldn't say, but it does appear useful.
 
I was thinking about this today and a thought started rattling round in my hat stand. I got to thinking about the story of how Jesus astonished the doctors of the law. Now everything that we have from the accepted cannon is inconclusive as to what this 12 year old boy explained to them that had them scratching their head and stroking their beards, only that it happened and that it was information that they'd never heard before.

The conversation above about the utility of the Paleo got me to thinking and I vaguely remembered reading an account of how Jesus, as a boy was taken to be taught his letters. The teacher begins by having him repeat the letters after him beginning with Aleph and then proceeding to Bet. Jesus pronounces Aleph perfectly, but before continuing to Bet asks the Teacher to explain the meaning of Aleph. The teacher was flabbergasted! He'd never heard or read that there was a deeper meaning behind the Alphabet. According to the story, Jesus proceeds to pronounce each letter perfectly, explain the meaning of each letter, and many other things "of which the master himself had never heard, nor read in any book".

Now this story is found in the much contested Gospel of Thomas or the Infancy of Jesus Christ. Yes, yes, I know, its not "Scripture"! It's value as an authoritative word for word text is in my view highly suspect. The same could be said for many, many documents from the same era including Flavius Josephus' works, The Antiquities of the Jews, The Wars of the Jews etc. That being said, Josephus especially is regarded by many as being a fairly accurate historical account. Now, whether or not the story mentioned in the Infancy is divinely inspired, I would say that it may be considered as a historical account, its level of accuracy unable to be determined due to lack of provenance, possible translation bias and lack of other credible witnesses.

But, it got me thinking along these lines: God gave the written word to the newly exodus'ed Israelites at Mt. Horeb/Sinai. Obviously (due to the archeological evidence) Paleo Hebrew. The men were commanded to teach their children both the form and meanings of the words contained on the tablets.

Like most people, for a long time I was caught up in Normalcy Bias as relates to Hebrew culture. I unwittingly believed that the Hebrew culture that I saw evidence of in the New Testament was the same, identical Hebrew culture that was in existence during the life of Joshua for example. After a lot of study, I came to the realization that this was simply not the case. For example, in Nehemiah we find that the Feast of Tabernacles hadn't been observed since Joshua's death, and in Jeremiah we find that the shemitah's hadnt been observed since around the death of Samuel. Other passages indicate other major gaps in knowledge such as periods where the Passover is not observed and the Law is not known. Once the books are found major revivals take place in Jewish history. Most of us know about the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the loss of massive portions of the Temple library. The loss was so massive that Ezra the Scribe is known for recreating over 70 books either from memory or by divine assistance depending on who you believe. Josephus documents two major instances of knowledge being wiped out. One at the Aaronic priesthood level where Antiochus Epiphanes killed all of the high priests except one. When the Hasmonean's (Maccabee's) came into power, they refused to allow him to return to Jerusalem as high priest because he'd fled to Egypt to escape the priestly genocide by Antiochus. The other instance was recorded that Herod the Great murdered all of the Sanhedrin except one, an old man named Simeon. At each instance of restoration, there are at the least, obvious changes to cultural understanding of the Law. That being said, the Hebrew culture during the time of Christ was similar to the Moses/Joshua era but the vast majority of them had no clue the depth of the underlying code in the framework of their culture.

At the time of Christ, the alphabet for example was about halfway through with its Masoretic evolution. At least twice removed from the Paleo given at Sinai.

So, with all of this running through my mind today, I couldn't help but wonder. Could it be possible that the twelve year old boy, was reintroducing them to the roots of their culture through Paleo Hebrew? He gave it to Moses at Sinai and those results have corrected and guided the course of believers for millennia though often at a superficial level due to a lack of understanding. Perhaps, now that Hebrew has been resurrected from its status as a dead language, we, like David can behold great and wonderous things out of His Word by finding the hidden code in Paleo.
 
Something that may be of interest, I was going through Mr. Benners book last night researching the word 'ezer/helpmeet and happened to run across the word for multiply. As @IshChayil pointed out, the Hebrew can have up to 5 different definitions for each word.
I found it interesting that the primary word for multiply is the word rabah. In the paleo the picture is the Resh/a head, the Bet/a tent, and a Hey/ an exited man!!! The last definition for this root is the word for "Myriad" (lots of multiplying) Rabab. In the Paleo, this word is a Resh/head with TWO tents!!!
 
That is a very interesting point about the Infancy, I hadn't read it thinking from that perspective before. I must say that this is one of the apocryphal books I find most questionable, because the character of Jesus in it is completely different to the character we would expect - basically it keeps telling over and over again about people annoying him and him miraculously killing them as a punishment, which doesn't sound particularly legitimate. However, since I've got it sitting in front of me, here's the passage you refer to for the benefit of other readers. The chapter and verse marks in my version may not align to your own.
Infancy 20:1-16 said:
There was also at Jerusalem one named Zaccheus, who was a schoolmaster: And he said to Joseph, Joseph, why dost thou not send Jesus to me, that he may learn his letters? Joseph agreed, and told St. Mary; So they brought him to that master; who, as soon as he saw him, wrote out an alphabet for him, And he bade him say Aleph; and when he had said Aleph, the master bade him pronounce Beth. Then the Lord Jesus said to him, Tell me first the meaning of the letter Aleph, and then I will pronounce Beth. And when the master threatened to whip him, the Lord Jesus explained to him the meaning of the letters Aleph and Beth; Also which were the straight figures of the letters, which the oblique, and what letters had double figures; which had points, and which had none; why one letter went before another; and many other things he began to tell him, and explain, of which the master himself had never heard, nor read in any book. The Lord Jesus farther said to the master, Take notice how I say to thee; then he began clearly and distinctly to say Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Daleth, and so on to the end of the alphabet. At this the master was so surprised, that he said, I believe this boy was born before Noah; And turning to Joseph, he said, Thou hast brought a boy to me to be taught, who is more learned than any master. He said also to St Mary, This your son has no need of any learning.

They brought him then to a more learned master, who, when he saw him, said, say Aleph, And when he had said Aleph, the master bade him pronounce Beth, to which the Lord Jesus replied, Tell me first the meaning of the letter Aleph, and then I will pronounce Beth. But this master, when he lift up his hand to whip him, had his hand presently withered, and he died. Then said Joseph to St. Mary. Henceforth we will not allow him to go out of the house; for every one who displeases him is killed.
 
Then said Joseph to St. Mary. Henceforth we will not allow him to go out of the house; for every one who displeases him is killed.
Seems like as good a reason as any to homeschool a kid... :eek:

Granted that I haven't read much about it, consider me rather skeptical of the idea that Hebrew letters have individual meanings that combine to provide the meaning of the stem (if I understand the concept correctly). For me it's simply a matter of truth and authority. First, nowhere does the Bible see fit to indicate that Hebrew (or Paleo-Hebrew) was the pre-Babel language, nor that Hebrew words are constructed in this manner, so these can be nothing but speculation or tradition, which means that any resulting meanings may not be Biblicaly significant. Second, even if we admit the possibility that letter meanings contribute to stem meanings, how can we be sure that any specific mapping of symbols to meanings is the correct one? We have hundreds of preserved Biblical manuscripts from which we can argue the exact wording of specific passages, but I'm not aware of a tradition of ancient documents that spells out the meanings of letters (and maybe I'm just ignorant of said evidence). But even if such evidence existed, how could we determine it's accuracy?

As fascinating as the idea is, this ends up looking like an attempt to discover secret hidden knowledge, whose veracity cannot be verified, thus it ends up in the same category as things like gematria, Bible codes, and "the gospel in the stars."
 
As fascinating as the idea is, this ends up looking like an attempt to discover secret hidden knowledge, "

Sounds like the cry of David as he pours over the written word in Psalms 119

Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
I am a stranger in the earth: hide not thy commandments from me.

JOD. Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments.

The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

Make thy face to shine upon thy servant; and teach me thy statutes.

I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
 
A very interesting book on the events and significance of the Ten Commandments from Sinai and the history or etymology behind much of the Proto-Semitic alphabet is "The Writing of God, the Secret of the Real Mt. Sinai" by Miles R. Jones PH.D.
Dr. Jones was the Paleo Hebrew linguistics expert brought in by James and Penny Caldwell to examine the symbols and all around Mt Jebal aw law. His book can be purchased online at writingofgod.com. It has lots of incredible photos and diagrams from around the mountain including the massive cleft rock with major signs of erosion coming from the base of it located in an area that receives 1" of rain per 20 years, the altar, sheepfold, columns at the base of Sinai that would have been used to sacrifice, pictures of the cave and the cleft in the rock and looking out from the cave. Lots of incredible information.
 
That is a very interesting point about the Infancy, I hadn't read it thinking from that perspective before. I must say that this is one of the apocryphal books I find most questionable, because the character of Jesus in it is completely different to the character we would expect - basically it keeps telling over and over again about people annoying him and him miraculously killing them as a punishment, which doesn't sound particularly legitimate. However, since I've got it sitting in front of me, here's the passage you refer to for the benefit of other readers. The chapter and verse marks in my version may not align to your own.

I follow that same line of thought. I cant help but think that if it was actually written by Thomas, it was decidedly embellished by others at some point for unsavory reasons. Mostly, Ive found the Apocrypha to be a means of providing provenance for relics.

The next chapter in that writing is interesting also as it claims to provide an account of Jesus' Q & A for the doctors. The interesting thing that I see is that some of the questions are about astronomy. In this account Jesus gives answers to questions that they hadn't even thought to ask about astronomy. The interesting thing about it is that Ive heard that the numerical values of the Hebrew words for sun moon etc correlate astonishingly to the physical properties of those bodies. It's only been in the last little bit that we've discovered this, or has it?
 
Personally, I enjoy looking at paleo hebrew script partly because it's just easier to tell the difference between the letters than with the modern Babylonian written script! There's a clear linkage between paleo hebrew and the Greek and Latin alphabets, some of the letters have clearly come from the same root form (e.g. aleph), while the Babylonian script is it's own thing entirely and far harder to learn with many letters that look almost identical - not to mention the vowel pointings. I just get nowhere fast whenever I try to wrap my head around it. This is frustrating since virtually all Hebrew is written in the Babylonian script, so you don't really have a choice but to use that one.

@IshChayil, I thoroughly recognise that you have a much deeper knowledge of Hebrew than myself. But I think that you are too accepting of anti-Jewish-biased secular scholarship if you assume that Hebrew writing was adopted from the nations around. Sure the secularists will say that because they want to put down the Jews and minimise Torah. But Genesis is clearly divided into sections by the "these are the generations of" statements, and it appears likely that each of these sections were a written record that was passed down and then compiled by Moses. If so, there had to be a pre-existing written script, and Moses had to be able to read it. Therefore, Hebrew may well be the original language of Adam, the original written language, and the script from which all other scripts have been derived.

If this is the case, then the paleo script could well be closely related to the language. It would not align with the meanings of all words, but may be closely aligned with the meanings of key roots that would not have undergone too many changes over time.

I do find it helpful when trying to decipher difficult words. For instance, shiddah (H7705), which appears only in Ecclesiastes 2:8 and is translated as diversely as "musical instruments", "cups and vessels" and "concubines" depending on the translation, since there are no other verses to compare it with. But when you look into the word itself, you find it contains the word breast, and in the paleo hebrew appears to basically say "look at the breast" or "one who reveals the breast" - which very clearly suggests a meaning of "wives" or "concubines". I've already discussed that over here. So it appears to be a useful tool. Whether this way of using it is correct or not, I couldn't say, but it does appear useful.
Hey I think I perhaps you did not properly get my position on the old Phoenician, Cuneiform aka paleo-script.
I like it; I learned it; it is interesting but there is no pictographic bearing on the meanings of words linguistically in Hebrew.
There's never been any credible study (to my knowledge) that has made this linguistic connection.

I don't see it as anti-Jewish to say the my ancestors adopted a script made by someone else. We did the same thing with the Aramaic alphabet (Babylonian as you called it) which is still in use today. I see an alphabet as a tool and really when there is a 1 to 1 mapping then whatever you call that thing that makes a 'b' sound if you call it б or ب or ב or b or β or whatever letter you want to use to make that sound, for a mostly phonetic language like Hebrew, what matters is that you accurately convey the words. I've never heard a credible Christian scholar (known university, seminary of any weight etc) make the claim that the cuneiform, phoenician, international script of the mesopotamian area originated with the Jews before so I don't see it as anti-Jewish. G-d used us to write the bible in the scripts we used at various stages so Im OK with that. Is it OK if Jews wrote New Testament was in Greek with that script? Certainly a pagan language. Does it reduce the holiness of the gospels if Jews 1st used derivative from Cuneiform for Torah, then used Aramaic alphabet for prophets, then used Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic to capture the New testament?

Are you "anti-Christian" if you admit that the Greek language came from a pagan people, namely the Greeks? Of course not. You are no more anti-christian for aknowledging much of scripture is captured in a pagan language, Greek, than I am anti-Jewish for acknowledging various scripts were used to capture the Hebrew bible and then the New Testament.

Such a statement is quite funny considering other things said in these forums which certainly are. I don't think we have to have credit for the alphabet; I'm OK with someone else having invented it. This is not a liberal position, it is the position of great Hebrew scholars of the EON like Wilhelm Gesenius in the book I referenced which is THE classic Hebrew grammar used at conservative Christian seminaries to this day. Gesenius had a deep love for Hebrew and was an absolute genius with his absolute fluency in several semitic languages. The burden of proof, frankly is to show that these amazing Christian scholars were / are wrong. You can email Dr. Michael Brown, PHD in Semitic languages, author of books like Our Hands are Stained with Blood, every Christian should read and Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus series. See if he's being anti-semitic by holding such standard scholarly positions regarding the relatively unchallenged timeline of the paleo Hebrew and the way semitic languages function (alphabetically, not pictorially or with determinitives)

So back to the topic at hand; is Hebrew in any way influenced by the original picture of a phonetic consonant. Absolutely not and such a claim is considered patently absurd by all academics religious or secular. I'm not sure why this is even important to people to believe such a thing other than perhaps the idea that it gives easy access to supposed deep information?

In short, it's not a liberal vs conservative argument. It's linguistics. It's not even disputed. If you can find a linguist from a reputable university or seminary (not a quacky bible college in someone's basement) then I'll re-examine. I would personally LOVE if it turns out to be true that Hebrew functioned this way because I enjoy the Egyptian language on an intellectual level for it's functioning in this fashion.
Don't really see a further discussion on the topic unless folks just like pretending the language functioned that way (whether we invented the alphabet or not is not relevant because we were certainly speaking the words long before the alphabet was used to write them). See what I mean?

Thanks for chiming in when you think I'm adopting an anti-Jewish position. Let's see some of that passion when non-jews really do it (this thread is clean)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top