Dionysus and Adonis

David Dalton

unread,

Jun 26, 2012, 8:33:24 PM6/26/12

to

Is there any evidence that Dionysus and/or Adonis
once lived (as humans) and if so, when and where?

--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)

Agamemnon

unread,

Jun 27, 2012, 4:56:59 PM6/27/12

to

"David Dalton" <dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
news:dalton-A6D8BB....@news.eternal-september.org...

> Is there any evidence that Dionysus and/or Adonis
> once lived (as humans) and if so, when and where?

There's plenty of contemporary evidence extant for Zeus, Sarapis and
Jehovah; Hyksos pharaohs Maibre Sheshi, Awoserre Apepi and Meruserenre
Yakubhe respectively. Dionysus and Adonis are more difficult to find.

Dionysus son of Semele c.1400 born -1360 BC died (Jerome/Eusebius
Chronicon). Earliest written reference 1300-1250 BC Linear B religious
inscriptions which also mention Zeus and most of the other Greek gods.

Dionysus son of Deukalion. c.1460 born -1380 BC died (contemporary with
Amphictyon king of Athens).

Adonis c.1385 born-1360ish died.

There were several other Adonises and Dionysuses too, living at different
times.

Dionysus I c.1650-1628 (contemporary with Sarapis and probably one and the
same. see above.)

Dionysus II c.1550-1500 BC (son of Zeus and Persephone, contemporary to the
Kabeiroi and Argive Demeter). May have been the same Dionysus/Osyris
mentioned in Thymaetes, Phrygia (the original source of The Travels of Noah
into Europe) in which cased he'd have been Tutmoses (Djehutymes) I in real
life since the dates fit perfectly with the Low Chronology. Aegyptus being
Tutmoses (Djehutymes) III.

Dionysus IV 1308 BC (contemporary to Perseus).

Dionysus V 1236 BC (contemprary to Theseus).

Adonis II c.1250.

>
> (I have also posted this to alt.mythology,soc.history.ancient
> and separately to soc.religion.paganism .)
>

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 2:39:56 AM6/28/12

to

On 27/06/2012 21:56, Agamemnon wrote:
> "David Dalton"<dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
> news:dalton-A6D8BB....@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Is there any evidence that Dionysus and/or Adonis
>> once lived (as humans) and if so, when and where?
>
> There's plenty of contemporary evidence extant for Zeus, Sarapis and

> Jehovah..............

I'm intrigued, perhaps you could post some of it. I'm open to
suggestions about Zeus, but Serapis was an amalgam of Osiris and the
Apis bull, and the Tetragrammaton was never pronounced "Jehovah" in any
language except English, and is now so pronounced by few even there. By
the way, I've been to the Serapion at Bergama, which was built in the
Second century /CE/. Clearly the victory of Christianity was a nearer
run thing than is usually supposed.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

SolomonW

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 5:58:19 AM6/28/12

to

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:39:56 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:

> and the Tetragrammaton was never pronounced "Jehovah" in any
> language except English,

It seems to be a bit more complex then that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

Still I think that this is true.

In A Dictionary of the Bible (1863), William Robertson Smith summarized
these discourses, concluding that "whatever, therefore, be the true
pronunciation of the word, there can be little doubt that it is not
Jehovah".

> and is now so pronounced by few even there.

It is considered by most to refer to God by this name shows your ignorance.

Agamemnon

unread,

Jun 28, 2012, 5:48:31 PM6/28/12

to

"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:R_SGr.429269$JL5.4...@fx13.am4...

> On 27/06/2012 21:56, Agamemnon wrote:
>> "David Dalton"<dal...@nfld.com> wrote in message
>> news:dalton-A6D8BB....@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Is there any evidence that Dionysus and/or Adonis
>>> once lived (as humans) and if so, when and where?
>>
>> There's plenty of contemporary evidence extant for Zeus, Sarapis and
>> Jehovah..............
>
> I'm intrigued, perhaps you could post some of it. I'm open to suggestions
> about Zeus, but Serapis was an amalgam of Osiris and the Apis bull, and
> the Tetragrammaton was never pronounced "Jehovah" in any

Wrong on both counts.

Sarapis is a contraction of the name of the Hyksos king Awoserre Apepi(s)
(SerreApepis) who was the Greek king Apis of Argos hence Awos(serre), ie. Re
of Argos (with the r and gamma of Argos being corrupted to w in
hieroglyphics). In Manethos list he appears as Apophis. His cousin Epaphus
apears as Apachnas, ie. Seneferankhre Apepi. Sarapis was succeded by Agenor
as king of lower Egypt and Palestine, ie. Aqenienre Apepi (hence Agenor) or
Janins in Manetho ie. (A)qenien(re) .

Zeus was Sheshi and appears in so-called Minoan king lists as Saasi[tepi] or
Saa[si]tepi king of Lato and Tiliss in 1650 BC, ie. Lyctos and Tylissos both
of which are credited as the places where Zeus was born and grew up.
Saasitepi was the sucessor of Satur who reigned between about 1725 and 1675
BC, ie Saturn or Kronos the father of Zeus/Jupiter.

According to Sanchuniathon there were two Phoenician kings called Jehovah or
Ieuo, ie. Pontus in Greek or the sea god Yam Nahar aka. Yaw in the Baal
Epic, separated by 2 generations. They correspond to the Hyksos pharaohs
Meruserenre Yakubher c.1675 BC and Yakobaam Sekkhaenre c.1600 BC.

> language except English, and is now so pronounced by few even there. By

And Egyptian.

Ya-ku-bher = Ja-ho-vah

Yakobaam = Ja-ho-vaa-(m)

> the way, I've been to the Serapion at Bergama, which was built in the
> Second century /CE/. Clearly the victory of Christianity was a nearer run
> thing than is usually supposed.

There is also evidence for the existence of the following

Aegyptus is Tutmoses III, aka. Menkheperre Djehutymes ie. corrupted to
Adjehymes or Aegyprus. The date given by Jerome for Aegyptus is 1480 BC
which corresponds to the start of Tutmoses III's reign in the Low
Chronology.

Cassiopeia is Ankhesenpaaten (ie. Khesenpaa) the wife of Kheperkheprure Ai
or Cepheus. She also appears in the standard Ethiopian king list as does
Tithonus who is the Ethiopian king Aktissanis (also referred to by Diodorus)
otherwise referred to as Petissonius by John Nikiu.

Proteus or Ktes is obviously Setnakhte.

Seti Userkheperure Meryamun is probably Memnon.

see http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/Manetho.htm

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jun 29, 2012, 2:31:35 AM6/29/12

to

No, it shows theirs.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jun 29, 2012, 2:32:36 AM6/29/12

to

SolomonW

unread,

Jun 30, 2012, 6:10:22 AM6/30/12

to

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:31:35 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:

> On 28/06/2012 10:58, SolomonW wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:39:56 +0100, Martin Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> and the Tetragrammaton was never pronounced "Jehovah" in any
>>> language except English,
>>
>> It seems to be a bit more complex then that
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah
>>
>> Still I think that this is true.
>>
>>
>> In A Dictionary of the Bible (1863), William Robertson Smith summarized
>> these discourses, concluding that "whatever, therefore, be the true
>> pronunciation of the word, there can be little doubt that it is not
>> Jehovah".
>>
>>> and is now so pronounced by few even there.
>>
>> It is considered by most to refer to God by this name shows your ignorance.
>
> No, it shows theirs.

Point taken

SolomonW

unread,

Jun 30, 2012, 6:51:02 AM6/30/12

to

All irrelevant to the question

>
> According to Sanchuniathon there were two Phoenician kings called Jehovah or
> Ieuo, ie. Pontus in Greek or the sea god Yam Nahar aka. Yaw in the Baal
> Epic, separated by 2 generations. They correspond to the Hyksos pharaohs
> Meruserenre Yakubher c.1675 BC and Yakobaam Sekkhaenre c.1600 BC.

No way it could be true as Phoenician does not have vowels.

>
>> language except English, and is now so pronounced by few even there. By
>
> And Egyptian.
>
> Ya-ku-bher = Ja-ho-vah
>
> Yakobaam = Ja-ho-vaa-(m)

Vowels in ancient Egyptian are not known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Vowels

>
>> the way, I've been to the Serapion at Bergama, which was built in the
>> Second century /CE/. Clearly the victory of Christianity was a nearer run
>> thing than is usually supposed.
>
> There is also evidence for the existence of the following
>
> Aegyptus is Tutmoses III, aka. Menkheperre Djehutymes ie. corrupted to
> Adjehymes or Aegyprus. The date given by Jerome for Aegyptus is 1480 BC
> which corresponds to the start of Tutmoses III's reign in the Low
> Chronology.
>
> Cassiopeia is Ankhesenpaaten (ie. Khesenpaa) the wife of Kheperkheprure Ai
> or Cepheus. She also appears in the standard Ethiopian king list as does
> Tithonus who is the Ethiopian king Aktissanis (also referred to by Diodorus)
> otherwise referred to as Petissonius by John Nikiu.
>
> Proteus or Ktes is obviously Setnakhte.
>
> Seti Userkheperure Meryamun is probably Memnon.
>
> see http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/Manetho.htm

All stupid.

Agamemnon

unread,

Jun 30, 2012, 7:42:45 PM6/30/12

to

"SolomonW" <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message
news:g565sv0g54iz.157rkifq0u48z$.dlg@40tude.net...

Not at all.

According to Porphyry the Greek and Phoenician gods were one and the same.
Saturn, Kronos and El were all the same person, a Cretan king who ruled over
the whole of Italy, Greece, Phoenicia and Palestine and who had dominion
over Egypt where he put Tuthus/Thoth/Hermes (Dudimose or Tiamus in Manetho)
in power. Agenor was a king of Phoenicia as well as a Greek king.

>
>>
>> According to Sanchuniathon there were two Phoenician kings called Jehovah
>> or
>> Ieuo, ie. Pontus in Greek or the sea god Yam Nahar aka. Yaw in the Baal
>> Epic, separated by 2 generations. They correspond to the Hyksos pharaohs
>> Meruserenre Yakubher c.1675 BC and Yakobaam Sekkhaenre c.1600 BC.
>
> No way it could be true as Phoenician does not have vowels.

Poppycock. Phoenicians has vowels just like every other language otherwise
consonants would be unpronounceable. The only difference with Phoenician
script and Greek script is that the vowels are not written down, but they
all still exist.

It is plainly obvious from the Egyptian transliterations of Yakubher and
Yakobaam and Greek transliteration of YHWH as Ieuo and Yaw in the Akkadian
script used to write Phoenician/Ugratic in the Baal Epic that Jehovah is the
correct pronunciation. Wav is clearly pronounced with a V sound at the end
hence Eu (Ev) in Greek and Baa or Bh in Egyptian equating to a Greek Beta
pronounced V as the closest equivalent letter.

>>
>>> language except English, and is now so pronounced by few even there. By
>>
>> And Egyptian.
>>
>> Ya-ku-bher = Ja-ho-vah
>>
>> Yakobaam = Ja-ho-vaa-(m)
>
> Vowels in ancient Egyptian are not known.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Vowels

More poppycock.

What do you think B is? Clearly not a vowel.

Yakubher and Yakobaam are exactly the same as the Biblical name Jacob which
is nothing more than the Egyptian rendering of YHWH ie. Jehovah from the
time Jacob came to stay in Egypt with Joseph (1300 BC) because the Assyrians
had conquered the Mittani in Palestine.

The Mittani king (or tribe) Naharin who fought against Tutmoses III
(Aegyptus) in 1447 BC (Low Chronology) was the biblical patriarch Nahor
(reigned 1474-1448) the grandfather of Abraham (reigned 1397-1357) since the
biblical date give for his death is the very year that Tutmoses III defeated
him give or take a year. On top of that the dates for Abraham clearly
identify him as a contemporary to Tudhaliya III (1410-1380) who is the
biblical king Thurgal/Tidal king of nations which makes it likely that he
was actually the Mittani king Artatama under the name Abram and Artashumara
under the name Abraham since the biblical story of Abram prostituting his
wife Sara (Hittitle for queen/princess) to the Pharaoh of Egypt is based on
the account from the El Armana from the El Armana letters where Artatama
sends a Mittani princess to be the wife of the Phoaroah of Egypt who is
subsequently rejected.

>
>
>>
>>> the way, I've been to the Serapion at Bergama, which was built in the
>>> Second century /CE/. Clearly the victory of Christianity was a nearer
>>> run
>>> thing than is usually supposed.
>>
>> There is also evidence for the existence of the following
>>
>> Aegyptus is Tutmoses III, aka. Menkheperre Djehutymes ie. corrupted to
>> Adjehymes or Aegyprus. The date given by Jerome for Aegyptus is 1480 BC
>> which corresponds to the start of Tutmoses III's reign in the Low
>> Chronology.
>>
>> Cassiopeia is Ankhesenpaaten (ie. Khesenpaa) the wife of Kheperkheprure
>> Ai
>> or Cepheus. She also appears in the standard Ethiopian king list as does
>> Tithonus who is the Ethiopian king Aktissanis (also referred to by
>> Diodorus)
>> otherwise referred to as Petissonius by John Nikiu.
>>
>> Proteus or Ktes is obviously Setnakhte.
>>
>> Seti Userkheperure Meryamun is probably Memnon.
>>
>> see http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/Manetho.htm
>
> All stupid.

You mean you are stupid. From the chronology it's pretty obvious to anyone
with any sense that the Gods and patriarchs of the Greeks, Phoenicians, Jews
and even the Vikings as well derived from historical accounts of Hyksos
kings of Egypt who originated from Europe and from 18th and 19th Dynasty
Pharaohs and kings of Mittani.

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/

Bassos

unread,

Jun 30, 2012, 8:56:29 PM6/30/12

to

Op 1-7-2012 1:42, Agamemnon schreef:

> "SolomonW"<Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message

<snip pretty good stuff>

Shiny.

>> All stupid.
>
> You mean you are stupid. From the chronology it's pretty obvious to anyone
> with any sense that the Gods and patriarchs of the Greeks, Phoenicians, Jews
> and even the Vikings as well derived from historical accounts of Hyksos
> kings of Egypt who originated from Europe and from 18th and 19th Dynasty
> Pharaohs and kings of Mittani.
>
> http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/
>
>>>> --
>>>> Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
>>>> painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Astrology rules, again.

Should i explain this stuff ?

NO.

Okay.

SolomonW

unread,

Jul 1, 2012, 2:11:43 AM7/1/12

to

Porphyry lived two thousands of years later.

>
>>
>>>
>>> According to Sanchuniathon there were two Phoenician kings called Jehovah
>>> or
>>> Ieuo, ie. Pontus in Greek or the sea god Yam Nahar aka. Yaw in the Baal
>>> Epic, separated by 2 generations. They correspond to the Hyksos pharaohs
>>> Meruserenre Yakubher c.1675 BC and Yakobaam Sekkhaenre c.1600 BC.
>>
>> No way it could be true as Phoenician does not have vowels.
>
> Poppycock. Phoenicians has vowels just like every other language otherwise
> consonants would be unpronounceable. The only difference with Phoenician
> script and Greek script is that the vowels are not written down, but they
> all still exist.

Of course they exist they are just not written so we do not know how they
sounded.

The other issue is that vowels sounds change over time, try reading
Shakespeare without vowels, it is not so hard.

T b, r nt t b, tht s th qstn:

I find it much more readable then the original.

>
> It is plainly obvious from the Egyptian transliterations of Yakubher and
> Yakobaam and Greek transliteration of YHWH as Ieuo and Yaw in the Akkadian
> script used to write Phoenician/Ugratic in the Baal Epic that Jehovah is the
> correct pronunciation. Wav is clearly pronounced with a V sound at the end
> hence Eu (Ev) in Greek and Baa or Bh in Egyptian equating to a Greek Beta
> pronounced V as the closest equivalent letter.

If what you say is so clear, why do people here think differently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton

Conclusion
The name is generally regarded as having been pronounced as Yahweh

>
>>>
>>>> language except English, and is now so pronounced by few even there. By
>>>
>>> And Egyptian.
>>>
>>> Ya-ku-bher = Ja-ho-vah
>>>
>>> Yakobaam = Ja-ho-vaa-(m)
>>
>> Vowels in ancient Egyptian are not known.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Vowels
>
> More poppycock.
>
> What do you think B is? Clearly not a vowel.
>
> Yakubher and Yakobaam are exactly the same as the Biblical name Jacob which
> is nothing more than the Egyptian rendering of YHWH ie. Jehovah from the
> time Jacob came to stay in Egypt with Joseph (1300 BC) because the Assyrians
> had conquered the Mittani in Palestine.
>

Unlike Hebrew names tend to come from primary sources. Jacob (Ya`aqob or
Ya`aqov, meaning "heel-catcher", "supplanter", "leg-puller"

> The Mittani king (or tribe) Naharin who fought against Tutmoses III
> (Aegyptus) in 1447 BC (Low Chronology) was the biblical patriarch Nahor
> (reigned 1474-1448) the grandfather of Abraham (reigned 1397-1357) since the
> biblical date give for his death is the very year that Tutmoses III defeated
> him give or take a year. On top of that the dates for Abraham clearly
> identify him as a contemporary to Tudhaliya III (1410-1380) who is the
> biblical king Thurgal/Tidal king of nations which makes it likely that he
> was actually the Mittani king Artatama under the name Abram and Artashumara
> under the name Abraham since the biblical story of Abram prostituting his
> wife Sara (Hittitle for queen/princess) to the Pharaoh of Egypt is based on
> the account from the El Armana from the El Armana letters where Artatama
> sends a Mittani princess to be the wife of the Phoaroah of Egypt who is
> subsequently rejected.
>

So what?

<snip>

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jul 1, 2012, 2:37:19 AM7/1/12

to

That is stretching a point a little, as all the Egyptian sources say the
Hyksos came from the East. It is, of course, conceivable that they came
from Palestine, but that has to be left as conjecture for the time being.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 1, 2012, 5:49:14 AM7/1/12

to

Samaritans during the 19th century wrote the pronounciation in
vowelled Arabic script as /yahwah/, Arabic /a/ could represent either
[a] or [e] (open).

see: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3260246

I believe the article is available without a subscription.

Agamemnon

unread,

Jul 1, 2012, 2:33:37 PM7/1/12

to

"SolomonW" <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message

news:evw8lk7f6ycp$.5qbdgd4o1wri$.dlg@40tude.net...

Porphyry was using the Phoenician history of Sanchuniathon which was written
in the time of Heirombalus (the biblical Juerubal) when Abibalus (the
biblical Abimelech) was king of Berytus (Beirut) who dates to 1092 BC.
That's within 536 years of when the original records in the possession of
Heirombalus were written so the history would have been as accurate as any
account still extant of the fall of Constantinople and more accurate than
any account of the Crusades.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to Sanchuniathon there were two Phoenician kings called
>>>> Jehovah
>>>> or
>>>> Ieuo, ie. Pontus in Greek or the sea god Yam Nahar aka. Yaw in the Baal
>>>> Epic, separated by 2 generations. They correspond to the Hyksos
>>>> pharaohs
>>>> Meruserenre Yakubher c.1675 BC and Yakobaam Sekkhaenre c.1600 BC.
>>>
>>> No way it could be true as Phoenician does not have vowels.
>>
>> Poppycock. Phoenicians has vowels just like every other language
>> otherwise
>> consonants would be unpronounceable. The only difference with Phoenician
>> script and Greek script is that the vowels are not written down, but they
>> all still exist.
>
> Of course they exist they are just not written so we do not know how they
> sounded.
>
> The other issue is that vowels sounds change over time, try reading
> Shakespeare without vowels, it is not so hard.

You are comparing Hebrew with English. English is not an single ordinary
language and should never be used as a basis for linguistics. It's a mish
mash of Greek and Latin received through French and German and Viking
invaders overlaid onto an earlier framework of Welsh.

The vowels in English contrary to your claims have not changed
pronunciation. The reality is that due to the various invasions of this
country there are over 100 regional variations in vowel sounds as one
language replaced or was incorporated into an earlier one to different
degrees in different regions. Therefore there is no standard pronunciation
for vowels in English and never has been so it is impossible to make such a
claim as change. Certain texts were written using spelling from certain
regional variations of the language and other texts used other regional
variations. Today's standard English is just one of these regional
variations and does not accurately reflect how 95% of the population
actually pronounce the language. Today's spelling isn't even the way people
even pronounced the words which are written in it.

In the case of Hebrew the fact that there are no vowels in the written
language indicates that when Phoenician was first coded there wasn't a
standard pronunciation of the vowels by any of the peoples who spoke the
language. So any pronunciation is as good as any other.

Jehovah is the Egyptian pronunciation of YHWH, the evidence is overwhelming,
so live with it.

>
> T b, r nt t b, tht s th qstn:
>
> I find it much more readable then the original.
>

And in Linear B it would be written

T/THoU B/V/Fi OR/Li B/V/Fi D/DhaT/THi ISi D/Dhe QeWeSiT/THiON/Ma.

As can be seen and contrary to Phoenician/Hebrew there was a standard
pronunciation of the vowels in Mycenaean Greek but there was no standard
pronunciation of consonants. The same applies to the way Hittite is written
also hence the script used to write these languages took that fact into
account.

>
>
>>
>> It is plainly obvious from the Egyptian transliterations of Yakubher and
>> Yakobaam and Greek transliteration of YHWH as Ieuo and Yaw in the
>> Akkadian
>> script used to write Phoenician/Ugratic in the Baal Epic that Jehovah is
>> the
>> correct pronunciation. Wav is clearly pronounced with a V sound at the
>> end
>> hence Eu (Ev) in Greek and Baa or Bh in Egyptian equating to a Greek Beta
>> pronounced V as the closest equivalent letter.
>
> If what you say is so clear, why do people here think differently?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
>
> Conclusion

They are Wrong.

> The name is generally regarded as having been pronounced as Yahweh
>

No. It is clear from the Greek and Egyptian transliterations that Wav was
pronounced Wav. Yaweh is therefore the wrong pronunciation. YHWH was
pronounced Jehovah, where J can either be English J or European J which is
pronounced as an I.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> language except English, and is now so pronounced by few even there.
>>>>> By
>>>>
>>>> And Egyptian.
>>>>
>>>> Ya-ku-bher = Ja-ho-vah
>>>>
>>>> Yakobaam = Ja-ho-vaa-(m)
>>>
>>> Vowels in ancient Egyptian are not known.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Vowels
>>
>> More poppycock.
>>
>> What do you think B is? Clearly not a vowel.
>>
>> Yakubher and Yakobaam are exactly the same as the Biblical name Jacob
>> which
>> is nothing more than the Egyptian rendering of YHWH ie. Jehovah from the
>> time Jacob came to stay in Egypt with Joseph (1300 BC) because the
>> Assyrians
>> had conquered the Mittani in Palestine.
>>
>
> Unlike Hebrew names tend to come from primary sources. Jacob (Ya`aqob or
> Ya`aqov, meaning "heel-catcher", "supplanter", "leg-puller"
>

Not if you are dealing with names being transferred from two different
languages. For example you can find Chinese or Asian people in the UK who
call themselves John or David or some other name common in English because
that is the closest their real name sounds in English. The same applies to
other languages being incorporated into Hebrew names.

The names came first and the meanings attached to them were something
created later.

Jacob came from Yakubher and Yakobaam the Egyptian corruptions of Jehovah.
When the bible was written the name was then assimilated into Hebrew and
assigned a new meaning.

>
>
>> The Mittani king (or tribe) Naharin who fought against Tutmoses III
>> (Aegyptus) in 1447 BC (Low Chronology) was the biblical patriarch Nahor
>> (reigned 1474-1448) the grandfather of Abraham (reigned 1397-1357) since
>> the
>> biblical date give for his death is the very year that Tutmoses III
>> defeated
>> him give or take a year. On top of that the dates for Abraham clearly
>> identify him as a contemporary to Tudhaliya III (1410-1380) who is the
>> biblical king Thurgal/Tidal king of nations which makes it likely that he
>> was actually the Mittani king Artatama under the name Abram and
>> Artashumara
>> under the name Abraham since the biblical story of Abram prostituting his
>> wife Sara (Hittitle for queen/princess) to the Pharaoh of Egypt is based
>> on
>> the account from the El Armana from the El Armana letters where Artatama
>> sends a Mittani princess to be the wife of the Phoaroah of Egypt who is
>> subsequently rejected.
>>
>
> So what?

It means that the Jews were a creation of the bible from completely
different races that occupied Palestine at different times in history. Even
the Greek speaking Danaioi who are recorded by the Egyptians as living in
Mycenae and invading Egypt at the time of the Exodus which is exactly the
same time that the Trojan War began were turned into decedents of Jacob
through the tribe of Dan.

All the evidence indicates that the primary source of the people and events
described in the bible were not Jewish but Egyptian historical accounts of
the history of Palestine.

The evidence is also overwhelming for the fact that Jehovah the god of the
bible was the defied Pharaoh of Egypt and his legitimate successors. When
Necho gives control of all of Palestine to Nebuchadnezzar as recorded by
Nebuchadnezzar himself and by Herodotus the bible tells us that Jehovah
gives control of all of Palestine and its peoples to Nebuchadnezzar. All the
biblical prophets where children who were taken from their parents and held
hostage by the Pharaohs of Egypt to be educated by them and then sent back
to Israel and Judea as envoys. All the references to Jehovah by these
prophets is in fact to the Pharaoh of Egypt who sent them who name was
replaced with YHWH in later copies and redactions of the text.

>
> <snip>

Agamemnon

unread,

Jul 1, 2012, 2:45:51 PM7/1/12

to

"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:zeSHr.340984$a15.2...@fx11.am4...

Of course they came from the East. It's the only way to stage a foreign
invasion of Egypt and was the rout used by Io, then Menelaus, then the
Persians and then by Alexander the Great. And it's also the way used by the
Egyptians to attack Asia Minor and by Cadmus to come to Greece.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 1, 2012, 9:03:08 PM7/1/12

to

On Jun 30, 6:51 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:48:31 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:

> > "Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

of course Phoenician had vowels, they just were not written, except
bits and pieces of Late Punic in greek of Latin script.

>
> >> language except English, and is now so pronounced by few even there. By
>
> > And Egyptian.
>
> > Ya-ku-bher = Ja-ho-vah
>
> > Yakobaam = Ja-ho-vaa-(m)
>
> Vowels in ancient Egyptian are not known.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Vowels
>

there is some guesswork working down from Coptic and from
transcriptions in Cuneiform and Greek.

>
>

it is pointless to argue with Agamemnon on linguistic matters as not a
single thing he wrote is correct.

>
>
>
>
> >> the way, I've been to the Serapion at Bergama, which was built in the
> >> Second century /CE/. Clearly the victory of Christianity was a nearer run
> >> thing than is usually supposed.
>
> > There is also evidence for the existence of the following
>
> > Aegyptus is Tutmoses III, aka. Menkheperre Djehutymes ie. corrupted to
> > Adjehymes or Aegyprus. The date given by Jerome for Aegyptus is 1480 BC
> > which corresponds to the start of Tutmoses III's reign in the Low
> > Chronology.
>
> > Cassiopeia is Ankhesenpaaten (ie. Khesenpaa) the wife of Kheperkheprure Ai
> > or Cepheus. She also appears in the standard Ethiopian king list as does
> > Tithonus who is the Ethiopian king Aktissanis (also referred to by Diodorus)
> > otherwise referred to as Petissonius by John Nikiu.
>
> > Proteus or Ktes is obviously Setnakhte.
>
> > Seti Userkheperure Meryamun is probably Memnon.
>

> > seehttp://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/Manetho.htm

Agamemnon

unread,

Jul 1, 2012, 10:30:26 PM7/1/12

to

"Yusuf B Gursey" <ygu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:21fe1bda-c5d5-4d45...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Only in your mind.

The actual evidence on the other hand says I am right.

Agamemnon

unread,

For your information Hebrew has the same issue.

> Therefore there is no standard pronunciation
> for vowels in English and never has been so it is impossible to make such a
> claim as change. Certain texts were written using spelling from certain
> regional variations of the language and other texts used other regional
> variations. Today's standard English is just one of these regional
> variations and does not accurately reflect how 95% of the population
> actually pronounce the language. Today's spelling isn't even the way people
> even pronounced the words which are written in it.

Not true, it is mainly because when they codified the English language they
looked at the root of the word rather then how it was pronounced.

>
> In the case of Hebrew the fact that there are no vowels in the written
> language indicates that when Phoenician was first coded there wasn't a
> standard pronunciation of the vowels by any of the peoples who spoke the
> language. So any pronunciation is as good as any other.

(a)
Logic is wrong, I can read Hebrew with vowels using a number of different
pronunciations all it means is that when I see a symbol A in one type of
Hebrew I say Oo and in another I use the sound Aa.

>
> Jehovah is the Egyptian pronunciation of YHWH, the evidence is overwhelming,
> so live with it.

As I stated before this is not true.

>
>>
>> T b, r nt t b, tht s th qstn:
>>
>> I find it much more readable then the original.
>>
>
> And in Linear B it would be written
>
> T/THoU B/V/Fi OR/Li B/V/Fi D/DhaT/THi ISi D/Dhe QeWeSiT/THiON/Ma.

So what, it is irrelevant.

>
> As can be seen and contrary to Phoenician/Hebrew there was a standard
> pronunciation of the vowels in Mycenaean Greek but there was no standard
> pronunciation of consonants. The same applies to the way Hittite is written
> also hence the script used to write these languages took that fact into
> account.

What this shows is that having different pronunciations of consonants does
not stop a language from being codified with standard letters which is my
point at (a)

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It is plainly obvious from the Egyptian transliterations of Yakubher and
>>> Yakobaam and Greek transliteration of YHWH as Ieuo and Yaw in the
>>> Akkadian
>>> script used to write Phoenician/Ugratic in the Baal Epic that Jehovah is
>>> the
>>> correct pronunciation. Wav is clearly pronounced with a V sound at the
>>> end
>>> hence Eu (Ev) in Greek and Baa or Bh in Egyptian equating to a Greek Beta
>>> pronounced V as the closest equivalent letter.
>>
>> If what you say is so clear, why do people here think differently?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
>>
>> Conclusion
>
> They are Wrong.

Possibly but that is what most historians agree today.

>
>> The name is generally regarded as having been pronounced as Yahweh
>>
>
> No. It is clear from the Greek and Egyptian transliterations that Wav was
> pronounced Wav. Yaweh is therefore the wrong pronunciation. YHWH was
> pronounced Jehovah, where J can either be English J or European J which is
> pronounced as an I.

In Hebrew we do not use the letter J with use Y instead.

Jacob in Hebrew is pronouced ya-a-KOHV

It is possible it was assimilated into Hebrew although this is very
uncommon in Hebrew.

It is irrelevant to the discussion of Tetragrammaton

>>
>> <snip>

SolomonW

unread,

Jul 2, 2012, 5:32:23 AM7/2/12

to

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 00:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> his argument is that Ancient Greek was pronounced like Modern Greek
> (he made that some time ago in sci.lang) and now he is arguing that
> Biblical Hebrew is pronounced like Israeli Hebrew, particularly those
> of non-Oriental origin. the truth is is that waw was always a
> semivowel in all positions (except when used as a vowel sign).

Israeli Hebrew is largely pronounced in *Oriental* Hebrew, it is actually
called Sephardi Hebrew.

Unfortunately, these is much doubt whether Biblical Hebrew as spoken in
ancient Israel is closer to Sephardi or Ashkenazi Hebrew. We have no idea.

Furthermore, I might add today there are several dialects of Hebrew that we
know, and I am certain that many would have died out over the years.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 2, 2012, 5:56:16 AM7/2/12

to

On Jul 2, 5:19 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 19:33:37 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:

> > "SolomonW" <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message

> >news:evw8lk7f6ycp$.5qbdgd4o1wri$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 00:42:45 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
>

> >>> "SolomonW" <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message

> >>>news:g565sv0g54iz.157rkifq0u48z$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:48:31 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
>

> >>>>> "Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

that's Modern Israeli

יַעֲקֹב

Tiberian ya3ăqōḇ

3 is the pharyngeal fricative not present in yahweh

ă is a reduced vowel and is not etymological and was not present prior
to the Masorites

ḇ i,e. v is not phonemic and developed later under the influence of
Aramaic.

q is uvular.

so one would expect earlier *ya3qōb

cf. Arabic ya3qūb

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 2, 2012, 6:26:15 AM7/2/12

to

Septuagint Greek: Ἰακώβ Iakōb

confirms the length and the qualityof the vowels in the reconstruction

SolomonW

unread,

Jul 2, 2012, 8:44:42 AM7/2/12

to

I confess that clearly you know more than I do about this but let me make
one observation. There was a study done in England, tracing many famous
rabbis' travels. At the time (Greek and earlier Roman times) there were two
main centers of Jewish studies; one center was in Iraq and the other in
Israel. Most oriental rabbis seem to come from Iraq but most European
religious leaders came from Israel.

The conclusion was that as the feeder area for European religious leaders
was from Israel, the European dialect may be closer to the original Hebrew
of the Bible then the oriental Jews.

Arabic may not be a significant as you believe.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 2, 2012, 12:19:07 PM7/2/12

to

Arabic got it from Aramaic or directly from Jews, who neighbor
Palestine (there was no "Israel" at the time).

at any rate, the reconstructions I gave are from Semitic linguistics.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 2, 2012, 12:21:34 PM7/2/12

unread,

Jul 2, 2012, 7:43:45 PM7/2/12

to

"SolomonW" <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message

news:nmmqzrug2vdh$.16hgx18adyixx.dlg@40tude.net...

Wrong!

It's is completely corroborated by the Ras Sharma Tablets including the Baal
Epic.

You are using English as a basis for linguistic analysis which therefore
makes your analysis untenable.

>
>>
>> The vowels in English contrary to your claims have not changed
>> pronunciation.
>
> A lie.
>
> Between Middle and Early Modern English (around Shakespeare's time) what
> took place is known as the Great Vowel Shift.

That is a load of poppycock and nonsense. There was no Great Vowel Shift.
You obviously have not read the texts of the period otherwise you would
recognise that they codify regional pronunciations which still exist today.

What happened after the time of Shakespeare was that one regional spelling
of the English language was standardised by the King James Bible. Note that
other texts of the same period, Shakespeare and Lynch use different
spellings which reflect their own regional pronunciation. Unfortunately,
although the KJB codified a particular spelling for English, nobody
whatsoever took any head of it and they continued to pronounce English the
same way they always did. It only became the dominant spelling because there
were more copies printed of the KJB than anything else, but it is not the
dominant pronunciation. The KJB in effect made people illiterate. Once the
spelled English the way it was pronounced and after the KJB they were forced
to spell English according to that.

>
>
>> The reality is that due to the various invasions of this
>> country there are over 100 regional variations in vowel sounds as one
>> language replaced or was incorporated into an earlier one to different
>> degrees in different regions.
>
> For your information Hebrew has the same issue.

No it doesn't because the written language overcame the problem of different
regional pronunciations of the vowels by choosing not to write them down and
leave them up to the reader to add in.

>
>> Therefore there is no standard pronunciation
>> for vowels in English and never has been so it is impossible to make such
>> a
>> claim as change. Certain texts were written using spelling from certain
>> regional variations of the language and other texts used other regional
>> variations. Today's standard English is just one of these regional
>> variations and does not accurately reflect how 95% of the population
>> actually pronounce the language. Today's spelling isn't even the way
>> people
>> even pronounced the words which are written in it.
>
> Not true, it is mainly because when they codified the English language
> they
> looked at the root of the word rather then how it was pronounced.
>

Wrong. You obviously haven't read any texts from the 1500s or earlier.
English was original codified the way it was pronounced to the writer. Then
printing came along and the KJB regional spelling was imposed on the entire
land even though it did not reflect the way 99% of the people pronounced
that language and still doesn't.

>
>>
>> In the case of Hebrew the fact that there are no vowels in the written
>> language indicates that when Phoenician was first coded there wasn't a
>> standard pronunciation of the vowels by any of the peoples who spoke the
>> language. So any pronunciation is as good as any other.
> (a)
> Logic is wrong, I can read Hebrew with vowels using a number of different
> pronunciations all it means is that when I see a symbol A in one type of
> Hebrew I say Oo and in another I use the sound Aa.

Which defeats the entire point of an alphabet.

In Greek for example everything is spelled the same way it is pronounced
unlike modern English.

>
>>
>> Jehovah is the Egyptian pronunciation of YHWH, the evidence is
>> overwhelming,
>> so live with it.
>
> As I stated before this is not true.

The historical facts show that it is true.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> T b, r nt t b, tht s th qstn:
>>>
>>> I find it much more readable then the original.
>>>
>>
>> And in Linear B it would be written
>>
>> T/THoU B/V/Fi OR/Li B/V/Fi D/DhaT/THi ISi D/Dhe QeWeSiT/THiON/Ma.
>
> So what, it is irrelevant.
>
>>
>> As can be seen and contrary to Phoenician/Hebrew there was a standard
>> pronunciation of the vowels in Mycenaean Greek but there was no standard
>> pronunciation of consonants. The same applies to the way Hittite is
>> written
>> also hence the script used to write these languages took that fact into
>> account.
>
> What this shows is that having different pronunciations of consonants does
> not stop a language from being codified with standard letters which is my
> point at (a)

It's been codified using individual symbols whose pronunciation is intended
to be selected by the reader depending on their own regional pronunciation.
The Greek and Latin alphabets were never intended to be used that way.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is plainly obvious from the Egyptian transliterations of Yakubher
>>>> and
>>>> Yakobaam and Greek transliteration of YHWH as Ieuo and Yaw in the
>>>> Akkadian
>>>> script used to write Phoenician/Ugratic in the Baal Epic that Jehovah
>>>> is
>>>> the
>>>> correct pronunciation. Wav is clearly pronounced with a V sound at the
>>>> end
>>>> hence Eu (Ev) in Greek and Baa or Bh in Egyptian equating to a Greek
>>>> Beta
>>>> pronounced V as the closest equivalent letter.
>>>
>>> If what you say is so clear, why do people here think differently?
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
>>>
>>> Conclusion
>>
>> They are Wrong.
>
> Possibly but that is what most historians agree today.
>

No they don't. You are referring only to the ideas of certain linguists that
know nothing of history. When the historical evidence is taken into
consideration it is clear that Jehovah was the Egyptian pronunciation of
YHWH.

>>
>>> The name is generally regarded as having been pronounced as Yahweh
>>>
>>
>> No. It is clear from the Greek and Egyptian transliterations that Wav was
>> pronounced Wav. Yaweh is therefore the wrong pronunciation. YHWH was
>> pronounced Jehovah, where J can either be English J or European J which
>> is
>> pronounced as an I.
>
> In Hebrew we do not use the letter J with use Y instead.
>
> Jacob in Hebrew is pronouced ya-a-KOHV

And if you add an A to the end what do you get? ya-a-KOHV-a or ja-KOHV-a.

It is completely relevant since Egyptian inscriptions show that YHWH was in
fact an Egyptian Hyksos Pharaoh called Jehovah before he was made into a
god.

>>>
>>> <snip>

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

unread,

Jul 3, 2012, 4:21:19 AM7/3/12

to

nevertheless the LXX consistently uses omega rather than omicron for
Masoretic qamets (ō) and eta for Masoretic sere ( ē) and epsilon for
Masoretic segol (e). now lengt is fickle in Masoretic Hebrew but they
may represent differences in quality.

>
> --
> Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must

> painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman-

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 3, 2012, 4:23:19 AM7/3/12

to

On Jul 3, 3:38 am, choro <ch...@tvco.net> wrote:
> Aggie, our dear Aggie, always over-eggs the pudding. It is in his
> nature. He can't help it. He would even argue vehemently that Yorkshire
> Pudding is Greek.
>
> It is nice for a change for him to be taken to task over Greek language
> issues by Yusuf B Gursey, who I believe is a Turk.
>

yes. I am Turkish.

> Whatever next re Aggie? ;-)
> --
> choro (chuckling with a acerbic sense of humor...)
> *****
> Re Aggie, efages karpouzi me halloumi kai fresko dakhtila fetos?

translation?

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 3, 2012, 4:26:20 AM7/3/12

to

so I would conclude that the authors of the LXX were classicizing in
this respect.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 3, 2012, 4:29:23 AM7/3/12

to

repost: (with quoted text clipped)

On Jul 3, 2:35 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

nevertheless the LXX consistently uses omega rather than omicron for
Masoretic qamets (ō) and eta for Masoretic sere ( ē) and epsilon for
Masoretic segol (e). now lengt is fickle in Masoretic Hebrew but they
may represent differences in quality.

>

> --
> Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 3, 2012, 5:06:11 AM7/3/12

to

On Jul 3, 2:32 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 10:56, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 2, 5:19 am, SolomonW<Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 19:33:37 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
> >>> "SolomonW"<Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message

>

> >>> They are Wrong.
>
> >> Possibly but that is what most historians agree today.
>
> >>>> The name is generally regarded as having been pronounced as Yahweh
>
> >>> No. It is clear from the Greek and Egyptian transliterations that Wav was
> >>> pronounced Wav. Yaweh is therefore the wrong pronunciation. YHWH was
> >>> pronounced Jehovah, where J can either be English J or European J which is
> >>> pronounced as an I.
>
> >> In Hebrew we do not use the letter J with use Y instead.
>
> >> Jacob in Hebrew is pronouced ya-a-KOHV
>
> > that's Modern Israeli
>
> > יַעֲקֹב
>
> > Tiberian ya3ăqōḇ
>
> > 3 is the pharyngeal fricative not present in yahweh
>
> > ă is a reduced vowel and is not etymological and was not present prior
> > to the Masorites
>
> > ḇ i,e. v is not phonemic and developed later under the influence of
> > Aramaic.
>
> > q is uvular.
>
> > so one would expect earlier *ya3qōb
>
> > cf. Arabic ya3qūb
>
> I only did two terms of linguistics. Could you break that down a bit?
>

1. the extra reduced vowel is not part of the original conjugation
pattern but appears after a pharyngeal and this is a later development
in Hebrew, after the vowel points were added.

2. pronouncing the phoneme /b/ as v intervocalically or post
vocalically (except when geminated) as [v] is a later development. by
the time the Masorites added the vowel points. similarly, in Masoretic
Hebrew, under similar circumstances this applies to the other non-
emphatic stops: /d/ is pronounced [*dh*], /g/ as [*gh*], /k/ as [x] ./
p/ as [f] and /t/ as [*th*] (I gave the order as in the Hebrew /
Aramaic alphabet. this is the same as in Aramaic and the reason for
the similarity is that Jews were speaking Aramaic by the time the
pronounciation points were added. BTW Israeli Hebrew chose not to
include [*dh*], [*gh*] and [*th*] in its inventory.

3. notice in the LXX Greek there is only one /a/.

4. /q/ is uvular, meaning it is pronounced much further back than /k/.

5. 3 represents the Arabic phoneme `ayn

LXX Greek transcribes Hebrew /k/ by chi χ and Hebrew /q/ by kappa κ

similarly Hebrew /t/ (teth) by theta and emphatic /T/ by tau τ

Hebrew /p/ is represented by phi φ

in other words non-emphatic stops are represented by Greek aspirates,
emphatic stops by Greek non-aspirates. the spirintization rules that
came about later in the history of Hebrew are not in evidence.

tsade is usually represented by sigma, very rarely zeta.

> --
> Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must

> painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman-

SolomonW

unread,

Jul 3, 2012, 6:55:43 AM7/3/12

to

I am sure that ancient biblical Hebrew was much more aligned to
Mesopotamian then to what is today Oriental pronunciations.

SolomonW

unread,

Jul 3, 2012, 7:31:56 AM7/3/12

to

We have it second hand and what we do have is hardly completely
corroborated. Much of it that we know about is with creation stories, gods
etc not history.

I certainly am not using English as the basis of my linguistic analysis.

>>
>>>
>>> The vowels in English contrary to your claims have not changed
>>> pronunciation.
>>
>> A lie.
>>
>> Between Middle and Early Modern English (around Shakespeare's time) what
>> took place is known as the Great Vowel Shift.
>
> That is a load of poppycock and nonsense. There was no Great Vowel Shift.

Do a net search, you are wrong.

> You obviously have not read the texts of the period otherwise you would
> recognise that they codify regional pronunciations which still exist today.
>
> What happened after the time of Shakespeare was that one regional spelling
> of the English language was standardised by the King James Bible. Note that
> other texts of the same period, Shakespeare and Lynch use different
> spellings which reflect their own regional pronunciation. Unfortunately,
> although the KJB codified a particular spelling for English, nobody
> whatsoever took any head of it and they continued to pronounce English the
> same way they always did. It only became the dominant spelling because there
> were more copies printed of the KJB than anything else, but it is not the
> dominant pronunciation. The KJB in effect made people illiterate. Once the
> spelled English the way it was pronounced and after the KJB they were forced
> to spell English according to that.
>

Maybe but it is irrelevant the reason for this discussion, what is relevant
is that it happened?

>>
>>
>>> The reality is that due to the various invasions of this
>>> country there are over 100 regional variations in vowel sounds as one
>>> language replaced or was incorporated into an earlier one to different
>>> degrees in different regions.
>>
>> For your information Hebrew has the same issue.
>
> No it doesn't because the written language overcame the problem of different
> regional pronunciations of the vowels by choosing not to write them down and
> leave them up to the reader to add in.
>

We know from the bible that spoken Hebrew in ancient times had regional
variations but having said that your argument is correct that regional
pronunciation of vowels is overcome by choosing not to use them.

As a Hebrew and Yiddish reader, I can tell you, it is not a problem if they
are used either. All it means is that your vocalization of the vowels is
different depending on what pronunciation you are using once you are used
to it. I can take a Hebrew text and read it in either Modern Hebrew or
Ashkenazi pronunciation.

>>
>>> Therefore there is no standard pronunciation
>>> for vowels in English and never has been so it is impossible to make such
>>> a
>>> claim as change. Certain texts were written using spelling from certain
>>> regional variations of the language and other texts used other regional
>>> variations. Today's standard English is just one of these regional
>>> variations and does not accurately reflect how 95% of the population
>>> actually pronounce the language. Today's spelling isn't even the way
>>> people
>>> even pronounced the words which are written in it.
>>
>> Not true, it is mainly because when they codified the English language
>> they
>> looked at the root of the word rather then how it was pronounced.
>>
>
> Wrong. You obviously haven't read any texts from the 1500s or earlier.

I can assure you I have tried to read medieval English.

> English was original codified the way it was pronounced to the writer. Then
> printing came along and the KJB regional spelling was imposed on the entire
> land even though it did not reflect the way 99% of the people pronounced
> that language and still doesn't.
>

It is a bit later then printing, English was codified. You are talking
1860's.

>>
>>>
>>> In the case of Hebrew the fact that there are no vowels in the written
>>> language indicates that when Phoenician was first coded there wasn't a
>>> standard pronunciation of the vowels by any of the peoples who spoke the
>>> language. So any pronunciation is as good as any other.
>> (a)
>> Logic is wrong, I can read Hebrew with vowels using a number of different
>> pronunciations all it means is that when I see a symbol A in one type of
>> Hebrew I say Oo and in another I use the sound Aa.
>
> Which defeats the entire point of an alphabet.
>
> In Greek for example everything is spelled the same way it is pronounced
> unlike modern English.
>

Which causes problems with regional Greek.

>>
>>>
>>> Jehovah is the Egyptian pronunciation of YHWH, the evidence is
>>> overwhelming,
>>> so live with it.
>>
>> As I stated before this is not true.
>
> The historical facts show that it is true.
>

Show me a few cites for this historical facts, something we can use.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> T b, r nt t b, tht s th qstn:
>>>>
>>>> I find it much more readable then the original.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And in Linear B it would be written
>>>
>>> T/THoU B/V/Fi OR/Li B/V/Fi D/DhaT/THi ISi D/Dhe QeWeSiT/THiON/Ma.
>>
>> So what, it is irrelevant.
>>
>>>
>>> As can be seen and contrary to Phoenician/Hebrew there was a standard
>>> pronunciation of the vowels in Mycenaean Greek but there was no standard
>>> pronunciation of consonants. The same applies to the way Hittite is
>>> written
>>> also hence the script used to write these languages took that fact into
>>> account.
>>
>> What this shows is that having different pronunciations of consonants does
>> not stop a language from being codified with standard letters which is my
>> point at (a)
>
> It's been codified using individual symbols whose pronunciation is intended
> to be selected by the reader depending on their own regional pronunciation.
> The Greek and Latin alphabets were never intended to be used that way.
>

Yet your original point is correct that having different pronunciations of

consonants does not stop a language from being codified with standard
letters

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> It is plainly obvious from the Egyptian transliterations of Yakubher
>>>>> and
>>>>> Yakobaam and Greek transliteration of YHWH as Ieuo and Yaw in the
>>>>> Akkadian
>>>>> script used to write Phoenician/Ugratic in the Baal Epic that Jehovah
>>>>> is
>>>>> the
>>>>> correct pronunciation. Wav is clearly pronounced with a V sound at the
>>>>> end
>>>>> hence Eu (Ev) in Greek and Baa or Bh in Egyptian equating to a Greek
>>>>> Beta
>>>>> pronounced V as the closest equivalent letter.
>>>>
>>>> If what you say is so clear, why do people here think differently?
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
>>>>
>>>> Conclusion
>>>
>>> They are Wrong.
>>
>> Possibly but that is what most historians agree today.
>>
>
> No they don't. You are referring only to the ideas of certain linguists that
> know nothing of history. When the historical evidence is taken into
> consideration it is clear that Jehovah was the Egyptian pronunciation of
> YHWH.
>

Irrelevant what difference does it matter for this discussion what the
Egyptians pronounced the Tetragrammaton

>>>
>>>> The name is generally regarded as having been pronounced as Yahweh
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. It is clear from the Greek and Egyptian transliterations that Wav was
>>> pronounced Wav. Yaweh is therefore the wrong pronunciation. YHWH was
>>> pronounced Jehovah, where J can either be English J or European J which
>>> is
>>> pronounced as an I.
>>
>> In Hebrew we do not use the letter J with use Y instead.
>>
>> Jacob in Hebrew is pronouced ya-a-KOHV
>
> And if you add an A to the end what do you get? ya-a-KOHV-a or ja-KOHV-a.
>

So if you add an U at the end you get ya-a-KOHV-u, which is also
meaningless.

unread,

Jul 3, 2012, 5:25:30 PM7/3/12

to

"SolomonW" <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message

news:13ii3qjnxer6c$.1jc07k5vludpg.dlg@40tude.net...

Wrong, which proves you've neither read it or understood it.

Sanchuniathon is a list of Phoenician kings who he states were made into
gods by their descendants and contemporaries. The entire stated basis of
Sanchuniathon's work comes from the fact as stated by Sanchunitathon himself
that the Phoenician priests had discovered the original historical accounts
of their gods preserved in their temples before the accounts were
embellished with mythology or given religious virtue by their hierophants of
later years. Sanchuniathon gives us the bare historical facts of these kings
before they were made into gods and treats them as ordinary men. The texts
that he used predate and are more authentic than the Ras Sharma Tablets.

I am right and you know it. Use your common sense. Listen to people speaking
to English today. The vowels are pronounced differently in one part of the
country to the other in a systematic fashion and the still resemble the
pronunciation found in texts written by people from those regions dating
from the 1600s and before. There was no Great Vowel Shift. The Great Vowel
Shift is a complete fallacy. English evolved from a combination of Welsh,
Greek, Latin, German, Norse and French which were overlaid over each other
to varying degrees in different parts of the country. The great North-South
divide including the differences in pronunciation associated with it existed
since the time of the Viking invasion, since it was those invasions which
were responsible for the regional variations in accents, because the Vikings
settlements were mainly concentrated in the north. Other region variations
came with the Norman conquests, since the Normans were mainly concentrated
in parts of the south.

>
>> You obviously have not read the texts of the period otherwise you would
>> recognise that they codify regional pronunciations which still exist
>> today.
>>
>> What happened after the time of Shakespeare was that one regional
>> spelling
>> of the English language was standardised by the King James Bible. Note
>> that
>> other texts of the same period, Shakespeare and Lynch use different
>> spellings which reflect their own regional pronunciation. Unfortunately,
>> although the KJB codified a particular spelling for English, nobody
>> whatsoever took any head of it and they continued to pronounce English
>> the
>> same way they always did. It only became the dominant spelling because
>> there
>> were more copies printed of the KJB than anything else, but it is not the
>> dominant pronunciation. The KJB in effect made people illiterate. Once
>> the
>> spelled English the way it was pronounced and after the KJB they were
>> forced
>> to spell English according to that.
>>
>
> Maybe but it is irrelevant the reason for this discussion, what is
> relevant
> is that it happened?

No. What is relevant was that there was no Great Vowel Shift and that up to
the time of the KJB English was spelled as it was pronounced. The KJB set up
a standard spelling for written English. As far as pronunciation was
concentrated, everyone ignored the spelling and continued to pronounced
English the way they always did. The catastrophic effect of the KJB was that
it made people illiterate.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The reality is that due to the various invasions of this
>>>> country there are over 100 regional variations in vowel sounds as one
>>>> language replaced or was incorporated into an earlier one to different
>>>> degrees in different regions.
>>>
>>> For your information Hebrew has the same issue.
>>
>> No it doesn't because the written language overcame the problem of
>> different
>> regional pronunciations of the vowels by choosing not to write them down
>> and
>> leave them up to the reader to add in.
>>
>
> We know from the bible that spoken Hebrew in ancient times had regional
> variations but having said that your argument is correct that regional
> pronunciation of vowels is overcome by choosing not to use them.
>
> As a Hebrew and Yiddish reader, I can tell you, it is not a problem if
> they
> are used either. All it means is that your vocalization of the vowels is
> different depending on what pronunciation you are using once you are used
> to it. I can take a Hebrew text and read it in either Modern Hebrew or
> Ashkenazi pronunciation.
>

Since the vowels are not written you can pronounce them any way you like.
Even if they are written you can still ignore them as almost everyone does
when they speak English.

>>>> Therefore there is no standard pronunciation
>>>> for vowels in English and never has been so it is impossible to make
>>>> such
>>>> a
>>>> claim as change. Certain texts were written using spelling from certain
>>>> regional variations of the language and other texts used other regional
>>>> variations. Today's standard English is just one of these regional
>>>> variations and does not accurately reflect how 95% of the population
>>>> actually pronounce the language. Today's spelling isn't even the way
>>>> people
>>>> even pronounced the words which are written in it.
>>>
>>> Not true, it is mainly because when they codified the English language
>>> they
>>> looked at the root of the word rather then how it was pronounced.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. You obviously haven't read any texts from the 1500s or earlier.
>
> I can assure you I have tried to read medieval English.
>
>> English was original codified the way it was pronounced to the writer.
>> Then
>> printing came along and the KJB regional spelling was imposed on the
>> entire
>> land even though it did not reflect the way 99% of the people pronounced
>> that language and still doesn't.
>>
>
> It is a bit later then printing, English was codified. You are talking
> 1860's.

No. I am talking 1600s. The bible was and still is the most common book in
the English language.

>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the case of Hebrew the fact that there are no vowels in the written
>>>> language indicates that when Phoenician was first coded there wasn't a
>>>> standard pronunciation of the vowels by any of the peoples who spoke
>>>> the
>>>> language. So any pronunciation is as good as any other.
>>> (a)
>>> Logic is wrong, I can read Hebrew with vowels using a number of
>>> different
>>> pronunciations all it means is that when I see a symbol A in one type of
>>> Hebrew I say Oo and in another I use the sound Aa.
>>
>> Which defeats the entire point of an alphabet.
>>
>> In Greek for example everything is spelled the same way it is pronounced
>> unlike modern English.
>>
>
> Which causes problems with regional Greek.

No it doesn't because everyone learns to pronounce the language exactly the
way it is spelled including all the regional and even ancient Greek
variations of words. Anyone who is fluent in modern Greek can read and
understand biblical Greek which is over 2000 years old. You can't say the
same about English. The English of Chaucer would be equivalent to Homeric
Greek and that of Beowulf would be equivalent to whatever existed before
Mycenaean.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jehovah is the Egyptian pronunciation of YHWH, the evidence is
>>>> overwhelming,
>>>> so live with it.
>>>
>>> As I stated before this is not true.
>>
>> The historical facts show that it is true.
>>
>
>
> Show me a few cites for this historical facts, something we can use.

I have already cited the historical facts.

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/Manetho.htm

That depends on how many people in different places you want to be able to
read it. Linear B was designed so that everyone could use the same alphabet
and read it irrespective of their regional pronunciation of the consonants.

There was no such thing as the Tetragrammaton when Jehovah ruled over Egypt.
Phoenician script didn't come into common usage until 1430 BC. Therefore
Jehovah predates the Tetragrammaton and has to be considered as being
closest to the original pronunciation.

>
>
>>>>
>>>>> The name is generally regarded as having been pronounced as Yahweh
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. It is clear from the Greek and Egyptian transliterations that Wav
>>>> was
>>>> pronounced Wav. Yaweh is therefore the wrong pronunciation. YHWH was
>>>> pronounced Jehovah, where J can either be English J or European J which
>>>> is
>>>> pronounced as an I.
>>>
>>> In Hebrew we do not use the letter J with use Y instead.
>>>
>>> Jacob in Hebrew is pronouced ya-a-KOHV
>>
>> And if you add an A to the end what do you get? ya-a-KOHV-a or
>> ja-KOHV-a.
>>
>
> So if you add an U at the end you get ya-a-KOHV-u, which is also
> meaningless.

Nope.

You'd get the name Iakovou which is the Greek version of the name Jacobs
making it pretty obvious that YHWH was pronounced Jehovah.

That would depend on who came first. According to the chronology of
Sanchuniathon relating to the time of Jehovah who Porphyry says lived at the
same time as Kronos/Saturn ruled Greece ie. the Satur the Minoan period king
of Crete dating to 1700 BC, who is synonymous with the Phoenician god El,
Jehovah the son of El lived at the time of Meruserenre Yakubher, therefore
the god came after the king that was made into this god.

On the other hand, at the time of Naharin, this king was named after Yam
Nahar who was of course as we know from the Baal Epic, Yaw or Jehovah.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 3, 2012, 9:48:54 PM7/3/12

to

In soc.history.ancient SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in <d1zdl9w50wfn.1cpktivhk7qwi$.d...@40tude.net>:

: On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:30:40 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

:> On Jul 2, 12:21 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>> On Jul 2, 8:44 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:

:>>
:>>

:>>> I confess that clearly you know more than I do about this but let me make

:>>> one observation. There was a study done in England, tracing many famous
:>>> rabbis' travels. At the time (Greek and earlier Roman times) there were two
:>>> main centers of Jewish studies; one center was in Iraq and the other in
:>>
:>> Arabic got it from Aramaic or directly from Jews, who neighbor
:>> Palestine (there was no "Israel" at the time).
:>>
:>> at any rate, the reconstructions I gave are from Semitic linguistics
:>
:> actually Ashkenazi pronounciation is based on Mesopotamian Aramaic,
:> with its affricated tsade. an affricated tsade is tenable for Ancient
:> Hebrew, but it did have the "emphasis" (pharyngealization or
:> glottalization) present in Oriental pronounciations. Oriental
:> pronounciations are in general more conservative.

: I am sure that ancient biblical Hebrew was much more aligned to
: Mesopotamian then to what is today Oriental pronunciations.

Google is not releasing my post so I am answering again from a different
account.

what are basing your claim upon?

Mesopotamian recitations of Hebrew at the time of the Babylonian Talmud
were by and large similar to today's "Oriental" pronounciations. although
Babylonian Aramaic had a tendency to weaken the pharygeals (I don't think
Modern Iraqi jews have this tendency, being influenced by Arabic), ayin
and heth it still mostly preserved them. it also preserved the emphatics.

at any rate, Modern Israeli Hebrew, which is mostly based on European
recitations, has fewer sounds than is represented by the alphabet, ergo,
it cannot be conservative.

Biblical Hebrew had more phonemes than is represented in the alphabet. at
the time of the LXX to up to around the beginning of the 1st millenium at
least ayin and heth represented, along with the pharygeals /3/ and /H/
also represented /*gh*/ (Arabic ghayn) and /*kh*/ (Arabic kha)
respectively, but later became exclusively pharyngeals by the time of the
Masorites. we know that from transcription in to Greek especially the
LXX and transcriptions in cuneiform. further back, samekh and sin were
differentiated in sound.

even further back, one may assume that at least some Canaanite dialects
preserved some of the Semitic phonemes represented in Arabic, but these
are hard to determine.

don't smply assume that Hebrew as you know it is more conservative, but
learn Semitic linguistics. otherwise, you will end up like Aggie.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jul 4, 2012, 1:22:12 AM7/4/12

to

On 03/07/2012 13:24, choro wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 09:23, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 3:38 am, choro<ch...@tvco.net> wrote:
>>> Aggie, our dear Aggie, always over-eggs the pudding. It is in his
>>> nature. He can't help it. He would even argue vehemently that Yorkshire
>>> Pudding is Greek.
>>>
>>> It is nice for a change for him to be taken to task over Greek language
>>> issues by Yusuf B Gursey, who I believe is a Turk.
>>>
>>
>> yes. I am Turkish.
>>
>>> Whatever next re Aggie? ;-)
>>> --
>>> choro (chuckling with a acerbic sense of humor...)
>>> *****
>>> Re Aggie, efages karpouzi me halloumi kai fresko dakhtila fetos?
>>
>> translation?
>
> Aggie, have you had watermelon with hellim/halloumi* and "dakhtyla"**
> this year?
>
> *a superb white Cyprus cheese made with ewe's or goat's milk
>
> **dakhtyla -- a type of very tasty bread extremely popular in Cyprus,
> similar to, though not quite the same as "simit", and known as "di$
> corek" in Turkish . Greeks liken it to fingers while Turks liken it to
> teeth! ;-)
>

Interestingly, the "kh" comes from a sound change in Demotic Greek. It
will be spelt "daktyla", if it is spelt at all, except by extreme
leftists, who write demotic as it is pronounced.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jul 4, 2012, 1:27:44 AM7/4/12

to

On 03/07/2012 21:20, Agamemnon wrote:
> Ancient Greek was pronounced that same way as Modern Greek since at least
> the time of Homer or earlier. Do the maths.
>

Balls.

> Hellenistic Greek was indisputably pronounced like Modern Greek since
> Dionysios Thraikos in about 200 BC describes it's pronunciation in Texni
> Grammatiki and only modern pronunciation fits his description completely.

In a manner of speaking, but the transformation was not complete until
the second century BCE. As I said, it is the proper pronunciation for
the NT, and few West European scholars know that.

>
> If you assume that Mycenaean Greek of 1600 BC was pronounced as completely
> differently as you could possibly get from Modern Greek by 100% of the Greek
> population, then by 900 BC at least 50% of the population pronounced it the
> same way as Modern Greek. Thus Homer's Greek was pronounced like Modern
> Greek and as far as ancient Greek goes, that's all that matters. Every
> modern Greek speaks Greek the same way as Homer heard it.
>
> If you dispute the maths then you dispute the entire theory of linguistics.

More balls.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jul 4, 2012, 1:30:17 AM7/4/12

to

I defer to your greater knowledge.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jul 4, 2012, 1:31:47 AM7/4/12

to

Which is?

Agamemnon

unread,

Jul 4, 2012, 1:34:32 AM7/4/12

to

"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:0zQIr.553192$kM1....@fx18.am4...

Already cited.

http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 4, 2012, 3:42:07 AM7/4/12

to

In soc.history.ancient Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote in <jt07e6$pse$1...@pcls6.std.com>:
: In soc.history.ancient SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in <d1zdl9w50wfn.1cpktivhk7qwi$.d...@40tude.net>:

for the Masoretic pronounciation and the pronounciation of various Jewish
communities see

http://www.bjeindy.org/encyclopedia_judaica_online

search for "Hebrew Grammar"

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 4, 2012, 3:51:26 AM7/4/12

to

In soc.history.ancient Agamemnon <agam...@hello.to.no_spam> wrote in <ldCdnSBQv89ySG7S...@eclipse.net.uk>:

: "Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

: news:0zQIr.553192$kM1....@fx18.am4...
:> On 03/07/2012 21:32, Agamemnon wrote:

:>>>>
:>>>>
:>>> Do you have a cite for that?

:>>
:>> I don't need a cite, and neither did Einstein. This is a point of fact
:>> whose
:>> validity is proven by the physical evidence.
:>>
:>>
:>>
:> Which is?

: Already cited.

: http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/

your own website does not count.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 4, 2012, 3:39:24 AM7/4/12

to

On Jul 3, 9:48 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> In soc.history.ancient SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in <d1zdl9w50wfn.1cpktivhk7qwi$....@40tude.net>:

> On 03/07/2012 21:20, Agamemnon wrote:
>> Ancient Greek was pronounced that same way as Modern Greek since at least
>> the time of Homer or earlier. Do the maths.
>>
> Balls.

Do the maths.

>
>> Hellenistic Greek was indisputably pronounced like Modern Greek since
>> Dionysios Thraikos in about 200 BC describes it's pronunciation in Texni
>> Grammatiki and only modern pronunciation fits his description completely.
>
> In a manner of speaking, but the transformation was not complete until the
> second century BCE. As I said, it is the proper pronunciation for the NT,
> and few West European scholars know that.

The point at which 50% of the population used Modern Greek pronunciation was
900 BC or earlier assuming there was a shift in pronunciation at all, so to
all intents and purposes Modern Greek was the dominant pronunciation since
the time of Homer.

From Linear B we know that P/B/F were all indistinguishable as were T/TH, D,
and K/G/KH in at least 1600 BC.

We also know that by 1430 BC when Phoenician script was introduced by Cadmus
Theta, Phi and Xi were not represented as individual letters even though
symbols existed for them in the Phoenician version of the script, but by
1200 BC they had been added by Palamedes, thus TH, F and H had already
appeared by this time in the majority of dialects.

This means that TH evolved from T, F from P and X from K. So in Linear B the
groups P/B, T, D and K/G must have originally existed with just those
pronunciations.

We also know that Psi and Ksi had to be added as individual letters in the
Greek Phoenician script based alphabet even though they could have easily
been written using PS and KS.

This would imply that P was pronounced as English P, B as Greek Beta, T as
English T, D as English D since a Greek Delta would have been grouped with
T, K as English K, G as Greek Gamma, and Psi as Bsi (English B), and Ksi as
Gsi (English G) to distinguish them from the individual combination of the
letters.

So for TH, F and X Modern Greek pronunciation was already being used in 1200
BC.

For B and G Modern Greek pronunciation was there by 1430 BC when Phoenician
script was brought to Greece by Cadmus.

For P, T, D and K Modern Greek pronunciation was dominant by 800 BC.

For PS and KS Modern Greek pronunciation was dominant by 700 BC.

>>
>> If you assume that Mycenaean Greek of 1600 BC was pronounced as
>> completely
>> differently as you could possibly get from Modern Greek by 100% of the
>> Greek
>> population, then by 900 BC at least 50% of the population pronounced it
>> the
>> same way as Modern Greek. Thus Homer's Greek was pronounced like Modern
>> Greek and as far as ancient Greek goes, that's all that matters. Every
>> modern Greek speaks Greek the same way as Homer heard it.
>>
>> If you dispute the maths then you dispute the entire theory of
>> linguistics.
>
> More balls.

Do the maths.

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jul 6, 2012, 2:32:12 AM7/6/12

to

One ball and one ball are two balls.

Agamemnon

unread,

Jul 6, 2012, 3:39:47 PM7/6/12

to

"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:yDvJr.579096$N53.2...@fx20.am4...

That's not the right answer to the right question.

SolomonW

unread,

Jul 7, 2012, 3:44:33 AM7/7/12

to

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 19:36:56 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> On Jul 2, 5:32 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 00:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>> his argument is that Ancient Greek was pronounced like Modern Greek
>>> (he made that some time ago in sci.lang) and now he is arguing that
>>> Biblical Hebrew is pronounced like Israeli Hebrew, particularly those
>>> of non-Oriental origin. the truth is is that waw was always a
>>> semivowel in all positions (except when used as a vowel sign).
>>
>> Israeli Hebrew is largely pronounced in *Oriental* Hebrew, it is actually
>> called Sephardi Hebrew.
>
>
> that is an ideal that is not put into practice.
>
> see:
>
> Abba, Why Was Professor Higgins Trying to Teach Eliza to Speak Like
> Our Cleaning Lady?:
>
> http://www.zuckermann.org/pdf/abba.pdf

I do not think much of this report. Where a modern Israeli uses Yiddish, it
tends to be in a manner almost unrecognizable by a Yiddish speaker.

I tend to support the wikipedia on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew

So far, neither view has gained significant acceptance among mainstream
linguists, and both have been criticized by some as being based less on
linguistic evidence than post- or anti-Zionist political motivations.[13]
However, some linguists, for example American Yiddish scholar Dovid Katz,
have employed Zuckermann's glottonym "Israeli" and accept his notion of
hybridity. Few would dispute that Hebrew has acquired some European
features as a result of having been learned by immigrants as a second
language at a crucial formative stage. The identity of the European
substrate/adstrate has varied: in the time of the Mandate and the early
State, the principal contributor was Yiddish, while today it is American
English. There has also been some influence, on vocabulary rather than
structure, from Arabic, both in the form of Palestinian Arabic and, during
the large scale immigrations of Mizrahi Jews during the 1950-60s, the
Yemenite and North African dialects. Russian influence may also be observed
during the founding period

SolomonW

unread,

Jul 7, 2012, 4:39:14 AM7/7/12

to

No-one today has read it as we only have parts in secondary sources. We are
not even sure what parts we have come are from the Sanchuniathon.

>
> Sanchuniathon is a list of Phoenician kings who he states were made into
> gods by their descendants and contemporaries. The entire stated basis of
> Sanchuniathon's work comes from the fact as stated by Sanchunitathon himself
> that the Phoenician priests had discovered the original historical accounts
> of their gods preserved in their temples before the accounts were
> embellished with mythology or given religious virtue by their hierophants of
> later years. Sanchuniathon gives us the bare historical facts of these kings
> before they were made into gods and treats them as ordinary men.

From what we know it is best described as legends.

> The texts
> that he used predate and are more authentic than the Ras Sharma Tablets.
>

Get real. At least, Ras Sharma Tablets are something we can see and judge.

You are not right, and I know it.

> Use your common sense. Listen to people speaking
> to English today. The vowels are pronounced differently in one part of the
> country to the other in a systematic fashion and the still resemble the
> pronunciation found in texts written by people from those regions dating
> from the 1600s and before. There was no Great Vowel Shift. The Great Vowel
> Shift is a complete fallacy. English evolved from a combination of Welsh,
> Greek, Latin, German, Norse and French which were overlaid over each other
> to varying degrees in different parts of the country. The great North-South
> divide including the differences in pronunciation associated with it existed
> since the time of the Viking invasion, since it was those invasions which
> were responsible for the regional variations in accents, because the Vikings
> settlements were mainly concentrated in the north. Other region variations
> came with the Norman conquests, since the Normans were mainly concentrated
> in parts of the south.
>

Well these regional variations have basically disappeared so something
changed.

>
>>
>>> You obviously have not read the texts of the period otherwise you would
>>> recognise that they codify regional pronunciations which still exist
>>> today.
>>>
>>> What happened after the time of Shakespeare was that one regional
>>> spelling
>>> of the English language was standardised by the King James Bible. Note
>>> that
>>> other texts of the same period, Shakespeare and Lynch use different
>>> spellings which reflect their own regional pronunciation. Unfortunately,
>>> although the KJB codified a particular spelling for English, nobody
>>> whatsoever took any head of it and they continued to pronounce English
>>> the
>>> same way they always did. It only became the dominant spelling because
>>> there
>>> were more copies printed of the KJB than anything else, but it is not the
>>> dominant pronunciation. The KJB in effect made people illiterate. Once
>>> the
>>> spelled English the way it was pronounced and after the KJB they were
>>> forced
>>> to spell English according to that.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe but it is irrelevant the reason for this discussion, what is
>> relevant
>> is that it happened?
>
> No. What is relevant was that there was no Great Vowel Shift

Wrong

> and that up to
> the time of the KJB English was spelled as it was pronounced. The KJB set up
> a standard spelling for written English. As far as pronunciation was
> concentrated, everyone ignored the spelling and continued to pronounced
> English the way they always did. The catastrophic effect of the KJB was that
> it made people illiterate.

Check the spelling of English documents in the 1700s, you will see it
varies greatly.

>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The reality is that due to the various invasions of this
>>>>> country there are over 100 regional variations in vowel sounds as one
>>>>> language replaced or was incorporated into an earlier one to different
>>>>> degrees in different regions.
>>>>
>>>> For your information Hebrew has the same issue.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't because the written language overcame the problem of
>>> different
>>> regional pronunciations of the vowels by choosing not to write them down
>>> and
>>> leave them up to the reader to add in.
>>>
>>
>> We know from the bible that spoken Hebrew in ancient times had regional
>> variations but having said that your argument is correct that regional
>> pronunciation of vowels is overcome by choosing not to use them.
>>
>> As a Hebrew and Yiddish reader, I can tell you, it is not a problem if
>> they
>> are used either. All it means is that your vocalization of the vowels is
>> different depending on what pronunciation you are using once you are used
>> to it. I can take a Hebrew text and read it in either Modern Hebrew or
>> Ashkenazi pronunciation.
>>
>
> Since the vowels are not written you can pronounce them any way you like.
> Even if they are written you can still ignore them as almost everyone does
> when they speak English.

In Hebrew vowels are not ignored, if they put into the text, it is for a
reason.

True but people had other things to read and write then too.

>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of Hebrew the fact that there are no vowels in the written
>>>>> language indicates that when Phoenician was first coded there wasn't a
>>>>> standard pronunciation of the vowels by any of the peoples who spoke
>>>>> the
>>>>> language. So any pronunciation is as good as any other.
>>>> (a)
>>>> Logic is wrong, I can read Hebrew with vowels using a number of
>>>> different
>>>> pronunciations all it means is that when I see a symbol A in one type of
>>>> Hebrew I say Oo and in another I use the sound Aa.
>>>
>>> Which defeats the entire point of an alphabet.
>>>
>>> In Greek for example everything is spelled the same way it is pronounced
>>> unlike modern English.
>>>
>>
>> Which causes problems with regional Greek.
>
> No it doesn't because everyone learns to pronounce the language exactly the
> way it is spelled including all the regional and even ancient Greek
> variations of words.

Clearly, you know little about Modern Greek.

> Anyone who is fluent in modern Greek can read and
> understand biblical Greek which is over 2000 years old. You can't say the
> same about English. The English of Chaucer would be equivalent to Homeric
> Greek and that of Beowulf would be equivalent to whatever existed before
> Mycenaean.
>

This used to be the case, not so much any more, a Greek guy at work went to
do a course to read old Greek. He is a history nut like me.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jehovah is the Egyptian pronunciation of YHWH, the evidence is
>>>>> overwhelming,
>>>>> so live with it.
>>>>
>>>> As I stated before this is not true.
>>>
>>> The historical facts show that it is true.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Show me a few cites for this historical facts, something we can use.
>
> I have already cited the historical facts.
>
> http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/Manetho.htm

Clearly it needs work.

So what, even if true. The Tetragrammaton could never have had the J
because no such sound existed in Hebrew then.

>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The name is generally regarded as having been pronounced as Yahweh
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No. It is clear from the Greek and Egyptian transliterations that Wav
>>>>> was
>>>>> pronounced Wav. Yaweh is therefore the wrong pronunciation. YHWH was
>>>>> pronounced Jehovah, where J can either be English J or European J which
>>>>> is
>>>>> pronounced as an I.
>>>>
>>>> In Hebrew we do not use the letter J with use Y instead.
>>>>
>>>> Jacob in Hebrew is pronouced ya-a-KOHV
>>>
>>> And if you add an A to the end what do you get? ya-a-KOHV-a or
>>> ja-KOHV-a.
>>>
>>
>> So if you add an U at the end you get ya-a-KOHV-u, which is also
>> meaningless.
>
> Nope.
>
> You'd get the name Iakovou which is the Greek version of the name Jacobs
> making it pretty obvious that YHWH was pronounced Jehovah.

How did Greek even get into it? The problem is you need to change the Ya to
J which sound never existed at that time in Hebrew, you after that you need
to add a few vowels which in theory could happen as they are not listed,
and next you need to add a constant which is almost impossible.

Unlike Greeks, Jews never made Gods of their kings.

>
> On the other hand, at the time of Naharin, this king was named after Yam
> Nahar who was of course as we know from the Baal Epic, Yaw or Jehovah.

This is another issue and if true shows that your point about Porphyry
above is wrong.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 7, 2012, 2:32:28 PM7/7/12

to

On Jul 7, 3:44 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 19:36:56 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 5:32 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 00:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>> his argument is that Ancient Greek was pronounced like Modern Greek
> >>> (he made that some time ago in sci.lang) and now he is arguing that
> >>> Biblical Hebrew is pronounced like Israeli Hebrew, particularly those
> >>> of non-Oriental origin. the truth is is that waw was always a
> >>> semivowel in all positions (except when used as a vowel sign).
>
> >> Israeli Hebrew is largely pronounced in *Oriental* Hebrew, it is actually
> >> called Sephardi Hebrew.
>
> > that is an ideal that is not put into practice.
>
> > see:
>
> > Abba, Why Was Professor Higgins Trying to Teach Eliza to Speak Like
> > Our Cleaning Lady?:
>
> >http://www.zuckermann.org/pdf/abba.pdf
>
> I do not think much of this report. Where a modern Israeli uses Yiddish, it
> tends to be in a manner almost unrecognizable by a Yiddish speaker.
>
> I tend to support the wikipedia on this
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Hebrew

nevertheless the article agrees with Wikipedia in termsof phonology,
which was my point.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 7, 2012, 4:11:07 PM7/7/12

to

also Israeli Hebrew a has a tense (indicating time rather than aspect)
and word order system that is more akin to European languages than
Biblical Hebrew and other Semitic languages. linguists generally agree
on the facts (except Wexler's more controversial claim of Slavic
influence), the classification being more of an issue of
sociolinguistics.

Agamemnon

unread,

Jul 7, 2012, 6:23:52 PM7/7/12

to

"SolomonW" <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message

news:1c8szu9c616wx.1...@40tude.net...

Poppycock. We know exactly which parts are from Sanchuniathon since Eusebius
quotes the Greek translation by Porphyry as contained in Philo.

>
>>
>> Sanchuniathon is a list of Phoenician kings who he states were made into
>> gods by their descendants and contemporaries. The entire stated basis of
>> Sanchuniathon's work comes from the fact as stated by Sanchunitathon
>> himself
>> that the Phoenician priests had discovered the original historical
>> accounts
>> of their gods preserved in their temples before the accounts were
>> embellished with mythology or given religious virtue by their hierophants
>> of
>> later years. Sanchuniathon gives us the bare historical facts of these
>> kings
>> before they were made into gods and treats them as ordinary men.
>
> From what we know it is best described as legends.

Which proves you have never actually read it and know absolutely nothing
about it. There is no such description whatsoever. It is described
explicitly as history.

>
>
>> The texts
>> that he used predate and are more authentic than the Ras Sharma Tablets.
>>
>
> Get real. At least, Ras Sharma Tablets are something we can see and judge.

It's time for you to get real. Sanchuniathon used texts that predate the Ras
Sharma Tablets.

You don't have a clue of anything you are talking about and you know it.

>
>
>> Use your common sense. Listen to people speaking
>> to English today. The vowels are pronounced differently in one part of
>> the
>> country to the other in a systematic fashion and the still resemble the
>> pronunciation found in texts written by people from those regions dating
>> from the 1600s and before. There was no Great Vowel Shift. The Great
>> Vowel
>> Shift is a complete fallacy. English evolved from a combination of Welsh,
>> Greek, Latin, German, Norse and French which were overlaid over each
>> other
>> to varying degrees in different parts of the country. The great
>> North-South
>> divide including the differences in pronunciation associated with it
>> existed
>> since the time of the Viking invasion, since it was those invasions which
>> were responsible for the regional variations in accents, because the
>> Vikings
>> settlements were mainly concentrated in the north. Other region
>> variations
>> came with the Norman conquests, since the Normans were mainly
>> concentrated
>> in parts of the south.
>>
>
> Well these regional variations have basically disappeared so something
> changed.

No they have not. They are still extant today proving once again you have
not actually read any of the texts being referred to.

The Great Vowel Shift is a work of science fiction. The vowel sounds in
English evolved in situ at different locations because of various invasions
causing the absorption of new languages and new speakers. The idea that
there was a sudden instantaneous shift in vowel sounds it completely
ludicrous.

>
>> and that up to
>> the time of the KJB English was spelled as it was pronounced. The KJB set
>> up
>> a standard spelling for written English. As far as pronunciation was
>> concentrated, everyone ignored the spelling and continued to pronounced
>> English the way they always did. The catastrophic effect of the KJB was
>> that
>> it made people illiterate.
>
> Check the spelling of English documents in the 1700s, you will see it
> varies greatly.

Because they were written by different writers from different regions the
way the language was actually pronounced. The KJB made everyone illiterate
by introduction a standard spelling which did not reflect the way most
people actually pronounced the language and still isn't the way most people
pronounce the language.

We are talking about Biblical Hebrew here. It contains no vowel points.

Most ordinary people did not.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the case of Hebrew the fact that there are no vowels in the
>>>>>> written
>>>>>> language indicates that when Phoenician was first coded there wasn't
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> standard pronunciation of the vowels by any of the peoples who spoke
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> language. So any pronunciation is as good as any other.
>>>>> (a)
>>>>> Logic is wrong, I can read Hebrew with vowels using a number of
>>>>> different
>>>>> pronunciations all it means is that when I see a symbol A in one type
>>>>> of
>>>>> Hebrew I say Oo and in another I use the sound Aa.
>>>>
>>>> Which defeats the entire point of an alphabet.
>>>>
>>>> In Greek for example everything is spelled the same way it is
>>>> pronounced
>>>> unlike modern English.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which causes problems with regional Greek.
>>
>> No it doesn't because everyone learns to pronounce the language exactly
>> the
>> way it is spelled including all the regional and even ancient Greek
>> variations of words.
>
> Clearly, you know little about Modern Greek.

Clearly you know absolutely nothing.

Greek is pronounced the way it is spelled.

>
>> Anyone who is fluent in modern Greek can read and
>> understand biblical Greek which is over 2000 years old. You can't say the
>> same about English. The English of Chaucer would be equivalent to Homeric
>> Greek and that of Beowulf would be equivalent to whatever existed before
>> Mycenaean.
>>
>
> This used to be the case, not so much any more, a Greek guy at work went
> to

It is still the case. Have you ever been to a Greek Orthodox Church?

> do a course to read old Greek. He is a history nut like me.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jehovah is the Egyptian pronunciation of YHWH, the evidence is
>>>>>> overwhelming,
>>>>>> so live with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I stated before this is not true.
>>>>
>>>> The historical facts show that it is true.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Show me a few cites for this historical facts, something we can use.
>>
>> I have already cited the historical facts.
>>
>> http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/Manetho.htm
>
> Clearly it needs work.

Clearly the facts are beyond your comprehension.

Twaddle. The name Jehovah comes from Egypt. It was the name of two Hyksos
pharaohs separated by about 50 to 70 years.

>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The name is generally regarded as having been pronounced as Yahweh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. It is clear from the Greek and Egyptian transliterations that Wav
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> pronounced Wav. Yaweh is therefore the wrong pronunciation. YHWH was
>>>>>> pronounced Jehovah, where J can either be English J or European J
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> pronounced as an I.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Hebrew we do not use the letter J with use Y instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacob in Hebrew is pronouced ya-a-KOHV
>>>>
>>>> And if you add an A to the end what do you get? ya-a-KOHV-a or
>>>> ja-KOHV-a.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So if you add an U at the end you get ya-a-KOHV-u, which is also
>>> meaningless.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You'd get the name Iakovou which is the Greek version of the name Jacobs
>> making it pretty obvious that YHWH was pronounced Jehovah.
>
> How did Greek even get into it? The problem is you need to change the Ya
> to
> J which sound never existed at that time in Hebrew, you after that you
> need
> to add a few vowels which in theory could happen as they are not listed,
> and next you need to add a constant which is almost impossible.

Rubbish. Wav is pronounced Wav therefore YHWH translates as Jehovah or
Jehovah, which is rendered as Ieuo/Ievo in ancient Greek. We also know this
is correct from the Egyptian rendering of the name as Yakubher and Yakobaam.

Yes they did. The worshiped exactly the same gods as the Phoenicians and
made almost every Pharaoh of Egypt into their god as well.

>
>>
>> On the other hand, at the time of Naharin, this king was named after Yam
>> Nahar who was of course as we know from the Baal Epic, Yaw or Jehovah.
>
> This is another issue and if true shows that your point about Porphyry
> above is wrong.

unread,

Jul 7, 2012, 8:07:26 PM7/7/12

to

On Jul 7, 7:48 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 5:32 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 00:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> > > his argument is that Ancient Greek was pronounced like Modern Greek
> > > (he made that some time ago in sci.lang) and now he is arguing that
> > > Biblical Hebrew is pronounced like Israeli Hebrew, particularly those
> > > of non-Oriental origin. the truth is is that waw was always a
> > > semivowel in all positions (except when used as a vowel sign).
>
> > Israeli Hebrew is largely pronounced in *Oriental* Hebrew, it is actually
> > called Sephardi Hebrew.
>
> I use *Oriental* Hebrew to exclude Jews from non-Arabic speaking
> countries. i.e. Jews from Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. are Sephardic

well cross out Spain but add Greece and Turkey

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jul 8, 2012, 2:40:31 AM7/8/12

to

Porphyry may well have believed that, but he had no evidence. Like most
ancient writers, and yourself, he believed anything appropriate to the
picture he wished to form.

SolomonW

unread,

Jul 8, 2012, 4:23:54 AM7/8/12

to

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Actually we are not actually sure what parts are quotes from the
Sanchuniathon and what Porphyry added.

>>
>>>
>>> Sanchuniathon is a list of Phoenician kings who he states were made into
>>> gods by their descendants and contemporaries. The entire stated basis of
>>> Sanchuniathon's work comes from the fact as stated by Sanchunitathon
>>> himself
>>> that the Phoenician priests had discovered the original historical
>>> accounts
>>> of their gods preserved in their temples before the accounts were
>>> embellished with mythology or given religious virtue by their hierophants
>>> of
>>> later years. Sanchuniathon gives us the bare historical facts of these
>>> kings
>>> before they were made into gods and treats them as ordinary men.
>>
>> From what we know it is best described as legends.
>
> Which proves you have never actually read it and know absolutely nothing
> about it. There is no such description whatsoever. It is described
> explicitly as history.
>

Not by modern historians

>>
>>
>>> The texts
>>> that he used predate and are more authentic than the Ras Sharma Tablets.
>>>
>>
>> Get real. At least, Ras Sharma Tablets are something we can see and judge.
>
> It's time for you to get real. Sanchuniathon used texts that predate the Ras
> Sharma Tablets.
>

It is possible that the Sanchuniathon was written a long time before but we
certainly today cannot verify much about its accuracy. That alone would
rule it out as a historical source.

I beg your pardon.

In English today, I doubt you will find much in the written text to give
you a clue that it is a regional variations, a few words and expressions.
Probably, the most extreme I have seen is in India.

However, it did happen, just do a net search, there is much about it.

>
>>
>>> and that up to
>>> the time of the KJB English was spelled as it was pronounced. The KJB set
>>> up
>>> a standard spelling for written English. As far as pronunciation was
>>> concentrated, everyone ignored the spelling and continued to pronounced
>>> English the way they always did. The catastrophic effect of the KJB was
>>> that
>>> it made people illiterate.
>>
>> Check the spelling of English documents in the 1700s, you will see it
>> varies greatly.
>
> Because they were written by different writers from different regions the
> way the language was actually pronounced. The KJB made everyone illiterate
> by introduction a standard spelling which did not reflect the way most
> people actually pronounced the language and still isn't the way most people
> pronounce the language.
>

Well this just proves my point that the standardization of English occured
later.

>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reality is that due to the various invasions of this
>>>>>>> country there are over 100 regional variations in vowel sounds as one
>>>>>>> language replaced or was incorporated into an earlier one to
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>> degrees in different regions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For your information Hebrew has the same issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't because the written language overcame the problem of
>>>>> different
>>>>> regional pronunciations of the vowels by choosing not to write them
>>>>> down
>>>>> and
>>>>> leave them up to the reader to add in.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We know from the bible that spoken Hebrew in ancient times had regional
>>>> variations but having said that your argument is correct that regional
>>>> pronunciation of vowels is overcome by choosing not to use them.
>>>>
>>>> As a Hebrew and Yiddish reader, I can tell you, it is not a problem if
>>>> they
>>>> are used either. All it means is that your vocalization of the vowels is
>>>> different depending on what pronunciation you are using once you are
>>>> used

(b)

>>>> to it. I can take a Hebrew text and read it in either Modern Hebrew or
>>>> Ashkenazi pronunciation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since the vowels are not written you can pronounce them any way you like.
>>> Even if they are written you can still ignore them as almost everyone
>>> does
>>> when they speak English.
>>
>> In Hebrew vowels are not ignored, if they put into the text, it is for a
>> reason.
>
> We are talking about Biblical Hebrew here.
>

Wrong see (b) above

> It contains no vowel points.

Biblical Hebrew can contain vowels. My text books used to use them.

This is a myth, if you could read in 1600s in English, you would probably
read much more than the bible. Even if you read just religious books, that
would include many books that were not the bible.

I did not disagree with that, what I stated is that there are problems with
regional Greek.

>>
>>> Anyone who is fluent in modern Greek can read and
>>> understand biblical Greek which is over 2000 years old. You can't say the
>>> same about English. The English of Chaucer would be equivalent to Homeric
>>> Greek and that of Beowulf would be equivalent to whatever existed before
>>> Mycenaean.
>>>
>>
>> This used to be the case, not so much any more, a Greek guy at work went
>> to
>
> It is still the case. Have you ever been to a Greek Orthodox Church?

Yes.

>
>> do a course to read old Greek. He is a history nut like me.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jehovah is the Egyptian pronunciation of YHWH, the evidence is
>>>>>>> overwhelming,
>>>>>>> so live with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I stated before this is not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> The historical facts show that it is true.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Show me a few cites for this historical facts, something we can use.
>>>
>>> I have already cited the historical facts.
>>>
>>> http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/Manetho.htm
>>
>> Clearly it needs work.
>
> Clearly the facts are beyond your comprehension.

I would like to think that facts are not.

You cannot get it into the Tetragrammaton, if there is no sound J in
Hebrew.

It does not matter what the Greeks or Egyptians thought, for the
Tetragrammaton to have this is virtually impossible if only due to the
limitations of Hebrew not having this sound J.

No Jewish King was made a God not even their greatest David.

>
>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, at the time of Naharin, this king was named after Yam
>>> Nahar who was of course as we know from the Baal Epic, Yaw or Jehovah.
>>
>> This is another issue and if true shows that your point about Porphyry
>> above is wrong.
>
> Wrong. It shows that my point about Porphyry is right since he explicitly
> states that the Jews worshiped the same gods as the Phoenicians and that
> they originated from defied kings. Nahor links the Jews to Naharin and Yam
> Nahar who from the Baal Epic we know was Yaw or Jehovah.

The Canaanites which include Phoenicians would also not have the letter J.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 8, 2012, 5:19:34 AM7/8/12

to

On Jul 8, 4:23 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 23:23:52 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:

> > "SolomonW" <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message

> >news:1c8szu9c616wx.1...@40tude.net...
> >> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:25:30 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
>

> >>> "SolomonW" <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message

> >>>news:13ii3qjnxer6c$.1jc07k5vludpg.dlg@40tude.net...
> >>>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 00:43:45 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
>

> >>>>> "SolomonW" <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>news:nmmqzrug2vdh$.16hgx18adyixx.dlg@40tude.net...
> >>>>>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 19:33:37 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
>

> >>>>>>> "SolomonW" <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>news:evw8lk7f6ycp$.5qbdgd4o1wri$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 00:42:45 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>> "SolomonW" <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>>news:g565sv0g54iz.157rkifq0u48z$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:48:31 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>>>> "Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

http://www.jstor.org/stable/610444

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 8, 2012, 5:08:48 AM7/8/12

to

On Jul 8, 4:23 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
>

> >>>> We know from the bible that spoken Hebrew in ancient times had regional
> >>>> variations but having said that your argument is correct that regional
> >>>> pronunciation of vowels is overcome by choosing not to use them.
>
> >>>> As a Hebrew and Yiddish reader, I can tell you, it is not a problem if
> >>>> they
> >>>> are used either. All it means is that your vocalization of the vowels is
> >>>> different depending on what pronunciation you are using once you are
> >>>> used
> (b)
> >>>> to it. I can take a Hebrew text and read it in either Modern Hebrew or
> >>>> Ashkenazi pronunciation.
>
> >>> Since the vowels are not written you can pronounce them any way you like.
> >>> Even if they are written you can still ignore them as almost everyone
> >>> does
> >>> when they speak English.
>
> >> In Hebrew vowels are not ignored, if they put into the text, it is for a
> >> reason.
>
> > We are talking about Biblical Hebrew here.
>
> Wrong see (b) above
>
> > It contains no vowel points.
>
> Biblical Hebrew can contain vowels. My text books used to use them.
>
>

the vowel points were added in the early Middle Ages, AFAIK 8th cent.
CE or so. but we have an idea of earlier times from proper names in
the LXX and other Greek sources. for earlier pronounciation we have
clues from Canaanite words transcribed into cuneiform.

Agamemnon

unread,

Jul 8, 2012, 7:09:16 AM7/8/12

to

"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:zX9Kr.517852$pN4.3...@fx16.am4...

WRONG! He had the writing of Sanchuniathon and the fact that all the Jewish
names for their gods and their customs of worship were identical to those of
the Phoenicians.

Anyone reading the bible in the Hebrew or looking at the temples in
Jerusalem would have recognised that it was blatantly obvious that the Jews
of Porphyry's time were Phoenician polytheists. Even the books of the
Maccabbees show that the Jews worshiped Dionysus and were accepted into the
mysteries.

The notion that the gods were originally deified kings was never questioned
by anyone in ancient times. The evidence was in the fact that their temples
were built over their graves which were well known and clearly marked.

> ancient writers, and yourself, he believed anything appropriate to the
> picture he wished to form.

Rubbish.

Agamemnon

unread,

Jul 8, 2012, 7:13:09 AM7/8/12

to

"SolomonW" <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message

news:7gzqqky8ktda$.ggseizdjfn1i.dlg@40tude.net...

Of course they had the letter J. What do you think Yod is? It was a
consonant in the Hebrew alphabet since the Phoenician script contained no
vowels. Yod is the Je of Jehovah.

Italo

unread,

Jul 8, 2012, 9:37:25 AM7/8/12

to

SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:

> No Jewish King was made a God not even their greatest David.

Why is the king called "god" (elohim) in Ps.45:6 ?
Why is one of the names for the future king "mighty god" ('el
gibbor) in Isa.9:6 ?

As also for the dead:
"And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou?
And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods (elohim) ascending out of the
earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old
man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived
that it was Samuel" - 1Sam.28:13
Such rituals were still practised at the time of Manasseh, btw.

--
b o y c o t t a m e r i c a n p r o d u c t s

Martin Edwards

unread,

Jul 9, 2012, 2:28:25 AM7/9/12

to

You need help.

Agamemnon

unread,

Jul 9, 2012, 3:28:34 AM7/9/12

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 9, 2012, 6:00:24 AM7/9/12

to

On Jul 9, 5:40 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 15:37:25 +0200, Italo wrote:

> > SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> schreef:

this does seem to point to a deification of kings among the ancient
Hebrews, before the dogmas of Judaism became crystallized.

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 9, 2012, 6:01:15 AM7/9/12

to

On Jul 9, 5:44 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 12:13:09 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:

> > "SolomonW" <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message

> >news:7gzqqky8ktda$.ggseizdjfn1i.dlg@40tude.net...
> >> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 23:23:52 +0100, Agamemnon wrote:
>
> >>>>> On the other hand, at the time of Naharin, this king was named after
> >>>>> Yam
> >>>>> Nahar who was of course as we know from the Baal Epic, Yaw or Jehovah.
>
> >>>> This is another issue and if true shows that your point about Porphyry
> >>>> above is wrong.
>
> >>> Wrong. It shows that my point about Porphyry is right since he explicitly
> >>> states that the Jews worshiped the same gods as the Phoenicians and that
> >>> they originated from defied kings. Nahor links the Jews to Naharin and
> >>> Yam
> >>> Nahar who from the Baal Epic we know was Yaw or Jehovah.
>
> >> The Canaanites which include Phoenicians would also not have the letter J.
>
> > Of course they had the letter J. What do you think Yod is? It was a
> > consonant in the Hebrew alphabet since the Phoenician script contained no
> > vowels. Yod is the Je of Jehovah.
>
> No the Yod is Y. Sine we do nit use the J what will happen is
>

who does exactly "we" refer to?

Yusuf B Gursey

unread,

Jul 9, 2012, 6:21:07 AM7/9/12

to

On Jul 9, 5:50 am, SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 02:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> >>>>>> to it. I can take a Hebrew text and read it in either Modern Hebrew or
> >>>>>> Ashkenazi pronunciation.
>
> >>>>> Since the vowels are not written you can pronounce them any way you like.
> >>>>> Even if they are written you can still ignore them as almost everyone
> >>>>> does
> >>>>> when they speak English.
>
> >>>> In Hebrew vowels are not ignored, if they put into the text, it is for a
> >>>> reason.
>
> >>> We are talking about Biblical Hebrew here.
>
> >> Wrong see (b) above
>
> >>> It contains no vowel points.
>
> >> Biblical Hebrew can contain vowels. My text books used to use them.
>
> > the vowel points were added in the early Middle Ages, AFAIK 8th cent.
> > CE or so. but we have an idea of earlier times from proper names in
> > the LXX and other Greek sources. for earlier pronounciation we have
> > clues from Canaanite words transcribed into cuneiform.
>
> If you follow the conversation, we are not talking here of biblical Hebrew.

you said "*Biblical Hebrew* can contain vowels". it is properly called
"Masoretic Hebrew".

> My point is that if today, someone puts vowels into Hebrew text, there is a

the vowel points indicate the pronounciation of a tradition of
recitation in the early Middle Ages, not today's pronounciation in
Israel.

> reason why they have done so, generally it is because a possible confusion
> exists over the word so the vowels are added.

not only does Masoretic Hebrew indicate vowels it gives the vowel
quality in more detail than usual alphabetic scripts. it indicates
*conditioned* changes of vowels, called allophones in linguistics.
that is because when the vowel points were added Hebrew was nobody's
native language, so extra detail was put in order to give a correct
recitation. Arabic OTOH indicates vowels in a strictly *phonemic
principle*, only vowel quality and length distinctions that are
critical to differences in meaning are indicated. that is because the
native speaker would know the finer points in recitation. moreover, if
more detail had been put in Arabic voweling it would have, and will,
create confusion between dialects.

Bassos

unread,

Jul 9, 2012, 6:50:00 AM7/9/12

to

Op 9-7-2012 11:40, SolomonW schreef:

> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 15:37:25 +0200, Italo wrote:
>
>> SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:
>>
>>
>>> No Jewish King was made a God not even their greatest David.
>>
>> Why is the king called "god" (elohim) in Ps.45:6 ?
>> Why is one of the names for the future king "mighty god" ('el
>> gibbor) in Isa.9:6 ?
>>
>> As also for the dead:
>> "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou?
>> And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods (elohim) ascending out of the
>> earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old
>> man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived
>> that it was Samuel" - 1Sam.28:13
>> Such rituals were still practised at the time of Manasseh, btw.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Hebrew_Bible
>
> The word Elohim occurs more than 2500 times in the Hebrew Bible,

You mean ALHIM, right ?

you know, male and female together, just as yhvh is male and female twice ?

OH GOD GIVE ME THE STRENGTH TO ACCEPT FUCKTARDS I CANNOT CHANGE.

Hieronymous House

unread,

Jul 9, 2012, 7:39:30 AM7/9/12

to

On Jul 9, 6:50 am, Bassos <root@wan> wrote:
> Op 9-7-2012 11:40, SolomonW schreef:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 15:37:25 +0200, Italo wrote:
>

> >> SolomonW <Solom...@citi.com> schreef:

>
> >>> No Jewish King was made a God not even their greatest David.
>
> >> Why is the king called "god" (elohim) in Ps.45:6 ?
> >> Why is one of the names for the future king "mighty god" ('el
> >> gibbor) in Isa.9:6 ?
>
> >> As also for the dead:
> >> "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou?
> >> And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods (elohim) ascending out of the
> >> earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old
> >> man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived
> >> that it was Samuel" - 1Sam.28:13
> >> Such rituals were still practised at the time of Manasseh, btw.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Hebrew_Bible
>
> > The word Elohim occurs more than 2500 times in the Hebrew Bible,
>
> You mean ALHIM, right ?
>
> you know, male and female together, just as yhvh is male and female twice ?
>
> OH GOD GIVE ME THE STRENGTH TO ACCEPT FUCKTARDS I CANNOT CHANGE.

Accept fucktards. Be changed. Simple, see? Go in peace. Have a nice
day. I really feel like I need a shower now. Nothing to do with you. I
just finished my morning exercises.

Agamemnon

unread,

Jul 9, 2012, 4:05:55 PM7/9/12

to

"SolomonW" <Solo...@citi.com> wrote in message

news:19fzl0nc9ngks.1...@40tude.net...

> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 15:37:25 +0200, Italo wrote:
>
>> SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com> schreef:
>>
>>
>>> No Jewish King was made a God not even their greatest David.
>>
>> Why is the king called "god" (elohim) in Ps.45:6 ?
>> Why is one of the names for the future king "mighty god" ('el
>> gibbor) in Isa.9:6 ?
>>
>> As also for the dead:
>> "And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou?
>> And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods (elohim) ascending out of the
>> earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old
>> man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived
>> that it was Samuel" - 1Sam.28:13
>> Such rituals were still practised at the time of Manasseh, btw.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#Hebrew_Bible
>
> The word Elohim occurs more than 2500 times in the Hebrew Bible, with

From Sanchuniathon we know that the Elohim explicitly referred to the gods
that fought with El against his father Baal Shamen.