Need Help from a Hebrew Expert...
Ace Fumigators
I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew language, could explain
to me all the possible meanings and interpretations of this phrase:
_'Okley pet-bago_
(Dan 11:26 - sorry for my transliterated spelling)...
Most English versions of Dan. render _'okley_ as "Those who eat" ,
but strangely, the KJV has "those who feed of"... I know that in King
James' English, "feed" can be a synonym for "eat", whereas in modern
English they are different; the first verb generally has a causative
relationship to the second... Can _'okley_ ever represent the
participle of the causative verb in Hebrew? As in "those who feed him
his food will break him" i.e. poison him?
Or, must it mean "Those who eat his food will break him" ??
As for _pet-bago_, I realise this is a rare word for "his fine food,
his delicacies" but can anyone elaborate on this word any further, why
it may have been used, and if it has any more detailed implications or
nuances? I am trying to figure out just who could be meant by
_okley pet-bago_...
Many thanks in advance,
Feqade I.
Harlan Messinger
"Ace Fumigators" <bigme...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:636790b3.0408...@posting.google.com...
> Hello / Shalom,
>
> I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew language, could explain
> to me all the possible meanings and interpretations of this phrase:
> _'Okley pet-bago_
> (Dan 11:26 - sorry for my transliterated spelling)...
>
> Most English versions of Dan. render _'okley_ as "Those who eat" ,
> but strangely, the KJV has "those who feed of"... I know that in King
> James' English, "feed" can be a synonym for "eat", whereas in modern
> English they are different; the first verb generally has a causative
> relationship to the second...
In modern English "feed" can still have the connotation of "eat". One speaks
of cattle feeding off the land, babies feeding at their mothers' breast.
> Can _'okley_ ever represent the
> participle of the causative verb in Hebrew? As in "those who feed him
> his food will break him" i.e. poison him?
I've just checked that the hif'il form of the verb "to eat" means "to feed".
I'm not an expert, but I think the construct form would be something like
hekhley. (Compare "hekhsher", the seal that shows something to have been
ruled kosher.)
> Or, must it mean "Those who eat his food will break him" ??
>
> As for _pet-bago_, I realise this is a rare word for "his fine food,
> his delicacies" but can anyone elaborate on this word any further, why
> it may have been used, and if it has any more detailed implications or
> nuances? I am trying to figure out just who could be meant by
> _okley pet-bago_...
Is "pet" the construct form of "pe" = "mouth"?
Patricia Heil
That's Aramaic not Hebrew. My Aramaic isn't very good, maybe somebody else
can help.
"Ace Fumigators" <bigme...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:636790b3.0408...@posting.google.com...
AnonMoos
> Hello / Shalom, I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew
> language, could explain to me all the possible meanings and
> interpretations of this phrase: _'Okley pet-bago_ (Dan 11:26 - sorry
> for my transliterated spelling)... Most English versions of
> Dan. render _'okley_ as "Those who eat" , but strangely, the KJV has
> "those who feed of"... I know that in King James' English, "feed"
> can be a synonym for "eat", whereas in modern English they are
> different; the first verb generally has a causative relationship to
> the second...
"Feed of" here means "were fed out of" or "were fed on", and is not
causative. Your problem is really with King James English, not
Hebrew.
> Can _'okley_ ever represent the participle of the causative verb in
> Hebrew?
No. Hu 'Okhel (of which 'Okhley is the masculine plural construct
state) is the Qal Binyan (base verb stem) active participle. The
Hiphil Binyan (causative verb stem) participle would be Ma`akhil.
(A closely related form, Ma'akhelet, happens to be used as a word for
"knife" in Biblical Hebrew.)
> As for _pet-bago_, I realise this is a rare word for
> "his fine food, his delicacies" but can anyone elaborate on this
> word any further,
Pat seems to be just the word for "piece" or "bit". I have no idea on
Bag.
--
Some Qur'an quotes: 5:20 qaala muusaa 5:21 "yaa qawmi ´dkhuluu ´l-'arDa
´l-muqaddasata ´llatii kataba ´llaahu lakum" 17:104 waqulnaa ... libanii
'israa'iila "´skunuu ´l-'arDa" || In English: Moses said, "My people,
go into the Holy Land which God has assigned to you!" And we said to the
Children of Israel, "Inhabit the land!" http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
AnonMoos
>"Ace Fumigators" <bigme...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
>news:636790b3.0408...@posting.google.com...
>> Hello / Shalom, I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew
>> language, could explain to me all the possible meanings and
>> interpretations of this phrase: _'Okley pet-bago_ (Dan 11:26 -
>> sorry for my transliterated spelling)...
> That's Aramaic not Hebrew. My Aramaic isn't very good, maybe
> somebody else can help.
Parts of Daniel are in Aramaic, but not chapter 11 (notice the "-im"
plural endings, and the relatively few words ending in 'Aleph?).
The form 'Okhley is itself Hebrew -- Aramaic would be more like
'Akhley.
--
The non-Dhimmi affirmation (9:29): لن نعطي
الجزية ولسنا
صاغرين (٢٩ We will fight for
our freedom! Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
AnonMoos
>"Ace Fumigators" <bigme...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
>news:636790b3.0408...@posting.google.com...
>> Hello / Shalom, I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew
>> language, could explain to me all the possible meanings and
>> interpretations of this phrase: _'Okley pet-bago_ (Dan 11:26 -
>> sorry for my transliterated spelling)... Can _'okley_ ever
>> represent the participle of the causative verb in Hebrew? As in
>> "those who feed him his food will break him" i.e. poison him?
> I've just checked that the hif'il form of the verb "to eat" means
> "to feed". I'm not an expert, but I think the construct form would
> be something like hekhley.
He'ekhil would be the basic third masculine singular perfect verb form
of the causative stem, but finite verbs cannot take construct states.
In fact, the basic participle would be Ma'akhil, and the plural
construct state Ma'akhiley.
> (Compare "hekhsher", the seal that shows something to have been
> ruled kosher.)
If you put the root consonants of 'Akal into the same frame as
Hekhsher, you would get He'ekhel (or possibly Ha'akhel) -- but this
would be rather irrelevant, since this frame has nothing to do with
participles.
>> As for _pet-bago_, I realise this is a rare word for "his fine
>> food, his delicacies" but can anyone elaborate on this word any
>> further, why it may have been used, and if it has any more detailed
>> implications or nuances? I am trying to figure out just who could
>> be meant by _okley pet-bago_...
> Is "pet" the construct form of "pe" = "mouth"?
No, that's "pi" (pe-yod). The word in Daniel should be transcribed
"Pet-bago" anyway.
--
Hamas motto: لا إله لهم
إلا الموت،
«حماس» رسول
الموت (The death-worshipping cult)
The Revd
<pjay...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>That's Aramaic not Hebrew. My Aramaic isn't very good, maybe somebody else
>can help.
You're a shitske convert. Your hebrew isn't up to much either.
Harlan Messinger
"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
news:4124ecd6...@news.individual.net...
Neither is your Yiddish. Nor your understanding of the Jewish view on
converts.
Mervyn Doobov
news:636790b3.0408...@posting.google.com:
> I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew language, could explain
> to me all the possible meanings and interpretations of this phrase:
> _'Okley pet-bago_
> (Dan 11:26 - sorry for my transliterated spelling)...
That's "ochlei pat bago" and it is Hebrew, not Aramaic, as someone
suggested.
> Most English versions of Dan. render _'okley_ as "Those who eat" ,
> but strangely, the KJV has "those who feed of"... I know that in King
> James' English, "feed" can be a synonym for "eat", whereas in modern
> English they are different; the first verb generally has a causative
> relationship to the second... Can _'okley_ ever represent the
> participle of the causative verb in Hebrew? As in "those who feed him
> his food will break him" i.e. poison him?
> Or, must it mean "Those who eat his food will break him" ??
"Those who eat" or "those who feed" are equally correct. "Feed" can be a
synonym of "eat" in English, as has been already pointed out. "Ochlei" is
an active simple participial form and not causative, which would be
"ma'achilei" ("feeders of", as in feeding an animal or a child).
> As for _pet-bago_, I realise this is a rare word for "his fine food,
> his delicacies" but can anyone elaborate on this word any further, why
> it may have been used, and if it has any more detailed implications or
> nuances? I am trying to figure out just who could be meant by
> _okley pet-bago_...
"Pat" is bread (loosely "food"). "Bago" is translated here as "his" ("of
him", the "him" of the previous verse); c.f. Dan 1:5 - "mipat bag hamelech"
("of the king's food").
I infer that the eaters are those whom the king trusts, who eat at his
table, and who will betray him.
--
Mervyn Doobov,
Jerusalem, Israel.
The Revd
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
>news:4124ecd6...@news.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:53:30 -0400, "Patricia Heil"
>> <pjay...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >That's Aramaic not Hebrew. My Aramaic isn't very good, maybe somebody
>else
>> >can help.
>>
>> You're a shitske convert. Your hebrew isn't up to much either.
>
>Neither is your Yiddish.
Fuck yiddish. It's a bastard language.
>or your understanding of the Jewish view on
>converts.
Who gives a shit about the jew view on converts? If blacks decided
that people could convert to being black, would it change anything?
Ori
As a Hebrew speaker from birth, I must say that I've never heard this
word "BAGO" before.
Anyway, "OCHLEY" means "Those who eat"
And "MA'ACHILEY" means "Those who feed".
"PAT" (and not "PET") is another word to say "LEHEM", which means
"Bread".
Susan Cohen
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2ok8qbF...@uni-berlin.de...
He knows.
He doesn't care; he's just out to spread lies and hatred.
Susan
>
Harlan Messinger
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:11:22 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
> <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
> >news:4124ecd6...@news.individual.net...
> >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:53:30 -0400, "Patricia Heil"
> >> <pjay...@erols.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >That's Aramaic not Hebrew. My Aramaic isn't very good, maybe somebody
> >else
> >> >can help.
> >>
> >> You're a shitske convert. Your hebrew isn't up to much either.
> >
> >Neither is your Yiddish.
>
> Fuck yiddish. It's a bastard language.
Whatever that means. And anyway, you're the one who chose to use it.
>
> >or your understanding of the Jewish view on
> >converts.
>
> Who gives a shit about the jew view on converts?
I just didn't imagine a non-Jew, let alone an anti-Semite, would jump into a
discussion gratuitously to insult someone for not being Jewish enough on
account of being a convert. Pardon me for not realizing you were just a
loudmouth dolt.
Peter T. Daniels
Nice to see that soc.culture.* shows no favoritism!
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Peter T. Daniels
>
> bigme...@yahoogroups.com (Ace Fumigators) wrote in
> news:636790b3.0408...@posting.google.com:
>
> > I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew language, could explain
> > to me all the possible meanings and interpretations of this phrase:
> > _'Okley pet-bago_
> > (Dan 11:26 - sorry for my transliterated spelling)...
>
> That's "ochlei pat bago" and it is Hebrew, not Aramaic, as someone
> suggested.
In this diacriticless environment, <ch> usually transliterates H.et, and
<kh> is used for Kaf-rafe.
But I see you're posting from Israel, where such distinctions (as also
Tav/T.et, 'Aleph/`Ayn, Kaf/Qof, and Samekh/S'in) are routinely
disregarded in transliteration as in pronunciation. It's _very_
confusing for non-native speakers.
Peter T. Daniels
> As a Hebrew speaker from birth, I must say that I've never heard this
> word "BAGO" before.
That's because it's Biblical, not Israeli, Hebrew.
> Anyway, "OCHLEY" means "Those who eat"
> And "MA'ACHILEY" means "Those who feed".
What do you mean by "feed"?
> "PAT" (and not "PET") is another word to say "LEHEM", which means
> "Bread".
Ace Fumigators
Mervyn Doobov <mdo...@actcom.co.il> wrote in message
> bigme...@yahoogroups.com (Ace Fumigators) wrote in
> > I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew language, could explain
> > to me all the possible meanings and interpretations of this phrase:
> > _'Okley pet-bago_
> > (Dan 11:26 - sorry for my transliterated spelling)...
>
>
> That's "ochlei pat bago" and it is Hebrew, not Aramaic, as someone
> suggested.
She probably guessed it was Aramaic because several whole chapters of
Dan. are, though not chapter 11, which is Heb. ...
> > Most English versions of Dan. render _'okley_ as "Those who eat" ,
> > but strangely, the KJV has "those who feed of"... I know that in King
> > James' English, "feed" can be a synonym for "eat", whereas in modern
> > English they are different; the first verb generally has a causative
> > relationship to the second... Can _'okley_ ever represent the
> > participle of the causative verb in Hebrew? As in "those who feed him
> > his food will break him" i.e. poison him?
> > Or, must it mean "Those who eat his food will break him" ??
>
>
> "Those who eat" or "those who feed" are equally correct. "Feed" can be a
> synonym of "eat" in English, as has been already pointed out. "Ochlei" is
> an active simple participial form and not causative, which would be
> "ma'achilei" ("feeders of", as in feeding an animal or a child).
>
> > As for _pet-bago_, I realise this is a rare word for "his fine food,
> > his delicacies" but can anyone elaborate on this word any further, why
> > it may have been used, and if it has any more detailed implications or
> > nuances? I am trying to figure out just who could be meant by
> > _okley pet-bago_...
>
>
> "Pat" is bread (loosely "food"). "Bago" is translated here as "his" ("of
> him", the "him" of the previous verse); c.f. Dan 1:5 - "mipat bag hamelech"
> ("of the king's food").
The "bago" part seems to be tripping folks up, but one commentary I
read claims that the form pat-bag (also in 1:5) is borrowed from
Persian... the -o is the part that means "his"...
> I infer that the eaters are those whom the king trusts, who eat at his
> table, and who will betray him.
Yes, this stands to reason and is starting to make more sense now...
(keep this prophecy in mind...)
Ace
Edward Hennessey
--
"Ace Fumigators" <bigme...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:636790b3.04081...@posting.google.com...
Persian... the -o is the part that means "his"...
>
> > I infer that the eaters are those whom the king trusts, who eat at
his
> > table, and who will betray him.
>
> Yes, this stands to reason and is starting to make more sense now...
> (keep this prophecy in mind...)
>
A.F.:
It might also interest you to know that the item we call a "credenza"
defines
a "credence table" whereon the royal food tasters ate of the king's
meal to prove
it wasn't poisoned. Not a career position methinks.
Regards,
Edward Hennessey
nohalozz...@noyahoo.com -no,no,no.
The Revd
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The Revd wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:53:30 -0400, "Patricia Heil"
>> <pjay...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >That's Aramaic not Hebrew. My Aramaic isn't very good, maybe somebody else
>> >can help.
>>
>> You're a shitske convert. Your hebrew isn't up to much either.
>
>Nice to see that soc.culture.* shows no favoritism!
None whatsoever.
The Revd
>Suzy
Oh shut up, you thick Irish cunt.
The Revd
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
>news:41250d2f...@news.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:11:22 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
>> <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
>> >news:4124ecd6...@news.individual.net...
>> >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:53:30 -0400, "Patricia Heil"
>> >> <pjay...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >That's Aramaic not Hebrew. My Aramaic isn't very good, maybe somebody
>> >else
>> >> >can help.
>> >>
>> >> You're a shitske convert. Your hebrew isn't up to much either.
>> >
>> >Neither is your Yiddish.
>>
>> Fuck yiddish. It's a bastard language.
>
>Whatever that means.
You know what it means. Linguistically, it's a complete
bastardisation.
>And anyway, you're the one who chose to use it.
It's the one language all jews seem to understand.
>> >or your understanding of the Jewish view on
>> >converts.
>>
>> Who gives a shit about the jew view on converts?
>
>I just didn't imagine a non-Jew, let alone an anti-Semite, would jump into a
>discussion gratuitously to insult someone for not being Jewish enough on
>account of being a convert.
That's your limited imagination then. Most jews recognise that
converts are merely honorary jews. How many jew Nobel prize winners
have been converts?
>Pardon me for not realizing you were just a
>loudmouth dolt.
Without in any way wishing to be rude, blow it out your jew ass.
BTov
you know that converts arent real joows flabbia
when has a convert ever won a noble prize?
say ten hale marys and go back to xtianity
b'wahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Jacques Guy
> How many jew Nobel prize winners
> have been converts?
Fewer than have been agnostics, Ducon.
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
>I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew language, could explain
>to me all the possible meanings and interpretations of this phrase:
>_'Okley pet-bago_
> (Dan 11:26 - sorry for my transliterated spelling)...
In MCW-transliteration it's: )oK:L"Y PaT-B.fGWO
That is one ugly translitteration, however, and I'd prefer something
more readable, like: »‘okëlê phath-bâghô«.
The sense, however, is: "The eaters of his delicacies" or "those who eat
his delicacies" (or however one decides to translate »phath-bâghô«).
>Can _'okley_ ever represent the
>participle of the causative verb in Hebrew? As in "those who feed him
>his food will break him" i.e. poison him?
No. And none of the ancient versions give such an interpretation either,
as far as I can see.
>As for _pet-bago_, I realise this is a rare word for "his fine food,
>his delicacies" but can anyone elaborate on this word any further, why
>it may have been used, and if it has any more detailed implications or
>nuances? I am trying to figure out just who could be meant by
>_okley pet-bago_...
According to the BDB and Gesenius it is a loanword from Old Persian
»patibaga«, related to Sanskrit »pratibhâga-«, a daily present of food
and flowers offered to a king. That the word is split into »path« and
»bâgh« and the two parts joined by a maqqef is explained as Gesenius as
a folk etymology. When this word in particular is used here, it is
probably due to the Persian setting of the story, »path-bâgh« being most
likely a word associated with the luxury of the oriental kings.
Sincerely,
Rasmus Underbjerg Pinnerup
--
"Folkekirkebisp
Anerkender ej JV.
Arianere."
BTov
and yor out to spread yor legs flabbia
its nearly friday night so you better get ready already
enjoy already
b'wahahahahaha!!!!
>
> Susan
> >
The Revd
An agnostic jew is still a jew. A convert is still a goy.
Jacques Guy
Mais tous les cons ne sont pas des cramouilles, hélas.
Ace Fumigators
Fascinating... Now this makes me wonder if the original meaning could
be that this king will be betrayed by his "food tasters" or perhaps
those otherwise responsible for his security...?
Ace
Edward Hennessey
--
"Ace Fumigators" <bigme...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:636790b3.04082...@posting.google.com...
A.F.:
My understanding is that the position was often precarious at the
credence table.
The king might correctly place faith in those who had persisted in his
service even while plotters and poisoners looked to recruit those very
same whose ...credentials...derived from long tenure.
Researching the deployment of tasters would be worthwhile. Were
multiple or successive tasters common? Did policy rotate them or
dictate they be unknown
to one another? How long did tasters last in their seats either from
policy or poison?
What dire compounds were used? Were specific foods avoided because of
their masking power? Was deliberate bacterial food poisoning a method?
Botulinum would
be as indetectable in those times as it is deadly now.
Regards,
Edward Hennessey
nohalozz...@noyahoo.com - no,no,no
g-nome
:
:
V
If you must bicker and piss on each other, at least consider
the commentary on Ladino below.
The Revd wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:23:19 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
> <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
> >news:41250d2f...@news.individual.net...
> >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:11:22 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
> >> <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:4124ecd6...@news.individual.net...
> >> >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:53:30 -0400, "Patricia Heil"
> >> >> <pjay...@erols.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's Aramaic not Hebrew. My Aramaic isn't very good, maybe somebody
> >> >else
> >> >> >can help.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're a shitske convert. Your hebrew isn't up to much either.
> >> >
> >> >Neither is your Yiddish.
> >>
> >> Fuck yiddish. It's a bastard language.
> >
> >Whatever that means.
>
> You know what it means. Linguistically, it's a complete
> bastardisation.
>
> >And anyway, you're the one who chose to use it.
>
> It's the one language all jews seem to understand.
>
So none of you Yiddishe have ever heard of Ladino? As many
or more Saphardim speak Ladino as Ashkenazim speak Yiddish.
The Spanish, Moroccan, and most Mediterranean Jews use
Ladino, or is this way off base.
Ladino is closer to Aramaic and Hebrew than is Yiddish.
Look for a Ladino speaker if finding out any kind of truth
is somewhere in the original question.
Shalom,
Michael.
g-nome
to their own comments as being a twice fold redundancy.
Such is life. Don't you think? I do.
g-nome wrote:
>
> Err, umm.----
> :
> :
> V
> If you must bicker and piss on each other, at least consider
> the commentary on Ladino below.
>
> > >> Fuck yiddish. It's a bastard language.
> > >
> > >Whatever that means.
> >
> > You know what it means. Linguistically, it's a complete
> > bastardisation.
> >
> > >And anyway, you're the one who chose to use it.
> >
> > It's the one language all jews seem to understand.
> >
>
> So none of you Yiddishe have ever heard of Ladino? As many
> or more Saphardim speak Ladino as Ashkenazim speak Yiddish.
> The Spanish, Moroccan, and most Mediterranean Jews use
> Ladino, or is this way off base.
> Ladino is closer to Aramaic and Hebrew than is Yiddish.
> Look for a Ladino speaker if finding out any kind of truth
> is somewhere in the original question.
>
> Shalom,
> Michael.
>
After a bit of consideration and a visit to one of my neighbors,
the Fellashah, the Ethiopian Jews, still speak a language dialect
that is closer to Aramaic than any other dialect I've heard of.
I had to cabal with a Kabbilist friend of mine to pick that bit
of memory out of the "Marcus Aurelian Palace" mnemonic version
of memory retrieval.
I study a lot being "PC ALERT" physically challenged. To some of
my Kabbalist Rabbi's dismay, I am a great believer of Epigraphic
Studies. They figure that the Hebrew Lettering system or spoken
variations have remained the same since the time of Moshe.
I had a wonderful challenge from one of them to compare and prepare
a talk considering the differences between Creationism to Evolution.
I do not ascribe to Darwinism as Evolutionism because after many
years of studying his initial, "Origin of the Species", Darwin
speculated that Evolution was exponentially more complex than
he wrote about in the first place.
With the Rabbi, it was a standoff. We agreed to disagree.
Such is the dialectical differences as compared with, Aramaic,
Hebrew, Yiddish, Fellashah, or Ladino. All have subtle and overt
differences in their translations and transliterations.
Ah well, Shabbat is here and I must retire.
Shabbat Shalom,
Michael.
M. Ranjit Mathews
I've read that because they didn't have a Purim festival the Felasha
were judged to have separated from the main body of Hebrews/ Jews
before the Babylonian captivity. If this is so, when did they pick up
Aramaic? Some time between the Assyrian invasion and the Babylonian
captivity?
JBgarbuz
> bigme...@yahoogroups.com (Ace Fumigators) wrote in
> news:636790b3.0408...@posting.google.com:
>
>> I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew language, could explain
>> to me all the possible meanings and interpretations of this phrase:
>> _'Okley pet-bago_
>> (Dan 11:26 - sorry for my transliterated spelling)...
>
>
> That's "ochlei pat bago" and it is Hebrew, not Aramaic, as someone
> suggested.<
Eaters of "pat baglo" but what the hell is bago? It's not from hebrew, is
it? Maybe from Farsi (PErsian) or Aramaic? Never heard the word before.
Susan Cohen
"M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1d4c67e3.04082...@posting.google.com...
Uh, this is an major oversimplification.
Many rabbis still doubt they are actually Jews at all, but Xians who came to
be called Jews because they were treated as such by the rulers of their
native countries.
Susan
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:29:16 +0000, Mervyn Doobov wrote:
>
> > bigme...@yahoogroups.com (Ace Fumigators) wrote in
> > news:636790b3.0408...@posting.google.com:
> >
> >> I was wondering if anyone familiar with Hebrew language, could explain
> >> to me all the possible meanings and interpretations of this phrase:
> >> _'Okley pet-bago_
> >> (Dan 11:26 - sorry for my transliterated spelling)...
> >
> >
> > That's "ochlei pat bago" and it is Hebrew, not Aramaic, as someone
> > suggested.<
>
> Eaters of "pat baglo" but what the hell is bago? It's not from hebrew, is
> it? Maybe from Farsi (PErsian) or Aramaic? Never heard the word before.
Never read the book of Daniel, then? As for the explanation, it's been
posted several times in this thread already.
BTov
> The Revd wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:53:30 -0400, "Patricia Heil"
> > <pjay...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >That's Aramaic not Hebrew. My Aramaic isn't very good, maybe somebody else
> > >can help.
> >
> > You're a shitske convert. Your hebrew isn't up to much either.
>
> Nice to see that soc.culture.* shows no favoritism!
oh fuck off tholen kook
Harlan Messinger
>
> The Revd wrote:
> >
> >
> > [Yiddish is] the one language all jews seem to understand.
> >
>
> So none of you Yiddishe have ever heard of Ladino?
Where do you get "none of you" from a stupid comment made by one person?
Harlan Messinger
> After a bit of consideration and a visit to one of my neighbors,
> the Fellashah, the Ethiopian Jews, still speak a language dialect
> that is closer to Aramaic than any other dialect I've heard of.
They speak the same languages as other Ethiopians. Aramaic is Central
Semitic, the major Ethiopian languages (Amharic, Tigrinya) are South
Semitic. Arabic and Hebrew are much closer to Aramaic than are the Ethiopian
languages.
Harlan Messinger
> the Fellashah, the Ethiopian Jews, still speak a language dialect
> that is closer to Aramaic than any other dialect I've heard of.
"Falasha" (or any other spelling) is considered derogatory. They refer to
themselves as a people as "Beta Israel".
The Revd
They're schvartzes. 'Israelis' look down on them and treat them like
shit.
The Revd
Where do you get "stupid comment" from, asshole?
Harlan Messinger
"[Yiddish is] the one language all jews seem to understand" is a stupid
comment because (1) it's false and (2) there's no reason why anyone would
think it's true. If saying that a stupid comment made by a hatemonger is a
stupid comment makes me an asshole, well, you can probably already tell how
much concern I have for your assessments.
The Revd
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
>news:412a07e3...@news.individual.net...
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:36:13 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
>> <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"g-nome" <mpc...@lafn.org> wrote in message
>> >news:4126AC15...@lafn.org...
>> >>
>> >> The Revd wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > [Yiddish is] the one language all jews seem to understand.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> So none of you Yiddishe have ever heard of Ladino?
>> >
>> >Where do you get "none of you" from a stupid comment made by one person?
>>
>> Where do you get "stupid comment" from, asshole?
>
>"[Yiddish is] the one language all jews seem to understand" is a stupid
>comment because (1) it's false and (2) there's no reason why anyone would
>think it's true. If saying that a stupid comment made by a hatemonger is a
>stupid comment makes me an asshole, well, you can probably already tell how
>much concern I have for your assessments.
It's neither false nor stupid. You people are genetically programmed
to understand yiddish, just like you're genetically programmed to
steal, cheat, lie and be dishonest.
Now go and blow it out your jew ass.
Harlan Messinger
Des Small
You realise you are announcing this in sci.lang?
Have you considered submitting a paper to _Nature_?
> Now go and blow it out your jew ass.
Des
's donkey's religious affiliations are unclear
--
"[T]he structural trend in linguistics which took root with the
International Congresses of the twenties and early thirties [...] had
close and effective connections with phenomenology in its Husserlian
and Hegelian versions." -- Roman Jakobson
The Revd
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
You're in denial, jew. Go see one of your jew shrinks.
The Revd
wrote:
>rene...@you-know-where.org (The Revd) writes:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:08:26 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
>> <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"[Yiddish is] the one language all jews seem to understand" is a stupid
>> >comment because (1) it's false and (2) there's no reason why anyone would
>> >think it's true. If saying that a stupid comment made by a hatemonger is a
>> >stupid comment makes me an asshole, well, you can probably already tell how
>> >much concern I have for your assessments.
>>
>> It's neither false nor stupid. You people are genetically programmed
>> to understand yiddish, just like you're genetically programmed to
>> steal, cheat, lie and be dishonest.
>
>You realise you are announcing this in sci.lang?
Am I supposed to care?
>Have you considered submitting a paper to _Nature_?
I don't submit "papers".
>> Now go and blow it out your jew ass.
>
>Des
>'s donkey's religious affiliations are unclear
It's a racial affiliation and has nothing to do with religion.
Rolleston
[...]
>>> Now go and blow it out your jew ass.
>>
>>Des
>>'s donkey's religious affiliations are unclear
>
>It's a racial affiliation and has nothing to do with religion.
¿Toí di na, érãuo y?
R.
Susan Cohen
>
> "The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
> news:412a1ef7...@news.individual.net...
>
> > >
> > >"[Yiddish is] the one language all jews seem to understand" is a stupid
> > >comment because (1) it's false and (2) there's no reason why anyone
would
> > >think it's true. If saying that a stupid comment made by a hatemonger
is
> a
> > >stupid comment makes me an asshole, well, you can probably already tell
> how
> > >much concern I have for your assessments.
> >
> > It's neither false nor stupid. You people are genetically programmed
> > to understand yiddish, just like you're genetically programmed to
> > steal, cheat, lie and be dishonest.
>
> QED.
Th "revd" is just a sick little troll who lives to hate others so he doesn't
have to face how much he hates himself.
Susan
>
Susan Cohen
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:08:23 GMT, Des Small <des....@bristol.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >rene...@you-know-where.org (The Revd) writes:
>
> >> It's neither false nor stupid. You people are genetically programmed
> >> to understand yiddish, just like you're genetically programmed to
> >> steal, cheat, lie and be dishonest.
> >
> >You realise you are announcing this in sci.lang?
>
> Am I supposed to care?
The previous poster mistakenly thought he was addressing an adult.
>
> >Have you considered submitting a paper to _Nature_?
>
> I don't submit "papers".
Now if only he could apply this one intelligent attempt to evade ridicule to
the rest of his life....
>
> >> Now go and blow it out your jew ass.
> >
> >Des
> >'s donkey's religious affiliations are unclear
>
> It's a racial affiliation and has nothing to do with religion.
As usual, the half-wit is only half-right.
Susan
>
Riain Y. Barton
"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
news:412a07ab...@news.individual.net...
Riain Y. Barton
"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
news:412a1ef7...@news.individual.net...
Riain Y. Barton
"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
news:412a4dd5...@news.individual.net...
Riain Y. Barton
"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
news:412a4e21...@news.individual.net...
The Revd
Is yiddish already?
The Revd
>Suzy
You're a sick little Irish shitske under the illusion that you're
jewish. Now go and molest Baby Cohen.
The Revd
wrote:
>Wrong again you stupid SERBIAN CRIMINAL!
Fuck off, shirtlifter.
The Revd
wrote:
>IT IS FALSE YOU IGNORANT SERBIAN PRICK!
What the fuck do you know, you bent Paddy?
The Revd
wrote:
>GO BACK TO SERBIA, YOU FUCKING NAZI CRIMINAL PIG!
Go back to Ireland, you dirty little cocksucking Paddy dirtbag!
The Revd
wrote:
>Says the UNEDUCATED NAZI SERB!
Says the degenerate boghopper pseudo-jew!
Riain Y. Barton
"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
news:412ac1a1...@news.individual.net...
Riain Y. Barton
CAN'T WAIT FOR THE POLICE TO GET YOU AGAIN!!!!
"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
news:412ac189...@news.individual.net...
The Revd
wrote:
>WHAT AN IMMATURE IGNORANT MAN YOU ARE!
What a thick Irish cunt you are!
>CAN'T WAIT FOR THE POLICE TO GET YOU AGAIN!!!!
Keep waiting, shirtlifter.
The Revd
wrote:
>A HELL OF LOT MORE THAN YOU DO, YOU UNEDUCATED BALKAN PIG!
A useless degree in jew studies is your only qualification. That's
just about enough to get you a job as a rent boy.
Riain Y. Barton
"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
news:412acc44...@news.individual.net...
The Revd
wrote:
>Or $20 per hour teaching for a synagogue, IDIOT!
A bent Irish goy teaching for a synagogue? Do they know you're bent?
Shall we tell them, you thick Irish cunt?
Jacques Guy
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 05:46:07 GMT, "Riain Y. Barton" <ri...@riain.us>
> wrote:
> >Or $20 per hour teaching for a synagogue, IDIOT!
> Shall we tell them, you thick Irish cunt?
> >| >A HELL OF LOT MORE THAN YOU DO, YOU UNEDUCATED BALKAN PIG!
> >| >| >IT IS FALSE YOU IGNORANT SERBIAN PRICK!
> >| >| What the fuck do you know, you bent Paddy?
> >| >| >| >> Where do you get "stupid comment" from, asshole?
> >| >| >| Now go and blow it out your jew ass.
Goodness gracious me! Such language from God-fearing
men! (Much shaking of head)
The Revd
Those who know God do not fear Him, my son.
Rolleston
Try moving from the extreme right to the left.
R.
Pieter
P.
"Rolleston" <roll...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:60hmi092koemmqft8...@4ax.com...
Edward Hennessey
--
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2oulvmF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
> news:412a1ef7...@news.individual.net...
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:08:26 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
> > <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"The Revd" <rene...@you-know-where.org> wrote in message
> > >news:412a07e3...@news.individual.net...
> > >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:36:13 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
> > >> <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >"g-nome" <mpc...@lafn.org> wrote in message
> > >> >news:4126AC15...@lafn.org...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The Revd wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > [Yiddish is] the one language all jews seem to understand.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So none of you Yiddishe have ever heard of Ladino?
> > >> >
> > >> >Where do you get "none of you" from a stupid comment made by
one
> person?
> > >>
> > >> Where do you get "stupid comment" from, asshole?
> > >
> > >"[Yiddish is] the one language all jews seem to understand" is a
stupid
> > >comment because (1) it's false and (2) there's no reason why
anyone would
> > >think it's true. If saying that a stupid comment made by a
hatemonger is
> a
> > >stupid comment makes me an asshole, well, you can probably
already tell
> how
> > >much concern I have for your assessments.
> >
> > It's neither false nor stupid. You people are genetically
programmed
> > to understand yiddish, just like you're genetically programmed to
> > steal, cheat, lie and be dishonest.
>
> QED.
>
H.M.:
After reading this and another thread, I now understand your prior
newsgroup categorization.
Regards,
Edward Hennessey
BTov
> Or $20 per hour teaching for a synagogue, IDIOT!
rent boy charges $20 per hour at the synagogue
what a thick irish cunt
b'wahahahaha!!!!
Susan Cohen
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:412BCF...@alphalink.com.au...
I suppose you realize that he's not really a reverend....?
Susan
(cue bigot to lie about who is/not Jewish.....)
Riain Y. Barton
My God is not to be feared, but to be loved...
Who would want a God that you have to fear?
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:412BCF...@alphalink.com.au...
Jacques Guy
> "Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
> news:412BCF...@alphalink.com.au...
> > Goodness gracious me! Such language from God-fearing
> > men! (Much shaking of head)
> I suppose you realize that he's not really a reverend....?
Oh? Really? I would never have guessed.
I am one, though. A duly ordained priest of the
Universal Life Church: http://www.ulc.org/
I discovered it many years ago in Alan Bestic's
book about sects "Praise the Lord and Pass the
Contribution". The Universal Life Church was
different from the rest, very different. I applied,
citing Alan Bestic's book as my source, and there
I was, ordained!
Jacques Guy
> What kind of ignorant sod fears God?
What kind of ignorant sod cannot tell
a send-up?
Many kinds...
wer
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+Karl+ROVE+%26+Ariel+Sharon+banking+on+their+Syrian+killers++%26+Murderers++%26+Special+Syrian+Assassins+of+Assef+Shawkat+%26+Roustom+Ghazaleh.&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+Karl+ROVE+%26+Ariel+Sharon+banking+on+their+Syrian+killers++%26+Murderers++%26+Special+Syrian+Assassins+of+Assef+Shawkat+%26+Roustom+Ghazaleh.&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0>
André Keshav
"Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au>
| Susan Cohen wrote:
| > I suppose you realize that he's not really a reverend....?
|
| Oh? Really? I would never have guessed.
Don't you know "I haven't come to bring peace but dissension"? :)
Susan Cohen
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
>> "Jacques Guy" <jg...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:412BCF...@alphalink.com.au...
>
>> > Goodness gracious me! Such language from God-fearing
>> > men! (Much shaking of head)
>
>> I suppose you realize that he's not really a reverend....?
>
> Oh? Really? I would never have guessed.
>
> I am one, though. A duly ordained priest of the
> Universal Life Church: http://www.ulc.org/
I have a few friends who are as well, so they can perform marriages.
Susan
Susan Cohen
The problem with Usenet is that there is *always* some jackass who actually
*means* stuff that most people would mean as a send-up.....
Riain obviously missed your other posts.
Susan
J.D.F. Stone
Yesss.... And therefore you should always assume that anything you
read on the USENET is in earnest, no matter how much it looks like a
joke, and you should always respond with outrage or condescension.
--
I could hardly believe my inner ears! -- Cindy
Rolleston
>"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> writes:
:
>> The problem with Usenet is that there is *always* some jackass who
>> actually *means* stuff that most people would mean as a send-up.....
>> Riain obviously missed your other posts.
>
>Yesss.... And therefore you should always assume that anything you
>read on the USENET is in earnest, no matter how much it looks like a
>joke
But the best jokes are the ones that do not look like jokes.
R.
Ace Fumigators
> What kind of ignorant sod fears God?
>
> My God is not to be feared, but to be loved...
>
> Who would want a God that you have to fear?
Well, I DO fear God, and nothing else, because my God is the One
described in the Bible, Who alone has Power in the day of Death...
This God wants to be both feared AND loved. This is the beginning of
Wisdom.
My God is the One described in the Bible, but I'm not sure WHERE this
namby-pamby pushover god is described, who gives everyone cotton candy
all the time, and who would never allow suffering, but is too weak to
do anything about it... Please tell me where you got this god from...
I have a different explanation for suffering. It exists, because
obviously He DOES allow it. Don't like it? Fine, go worship your
figmentary namby-pamby god, and see if he can save you in the day of
death. Those of us who fear the True Creator (as He demands in His
Word) need fear NOTHING ELSE.
J.D.F. Stone
Are you saying that it's possible for someone to "miss" a joke, and
"take" it "seriously"? I doubt that would ever happen on the USENET.
If there were a joke on the USENET, it would be clearly marked by
pseudo-HMTL tags.
<JOKE>
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
</JOKE>
--
If you talk to show how much you know, you show how little you know.
-- from the film "Resisting Enemy Interrogation"
Rolleston
>Rolleston <roll...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>
>> J.D.F. Stone wrote:
>> >"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> writes:
>> :
>> >> The problem with Usenet is that there is *always* some jackass
>> >> who actually *means* stuff that most people would mean as a
>> >> send-up..... Riain obviously missed your other posts.
>> >
>> >Yesss.... And therefore you should always assume that anything you
>> >read on the USENET is in earnest, no matter how much it looks like
>> >a joke
>>
>> But the best jokes are the ones that do not look like jokes.
>
>Are you saying that it's possible for someone to "miss" a joke, and
>"take" it "seriously"?
I would never go as far as to say anything.
R.
Harlan Messinger
"Ace Fumigators" <bigme...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:636790b3.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "Riain Y. Barton" <ri...@riain.us> wrote in message
news:<6QVWc.6002$rT1.2610@trndny02>...
> > What kind of ignorant sod fears God?
> >
> > My God is not to be feared, but to be loved...
> >
> > Who would want a God that you have to fear?
>
>
> Well, I DO fear God, and nothing else, because my God is the One
> described in the Bible, Who alone has Power in the day of Death...
> This God wants to be both feared AND loved.
> This is the beginning of
> Wisdom.
When someone close to us wants to be both feared and loved, we normally
consider that to be the core of an abusive relationship.
>
> My God is the One described in the Bible, but I'm not sure WHERE this
> namby-pamby pushover god is described, who gives everyone cotton candy
> all the time, and who would never allow suffering, but is too weak to
> do anything about it... Please tell me where you got this god from...
>
> I have a different explanation for suffering. It exists, because
> obviously He DOES allow it. Don't like it? Fine, go worship your
> figmentary namby-pamby god, and see if he can save you in the day of
> death. Those of us who fear the True Creator (as He demands in His
> Word) need fear NOTHING ELSE.
Unless you've never been wrong about anything, I'm curious how you figure
that when it comes to the very tricky topic of determining what's correct
about who God is or whether anything written about God is valid or even
whether there is a God, you're necessarily right about all of it.
Peter Twydell
Fumigators <bigme...@yahoogroups.com> writes
What do you need a god for in the first place?
--
Peter
Ying tong iddle-i po!
André Keshav
"Rolleston" <roll...@tiscali.co.uk>
| J.D.F. Stone wrote:
| >Yesss.... And therefore you should always assume that anything you
| >read on the USENET is in earnest, no matter how much it looks like a
| >joke
| But the best jokes are the ones that do not look like jokes.
I think that good humour has an element of seriousness in it, so there's a certain
ambiguity, but one still should be able to perceive it as a joke.
Peter T. Daniels
It's a teeny-weeny bit difficult to take seriously a theological
discourse posted by someone calling themself "Ace Fumigators."
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Riain Y. Barton
Try HEBREW!
"Ace Fumigators" <bigme...@yahoogroups.com> wrote in message
news:636790b3.04082...@posting.google.com...
Ace Fumigators
>
> It's a teeny-weeny bit difficult to take seriously a theological
> discourse posted by someone calling themself "Ace Fumigators."
As it is to take a linguist who thinks someone agrees with themself...
Susan Cohen
"J.D.F. Stone" <jd...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:u3c2b8905...@softhome.net...
Ah, well, if you *insist*
"G-d, you're an idiot!"
How's that?
Susan
Richard Herring
<Pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>What do you need a god for in the first place?
More reliable than a cat.
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
Are you a boy or a girl?
Peter Twydell
<junk@[127.0.0.1]> writes
>In message <RrovejAm...@ntlworld.com>, Peter Twydell
><Pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>What do you need a god for in the first place?
>
>More reliable than a cat.
>
Any chance of a serious answer from anyone?
I have a car that gets me where I want to go, a computer that helps me
earn a living, and a wife who feeds me. What would a god do for me?
John Woodgate
<Pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote (in <IDCFYYK7...@ntlworld.com>)
about 'Need Help from a Hebrew Expert...', on Fri, 27 Aug 2004:
> What would a god do for me?
Well, for reasons we don't understand, some people find that having a
god to appeal to helps in times of trouble. This is probably something
to do with mental influence on the balance of neurotransmitters.
Unfortunately, people who have gods also tend to say that the god tells
them to torture and/or kill other people. This is probably also an
effect of the same nature.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
André Keshav
"Peter Twydell" <Pe...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
| Any chance of a serious answer from anyone?
|
| I have a car that gets me where I want to go, a computer that helps me
| earn a living, and a wife who feeds me. What would a god do for me?
Speaking of "God" can have reductive connotations. I sometimes refer to it as the
"Divine" instead, which is also in ourselves. If you don't feel the need for God
personally, no one can convince you. But for many people, including myself, it's
the source of life and essence of reality.
Peter Twydell
<andre_...@hotte-mail.com> writes
Cogito ergo sum. What more is there?
Ace Fumigators
> >| Any chance of a serious answer from anyone?
> >|
> >| I have a car that gets me where I want to go, a computer that helps me
> >| earn a living, and a wife who feeds me. What would a god do for me?
> >
> >Speaking of "God" can have reductive connotations. I sometimes refer to
> >it as the
> >"Divine" instead, which is also in ourselves. If you don't feel the
> >need for God
> >personally, no one can convince you. But for many people, including
> >myself, it's
> >the source of life and essence of reality.
> >
> >
> I don't understand that.
>
> Cogito ergo sum. What more is there?
For one thing, I need God to prove that I exist.
The rest of you all could be figments of my imagination, for all I
could prove, or I could even be part of something else's
hallucination, etc... if it weren't for God being there to tell me
that the world is NOT "maya" but very very real, and His Creation. He
also tells me that "Cogito ergo sum, what more is there?" are the
words of Babylon. (Isaiah 47:10).
He also tells me (and everyone else) not to be a homicidal,
axe-wielding maniac. For this reason, I (and many others) are
essentially Peaceful people. Now, are you SURE it would be a good
idea to attempt to take away our Opiate???
John Woodgate
<bigme...@yahoogroups.com> wrote (in <636790b3.0408281301.51747d29@po
sting.google.com>) about 'Need Help from a Hebrew Expert...', on Sat, 28
Aug 2004:
>He also tells me (and everyone else) not to be a homicidal, axe-wielding
>maniac.
Not everyone else. He told Joshua and David and a lot of other people to
behave like that, and thousands of other people, so they said, in the
ensuing centuries.