Isn't Semitic a derivative of the original Hebrew.? I believe I read in the article this is where he prefers to place its origins.
In light of the latest UK bombing, how many of you progressives
- Thread starter Snow Sled Baby
- Start date
Isn't Semitic a derivative of the original Hebrew.? I believe I read in the article this is where he prefers to place its origins.
I suspect the author is trying to place a chronological understanding that there first had to be one common language spoken before Almighty God could confuse dialects. That is how we are informed in the Bible that different languages emerged but I do not dispute the chronology of those specific languages is indeed open to interpretation.
The author is clear to point out that no one knows the precise dialect that was spoken prior to Almighty God scattering tongues. He tries to suggest it was indeed a Hebrew dialect but he does not state that with certainty, only based on his analysis of the dating references he chose to use with the explanation cited in the Bible as his common starting point.
You are suggesting those references are in error, however that would suggest the Bible itself is in error and I am not prepared to make that judgment simply because we have alternate methods to date or place historical events contained in its revelation.
The Bible's story of different languages is essentially correct and not refuted by anything either the author (using Biblical time frame references) or secular archeological investigators attempt to chronologically reassemble. If you disagree with his (author's) exegesis, fine. But I still do not hear you invalidating the veracity of the actual events even if you have more detailed knowledge as to when each actually occurred in a specifically dated historically documented time sequence.
Last edited:
No. And this is the problem with the article. One can trace language development in parallel with the expansion of human population from Mesopotamia to the east, north, and west. Focusing on north and west expansion one can trace Sumerian (Iraq) as an early logographical cuneiform language to Akkadian (just north of Sumer), a 600+ letter alphabetical cuneiform language, (skipping a few steps for brevity's sake) to Ugaritic (Lebanon) as an early Northwest Semitic language with a 30-letter cuneiform alphabet. With continued development of language came improvement in writing implements. As would be expected of agrarians they developed parchment and ink. This allowed for better symbols not possible with clay tablets and wedged-shaped styli. So continuing the Northwest Semitic language development trail, next is the development of early Aramean with a set of very diverse letters. The Canaanite language developed from Aramean and Hebrew from Canaanite. As Israel conquers Canaan Hebrew supplants Canaanite. Hebrew and Aramean continue to advance in parallel, so much so that eventually Hebrew borrows the Aramean alphabet and the two alphabets become identical. So I hope it is obvious from this that Hebrew is actually a significant advancement over Sumerian. It is an advancement that came centuries later.
That is completely false. Those references are in error because they misunderstand/misrepresent the Bible. I am not challenging the veracity of the Bible. I'm challenging an obviously ill-informed understanding of the Bible.
Well Cajuneer, you call his (Author's) analysis a 'misunderstanding/misrepresentation' but again he is not refuting the Bible's explanation for the appearances of different languages, only perhaps exactly when or in what order they appeared. He is simply explaining their chronology using a different time reference interpretation.
If you say his chronological interpretation of the time sequencing of the appearance of those various languages is in error, I honestly can't argue against that. However to me that is a far different analysis than the actual appearance of those various languages and the reason for them.
I wish it were more clear. You seem to suggest it is simply using your specific time references. I'll accept that. But are you also suggesting there is no other way to view these events?
So let me ask you Cajuneer, was Almighty God's specific instruction to Moses at Sinai the first reference we know of in which the morality of "killing" or "murder" is made known to Man?
Do those other languages that either existed at the time or perhaps even prior to Almighty God's specific reference to it at Sinai, have some other basis or source from which they knew this to be something Almighty God saw as immoral and wrong?
If so, what was it and how did they know this?
Do the non believers have a point it was just "common sense" or part of existing "natural law" which led them to that conclusion and thus that is the reason we see specific references in their various ancient languages against it?
Which came first, the Mosaic Law or Cain murdering Abel. Read the account. Does Cain seem to be learning for the first time murder is wrong? Does Romans 1:20 say? I'll give you a hint: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
The Mosaic Law which is much more than the Ten Commandments comes much later than Hammurabi's Law Code. You would agree the Ten Commandments came after the Moses' first 40 years in Egypt. If murder was not against the law then why would a son of pharaoh's house feel compelled to bury the body of a lower classman he killed? Why would he flee Egypt when he feared what he did would be discovered? Clearly, murder was against the law in Egypt.
OK, I see that. So then why was the specific instruction given to Moses when it appears to have already been immoral, or at least wrong? How do you suppose non believers then interpret that as part of "natural Law" when they don't even recognize the "Law giver" you so eloquently spoke of in Romans?
If we had been given this morality since the foundations of the Earth, why does the Bible inform us of the significance Almighty God placed on it at Sinai?
What was missing where he needed to codify that into a "Commandment" for mankind if it was already recognized by ancient civilizations?
Mt. Sinai was the start of a new nation. Every nation has its own leader(s) and its own laws. YHWH was to be the Leader and He gave Moses his law. Exodus 19:5-6: “‘Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
You simply can't have a society without a prohibition against murder. Has God placed in the conscience of people a conviction against murder? I think yes. I think that's the implication of Romans 1 and the basis for judgment in Romans. Further, John 16:7-11: “But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me;about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.”
Because people forget. They need reminders. And because Mt. Sinai was the start of a new nation. Every nation..yada, yada, yada...
What was missing where he needed to codify that into a "Commandment" for mankind if it was already recognized by ancient civilizations?[/QUOTE]
The new nation.
The new nation.[/QUOTE]
Well spoken. Don't tell the non believers any of this. They are likely to take you as some sort of Religious wingnut.
I truly appreciate your explanation of all of this and I can honestly admit I've learned quite a bit in this discussion thread. Awesome job!