BJH
I have no idea what video you’re talking about.Steefen
See comment 1.
I watched the entire video but don’t remember Yahuda being mentioned. Could you please give a timestamp when Ammon says Yahuda had a doctorate? Thanks.
Steefen:
I saw the comparative method link.
In what comment number did you put the Jackson Crawford link to a video?
What did you make of the article?
The link for the Crawford video is in Post 31.
Steefen: that is why methodology 2.0 does not say the results of methodology 1.0 are invalidated.
Luke actually says, “We are not doing the sounds-like principle anymore because it didn’t work.” (2:40:57-2:41:01)
Steefen: Then Luke goes off the rails saying Jesus’ Aramaic could be referring the the Saab car company.
Not at all. He was just showing why the sounds-like principle doesn’t work (2:41:26-2:42:33)
“It can lead us to anywhere random. Anything sounds like anything.”
BJH1960 said
Steefen: that is why methodology 2.0 does not say the results of methodology 1.0 are invalidated.
Luke actually says, “We are not doing the sounds-like principle anymore because it didn’t work.” (2:40:57-2:41:01)
Steefen: Then Luke goes off the rails saying Jesus’ Aramaic could be referring the the Saab car company.
Not at all. He was just showing why the sounds-like principle doesn’t work (2:41:26-2:42:33)
“It can lead us to anywhere random. Anything sounds like anything.”
but it does not apply to Ammon’s use because Ammon does say how it is connected. There is a reason it is connected. Ammon said it is connected via the magical texts. So, you haven’t proven anything.
Ammon proved that Luke said the sound-like principle only works when it is connected, not when it can apply to anything like a Saab car. Ammon applied it to magic with evidence. You have to know the magical texts.
I’m going to watch this video next to see if anything changes. More than 7,000 people have viewed this video:
The review is as long if not longer than the original video.
YouTube channel: Gnostic Informant
It’s not that important to me.
I’m satisfied with what Luke and Ammon said.
I don’t have an axe to grind.
You can be happy with your understanding of the video.
You don’t have to include me with your axes you have to grind.
I do not have to second guess my note taking of how I flow arguments I’ve heard.
Comment 66 Review of the Debate
1:24:48
Neal:
Finkelstein says Hebrew writing started around the 8th or 9th century BCE. Meaningful writing started around the 8th century BCE.
Steefen:
So, what language was the Torah in–the Torah used by King David and King Solomon?
What language was the Songs of Solomon and the Psalms of David? Let alone David’s Historical King Saul (Labaya/u) dating–what? to the 13th century BCE’s 18th Dynasty of Egypt?
pick up at 1:27:52 of 3:51:18
Steefen said:
So, you haven’t proven anything.
You wrote “methodology 2.0 does not say the results of methodology 1.0 are invalidated.”
This is patently false. Luke said, “We are not doing the sounds-like principle anymore because it didn’t work.”
And Luke was not “going off the rails” as you put it but making a valid point:
“It can lead us to anywhere random. Anything sounds like anything.”
One of the things that puzzled me about Yahuda’s book was the forward by Dr. Saul Levin. Why would he write a forward even with all the reservations it contained?
Come to find out that Levin spent much of his career trying to prove a pre-historic link between Indo-European and Semitic languages. Here’s a short excerpt from a review of a ** you do not have permission to see this link **
“But ultimately, this book does not deal with etymologies at all but with look-alikes. … This book is, thus, a continuation of such a prescientific and merely intuitive way of searching for etymologies.”
Robert said:
Are you asking what languages people spoke at those times? Labaya, as he is typically dated earlier, would probably have spoken a local Canaanite language, but his written diplomatic correspondence with Egypt was a variant of Akkadian which betrayed Canaanisms. Saul, if he existed, would have spoken a later, differently evolved Canaanite language more akin to the Moabitic of the Mesha Stele.
Fascinating stuff.
Knowing absolutely nothing, I thought I’d see what I could find. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** looks of interest but certainly isn’t for the faint of heart.
And Solomon wrote Proverbs in what language?
Jacobean English of course, like all those old Bible guys.
One of the frustrating things about learning Aramaic is that it was expressed with so many variations at different times and places that it’s best to try and isolate one particular form of Aramaic to learn first, even if one has to artificially impose some hypothetical standardization that may not have ever existed in a pure form at any particular time and place.
It seems standardization is a function of literate cultures. The situation with Aramaic was probably typical of older oral cultures. But even with Middle English you were in the same situation. There is no “Middle English” as such. After the Norman conquest, Latin and French ruled the roost. English long continued as a regional affair. When I studied Chaucer I was learning an East Midlands dialect that eventually came to dominate simply because it contained the economic and political center, i.e., London. But by the time the East Midlands dialect could dominate it had already mutated into Early Modern English. Then came the printing press and here we are.
Who wrote them?
Seriously? I would think it would be obvious that both the Psalms and the Proverbs are collections of material written by divers hands over hundreds of years. The real question is, who edited them?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)