The truth concerning Paleo-Hebrew

[praise_yeshua]

Not saying Wikipedia is an authoritative source... but below is a common argument made by Hebrew sources concerning ancient Hebrew.

The Samaritans, who remained in the Land of Israel, continued to use the paleo-Hebrew alphabet. During the 3rd century BCE, Jews began to use a stylized, "square" form of the Aramaic alphabet that was used by the Persian Empire (and which in turn had been adopted from the Assyrians),[15] while the Samaritans continued to use a form of the paleo-Hebrew script called the Samaritan alphabet. After the fall of the Persian Empire in 330 BCE, Jews used both scripts before settling on the square Assyrian form.

Can anyone reconcile this claim to what Jesus told the Samaritan Woman "at the well"....

John 4:22 You worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Isn't it extraordinarily "odd" (to say the least) that Jesus would make such a statement to indicate the many mistakes of the Samaritans..... Yet, some "scholar" today would insist that the Proto-Hebrew language was "preserved perfectly" in the Samaritan alphabet?

Not to mention the absurd idea that Hebrews adopted the script of the Persian Empire..... Apart from self serving conjecture from "scholars"......

Just where is the evidence for such claims?

 

[Diserner]

I don't think the style of alphabet speaks to any religious truth.,

No one I've ever heard doubts that the alphabet changed over time, even the Paleo-Hebrew is not the earliest form of it.

There are earlier more pictographical forms such as the earliest Hebrew ever found on the Joshua curse tablet:

These letters are never meant to be used as some modern conspiracies would have it, to mean words within words.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don't think the style of alphabet speaks to any religious truth.,

No one I've ever heard doubts that the alphabet changed over time, even the Paleo-Hebrew is not the earliest form of it.

There are earlier more pictographical forms such as the earliest Hebrew ever found on the Joshua curse tablet:

These letters are never meant to be used as some modern conspiracies would have it, to mean words within words.

Style is relative to the continuation. There is a dramatic difference between what is being referenced as the "Samaritan Script" and the "Persian" continuation.

Relative to "script form", would you agree that Greek is a better representation of the Samaritan/Phoenician script than the block script of modern Hebrew?

Just making the point.....

It is clear that the connection between Phoenician/Samaritan/Paleo-Hebrew script and modern Hebrew script is overstated.

To be clear, I'm not rejecting some small connection. I'm simply point out the absurd idea that it is a perfect match and the alphabet has always been preserved perfectly..... as to perfectly retain the ancient means of words.

 

[Diserner]

Greek is an entirely different language...

 

[praise_yeshua]

Greek is an entirely different language...

I was talking about the script form of languages. The script form of languages is important in maintaining the meaning for words throughout the history of any language. It is an anchor for subsequent generations of any culture. Nuance is lost over generations but seems to be what everyone cares about anymore.

Lets not conflate issues... nor ignore differences.

 

[Diserner]

I was talking about the script form of languages. The script form of languages is important in maintaining the meaning for words throughout the history of any language. It is an anchor for subsequent generations of any culture. Nuance is lost over generations but seems to be what everyone cares about anymore.

Lets not conflate issues... nor ignore differences.

The form of the alphabet has no bearing on the meaning of words... unless somehow it renders them less legible I guess, but that is not significant.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The form of the alphabet has no bearing on the meaning of words... unless somehow it renders them less legible I guess, but that is not significant.

You can't possible make such a claim. You have no source of reference. The alphabet and construct of any language changes over time. The difference in script are relative to those changes.

I'm going to give an example of the ancient name of God relative to script.

Archaeologist claims to find oldest Hebrew text in Israel, including the name of God

Scholars date tiny 'curse tablet,' found at Mt. Ebal, to 1200 BCE - which would prove Israelites were literate when they entered Holy Land; but findings have not been peer-reviewed

www.timesofisrael.com

Notice the difference?

Relative to what is commonly understood concerning Greek..... From Britannica.

"Derived from the North Semitic alphabet via that of the Phoenicians, the Greek alphabet was modified to make it more efficient and accurate for writing a non-Semitic language by the addition of several new letters and the modification or dropping of several others."

Most any language has this same issue. To claim Hebrew has never had this issue is just not true.

 

[Diserner]

Well, the matter can become pretty complex to analyze in full detail.

But in general, the same word means the same thing no matter spelled with different scripts or spelling variations.

Of course the meaning of words can change over time, and relative to peculiar idiom, but that is not affected by mere script.

 

[Johann]

Well, the matter can become pretty complex to analyze in full detail.

But in general, the same word means the same thing no matter spelled with different scripts or spelling variations.

Of course the meaning of words can change over time, and relative to peculiar idiom, but that is not affected by mere script.

Glad to see you stick to your guns-

 

[praise_yeshua]

Well, the matter can become pretty complex to analyze in full detail.

But in general, the same word means the same thing no matter spelled with different scripts or spelling variations.

Of course the meaning of words can change over time, and relative to peculiar idiom, but that is not affected by mere script.

Just recognizing the a connection that I believe is there. A change in script is indicative of a larger issue. All things relative.

I believe it is poor method to start with a conclusion and work your way backward find a viable construct. You may start there but you must ultimately build from the foundation out to determine if your thoughts are viable. In that process, you can determine the fundamental characteristics required to establish a conclusion. Not our conclusion. The proper conclusion. We go where the evidence leads.

Historically, there many questions that have no perfect answers in this. I would love to see perfection in this but it isn't there to find. Sin always has impact. Sin in humanity causes these issues.

What makes it even worse is to pretend there is perfection instead of rightfully recognizing failure. This creates deception and the delusion that we are better than we actually are. We spend a lifetime knowing ourselves. Knowing our weaknesses.

 

[Johann]

You can't possible make such a claim. You have no source of reference. The alphabet and construct of any language changes over time. The difference in script are relative to those changes.

I'm going to give an example of the ancient name of God relative to script.

Archaeologist claims to find oldest Hebrew text in Israel, including the name of God

Scholars date tiny 'curse tablet,' found at Mt. Ebal, to 1200 BCE - which would prove Israelites were literate when they entered Holy Land; but findings have not been peer-reviewed

www.timesofisrael.com

Notice the difference?

Relative to what is commonly understood concerning Greek..... From Britannica.

"Derived from the North Semitic alphabet via that of the Phoenicians, the Greek alphabet was modified to make it more efficient and accurate for writing a non-Semitic language by the addition of several new letters and the modification or dropping of several others."

Most any language has this same issue. To claim Hebrew has never had this issue is just not true.

Tovia Singer will definitely disagree with you here. And so will Michael Brown.

 

[Johann]

Just recognizing the a connection that I believe is there. A change in script is indicative of a larger issue. All things relative.

I believe it is poor method to start with a conclusion and work your way backward find a viable construct. You may start there but you must ultimately build from the foundation out to determine if your thoughts are viable. In that process, you can determine the fundamental characteristics required to establish a conclusion. Not our conclusion. The proper conclusion. We go where the evidence leads.

Historically, there many questions that have no perfect answers in this. I would love to see perfection in this but it isn't there to find. Sin always has impact. Sin in humanity causes these issues.

What makes it even worse is to pretend there is perfection instead of rightfully recognizing failure. This creates deception and the delusion that we are better than we actually are. We spend a lifetime knowing ourselves. Knowing our weaknesses.

Just curious-what Bible is your primary source?

 

[Diserner]

Just recognizing the a connection that I believe is there. A change in script is indicative of a larger issue. All things relative.

It's no more, and no less, than using different fonts in a word processor.

These letters being different than the others, do not affect their meaning.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Tovia Singer will definitely disagree with you here. And so will Michael Brown.

They have a narrative they must preserve.

It is my experience that Jews that resist the Gospel.... Do so by resisting the Greek OT as being relative to a proper historical narrative. I've watched Tovia do it over and over again. He must sell his belief the MT is inspired by God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Just curious-what Bible is your primary source?

I don't have a primary source. I use most of them in some form or.fashion. The NETS is a relative good source for the LXX but, as you know, the LXX is complicated as a collection.
It is my position that if Jerome would not have inflated his ego in the Vulgate, then the LXX wouldn't have been abandoned.

I rank Codex Alexandrinus as the primary source for the LXX.

I know the KJV best of all English translations. It is where my thoughts go when mediating upon the Scriptures. The KJV is actually one of the best English examples of a mixed heritage of sources. It represents the LXX, Latin and NT Greek sources better than most any English edition. I criticize it often but I know it's limitations. I had hopes for the NET edition and even advocated to include more Greek OT readings in the second edition but who listens to a common man?

 

[praise_yeshua]

It's no more, and no less, than using different fonts in a word processor.

These letters being different than the others, do not affect their meaning.

That is ridiculous. The very name of God has changed throughout the history of the Hebrew language. Are you seriously denying this? I gave you evidence of this above.

 

[Diserner]

That is ridiculous. The very name of God has changed throughout the history of the Hebrew language. Are you seriously denying this? I gave you evidence of this above.

No, the name did not change, just the font or script of the letters changed.

Using an old font for stylistic purposes is not changing the name?

Where do you get that idea?!

 

[DavidTree]

They have a narrative they must preserve.

It is my experience that Jews that resist the Gospel.... Do so by resisting the Greek OT as being relative to a proper historical narrative. I've watched Tovia do it over and over again. He must sell his belief the MT is inspired by God.

A Jew or a Gentile refusing the Gospel, regardless of their reason, is a result of their heart being blinded.

Only when the Holy Spirit moves upon a person can they come to the Light of the Glorious Gospel.

Preaching/Speaking the Gospel is the Seed that must be Watered for the New Birth and yet it still requires God to Act.

"And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be Saved" - Acts 2:47

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. - 1 Corinthians ch3

 

[praise_yeshua]

No, the name did not change, just the font or script of the letters changed.

Using an old font for stylistic purposes is not changing the name?

Where do you get that idea?!

That is your empty claim. If it were any other claim for any other language, you would find it preposterous because it is preposterous.

Tell me, are there any distinct differences in old Anglo-Saxon and of the early modern English of KJV or Geneva Bibles?

There is no difference in comparison.

 

[praise_yeshua]

A Jew or a Gentile refusing the Gospel, regardless of their reason, is a result of their heart being blinded.

Only when the Holy Spirit moves upon a person can they come to the Light of the Glorious Gospel.

Preaching/Speaking the Gospel is the Seed that must be Watered for the New Birth and yet it still requires God to Act.

"And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be Saved" - Acts 2:47

Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. - 1 Corinthians ch3

Paul can't save anyone. Neither can Apollos. Denying the obvious by appealing to the power of God is a rather empty defense.