Biblical Hebrew Forum

[davidfentonism AT aim.com]

  Yes, and so the biblical Hebrew corresponded to its own cosmology which was 
Elohist/Yahvist. It was not inclusive of the ideologies of its neighbors or 
enemies, thus what it meant then is what it means today. The Hebrew is also 
dynamic and the Greek static, and in that sense incompetent to fully 
communicate Hebrew thoghtforms as seen in the examples provided by others 
(i.e., tsedakah/righteousness, Torah/Law, etc.).
 
 David 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: peter AT qaya.org
 To: davidfentonism AT aim.com
 Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
 Sent: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 5:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Hebrew language and thought forms
 
  On 20/11/2006 21:50, davidfentonism AT aim.com wrote: 
 > But in the case of the (paleo) Hebrew, its very alphabet (i.e., its 
 > characters) are derived from pictograms of the things Adam named (e.g., 
 > animals, trees, father, etc.). This is what I have read, at least. ... 
 
 Yes, and it is equally true of our alphabet, which is as much derived from 
palaeo-Hebrew as the more modern Hebrew alphabet is. With some of our letters 
it is still obvious in the forms: "O" is derived from a picture of an eye 
(Hebrew `ayin, also a circle in palaeo-Hebrew), "M" is derived from a picture 
of water (waves) (Hebrew mem/mayim). 
 
 So what? 
 
 -- Peter Kirk 
 E-mail: peter AT qaya.org 
 Blog: http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/ 
 Website: http://www.qaya.org/ 
 
       
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading 
spam and email virus protection.