The Hebrew word ET

[ContraMundum]

This was a very nice response. Thank you for that. I disagree with the idea that Hebrew was the Edenic language, and I reject Edenics a priori. Hebrew came from a prior Semitic language, and Aramaic is actually older than Hebrew. There are also other Semitic languages that are older than Hebrew, such as Akkadian and Ugaritic, which no longer exist. Linguists have established the relationships between these languages and the fact that they come from a common ancestor. We observe linguistic evolution in history, and Hebrew was not free from that. I think it's the fact that we come from different worldviews (I'm a naturalist in my thinking) which makes our discussion points nearly incompatible.

Exactly. I cannot understand that need to raise a common tongue to a mystical status.

Perhaps it's better that we not argue one way or another with each other. Our basic assumptions about life and about the Hebrew language are in contradiction to each other. So, our conclusions will surely always lie in different directions.

Agree to disagree?

FWIW, I agree with you on this topic.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I had the same reaction!

You share some bad company. That's all I can say.

 

[yonah_mishael]

FWIW, I agree with you on this topic.

εὐχαριστῶ σοι, ὦ ἄδελφέ μου.

 

[ContraMundum]

εὐχαριστῶ σοι, ὦ ἄδελφέ μου.

I wonder what the proper ancient Koine response to that might have been. "Back at ya" and "you're welcome" probably would sound weird to them,

 

[yonah_mishael]

I wonder what the proper ancient Koine response to that might have been. "Back at ya" and "you're welcome" probably would sound weird to them,

Perhaps it's somewhere here, but I can't seem to find it. Wanna give it a try?

 

[Lulav]

I'm sorry I misunderstood where the vav was you were speaking of. I have very old glasses and don't catch all words sometimes.

I thought you were referring to ve'et as in:

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

I probably made that connection because you were speaking about this first verse before.

The reference to the plural was the word plowshares in Joel 3:10. Plow would be singular , plowshares , plural. Not the plural of the direct object marker though. the plural of the word plow.

The letters aleph , tav are used for more than just the direct object marker. This verse uses Et for the noun meaning mark or sign. It adds the vav in the middle. So aleph , tav becomes aleph, vav, tav.







This verse has the plural of the noun for mark usually translated as signs here.







In this verse you see the plural of Oht. The Hebrew word for marker. Why the vav is missing in the second occurence is a good question linguistically but a tangent for our purposes.







Concerning root words. Even in the English we can see the basic concept of root words. Take the word sing. I sing but she sings. There is an s on the end. It is the plural form. Or he sang , the past tense. Still the same root word.

The word protest can be both a noun and a verb. He attended the protest versus he protested the event. Still the same root word.

The words telegraph , biography , geography all share the root graph. Graph comes from the the Greek graphia (to write) and tele from the Greek for far. So telegraph , that which writes at a distance. Bio is from the Greek word for life. So biography means write about someone's life.


The fact that the Hebrew word for marker and the direct object marker ET are using the same root are because they are related in meaning. When used as a direct object marker , it is a preposition. When used as a noun it is the noun meaning marker. it is probably more technically correct to say they both share the same root. A root can have several different applications.

The preposition Et is not plural. But the root word Et in it's use as a noun certainly can be plural.

Even the word for "you" (female) is "at" which is the same two Hebrew letters used for ET , Aleph , Tav. It uses a different vowel sound.

If you look at the function though. They all relate to each other."you" marks a person, Et marks the direct object , Oht is a physical marker or sign. Even plow is setting your eyes upon a mark. If one has ever farmed , they still use this method to this day.

The fact that the pictograph for Tav is a marker ( a cross) only emphasizes the connection.


The fact that it is used for both the direct object marker and the personal pronoun is no co incidence. Linguistically speaking , it means that if a person could trace it back to the original they would see the connection in the pictographs.


These ideas are not my original ideas. They are quite well known in the field of linguistics and also in etomology which traces words back to where they came from.

The basic ideas of word etomology and Linguistics are only under debate because some posters are being intentionally obtuse with the intent of entrapping me in some contradiction that they can attack and thus distract from the main point of the discussion.

Et had a meaning which is related to it's function. It means marker, In the case of the preposition , direct object marker.

I find it edifying to know that the original pictographic meaning of the word Et is the sign for strength and marker or "strong marker " and that the marker used is the picture of the cross.

 

[yonah_mishael]

No, he was talking about the word אוֹת 'ot, which means "sign".

 

[Desert Rose]

No, he was talking about the word אוֹת 'ot, which means "sign".

admire your patience, i given up on those discussions while ago.
usually its people that got infatuated with some fancy idea and use "creative translation" to build up a support system to "prove it right" to others and to themselves.
Your effors wont be appreciated except for those who already are a choir you need not preach to.

There are always enough questionable semi-scienfic crazy stuff floating around on the net, trying to correct it is a very ungrateful task( yawn).

P S heya, Yonale. I need your smart opinion on something.
we got a debate last night on skype (all native speakers, two american compatriots) which one is proper way? i mean, עדשה – עדשים , feminine. But in Talmud there is a form עדש – עדשים

 

[yonah_mishael]

P S heya, Yonale. I need your smart opinion on something.
we got a debate last night on skype (all native speakers, two american compatriots) which one is proper way? i mean, עדשה – עדשים , feminine. But in Talmud there is a form עדש – עדשים

It's supposed to be עֲדָשָׁה. The word is naturally feminine, even though the plural ending is ־ִים like נָשִׁים. If you paired an adjective with it, this would show: עֲדָשִׁים יְרֻקּוֹת green lentils.

Jastrow has an entry for עֶדֶשׁ, which he simply refers to עֲדָשָׁה. I've included his entry here. There seems to have been a masculine variant of the word at the time when the Talmud was being written.

 

[Yitzchak]

No, he was talking about the word אוֹת 'ot, which means "sign".

That is correct. The fact that both words mean marker is because they share the same root.

 

[yonah_mishael]

That is correct. The fact that both words mean marker is because they share the same root.

Actually, you will find in BDB that the root of אות is alef-vav-heh. It is derived from the root that expresses itself in the hitpael: לְהִתְאַוֹּת lehitavot, "to be marked out, measured" as in Numbers 34.10. Thus, אות and את are not from the same root. את is found in BDB without reference to a root, since the concept of consonantal root normally doesn't have anything to do with prepositions. It applies to nouns, verbs and adjectives.

 

[ContraMundum]

The last two pages of this thread make me happy.

 

[Yitzchak]

Here are two websites that get into the ancient Hebrew letters.

The Hebrew alphabet was originally written using pictures that later evolved into script. These ancient pictographic letters give us a little understanding of how the Hebrew language is meant to be understood. For ALEPH the picture is that of an Ox head and it represents the strength and leadership of G-d.

Here is the link for the full article...

Aleph

The Hebrew alphabet was originally written using pictures that later evolved into script. These ancient pictographic letters give us a little understanding of how the Hebrew language is meant to be understood. For ALEPH the picture is that of an Ox head and it represents the strength and leadership of G-d.

From the second website...

Remember that Hebrew reads from right to left. The ancient Hebrew pictograph for the letter Aleph is an Ox head, meaning strength or God, as in “the Lord is my strength”. The pictograph for the letter Tav is two crossed sticks, meaning a mark or covenant.

Therefore, when Jesus says, “I am the Aleph and the Tav,” what He is saying is that He is the MARK of GOD, or God’s signature;

Here is the link for the full article...

Christ « King David

This is what Et look like in the ancient Hebrew. Look it up. The letter Tav is the cross.

Don't believe the derisive hype of those who post whose only support for their position is to mock the meaning in the ancient Hebrew Text and insist on a simple reading of the modern translation as the only way to interpret the bible.. My position is well grounded. Do some research.



Here is yet another website that provides resources for studying the ancient Hebrew pictographs...

http://storehouse.sonsofzadok.com/Hebrew/Books/Hebrew_Word_Pictures.htm








.

 

[Yitzchak]

Here is the Ancient Hebrew letter Vav

The original pictograph used in the Early Semitic script is a , a picture of a tent peg. The tent pegs were made of wood and may have been Y-shaped to prevent the rope from slipping off.

From the following website
The Ancient Hebrew Alphabet




From the same website concerning aleph...

The original pictograph for this letter is a picture of an ox head - representing strength and power from the work performed by the animal. This pictograph also represents a chief or other leader. When two oxen are yoked together for pulling a wagon or plow, one is the older and more experienced one who leads the other. Within the clan, tribe or family the chief or father is seen as the elder who is yoked to the others as the leader and teacher.

And concerning Tav

The Ancient picture is a type of "mark", probably of two sticks crossed to mark a place similar to the Egyptian hieroglyph of , a picture of two crossed sticks. This letter has the meanings of mark, sign or signature.

Concerning ET

The most common word in the Hebrew Bible is the word את (et). The first letter is the א, called an aleph, and is the first letter of the Hebrew alephbet. The second letter in the word את (et) is the ת, called a tav, and is the last letter of the Hebrew alephbet. These two letters are the "first and the last," the "beginning and the end" and the "Aleph and the Tav" (which is translated as "the alpha and the omega," the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, in the book of Revelation).

Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears; let the weak say, "I am a warrior."
(Joel 4:10; 3:10 in Christian Bibles)

The word "plowshares," in the passage above, is the Hebrew word את (et). A plowshare is the metal point of the plow which digs into the soil creating a furrow for planting seeds. When we examine the original pictographic script used in ancient times to write Hebrew, we can see a clear connection between the letters of this word and its meaning.

The word את is used as a grammatical tool to identify the definite object of the verb. In the example of Genesis 1:1 the verb is the Hebrew word ברא (bara), meaning "to fill," and the definite objects, the ones receiving the action of the verb, are the sky and the land. Just as the "ox" moved toward the "mark" when plowing, the word את (the plowshare) plows the path from the verb of a sentence (the ox) to the definite object (the mark).

The AHRC Logo










.

 

[Yitzchak]

From yet another website...

Mysteries and Truths Hidden within the AlephBet — The WildBranch Ministry

The ancient Jewish sages believed that the alephbet (Hebrew alphabet) was the building blocks of life. In other words, those twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet are what all of life is built on......

Now let's look at the verse even more closely through the eyes of the ancient sages. After Bere'shiyt bara 'Elohiym there is a fourth untranslatable word. That fourth word is actually two Hebrew letters: the Aleph and the Tav. The aleph-tav (א&#1514 does serve a grammatical purpose in that it points to the direct object of the sentence. These two letters do not actually form a word, but rather they express an understanding. The aleph (&#1488 is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the tav(&#1514 is the last letter of the alphabet. The placement of these two very significant letters at strategic locations within many sentences of the Hebrew Scriptures express a total completeness. It is equivalent to saying "from alpha to omega, from a to z, from first to last, from beginning to end." So, from the Hebraic point of view, they see that "In the beginning 'Elohiym created the aleph-tav". In other words, they believe that the very first thing 'Elohiym created was the Hebrew alphabet, which is known through ancient writings also as the aleph-tav. They recognize that He created the letters by which all life and all physical things spring forth from

This is written by Brad Scott.

From his website.
Who is Brad Scott — The WildBranch Ministry

Who is Brad Scott
Photo of Brad & Carol Scott

Brad has been teaching the Scriptures since 1971. Raised in Missouri, he began in the Lutheran system and was taught traditional “Christian” theology. In 1978, he began his studies in the Greek language and soon discovered that the well-defined Greek structure was NOT so well-defined. He soon began to learn the Hebrew language, and sat at the feet of Rabbinical scholars, much the same way Sha'ul may have done so! Having been trained that the New Testament was written in Greek, Brad discovered through other scholars of the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls that the New Testament may well have been written in Hebrew. He has been teaching the Hebrew language and culture since 1983. Brad is an ordained minister through a non-denominational pastoralship.

Brad is a professional musician, as well, and enjoys leading or just participating with Praise and Worship teams by playing keyboard and singing. Although he plays all styles of music, Brad enjoys the Messianic style best.

.

 

[Yitzchak]

What is my point ? My point is that this dismissal of my views on the ancient Hebrew is not built upon scholarship or a well researched position.

So far , most of the posts against my position have been done with a derisive tone and with no facts given to back up their position against. Go and re read the both threads and I challenge you to find any facts to back up the criticisms. Saying " I disagree " or "you are are ridiculous " is not much of a compelling argument.

I see the message of Yeshua crucified in the ancient Hebrew text. The message of the cross. How is that bad theology ?

I draw conclusions from the meaning of the pictographs of the ancient Hebrew language. Do some research into the history of languages and Archeology and then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion. The building blocks of written language are not built upon random letters and sounds. They are based upon pictographs (pictures). This is true of all of the ancient languages. Not my idea. Do some research.

The idea of roots forming several words with related meanings is well documented in language studies and can be seen in the Hebrew and also in the modern English.

For example , holding a position that the word sings has nothing to do with the word sing because there is an extra s is nonsense. The words have similar meanings because one if the plural of the other. Words in all languages have patterns and are not simply random.

Looking at the Etymolgy or origin and root of a word even with regard to the English coming from Latin and Greek roots is a well established way to understand how words are connected to one another and have a history.

To be blunt. Disregarding these sorts of basic truths is not being smart , it is the opposite.

I have been labeled unfairly , categorized and dismissed. Worse , it has been done based upon derisive tones and mocking with zero discussion of the actual subject.

It is not simply my specific conclusions that were argued against , but the more general concepts upon which my conclusions were based. Although , as I pointed out , not argued against with any facts to back their arguments.

Yonah and I agreed to disagree. So I respect that. The rest of you , instead of speaking about me in the third person which is rude , immature and against the forum rules , why don't you either put forth a cogent argument or bow out of the discussion. Either participate in the discussion and reply to the thread topic or don't post.

This lack of basic respect in the threads on this subject is shameful. Why not have some basic self respect and some respect for others and show some civility and good manners instead of this junior high school " mean girls ' type of behavior. It is insulting and gets old in a hurry.


So does anyone want to discuss this subject ? or is it going to continue to be the "run this guy out of town" because he is saying something different from what we have learned. Why not take this chance to grow and expand your thinking? Even if you do not agree 100% with my thoughts on the subject , you should be able to find a lot of interesting and thought provoking ideas in it.








.

 

[yonah_mishael]

admire your patience, i given up on those discussions while ago.
usually its people that got infatuated with some fancy idea and use "creative translation" to build up a support system to "prove it right" to others and to themselves.
Your effors wont be appreciated except for those who already are a choir you need not preach to.

There are always enough questionable semi-scienfic crazy stuff floating around on the net, trying to correct it is a very ungrateful task( yawn).

P S heya, Yonale. I need your smart opinion on something.
we got a debate last night on skype (all native speakers, two american compatriots) which one is proper way? i mean, עדשה – עדשים , feminine. But in Talmud there is a form עדש – עדשים

Wow, I didn't notice that you had a picture of עדשים ירוקות in your attachment.

I asked a friend of mine today what the singular of עדשים is, and he also said edesh. I think most people would say that! In fact, I never hear anyone use it in the singular, so there's not really any reason that anyone would know that it's really עדשה. What can we do? I get more irritated when someone says לארוז as la'aroz instead of le'eroz, which really happens all the time!

 

[yonah_mishael]

I must say, as soon as people start putting pictures of cows and crosses and saying that these are ancient Hebrew letters, I drop into disagreement. These were not "Hebrew letters". The original idea of the Proto-Canaanite writing system may have resembled something like them, but we must maintain awareness that these are reconstructions and are not found in any Hebrew inscriptions. The alphabet that we find in inscriptions is the Phoenician alphabet, which was used for writing all of the Canaanite Semitic languages.

This is not at all what you've posted above, Yitzchak. It's taken from the same reconstructionist site, hebrew4christians.com. Have you ever had the cow-head pictogram demonstrated to you in a Hebrew grammar book of any kind? Have you looked at Hebrew inscriptions from the First Temple period? None of them is written like that. There's no indication that Moses would have used that type of alphabet to write the Torah. There's no indication that it was ever used for Hebrew. All of the Hebrew that we find from that period comes to us in the Phoenician alphabet, which is the one that I've attached in the image just above this paragraph.

All of these "letter reconstructions" are little more than pie-in-the-sky nonsense (IMHO).

 

[ContraMundum]

What is my point ? My point is that this dismissal of my views on the ancient Hebrew is not built upon scholarship or a well researched position.

The opposing position is also built upon the same scholarship. It's just devoid of interpretation and eisegesis. Can you not see that?

 

[yonah_mishael]

By the way, the fact that these are reconstructions (and that no manuscript evidence at all exists for these pictograms) can be seen here, where ancient-hebrew.org attempts to explain to use how they (and their partners) have gone about reconstructing this non-existent alphabet from Egyptian hieroglyphs and other clues from Phoenician. There is no reason why a person who only accepts the historical record should accept their reconstruction, nor should their reconstructions be used as the basis of such theological assertions as Yitzchak is suggesting.

If you cannot prove that the Messiah was prophesied to come and die on a cross from the pshat, don't turn to mystical letter recreations to establish your point. It just doesn't work that way.