Which will it be Iran? Off the Map/back to

[Carrera]

Aramaic is not an older language than classical Hebrew at all and this view, I fear, is demonstrably wrong.
Aramaic was spoken by the Aramaeans who settled in Syria. There are one or two lines of thought about the derivation of Aramaic but the most commonly agreed is that it originated from Phoenician and Canaanite. It is a north-west semitic tongue.
I suspect there were various dialects of Aramaic.
The main point about Aramaic is it was only adopted in the Holy Land in the early 4th century B.C. since we know the Jewish prophets Nehemiah and Ezra prepared translations of their Hebrew texts with Aramaic for convenience.
Prior to that, only liturgical Hebrew was used (and still exists in epic poems e.t.c.)
You need to distinguish between Aramaic as spoken in Syria by the Aramaeans and the period when Aramaic first found its way into Israel. There is a big difference.
During the era of Ezra, Aramaic began to displace Hebrew conversationally in such a way that Hebrew began to be employed only in literary, legal and liturgical circles and much later on, in the Hellenistic era, Aramaic was replaced by Greek.
The idea that Aramaic was spoken in Israel and Judah before the 4th or 5th century B.C. goes against the opinion of archeologists and scholars. Virtually everybody agrees it was adopted far later although it was spoken in Syria well before the time of Ezra.
The Aramaeans of Syria fought Israel under Saul and later against King David. David defeated Ben Hadad I and reduced the Aramaeans to the status of a client state for a time under the Monarchy of Israel and Judah.
The Aramaeans worshipped Canaanite gods such as Ashtoreth but also Babylonian gods as well.
Arabic was derived far later on from Aramaic.
I hope this is easily understood by any folks who are bothered to be interested (although I'm not really sure where its leading us or what importance it has)

Aramaic is an older language than Hebrew.
That's why you failed to mention it when you posted your list of languages last week.
You claim to have studied lingusitics.
I have my doubts.

 

[Carrera]

"Why argue semantics, no one can prove who spoke what, when, how long, and why. It's all open to speculation, many ancient languages and dialects."

Archeologists are finding inscriptions in ancient languages or ancient sites all the time and they have some idea of the specific period these excavations belong to. There is plenty of evidence to convince the experts that Aramaic made its way into Israel around the early 4th century B.C.
I know it's a pretty silly argument but if Lim is going against the grain and claiming liturgical Hebrew was derived from Aramaic instead of early Canaanite and that the earliest peoples of ancient Jericho spoke Aramaic, I feel somewhat constrained to ask him to defend his theories. He should submit his discoveries to archeology journals so he can be tackled by the critics.

Argue all you want.

Germans did medical experiments in order to further their theories of "eugenics", of course they didn't know about DNA, but they wanted to tinker with the stuff that they knew not what they were even dealing with, being as stupid and evil as they were.

I am sure you all know that the first victims of Nazi's were handicapped children, the elderly, the helpless, the ill and all other "useless eaters".

Jewish folk today speak the language of their country, some Yiddish, some Hebrew and some Ladino.

Aramaic hysteria oh my, could it be Mel Gibson?

Here in the USA a person from Boston would have trouble understanding a person from Alabama and vice versa.

Why argue semantics, no one can prove who spoke what, when, how long, and why. It's all open to speculation, many ancient languages and dialects.

 

[FredC]

Aramaic is not an older language than classical Hebrew at all and this view, I fear, is demonstrably wrong.
Aramaic was spoken by the Aramaeans who settled in Syria. There are one or two lines of thought about the derivation of Aramaic but the most commonly agreed is that it originated from Phoenician and Canaanite. It is a north-west semitic tongue.
I suspect there were various dialects of Aramaic.
The main point about Aramaic is it was only adopted in the Holy Land in the early 4th century B.C. since we know the Jewish prophets Nehemiah and Ezra prepared translations of their Hebrew texts with Aramaic for convenience.
Prior to that, only liturgical Hebrew was used (and still exists in epic poems e.t.c.)
You need to distinguish between Aramaic as spoken in Syria by the Aramaeans and the period when Aramaic first found its way into Israel. There is a big difference.
During the era of Ezra, Aramaic began to displace Hebrew conversationally in such a way that Hebrew began to be employed only in literary, legal and liturgical circles and much later on, in the Hellenistic era, Aramaic was replaced by Greek.
The idea that Aramaic was spoken in Israel and Judah before the 4th or 5th century B.C. goes against the opinion of archeologists and scholars. Virtually everybody agrees it was adopted far later although it was spoken in Syria well before the time of Ezra.
The Aramaeans of Syria fought Israel under Saul and later against King David. David defeated Ben Hadad I and reduced the Aramaeans to the status of a client state for a time under the Monarchy of Israel and Judah.
The Aramaeans worshipped Canaanite gods such as Ashtoreth but also Babylonian gods as well.
Arabic was derived far later on from Aramaic.
I hope this is easily understood by any folks who are bothered to be interested (although I'm not really sure where its leading us or what importance it has)

Hebrew was only spoken from the 2nd century BC until the 2nd century AD in the land we are discussing, and then the Hebrews were banished.

 

[Carrera]

Yes, and the ancient Egyptians never really existed but were a race of Venusians who arrived in a flying saucer.
Added to that, lepricorns were in Italy before the Romans.
You need to make your attempts at bating Carrera less obvious.

Hebrew was only spoken from the 2nd century BC until the 2nd century AD in the land we are discussing, and then the Hebrews were banished.

 

[Carrera]

The main point to grasp here is that the Jewish people have their history same as the Greeks. Even though the Canaanites came before the Hebrews (and the Israelites may have conquered Jerusalem from Jebusites), Israel and Judah made a strong mark in the biblical land.
The claim has been made that Islamic culture ought to displace the older Jewish culture whereas I've maintained that Hebrew is older than Arabic and Judaism is older than Islam.
This debate has been about Islam dominating Jerusalem and Israel on a cultural/religious basis which is what Arab States seek. Neither do they seem to seek co-habitation but outright displacement of an entire people and flat denial of their history. Yet Jews and Christians don't seek cultural religious dominance of the Arab World (except possibly the neo-cons).
So, my view is this: Let the Palestinians have their own sovereign state with the demand they don't attack, threaten or encroach upon Israel. The said Palestinian state should be given legal international standing and borders respected by Israelis.
However, if they still try to attack Israel or fail to acknowledge Israel's right to be there, I figure Israel should go to war. And then it's a case of choosing your side.

 

[FredC]

Yes, and the ancient Egyptians never really existed but were a race of Venusians who arrived in a flying saucer.
Added to that, lepricorns were in Italy before the Romans.
You need to make your attempts at bating Carrera less obvious.

That's the only thing you have got right so far.
Now tell us Professor Peanut, that if the Hebrews had their own language, why was it never spoken. At the time of Jesus Aramaic was the common language of the people, and liturgical Hebrew was only used for prayer.
It is common knowledge that Hebrew was derived from Aramaic and used by the Samarians.

 

[limerickman]

The claim has been made that Islamic culture ought to displace the older Jewish culture .

OK - this is your final warning.

Before I personally escort you out of this site - you have one final opportunity
to retract the lie that you posted above.
You have posted that same lie several times - namely falsely accusing members here of stating that they want the Islamic culture to replace the Jewish culture.

NO ONE MADE THAT CLAIM.

Now, you have a choice - either withdraw that statement and remain here.
Or show us where another member stated what you have written above.

If you don't comply with this - I will remove you from here.

It's your choice.

 

[EoinC]

...The claim has been made that Islamic culture ought to displace the older Jewish culture...

Not here, it hasn't.

...whereas I've maintained that Hebrew is older than Arabic and Judaism is older than Islam...

Which nobody has argued with on this thread, although many of us are wondering why you are 100% concerned with picking milestones in ancient history (which could validly have you displaced from your own Country) and 0% concerned with what is happening today.

...This debate has been about Islam dominating Jerusalem and Israel on a cultural/religious basis...

No it hasn't, but then you haven't answered any of the questions that have been put to you about why you continually mix terms when referring to Palestinians / Arabs / Muslims and Jews / Zionists / Judaism.

...which is what Arab States seek...

Better list them and where those statements have been made. The only one that has been proffered so far is Iran - and it isn't an Arab State.

...Neither do they seem to seek co-habitation but outright displacement of an entire people and flat denial of their history...

Better list this lot also. You are attributing your generalisations to many millions of people. Presumably their Governments have proffered edicts on this?

...Yet Jews and Christians don't seek cultural religious dominance of the Arab World (except possibly the neo-cons)...

And the Zionists over small patches.

...So, my view is this: Let the Palestinians have their own sovereign state with the demand they don't attack, threaten or encroach upon Israel. The said Palestinian state should be given legal international standing and borders respected by Israelis.
However, if they still try to attack Israel or fail to acknowledge Israel's right to be there, I figure Israel should go to war. And then it's a case of choosing your side.

And my view is that you have never spent any time in a war zone and know absolutely %&$#-all about people growing up in such situations. There is only 1 possible long-term peaceful situation and that is...peace. It takes 2 to tango, certainly, but your war-mongering divisionist diatribes are moronic in their lack of comprehension and do nothing towards offering a solution. Many people, in high and low places, on both sides of the fence, have been working very hard for a considerable number of years to chisel away at the barriers that have risen since 1948. People on both sides of the fence want peace. If you are so keen on retaining existing division, and building more fences, you'd better pick up a hammer and a bag of nails, and get your **** over there. The Zionist and Palestinian extremists are running out of ignorant separationists like yourself. Come on Carrera, stop grizzling about the miserable Christmas you had and get your carcass down to Gaza. There's a set of Fence-builder's overalls with your name on it.
Strange though it may seem, one of the best defences against having people blow themselves up is to make people's lifestyles comfortable and inclusive. Not only does this reduce the number of people who are willing to miss a night of watching cable TV to go out and disintegrate themselves, but it also reduces the community support for such actions (possibly due to the interference it can cause to TV reception).

 

[darkboong]

Strange though it may seem, one of the best defences against having people blow themselves up is to make people's lifestyles comfortable and inclusive.

Amen.

A wise and eloquent post EoinC.

 

[davidmc]

I have,with difficulty.It's the same language,but many words are spelt and pronounced differently.Ditto for Shakespeare,as any schoolkid can attest.
Have you ever tried to read a document in "law french"?

Agreed. I can read Shakespeare for the sole reason that I am familiar w/ it due to frequent readings over the years. The reading of Chaucer, however, is/would be a laborious undertaking for me.

 

[ptlwp]

OK - this is your final warning.

Before I personally escort you out of this site - you have one final opportunity
to retract the lie that you posted above.
You have posted that same lie several times - namely falsely accusing members here of stating that they want the Islamic culture to replace the Jewish culture.

NO ONE MADE THAT CLAIM.

Now, you have a choice - either withdraw that statement and remain here.
Or show us where another member stated what you have written above.

If you don't comply with this - I will remove you from here.

It's your choice.

I have gotten the same "vibes" fom reading the posts here "as surely as the writing on the wall". Too chicken to say it outright...it comes out in a cryptic way.

Mr. Limerick, if you can allow neanderthal man, Fred C to be in this forum, you lose credibility in trying to hard ball Carrera. Your slip is showing and it isn't a pretty one. There have been more ridiculous and insensitive postulations than anything Carerra has said, and by more than one person.

Be a man and let him stand up for himself. And you sit down and shut up a little.

 

[EoinC]

Agreed. I can read Shakespeare for the sole reason that I am familiar w/ it due to frequent readings over the years. The reading of Chaucer, however, is/would be a laborious undertaking for me.

If Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are difficult, his Tehran Tales are terribly hard to follow - all those Olde English / Farsi mixed metaphor combinations are enough to drive a man to drink. No wonder they never sold well.

 

[davidmc]

If Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are difficult, his Tehran Tales are terribly hard to follow - all those Olde English / Farsi mixed metaphor combinations are enough to drive a man to drink. No wonder they never sold well.

Wonder if FredC has read that one

 

[stevebaby]

Agreed. I can read Shakespeare for the sole reason that I am familiar w/ it due to frequent readings over the years. The reading of Chaucer, however, is/would be a laborious undertaking for me.

Even though Chaucer and Shakespeare spoke English,they would be hard pressed to use the language that they spoke in everyday situations today.It would be difficult for them to do something like buy a bike,get a phone connected.I'm sure that they would manage to buy a pint in a pub without much difficulty.
The point that I was making was that all languages evolve.Aramaic could well have evolved into Farsi for all I know (or care).The language spoken 2000 years ago is irrelevant to the situation in palestine today.The bible and the torah should be seen as religious documents and not statutes deciding land rights.

 

[EoinC]

You're drifting wildy from the point here. Jews are not just some people who happen to pick an area of land at random and barge in...

No, Carrera, I was trying (in vain) to bring you back to the point. My example was not based on picking an area at random. It was based on a factual sequence of events. The argument being proffered is not that the Jewish people have no right to be in Israel, it is that they have no right to violently displace their co-inhabitants. Nothing more, nothing less.

...This is no Bioko Island but a territory where ancient excavations of Jewish heritage and civilization have been going on for decades...

So rights to calling a place home are only available to those who buried something in the garden a few millenium ago? The old Palestinian farmer with his 1,000 year old olive tree needs to learn how to whistle Dixie?

...Like court buildings constructed by King David or Solomon...

Personnaly I prefer the works of LeCorbusier and Gaudi but, whatever turns your crank.

...Whether you like it or not, the Jewish race suffered exclusion and exile and this is something you need to look at in an ancient history Atlas where you'll find records of invasions by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hellenistic monarchs and Romans. We're talking ethnic cleansing here...

Aaah, finally we're getting somewhere! We don't want ethnic cleansing! We agree, at last! We want the collective peoples to live together without wiping each other out. There has been a fair bit of ethnic cleansing going on in Israel over the last 50+ years and we would rather like it to stop.

...This is why the Boney M song Rivers of Babylon...

I tend not to rely on 1-hit wonder bands in silver jump-suits as being the best source of real-world information (oops, 2-hits - Ra-Ra-Rasputin...).

...As for the Palestinians, as I stated before they are made up of a vast mixture of races that flowed into former Jewish land when the Jews had been ethnically cleansed...

And are, therefore, not entitled to rights as human beings?

...Modern Palestinians are predominantly moslems. Some are even ethnic Jews whose ancesters converted to Islam (by force) in bygone ages after Arab invasions. Others have Turkish, Iranian, Syrian or Greek blood in their veins. But what really distinguishes them from Jews is their culture and language and outlook...

More racial profiling from Carrera. Have you profiled me, yet, Carrera? What is my rightful place in the World?

...Moreover, it isn't true they are excluded on that basis. They are excluded because they presently hate Jews...

"They" looks like another bit of a generalisation.

...because Hamas has threatened to destroy Israel from within (see the video of that statement)...

So deal with Hamas and find a solution.

...Peaceful Palestinians are suffering exclusion due to Hamas on grounds of security, not race or religion. If they weren't bent on terrorism and intolerance, they would be allowed into Jerusalem without restrictions...

Again you paint all Palestinians with the same brush. You wouldn't have been happy if all British had been kicked out of Spain because some British are 'Football Hooligans'.

...Other religions have flourished and been tolerated in Jerusalem for centuries...

Including Islam.

...The difference is modern Moslem extremists seek the death and destruction of Jewish culture, religion and society and there is no other option but to impose security barriers...

If the problem is extremists, deal with the extremists (and don't forget to include the Zionist extremists when you do so). Don't punish the greater community for the actions of the few. When you do, you turn the greater community against you.