Kamat or Komit etc?
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
The vowels are arbitrarily chosen to ease pronunciation during speech. Everyone in Egyptology knows that /e/ is not the real vowel. It's just a convention because when we speak we don't simply speak with consonants.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
yes but is their any system to pick which vowel will be artificially added ?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Coptic
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
No. There is no way to reconstruct the vowels of say Middle Egyptian. The best you can do is to reconstruct the parent language, in addition to daughter languages of the parent, and insert the vowels for the common words that dominate in your comparative set. Coptic does not help us much because it is clear that it is an entirely different language (as the presence of diphthongs attests). Coptic lacks the noun-classes, which helped to shape the sound changes in Middle-Egyptian. So for now, /e/ is just fine when we're trying to vocalize for academic sake Egyptian words. If one is trying to recover vowels, it's impossible without the writings; so the best you can do is a historical comparative linguistic process, as well as some internal reconstructions to decide on original forms.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yes but is their any system to pick which vowel will be artificially added ?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So the written language does not include vowels
KMt
_
translators insert some "e"s and we get "Kemet"
Is that vowel choice of "e" entirely random?
could it have been
Kamat or Komit etc?
.
E usually stands in as a default, but not always. Coptic has been used as a suggestive vowel guide. Hebrew and Greek works with Egy names were considered too. Egy terms in Amharic texts sometimes help.
Whether right or wrong the above (and other methods) have in fact been used in transciptions by translators.
The Coptic equivalent spellings of KM.t are KAME, KEMI, KMME, and KHME.
Know that Coptic H is Ęta. KM.t, as a country name, is used and pronounced keh-may in Coptic. So the vowel choices in KM.t isn't the random/default E. They are Coptic H (Ęta) and E (Ei). Coptic has a e ę i o ô u and y vowels. Based on that, Kamat or Komit don't seem likely for KM.t. Also notice the t is silent and unused in the Coptic spelling KHME. There is KMOM in Coptic equivalent of AE kmm.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
thank you
Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: No. There is no way to reconstruct the vowels of say Middle Egyptian. The best you can do is to reconstruct the parent language, in addition to daughter languages of the parent, and insert the vowels for the common words that dominate in your comparative set. Coptic does not help us much because it is clear that it is an entirely different language (as the presence of diphthongs attests). Coptic lacks the noun-classes, which helped to shape the sound changes in Middle-Egyptian. So for now, /e/ is just fine when we're trying to vocalize for academic sake Egyptian words. If one is trying to recover vowels, it's impossible without the writings; so the best you can do is a historical comparative linguistic process, as well as some internal reconstructions to decide on original forms.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yes but is their any system to pick which vowel will be artificially added ?
When did Coptic diverge? Is a it a descendant of a Lower Egyptian language?
Is NTR and Note an example of instances when Coptic isn't used. I noticed that while Coptic and ME transliterations share plenty cognates they don't seem to be anything close to the same language.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
You can't date languages unless there is writing to back it up. With that said, one cannot say for sure when a language diverged from its parent. If you are asking when did Coptic diverge from, say, Middle-Egyptian, our argument is that Coptic and Middle Egyptian are two totally separate languages. They both diverged from the parent language, which I call "Cyena-Ntu" and who Mboli calls "Post-Classic Negro-Egyptian." (Negro-Egyptian being the label of Obenga 1993)
The word /nTr/ is a good example. Middle-Egyptian is an agglutinative language and it has a morphology similar to Bantu. The n- is a prefix of agent. The root is T-r. In most cognates for the term, there is no vowel between n- and T-r (although historically there probably was). The fact that Coptic has diphthongs (two vowels in sequence representing a single sound), shows its difference from Middle-Egyptian, which is a CVCV language. Coptic is CVVC and you see this in the form NOUTE. The cognate in ciLuba-Bantu is NKOLE. A matter of fact, the very word /Hr.w/ "Horus" is cognate with /nTr/, without the prefix of agent.
But in Nsw.t Bjt.j (King) in Ancient Egyptian (2016), I go into some of the details in the Introduction.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: When did Coptic diverge? Is a it a descendant of a Lower Egyptian language?
Is NTR and Note an example of instances when Coptic isn't used. I noticed that while Coptic and ME transliterations share plenty cognates they don't seem to be anything close to the same language.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So the written language does not include vowels
KMt
___________________
translators insert some "e"s and we get "Kemet"
Is that vowel choice of "e" entirely random?
could it have been
Kamat or Komit etc?
Vowels were NOT random since it is the vowels that distinguish one word from another even if the consonants were the same.
Thus kem was a different word from kom.
Based on modern Coptic but also ancient Egyptian transliterations of other languages there is an excellent primer on how to pronounce Egyptian words here: https://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I see it's complicated and speculative
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: No. There is no way to reconstruct the vowels of say Middle Egyptian. The best you can do is to reconstruct the parent language, in addition to daughter languages of the parent, and insert the vowels for the common words that dominate in your comparative set. Coptic does not help us much because it is clear that it is an entirely different language (as the presence of diphthongs attests). Coptic lacks the noun-classes, which helped to shape the sound changes in Middle-Egyptian. So for now, /e/ is just fine when we're trying to vocalize for academic sake Egyptian words. If one is trying to recover vowels, it's impossible without the writings; so the best you can do is a historical comparative linguistic process, as well as some internal reconstructions to decide on original forms.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yes but is their any system to pick which vowel will be artificially added ?
When did Coptic diverge? Is a it a descendant of a Lower Egyptian language?
Is NTR and Note an example of instances when Coptic isn't used. I noticed that while Coptic and ME transliterations share plenty cognates they don't seem to be anything close to the same language.
Egypt was a Pan-African state made up of numerous African ethnic groups, that is why each nome or sepat had its own gods. Bantu speakers may have formed one of the nomes, but they were not the dominate population.
Coptic and Middle Egyptian are not two different languages. Don't forget that we used Coptic to read Egyptian. I believe they should be recognized as dialects of the same language.
Anyway, ancient Egyptian was a lingua franca that is why it is cognate to so many different African languages. Naturally, as a new group took control of Egypt, ancient Egyptian would have adopted new terms to accomodate the new population that assumed control of the Egyptian State.
Most of the translators of Egyptian had to learn Arabic or Hebrew, so they may read Egyptian terms using Semitic "cognates".This would explain the "new terms" used to interpret some Egyptian hieroglyphs.
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I see it's complicated and speculative
There is a speculative aspect but fortunately we have modern Coptic which is a direct descendant of ancient Egyptian language.
In Afroasiatic languages, vowels tend to be the more stable and conservative than compared to other languages due to the change in meanings with different consonant roots.
That said, there may have been dialectal variation as seen in Semitic languages where certain vowels can be interchanged especially based on dialect. For example o and u and e and i.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
O & U aren't interchangeable in Hebrew O or U can be represented by the semivowel W in Hebrew
E & I aren't interchangeable in Hebrew The semivowel Y can represent E or I in Hebrew
Hebrew's nonconsonantal O U E I are diacritic markers
O hholam U qubbuss shuruq E sseyreh seghol I hhiyriq
These, and others, in use since ~750CE "Modern" Hebrew common writings don't use them
Unsure about O/U usage in JudeoArabic English xlated Arabic used to sub O for U & E for I Moslem Muslim
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I appreciate the info, but I wasn't referring to Hebrew but rather the various Arabic dialects or rather Arabic derived languages as well as South Semitic languages including Ethio-Semitic. The triliteral roots they share with Hebrew often use totally different vowels.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: O or U can be represented by the semivowel W in Hebrew
The semivowel Y can represent E or I in Hebrew
Hebrew's nonconsonantal O U E I are diacritic markers
Everything you say above is the same with Mdu Neter as well! Is this due to Egyptian influence in Hebrew OR some common Afrisian pattern??
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: O & U aren't interchangeable in Hebrew O or U can be represented by the semivowel W in Hebrew
E & I aren't interchangeable in Hebrew The semivowel Y can represent E or I in Hebrew
Hebrew's nonconsonantal O U E I are diacritic markers
O hholam U qubbuss shuruq E sseyreh seghol I hhiyriq
These, and others, in use since ~750CE "Modern" Hebrew common writings don't use them
Unsure about O/U usage in JudeoArabic English xlated Arabic used to sub O for U & E for I Moslem Muslim
& @Djehuti Arabic is pretty much similar. مسلم Which is Muslim in written form lacks any vowel or semivowel but the sounds for u/o can be denoted by و (w) and E/I by ي (y). In more nuanced scripture accents over some consonants and Alef أ are used to get specific vowel sounds.
But for consonant strings that lack vowels, the vowel sounds aren’t fixed they’re just used in translation to aid pronounciation. For instance كتب which is literally just “ktb” will be kutib, but كتاب (ktab) will be kitab. Because alef (a) is used between the last two consonants the stress causes a “U” sound to adopt a sound most similar to “I”. So there’s not necessarily any rule of interchangeability for voweless strings. However, certain consonants tends to be followed by a fixed vowel-like sound like for م (M) you’ll get a u/o sound. For example: إسلام which is basically “Islam” is pronounced Islamu.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Oh boy is this fun let's keep the ball rolling
Ein lo O sound, nor letter, in Arabic
Ethiopic and Amharic ain't gotta alphabet They got syllabaries Each consonant's got 7 syllabic forms
O & U can't interchange (sâbi' vs kâ'ib syllables)
E & I got different syllables (hâmis vs sâlis)
But the sĺdis syllable can support • a consonant only • a different I sound than sâlis • a different E sound than hâmis
In Hebrew
Aleph is a glottal stop w/no sound (think of the h in honor) All vowel sounds including shwa can follow aleph
Ngayin is a rough throaty breathing sound (it's the 1st consonant in Gomorrah) All vowel sounds can follow it too
Aleph, ngayin, and heh (H) frequently close a syllable You'd just hear the preceding vowel if aleph or heh close a syllable When ngayin closes a syllable you can hear it after the vowel sound (not the same but think of NG in song or thing or clang)
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Everything you say above is the same with Mdu Neter as well! Is this due to Egyptian influence in Hebrew OR some common Afrisian pattern??
Me no know
I just know knowing Hebrew made Egyptian hieroglyphic consonants easier to learn when I applied that knowledge to Budge(1910) Egy Lang pp31-2. Nevermind Gesenius(1833:1846:1949) Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon pp.xi-xii tables of 'alphabets'.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Translators decide on ancient Egyptian vowels by guessing. Good thing that Sewasew (Seshat), the woman who invented ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, was smarter than that.
Ancient written Greek did not reflect spoken ancient Greek, but reflected... 1. The imitation of ancient Egyptian written characters (consonants and vowels) 2. The use of the ancient Egyptian vocabulary
In the three graphics below, you can see a comparison of consonants and vowels in ancient written Greek and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic text, including... A. The use of written Greek letters imitating consonants and vowels of the hieroglyphs, in the underlying text of the 700 BC Hesiod Theogony (supposed genesis of the Greek gods) B. The use of consonants and vowels in the Egyptian writing style of the Yafo/Dead Sea region of Lower Egypt, where the ancient Egyptian "Jaffa" fortress is being excavated in the Yafo, Tel Aviv harbor, from the underlying text of the Bible's Genesis 1 - 4 (supposed genesis of the world)
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: Translators decide on ancient Egyptian vowels by guessing. Good thing that Sewasew (Seshat), the woman who invented ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, was smarter than that.
Thanks for posting this. I am researching the older civilizations and the elevated status of women before the age of imperialism. How Egypt changed from its early periods shows aspects of this transition to patriarchal social structure, increased class oppression, etc.
Even earlier writing than Egyptian is known from Old Europe, in which societies women were preeminent. Clearly Sumerian writing was affected by that script. There was trade with predynastic Egypt, but it is unknown if Vincan writing had an effect on the development of writing in Egypt.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: Translators decide on ancient Egyptian vowels by guessing. Good thing that Sewasew (Seshat), the woman who invented ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, was smarter than that.
Thanks for posting this. I am researching the older civilizations and the elevated status of women before the age of imperialism. How Egypt changed from its early periods shows aspects of this transition to patriarchal social structure, increased class oppression, etc.
Even earlier writing than Egyptian is known from Old Europe, in which societies women were preeminent. Clearly Sumerian writing was affected by that script. There was trade with predynastic Egypt, but it is unknown if Vincan writing had an effect on the development of writing in Egypt.
Interesting looking book! It seems to affirm the theory that I and many scholars have that writing was likely invented by women. This is shown in the earliest legends of the early major civilizations. The Egyptians attribute the invention of writing to the goddess Seshat, while the Sumerians attribute writing to the goddess Nisaba, and the Chinese to the goddess Nuwa, yet in all three cases later versions give credit to male deities.---Seshat's husband Djehuti, Nisaba's brother Ninurta, and Nuwa's brother/husband Fuxi.
The archaeological evidence comes in the form of ceramics and textiles especially pottery and tapestry markings which were traditionally women's work. In predynastic Egypt, the earliest hieroglyphs which were not rock epigraphs were in the form of pottery marks and in a tapestry in Nekhen. In the case of North Africa today, Berber glyphs which were the basis of the Tifinagh script are still preserved in pottery and clothing works of Berber women.
Seshat's symbol is the 7 pointed star glyph meaning 'instruction' surmounted on a stick crowned with a bow like object.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Oh boy is this fun let's keep the ball rolling
Ein lo O sound, nor letter, in Arabic
Ethiopic and Amharic ain't gotta alphabet They got syllabaries Each consonant's got 7 syllabic forms
O & U can't interchange (sâbi' vs kâ'ib syllables)
E & I got different syllables (hâmis vs sâlis)
But the sĺdis syllable can support • a consonant only • a different I sound than sâlis • a different E sound than hâmis
I stand corrected, and good to know. I noticed some South Semitic dialects tend to exchange o & u so I assumed that Ethio-Semitic did the same.
quote:In Hebrew
Aleph is a glottal stop w/no sound (think of the h in honor) All vowel sounds including shwa can follow aleph
Ngayin is a rough throaty breathing sound (it's the 1st consonant in Gomorrah) All vowel sounds can follow it too
Aleph, ngayin, and heh (H) frequently close a syllable You'd just hear the preceding vowel if aleph or heh close a syllable When ngayin closes a syllable you can hear it after the vowel sound (not the same but think of NG in song or thing or clang)
In Egyptian language the vowel u is represented by the following glyph:
The u becomes a w when another vowel is attached so u-a or ua can be pronounced wa, while u-e or ue is pronounced we as in 'wed'. Originally both u and o were represented by the same glyph indicating the probability that the two vowels were interchangeable though in later hieroglyphs the two became distinguished.
The letter i is represented by the following glyph:
Interestingly enough the letter y is represented by a doubling of the glyph for i as shown:
This seems to indicate a distinction in say 'iu' (ee-oo) vs. 'yu'.
And though not as common the vowel a is also expressed in the following glyph:
I notice the a is expressed when that vowel happens to be stressed. Speaking of which I also notice a grammar rule that is shared with Semitic in the form of vowel contractions.
For example an Egyptian word for much or great is 'aa' or a-a with consecutive As though this can be shortened to 'ah' with a glottal fricative h sound following the a as in the Egyptian name Ahmose or Arabic name Ahmed. The word ia (ee-a) can become 'yah'. Thus two syllable vowel words become one syllable words with fricative sound at the end.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
It is very simple. Learn Amharic and Tigrigna and all your questions are answered. If nothing else, use Amharic and Tigrigna online dictionaries. It is no longer necessary to guess.
is not a /u/ sound, but a /w/ and can be seen by the fact that in intervocalic position, it's allophone is /m/. For example, mnmn "to move about, to shift" > wnwn "to move to and fro; to traverse."
The sound-law is m > w /V__V. In other words, a process of lenition occurs when /m/ is inbetween two vowels. Thus, we know the original word was VmVn-VmVn > VwVn-VwVn, where V is any (V)owel. This is one clue to know why M-E is different from Coptic.
Secondly, is not a vowel, it is a consonant. It is the nasalized uvular trill [ʀ], which explains its interchange with both [r] and [n]. You need to learn the transliteration system of Egyptology as we transliterate [ʀ] as <A>. The <a> (lowercase) grapheme is a totally different sound.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Asar, what is your opinion of Amharic and Tigrigna relation or lack of to Egyptian?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Interestingly enough the letter y is represented by a doubling of the glyph for i ... :
This seems to indicate a distinction in say 'iu' (ee-oo) vs. 'yu'.
And though not as common the vowel a is also expressed ... :
I notice the a is expressed when that vowel happens to be stressed. Speaking of which I also notice a grammar rule that is shared with Semitic in the form of vowel contractions.
For example an Egyptian word for much or great is 'aa' or a-a with consecutive As though this can be shortened to 'ah' with a glottal fricative h sound following the a as in the Egyptian name Ahmose or Arabic name Ahmed.
The word ia (ee-a) can become 'yah'.
Thus two syllable vowel words become one syllable words with fricative sound at the end.
.
Keen insight.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Asar, what is your opinion of Amharic and Tigrigna relation or lack of to Egyptian?
They are not related. For example, Middle-Egyptian is 1) monosyllabic (i.e., CV, CVC), for which Amharic or Tigrigna is not. 2) different morphology. 3) Word formation forms are vastly different. He confuses many loanwords into Semitic as genuine cognates and has yet to establish regular sound-meaning correspondences (or even the laws that govern sound change). All over the place with his alleged correspondences.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Asar or Ancient Gebs
I know Ancient Gebs is probably going to respond but I hope one of you before getting into details will provide for us some of the foundations of proper methodology in Comparative Linguistics first, like an introduction that would establish how what is related and what is not related is properly determined
Or maybe a new thread on Comparative Linguistics instead of us going on for years arguing details maybe their could first be agreement on the rules ? It could simply be a copy and paste of some text as to steps taken
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Comparative Linguistics in the scientific sense is really Asar's expertise.
But as for my method of retranslation (for example, see my Hesiod Theogony/Genesis comparison above), here is a description of my method of retranslating the underlying text of the Bible, as analyzed and written from a Harvard-trained Biblical Hebrew expert:
Process Introduction Interpreting the individual written characters and resulting matches to the hieroglyphic language, and thus Amarigna and Tigrigna words – pronunciation and meanings – can be difficult, if not entirely confusing. The degree of difficulty involves many elements:
A. One would need to know the correct way to read hieroglyphs and understand the complex linguistic elements they employ;
B. One would have to know or have a source of Amarigna and Tigrigna words (of which the hieroglyphic language is a precise combination of the vocabulary of the two);
C. One would need to know or have a source of Hebrew words;
D. Finally, all of that needs to be reverse-engineered, to dig through the layers like an archaeologist, to uncover the mystery below in the underlying word and its message.
In doing so, there are many roadblocks to get around. In some cases, for example, some letters that look similar can be confused. For instance, the ancient form of Hebrew qof ( ק') and waw (ו) look similar, but most often represent the [Q], [K] or related pronunciations. So in some cases, it can be easy to mistake one letter for the other because of their similarity.
Also, the meanings of words can subtly be changed based on such seemingly inconsequential features such as vowel changes or the addition of prefixes and/or suffixes.
As an example, metse means “to come” whereas adding the a- prefix makes the word ametse, or “bring something.”
Or another example is where the noun ekhli is “grain,” it would be a mistake to try to add a verb m- verb prefix to the noun in attempt to match it as “eat,” although mekal does mean “middle” but that does not imply in the “middle” of the mouth as in “eat.”
Only through the proper matching of the written related pronunciation of a word to its related Hebrew meaning is it possible to uncover each word’s mystery.
Process for Ancient Hebrew Text According to only a few of the many pitfalls referenced above, it is important first to be able to see the ancient shapes of the letters in terms of their relation to their Egyptian hieroglyphic match. This first step has been made easy due to the conversion of Modern Hebrew text to Proto-Sinaitic glyphs accomplished by Jeff Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Resource Center (www.ancient-hebrew.org).
And while hieroglyphic text can be written both right-to-left and left-to-right, referenced hieroglyphic words (such as those by Wallis Budge in “An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary,” “The Rosetta Stone,” and The Book of the Dead” published by Dover Publications) are all shown as left-to-right. This is also the same direction that Amarigna, Tigrigna and English words are written and read. Because of this, and to facilitate the word matching with all words in the same direction, Jeff Benner’s Proto-Sinaitic text was reversed using several computer programs.
Then, referencing mechanical translations (also called a Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear or CHES for short), each word is divided and a basic accepted meaning for the hosted Hebrew word. One such mechanical translation is on the Scripture4All.org website (www.scripture4all.org).
It is important to note that all matching resources are “accepted” sources, meaning that each “source” is a reliable provider of matching elements. Every effort is made to verify the veracity and reliableness of each element's source. This means that:
Amarigna (Amharic) words are matched to a reliable online Amarigna dictionary (www.amharicdictionary.com);
Tigrigna (Tigrinya) words are match to a reliable online Tigrigna dictionary (http://memhr.org/dic/index.php?a=index& ... D%E1%8A%9B);
Hebrew words are matched to a reliable online Hebrew translator (www.morfix.co.il/en).
With the underlying hieroglyphic word and the hosted Hebrew word in hand, it is then necessary to match it to its actual Amarigna and/or Tigrigna word. The field is first limited by the word’s form, as follows:
1. Each glyph of the underlying hieroglyphic word is placed upon the grid of the phonemic pattern of Amarigna and Tigrigna words, based on standard phonemic principles of common place or manner of articulation;
2. A search is then carried out for every possible pronunciation sound combination that matches that which is written out in glyphs, taking also into consideration the context of the word in the sentence;
3. Having narrowed the field by form, the field is then further narrowed by meaning, the meaning in the Amarigna and/or Tigrigna must have been related in some way to the Hebrew word hosted by the underlying word ;
4. Since the hieroglyph language records Amarigna and Tigrigna vocabulary and grammar, it is necessary to find the word as it was spelled in ancient hieroglyphs as well using Budge’s "An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary."
The above process provides a clear path of development of the each actual underlying word and its meaning. Once this word-by-word analysis is complete for a given sentence, it is then a matter of analyzing the sentence to come up with a translation that makes sense, because each completed sentence aids with subsequent sentences.
Free digital copies of my books related to the above: My Rosetta Stone retranslation link
My Genesis 3-4 retranslation link link Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: [QB] Comparative Linguistics in the scientific sense is really Asar's expertise.
But as for my method of retranslation (for example, see my Hesiod Theogony/Genesis comparison above), here is a description of my method of retranslating the underlying text of the Bible, as analyzed and written from a Harvard-trained Biblical Hebrew expert
Thanks for posting that, what is the name of the Harvard-trained Biblical Hebrew expert, thanks
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Thanks for posting that, what is the name of the Harvard-trained Biblical Hebrew expert, thanks
Of the many people around the world who work with me and who have the desire to contribute to my work in a general sense, some are afraid of having their names out there in the public in connection with my work unraveling the underlying texts of religious books such as the Bible and the Rig Veda (which are not actually about religion at all -- see the above retranslation of the Hesiod Theogony/Genesis comparison).
He is one of the ones contributing, yet who has decided to have me keep his name private.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
What's more important is how the resulting retranslations of ancient texts can match archaeology, such as the underlying text of
The 700BC Hesiod Theogony (supposedly ancient Greek Zeus religion)
The 600BC Rig Veda (supposedly Buddhism religion)
The Bible (supposedly ancient Middle East religion)
The underlying texts of these three documents in reality match the archaeology of the Yafo/Dead Sea region of ancient Egypt, as is reported in UCLA Professor Aaron Burke's paper on the excavation of the Bronze age ancient Egyptian fortress in the Yafo, Tel Aviv harbor (link).
This fortress is mentioned throughout the underlying texts of the three fake religions (see the above retranslation of the Hesiod Theogony/Genesis comparison).
This is a primary benefit of translating ancient texts with a real language.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: What's more important is how the resulting retranslations of ancient texts can match archaeology, such as the underlying text of
The 700BC Hesiod Theogony (supposedly ancient Greek Zeus religion)
The 600BC Rig Veda (supposedly Buddhism religion)
The Bible (supposedly ancient Middle East religion)
The underlying texts of these three documents in reality match the archaeology of the Yafo/Dead Sea region of ancient Egypt, as is reported in UCLA Professor Aaron Burke's paper on the excavation of the Bronze age ancient Egyptian fortress in the Yafo, Tel Aviv harbor (link).
This fortress is mentioned throughout the underlying texts of the three fake religions (see the above retranslation of the Hesiod Theogony/Genesis comparison).
what are some examples of real religions?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what are some examples of real religions?
AFRICAN TRADITIONAL RELIGION From the Nigerian book, "Essential Topics In African Traditional Religion," by Dr. M. Y. Nabofa, B.A., Ph. D. Ibadan, and lecturer in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria...
Religion is found in every human society in the world. In all the established human societies it is one of the most important institutional structures that make up the total social system... Because religion is concerned with the divine its institutions have been the most viable forms of human association.
Religion concerns itself with the most sublime of human aspirations; it is regarded as the source of morality and public order and the inner peace of the individual persons. It is also regarded as a civilizing element... However, it is capable of changing or revolutionizing an already established system...
In the West African context religion is regarded as one of the cohesive factors in the society. Its major aim is to bring peace and harmony among men. No traditional society in Africa can do away with [its] religion because it permeates all the activities of life
...God is the Source or Ground of all existence, power and harmonious living among men. Peace, prosperity and harmony can only come through pious life and religious rites...
...in traditional Africa there was no religious conflict, it was the [Western Europeans] who introduced conflict into religion but not religion that introduced conflicts into men. Religion per se which is always pure always seeks to unite men rather than divide them.
Before... missionary activities[beginning in Africa as early as the 1500s], African religion [lived] as an absolute truth and undisputed belief... The church taught the Africans that their religion was a false one without convincing them of the truth of Christianity. The missionaries failed to understand that African traditional religion reaches far beyond the rational and intellectual sphere... They failed to understand also that the traditional African religion is a life to be lived rather than obeying dogmatic laws which are in themselves burdens. As Idowu succinctly put it "Where a religion becomes cramped with the framework of dogma and thus becomes a law to be obeyed and not a life to be lived, such religion has become an aberration, it ceases, in fact, to be religion, and thus has become a mere system, a yoke upon the neck'
...When individuals accept religious values and the beliefs about human nature and destiny associated with them, they develop important aspects of their own an self-understanding self-definition. Secondly, as they participate in religious and worship, they act out significant elements of their own identity. In these various ways religion affects the individuals' understanding of 'who they are' and 'what they are'... religion gives the individual a sense of identity with the distant past and the limitless future.
... The Various rites of passage of life: birth, naming ceremonies, puberty, circumcision, initiation, marriage and burial rites in Africa have religious significance. They all help to integrate man fully into the society to which he belongs.
In concluding this theoretical section we may say that religion integrates or links the individual with his group, supports him in uncertainty, consoles him in disappointment, attaches him to society's goals, promotes his morale and thus makes him feel that he is truly a human being. It helps to enforce the unity and stability of the society. It may also play a prophetic role and prove itself a disturbing or even subversive influence in any particular society. The contribution of religion to society may be either positive or negative; they may support the continued existence, or may play a part in undermining the continued existence...
(i) The following are the elements that makeup the structure of West African Traditional Religion. (a) There is a strong belief in the Supreme Being who is "Wholly Other' than otheres. He is not of the same rank and file with the other objects of worship. (b) Belief in the Divinities who are regarded as God's ministers and intermediaries between God and man. (c) Belief in spirits. There are good ones and bad ones... (d) Belief in ancestors and relationship with the Supreme Being. (e) There is also the belief in the practice of magic and medicine.
(ii) (a) All the above are interrelated, because it is the strong belief that the world is under the unitary control of the Supreme Being. (b) The structure links man with the Supreme Being. The divinities are God's immediate representatives. They are near or close to man and they are functional, and as such they could be approached directly by man. (c) the spirits manifest the whole spiritual universe. It is the general belief that all the divinities and even the [African people's actual] Ancestors are all spirits. Sometimes they act between men and the Supreme Being. (d) The ancestors are personal Beings with intimate relationship to man. They are therefore intercessors between the living and the dead, and the Supreme being and all the divinities. (e) Magic and medicine help to align man with the Deity. They are man's means of utilizing the forces of the Universe for his well-being. Magicians and [traditional doctors] rely upon God, divinities, spirits and ancestors for their successful functioning. (f) All the elements in the structure emphasize the Supreme Being's sovereign rule over the whole universe and man. Without Him other elements in the structure have no life, meaning and successful operation."
1. Belief in God "We can speak of a multi-sided concept of God in Africa. That is because in each locality, the concept of God usually takes its emphasis and complexion from the sociological structure and climate. It is therefore necessary to understand the variations in the sociological patterns in order to see clearly the reasons for certain emphasis and tendencies. In societies which are well organised into a hierarchical order [for example] the Yoruba, Edo and Ashanti God is concieved as the king at the top of the hierchy, while in stateless, or less organised societies such as the Igbo and Urhobo God is not so regarded. Also whereas in most places in Africa, God is concieved in masculine terms, there are localities where he is regarded as feminine. Among the Ijo and some Ewe speaking people Tamuno and Mawu, or in particular Nana Buluku - ancient Deity respectively God is thought of in feminine terms. In societies in which the woman is the breadwinner for the family and also in societies where women do a lot of moulding Deity is conceived as a female. e.g the Ijo.
While the local variations in the African concept of God should be appreciated and given due recognition, and in spite of variations, and unmistakable basic pattern stands out. These features are the ones which Idowu examines under four main comprehensive attributes.
GOD IS REAL TO THE AFRICANS In each society, the people have a local name for God and theses various names of God clearly show His character and emphatic of the fact that he is a reality and that he is not an abstract concept or Being. These names also convey the purest expression of the Africans' religious thinking and religious experience. The various African names of God result from the total experience of the people about Deity.
...African names of Deity... reveal to us that they are not mere labels, but they are descriptive of His nature and the experience of Africans about him and their belief in him. ...Apart from names, Africa is very rich in attributes of God which show clearly that to them Deity is the Living One who is the ever-present, ever-active, and ever-acting reality in the world.
(b) GOD IS UNIQUE To the Africans God is unique; he cannot be compared with any being. There is none like him... The [uniqeness] of Deity is one of the reasons why there are no images - graven or in drawing or in painting of Him in Africa. We have symbols of his attributes but not of his images.
(c) GOD IS THE ABSOLUTE CONTROLLER OF THE UNIVERSE The Africans believe that God is the absolute controller of the Universe...
(d) GOD IS ONE, THE ONLY GOD OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE The Africans have no belief in a world created by many Gods but One. Hence all over Africa, there are places each of which is considered to be the sacred city, the sacred grove, or the sacred spot, especially because it is believed, according to the people's cosmology, that the place is the centre of the world, the place where creation began, where the human race has its cradle, and from where the race dispersed to all over the earth.
(e) HE IS THE CREATOR In this respect we are going to give a careful and critical account of Yoruba myth of creation as told by E.B. Idowu in his book Olodumare God In Yoruba Belief pages 18 - 28; and 39 - 40.
2. Belief in the Divinities: The other element in the structure of [African traditional religion] is the belief in divinities. Divinities are believed to be being or powers brought into being by Deity and they have no absolute existence of their own...
What is their relationship to God and what is their place in the... world.
(i) They were brought into being by God and they are generally regarded as sons and daughters of God. (ii) They have no absolute existence apart from God. Their powers and authorities are meaningless apart from deity. (iii) Each divinity has his own local name in the local language, which is descriptive either of his allotted functions... (iv) They are ministers in [God's] government (v) They are regarded as intermediaries between Deity and men. They are conventional channels through which man believes that he should normally approach Deity. They are only a half-way house which is not meant to be the permanent rest for man's soul. Thus technically, the divinities are only a means to an end and not ends in themselves. although the Africans pray... to the divinities, they believe that the ultimate approval belongs to the supreme Being.
3. Belief in Spirits These are apparitional entities which form separate category of beings from those described as divinities and ancestors - which could be described as "domesticated' spirits. These spirits are ubiquitous, dangerous and harmless.
Spirits are of various categories: to wit ghosts... i.e., born-to-die children. The traditional explanation is that there is a company of spirits whose members are under an agreement to take in turn this errand of mischief. Before those who are thus assigned leave the group temporarily, they enter into a pact that they will return, i.e., die at certain named dates and times. Protection is usually sought against this category of spirits especially when women are pregnant. It is believed that a child who is an incarnation of one of such spirits may be detected through divination and steps by medicine or magic, often combined with maltreatment to prevent it from going back.
We also have the spirits of witches. The witch with her pervertedly strong will-power always operates psychologically and psychically to cause, first psychial and then physical disasters to men.
We also have guardian -spirits or man's double. This is known as Ehi, Ezi and Erhi among the Edo Beni, Isoko and Urhobo respectively, it is known as Chi among the Igbo and Ori or Enikeji among the Yoruba. Spirits ar believed to posses man and put him under a state of ecstasy.
4. Belief in Ancestors This springs from the idea that death does not mean the end of human life among the Africans. Thus there is the general belief that communion and communication are possible between the living and the dead.
According to the African belief the deceased are truly members of the family on earth; but they are no longer of the same fleshly order as those who are still actually living in the flesh on earth. They are closely related to this world; but are no longer ordinary mortals. They have become spirits and are therefore not restricted by time and space.
They are factors of cohesion in African society. They can protect and punish evil doers. They are guardians of morality.
It is not every person that dies [that] becomes an ancestor. Only good people become ancestors after they have received the "Well-done' judgement of Deity...
Generally, it is only those who have offspring and become old before their departure and properly buried who become ancestors.
5. The Practice of Magic and Medicine This a general practice all over Africa in order to meet up with the most immediate needs of man. Man believes that there is a power "Wholly Other' than himself. In order to make use of this force man resorts to the practice of magic and medicine. Magic is an attempt on the part of man to tap and control the supernatural resources of the universe for his own benefits. While the motto of Religion is "Let thy will be done' that of magic is "Mine will be done'...
ANCESTORS i. (a) The ancestors are regarded as or believed to be the past heroes of a community.
(b) They are believed to be still present in life and are the guardians of the family property, traditions, and customs. They are the the custodians of the tribal laws and morality. They are the unseen presidents of the family meetings, and they are believed to be still in communion with the living and the intercessors between the living and the Supreme Being. They are not affected by space and time, therefore they could operate easily as they like. Because space and time are no barriers to them they can easily contact or deal with anyone who is even in distant places at any time.
(c) They can punish the living and inflict disasters on them. Therefore they must be given befitting burials to avert evil and their anger...
ii. (a) They are given significant [recognition] in rituals (... marriage, birth, festivals, naming ceremonies, etc.)...
iii. Yet the Africans do not take place their ancestors on the same level with the Supreme Being and the divinities. However, some ancestors have been deified and thus have become Divinities, and so passed on into the Pantheon... The Divinities are not so closely related to the world.
The Ancestors are the spiritual superintendents of the family of which they remain members. This idea is based on the strong belief that death is not the end to life, they can reincarnate in new born children...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
[*]The 700BC Hesiod Theogony (supposedly ancient Greek Zeus religion) [*]The 600BC Rig Veda (supposedly Buddhism religion) [*]The Bible (supposedly ancient Middle East religion)....
the three fake religions (see the above retranslation of the Hesiod Theogony/Genesis comparison).
what do you mean by "fake"
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
AFRICAN TRADITIONAL RELIGION From the Nigerian book, "Essential Topics In African Traditional Religion," by Dr. M. Y. Nabofa, B.A., Ph. D. Ibadan, and lecturer in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria...
Before... missionary activities[beginning in Africa as early as the 1500s], African religion [lived] as an absolute truth and undisputed belief... The church taught the Africans that their religion was a false one without convincing them of the truth of Christianity. [/QUOTE]
I read that Dr. M. Y. Nabofa was a devout "Christian of the Anglican Communion" It doesn't seem like he would be saying the Bible is fake
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: I read that Dr. M. Y. Nabofa was a devout "Christian of the Anglican Communion" It doesn't seem like he would be saying the Bible is fake
He wrote that it was the church that claimed African religion was a fake one "without convincing them of the truth of Christianity."
The points he made in criticism of what he understood about Bible religion were...
1. "Before... missionary activities[beginning in Africa as early as the 1500s], African religion [lived] as an absolute truth and undisputed belief... "
2. "The church taught the Africans that their religion was a false one without convincing them of the truth of Christianity"
3. "The missionaries failed to understand that African traditional religion reaches far beyond the rational and intellectual sphere..."
4. "They failed to understand also that the traditional African religion is a life to be lived rather than obeying dogmatic laws which are in themselves burdens."
"As Idowu succinctly put it 'Where a religion becomes cramped with the framework of dogma and thus becomes a law to be obeyed and not a life to be lived, such religion has become an aberration, it ceases, in fact, to be religion, and thus has become a mere system, a yoke upon the neck'"
Therefore, it is Christianity Dr. Nabofa is saying is an "aberration" and "a mere system" by quoting Idowu.
What people do not understand about continental Africans who practice Bible religions, is that they do it on a part time basis. Their Ancestors still form the foundation of their daily life and spirituality, before and after church and the synagogue on Sunday.
Africans in general have never given up the belief in their Ancestors.
What claiming Bible religion does do for Africans is allow them to do business with the West. Because the West wants to do business with Christians, just as Arabs want to do business with Muslims.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
How the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony, of Buddhism's Rig Veda and of the Bible were intentionally mistranslated into three distinct fake religions by the ancient Greeks...
Comparative Linguistics in the scientific sense is really Asar's expertise.
Shouldn't comparative linguistics in the scientific sense show if there are strong connections or not between Amharic or Tigrigna and ancient Egyptian language?
He says that Egyptian has a connection to Bantu language. That is what Obenga said. Assuming that is correct and can be shown by comparative linguistics when why can't Amharic or Tigrigna?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: He says that Egyptian has a connection to Bantu language.
I am not competing with anybody. Whatever he claims are his claims. My claims are my own.
I hire and work together with linguists. I don't claim to be one.
My work is based on retranslations... actual work. Application of my theory on ancient texts, which to date has included retranslations of...
Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics
Ancient written Greek
Ancient Hebrew
Ancient written Latin
Ancient written Aramaic
Cuneiform
Ancient written Sanskrit
and more
I am retranslating ancient texts from across the ancient world. I am not stuck on a single ancient text. I don't simply publish lists of words.
As Egyptologists in the HallOfMaat.com forum told me after the publication of my first book, of nearly 700 individual word matches, "Words mean nothing. Show the words in sentences." Now I see what they were saying.
I take a very practical approach to my research, which must result in the actual application of my theory. Sometimes I am retranslating entire ancient texts, applying my method. I am not all talk.
As an example, I retranslated the entire hieroglyphic portion of the Rosetta Stone, applying my method to it. Who else has done this?
I also applied my method to the entire underlying text of Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Genesis 3 and Genesis 4.
Likewise, I applied my method to the entire text of section 1 of the Papyrus of Ani.
I don't need to go on. Nobody else has done this, yet everybody opens their mouth to me, without showing me which of my published words are incorrect. I have likely published thousands of word matches in sentences from across the ancient world, so doing so to every word I have published will obviously take a lot of time. I've published 23 books now.
I find that a lot of concentration on ancient Egypt is merely cosmetic. In saying that, I mean focusing on aspects of the culture that are either obvious or on the other hand not in the realm of reality. And another percentage is people arguing for the sake of arguing.
I don't like politics and so I don't engage in it when it comes to my work, I will not spend time in frivolous discussions online, for example, that have no end point, other than someone trying to force me to agree with their biased point of view.
There are so much more important matters related to ancient texts, than focusing on otherwise meaningless and argumentative issues.
I began identifying the living ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic language. From there I went to either prove or disprove my theory by retranslating the Greek 196BC Rosetta Stone and seeing what language the ancient Greeks translated their message into.
Next, I set my sights on showing that 50,000 years ago people left Africa with language. As a result, I devoted 8 books to show a basic set of 100 Amarigna and Tigrigna words exists in English, Spanish, German, Russian, Hindi, Hebrew, Japanese and Chinese language.
I continued publishing in cooperation with publishers, including Dover Publications (NY) and Doug Harper and his Online Etymology Dictionary (www.etymonline.com). I reached out to Social Studies School Service (www.socialstudies.com), whose editor, Will Slattery, suggested and guided me in publishing books that readers as young as middle schoolers could read, which resulted in the 3-book series, "The Ethiopian Culture of Ancient Egypt."
From there I published in cooperation with Jeff Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Resource Center (www.ancient-hebrew.org), to retranslate and publish retranslations of the underlying text of Genesis and Exodus.
After that, I began working with a historian in Hungary with several PhDs to retranslate the underlying text of ancient Greek texts, to prove or disprove my theory that ancient Greek writing does not represent native spoken ancient Greek, but instead is merely the Greek form of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, including the written characters and vocabulary. The results so far is the retranslation of portions of the underlying text of the 700BC Hesiod Theogony and retranslations of portions of the 600BC Rig Veda of Buddhism.
And I'm not finished yet. But who has worked in cooperation with so many publishers and published so many retranslations of complete and partial ancient texts?
The best way to test a method is by applying the theory to actual retranslations of ancient texts. My primary profession is as a business consultant, specializing in new product development, marketing and research. We call this "proof of concept"...
quote:Proof of concept (PoC) is a realization of a certain method or idea in order to demonstrate its feasibility, or a demonstration in principle with the aim of verifying that some concept or theory has practical potential. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_concept
Now I am also working with an Ethiopian village girl who has received her PhD from a UK university in food stability. We are showing that 5100 years ago is not ancient culture, but is instead recorded women's African farming culture from up to 4.4 million years ago, simply first recorded 5100 years ago and continued in women's African village farming culture today.
Being stuck on single words, relatively unimportant concepts, or limited ancient written languages is not in my interest.
I have a limited time on Earth and I must retranslate as many ancient texts as possible.
Tunnel vision does me no good.
There is too much exciting knowledge waiting to be gained, understood and discovered than to waste my time just talking.
Anyone who wants to be serious with me must retranslate ancient texts, at least the ones I have, and show the world how their method and identified living language is more compatible with ancient texts than the living language I have identified.
Not just lists of words, but entire ancient texts, word-by-word.
Talk is cheap.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: @ Djhuti
is not a /u/ sound, but a /w/ and can be seen by the fact that in intervocalic position, it's allophone is /m/. For example, mnmn "to move about, to shift" > wnwn "to move to and fro; to traverse."
From what I understand the w sound is made when u is attached to another vowel, but what is the connection to the consonant m?
quote:The sound-law is m > w /V__V. In other words, a process of lenition occurs when /m/ is inbetween two vowels. Thus, we know the original word was VmVn-VmVn > VwVn-VwVn, where V is any (V)owel. This is one clue to know why M-E is different from Coptic.
Yes v is phonetically close to w as is shown in sound shifts in Indo-European languages, but I am still confused as to where the m comes in.
quote:Secondly, is not a vowel, it is a consonant. It is the nasalized uvular trill [ʀ], which explains its interchange with both [r] and [n]. You need to learn the transliteration system of Egyptology as we transliterate [ʀ] as <A>. The <a> (lowercase) grapheme is a totally different sound.
Where did you get this?
r is represented by this:
and n is represented by this: Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Asar, what is your opinion of Amharic and Tigrigna relation or lack of to Egyptian?
They are not related. For example, Middle-Egyptian is 1) monosyllabic (i.e., CV, CVC), for which Amharic or Tigrigna is not. 2) different morphology. 3) Word formation forms are vastly different. He confuses many loanwords into Semitic as genuine cognates and has yet to establish regular sound-meaning correspondences (or even the laws that govern sound change). All over the place with his alleged correspondences.
Egyptian language in general even going back to Old Egyptian is monosyllabic based. Words can be built on single syllables. Semitic is triliteral based meaning that the majority of words are based on three consonants roots with each root being conjugated into varieties depending on the vowels attached to the consonants. Amharic and Tigrinya are Semitic languages.
I am curious about the To-Bedawi language of the Beja which many linguists say is close to Egyptian next to Coptic.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: What's more important is how the resulting retranslations of ancient texts can match archaeology, such as the underlying text of
The 700BC Hesiod Theogony (supposedly ancient Greek Zeus religion)
The 600BC Rig Veda (supposedly Buddhism religion)
The Bible (supposedly ancient Middle East religion)
The underlying texts of these three documents in reality match the archaeology of the Yafo/Dead Sea region of ancient Egypt, as is reported in UCLA Professor Aaron Burke's paper on the excavation of the Bronze age ancient Egyptian fortress in the Yafo, Tel Aviv harbor (link).
This fortress is mentioned throughout the underlying texts of the three fake religions (see the above retranslation of the Hesiod Theogony/Genesis comparison).
This is a primary benefit of translating ancient texts with a real language.
Hesiod's Theogony is one of the sacred hymns attributed to the sacred poet Hesiod and represents only one variety or sect of ancient Greek belief. There were others like the Homeric Hymns or sect and the Orphic Hymns and sect etc. What do any have to do with Egypt?
The Rig Veda is the oldest of the 4 Vedas which are the basis of the Hindu religion, and though Buddhism is based on Hinduism, they do not follow the Vedas at all but rather their own independent texts. Again what do the Vedas have to do with Egypt?
The Bible is a book based on tribal traditions of the Israelites a Levantine people though with connections to Mesopotamia their alleged origins as well as significant influence from Egypt their alleged dwelling for a time.
Other than the Bible what do the other texts have to do with Egyptian language?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Other than the Bible what do the other texts have to do with Egyptian language?
The underlying text of all three have been misinterpreted into their current translations and the underlying text of all three have the same source.
The source of all three is the history of the ancient Egyptian Dead Sea region farms (see my comparison above of the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony and the Bible).
First, in order to understand my viewpoint, it is necessary to believe that ancient texts can be mistranslated by scholars.
If one cannot believe scholars are able to mistranslate ancient texts, either innocently or intentionally, then it is impossible to understand my point.
Second, it is necessary to read ancient written Greek, ancient written Sanskrit and the ancient written Dead Sea region script as simply hieroglyphs.
Third, it is necessary to match each word of the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony, the Rig Veda, and the Bible to the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic language (Amarigna and Tigrigna).
If you are able to do all this, it is possible to then see that none of the three are about religion.
Added to that, it is necessary to read UCLA Professor Aaron Burke's papers on "Jaffa" (the Arab pronunciation of "Yafo" that is today's Yafo, Tel Aviv, Israel). There are many important points he makes, as the lead archaeologist of the Yafo ancient Egyptian Bronze age fortress and the region, which had been part of Lower Egypt and therefore ancient Egyptian Bronze age farms...
A. The fortress is an ancient Egyptian fortress B. The granaries (grain storage facilities) are "pharaonic granaries" C. Details involving the jars, especially the "flowerpots" In direct response to your question, though, what do they have to do with Egypt?
The underlying text of all three are about ancient Egypt, not the religions they purport to be about or related to. Therefore...
1. The underlying text of the 700BC Hesiod Theogony is not about religion (not poems) --- the underlying text is the history of the ancient Egyptian Dead Sea region farms
2. The underlying text of the 600BC Rig Veda is not about religion (not poems) --- the underlying text is the history of the ancient Egyptian Dead Sea region farms
3. The underlying text of the Bible is not about religion (not verses) --- the underlying text is the history of the ancient Egyptian Dead Sea region farms
Again, to understand my point, without necessarily agreeing with me, you first have to examine each word as I retranslate them in the comparison I posted above between the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony and the Bible.
Let me give you an example. We will compare a word that is properly translated in the Hesiod Theogony.
καί This word in ancient Greek writing is the Tigrigna word ከኣ/kea which means "and"...
A. It is written as in hieroglyphs in the Rosetta Stone as ከኣ/kea/"and"
B. It is written as καί in the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony as ከኣ/kea/"and"
C. It is written as य॒ in the underlying text of the Rig Veda as ከኣ/kea/"and"
D. It is written as וי in the underlying text of the Bible as ከኣ/kea/"and"
If you can see this example in a simple word as kea, which is properly translated in all three, then we can examine more complex words and see each of the words that are mistranslations in all three ancient texts.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
I don't get the confusion. "V" in this instance is not the phoneme [v], but stands for VOWEL.
The phoneme [w] is an allophone of [m], which is common in African languages. For example:
The ciLuba example informs us that Middle-Egyptian mw.t "mother" is not pronounced "mut", but closer to ciLuba maawu.ci > ci.maawu. The [m] in ci.maamu in the second consonant position weakens due to its location between two vowels. Thus why in ciLuba you have both forms ci.maawu and ci.maamu "mother." This is just an example and you can find dozens of such in Egyptian.
And as far as the graphem <A> being a trill, this is the standard interpretation based on internal and external comparative data. If you have Loprieno's ancient egyptian a linguistic introduction, he discusses it there. I go with Mboli's argument that it is a nasalived uvular trill because of the internal interchange of <A> with /n/ and /r/ in Egyptian. You are going to have to sit down and study the language and the up-to-date material on it.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: @ Djhuti
is not a /u/ sound, but a /w/ and can be seen by the fact that in intervocalic position, it's allophone is /m/. For example, mnmn "to move about, to shift" > wnwn "to move to and fro; to traverse."
From what I understand the w sound is made when u is attached to another vowel, but what is the connection to the consonant m?
quote:The sound-law is m > w /V__V. In other words, a process of lenition occurs when /m/ is inbetween two vowels. Thus, we know the original word was VmVn-VmVn > VwVn-VwVn, where V is any (V)owel. This is one clue to know why M-E is different from Coptic.
Yes v is phonetically close to w as is shown in sound shifts in Indo-European languages, but I am still confused as to where the m comes in.
quote:Secondly, is not a vowel, it is a consonant. It is the nasalized uvular trill [ʀ], which explains its interchange with both [r] and [n]. You need to learn the transliteration system of Egyptology as we transliterate [ʀ] as <A>. The <a> (lowercase) grapheme is a totally different sound.
Where did you get this?
r is represented by this:
and n is represented by this:
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
In terms of vowels, we can compare the use of them in written form with the word "and" pronounced as kea (ke-a)...
1. In Ethiopian "fidel" characters ከኣ = K+A = 1 written consonant + 1 written vowel Memhr.org
3. In Greek characters καί = KE+A = 1 written consonant + 2 written vowels Translate.Google.com
4. In Sanskrit characters च = K = 1 written consonant + 0 written vowels SpokenSanskrit.org
5. In Hebrew characters ו = K = 1 written consonant + 0 written vowels וי = K+A = 1 consonant + 1 vowel Morfix.com.il
6. In Latin characters que = KE+A = 1 written consonant + 2 written vowels Translate.Google.com
7. In Aramaic/Syriac characters ܐ = K = 1 written consonant + 0 written vowels ܐܵ ܦ = ܐܵܦ = K+W = K+A = 1 written consonant + 1 written vowel ܐ ܘܼ ܦ = ܐܘܼܦ = KA+W = KE+A = 1 written consonant + 2 written vowels AssyrianLanguages.org Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
We see the usage of vowels in the names of the days of the week, as they were written in hieroglyphs. Keep in mind that different scribes were free to spell however they chose to, as there were no standardized spellings yet.
In the underlying text of Genesis 1, we can see the days of the week, "Sunday" through "Thursday" (which were misinterpreted as "one" through "five" in the intentional mistranslation that became the "Bible")...
So-called ancient Hebrew writing is not Hebrew writing at all, but simply the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing characters. The ancient Egyptian fortress being excavated in the Yafo, Tel Aviv harbor lets us know the region was part of Lower Egypt. So-called Modern Hebrew simply reflects a modern version of the Dead Sea scroll-style Egyptian hieroglyphic characters.
Uncommon Vowel Pronunciation Sounds In the use of uncommon vowels, notice Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday all use a vowel for the [U] (oo) pronunciation sound...
Monday = שני = ሰኑይ = senuy ני = nu
Tuesday = שלישי = ሰሉስ = selus לי = lu
Wednesday = רביעי = ረቡዕ = rebuE' בי = bu
Thursday = חמישי = ሓሙስ = hamus מי = mu
The reason for this is that the [U] (oo) sound is not common. Therefore the vowel is normally written (we can see this with the ancient Greek version of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, as well).
But also notice Sunday does not use a written vowel for the [U] (oo) sound...
Sunday = אחד = እሑድ = ihud ח = hu
Common Vowel Pronunciation Sounds Since the [A] and [E] vowel sounds are common, it is not necessary to write them out. We can see this in the first syllables of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday...
Monday = שני = ሰኑይ = senuy ש = se
Tuesday = שלישי = ሰሉስ = selus ש = se
Wednesday = רביעי = ረቡዕ = rebuE' ר = re
Thursday = חמישי = ሓሙስ = hamus ח = ha
Optionally Writing Vowel Pronunciation Sounds But notice, as well, there is an unnecessary ending written vowel for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday...
Tuesday = שלישי = ሰሉስ = selus שי = s
Wednesday = רביעי = ረቡዕ = rebuE' עי - E (capitalized vowels are pronounced deep in the back of the throat)
Thursday = חמישי = ሓሙስ = hamus שי = s
Vowel Pronunciation Sound Order The reason a silent-sounding vowel pronunciation sound can optionally be written is because in Ethiopian language, every consonant has a vowel, even when they sound silent. Ethiopian vowels follow the following order (from the Ethiopian book "Amharic for Foreigners" by Semere Woldegabir)...
1st order: he = ሐ (e as in "pleasure") 2nd order: hu = ሑ (u as in "Luke") 3rd order: hee = ሒ (ee as in "deep") 4th order: ha = ሓ (a as in "father") 5th order: hae = ሔ (ae as in "late") 6th order: hi = ሕ (i as in "ship") 7th order: ho = ሖ (o as in "no")
When writing out Ethiopian pronunciations with Latin letters, only the 6th order is not necessary to write the vowel pronunciation sound...
Tuesday = שלישי = ሰሉስ = selus 1st order - ስ = se 6th order - ስ = s
So, it is possible that while today it is not necessary to write the 6th order vowel, but in ancient times it was optional. Because sometimes certain scribes wrote out the 6th order pronunciation, although probably most ancient Egyptian scribes did not.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
The Mena Creative YouTube channel has good videos letting you can hear the pronunciation of Amarigna and Tigrigna vowels written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.
So, now to ancient written Greek. Again, it does not represent ancient spoken Greek. Instead, it is merely the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic language, including the characters and vocabulary.
We will look at a word that my retranslation agrees with. In other words, an ancient Greek word that is accurately translated, from the underlying text of the 700BC Hesiod Theogony...
The word we will look at, and the ancient Greek use of vowels to write ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic words, is a 99.9% accurately translated word.
Despite this word's accurate translation, most of the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony is a deliberate mistranslation into the so-called ancient Greek religion.
This word is actually the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic word... ashekeme (አሸከመ) "help to carry"
Let's examine the word to see how the ancient Greek written characters are merely representations of Egyptian hieroglyphs...
ἔ χου σι ν = A SHE KE ME
ἔ = é = አ = A χου = chou = ሸ = SHE σι = si = ከ = KE ν = n = መ = ME
The ancient Greek writing of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic words can at first glance appear confused. But they were really trying to write out the exact sound, because you must also understand these were foreign words to the ancient Greeks and not native words or pronunciations.
This shows how the ancient Greek writer thought the word was pronounced. In other words, this is the mispronunciation the ancient Greek writer remembered, despite being an error.
Despite this, the ancient Greek written word follows the basic rules of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing...
ἔ = a common vowel pronunciation sound (1st order) χ = = Q/K/G/CH/SH/J/H ου = a common pronunciation sound (1st order) σ = = TS/S/SH/K/CH (in this case Amarigna CH is often Tigrigna TS) ι = , a common vowel (1st order) ν = M/N
Therefore, the ancient Greek who wrote this word did a great job. The writer would have written the word accurately with the correct written vowel pronunciation sounds, only if he/she would have known or memorized the proper pronunciation.
If I were an ancient Greek, writing all the vowels would be just too much...
ἔχἔσἔνἔ
So, since all the vowel sounds are of the 1st order pronunciation, I would have written it as simply...
ἔχσν
But then again, I already know the proper pronunciation.
Regardless, it also shows that if you couldn't pronounce the word accurately, you couldn't spell it accurately either.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
I've been reminded the topic of this thread is about how European translators decide on what vowels to use when the original written language did not have vowels. Before I say, "Who cares," I'll first say the following.
This is to first assume that the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system didn't have vowels. The fact is they did have vowels, if you decided to write them out back then. Spellings weren't standardized back then, so you could do whatever you wanted.
This is why when you look in ancient Egyptian dictionaries, a single word could have many different spellings. The reason is that each of those words were written by a specific writer.
The second part is "Europeans." Are we talking modern translators or ancient translators. In the previous post of mine, I show how ancient Greeks translated ancient Egyptian words and rewrote them in a Greek version of Egyptian hieroglyphs.
The fact is that ancient European translators, such as ancient Greeks or ancient Romans, knew how to read and write with Egyptian hieroglyphs. But those ancient writers and translators, too, wrote vowels if the decided to.
This is all complicated by the fact that all languages are related, back to African language. And then people like Asar Imhotep accurately show how African languages are related to each other.
It is ignorant to think that European language was invented. Therefore, when people left Africa 50,000 years ago, they took language with them.
The word "translate" means express the sense of (words or text) in another language. If all languages are related, there is really no translation from one language to another.
My name, for example, Legesse is Ethiopian. But the English version is legacy and largesse, it's just that legacy and largesse are mispronunciations of Legesse.
Even Amarigna words can be mispronunciations of Tigrigna, as Amarigna words are derived from Tigrigna.
Ancient Europeans may have recognized the relationship between what we call languages today. But racist scholars today try to make it as if there are all these different languages, when there are not... The entire world speaks one language.
So, for example, English words are mispronunciations of African words (African words were first). But racist scholars cannot bear to see it this way, because doing so means they cannot properly speak the words and imply they are uneducated.
It is likely ancient Europeans were able to adopt the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing characters and vocabulary easier, since racism did not appear to have existed back then. Ancient Egyptians were the ultimate power and ancient Europeans were just happy to learn from Egyptians.
The proof that ancient Europeans could translate accurately, including vowel pronunciation sounds of the Egyptian hieroglyphic language, is proven in the Rosetta Stone's 99.9% accurate translation of the Greek message (at the bottom of the stone) into the hieroglyphic message (at the top of the stone).
The Rosetta Stone has upon it an accurate translation, while the translations of the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony, Rig Veda and Bible are absolute intentional mistranslations.
This whole idea of how Europeans decide on vowels to use when translating ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic words, at least modern European scholars, is based on racist ideas of language, its origin and its spread. Further, concentrating on foolish, racist European scholars keeps you from learning the actual culture surrounding the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system. But this is how they want it. They want you to be ignorant as they are.
Today's Europeans scholars, generally speaking, decide based on ignorance. But you cannot support the ignorance by asking such a question, "how do they decide." They don't decide anything. They get things wrong. Being wrong is not innovation.
The real question is why do they not recognize the real living language of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs? But who cares? The ancient Egyptian language is still spoken today by 100 million people and the rest of the world speaks the language as mispronunciations.
By asking how Europeans decide, that is making the ancient Egyptian language about Europeans... not about Africans.
So now I'll say it. Who cares how European scholars mispronounce ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic words and the vowels.
It is only a distraction to keep us focused on them and keep us divided to conquer us.
And the fact that the Hesiod Theogony, Rig Veda and Bible are not about religion will be easily and instantly proven when you retranslate the underlying text of the three using the accurate ancient Greek Rosetta Stone translation as your guide.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Asar Imhotep: I don't get the confusion. "V" in this instance is not the phoneme [v], but stands for VOWEL.
The phoneme [w] is an allophone of [m], which is common in African languages. For example:
The ciLuba example informs us that Middle-Egyptian mw.t "mother" is not pronounced "mut", but closer to ciLuba maawu.ci > ci.maawu. The [m] in ci.maamu in the second consonant position weakens due to its location between two vowels. Thus why in ciLuba you have both forms ci.maawu and ci.maamu "mother." This is just an example and you can find dozens of such in Egyptian.
And as far as the graphem <A> being a trill, this is the standard interpretation based on internal and external comparative data. If you have Loprieno's ancient egyptian a linguistic introduction, he discusses it there. I go with Mboli's argument that it is a nasalived uvular trill because of the internal interchange of <A> with /n/ and /r/ in Egyptian. You are going to have to sit down and study the language and the up-to-date material on it.
Ah, I think I see what you mean now. Did you read my post that the w is the vowel for u but becomes the consonant w when grouped with another vowel. So u-a becomes 'wa', u-i becomes 'wi' etc. It can be easy to miss because the other vowel is not expressed. The Egyptian word for mother is mwt pronounced something like 'm'wet'. I notice you compare Egyptian language with Niger-Congo languages but have you considered comparisons with Nilo-Saharan? You do realized that Egyptian has many influences and even a possible substratum of Nilo-Saharan which was first brought to attention by the other 'Father of Egyptology' Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: The underlying text of all three have been misinterpreted into their current translations and the underlying text of all three have the same source.
The source of all three is the history of the ancient Egyptian Dead Sea region farms (see my comparison above of the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony and the Bible).
First, in order to understand my viewpoint, it is necessary to believe that ancient texts can be mistranslated by scholars.
If one cannot believe scholars are able to mistranslate ancient texts, either innocently or intentionally, then it is impossible to understand my point.
Second, it is necessary to read ancient written Greek, ancient written Sanskrit and the ancient written Dead Sea region script as simply hieroglyphs.
Third, it is necessary to match each word of the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony, the Rig Veda, and the Bible to the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic language (Amarigna and Tigrigna).
If you are able to do all this, it is possible to then see that none of the three are about religion.
Added to that, it is necessary to read UCLA Professor Aaron Burke's papers on "Jaffa" (the Arab pronunciation of "Yafo" that is today's Yafo, Tel Aviv, Israel). There are many important points he makes, as the lead archaeologist of the Yafo ancient Egyptian Bronze age fortress and the region, which had been part of Lower Egypt and therefore ancient Egyptian Bronze age farms...
A. The fortress is an ancient Egyptian fortress B. The granaries (grain storage facilities) are "pharaonic granaries" C. Details involving the jars, especially the "flowerpots" In direct response to your question, though, what do they have to do with Egypt?
The underlying text of all three are about ancient Egypt, not the religions they purport to be about or related to. Therefore...
1. The underlying text of the 700BC Hesiod Theogony is not about religion (not poems) --- the underlying text is the history of the ancient Egyptian Dead Sea region farms
2. The underlying text of the 600BC Rig Veda is not about religion (not poems) --- the underlying text is the history of the ancient Egyptian Dead Sea region farms
3. The underlying text of the Bible is not about religion (not verses) --- the underlying text is the history of the ancient Egyptian Dead Sea region farms
Again, to understand my point, without necessarily agreeing with me, you first have to examine each word as I retranslate them in the comparison I posted above between the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony and the Bible.
Let me give you an example. We will compare a word that is properly translated in the Hesiod Theogony.
καί This word in ancient Greek writing is the Tigrigna word ከኣ/kea which means "and"...
A. It is written as in hieroglyphs in the Rosetta Stone as ከኣ/kea/"and"
B. It is written as καί in the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony as ከኣ/kea/"and"
C. It is written as य॒ in the underlying text of the Rig Veda as ከኣ/kea/"and"
D. It is written as וי in the underlying text of the Bible as ከኣ/kea/"and"
If you can see this example in a simple word as kea, which is properly translated in all three, then we can examine more complex words and see each of the words that are mistranslations in all three ancient texts.
First off, I think you're mistaking Hesiod's Theogony with that of the Phoenician Sanchuniathon whose theogony was Hellenized and compared to that of Hesiod by Philo of Byblos. I still await evidence that such has to do with some Egyptian farming plantation, but again what does that have to do with the Rig Veda which if not composed in India was likely composed in Afghanistan??
I saw the video which espouses your theory and evidence it presented is shaky at best. The ancient Israelites who hail from that area have a better chance of being tied to the theory but again how can Hesiod a Greek or the Rig Veda which a book by many authors who lived somewhere in the vicinity of the Indian subcontinent. Tying Israelite/Biblical texts to this Egyptian plantation in Yaffa is one thing but then Greeks and then Indians makes it very implausible if not ludicrous.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Tying Israelite/Biblical texts to this Egyptian plantation in Yaffa is one thing but then Greeks and then Indians makes it very implausible if not ludicrous.
I would like to respond to you, but I would only be re-posting what I've already posted. But I understand your question.
In a general sense, it is understandable for you and others to question my viewpoint.
But more specifically, and most importantly, do you believe that ancient texts can be mistranslated either innocently or intentionally?
Yes or no?
If you do not believe it is possible for any ancient texts to have been mistranslated, there is no conversation.
But if you believe there is that possibility, then we have a conversation. Because then we can try to discover which ones, which parts or even which words of ancient texts have been mistranslated.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ For the sake of time, let's assume the Israelite-Hebrew creation story in Bresheit (Genesis) is due to Egyptian influence or Egyptian texts as nobody is denying the Egyptian presence in ancient Canaan/Israel.
What you fail to present is what the Egyptian connection is to the other texts like Hesiod's Theogony or even the Rig Veda. The latter text is even more distant from the region in question.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ For the sake of time, let's assume the Israelite-Hebrew creation story in Bresheit (Genesis) is due to Egyptian influence or Egyptian texts as nobody is denying the Egyptian presence in ancient Canaan/Israel.
What you fail to present is what the Egyptian connection is to the other texts like Hesiod's Theogony or even the Rig Veda. The latter text is even more distant from the region in question.
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: Amarigna & Tigrigna Qal Genesis: Introduction - Genesis Hieroglyphic Retranslation Paperback – March 29, 2018 by Legesse Allyn (Author)
Is there anything in any of your biblical translations which is significantly different in meaning from the KJV ?
I means significantly different in terms of themes, stories or spiritual meaning?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Is there anything in any of your biblical translations which is significantly different in meaning from the KJV ?
I means significantly different in terms of themes, stories or spiritual meaning?
Yes.
Let's just start the late Bronze-age ancient Egyptian fortress being excavated in the Yafo, Tel Aviv harbor. UCLA Professor Aaron Burke is the lead archaeologist of the fortress excavation. His PDF of the excavation is linked at the bottom of this post.
In my retranslation of the underlying text of Genesis 1-4...
1. The fortress, is first mentioned in the underlying text of Genesis 4;
2. The farm is first mentioned in the underlying text of Genesis 1:1;
3. The harbor is first mentioned in the underlying text of Genesis 1:2.
"The gate façade inscribed with the name of Ramesses II (ca. 1264–1198 B.C.E.) that adorned the entrance to the Late Bronze Age Egyptian fortress"... Aaron Burke
"The gate into Jaffa, shown here in a digital reconstruction, led to a covered passageway where Canaanite farmers brought their crops"... Aaron Burke/Archaeology.org
"Area A constituted approximately 50 percent of the excavated area opened by Kaplan and contained nearly two-thirds of the site’s finds"... Aaron Burke
The word irdi meaning "fortress", from An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary by Wallis Budge, volume I, page 130
Fortress Terminology Underlying Genesis 4 Following are words associated with the design and building of the fortress, from the underlying text of Genesis 4...
The Fortress ילד = irdi (ዒርዲ) fortress (n.) (Tigrigna)
The Building לכן - rSH'an (ርሻን) building (n.) (Tigrigna)
The Harbor קידמת = weSH'meT (bahri) ወሽመጥ (ባሕሪ) gulf, bay (n.) (Amarigna/Tigrigna)
The Farm הארץ = irsha (እርሻ) farm (n.) (Tigrigna)
Hire אסתר = (A'yayi) ahdere (ዓያዪ ኣሕደረ) employ, hire (v.) (Tigrigna)
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What you fail to present is what the Egyptian connection is to the other texts like Hesiod's Theogony or even the Rig Veda. The latter text is even more distant from the region in question.
I can provide a side-by-side list of words from the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony compared to the underlying text of Genesis 1-4, similar to what I have done above from The Lioness' question. But I'm not going to do it if you are not going to actually read it.
You still have not answered my question: do you believe that ancient texts can be mistranslated either innocently or intentionally?
Yes or no?
If you do not believe it is possible for any ancient texts to have been mistranslated, there is no conversation.
But if you believe there is that possibility, then we have a conversation. Because then we can try to discover which ones, which parts or even which words of ancient texts have been mistranslated.
Posted by Asar Imhotep (Member # 14487) on :
quote:Ah, I think I see what you mean now. Did you read my post that the w is the vowel for u but becomes the consonant w when grouped with another vowel. So u-a becomes 'wa', u-i becomes 'wi' etc. It can be easy to miss because the other vowel is not expressed. The Egyptian word for mother is mwt pronounced something like 'm'wet'. I notice you compare Egyptian language with Niger-Congo languages but have you considered comparisons with Nilo-Saharan? You do realized that Egyptian has many influences and even a possible substratum of Nilo-Saharan which was first brought to attention by the other 'Father of Egyptology' Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.
I read your post and I was correcting it. Old Kingdom and Middle-Egyptian probably had a [u] phoneme. But the grapheme <w> was NOT the /u/ sound. It was a semi-vowel /w/ and I demonstrated that in Egyptian as often /m/ or /b/ becomes /w/ in the intervocalic position. This is a common sound change in world languages. I gave you such an example with ciLuba with ci.maamu ~ ci.maawu "mother." This is cognate with M-E mw.t. The Bantu ci-/ki- prefix is cognate with M-E -t suffix. ciLuba /m/ corresponds to M-E /m/ and /w/ based on regular sound-meaning correspondences that have already been established. You do not pronounce M-E mw.t as "mut." It is mVwV.t where "V" is some vowel.
Secondly, I don't compare egyptian with 'niger-congo' as this language phylum doesn't exist. It is a non-genetic grouping based on mass comparison and shared typological features. It has never been proved by the comparative method, the scientific method used to verify genetic relationship hypotheses. By the same token, neither is 'Nilo-Saharan' or 'Afro-Asiatic' phylums valid language constructs. This I discuss, with a myriad of citations, in my _Aaluja Vol. II: Cyena Ntu Religion and Philolosphy (2020)_ in Chapter 9. Until you understand this, nothing you say makes sense. I advise you to, for the uptenth time, to learn how to do comparative linguistics. You always make commentary that is contrary to what the evidence conveys because you have a lack of knowledge of linguistics and how to verify claims. Because of this you are handicapped.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ While I don't agree with all the languages grouped into Niger-Congo, you are denying the existence of such a phylum itself and even Nilo-Saharan and Afrasian. I won't even argue with you on what your specific basis is but do you deny the existence of say the Indo-European phylum, as Western scholars tend to groups languages in much the same way? What language groupings are you even proposing if any?
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: I can provide a side-by-side list of words from the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony compared to the underlying text of Genesis 1-4, similar to what I have done above from The Lioness' question. But I'm not going to do it if you are not going to actually read it.
I've already read them, but you fail to specifically point out what the Hesiod's alleged hymn has anything to do with the archaeological site you speak of let alone the Rig Veda. By the way, the Rig Veda is a much larger corpus which part are you trying to connect to Egyptian?
quote:You still have not answered my question: do you believe that ancient texts can be mistranslated either innocently or intentionally?
Yes or no?
If you do not believe it is possible for any ancient texts to have been mistranslated, there is no conversation.
But if you believe there is that possibility, then we have a conversation. Because then we can try to discover which ones, which parts or even which words of ancient texts have been mistranslated.
Of course ancient texts can be and often have been mistranslated. A perfect example is the Bible itself which has been transcribed multiple times from the original Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek, then Latin, then other European languages.
My point is what does any of this have to do with the Greek and Indian texts you speak of? What proof that these texts originated in the Yaffa region by Egyptians as you claim??
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
1. The Rosetta Stone is an accurate translation of...
Ancient written Greek translated into English
Ancient written Greek translated into the Egyptian hieroglyphic language
2. The Rosetta Stone proves the ancient people of the Dead Sea region did not go to Egypt, because the fact is that the Dead Sea region was part of Egypt (Lower Egypt) and those ancient people of the Yafo/Dead Sea region of Egypt were Egyptians.
There are five names of Egypt listed in the Rosetta Stone, including KMT
None of those names are Misr or Mitsr (Mitsraim/Mizraim)
What is mispronounced as Mitsr/M+TS+R is shows in the Rosetta Stone as actually ntsl N+TS+L (Tigrigna)/neT'ele/NTL (Amarigna)
3. The confusion of Mitsr supposedly being a name of Egypt lies in the linguistics related to hatchet, metsrebi/መጽረቢ, in hieroglyphs spelled without the ending -b
The "hatchet" metsrebi/መጽረቢ represents the deceased (identified by the hatchet)
The "detached" netsle/ነጸለ deceased Ancestors are separated from the living (the hatchet detaches)
The "separated" ntsl=/ንጽል deceased Ancestors are now independent of the living (the Ancestors are detached)
The linguistics existing within the Amarigna and Tigrigna languages, shows how M is related to N and how R is related to L...
In Tigrigna going from the object hatchet/M+TS+R to the verb and adjective becoming N+TS+L
In Amarigna going from the object hatchet/M+T+R to the verb and adjective becoming N+T+L
The uneducated, even in ancient times, reading the word Ntsl (N+TS+L), could easily mispronounce the word as mitser (M+TS+R), out of pure ignorance...
Just this single word undoes all the lies that the Dead Sea region people supposedly went to or left Egypt.
Therefore, the entire Bible stories fall all apart on this single word. Because the only way to go to the Ancestors -- the Ntsl -- is to die and go to heaven.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]Is there anything in any of your biblical translations which is significantly different in meaning from the KJV ?
I means significantly different in terms of themes, stories or spiritual meaning?
Yes.
Let's just start the late Bronze-age ancient Egyptian fortress being excavated in the Yafo, Tel Aviv harbor. UCLA Professor Aaron Burke is the lead archaeologist of the fortress excavation. His PDF of the excavation is linked at the bottom of this post.
In my retranslation of the underlying text of Genesis 1-4...
1. The fortress, is first mentioned in the underlying text of Genesis 4;
you are showing me lists of words. I am asking you if there are any significant differences in the overall spiritual meaning or significant change in the events, stories in the bible from you translation compared to the King James version
-- looking at whole verses and chapters, not individual words
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: A perfect example is the Bible itself which has been transcribed multiple times from the original Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek, then Latin, then other European languages.
Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but that is not an example of mistranslation.
I remember Asar often telling me to provide a translation. I provided a transcription and what I consider word matches. He repeated to me to provide a translation.
Asar was right -- I was not providing translations. Word matches are not translations, though you can translate words. But that was not was he was asking me for.
As such, I am showing mistranslations of words, not translations of sentences, which is what I believe he was asking for.
My retranslations are of words. And if the words are mistranslated, then the supposed sentences the words are supposed to talk about are mistranslations.
If somebody writes a sentence, "The dog chased the cat"
And somebody comes along and reads the word dog as duck and cat as kite
Then some stupid person believing the translation as being "The duck chased the kite" would believe both objects have the ability of flight
But they would be wrong
Then if someone came along and showed the correct words as being dog and cat, not duck and kite
Plenty of stupid people would still refuse to believe the sentence said "The dog chased the cat"
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: you are showing me lists of words. I am asking you if there are any significant differences in the overall spiritual meaning or significant change in the events, stories in the bible from you translation compared to the King James version
-- looking at whole verses and chapters, not individual words
Yes.
The underlying text is about farming. Not religion.
Or for a more detailed, adult explanation... The Bible, Abortion & Self-Genocide: Roman False-Religion Conspiracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9lUu5q7Tzs Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what in the bible have you translated besides genesis? And what about New Testament?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
@ DJ
Yes the Septuagint has known intentional mistranslations.
In one instance 'hare' was translated to something else. The hare is unclean to Israelites. The Emperor's wife's name was Hare. They purposefully mistranslated to avoid pissing off the emperor.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what in the bible have you translated besides genesis? And what about New Testament?
I've retranslated the underlying text from across the Old Testament and New Testament.
In terms of the New Testament, I've retranslated the underlying text of Matthew, 1st Timothy 2, Acts, Revelation and more. And I've done it from the Peshitta (Aramaic) as well as the Greek.
The underlying text of the New Testament is the same content, context and vocabulary as the underlying text of Old Testament.
It is all farming.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
so the earliest existing Old Testament is written in Hebrew language and the the earliest existing New Testament is written in Greek , correct?
So how is it The Hebrew Bible is referring to farming? Has the whole Hebrew language been changed? How could you change the meaning of the text just by changing some word meanings? Theses are stories. If you begin with a book about framing you cant leave the words in the same order and change some of them and turn it into religious stories,
If I gave you a new book on farming you can't just change words and it is going to work in sentence structure
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: so the earliest existing Old Testament is written in Hebrew language and the the earliest existing New Testament is written in Greek , correct?
First we have to define the so-called languages...
So-called Hebrew is not Hebrew
Ancient written Greek does not reflect the ancient spoken Greek language
And first let me say, Lioness, this is all so disheartening to me. I grew up a Baptist Christian, I was devoted to Christianity and the Bible. I began reading the Bible at 14 years old secretly with a group of friends on the street I grew up on. Even teaching a Sunday school topic on faith at Bishop Blake's West Angeles Church of God in Christ, now one of the largest churches in the Western United States.
It was so hurtful and felt like a betrayal as soon as I began the retranslations of Genesis in 2018, after I had done the Rosetta Stone retranslation in 2014. The very first verse I retranslated, Genesis 1:1, showed itself to be about farming instantly.
Since the Rosetta Stone retranslation showed the ancient Greeks retranslated the Greek message into the Egyptian hieroglyphic language 99.9% accurately (which surprised me), it was my assumption that the underlying text of the Bible would be accurately translated as well.
I can feel the pain, grief and sense of betrayal right now, just discussing this with you. It was so hurtful that I almost stopped. But a friend of mine encouraged me to continue, but it took me two weeks to get the courage to continue.
Prior to doing the 2018 Bible retranslations, I had attempted previously in 2013. But retranslating from Modern Hebrew writing characters proved frustrating, because I could see the word matches were missing characters.
When I found out that so-called ancient Hebrew had written vowels that had been changed into dots, by the Masorites, I was able to see the missing letters, which were only supposed to be vowels that had been changed. But that proved not to be the case, because a certain group of consonants had been changed to dots as well.
I had been visiting the online dictionary part site of the Ancient Hebrew Resource Center site(https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/dictionary/ancient-aleph.html) for a several years and noticed I could see the missing vowels and consonants that had been changed into dots by the Masorites in the Ancient-Hebrew.org's online dictionary.
Then, in November of 2017, I contacted the site's owner, Jeff Benner, by email one night. He published the complete Torah in the Dead Sea scroll style writing, considered to be ancient Hebrew writing...
So, I wanted permission from Jeff to reprint his Ancient Hebrew Torah, utilizing it as the foundation of my Genesis and Exodus retranslations.
quote:Hello, Ancient-Hebrew.org:
For years now I have relied on your online dictionary to help me find accurate definitions of Hebrew words. Especially the words written in ancient glyphs, which often help me understand the actual pronunciations. For this reason, I am seeking your permission reprint words and definitions of your Ancient-Hebrew.org website in my upcoming books.
These new books will explore the relationship of the vocabulary of the Old Testament, including Genesis and Exodus, to the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic language.
While my books are written and published primarily for educational purposes, and although I understand that your states, "feel free to use, copy or distribute any material on this site for non-profit educational purposes only," I would still like to have your written approval. I also would like you to know that I make all my books available to read online and download for free.
Within an hour, Jeff replied to me with his permission.
quote:Until 1947, the oldest manuscript of the Hebrew Bible was the codex Leningrad which is dated to around 1,000 A.D. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 we now have manuscripts that are 1000 years older than the codex Leningrad.
Throughout the codex Leningrad the vowel sound 'o' is represented by a dot placed over a letter. For instance the Hebrew word for 'no', as it appears in the codex, is לֹא (lo). The dot above the text, called a hholam, represents the vowel sound 'o'.
These dots and dashes (called nikkudot, nikkud in the singular) were created by the Masorites during the time the codex Leningrad was written. The Dead Sea Scrolls, written long before the Masorites, used the letter ו (waw, vav in modern Hebrew) for the consonant 'w' but also the vowel sound 'o'.
The bottom line is, the Yafo/Dead Sea region was part of ancient Egypt. Therefore, the writing was ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. This meant so-called ancient Hebrew was simply the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing.... not Hebrew.
But I had not understood that to be the case. Once I saw the words harbor, granary, ships, farm, fortress and merchants, among other words, in the underlying text of Genesis, I was able to search using those words as search keywords to hopefully help me understand why I was seeing these words in the underlying text of Genesis.
That is when I found UCLA Professor Aaron Burke's PDF about the ancient Egyptian fortress being excavated in the Yafo/Dead Sea harbor. It answered all my questions. In fact, my retranslations were totally reflective of everything they had excavated, and more.
At that point I began communicating with Professor Burke and his wife about the retranslations.
So, so-called Hebrew is not Hebrew. If you can read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic letters and words, orient yourself to the style of the Dead Sea scroll writing, then you can easily read the underlying text of the Bible and see what it says.
It is all about farming.
That addresses your question about so-called written Hebrew.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: the earliest existing New Testament is written in Greek , correct?
I won't get into what came first, the chicken or the egg. In either case, both the Peshitta (Aramaic) and the Greek represent mistranslations of ancient Egyptian Yafo/Dead Sea region farming texts.
Maybe there is something more specific you can ask me.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
The Shom*riym closed community in Israel has a Sefer Torah in Canaanitic characters. It slightly varies from the Israelite Torah.
Samaritan Pentateuch
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So how is it The Hebrew Bible is referring to farming?
No, the Hebrew Bible translation does not refer to farming. But the giveaway that the underlying text is about farming is that primary theme of the entire Bible is food, whether...
Adam & Eve story
The Cain and Able story
The Joseph story
The Jacob (Israel) and his son's story
The manna from Heaven story
The Jesus feeding the multitudes story
The fact is, as ancient Egyptian paintings and wooden models attest, back then business and trade was done in writing....
Ancient Egyptian farming with scribes
Ancient Egyptian granary with scribes
And back then, religion was oral...
quote:Arguments among Jewish sects regarding the validity of the Oral Law date back to Hellenistic period, the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE. Accordingly, some scholars trace the origin of Karaism to those who rejected the Talmudic tradition as an innovation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism
Talmud
quote:Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral and transferred from one generation to the next. Rabbis expounded and debated the Torah (the written Torah expressed in the Hebrew Bible) and discussed the Tanakh without the benefit of written works (other than the Biblical books themselves), though some may have made private notes (megillot setarim), for example, of court decisions. This situation changed drastically, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth and the Second Temple in the year 70 and the consequent upheaval of Jewish social and legal norms. As the rabbis were required to face a new reality—mainly Judaism without a Temple (to serve as the center of teaching and study) and Judea, the Roman province, without at least partial autonomy—there was a flurry of legal discourse and the old system of oral scholarship could not be maintained. It is during this period that rabbinic discourse began to be recorded in writing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
The underlying text of the Bible is farming, not religion. That's the short answer.
The bigger questions are...
Who was it in history that wanted the ancient Egyptian grain?
Who were the primary invaders of ancient Egypt in its last days?
To what extent were they willing to go through to plunder the ancient Egyptian grain?
The answers to those questions will tell you why the ancient Egyptian farming reports were intentionally mistranslated into religion.
In fact, the Rosetta Stone features a short text about the ancient Greeks complaining that the Egyptian military soldiers guarding the Yafo/Dead Sea region farms would not withdraw when the Greeks ordered them to withdraw from that region. The soldiers are referred to as rebels in the Rosetta Stone.
And because of the soldiers, it wasn't the Egyptian Yafo/Dead Sea farming region the ancient Greek and ancient Roman military successfully conquered. It was the Nile Valley administrative region of ancient Egypt, from where the soldiers were dispatched from.
The ancient Greeks and Romans thought that by capturing the capital of ancient Egypt, they could then pull the troops out of the Yafo/Dead Sea farming region of Lower Egypt and then just walk in and plunder the grain. But it didn't work out that way, because, as the Rosetta Stone attests, the soldiers refused to leave for the invaders.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Has the whole Hebrew language been changed?
The first written language in the Yafo/Dead Sea region was the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic language. And as the Dead Sea scrolls show, the ancient Egyptian writing was not simply the only historical writing of that region, but it was also the last writing until the Romans...
Click the Wikipedia link for a list and dates of the scrolls.
The written language of that region was not Hebrew, in the same way that ancient written Greek does not represent ancient spoken Greek language.
So, no, it hasn't changed, because the written language was not actually ever Hebrew. Therefore, the writing of that region cannot be translated with Hebrew at all.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: How could you change the meaning of the text just by changing some word meanings? Theses are stories. If you begin with a book about framing you cant leave the words in the same order and change some of them and turn it into religious stories,
If I gave you a new book on farming you can't just change words and it is going to work in sentence structure
Tell that to the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans (Greece was absorbed into the Roman Empire) who did this.
It is not simple to do it, but it is proven possible. But you must rely on the vast majority to the population to be illiterate to do so. Otherwise, anybody could easily see the ruse.
I'll give you an example with the word, Messiah...
Word/name: Messiah
Supposed meaning: anointed
Back-story: He's coming (yeah, keep waiting)
Regardless of how they spell the word/name with Latin letters, Messiah actually has only two consonants...
In the Aramaic Peshitta: ܡܫ = M+TS
But, of course, in Greek it became, μεσσίας = M+TS+TS, to fool you
In Arabic, by contrast, it retained only two consonants: م س ي ح = مسيح = M+TS+Y+H
The Aramaic word ܡܫ = M+TS in the underlying text of Matthew 1:1 of the Peshitta refers to merchants coming to pick up loads of grain, and other purchases. This is the same word written as נד throughout the underlying text of the Old Testament...
meTS'e (መጸ) come, arrive (v.) (Tigrigna)
Therefore, ܡܫ = נד = መጸ = meTS'e = come
So here, conveniently we have the back-story, he's coming (are you still waiting for him?).
Then what word are the ancient Greeks trying to fool you with? It is not easy to figure out if you are illiterate. But if you know how to read Egyptian hieroglyphs and know the hieroglyphic language, then it is easy.
Step #1 - Start with the etymology for anoint...
quote:anoint (v.) mid-14c., enointen, "pour oil upon, smear with ointment," from Old French enoint "smeared on," past participle of enoindre "smear on," from Latin inunguere "to anoint" https://www.etymonline.com/word/anoint
Step #2 - Find the word smear in Amarigna or Tigrigna (or both). The pronunciation should be very similar in order to fool you if you are illiterate, or if you are literate, to make it look like a simple mistake by the mistranslator...
There you have it. Exactly መጸ M+TS with an L in front. Genius.
But if you cannot read Egyptian hieroglyphs, you cannot do the intentional mistranslation correctly. Because in order to make it look like an accidental typo to the literate, you have to get just close enough.
So, here, they turned an ordinary word into an fictitious person who people have waited 2020 years for now.
They did this, word-by-word, with the entire underlying text of the entire Bible. I estimate, though, that it took them several years with a crew of nearly 100 mistranslators (I refer you to the story of the Septuagint, mentioned by earlier by Tukuler).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]How could you change the meaning of the text just by changing some word meanings? Theses are stories. If you begin with a book about framing you cant leave the words in the same order and change some of them and turn it into religious stories,
If I gave you a new book on farming you can't just change words and it is going to work in sentence structure
Tell that to the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans (Greece was absorbed into the Roman Empire) who did this.
The OT is written in Hebrew
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The OT is written in Hebrew
No it is not.
The underlying text is the written language of the Yafo/Dead Sea region of ancient Egypt -- the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic written language.
Not Hebrew. Written Hebrew did not exist.
The ancient Greeks, with just the Rosetta Stone, showed they could read and write ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Modern Hebrew:
"Modern Hebrew or Israeli Hebrew (עברית חדשה, ʿivrít ḥadašá[h]"
"[ivˈʁit χadaˈʃa] – 'Modern Hebrew' or 'New Hebrew'"
"... is the standard form of the Hebrew language spoken today"
"... was supplanted as the Jewish vernacular by the western dialect of Aramaic beginning in the third century BCE..."
"It was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries and is the official language of Israel."
The history of the Hebrew language can be divided into four major periods:
"Biblical Hebrew, until about the 3rd century BCE; the language of most of the Hebrew Bible" -- the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic language
"Mishnaic Hebrew, the language of the Mishnah and Talmud"
"Medieval Hebrew, from about the 6th to the 13th century CE"
"Modern Hebrew, the language of the modern State of Israel."
Also, native speakers of various languages, including:
Hebrew (three individuals living in Israel, Germany)
Syrian -- Syriac, Aramaic (living in Germany)
Amarigna and Tigrigna (two individuals living in Ethiopia and USA)
Ancient Greek (living in Hungary)
Also...
A linguist (living in the USA)
An Egyptologist (living in the USA)
An archaeologist (living in Ukraine)
A Harvard-trained Biblical Hebrew expert (living in the USA)
Lots more.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
you are showing me Jeff A. Benner's translation and other translation tools.
So you are not going directly to the Dead Sea scrolls or the Masoretic Text into English
So you are not doing direct translation. You are going to already made mechanical translation and then you are interpreting some words with different meanings.
Where are you getting these different meanings from?
Jeff A. Benner is calling the language of the Dead Sea scroll ancient Hebrew. You call it "language of the Yafo/Dead Sea region" aka "Jaffa"
I don't know why are are not calling it Hebrew. Nevertheless we have have this primary text and you are not doing a fresh direct translation of it. You are using these other translation resources.
So how can you do that and come up with this idea that the whole thing is about farming when none of these resources you are mentioning would agree?
Why are you giving me Jeff A. Benner and other mechanical translations that are not based on Tigrigna?
If you say Tigrigna is the key you should be disregarding these resources you are showing me and starting from scratch by applying Tigrigna to the Dead Sea scrolls. And if so why aren't you saying the Dead Sea scrolls are written in Tigrigna?
The fact that the Septuagint was written in Koine Greek doesn't mean that the authors were Greek. People in the Levant spoke multiple languages at the time and Greek was used in scholarly writings in place including those outside of Greece.
As for the Masoretic Text. Most English translations of the Old Testament are based on the Masoretic Text.
While we do have earlier copies of the Septuagint (predating the Masoretic Text by several centuries), and earlier manuscripts are usually closer to the original, the Masoretic Text was always believed to be a direct product of the Jewish tradition.
The Septuagint was widely in use at the time the New Testament was being written, as many Jews spoke Greek, not Hebrew. When the New Testament writers were speaking to a Greek audience, it makes sense that they used an accessible Greek translation, rather than inventing their own. The vast majority of these differences are very, very minor (spellings of names, etc.). Protestant doctrines don’t hinge on these textual differences.[/B]
________________________________
Anyway it's the same situation here as for the Torah we are talking about the Lennigrad Codex as one of primary the sources for Masoretic Text and is dated around 1008.
The Dead Sea scrolls are fragmentary.
So the Lennigrad Codex, not the Aleppo covers Genesis and the Torah.
So how do we get from Hebrew to Tigrigna?
There is no bible scroll written in Tigrigna.
We have our primary text, bits and pieces of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Lennigrad Codex.
If those are not written in Tigrigna then if translating these text to English why would you insert a whole different language?
the Lennigrad Codex is largely the original manuscript that the Masoretic text is based on and it also has vowels added that the Dead Sea Scrolls, much older do not
This doesn't have to do with Greek.
The closest language to the ancient Hebrew is the modern Hebrew
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: The underlying text of what has become Genesis features Amarigna and Tigrigna written in hieroglyphs, otherwise known as Proto-Sinaitic glyphs.
Then why haven't you hired a professional linguist with a University degree in linguistics to show by use of a scientific method, the comparative method to show a relation between Amarigna/Tigrigna and the language of the Masoretic Texts ?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So how can you do that and come up with this idea that the whole thing is about farming when none of these resources you are mentioning would agree?
The currently accepted translation of 1st Timothy 2:9-14 is that you as a woman...
Cannot wear braids
Cannot wear jewelry
Cannot wear expensive clothes
Are supposed to keep your mouth shut
Are prohibited from teaching
Must be in subjugation to men
That is not what the underlying text actually says. And it is the sole reason you have no women's rights today. But you as a woman prefer to agree with such trash?
Yes or no?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So how can you do that and come up with this idea that the whole thing is about farming when none of these resources you are mentioning would agree?
The currently accepted translation of 1st Timothy 2:9-14 is that you as a woman...
Cannot wear braids
Cannot wear jewelry
Cannot wear expensive clothes
Are supposed to keep your mouth shut
Are prohibited from teaching
Must be in subjugation to men
That is not what the underlying text actually says. But you as a woman prefer to agree with such trash?
Yes or no?
the oldest existing versions are written in Koine Greek
So your are disputing the translation of Koine Greek into English or other languages?
So your real problem must be with Koine Greek, the bible is just one text that happens to be written in it
So on what basis do you argue that certain words in Koine Greek do not mean what other translators say they mean but instead means something very different?
So here is Timothy 2:9-14 translated into English in the New American Standard Bible which is considered by some to be the most accurate ( but you think very inaccurate)
quote:1 Timothy 2:9-14 (NASB) Women Instructed Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression
^^ so then we would have to go to the oldest Koine Greek versions to re-access the accuracy of this
But first having dealt with the core problem, according to you, that certain Koine Greek words have been mistranslated
Do you have a book on your proposal for correct translation of Koine Greek?
then assuming several words of 1st Timothy 2:9-14 are translated completely wrongly, the above verse is actually talking about farming?
You are saying if we go to the oldest known manuscripts of this verse in Koine Greek and use the following tool that it will result in something to do with farming or some other topic not having to do wit the behavior of women?
I suspect applying this too to the oldest manuscripts of Timothy are not going to result in a radical correction to an entirely different meaning but I haven't test it so I don't know
Are you suggestion that whoever created the above translation program also believes that standard translation of Koine Greek has been very wrong?
It's a broader topic, you propose. The topic is
A New Translation of Koine Greek
the New Testament is just one book written in it
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: then assuming several words of 1st Timothy 2:9-14 are translated completely wrongly, the above verse is actually talking about farming?
You are saying if we go to the oldest known manuscripts of this verse in Koine Greek and use the following tool that it will result in something to do with farming or some other topic not having to do wit the behavior of women?
I have to answer yes or no, but nobody answers yes or no to me.
I've already retranslated it, so, yes. That's what I am saying.
And no, the topic hasn't changed. Because by understanding the correct use of vowels from accurate translations, it becomes clear how European translators decide on ancient Egyptian vowels.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: then assuming several words of 1st Timothy 2:9-14 are translated completely wrongly, the above verse is actually talking about farming?
You are saying if we go to the oldest known manuscripts of this verse in Koine Greek and use the following tool that it will result in something to do with farming or some other topic not having to do wit the behavior of women?
I have to answer yes or no, but nobody answers yes or no to me.
I've already retranslated it, so, yes. That's what I am saying.
And no, the topic hasn't changed. Because by understanding the correct use of vowels from accurate translations, it becomes clear how European translators decide on ancient Egyptian vowels.
You brought up Timothy of which the oldest versions are written in Greek.
Or we can talk about the OT which is written in Hebrew or what you prefer Yaffa
So how does Egyptian language have anything to do with it?
all of the above did not have vowels in them and vowels pertain to the way the word is spoken
So if you propose that the bible is about farming we don't need to talk about vowels, that is sound not meaning
And if you want to talk about vowels Egyptians would have used the are not written we can only guess or assume some things in relation to Coptic
But there is nothing that says that the selection of particular vowel sounds used in particular Egyptian words would correlate to particular vowel sounds were applied in ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek
But again Egyptian language is not the key to the bible because there is no evidence of the oldest biblical texts were written in Egyptian
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
First things first...
The currently accepted translation of 1st Timothy 2:9-14, as you posted, is...
quote:1 Timothy 2:9-14 (NASB) Women Instructed Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression
That is not what the underlying text actually says. And it is the sole reason you have no women's rights today.
But you as a woman prefer to agree with such trash?
Yes or no? Can you answer please?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: First things first...
The currently accepted translation of 1st Timothy 2:9-14, as you posted, is...
quote:1 Timothy 2:9-14 (NASB) Women Instructed Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression
That is not what the underlying text actually says. And it is the sole reason you have no women's rights today.
But you as a woman prefer to agree with such trash?
Yes or no? Can you answer please?
Your question is diversionary
What I think of women's rights or what I think of what the opinion on it expressed in the bible doesn't matter
The worst thing would me for me to not like what it says and then for that to be motivation to question and undermine the translation
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The worst thing would me for me to not like what it says and then for that to be motivation to question and undermine the translation
I'll accept that as a yes, you agree with it.
But what if we can learn something about ancient Egyptian vowels by examining the underlying text?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: [QB] First things first...
The currently accepted translation of 1st Timothy 2:9-14, as you posted, is...
quote:1 Timothy 2:9-14 (NASB) Women Instructed Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression
That is not what the underlying text actually says.
The underlying text was written in Koine Greek so in order to prove that it meant something entirely different we would have to look at one of those Greek manuscripts and then proceed with translating them into English Why would Egyptian have anything to do with it?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: so in order to prove that it meant something entirely different we would have to look at one of those Greek manuscripts and then proceed with translating them into English
Retranslating is not about proving anything wrong or right. If a retranslation is approached from either one of those angles, that means the retranslation will be biased.
A retranslation's only purpose is to be neutral, unbiased and to simply see what it says.
Let's pick any sentence, anywhere in either the Old Testament or New Testament, and let's examine the sentence word-by-word to see what the underlying text says.
Who knows... It may say what it is purported to say.
What I can tell you is the vowels that are used can be critical in arriving at each correct word of the sentence.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
Let's pick any sentence, anywhere in either the Old Testament or New Testament, and let's examine the sentence word-by-word to see what the underlying text says.
Ok the first verse at the top left, what does it say?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Ok the first verse at the top left, what does it say?
What verse is this?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
I don't see this text at the beginning of any New Testament books. What is it from?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
no cheating
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Let's not play games. I am not translating, I am retranslating.
I have to know the source of the text, view the transcription and the current translation.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Codex Sinaiticus?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Obviously I can see simple words right off, such as KAI/"and"
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Or Septuagint
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Even though you're the one cheating, this is pretty interesting.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I'll tell you the source later
If you translate a sentence or more into English and it varies significantly from other translations of it that will be a retranslation.
You should be able to identify the Book
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
You could have given me a clearer copy. But you're cheating, so what do I expect.
But I must remind you, cheaters never win and winners never cheat. Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Am I seeing the word "Earth" in the first sentence?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: You could have given me a clearer copy. But you're cheating, so what do I expect.
But I must remind you, cheaters never win and winners never cheat.
I'm not cheating. You said you can do translations of the bible so I am merely giving you one to translate
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
I'm not going to cheat like you and give the page to my Biblical Hebrew expert to translate for me.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Codex Sinaiticus - Matthew 9
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: Look, I'm not trying to be rude, but that is not an example of mistranslation.
I remember Asar often telling me to provide a translation. I provided a transcription and what I consider word matches. He repeated to me to provide a translation.
Asar was right -- I was not providing translations. Word matches are not translations, though you can translate words. But that was not was he was asking me for.
As such, I am showing mistranslations of words, not translations of sentences, which is what I believe he was asking for.
My retranslations are of words. And if the words are mistranslated, then the supposed sentences the words are supposed to talk about are mistranslations.
If somebody writes a sentence, "The dog chased the cat"
And somebody comes along and reads the word dog as duck and cat as kite
Then some stupid person believing the translation as being "The duck chased the kite" would believe both objects have the ability of flight
But they would be wrong
Then if someone came along and showed the correct words as being dog and cat, not duck and kite
Plenty of stupid people would still refuse to believe the sentence said "The dog chased the cat"
Okay, I get all that but what does any of that have to do with Greek Theogony or even farther removed Rig Veda? You can make the argument with the Bible because of geography and history but you cannot do the same with the other texts you mentioned. What about the Sumerian Kesh Temple Hymn or the Zoroastrian Gathas? You might as well connect those two texts to the Bronze Age Egyptianized Yaffa if that's the case.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: @ DJ
Yes the Septuagint has known intentional mistranslations.
In one instance 'hare' was translated to something else. The hare is unclean to Israelites. The Emperor's wife's name was Hare. They purposefully mistranslated to avoid pissing off the emperor.
Oh I've never doubted such! When it comes to religion, the sacred texts are controlled first and foremost by the clerics who transcribe, maintain, and promulgate the texts to begin with followed by the elite rulers act in concert with the clerics to control the population. I have never doubt that original wordings and/or ideas conveyed in such texts were changed on purpose and I've always suspected as much.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what in the bible have you translated besides genesis? And what about New Testament?
I've retranslated the underlying text from across the Old Testament and New Testament.
In terms of the New Testament, I've retranslated the underlying text of Matthew, 1st Timothy 2, Acts, Revelation and more. And I've done it from the Peshitta (Aramaic) as well as the Greek.
The underlying text of the New Testament is the same content, context and vocabulary as the underlying text of Old Testament.
It is all farming.
LOL
So it's not just creation/origin part of the Bible but the entire Bible including the New Testament is about Egyptian farming in Yaffa?! And you base this on which mistranslations??
quote: I won't get into what came first, the chicken or the egg. In either case, both the Peshitta (Aramaic) and the Greek represent mistranslations of ancient Egyptian Yafo/Dead Sea region farming texts.
Maybe there is something more specific you can ask me.
Evidence has been emerging in the past several decades that the holy book of Islam al Quran is actually one big mistranslation of an original Syriac manuscript which was confirmed by the Sanaa Manuscript. The aforementioned manuscript shows evidence of editing via redactions and changes to the texts. Unless you can show similar evidence from Yaffa, who is to say that everything that you or that author Legesse Allyn (unless you and he are one and the same) is just some wild-eyed hypothesis with no basis ala Ancient Aliens??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: Codex Sinaiticus - Matthew 9
Ok, good so now please translate the verse at the upper left of the page.
I suspect that if this is used it is not going to result in something entirely different from the standard translation.
You would have to be using translation methods for Koine Greek that are highly unusual, not the standard
Does translator associate of your agree that the bible is actually about farming not religion?
--or does he give you a mechanical standard translation and then you do additional things that result in that radically different meaning?
Again, if you are going to be getting a whole different meaning we are dealing with a much broader issue - the proper translation of Koine Greek , not a particular book, the bible
And then if we go to the OT it's in in an entirety different language but that langue ancient Hebrew, or if you prefer "Yaffa" that has also not been translated right either and doing so and then applying it to the old bible manuscripts also results in a farming theme?
How can these long elaborate books be all about farming?
That just sounds like an attempt to neutralize religion.
So Ethiopian Jews and Christian Coptics and peoole of Israel-Plaestine have been deceived all these years? tricked into thinking a book on farming was about religion salvation and one God?
and does this shut down The Qu'ran as well ?
Where did all this change of meaning start? The Old Testament is much older than the new. At what point in history did someone come in and distort the meaning. Who is responsible? And it's a book about farming.
Moses parted barley not the Sea? Jesus was crucified for planting onions instead of lettuce?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Also, you probably already have this what are the real ten commandments?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
So it's not just creation/origin part of the Bible but the entire Bible including the New Testament is about Egyptian farming in Yaffa?! And you base this on which mistranslations??
be nice, he might be on to somethng
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
AncientGebts if there were around 300 ancient Egyptian rulers why were only around 7 female?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I suspect that if this is used it is not going to result in something entirely different from the standard translation.
Well the problem for them is that they are saying the Codex Sinaiticus is filled with errors...
quote:After the scribes of the Codex Sinaiticus had been securely identified, an interesting feature emerged - they were not equally good at spelling.
So already they have an excuse for it not matching anything they think it should. But these are excuses to make the text say whatever they want...
quote:Of the three scribes, D was an excellent speller, A a poor speller, and B an appaUingly bad speller.
And of speller B...
quote:Ohly's theory is exploded by the evidence of spelling - the miserable B omits letters or syllables or duplicates syllables or adds meaningless letters in a way that would be incredible if he were copying by eye
Even though the British Museum's article says "There is no separate translation of the Codex Sinaiticus" I can see a dramatic difference in spellings between the copy you sent me, Lioness, and the transliteration/transcription I see at Scripture4All.org.
By claiming spelling mistakes by the original authors, they can force their translation to fit any narrative they want.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again, if you are going to be getting a whole different meaning we are dealing with a much broader issue - the proper translation of Koine Greek , not a particular book, the bible
Yes, Lioness, that is the issue -- the proper translation of Koine Greek.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So Ethiopian Jews and Christian Coptics and peoole of Israel-Plaestine have been deceived all these years? tricked into thinking a book on farming was about religion salvation and one God?
Yes, that's right.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Where did all this change of meaning start? The Old Testament is much older than the new. At what point in history did someone come in and distort the meaning. Who is responsible?
Well, in terms of names, there are no names in the underlying text of the Bible. I can get tho this in detail later.
But, it appears to me that the Hesiod Theogony, for example...
Was merely an ancient Greek 2700 years ago practicing writing the famous story of the genesis of the ancient Egyptian farming in the Yafo/Dead Sea region of Lower Egypt
At the same time, the person was honing the ability to write Egyptian hieroglyphs in the Greek style and show proficiency in the Egyptian hieroglyphic vocabulary
And that person was likely not the one who mistranslated it into religion
There are many reasons I assume this. The primary reasons are...
The underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony matches the content and context of the underlying text of Genesis 1 through Genesis 4
The writer tells the same story, sometimes using different words, as if writing from memory --- not looking at the original text
The progression through the story is the same
For an example of the writer telling the same story in different words...
In the underlying text of Genesis 1, there is a crisis on the farm, because thieves have stolen so much, there is not enough to fill the order of a merchant who has arrived in his ships
But in the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony, the writer gets into greater details, writing about a plot and describing the acts of the thieves in uprooting, tearing out suitable portions to carry away.
Or later...
In the underlying text of Genesis 2, when the ancient Egyptian military is first sent in to guard the farming region, a troop Commander is written as looking around from the ground
But in the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony, it is written that a ship Admiral guards the farms from the harbor in his ship
If the Hesiod Theogony writer was looking directly at a copy of the story's text, there would not have been these alterations in the retelling of the story.
It is enough to retell a story in writing from memory. With the ability to write all that in some 1000 lines of text, the original writer could have simply written a religious story.
It doesn't make sense to write 1000 lines of text and then claim it says something else, when you have the ability to simply write a religious story. I've written and published 23 books, so I know how difficult it is to write.
That is in addition to curriculum I wrote in the 1990s that helped African American students learn about culture in cities of African countries, the Africa-In-Our-Schools National School Program. Each classroom curriculum set included a publication called Africa City View, games and activities, classroom excercies and a teacher's guide. Each African City View edition focused on the cities of a particular African country, taking a full 30 days to write and edit each one, including featuring up to 60 photos of daily life in the particular African country's cities.
But, a thief is good for stealing. A thief is too lazy to write 1000 lines of text. It is easier to simply plagiarize another writer's work.
My primary profession is as a product development consultant, specializing in the development of new products, marketing and research, so I know this all too well. I have seen firsthand the plagiarizing of my research and the the reverse-engineering of my own products.
Search my name and you will see a video of a guy in New York apologizing to me. He and his girlfriend republished the entire contents of two websites of mine into a book. I put the website up before the publishing of my first book and took it down immediately following, but he had already copied the entire two websites by that time.
So, I am like the original writer of the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony. The guy in New York is like whatever ancient Greek mistranslated it into religion.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: At what point in history did someone come in and distort the meaning?
Well, we know it was in ancient times, because the same ancient Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus, who wrote Ethiopians founded ancient Egypt and hieroglyphic writing is Ethiopian, by 60BC had already examined the story of the Hesiod Theogony and other similar stories, calling them myths...
Yet, Diodorus does say it is myth what he writes about Ethiopians having founded ancient Egypt and the hieroglyphic writing...
quote:"They say also that the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians, Osiris having been the leader of the colony. And the larger part of the customs of the Egyptians are, they hold, Ethiopian, the colonists still preserving their ancient manners." Diodorus, book 3, 3:1 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/3A*.html
quote:"… all men were glad to change their food, both because of the pleasing nature of the newly-discovered grains and because it seemed to their advantage to refrain from their butchery of one another." Diodorus, book 1:14-1 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/1A*.html
quote:"… the shapes of their statues and the forms of their letters are Ethiopian; for of the two kinds of writing which the Egyptians have, that which is known as "popular" (demotic) is learned by everyone, while that which is called "sacred" is understood only by the priests of the Egyptians, who learn it from their fathers as one of the things which are not divulged, but among the Ethiopians everyone uses these forms of letters… the Ethiopian writing which is called hieroglyphic among the Egyptians." Diodorus, book 3, 3:4-5, 4:1 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/3A*.html
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
So, my ancient Greek research partner in Budapest, Hungary, who has a PhD in Late Antique, Medieval and Early Modern Studies, found the transcription and current translation for the page you posted, Lioness.
I utilize a number of programs to organize the data during retranslations, primarily Microsoft Notepad, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel.
Additionally, to reverse the direction of Hebrew and Aramaic text, I utilize a Windows 7 computer, Microsoft Notepad and OpenOffice 4.1.1.
Below, I've used the Google Translator to do a rough translation of each word, and then Notepad, Word and Excel to put them side-by-side...
εκινηϲ = ekinis = by the way και = kai = and ελθω = eltho = come on ο = o = The ιϲ = is = i ειϲ = eis = ih την = tin = the οικια = oikia = house του = tou = of αρχοντοϲ = archontos = lord και = kai = and ϊδων = ďdon = hey τουϲ = tous = his αυλη = avli = courtyard
Understand that at this point, I have not yet analyzed the validity of any of the words, their transliterations nor their meanings. My first goal is to organize the currently accepted data.
Let's compare the above set of words, transliterations and meanings to see how they have combined it all into a translation...
And Jesus entered the house of the ruler (and saw the pipers and the multitude making a noise, and said:)
We can allow the Google Translator to provide a rough translation, since the Google Translator is not directly connected with either the translation itself nor religion...
εκινηϲ και ελθω ο ιϲ ειϲ την οικια του αρχοντοϲ και ϊδων τουϲ αυλη
ekinis kai eltho o is eis tin oikia tou archontos kai ďdon tous avli
he and I come to his nobleman's house and his own courtyard
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: So, my ancient Greek research partner in Budapest, Hungary, who has a PhD in Late Antique, Medieval and Early Modern Studies, found the transcription and current translation for the page you posted, Lioness.
Legresse which particular ancient manuscript are you using that is a farming document?
You say there existed a farming document and then somebody like Hesiod changed it.
So which codex or ancient written artifact is the farming one?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Lioness, refresh your page to see my edits to my previous post
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So which codex or ancient written artifact is the farming one?
Lioness, the underlying text.
To be clear, using the above Google Translator example...
Underlying text = εκινηϲ και ελθω ο ιϲ ειϲ την οικια του αρχοντοϲ και ϊδων τουϲ αυλη
Transliteration = ekinis kai eltho o is eis tin oikia tou archontos kai ďdon tous avli
Translation = he and I come to his nobleman's house and his own courtyard
The underlying text is independent from both the transliteration and the translation. It exists on its own, not influenced by the subsequent transliteration or translation.
The underlying text stands on its own for anyone to translate. Even you.
I say underlying text because it underlies any and all subsequent transliterations and translations, both of which can be done with biases. The underlying text is the unprocessed text.
Therefore...
The underlying text is comparable to fresh milk squeezed from a cow's udder
The transliteration is comparable to the milk homogenized
The translation is comparable to packaged milk made available in the store for consumer consumption
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Which underlying text is the one you use that is a farming text?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
interestingly, the ending is on the page you posted, Lioness...
and saw the pipers and the multitude making a noise, and said:
ταϲ = tas = tee και = kai = and τον = ton = him οχλον = ochlon = pretty θορυβουμενον = thoryvoumenon = we make noise
Division of words partialy fragmented: ταϲ και τον οχλον = tas kai ton ochlon = and the fog θορυβουμενον = thoryvoumenon = we make noise
Division of words all together: ταϲ και τον οχλον θορυβουμενον tas kai ton ochlon thoryvoumenon and the noise we get
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Which underlying text is the one you use that is a farming text?
εκινηϲ και ελθω ο ιϲ ειϲ την οικια του αρχοντοϲ και ϊδων τουϲ αυλη
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
You should immediately see problems with their translation.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Which underlying text is the one you use that is a farming text?
εκινηϲ και ελθω ο ιϲ ειϲ την οικια του αρχοντοϲ και ϊδων τουϲ αυλη
You are showing me some text
what codex or written artifact does it come from?
Where is the farming document that was later changed?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
From the page you posted.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: From the page you posted.
Where is the farming document that was later changed?
If what I posted "Codex Sinaiticus is filled with errors"
then what codex or other ancient written record is the one that is the farming document ?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Aside from the obvious mistranslations in their version, I can see a common word in my Hesiod Theogony and Bible retranslations. Here in the Codex Sinaiticus...
ἀρχ (ἀρχώμεθ), in the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony. ἀρχώμεθ is two separate words, dividing as follows
ἀρχώ = አለቃ = aleqa = chief
μεθ = ሜዳ = mae'da = field (farm)
To process αρχοντοϲ from the Codex Sinaiticus, we first separate the component words...
αρχο = አለቃ = aleqa = chief
ντο = ሜዳ = mae'da = field (farm)
ϲ = እዚኣ = izea = this
Same word אלוה in the underlying text throughout the Bible... הארץ אלוה ברא (Genesis 1:1)
ברא = frae = production
אלוה = አለቃ = aleqa = chief
את = እታ = ita = that
הארץ = እርሻ = irsha = farm
The same word in the underlying text of the so-called New Testament is ܐܠܗܐ (አለቃ/aleqa/chief) in the Aramaic Peshitta.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: If what I posted "Codex Sinaiticus is filled with errors"
I didn't say it was filled with errors. That is a quote from the British Museum. They are only claiming errors, because that's the only way they can justify it saying what they allege.
I say the translation of it is a mistranslation -- filled with mistranslations of words.
I'm happy to retranslate from the text as it is written. And I'm happy to assume the original writer did not make errors.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
So we have the farm chief already. Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Also, we have to locations...
οικια = oikia = house αυλη = avli = courtyard
First, αυλη...
(αυ)λη = riq = granary (grain storage facility)
The same word is רק in the underlying text of the Bible רק-יע = ሪቕ = riq = granary (grain storage facility)
The same word is ριξε in the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony... ριξε = ሪቕ = riq = granary (grain storage facility)
This is crazy.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
So not only do we have the farm and the production chief, but the granary, too. Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
οικια = oikia = house
Here's where the vowels come in. They are often necessary to help match words that may only be different in the vowel pronunciation.
The word οικια is not the place, because it is already established that the place is the farm granary. So, οικια is what occurs between merchants and the farmers...
That means, in a single sentence that you chose yourself, Lioness, we have...
The farm
The production chief
The granary
Transaction negotiation
If I had chosen this sentence, you would have said I purposely selected one that would fit my theory.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
The word ελθω is a little confusing, but in Tigrigna the meaning is cleared up.
I will say this word is basically correct, because even with mistranslations, both intentional and innocent ones, they leave many words with their correct translations...
I would say dismount if I saw a vehicle or horse. As I continue the retranslation, I might see something more to help clarify.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
The first word, εκινη ϲ, indicates when the event is occuring. First divide the word into it's components..
εκινη ϲ
εκινη = ekini = at the same time = አሁን = ahun = now ϲ = እዚኣ = izea = this
So then, the word is now...
ahun (አሁን) now (Amarigna)
In the underlying text of the Bible, I have seen עתה/hje/ሕጂ/"right now,"in the underlying text of Genesis 3:22 for example to indicate when something is happening.
Both words indicate that the event was being recorded in real-time...
hji (ሕጂ) right away, right now, now (adv.) (Tigrigna)
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: If what I posted "Codex Sinaiticus is filled with errors"
I didn't say it was filled with errors. That is a quote from the British Museum. They are only claiming errors, because that's the only way they can justify it saying what they allege.
I say the translation of it is a mistranslation -- filled with mistranslations of words.
I'm happy to retranslate from the text as it is written. And I'm happy to assume the original writer did not make errors.
Can you first just translate several complete verses of this Codex Sinaiticus, Matthew verse in English ?
First please show several of the same verses from Matthew that are on the upper left of the page I posted (i'm not going to say which verses are shown, I know however) but first please show them in the New Standard American version
One of my Eritrean friends here in Los Angeles only speaks Tigrigna. When she wants to come over and talk to me, or wants me to go over to her place to talk, she calls me on the phone and says, "Legesse, zereba."
zereba (ዘረባ) talk, speech (n.) (Tigrigna)
It makes me so happy to see this word. Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
So many words we are discussing, and that are written in hieroglyphs, are being spoken in this video...
Just the words being spoken that we are discussing right now, include...
hji zereba izea and more...
This is what the hieroglyphic language sounds like when it is spoken!
It doesn't make sense. You have this radical idea that the bible is about farming
and instead of showing a number of verses of the standard translation and then for comparison the same in your re-translations you expect people to start looking at individual words.
It like if some president made a speech in a language you didn't know and you asked somebody what they said and the person started talking about individual words he used
It seems like you're hiding something
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
εκινηϲ και ελθω ο ιϲ ειϲ την οικια του αρχοντοϲ και ϊδων τουϲ αυλη ταϲ και τον οχλον θορυβουμενον
You are also showing referring to Henry Tompkins Anderson's translation of the Sinaiticus of 1866.
Codex Sinaiticus: The H. T. Anderson New Testament (from the original Greek)
Matthew 9:23 And Jesus entered the house of the ruler and saw the pipers and the multitude making a noise, and said:
24 Withdraw, for the maid is not dead, but sleeps. And they derided him.
25 But when the multitude had been put out, he went in and took her hand, and the maid arose.
26 And the fame of this went forth into that whole land.
27 And as Jesus was passing by thence, two blind men followed him, crying out and saying: Have mercy on us, Son of David.
28 And after he had come into the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them: Believe you that I am able to do this? They said to him: Yes, Lord.
29 Then he touched their eyes, saying: According to your faith be it done to you.
30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus charged them in a threatening manner, saying: See that no one know it.
31 But they went out and published him abroad in all that land.
32 But as they were going out, behold, they brought to him a man dumb possessed with a demon.
33 And after the demon had been cast out, the dumb man spoke. And the multitudes were astonished, saying: Never did it appear thus in Israel. _________________________________
.
.
Let's also compare it to the New American Standard>
Matthew 9:23-33 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 23 When Jesus came into the [a]official’s house, and saw the flute-players and the crowd in noisy disorder,
24 He said, “Leave; for the girl has not died, but is asleep.” And they began laughing at Him.
25 But when the crowd had been sent out, He entered and took her by the hand, and the girl [b]got up.
26 This news spread throughout all that land.
27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”
28 When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus *said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” They *said to Him, “Yes, Lord.”
29 Then He touched their eyes, saying, “[c]It shall be done to you according to your faith.”
30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them: “See that no one knows about this!”
31 But they went out and spread the news about Him throughout all that land.
32 As they were going out, a mute, demon-possessed man [d]was brought to Him.
33 After the demon was cast out, the mute man spoke; and the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “Nothing like this has [e]ever been seen in Israel.”
______________________________
So please give your translation of a few or all of the above verses please just the continuous translation in English in the same numbered format above before we deal any added explanation of changes you may have made and why you made them
I first want to get the narrative meaning of your translation before the linguistic analysis methods and various details about words and so on, thanks
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Can we first deal with what we've done?
It is farming, not religion. Can we agree on that?
It does not say... "When Jesus came into the official’s house, and saw the flute-players and the crowd in noisy disorder"
It says... "Now and occurring [the] good [trade] negotiation [between the] farm chief and [the] guest [at the] granary[. The] delicious grain [is what the] discussion [is about.]"
Do we agree that it is discussing farming?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
And furthermore, it does not say "Jesus," not even in the Codex Sinaiticus text.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Codex Sinaiticus: The H. T. Anderson
A) 9:23 23 και ελθω ο ιϲ ειϲ την οικια του αρχοντοϲ και ϊδων τουϲ αυλη
B) 9:23 ταϲ και τον οχλον θορυβουμενον
Eng) 9:23 And Jesus entered the house of the ruler and saw the pipers and the multitude making a noise, and said:
_______________________________________
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts: εκινηϲ και ελθω ο ιϲ ειϲ την οικια του αρχοντοϲ και ϊδων τουϲ αυλη ταϲ και τον οχλον θορυβουμενον
Translation "Now and occurring ο it is ειϲ good negotiation farm chief and guest τουϲ granary ταϲ and delicious grain discussion υμενον"
Those are the words in the sentence, so far. So, that's the translation... at least something like that.
so how come you only showed your translation for four words?
εκινηϲ και ελθω ο ιϲ ειϲ την οικια του αρχοντοϲ και ϊδων τουϲ αυλη ταϲ και τον οχλον θορυβουμενον
translation την οικια του house of the Lord
by context that is Jesus, like if a story said "He ate some bread" in a story, the name of who "he" is would be mentioned in parts previous to that particular sentence. "George was hungry. He ate some bread".
ϊδων = i'm not going to do that
τον = the
οχλον = all the way to the
________________
but in context from previous verse we can determine:
9:23 and i come to the house of the lord and the court of the lord and the noise of the
> and to accurately do that would take an expert in Koine Greek
________________________
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
την = ደኅና
ϊδων = ዕዱም
τον = ጥዑም
οχλον = አክርማ
why are you putting Tigrinya here? How are you translating the Greek to Tigrinya?
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: why are you putting Tigrinya here? How are you translating the Greek to Tigrinya?
Because ancient written Greek is not reflective of spoken ancient Greek.
Ancient written Greek is the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters and vocabulary.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
It is a person, in this case, a guest (merchant)...
A'dim (ዕዲም) guest (n.) (Tigrigna)
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Did The Septuagint Translators Always Understand Their Hebrew Text?
EMANUEL TOV, Ph.D. J. L. Magnes Professor of Bible Hebrew University, Jerusalem (PDF is linked below)
1. "The (correct) understanding of the biblical text is an abstract concept." 2. "We do not understand all words in MT, and therefore modern translations often suggest alternative renderings of individual words, add question marks, or note that the translation is conjectural" 3. "... we are not focusing on renderings which are mistranslations according to our standards, but on renderings which show the translators’ ignorance of words through an analysis of the inner dynamics of the translation" 4. "The whole process of translating in antiquity is often conjectural, for, to the best of our knowledge, translators had no lexica or word-lists at their disposal" ------------- "If these caveats are taken into consideration, several types of conjectural renderings may be recognized": 1. "Untranslated words" 2. "Contextual guesses" 3. "Contextual manipulation" 4. "Reliance on parallelism" 5. "Employment of general words" 6. "Etymological renderings"
1. Untranslated words A. "One group of renderings demonstrates beyond doubt that at least some words in the Hebrew Bible were unknown to the translators. These are words which were left untranslated because the translators did not know their meaning." B. "... common nouns have been treated as proper nouns, probably because they were not known to the translators..." C. "Since the translators did not know the meaning of these words, it is conceivable that also other words may have been unknown to one or all of the translators."
2. Contextual guesses "Since the preceding section demonstrated that several words were left untranslated, it should not be hard to accept that in other cases the translators resorted to contextual guesses."
3. Contextual manipulation "In some cases the avoidance of a difficult word is subtle, and therefore more difficult to recognize. We submit that the translators sometimes knowingly manipulated the Hebrew consonants in order to create words which would fit the context better than the words of their Vorlage"
4. Reliance on parallelism "Reliance on parallelism is a form of contextual translation, treated here separately. As a rule, reliance on parallelism is a stable means of determining the meaning of words, but the decision whether or not to turn to parallelism remains subjective and the recognition of different types of parallelism requires different renderings"
5. Employment of general words "Ignorance of a word is often disguised by the use of general words which the translator considered to be somehow fitting in the context (e.g. ‘to do,’ ‘give,’ ‘arrange,’ ‘prepare’)."
6. Etymological renderings A. Root-linked renderings "Many translators rendered all occurrences of a given Hebrew word, element (e.g. preposition), root or construction as much as possible by the same Greek equivalent ( stereotyping). It is probably true to say that from the outset a tendency towards stereotyping was the rule rather than the exception." B. Etymological guesses "Reliance on etymology is a known procedure for translators, and such reliance is called conjectural when the translation is based on a certain manipulation of the consonants, sometimes involving disregard of prefixes or suffixes. In all cases the Hebrew words involved are understandably difficult." http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/papers/14.understand.1999.pdf?v=1.0 Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
How could a message be hidden inside another message? It is nothing new.
Steganography includes the practice of concealing a message within another message.
"... uses of steganography can be traced back to 440 BC..."
"Steganography... is the practice of concealing a file, message, image, or video within another file, message, image, or video."
"The word steganography comes from New Latin steganographia, which combines the Greek words steganós (στεγανός), meaning 'covered or concealed', and -graphia (γραφή) meaning 'writing'."
" Generally, the hidden messages appear to be (or to be part of) something else: images, articles, shopping lists, or some other cover text."
The advantage of steganography over cryptography alone is that the intended secret message does not attract attention to itself as an object of scrutiny.
Countermeasures and detection "Detecting physical steganography requires careful physical examination..."
This is stupid. Like we're in the damn Twilight Zone! You cannot believe in God without the Bible?
"I did it for you, I did the big retranslation for you..."
"I can't believe it, I just can't believe the underlying text of the Bible is really farming, kid... How will I ever believe in God without the Bible?... No, I just can't believe it... I'm sorry, kid..."
I understand how difficult it is to believe the retranslation. I once believed in Bible religion. I used to be a Christian, too. Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Quick interruption. People believed in "God" before Christianity.
quote:Originally posted by AncientGebts:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: why are you putting Tigrinya here? How are you translating the Greek to Tigrinya?
Because ancient written Greek is not reflective of spoken ancient Greek.
Ancient written Greek is the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters and vocabulary.
True. Even in modern languages you'll notice this, when you are bi-language or multilingual.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
So, back to the use of vowels, the underlying text of the Bible also reveals the varying use of vowels and consonants by different ancient Egyptian writers.
As have liberal theologians examining the Bible as religion found, when I was retranslating the underlying text of Genesis, I came to the conclusion there were multiple writers -- not a single writer.
In general, the underlying text of Genesis 1-4 had three different writers...
The writer of the underlying text of Genesis 1 was a particular writer (writer 1)
The writer of the underlying text of Genesis 2 was a particular writer (writer 2)
The writer of the underlying text of Genesis 3 and 4 was a particular writer (writer 3)
My conclusion came by examining the use of consonants and vowels to spell the same words. For example, look at the following example...
(Modern Hebrew and Dead Sea scroll-style direction has been reversed for reading left-to-right)
As you see above, the general spelling of adme/"invitation" uses one spelling in the underlying text of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2
But the third writer, of the underlying text of Genesis 3, uses a difference spelling
Regardless, you can see that each of the vowels is written out -- A D M E
We can see something different with the word, aql/"patiently"...
As you see above, the spelling of aql/"patiently," in the underlying text is different for Genesis 1, Genesis 2 and Genesis 3, are all different
Only the second writer, that of the underlying text of Genesis 2, writes a vowel for the 6th order ending [L] pronunciation ል
Writers 1 and 3 use the same beginning vowel
Writer 2 makes a distinction of the vowel sound between the beginning vowel sound (1st order) and the ending vowel sound (6th order)
What was really interesting to me, was the third writer, that of the underlying text of Genesis 3 and Genesis 4. This was obviously a more advanced writer.
Seeing that an Egyptian king and queen visited the Egyptian farming region in the underlying text of Genesis 3 and Genesis 4, it is likely the explanation is that the clerk was that of the Egyptian king and queen.
What is really unique is, this writer was almost a show-off, exhibiting an advanced writing ability, even though maybe unnecessarily, conjugating a verb three different ways in a single sentence...
The first form is mawaqer, with the ma- verb prefix
The second form is tewaqere, with the te- verb prefix
The third form is awaqere, with the a- verb prefix
Also notice the te- and a- prefix vowels are both written with the same vowel for the 1st order -- ተ and አ are both 1st order -- while the ma- prefix is written without a vowel at all.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
We can look at ancient Greek myths and unravel them, with the help of vowels.
Take the famous story of the Trojan Horse. Does the underlying text really say those words?
So we have to process the suffixes first. As we saw in the underlying text of Matthew 9:23... ος = እዚኣ = izea = this
So we are left with... δούρει = Trojan ἵππ = Horse
Immediately anybody familiar with the word snake in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs should be able to see the word supposedly horse is not horse...
ἵππ = እባብ = ibab = snake
ibab (እባብ) snake, serpent (n.) (Amarigna)
(notice the word ibab in front and above the snake's face)
Egyptologists transliterate ibab as apep, although there is no natural [P] pronunciation in Amarigna nor Tigrigna. For this reason, the Egyptologist [P] is actually Amarigna and Tigrigna [B] pronunciation sound.
So that takes care of the second word. The horse is not a horse. Now for the first word. Since the two words are written together, they should fit the same context...
δού = ሰ = se = 1st order vowel pronunciation sound ([ሰ] ሱ ሲ ሳ ሴ ስ ሶ) ρε = ላ = la = 4th order pronunciation sound (ለ ሉ ሊ [ላ] ሌ ል ሎ) ι = ዪ = yi = 3rd order pronunciation sound (የ ዩ [ዪ] ያ ዬ ይ ዮ)
So, δούρει is the pronunciation as the ancient Greek writer understood it to be. It is very accurate, although since the [SE]/ሰ/se is the first order pronunciation and common, it was not necessary to write the vowel sound, which would have left the word written as... δρει
But it was important for the writer to write the vowel sound of the [L] consonant as ρε, since the [LA]/ላ/la sound is not necessarily that common. This allows the reader to distinguish the word more easily.
Finally, the ending, ι sound was perfect, being the yee sound, one of several pronunciation sounds associated with the hieroglyph. In any case, this ending vowel sound was the most helpful of the three vowel sounds in helping to match the pronunciation to an actual word.
So we are left with Trojan Horse actually being...
In the context, spy snake would refer to thieves and invaders, not actually the snake as a snake.
Then we look at the mistranslation as Trojan Horse and the story, a wooden horse filled with spies/invaders. Therefore, there was never a Trojan Horse. It was made-up from the underlying text, but has since grown into a legend -- although a false legend.
Finally, we look at the Egyptologist version of the ibab (apep) story...
"Apep was seen as a giant snake or serpent leading to such titles as Serpent from the Nile and Evil Dragon.... sometimes depicted as a crocodile." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apep
These ibab would be thieves who attacked the boats as they went along the Nile River. Not only in Egypt, but as far back as Ethiopia where the Nile River begins (up to 85% of the water that flows into Egypt comes from Ethiopia's Lake Tana and Blue Nile River).
The documentary showing the trip from Lake Tana to Egypt along the Nile River made the point that, aside from the rapids and waterfalls along the Nile, the most dangerous part of the journey were the thieves hiding along the Nile ready to attack the passing boats...
Especially when you consider that in ancient days, many of theses boats may have been filled with produce and goods, traveling the Nile from the Yafo, Tel Aviv port of the Dead Sea Egyptian region farms to the Nile Valley markets. This would be plenty reason for thieves to lie in wait. (fleet of ancient Egyptian boats with cargo and livestock)
But even in the documentary of the trip along the Nile from Ethiopia to Egypt, there were only men in boats. Still, thieves are always ready to take advantage of any opportunity that may present itself.
So, it is not true. There never was a Trojan Horse. And the ancient written vowels helped uncover the ruse. False history. Fake news.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
So I've shown how vowels (or lack of them) assist in the retranslations of ancient texts, including...
Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs
Yafo/Dead Sea region Egyptian hieroglyphs (so-called Proto-Canaanite/Proto-Sinaitic/ancient Hebrew)
Ancient written Aramaic
Ancient written Greek
Now I want to show how vowels, or the lack of them help with the retranslation of Cuneiform in the Amarna letters.
So far, the rules are...
Written characters represent pronunciations
Words are written based on the understood pronunciation of a word (therefore mispronunciations will be reflected in the written spelling of words the writer mispronounces)
Common vowel pronunciation sounds are not necessary to be written
Less common vowel sounds need to be written
Writing out vowel pronunciation sounds assists the reader in understanding what word is written as well as which form of a word is written
Amarna Letters Ur III catalogue from Nibru (N1) composite text: Line 1. dub suj-ta Line 2 - den-ki unu2 gal im-ed3 Line 3 - an-zag-ce3 Line 4 - an-ji6 zu ama tu6 zu-ke4 Line 5 - jic-gi bul-e Line 6 - AN KAC4 AN KAC4 me3-ke4 Line 7 - mac-mac erim2 kur2-kur2 Line 8 - jiri3-jen-na /den\-ki ki unu2 gal im-ed3-kam Line 9 - cag4 LAGABxU 1-kam Line 10 - dub saj-ta http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section0/c011.htm
Here's the retranslation...
Here we have the basic same context as other ancient texts I've show, but with different choice of words, such as...
Instead of irdi (ዒርዲ) as "fortress," this uses mesheg (ምሸግ)
Instead of A'deme (ዓደመ) for "invite," this uses TS'ewA' (ጸውዐ)
Instead of weg'i (ወግዒ) for the word for "discussion," this uses krkr (ክርክር)
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
What I find interesting about vowels in the Ur III catalogue from Nibru (N1) composite text is not the ancient vowel usage.
Instead, the transcriber's assignment of i for the 1st order common vowel pronunciation sound is a mistake in transcription, not of the ancient writer...
ሐ in ጽንሐ/TS'nhe/"remain"
መ in መጸ/meTS'e/"come, arrive"
ሐ in ኣናውሐ/anawhe/"extend"
ረ in እረኛ/irenya/"herder"
ረ in ሓረየ/hareye/"select"
ከ in ከ/ke/"of"
When we look at other ancient languages, such as ancient written Greek, the i by ancient Greek writers is normally and reliably reserved for the ee pronunciation sound or y.
Likewise, the transcriber's assignment of e for the 6th order vowel pronunciation sound is a mistake on the part of the transcriber and not the ancient writer, because e, such as in ancient wrtten Greek, is normally a common vowel sound...
ጽ in ጽንሐ/TS'nihe/"remain"
ቕ in ንዑቕ/nU'Q/"he rejected"
እ in እረኛ/irenya/"herder"
ም in ኣምጸአ/amTS'e/"bring, import"
Regardless, during retranslation one can make note of these transcription errors and apply them to the word matching.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
So now onto Sanskrit and the Rigveda, which you would never guess shared the underlying text with the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony and the underlying text of the Bible.
"The Rigveda is the oldest known Vedic Sanskrit text"
"Its early layers are one of the oldest extant texts in any Indo-European language"
"The Philological and linguistic evidence indicates that the bulk of the Rigveda Samhita was composed in the northwestern region (Punjab) of the Indian subcontinent"
"... most likely between c. 1500 and 1200 BC, although a wider approximation of c. 1700–1100 BC has also been given."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda Like the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony and the underlying text of the Bible, the underlying text of the Rigveda are not hymns and has nothing to do with religion.
In the underlying text, again, we see farming. We see in this one example...
Shipping jars
Traveling/shipping
The fortress
The granary
Crops
A king who is a merchant
And a second retranslation...
In the underlying text, again, we see farming. We see in this second example...
The ankh
Creating a profit
A queen who is a merchant
A sales agreement
Ripe crops
A shipping vessel (water boat)
This time, I also provide the commonly accepted Rigveda mistranslation of the underlying text, which isn't bad, except the queen is no longer a queen in the mistranslation.
But this is common in intentional mistranslations of ancient texts, where the wife's powerful royal title is taken away from her in the intentional mistranslations. This is a trend that took women's ancient women's rights from them, leaving today's Western women powerless, silenced and subjugated to men.
We can see how this also took place in the underlying text of the Bible. The same word, Atseyti's powerful royal title is removed in the intentional mistranslation of the underlying text...
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
So let's look at the word for aTS'eyti/ሃጸይቲ/አፄቲ/"empress" in the underlying text of the Rigveda...
-- = አ (beginning common 1st order vowel not written) स = sa = ፄ = sey ती = ti = ቲ = ti (tee)
Without the i (ee) ending, we have a different word, which may mean "female" but it doesn't mean "wife" at all...
सित = sita = saet = ሴት = woman
saet (ሴት) woman (n.) (Amarigna)
set (ሰት) girl (n.) (Amarigna)
Just to be clear, "wife" is a totally different word...
mist (ሚስት) wife (Amarigna) weyzero (ወይዘሮ) Mrs, lady, madam (n.) (Tigrigna)
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
In the underlying text of the Hesiod Theogony, we can see the word Mrs. in ancient written Greek as βασιλῆα/ወይዘሮ/weyzero/"Mrs.", referring to an ancient Egyptian queen working with an architect to design the Yafo fortress...
βασιλῆα = ወይዘሮ = weyzero = Mrs, lady, madam
βα = ወይ = wey σι = ዘ = ze λῆα = ሮ = ro
Notice that the writer uses...
α for the ይ/y (aye) pronunciation sound
α for the o (oh) pronunciation sound
This is correct, because the reader knows both are not-so-common sounds.
Also, ι is written for a common vowel pronunciation sound, which includes the hieroglyph
Below we can see more of the complete text, which includes the fortress and materials, chalk mixed with gypsum being used...
The guest is the king, and the Mrs. is the king's wife, the queen.
Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Damn, it's like crickets in here.
Wow Posted by AncientGebts (Member # 17037) on :
Simone Lia on the heritage of the future Looking back at the mysteries of the early 21st century
So you see, it's not true that God will strike you down if you don't go to church. It was all a lie. Fake religions. All lies.
Hieroglyphs do have vowel characters. The way translators decided on ancient Egyptian vowels was by making stuff up and telling lies. All they had to do is study the Amarigna and Tigrigna language, and they would have known.
And to find out the truth about these fake religions, all you have to do is retranslate the underlying text of all the religions with Amarigna and Tigrigna languages.
But then, lies and fake info is more believable than the truth.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Oh boy is this fun let's keep the ball rolling 
in hieroglyphs in the Rosetta Stone as ከኣ/kea/"and"
= Q/K/G/CH/SH/J/H
= TS/S/SH/K/CH (in this case Amarigna CH is often Tigrigna TS)
, a common vowel (1st order)
M/N
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
