Yes, yes I agree entirely that some certainly are mocking religion and god: But hey Timojin, don't you often set out to mock science?
You have heard about people in glass houses throwing stones?
In Genesis, what language did god speak?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
You have heard about people in glass houses throwing stones?
Yes, yes I agree entirely that some certainly are mocking religion and god: But hey Timojin, don't you often set out to mock science?
You have heard about people in glass houses throwing stones?
Thanks for breaking my glass bubble , I don't know if you have noticed that I like science, most of my post are in science.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Before I read the rest of your post I apologise if I got carried away and appeared disrespectful.
I will read the rest of your reply and get back later.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
OK fair enough.
We can assume it was the language the person knew.
You do well to point this out and perhaps I am guilty maybe a little. I apologise.
I will try to be better.
You treat me with respect and I appreciate that you do.
I also appreciate you showing me how you think about things.
I know what I know I need to know what others know and you help me ..thank you.
Alex
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Your last question is the easiest to answer because, for obvious reasons, Hebrew is one of the most-studied human languages. The first evidence of Hebrew writing is on a stone shard found (more-or-less) in the historical region of Israel. It is dated (in round numbers) to 1000BCE.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the Hebrew language came into existence at that time. The Semitic branch of the Afro-Asiatic family (which also includes the Berber, Chadic, Cushitic, Egyptian and Omotic branches) is widely studied. The Semitic is the only branch with members in Asia. (And, maddeningly, even with modern DNA analysis, we have been completely unable to discern whether the proto-language was developed in Asia, and carried to Africa by colonists and adventurers... or vice versa!)
Since that region of southwestern Asia was home to several of mankind's earliest civilizations, written language was developed early there. Nonetheless, since Egypt was one of the first civilizations to develop writing, the forms of the symbols in Asian writing, and the fact that many Asians had migrated to Egypt to take jobs building the Pyramids (tales of slave labor, including the Biblical stories about thousands of Jewish slaves, are preposterously exaggerated), I find that most linguists assume that the writing symbols of Mesopotamia were borrowed and modified from Egyptian hieroglyphics.
So it comes down to: when exactly did God speak to this Jewish fellow? If it was in the remote past, he could have been speaking one of the Canaanite languages. But if it was more recent, it might have been an ancient dialect of Hebrew. The Hebrew/Jewish people have been overrun many times, so they were often forced to communicate in the language of one conqueror or another. Because of this, their own beloved language has been treated more as a religious relic than an actual communication medium. Thus, every Jewish man (and, increasingly, also women) is expected to be able to read the Torah in the original language.
Modern Israeli Hebrew isn't exactly the same as the biblical version, but someone from King David's era would probably be able to understand it after being exposed to it for a few days. The biggest difference between the two dialects (other than modern slang and scientific terminology) is phonetics, rather than than grammar or vocabulary.
According to the bible, the book with the talking snake , God must have had self fulfilling idioms. and according to Genesis he seems to be talking a lot to himself? " let there be light--" " let there be water above. --", as soon it is said, it is done, so, he must have talked before animals and humans existed?
could that language be called Makeish, ? but then,
even Genesis 1:1 **is wrong, the Earth was not created in the beginning, but 10 billion years later, so why would we talk about this flawed acoustical concept?
If you hear voices now and think it is God, --see a mental health specialist!, why would that not be valid advice back then?
** the question was about God in Genesis, so covering the first ~13 billion years or must count?.
could that language be called Makeish, ? but then,
even Genesis 1:1 **is wrong, the Earth was not created in the beginning, but 10 billion years later, so why would we talk about this flawed acoustical concept?
If you hear voices now and think it is God, --see a mental health specialist!, why would that not be valid advice back then?
** the question was about God in Genesis, so covering the first ~13 billion years or must count?.
Last edited:
DrKrettin
Registered Senior Member
But there was nobody there to communicate with, so why would he have a language at all?
It was a monologue in createse, unless, if the bible is to be believed, "angels" were made before the material universe
IMHO, 'Createse' is a dialect - based on subquantum vibrations - that when spoken, even loudly, is seldom heard (detected).
You seem to have a fondness for "subquantum". Could you please provide a definition in your own words? While we're at it, any links to evidence supporting "subquantum" theory would be appreciated. Also, what useful predictions from "subquantum vibrations" or other subquantum perturbations are posited?
Alternatively, maybe this is just a supercool buzzword for you - perhaps your old school new age crystals are resonating on a subquantum level...
Last edited:
I agree. And when you _can_ hear it, it is almost identical to Esperanto.
ajanta
Registered Senior Member
So your biological father is unknown BEFORE DNA test and your mom....
He identified Himself to Moses , and Moses wrote the book of Genesis . Moses spoke Egyptian,
Last edited:
I agree Randwolf! . . . subquantum is a 'supercool buzzword' . . .and YES, it is a term that I am fond of! . . . below please find some information regarding my usage of the term, and some related definitions:
"My usage of the term ‘subquantum’ is simply that of discussing the subplanckian domain (less than ~ 10-35 cm scale). Subquantum is essentially the fuzzy point below which Maxwellian-defined quantum behavior is not detectible as discrete quanta. Subquantum is that domain from which the quantum domain emerges. Essentially, quantum is the lower limit of detectibility, or observability, or in Bohm’s identity, the explicate domain. Subquantum refers primarily (in my usage) to Bohm’s implicate domain. IMO, we are only on the cusp of experimental excursions into the subquantum domain, due to difficulties in physical detection/observation. Hints of the subquantum domain may be represented by such phenomena as the Casimir Effect, Van der Waals forces, consciousness-seated in neuronal microtubules, etc.
I (at this point) am exploring hypotheses that include subquantum mechanisms for the creation (physical) and evolution of organic life. Such mechanisms may involve subquantum energetics that modulate hydrogen bonding in both organic and inorganic domains. . . . (And here is a 'teaser' for all the theists and atheists out there: Is there an intelligence or mechanism that modulates the subquantum?)
From various links on the Internet:
• QUANTUM(noun)
The noun QUANTUM has 2 senses:
1. a discrete amount of something that is analogous to the quantum in quantum theory2. (physics) the smallest discrete quantity of some physical property that a system can possess (according to quantum theory)
quantum
noun quan·tum \ˈkwän-təm\
Definition of quantum for English Language Learners
- physics : the smallest amount of many forms of energy (such as light)
Adjective[edit]
subquantum (not comparable)
- (physics) Describing any of several approaches to describe physical phenomena by means of hidden variables or other alternatives to quantum physics
Last edited:
Thank you for your response. Essentially you seem to be saying that subquantum refers to anything "below or under" the quantum level, as in... you know, "sub" quantum - which can easily be divined from the Latin root. So I'm not impressed, no new information. You essentially repeat this definition again, complete with the extraneous dictionary links. I'm really looking for answers to the questions you mostly ignored:
Other than enigmatic references to "Hints of the subquantum domain may be represented by such phenomena as the Casimir Effect, Van der Waals forces, consciousness-seated in neuronal microtubules, etc." I see nothing regarding any practical application of your super cool buzzword. How, precisely, do "such phenomena as the Casimir Effect, Van der Waals forces, consciousness-seated in neuronal microtubules, etc." relate to the "subquantum" world?
I could just as easily restate your assertion to read: "IMO, we are only on the cusp of experimental excursions into the fairy dust domain, due to difficulties in physical detection/observation. Hints of the fairy dust domain may be represented by such phenomena as the Casimir Effect, Van der Waals forces, consciousness-seated in neuronal microtubules, etc." and it would make equal sense with equal relevance to science.
And that's before we really head out to space with this gem: "I (at this point) am exploring hypotheses that include subquantum mechanisms for the creation (physical) and evolution of organic life. Such mechanisms may involve subquantum energetics that modulate hydrogen bonding in both organic and inorganic domains. . . . (And here is a 'teaser' for all the theists and atheists out there: Is there an intelligence or mechanism that modulates the subquantum?)"
So, once again... Any links to evidence supporting "subquantum" theory would be appreciated. Also, what useful predictions from "subquantum vibrations" or other subquantum perturbations are posited?
And, finally, what is your take on Paul A. LaViolette?
Randwolf: My response to your opinion of my response to your queries? . . . . . whatever! . . . You may restate my posts any way you want to satisfy your pseudo-ego . . . "evidence for 'subquantum' is forthcoming in refereed publications" (HAHAHA!) . . . long after I'm dead, I'd suppose! Discovering scientific (and other) truths oft involves "time" and "new thinking" and IMHO, we are not yet close to routinely detecting subquantum phenomena for many of the reasons I have suggested.
Paul La Violettte? . . . . . I think I may have emailed him a several years ago regarding his take on subquantum mechanisms, but I do not follow or routinely read his research/writings . . . I'll leave such excursions/explorations up to your curiosity!
Paul La Violettte? . . . . . I think I may have emailed him a several years ago regarding his take on subquantum mechanisms, but I do not follow or routinely read his research/writings . . . I'll leave such excursions/explorations up to your curiosity!
OK, no offense intended. I just wanted to make sure we were in agreement that there is absolutely no evidence of nor predictions produced by your wonderful little "subquantum" buzz word. Thanks for clearing that up, I was afraid you thought it was somehow related to real science rather than tinfoil woo.
Do carry on...
Do carry on...
I will, as I'm sure you will also, from inside the 'box'! No offense intended.