The origin of Christian names

[Gladius]

What I DO show in various presentations in the use of the Masorah to control the language, and really far far more. Anyone who listened to those intently would understand the problems in your application of arbitrary Masoretic definitions. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, there's no use continuing to waste my time. If you continue to use the Masorah, your opinion will be faulty on every issue pertaining to the Bible and language thereof. It's also a fallacy to demand there be a fully functional alternative model when one can show you the existing one is indeed untrustworthy. And I would submit that I've shown more solid reasons for my method than any Masorete, or supporter of the Masorah, ever has. This is an issue of fundamentals. Going back to arguing "GL" is moot if your sticking to your Masoretic guns, which I'm not sure you've even done that, as if you had provided the Strong's (which are necessary to show the error in your thought process) we could have resolved it there, but I don't think that's what you want.

You don't seem to get what I'm talking about.
I am not a "Masoretic supporter", I already said, it is obvious that the language is controlled, just as you said.
It is you who claims to have a superior knowledge that counters the Masorah, but you fail to demonstrate it.
In fact, your comments on this website mostly consist of you cherrypicking certain etymologies from Strong's which you deem "better" than other etymologies, in order to allegedly show an "archaic" proto language which is not controlled by Masorah.

Hebrew words have multiple ways to read or interpret them. Whether that's a result of a post-control restructure or not, is not the point. The point is, you are choosing which interpretations fit your view and try to elevate them, without backing it up by anything.

Don't send people to listen to your external work. You haven't even proved it is worth anyone's time. You are advertising it in almost every thread you participate. Please demonstrate your thought process, how certain etymologies which you choose are superior to the Masorah etymologies.

Not to mention your condescending approach, thinking you have cracked some "original Hebrew code" and accusing a native speaker of being trapped in a Masoretic cage. Just prove it instead of beating around it.

 

[Safranek]

What should also be considered is that languages evolve via their use. The longer its use the more time it has for that evolution. Since Hebrew is also probably based on a prior older language, it is likely that up to current times, the use has strayed away somewhat from its original form and/or meaning. It evolved and is evolving like all languages, so while one side of the argument may be correct as attributed to a prior set of rules, the other side of the argument may also be equally correct due to the continuous evolution of the language.

 

[OBRYprojekt]

You don't seem to get what I'm talking about.
I am not a "Masoretic supporter", I already said, it is obvious that the language is controlled, just as you said.
It is you who claims to have a superior knowledge that counters the Masorah, but you fail to demonstrate it.
In fact, your comments on this website mostly consist of you cherrypicking certain etymologies from Strong's which you deem "better" than other etymologies, in order to allegedly show an "archaic" proto language which is not controlled by Masorah.

Hebrew words have multiple ways to read or interpret them. Whether that's a result of a post-control restructure or not, is not the point. The point is, you are choosing which interpretations fit your view and try to elevate them, without backing it up by anything.

Don't send people to listen to your external work. You haven't even proved it is worth anyone's time. You are advertising it in almost every thread you participate. Please demonstrate your thought process, how certain etymologies which you choose are superior to the Masorah etymologies.

Not to mention your condescending approach, thinking you have cracked some "original Hebrew code" and accusing a native speaker of being trapped in a Masoretic cage. Just prove it instead of beating around it.

I've never claimed to have proven more than the complete lack of reliability in methods such as you chose to use. "Hebrew words have multiple ways to read or interpret them." Yes, that's the problem. If it were an aspect issue, that MIGHT be one thing, but if you track them, and examine them in context, you'll see there is intelligence behind how they are sometimes divided and sometimes joined.

You've entirely misrepresented my work, so if you're going to make claims such as "Don't send people to listen to your external work. You haven't even proven it's worth anyone's time" you should actually know what I do and do not do, know, and prove, which you clearly don't. Show me what work has been presented in any thread herein that is rock-solid: work with external links. Are you butt-hurt, are you gate-keeping, or are you threatening? Either way, the work I've done has gone far beyond anything currently available and I'd recommend everyone read it, watch it, and study it, and I'll continue to point people to my work.

What do you have on the other hand? the voices of establishment philology, linguistics, and Jewish learning? PS- I'm mostly just condescending to people like you. You don't want to know the problems with your thinking (or your wants), so you refuse to engage in a systematic method that would show you just that.

 

[Jef Demolder]

CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN NAMES
Some years ago I have studied the list of bishops of a fifteen dioceses in France and Germany. We can expect that most bishops were born in Christian families. Do they have Christian names? Well, typical New Testament names like Mark, Luke, Matthew, Paul, Peter, Joseph (Saint Joseph, the father of Jesus), Thomas, Barthelemy, Stephen, only appear from about 1600 on. This confirms my thesis that the New Testament was written in the 15th century, that the Christian reform started in the beginning of the 16th century, and that the Church with all its institutions existed already BEFORE the Christian reform. The only exception in the late use of New Testament names is John. John (the Baptist), Ioannes, Jean, Janus, Jonas, Johannes, Ioan, Iwan, etcetera, alias the Great Prophet, is prechristian. I would like to know when the name Mary (Maria, Mariamme) appeared but there is no Mary in the bishop's lists .

 

[Gladius]

I've never claimed to have proven more than the complete lack of reliability in methods such as you chose to use. "Hebrew words have multiple ways to read or interpret them." Yes, that's the problem. If it were an aspect issue, that MIGHT be one thing, but if you track them, and examine them in context, you'll see there is intelligence behind how they are sometimes divided and sometimes joined.

Which is the method that I "choose to use", and which is the method that you do?

Please demonstrate your thought process, how certain etymologies which you choose are superior to the Masorah etymologies.

Can you demonstrate anything from the "actual Hebrew", or do I need to listen to your 2 hours audios to find it?

Still waiting.

Now, you say that the fact Hebrew words are interpreted in multiple ways, is a problem, making it unreliable.
Here are examples of you, on this forum, using common Hebrew etymologies to explain various things.


#1 "Tartaria" is a myth and didn't exist

It's root can also be found in OBRY (Hebrew sans Masorah) as TAR (Strong's H8388-9), being translated as "drawn; mark" concerning geography, and "full form" concerning objects or people. A double root in OBRY/Hebrew is an augmentation: ShOShO "great salvation" compared to ShO "salvation". In English (from PIE) "tar" is more from a verb root "spread out" than referring to a specific substance. And "tere-" was a PIE prefix denoting "crossing over", thus space. "Territory" is an appropriate English descendant.

#2 The Travels of Sir John Mandeville - The Old World & Tartaria

"Jerusalem" is made up of two definite roots - RU/RY and ShL. The closest link to the first is Strong's H7301 "RU": translated "watered; satiate". The next is ShL (with the neutral M plural (or "ongoing" if a verb) suffix. ShL can be found in multiple simple root entries: H5394, H7944, H7945, H7953: mainly translated as words having to do with "press down; plant". YRU "to water; wet" + ShLM "press down; plant". Whether this means it was well-watered or that much water emanated from it, as it was on a mountain (not a gravel hill, as it's alternate name is Mt. Zion), is unsure. But that's very close. I have tools to help with these words at obryprojekt.info on the "resources" page.

If you look at my exaustive OBRY bi-glyph root chart at obryprojekt.info "resources" page, you'll see that, as far as the listed roots for "Ts-" go, they have more to do with a "command" or "going forth". Biblically, there are a few distinct features around YRUShLM "Zion", but none seem dry. I would guess H6723 TsYE is closer to "traveling place" or "trodden"... something of that sort.

And of course, your first comment in this thread, where you are ironically using the same "establishment's method" to argue my etymology.
#3

GL is found in many more forms than above. It can be used as "wave," with the implication of "carried away."

Are your etymologies wrong? No, or yes, it's not the point. The point is they're derived from exactly the same sources you claim to be unreliable.
And to repeat your words: "I've never claimed to have proven more than the complete lack of reliability in methods such as you chose to use."
What is unreliable? the "method", or the words themselves? Which method am I using, and which one are you using? Citing from Strong's? Is that a method? How is Strong superior and unbiased?

From the post I quoted, you cited TAR (Strong's H8388-9)
תאר
Strong's entry says 'drawn, mark', as you cited. It is correct.
In the Bible, T.A.R תאר is also used for:
1. 'of appearance / of form' . Yafe-Toar יפה תאר (good looking) ; Ra-Toar רע תאר (bad-looking)
2. 'to curse (you)' Taor תָאֹֽר

In Strong's entry, those two are omitted. They are used as much as "Ta'ar" is used, in the same books. In fact, TAAR as in 'drawn, mark' is the least used form of this word in the Bible. Why is it omitted from Strong's? Perhaps one meaning is the "real Hebrew", and the others are from the "masoretic prison"? Do you not see how ridiculous it is?

Also:
#4 The Netherlands (Dutch Republic) in the Little Ice Age

Why do I say the common "German" was in India? Many reasons, only one being the mix of languages that seem to lead back there (Proto Indo European), and the references to parts of East Asia as "Kalli/Kole Judeh/Judah" meaning "Judah's captivity".

By "parts of East Asia" you mean this farm in Indonesia? Where do you get this stuff and come up with those explanations?

You've entirely misrepresented my work, so if you're going to make claims such as "Don't send people to listen to your external work. You haven't even proven it's worth anyone's time" you should actually know what I do and do not do, know, and prove, which you clearly don't. Show me what work has been presented in any thread herein that is rock-solid: work with external links. Are you butt-hurt, are you gate-keeping, or are you threatening? Either way, the work I've done has gone far beyond anything currently available and I'd recommend everyone read it, watch it, and study it, and I'll continue to point people to my work.

What do you have on the other hand? the voices of establishment philology, linguistics, and Jewish learning?

What is there to gatekeep or to be butt hurt about? I have nothing to defend, you are the one making the claims.
Instead of providing demonstration, you keep painting me as a supporter of some theory or 'voices'. LOL.
I'm more than fine with hearing any theory or approach to how Hebrew should be interpretated, as I believe like you, that the language is tampered with. Unfortunately, in the web today you can find numerous authors who claim they found out what Hebrew really is:
Hebrew is Greek, Hebrew is Native American, Hebrew is Russian, Hebrew is African, and the list goes on.
That fact of course, does not negate your own research. You believe Hebrew shares a root with German, and that's a plausible claim.

Like in any part of history or science, there is the establishment's narrative, and it is on us to disprove it or work with it.
You could say: "I don't believe in the Masoretic (establishment) take on Hebrew, and therefore all of its etymologies should not be taken seriously, if at all accepted" , that's a perfectly normal claim. Instead, you're saying: I don't believe in it, but look how I am also using it like everyone else.
I cannot respect your approach when you CONTRADICT YOURSELF.
On this forum, for example, when people dispute a subject, they show what narrative claims, evaluate the sources, and then present alternative sources that claim differently, and may paint a different picture to the reality of the subject. You're only doing half of it.

PS- I'm mostly just condescending to people like you. You don't want to know the problems with your thinking (or your wants), so you refuse to engage in a systematic method that would show you just that.

Hi @OBRYprojekt , for the third time,
Please sir, kindly show me the systemic method that would show me the problems with my thinking.
I really, really hope that by the 10th comment I will finally see it.

I'm not going to take the time to reference the words you cited, but I'd like references from Strong's.

If you can't be bothered to educate yourself, there's no use continuing to waste my time

So far, only demands, complaints and minimal investment to demonstrate your points.
You can still correct that.
But I assume, that your next reply will again send me elsewhere to be educated ()