Well David all people when discussing an issue have a bias of their individual thought on the issue. Mozeson identifies his bias as a belief in God and His work at the tower of Babel. His work stems from and tries to prove that since Hebrew words appear in most of the languages of the world, then it follows that is a good evidence the event did happen and the Biblical account is true.
He does state in the video that his theories are too avante guard for most academics. In your post, Babel is not even considered as a possibility so I will assume you are one of those academics. Your bias is indicated by the following "I believe in general the evidence that Mozeson [Edenics, The Word, etc..] and his students uncover isdue to the spread of Hebrew and Arabic through Theologians traveling the world in the last 2,000 years bringing with them Hebrew and Greek. Many Anglo Saxon words are of Hebrew origin: Love < LB, over < ober < OBR (o for ayin), child < jild* < YLD, earth < erets < ARC /arech/ or /arets/, error < ARR. And on and on, many many words" Except for English, most languages do not add very many words percentage wise to have any noticeable effect through conntact. In most cases when a new word is adopted through contact the original word is also kept. So contacts effects are additional not substitutional. The real proof of who is right would be evidence that these Hebrew word roots and confusions of words from Hebrew as described from the Babel story do or do not go back to the beginnings of these languages, since the Babel story includes an actual dispersal of peoples into nations around the world all at once. Archeology has already indicated that possibility though you will not see it given much press because the truth is uncomfortable for most academics especially where it gives credence to the Bible. To uncover enough evidence for that to be proved is a giant undertaking. Where will Mozeson get the kind of funding necessary to thoroughly prove his thoeries? Those who are eager to attack his ideas should bear some burden of contribution to fund and examine this theory. My bias is a strong belief in God and Hebrew as His Word. The Bible codes alone in the 49 letter sequences of the five books of the Torah which spell out TORH for Genesis and Exodus, then YWVH for Leviticus, and HROT for Numbers and Deuteronomy were enough to convince me Hebrew in some early pictographic form is God's language and the root of all language. I find it interesting as well if you lay these books on a table in order with Leviticus in the middle and you consider the books on the left as west and the books on the right as east you will notice the word arrangements above match the fact that all eastern languages read write to left and western languages read left to right, hmmm. I'll stick with Mozeson until someone can actually prove him wrong. Respectfully Rollin Shultz Mechanical designer Bible Student Allentown, Pa 18104 Motto: Ask for help when needed, help others when asked, and remember where you came from. Happy moments, PRAISE GOD, Difficult moments, SEEK GOD, Quiet moments, WORSHIP GOD, Painful moments, TRUST GOD, Every moment, THANK GOD ________________________________ From: david_89793 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, May 2, 2010 11:46:45 PM Subject: [ancient_hebrew] Re: Tracing Chinese, American, and Hebrew Language Origins - Tower of Babel? There are two ways that languages are related, 1. related by language contact, or mixing or mass borrowing of words or even grammatical features [see Thomason, Language Contact]; 2. related "genetically" when groups split and language changes over time until you have different groups speaking different dialects of the same language [see Ruhlen, The Origin of Language] I believe in general the evidence that Mozeson [Edenics, The Word, etc..] and his students uncover is due to the spread of Hebrew and Arabic through Theologians traveling the world in the last 2,000 years bringing with them Hebrew and Greek. Many Anglo Saxon words are of Hebrew origin: Love < LB, over < ober < OBR (o for ayin), child < jild* < YLD, earth < erets < ARC /arech/ or /arets/, error < ARR. And on and on, many many words. Some corrections need to be made in Mozeson's work; I don't have the study in front of me but I found a different etymology for 'skull' which is related to words in Greek and Latin which come from Egpytian, which is related to a particular Hebrew word, I do not recall at the moment. I posted the study on historicallinguisti cs yahoo groups. In the event of languages mixing, at times much vocabulary is lost and new word formations must be developed; so new word formations can only be traced back to particular roots in a given language. But ultimately roots are traceable to their parent language. It may be that a root in one language is derived from a word form that was created in a parent language from another prior root. so it may be difficult to trace many roots back to Hebrew. But Imperial Aramaic and Hebrew clearly have a common parent language. I am going to demonstrate that Egyptian and Hebrew clearly have a common parent language. see peripheralegyptolog y yahoo group. The nature of word formation of the original language can be reconstructed by following such work as Benner's work. Above other scholars I believe Benner has gotten the logic of the original nature of word formation correct. >From 3000 BC to 2,000 or 1,000 BC languages must have appeared more >genetically related. But from 1,000 BC to 1,000 AD language change must have >been dominated by language contact and mixing. Dave --- In ancient_hebrew@ yahoogroups. com, "j.rothlander@ ..." <j.rothlander@ ...> wrote: > > > > I found the forum and website very interesting and wanted to post something > about what brought me to the site and if anyone else was curious about the > connections between some of the original languages such as Chinese and Mayan > in relationship to Hebrew. What I find unique is that if you take a Babel > approach to other languages that did not evolve directly from Hebrew, as > would be expected in a Babel type experience; you find some interesting > things that might lend support to a Biblical approach to history versus the > secular idea that the story is just a fairy tale. > > etc......... ......... .
