# The origin of the word 'Symphony'



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

While reading the Book of Daniel in its original Hebrew letters in the Aramaic Language I came upon a word that reads *'Soomponia'.* The Context of the text is that the Babylonian dictator King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, ninety feet high and nine feet wide, and set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon, and he then summoned the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials to come to the dedication of the image he had set up.

Then a herald shouted out, "People of all races and nations and languages, listen to the king's command:

Daniel 3:5

At the time that ye hear the voice of the cornet, the flute, the harp, the sackbut, the psaltery, the *symphony*, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and do obeisance to the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath raised up.

That means that he commanded all the people under his rule, meaning the vast majority of the people of the world since his kingdom was vast and included many nations, to worship this golden image as soon as they hear the sound of the music playing.

In the description of the music , the verse says 'Soomponia' , translated in English to 'Symphony'.

Now Wikipedia does bring the story of Daniel when trying to find out the origin of the word Symphony, but Wikipedia says something very interesting, and also it makes a mistake in reading out the word correctly:

*The word symphony derives from Greek συμφωνία, meaning "agreement or concord of sound", "concert of vocal or instrumental music", from σύμφωνος, "harmonious" (Oxford English Dictionary). This Greek word was used to describe an instrument mentioned in the Book of Daniel once identified by scholars as a bagpipe (this is identified as the root of the name of the Italian zampogna) (Stainer and Galpin 1914,[page needed]). However, more recent scholarly opinion points out that the word in the Book of Daniel is siphonia (from Greek siphon, reed), and concludes that the bagpipe did not exist at so early a time, though the name of the "zampogna" could still have been derived from this word *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony

I believe that Wikipedia makes a major error here in attributing the origin of this word to the Greek Language because firstly it didn't spell out the word correctly as it appears in the Hebrew Original text. The Hebrew Text reads like this *'SoomPonia'*, and wikipedia reads it as *'Siphonia'*, a completely erroneous writing and pronunciation of the original Hebrew text, therefore the conclusion it reaches based on this ignorant error is also erroneous, it cant compare this word to the Greek word Siphon which means reed, because its based on a wrong pronunciation.

So because of this the origin of the word Symphony cant be Greek, and its still open to investigation. Remember that the word appears in the Hebrew Book of Daniel, this book begins with Ancient Hebrew all throughout the First Chapter, and from the Second chapter it begins with Aramaic. The word *Soomponia* Appears on the third chapter when its in Aramaic.

Based on this I don't see any evidence to remove the origin of this word from its Aramaic origin, its also worth mentioning that Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar.


----------



## Ravellian

I invented the word "symphony."


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Ravellian said:


> I invented the word "symphony."


Which one?


----------



## toucan

Whether spelled "sumponyah," "sampunia," "sumphonia," or "siphonia, " the aramaic word was always known to be a greek derivation - or corruption.

The origin of our noun "symphony" is still the Greek word "sumphonia" (συμφωνία), composed of the Greek words "sun" - meaning together - and "phone" - meaning voice, or sound.


----------



## Josiah

Ravellian said:


> I invented the word "symphony."




mindblown


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

toucan said:


> Whether spelled "sumponyah," "sampunia," "sumphonia," or "siphonia, " the aramaic word was always known to be a greek derivation - or corruption.
> 
> The origin of our noun "symphony" is still the Greek word "sumphonia" (συμφωνία), composed of the Greek words "sun" - meaning together - and "phone" - meaning voice, or sound.


The Greeks had no power back then. Babylon was the world power and super power before Greece even came to its great power. Why should a great super power be influenced by a small non-player on describing words?

This escapes all rational.


----------



## toucan

The Book of Daniel is not a Babylonian document, it is a Hebrew document. And the Hebrews have borrowed so much from surrounding cultures it can be hard to tell what is or is not authentically Hebrew.

Not that power has any bearing on the issue. The Greeks were overpowered by the Romans yet culturally they influenced the Romans - just as they influenced the moderns, over whom they never held power.


----------



## tdc

toucan said:


> Not that power has any bearing on the issue. The Greeks were overpowered by the Romans yet culturally they influenced the Romans - just as they influenced the moderns, over whom they never held power.


Just as before that the Egyptians were overpowered by the Greeks, yet culturally influenced them. The Egyptians arguably have the farthest reaching cultural influence (in modern times) including (most likely) the initial sacred geometric knowledge music itself is based on.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

toucan said:


> The Book of Daniel is not a Babylonian document, it is a Hebrew document. And the Hebrews have borrowed so much from surrounding cultures it can be hard to tell what is or is not authentically Hebrew.
> 
> Not that power has any bearing on the issue. The Greeks were overpowered by the Romans yet culturally they influenced the Romans - just as they influenced the moderns, over whom they never held power.


Actually Daniel wrote it in consonance of his time, and in Aramaic, the vast majority is written in Aramaic, the Babylonian language of the ruling super power of that age. Greece was nowhere to be heard of , they had no empire, power or influence.


----------



## toucan

The Book of Daniel was written during the second century BC - a century _after_ Aristotle's student, Alexander the Great, overpowered and Hellenized Palestine.

It relates events that occured during the sixth century BC - and thus anywhere from two to six centuries _after_ the *Illiad* and the *Odyssey* are estimated to have been written.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

toucan said:


> The Book of Daniel was written during the second century BC - a century _after_ Aristotle's student, Alexander the Great, overpowered and Hellenized Palestine.


Actually Alexander never Hellenized Israel, and the word 'Palestine' was only used by the Romans after they destroyed the Temple , but never by the Greeks, so if you're wrong on these parts, why you shoulnt be wrong on the date of Daniel's writing?


----------



## toucan

Saul, I am not Greek so I say Palestine and Israel was Hellenized after the Greek Conquest. I ought to know, Philo of Alexandria told me. And if you are wrong on the spelling of the word "soomponia" (for which there is only one google entry: your opening post!) - then it figures you'd also be wrong wrong on your quixotic attempt at denying the existence of the Greeks or the precedence of Greek culture over the Hebrews.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

My Goodness, I was trying to point out the correct Pronunciation of the Original Hebrew Text and not the 'Spelling' . I thought that this was crystal clear.

When I read it in my language it says 'Soomponia', that's the correct pronunciation.

As to your Alexander statement.

You're mixing two things up, Alexander never ever Hellenized Israel, never. In fact he was in great warm relationship with the Jewish people and their leaders, the things are clear in the Talmud, I have read it myself.

What you meant, was later on after Alexander's death and the division of his empire between his 4 Generals, King Antiochus who was the ruler of Syria tried to Hellenize the Jews and Israel, but he failed and was defeat by the Jewish Maccabee warriors.

I'm sorry to say, and I mean it with all du respect, you have mixed up the history completely.


----------



## toucan

No, Saul, what I meant was, the Talmud is not an etymological treatise and symphony is a greek not an Aramic or Hebrew word.


----------



## Toccata

I'm always interested in what Saul has to say on the various topics he chooses to raise. 

Without Saul's advice, I wouldn't have known that the modern world owes anything like so much to ancient and modern Judaism. I have learned all sorts of amazing things over the past few years just by following his many threads on forums like this one, across a whole range of issues with Judaism at its centre. 

As a humble person, I just soak it all up and am very thankful for the opportunity to learn about these things. 

So, I'd like to suggest that you guys might do the same, and stop giving Saul such a hard time to the extent that it leads to closure of many of his threads. We can't afford to lose such vital knowledge. He is real treasure and these threads keeps me informed and up to date on things that really matter in life. Therefore, if Saul says that "symphony" is a Judaic work, don't be a load of bums and argue with him. He is bound to be right.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Toccata said:


> I'm always interested in what Saul has to say on the various topics he chooses to raise.
> 
> Without Saul's advice, I wouldn't have known that the modern world owes anything like so much to ancient and modern Judaism. I have learned all sorts of amazing things over the past few years just by following his many threads on forums like this one, across a whole range of issues with Judaism at its centre.
> 
> As a humble person, I just soak it all up and am very thankful for the opportunity to learn about these things.
> 
> So, I'd like to suggest that you guys might do the same, and stop giving Saul such a hard time to the extent that it leads to closure of many of his threads. We can't afford to lose such vital knowledge. He is real treasure and these threads keeps me informed and up to date on things that really matter in life. Therefore, if Saul says that "symphony" is a Judaic work, don't be a load of bums and argue with him. He is bound to be right.


Hey, Toccata thank you for your humbling and kind words, I really appreciate your sentiments and complements. But for the sake of truth, I never claimed that the word 'Symphony' is Hebrew or Aramaic. All I pointed out was that its not so obvious to associate this word to the Greek language, mostly because the translation/pronunciation that Wikipedia had used is completely erroneous, and therefore it cant come to definitive conclusions about this.

Its entirely possible that Soomponia, was a foreign word to Aramaic, but one cant say that its Greek for certain, the best thing that one can say that its open to further investigation.

Another point would be in regards to Tuscan's new claim that Alexander the Great Hellenized Israel. By all means, this statement is completely false. If he chooses to rewrite history, he must bring a source. No student of history can bare this, for it is known that Israel in his time had religious freedom, and pretty warm relationship with Alexander the great. In fact Alexander became a Jewish name, you'll see why by reading this:

http://www.aish.com/j/as/48929692.html

Best of Wishes!

Saul


----------



## Kopachris

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> The Hebrew Text reads like this *'SoomPonia'*


No, the Hebrew text reads like this: *סוּמְפֹּנְיָא*
And has the IPA pronunciation: [sumpo̞nja̠ʔ]


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Kopachris said:


> No, the Hebrew text reads like this: *סוּמְפֹּנְיָא*
> And has the IPA pronunciation: [sumpo̞nja̠ʔ]


That Hebrew/Aramaic word reads SoomPonia/ or better yet to be incredibly accurate, its reads SoomPonya, or Soomponja (*J*) pronounced like *Jan *Sibelius

I know how to read my mother language.


----------



## toucan

Yes, Tocatta sure humbled Saul... 

And the site Saul links us to sure proves me wrong:


> much of the upper crust of Jewish society, along with the rest of the population of the Mediterranean world, readily embraced Hellenistic culture (some to the point of denouncing their Jewish identity)


But, hey, who could not be humbled by a site subtitled: _Jewlarious_

I am so grateful to Saul. It is thanks to him that I learned the Acropolis - all Greco-Roman temples, in fact - were jewish constructions. Proof? They are called Temples, just like the Temple of Jerusalem...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

toucan said:


> Yes, Tocatta sure humbled Saul...
> 
> And the site Saul links us to sure proves me wrong:
> 
> But, hey, who could not be humbled by a site subtitled: _Jewlarious_
> 
> I am so grateful to Saul. It is thanks to him that I learned the Acropolis - all Greco-Roman temples, in fact - were jewish constructions. Proof? They are called Temples, just like the Temple of Jerusalem...


It would be proper not to delete the context for if you bring what you said with its context, all it will do is prove you wrong.

This is the context:

"Two Greek Empires emerged in the Middle East after the death of Alexander: The Ptolemies in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria. The Land of Israel was the border between these two warring Empires. Initially, the Jews were under the control of the Ptolemies, but after the Battle of Panias in 198BCE, Israel found herself in the domain of the Seleucids and their king, Antiochus.

While much of the upper crust of Jewish society, along with the rest of the population of the Mediterranean world, readily embraced Hellenistic culture (some to the point of denouncing their Jewish identity),* the vast majority of the Jews remained loyal to Judaism."*

So I was right all along by saying that only AFTER Alexander's death the Greeks had attempted and succeeded to some extend in Hellenizing Israel, but the story goes on, that faithful majority of the Jewish people resisted , they were called the Maccabees, and they defeated Greece, and destroyed Hellenism, and restored Jewish life and the Temple to its glorious holy status.

Cutting out vital contexts to justify making erroneous historical comments is wrong.


----------



## Polednice

Does this thread remind anyone else of the UK comedy _Goodness Gracious Me_?

There was a sketch in it (bearing in mind that almost all of the characters were from India) where a UK-based but India-loving father is constantly trying to convince his son that India invented everything. It was never the Greeks or the Romans; always the Indians!


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> Does this thread remind anyone else of the UK comedy _Goodness Gracious Me_?
> 
> There was a sketch in it (bearing in mind that almost all of the characters were from India) where a UK-based but India-loving father is constantly trying to convince his son that India invented everything. It was never the Greeks or the Romans; always the Indians!


LOL!

No one has suggested that the Jews had invented everything... LOL! :lol:


----------



## toucan

Polednice said:


> Does this thread remind anyone else of the UK comedy _Goodness Gracious Me_?
> 
> There was a sketch in it (bearing in mind that almost all of the characters were from India) where a UK-based but India-loving father is constantly trying to convince his son that India invented everything. It was never the Greeks or the Romans; always the Indians!


If you like comedy, consider the black friend (and nationalist) I had who'd try and strong arm me into acknowledging Toussaint Louverture not Alexander or Cesar was the greatest general in history, Pharonic Egypt was a black-influenced and black-dominated civilisation, and Russian Literature was essentially African Literature since the Father of Russian Literature, Pushkin, had a Camerounese great grand-parent

Lucky for me he did not know Alexandre Dumas was half-black and Leopold Senghor started out as a French Cabinet minister during the fourth Republic of France. He might have concluded France was a Senegalese colony and French Literature, African literature as well.

(Come to think of it, wouldn't it be neat if politically-correct educators would consider the African ancestry of Pushkin and of Dumas? Then they'd cease knocking down literuature from literature departments to replace it with multi-cultural studies; as they'd finally understand French and Russian literature already are multi-cultural.)


----------



## Aksel

Polednice said:


> Does this thread remind anyone else of the UK comedy _Goodness Gracious Me_?
> 
> There was a sketch in it (bearing in mind that almost all of the characters were from India) where a UK-based but India-loving father is constantly trying to convince his son that India invented everything. It was never the Greeks or the Romans; always the Indians!


:lol:
Actually, this thread reminds me of a slightly more intelligent version of Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch.

Also, they say of the Acropois where the Parthenon is ...


----------



## wingracer

I probably shouldn't jump into this at all. While I do know quite a bit about Greek history, I don't know anything about any of the languages but here goes anyway:

Saul, interesting point you have come up with but I do have one problem with your logic. It seems that your main argument is that the Greek origins of the word are wrong because Wikipedia has incorrect information in it. Well, this is quite common for Wikipedia. Remember that wikipedia is completely user generated. It's accuracy is dependent on the knowledge of the poster. Some of the articles are spot on, many are not.

If you would like to find more convincing evidence for your statement, I would suggest finding a more reputable source.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

wingracer said:


> I probably shouldn't jump into this at all. While I do know quite a bit about Greek history, I don't know anything about any of the languages but here goes anyway:
> 
> Saul, interesting point you have come up with but I do have one problem with your logic. It seems that your main argument is that the Greek origins of the word are wrong because Wikipedia has incorrect information in it. Well, this is quite common for Wikipedia. Remember that wikipedia is completely user generated. It's accuracy is dependent on the knowledge of the poster. Some of the articles are spot on, many are not.
> 
> If you would like to find more convincing evidence for your statement, I would suggest finding a more reputable source.


Thank you.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Oh for goodness sake

Synchronous = syn (together) + (chronos (time) 
Sympathy = from sym "together) + pathos (feeling)
symbiosis = from sym (together) + bios (life)

Syn is often pronounced sym in front of letters p. b. f because it's easier to say.

Phonological = the study of sounds, from Gr phonos (voice, sound)
Cacophony = caco (bad) + phone (voice, sound). The word kakos still means bad in Modern Greek.
gramophone = gramma (something written) + phone (voice, sound)


symphony = voices together, origin from the Greek.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mamascarlatti said:


> Oh for goodness sake
> 
> Synchronous = syn (together) + (chronos (time)
> Sympathy = from sym "together) + pathos (feeling)
> symbiosis = from sym (together) + bios (life)
> 
> Syn is often pronounced sym in front of letters p. b. f because it's easier to say.
> 
> Phonological = the study of sounds, from Gr phonos (voice, sound)
> Cacophony = caco (bad) + phone (voice, sound). The word kakos still means bad in Modern Greek.
> gramophone = gramma (something written) + phone (voice, sound)
> 
> symphony = voices together, origin from the Greek.


What is it doing then in the Book of Daniel?

What's your take on it?


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> What is it doing then in the Book of Daniel?
> 
> What's your take on it?


The word symphony in the Book of Daniel, at least according to the Wikiwookie was used to refer to some kind of bagpipe.

But how could Pythagoras have used the word συμφωνια (symphonia) in the 6th century BC if the Book of Daniel used it first 4 centuries later? Surely, those pesky Greeks couldn't have invented time travel?


----------



## Chris

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> What is it doing then in the Book of Daniel?
> 
> What's your take on it?


Why should a Greek word not be in the Book of Daniel?

I have several commentaries on Daniel but only one, by Edward J. Young (1949) analyses the list of instruments in 3:5. He bases his commentary on his own translation which runs

'At the time that ye hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, trigon, psaltery, bagpipe and all kinds of music....'

[For comparison, AV has

'That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick....'

and NASV has

'That at the moment you hear the sound of the horn, flute, lyre *, trigon, psaltery, bagpipe, and all kinds of music...' 
(* NASV offers alternative translation zither for lyre)]

Wake up at the back there 

Young says: 'Philologically, this is an extremely interesting verse. The word _kind_ is of Persian origin. Two of the names of the musical instruments are Semitic (_horn_ and _flute_); three are probably Greek, and one (_bagpipe_ - [i.e. our 'symphony' word]) is of uncertain origin'.

He comments on each of the six instrument words, and has this to say on the word we are discussing:

_Bagpipe_: a word of uncertain meaning. Here it evidently refers to a musical instrument, but Polybius employs it to describe the music which Antiochus Epiphanes used on festive occasions (Polybius 26, 31, "going to feasts with horn and _symphony_").

The summary of all this, if I've not misunderstood the whole thing, is that:

1. Daniel 3:5 contains words of varied origin, probably including Greek.
2. The origin of _symphony_ is uncertain. 
3. _Symphony_ is a musical instrument in Daniel 3:5 but the Greek historian Polybius uses it later to describe a type of music.

- I say 'later' deliberately because I do not accept the idea that Daniel was written by someone other than Daniel centuries afterwards. The popularity of this theory is largely based on the fact it gets rid of the embarrassment of the prophetical parts of the book. To allow the future to be predicted is not intellectually respectable!


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Daniel lived a little before Pythagoras, on 606 BC while Pythagoras was born on 570 BC, and Daniel was already a young boy in the time of the Judean exile at the court of Nebuchadnezzar II (605 to 562 BC), so The Greek philosopher looks back at Daniel and not the other way around.

Therefore its entirely possible that the Greeks have taken this word from its original Hebrew or Aramaic source.
Notwithstanding that the Hebrew Language preceded Greek, because up until the time of the Tower of Babylon all of humanity had only one language , and it was God's Language, Hebrew. This is the language God had conversed with Adam in the Garden of Eden.

All the languages of the world, all of them are rooted in Ancient Hebrew. The separation of languages from Hebrew took place after humanity had built a Great Tower in Babylon and wanted to wage a war on God, they wanted to use the Holy combinations of the Hebrew Alphabet in order to create new realities, they knew the Coded secrets of these letters and the power they possessed.

In Genesis it says that God Created Light.

How did he create light?

He combined the spiritual powers that are held within a particular combination of Hebrew letters to create the reality of Light. And so with all other creations, and the people of the world knew of these secrets, but instead of using them in holiness, they wanted to rebel against god, and create new realities, therefore God had mixed up their language which was Hebrew, and broken it to many different languages.

This is the meaning of the anger the brothers had for Joseph and that's why they had sold him into slavery because as the Torah says in Genesis, that Joseph spoke bad of his brothers to his father.

What did Joseph see?

He saw that the Brothers were eating animals without first slaughtering them, a strong requirement under the Torah's Law. Before eating an animal it must first be slaughtered in accordance to Halacha. But since he was young he didn't know that the Brothers knew the secrets of the Hebrew letters and their coded holy combinations that can create new realities in the world. His brothers created these animals by combining these Hebrew letters, and any animal that is created in this fashion and not born through a biological process doesn't need to be slaughtered in order to be eaten.

These matters are explained in the classic book of Kabbalah, one of the oldest sacred books that the Jews posses, its called 'The Book of Creation' and its author is Abraham the Hebrew, our father. It was written about 4000 years ago.

It is an extremely difficult book, very deep and only the greatest and holiest of the Jewish scholars know and understand it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Yetzirah


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Chris said:


> Why should a Greek word not be in the Book of Daniel?
> 
> The summary of all this, if I've not misunderstood the whole thing, is that:
> 
> 1. Daniel 3:5 contains words of varied origin, probably including Greek.
> 2. The origin of _symphony_ is uncertain.
> 3. _Symphony_ is a musical instrument in Daniel 3:5 but the Greek historian Polybius uses it later to describe a type of music.


I have no problem of having an Egyptian word in the Bible as well, Pharaoh is an Egyptian word, but the order of events there make sense.

But why should Daniel use a Greek word to describe a musical instrument or music in general, when in that time Greece had absolutely no influence or power, it was a small country of little significance. Babylon in the time of Daniel was a super power, it makes no sense that it will travel to a small insignificant state and use their language to describe something, there is no rational behind it.

And your opening question doesn't agree with your listed conclusions.

You asked :"Why should a Greek word not be in the Book of Daniel?"

And you answered: "The origin of _symphony_ is uncertain".

So that's why you can't say for certain that Soomponya is a Greek word because as you said "The origin of _ symphony_ is uncertain".

But perhaps with further investigation we will all come to the truth of the matter.

What is the true Origin of the word 'SoomPonya'?

We need to do some more research.


----------



## Argus

Wait! What?

Saul's Jewish?!?

Hooda thunk it.


----------



## toucan

Now we are getting hit with religious propaganda. Enough!



> All the languages of the world, all of them are rooted in Ancient Hebrew. The separation of languages from Hebrew took place after humanity had built a Great Tower in Babylon and wanted to wage a war on God


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Argus said:


> Wait! What?
> 
> Saul's Jewish?!?
> 
> Hooda thunk it.


Arbus means Orange in Russian.
Argaz means A box in Hebrew.

So in between Hebrew and Russian, your Avatar user name means 'Orange Box'.

Hooda Thunk It...:lol:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

toucan said:


> Now we are getting hit with religious propaganda. Enough!


You don't have to believe everything I write, dear Toucan...
You can check and investigate to see whether I'm write or wrong, but that's entirely your choice.

Best of Wishes.


----------



## Argus

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Arbus means Orange in Russian.
> Arguz means A box in Hebrew.
> 
> So in between Hebrew and Russian, your Avatar user name means 'Orange Box'.
> 
> Hooda Thunk It...:lol:


It already means something in Greek.

You remind me of Walter Sobchak from The Big Lebowski, except instead of Vietnam, you're stuck on Judaism.



The Dude said:


> God damn you Walter! You ******* *******! Everything's a ******* travesty with you, man! And what was all that **** about *Judaism*? What the ****, has anything got to do with *Judaism*? What the **** are you talking about?


----------



## Chris

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> But why should Daniel use a Greek word to describe a musical instrument or music in general, when in that time Greece had absolutely no influence or power, it was a small country of little significance. Babylon in the time of Daniel was a super power, it makes no sense that it will travel to a small insignificant state and use their language to describe something, there is no rational behind it.


Toucan answered this back on page one. Greece had a cultural influence out of proportion to it's political influence. Italy is not a powerful country but we use Italian musical terms. It's quite possible that Greek musical instruments, along with their Greek names, found their way into Babylon (the setting of Daniel chapter 3).


----------



## wingracer

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> But why should Daniel use a Greek word to describe a musical instrument or music in general, when in that time Greece had absolutely no influence or power, it was a small country of little significance.


Why wouldn't they? Power has little to do with it.

A guy from some tiny little island in the middle of nowhere with a population of five comes up to me and shows me something I have never seen before and have no name for. He calls it a "splat." I will be calling it a splat too from that day forward as I have no other word to describe it.

America has never been conquered by the Soviets, yet a Theremin is a Theremin.

I am no expert on entomology but I would be willing to bet that even at the height of Greek power, many words from other languages were in their common use, including Hebrew. I am also quite sure that the opposite is true.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Wiki says :

However,* more recent scholarly *opinion points out that the word in the Book of Daniel is siphonia (from Greek siphon, reed), and concludes that the bagpipe did not exist at so early a time, though the name of the "zampogna" could still have been derived from this word (Marcuse 1975, 501 & 597)

I want to know where is this recent scholarly opinion that mispronounces the word from Soomponya to Siphonia.

Based on this 'new scholarly opinion' this word can't be Greek, because its a wrong pronunciation of the Hebrew letters and therefore cant be the Greek 'Reed'...

This (Marcuse 1975, 501 & 597) got it all wrong.


----------



## Polednice

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> All the languages of the world, all of them are rooted in Ancient Hebrew. The separation of languages from Hebrew took place after humanity had built a Great Tower in Babylon and wanted to wage a war on God, they wanted to use the Holy combinations of the Hebrew Alphabet in order to create new realities, they knew the Coded secrets of these letters and the power they possessed.


And I suppose decades of research by linguists, which proves the above wrong, is a load of bull? No doubt like most of science in your opinion...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> And I suppose decades of research by linguists, which proves the above wrong, is a load of bull? No doubt like most of science in your opinion...


Danish scholar, Dr. Louis Hjelmslev, completed independent research into the root structure of languages. In his book, "Language: An Introduction" (University of Wisconsin Press, 1970), *he pointed out the great influence of the Semitic tongue upon the Indo-European languages.* He states, *"Even a language like Greek, which is considered one of the purest Indo-European languages and which plays a greater role than any other in comparative Indo-European studies, contains only a relatively small number of words that can be genetically accounted for on the basis of Indo-European." *(p.63) Dr. Hjelmslev states that most European words are borrowings from *non-Indo-European languages*. In fact, "a genetic relationship between Indo-European and Hamito-Semitic [i.e., Egyptian-Hebrew] was demonstrated in detail by the Danish linguist Hermann Moller, using the method of element functions."

Five Leading Scholars Prove the Link Exists

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/hebrew1.html


----------



## toucan

Not leading scholars. Obscure Christian scholars, singled out by a preacher, Pastor Jory Brooks from somewhere in Canada, as distorting linguistic facts, in order to bear out an a priori, religiously based belief in the precedence of Hebrew over all other linguistic groups.

And the fact remains that the word Symphony direves from two greek roots - "sum" meaning together and "Phone" meaning voice or sound. Symphony: the putting together of sound. Period.

Nor does it much matter whether scholars believe the word used in the Book of Daniels derives from the Greek word for reed or the greek word for bagpipe. It is still a greek word, borrowed by an obscure aramaic-speaking author.


----------



## Kopachris

Saul said:


> Arbus means Orange in Russian.
> Argaz means A box in Hebrew.
> 
> So in between Hebrew and Russian, your Avatar user name means 'Orange Box'.
> 
> Hooda Thunk It...


Good form! :lol:

Also, going back to my other post, if you know anything about IPA, you'd see that I was agreeing with you in a roundabout way. I was merely correcting you for saying that the _Hebrew text_ reads "SoomPonia," when "SoomPonia" is a transliteration into the Latin alphabet. Inconsequential, I know, but I can be very petty at times.

Methinks this whole discussion is misled. Toucan, et al.: Saul's question might not be what you think it is. And to Saul: you may be a little confused about how etymologies work.



wingracer said:


> I am no expert on *entomology* but I would be willing to bet that even at the height of Greek power, many words from other languages were in their common use, including Hebrew. I am also quite sure that the opposite is true.


I'm pretty sure you mean *etymology*. I don't think this conversation has much to do with insects. Just sayin'.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Hey Toucan,

Why argue when there are facts?

Just read the preview of 'The Word' by Dr. Isaac Elchanan Mozeson and see the many examples he brings to prove that English and Latin and other langueges are all rooted in ancient Hebrew, the Languege of Adam and Eve.

Please scroll to the top of the page.

Cheers,

The Word: The Dictionary That Reveals the Hebrew Source of English

*Most important pages are from 13 through 186!!!*

http://books.google.com/books?id=iK...esnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## toucan

I must be forever grateful to Saul for enlightening me. Without him, I would never have known the Nazi party was a jewish party. Proof is: the Hebrew word _Nasi_ meaning "Prince," Hitler, therefore, being Prince of the Jews. QED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasi


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

toucan said:


> I must be forever grateful to Saul for enlightening me. Without him, I would never have known the Nazi party was a jewish party. Proof is: the Hebrew word _Nasi_ meaning "Prince," Hitler, therefore, being Prince of the Jews. QED.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasi


Wrong assertion by any means.

Nazi is a short word for nationalism. Has nothing to do with the Hebrew word Nasi.

Again concentrate on this book from pages 13 through 186 many examples that prove what I was saying all along.


----------



## toucan

And also for enlightening us with this long if dreary list of possible Hebraic borrowings from Indo-European languages...

(Nasi Hitler Prince of the Jews furthermore revealing his allegience to Zionism by upholding the ideology of the Zionists: Nationalist and Socialist, conveniently abbreviated into the Hebrew word for Prince: Nasi. QED)


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

toucan said:


> And also for enlightening us with this long if dreary list of possible Hebraic borrowings from Indo-European languages...


Yes Abraham the Hebrew went to Greece and England , and stole their languages and created his own new language 'Hebrew'...
Please don't tell it to any professor, it will save you an embarrassment.

This is even worse then your hilarious 'Alexander Hellenized Israel' comment.


----------



## toucan

Yes, Abraham is indeed a primordial influence on the Universities. Especially in biology departments...

(However much I acknowledge the obvious reason why Israelis dress like Europeans. It is in in fact Europeans who dress like Hebrews, they have done so ever since the fall of Jerusalem, when Jewish dress codes were introduced to the west by the diaspora...)


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

I think that I have provided useful links for those who want to investigate and actually want to know the truth about this subject.

The point of this thread is to know and understand and explore new ideas and to learn.

I will continue to discuss it with those who wan to stay on topic.


----------



## Polednice

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I think that I have provided useful links


No, you have quoted Wikipedia and linked to pseudo-scientific propaganda.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> No, you have quoted Wikipedia and linked to pseudo-scientific propaganda.


The pages between 13 and 186 at least speaks in facts.
You cant argue with facts.

Cheers,


----------



## Kopachris

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Wrong assertion by any means.
> 
> Nazi is a short word for nationalism. Has nothing to do with the Hebrew word Nasi.


Close. Nazi is short for _Nationalsozialismus_, "National Socialism." It still has nothing to do with "nasi," though.


----------



## Polednice

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> The pages between 13 and 186 at least speaks in facts.
> You cant argue with facts.
> 
> Cheers,


No, but I can argue with your assertion that pages 13-186 are fact. But I won't, because you wouldn't know a fact even if absolute truth existed.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> No, but I can argue with your assertion that pages 13-186 are fact. But I won't, because you wouldn't know a fact even if absolute truth existed.


Ok, if you say so, 'then it must be right'...


----------



## Polednice

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Ok, if you say so, 'then it must be right'...


I'm not for a moment suggesting that you should take my word for it; I'm simply pointing out that if I gave you mounds of evidence disputing your ideas, you'd just ignore me.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> I'm not for a moment suggesting that you should take my word for it; I'm simply pointing out that if I gave you mounds of evidence disputing your ideas, you'd just ignore me.


Lets see , a Scholar of Languages wrote a book detailing the amazing similarities that English has with Hebrew, by pointing out thousands of such examples, and you called it nonsense because you cant come to terms with what it may mean to you.

I never heard of a policy based on denial. You want to deny reality and facts, be my guest, but high speech and fancy patronizing dismissals wont defuse the facts.

You sound like a guy that will not even believe Moses if he comes down from Heaven and speaks to you of the truth of God's existence, because you'll dismiss him as a 'religious fanatic'…no matter how many miracles he will perform for you, even if he'll split the Pacific Ocean, you'll still stay passive and indifferent.

But just because nothing can move you, please don't speak for everyone else. 
This entire topic was not a religious discussion, it has to do about finiding out the origin of a musical term/word, but somehow you have turned it into some kind of a philosophical discussion, all with spreading jabs of condescending insults dictating that you know everything and no one that has any alternative view can ever have any truth.

So please, If its possible, lets go back to the original theme of this topic.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

toucan said:


> And also for enlightening us with this long if dreary list of possible Hebraic borrowings from Indo-European languages...
> 
> (Nasi Hitler Prince of the Jews furthermore revealing his allegience to Zionism by upholding the ideology of the Zionists: Nationalist and Socialist, conveniently abbreviated into the Hebrew word for Prince: Nasi. QED)


Wrong assertion by any means.

Nazi is a short word for nationalism. Has nothing to do with the Hebrew word Nasi.

Again concentrate on this book from pages 13 through 186 many examples that prove what I was saying all along.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Argus said:


> Wait! What?
> 
> Saul's Jewish?!?
> 
> Hooda thunk it.


I'll have to correct something, Arbus doesnt mean Orange in Russian it means Watermelon, so we have Watermelon Box!!!

Hooda thunk it!


----------



## Argus

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I'll have to correct something, Arbus doesnt mean Orange in Russian it means Watermelon, so we have Watermelon Box!!!
> 
> Hooda thunk it!


Oh. Right. So what you're saying is that you're Jewish.

Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure for a second there. It'd help if you mentioned something relating to Judaism in every single one of your post so I don't forget in the future.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Argus said:


> Oh. Right. So what you're saying is that you're Jewish.
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure for a second there. It'd help if you mentioned something relating to Judaism in every single one of your post so I don't forget in the future.


Aight...

http://foodmapper.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/dscf0857.jpg


----------



## Argus

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Aight...
> 
> http://foodmapper.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/dscf0857.jpg


Are they kosher?


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Aight...
> 
> http://foodmapper.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/dscf0857.jpg


Those sure are some dusty watermelons.


----------



## mueske

Now who is trolling who? The mellon thing is making it hard.


----------



## Polednice

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> You sound like a guy that will not even believe Moses if he comes down from Heaven and speaks to you of the truth of God's existence, because you'll dismiss him as a 'religious fanatic'…no matter how many miracles he will perform for you, even if he'll split the Pacific Ocean, you'll still stay passive and indifferent.


No, I'd unfortunately have to consider myself a lunatic and seek psychiatric help because I know from actually understanding the scientific method that seeing is _not_ believing, and a single piece of anecdotal evidence - mine or anyone else's - is not evidence at all.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> No, I'd unfortunately have to consider myself a lunatic and seek psychiatric help because I know from actually understanding the scientific method that seeing is _not_ believing, and a single piece of anecdotal evidence - mine or anyone else's - is not evidence at all.


Science doesn't have the tools to understand the mysteries of our universe.
Heard of the term :' More then meets the eye'?

Science deals with whatever it can see, but there's way more to this universe then what the eye can meet.

Imagine we were programmed to see the electrons and atoms and molecules in everything that we see, all this actions, and rolling and moving, and movements would have made everyone dizzy.

Someone wanted you to see certain things, and yet also not see certain things.

Yes, not everything is given on a silver platter, some things are kept for the wise, and for those who have the merit to know and understand.

P.S Next time you see a thought, or an idea, or love send me p.m I would like to take some snapshots, and edit it with Photoshop...
'
Yes I will cut the profits in half, so don't worry too much.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Argus said:


> Are they kosher?


Fruits don't have to be Kosher.


----------



## mueske

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Science doesn't have the tools to understand the mysteries of our universe.
> Heard of the term :' More then meets the eye'?
> 
> Science deals with whatever it can see, but there's way more to this universe then what the eye can meet.
> 
> Imagine we were programmed to see the electrons and atoms and molecules in everything that we see, all this actions, and rolling and moving, and movements would have made everyone dizzy.
> 
> Someone wanted you to see certain things, and yet also not see certain things.
> 
> Yes, not everything is given on a silver platter, some things are kept for the wise, and for those who have the merit to know and understand.
> 
> P.S Next time you see a thought, or an idea, or love send me p.m I would like to take some snapshots, and edit it with Photoshop...
> '
> Yes I will cut the profits in half, so don't worry too much.


1. No, science deals with what can be proven. And yes, either you prove it, or it doesn't exist 'till you have.

2. Programmed to see a specific way? Yeah, but not even close to the way you are imaging. The fact that we can't see atoms has to do with the huge, and vast difference in size. And our eyes suck, very much. I don't even know why I mention the eyes, the size thing is more than enough.

3. Again, prove the someone is there, or it doesn't exist. Except in your imagination, you can fuss about in there however much you like.

4. If anyone has the merrit, it's the scientist figuring out everything. Not some guy spending his time interpreting a book, which can never be proven to be the right interpretation. Wheter or not something worth interpreting is to be found, is a whole different discussion.

5. That's directed to Polednice, but I think I can safely guess his reaction: What!?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mueske said:


> 1. No, science deals with what can be proven. And yes, either you prove it, or it doesn't exist 'till you have.
> 
> 2. Programmed to see a specific way? Yeah, but not even close to the way you are imaging. The fact that we can't see atoms has to do with the huge, and vast difference in size. And our eyes suck, very much. I don't even know why I mention the eyes, the size thing is more than enough.
> 
> 3. Again, prove the someone is there, or it doesn't exist. Except in your imagination, you can fuss about in there however much you like.
> 
> 4. If anyone has the merrit, it's the scientist figuring out everything. Not some guy spending his time interpreting a book, which can never be proven to be the right interpretation. Wheter or not something worth interpreting is to be found, is a whole different discussion.
> 
> 5. That's directed to Polednice, but I think I can safely guess his reaction: What!?


There is no basis in the limited assumption that is based on complete speculation, that if certain things cant be proven scientifically therefore they don't exist.

Want to hear all the loads of things scientists didn't believe existed a thousands years ago because they didn't have the tools to find them, but did they exist or not?

Of course they did, those things are not depended on human approval.

Even according to the most radical of evolutionists and scientists the thought that water, matter, and dust didn't exist before humans appeared, would be delusional.

Yes before animals, fish, humans, and all other forms of life existed, there was water, sand, dust, and air, and also fire... and no one needed to verify it, because this was the reality.

I don't have to wait a billion years until science will tell me the obvious through some biological and chemical tests in the lab, that God exists.

He exists, with or without the approval of the scientific world.

Yes, you got it, science is not God.

Reality exists without science.


----------



## mueske

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> There is no basis in the limited assumption that is based on complete speculation, that if certain things cant be proven scientifically therefore they don't exist.
> 
> Want to hear all the loads of things scientists didn't believe existed a thousands years ago because they didn't have the tools to find them, but did they exist or not?
> 
> Of course they did, those things are not depended on human approval.
> 
> Even according to the most radical of evolutionists and scientists the thought that water, matter, and dust didn't exist before humans appeared, would be delusional.
> 
> Yes before animals, fish, humans, and all other forms of life existed, there was water, sand, dust, and air, and also fire... and no one needed to verify it, because this was the reality.
> 
> I don't have to wait a billion years until science will tell me the obvious through some biological and chemical tests in the lab, that God exists.
> 
> He exists, with or without the approval of the scientific world.
> 
> Yes, you got it, science is not God.
> 
> Reality exists without science.


Yeah, I'm not doing this is if you're going to ignore what I'm saying. Assume all you want, I'll stick by the principles of Occam.

And science will never prove God exist, doing that would cease it being a god. I think.


----------



## Polednice

Thanks mueske for speaking for me; it saved me the pain of reasoning with someone 

Saul, although your knowledge and logic is simply astounding - I mean, really, are you divine yourself? - I'm going to bow out of this tiresome discussion because your understanding of science is so much greater than any other individual who has ever lived that I just can't fathom it. All I know is that, boy, have we been wasting our time! All this technology lark that science has provided must be a joke or an illusion - they don't understand anything.

So what was the question? Oh yeah, the word symphony comes from Greek.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mueske said:


> Yeah, I'm not doing this is if you're going to ignore what I'm saying. Assume all you want, I'll stick by the principles of Occam.
> 
> And science will never prove God exist, doing that would cease it being a god. I think.


Actually science already proved that there is God.

Hundreds of years ago the theory that was prevalent in the scientific community was that the universe always existed, and was not created out of emptiness.

But in recent decades this assumption was replaced with the theory that the world must have been formed or created whatever you want to call it, in a specific point in time out of complete emptiness.

But the scientists had a major critical problem. This new approach stands fundamentally opposed to the scientific understanding that its impossible to create something out of emptiness, out of total absence of anything.

That is why Steven Hawking said that the moment before the actual creation of this universe, the laws of physics ceased to exist and 'science has no knowledge of these matters'.


----------



## Polednice

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> There is no basis in the limited assumption that is based on complete speculation, that if certain things cant be proven scientifically therefore they don't exist.


If things can't be proven scientifically, they don't exist. We can assume that they exist and create theories and hypotheses, but they do not exist, at least to us humans until it has been proven scientifically. For instance think that the Higg's boson exists, and it kind of has to in order to explain a lot of things in particle physics, but we don't know that it exists yet. Its existence still has to be proven.



> Want to hear all the loads of things scientists didn't believe existed a thousands years ago because they didn't have the tools to find them, but did they exist or not?


Scientists have believed some very strange things over the years. It's not exactly a secret. We know that the solar system's not geocentric, we know that light does not travel through the ether. We have moved on from those beliefs, and who knows what we think now that will prove to be completely wrong in the future.



> Of course they did, those things are not depended on human approval.


Well, that depends. For humans, they kind of are. Photons have existed since just about forever, but humans didn't _know_ about them.



> Even according to the most radical of evolutionists and scientists the thought that water, matter, and dust didn't exist before humans appeared, would be delusional.


Now, that's just stupid. Of course water, matter, dust, etc. must have existed before humans, or even life came along. It's one of the prerequisites for life.



> Yes before animals, fish, humans, and all other forms of life existed, there was water, sand, dust, and air, and also fire... and no one needed to verify it, because this was the reality.


Yes, that is correct, although no one was really around back then.



> I don't have to wait a billion years until science will tell me the obvious through some biological and chemical tests in the lab, that God exists.


But God cannot be proven scientifically. God exists because people believe on him.
And even if God could be proven scientifically, he would not be accepted as fact. In science, we have _theories_, not facts. To say that something is a fact because you think so, is just silly.



> He exists, with or without the approval of the scientific world.


How on earth can you prove this?



> Yes, you got it, science is not God.


No, he is not. Nor have we tried to say that it is.



> Reality exists without science.


Without science, we really can't explain why reality is like it is. Sure, it exists (or does it? (existential question is existential)), but we don't know why.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Yes, you don't really love your mother just because there is no chance in the world that science can prove your love through scientific methods.

Make sense right?

Open your eyes and see the truth of the matter.

Do we need humans in this world to scientifically give their approval for the existence of air and water, or those elements are not bound to human approval? Does their existence in a way tied into whether humans prove that they exist?

Any child would tell you that the elements are not bound in anyway to the human condition of any medium, but they are existing in an independent manner without humans or their approval.

If this is true for the elements, that they don’t need us humans to 'prove' them, it is astronomically more obvious and true that God doesn’t need some bearded pinhead with some funny glasses working out from some back warded lab to 'prove' that he exists.

Science doesn’t have any tools today to know for certain that there is no other life outside planet earth.
Their ignorance doesn’t define a reality. It is absolutely possible that there is life outside this world absent of any human scientific stamp of approval.

Its time to get off the ego horse and admit that science doesn’t know the vast majority of things, and compared to the universe at large, it is still extremely primitive and ignorant.

Science is acting like a blindman...

Ask any man who was blind from birth to describe you how a building looks like, or the difference between various colors. Imagine that just like you he'll say :" Excuse me, what buildings ? what colors?

they don’t exist because I don’t see them!"

Would you like his answer?

That's exactly what you’re doing. You are using your limitations to create your own reality, forgetting that there are different avenues of wisdom and intelligence outside the limited scope of science.

Its about time, that some of you begin to investigate why quantum physics discovers today what the ancient Kabbalah Masters knew thousands of years before.

Do your research and stop thinking that you're all that, cause you're not.


----------



## Polednice

*Gouges eyes out* - and to think I had faith in human ingenuity today. You've totally spoiled it for me!


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> *Gouges eyes out* - and to think I had faith in human ingenuity today. You've totally spoiled it for me!


The actual quote:

"The universe began with the Big Bang, which simply followed the inevitable law of physics," Hawking writes

Read the article:

*In "The Grand Design," Stephen Hawking and Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow suggest that physics and metaphysics (and religion) are merging.*

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...-of-spontaneous-creation-stephen-hawking.html


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Funny, that based on this article Hawking came to the same conclusion that Einstein had reached which was 'If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God,' but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

Einstein said :" I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

Slowly in turtle steps science and scientists are beginning to understand that this world was just too complex to be created by itself, and they are beginning to use the word God.

In a little while they will climb the high mountain and they will agree with the people of faith that God exists, and is in fact an omnipresence God.


----------



## Polednice

The thing that saddens me the most is that, because there is no afterlife, I can't look all smug and happy when, after death, religious people could realise that there is no anthropomorphic sadist in the sky.


----------



## mueske

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Yes, you don't really love your mother just because there is no chance in the world that science can prove your love through scientific methods.
> 
> Make sense right?


Except that "love" isn't at all a concept like god. It can be proven, and perhaps in the near feature, when neuroscientists (which one day I aspire to be) break new grounds, matters like love can be 'quantified' and accurately measured

Just because you think something is a mystery, beyond materialism, doesn't mean that it is. You urge me (us) to do research, but I promptly invite you to do the same.



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Open your eyes and see the truth of the matter.


I think that applies more to you than to me (us). Given Your whole argument is based around a misunderstanding.



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Do we need humans in this world to scientifically give their approval for the existence of air and water, or those elements are not bound to human approval? Does their existence in a way tied into whether humans prove that they exist?


No, but would you not want to know what water is? How it is made, where it came from? How it reacts? Have you no curiosity? Science is primarily driven by curiosity, a most beautiful thing. Without it, we'd still be hitting stuff with sticks.



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Any child would tell you that the elements are not bound in anyway to the human condition of any medium, but they are existing in an independent manner without humans or their approval.


Sure, you can see some elements. But how would we have known what those elements were off, hadn't we furthered our understanding by them through the scientific method?



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> If this is true for the elements, that they don't need us humans to 'prove' them, it is astronomically more obvious and true that God doesn't need some bearded pinhead with some funny glasses working out from some back warded lab to 'prove' that he exists.


God indeed doesn't need us for him to exist. But it'd be bloody nice we knew he existed. We don't know anything about god. Science makes no claims about god. BUT by definition, god doesn't exist because we have not proven him to exist, yet. (YET, very important word, would be nice if you noticed it this time)



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Science doesn't have any tools today to know for certain that there is no other life outside planet earth.
> Their ignorance doesn't define a reality. It is absolutely possible that there is life outside this world absent of any human scientific stamp of approval.


Science is pretty certain there is life outside of our planet. But that's speculation untill we find the evidence. Untill then we can't know, but the odds we're alone, are extremely small.

But you seem to be misunderstanding again. Science hasn't made claims about ET-life.



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Its time to get off the ego horse and admit that science doesn't know the vast majority of things, and compared to the universe at large, it is still extremely primitive and ignorant.


Science is incredibly humble. It knows it is lacking information. But it's searching for it. So ignorance isn't a blame one can direct at science.



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Science is acting like a blindman...
> 
> Ask any man who was blind from birth to describe you how a building looks like, or the difference between various colors. Imagine that just like you he'll say :" Excuse me, what buildings ? what colors?
> 
> they don't exist because I don't see them!"
> 
> Would you like his answer?
> 
> That's exactly what you're doing. You are using your limitations to create your own reality, forgetting that there are different avenues of wisdom and intelligence outside the limited scope of science.


If science were that blind man, he'd ask for a description of the building, look for any other ways of getting new information using his other senses.

You wouldn't do that. If you were the blind man, you'd just imagine something that'd comfort you most and be done with it.

Now, what seems like the best way?



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Its about time, that some of you begin to investigate why quantum physics discovers today what the ancient Kabbalah Masters knew thousands of years before.


I'm not going to warrant that with an intelligent reply so: "LOLWUT?" should suffice.



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Do your research and stop thinking that you're all that, cause you're not.


We are doing research, and we know we're not all that. Makes at least one of us.


----------



## Polednice

mueske said:


> neuroscientists (which one day I aspire to be)


Cool! Do you have any particular area of cognition that you're interested in yet? I'm constantly reading journal articles and watching videos about the neuroscience of music - maybe I'll see you in them one day


----------



## mueske

Polednice said:


> Cool! Do you have any particular area of cognition that you're interested in yet? I'm constantly reading journal articles and watching videos about the neuroscience of music - maybe I'll see you in them one day


I'm only at the beginning of my education, first going after a master's degree in theoretical psychology with a strong underline in biological psychology and behavioral neurosciences, so I can branch out after that. Choosing something specific is hard to do at this time, but I have become immensly fascinated by memory and language, so I might go do research about those.


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Yes, you don't really love your mother just because there is no chance in the world that science can prove your love through scientific methods.
> 
> Make sense right?


No, it does not. Love is an actual chemical process. It can be proven scientifically.











> Open your eyes and see the truth of the matter.


What truth?



> Do we need humans in this world to scientifically give their approval for the existence of air and water, or those elements are not bound to human approval? Does their existence in a way tied into whether humans prove that they exist?


No, we do not. But their existence still needs proving. For instance, if the Michelson-Morely experiment had not been done in order to prove that luminiferous æther existed, we would not have known that it did not exist. People accepted the fact that ether existed, just like air and water, but after the Michelson-Morely experiment, scientists renounced ether and created other theories to better fit their finds.



> Any child would tell you that the elements are not bound in anyway to the human condition of any medium, but they are existing in an independent manner without humans or their approval.


No, elements aren't bound by humans' understanding of them, but we do not know that they actually exist if we can't define them. It exists, but humans cannot know what they are if we don't define them.



> If this is true for the elements, that they don't need us humans to 'prove' them, it is astronomically more obvious and true that God doesn't need some bearded pinhead with some funny glasses working out from some back warded lab to 'prove' that he exists.


The _elements_ don't need humans to prove them. They aren't living. But in order for us humans to understand the world around us, we need to define it. That is why we for instance know that a sapphire isn't a kind of blue diamond, but rather an aluminium salt.
But to say that God exists because you say so, is just silly.



> Science doesn't have any tools today to know for certain that there is no other life outside planet earth.
> Their ignorance doesn't define a reality. It is absolutely possible that there is life outside this world absent of any human scientific stamp of approval.


No, science does not. Do you?
Also, ask any scientist, and he will readily admit that science doesn't know lots of things. And if something is not proven, we cannot say if it exists or not. We have not made contact with extra-terrestrial life as of yet, but it is highly probable that it exists. But we cannot say it exists or not unless we meet one. They might exist without our knowing so, but we do not know that.



> Its time to get off the ego horse and admit that science doesn't know the vast majority of things, and compared to the universe at large, it is still extremely primitive and ignorant.


As I said earlier, science is based on the assertion that we do not know. No scientist claim that they know everything.



> Science is acting like a blindman...
> 
> Ask any man who was blind from birth to describe you how a building looks like, or the difference between various colors. Imagine that just like you he'll say :" Excuse me, what buildings ? what colors? they don't exist because I don't see them!"
> 
> Would you like his answer?


Actually, this is basic relativity. To him, the colours will not exist, even though we can't see them. Colours are dependent on someone seeing them.



> That's exactly what you're doing. You are using your limitations to create your own reality, forgetting that there are different avenues of wisdom and intelligence outside the limited scope of science.





> Its about time, that some of you begin to investigate why quantum physics discovers today what the ancient Kabbalah Masters knew thousands of years before.


Sure, the Kabbalah masters might have known (or at least believed) what scientists find out today, but today, we can actually prove it. The LHC is not an especially old invention.



> Do your research and stop thinking that you're all that, cause your not.


As should religionists.


----------



## Toccata

I see that this scintillating discussion has now been elevated to the "Community Forum". I'm not surprised as I thought it would only be a matter of time before it achieved the kudos it deserves. 

So far, I reckon the score is about 75% in favour of Saul. Nice one on the "orange box" to Saul. I haven't seen anything quite so funny from the other side.

For the present I'm saying nothing further to try to sway the discussion as I wouldn't wish to embarrass any of you with my far superior knowledge.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> The thing that saddens me the most is that, because there is no afterlife, I can't look all smug and happy when, after death, religious people could realise that there is no anthropomorphic sadist in the sky.


........................


----------



## Aksel

mueske said:


> I'm only at the beginning of my education, first going after a master's degree in theoretical psychology with a strong underline in biological psychology and behavioral neurosciences, so I can branch out after that. Choosing something specific is hard to do at this time, but I have become immensly fascinated by memory and language, so I might go do research about those.


That is awesome! Neuroscience is fascinating. The bran is such an interesting organ.


----------



## Chris

Aksel said:


> No, it does not. Love is an actual chemical process. It can be proven scientifically.


I don't think so. If you have all those chemicals in a row of bottles on a laboratory shelf, you don't have love.


----------



## Polednice

Saul, just so you know, in my humble opinion, everything you say (at least on the topic of faith) is crap to the point that I'm sure it affects my blood pressure, so I'm not going to waste my time reading your posts on that subject. I invite you to do the same with mine 

Mueske, that all sounds fascinating, and I'm very jealous! I know it's difficult to even consider a specialty at such an early stage, but I suppose I'm supposed to be more interested in language than music given that I'm an English undergrad, so perhaps I'll see your research in the future still


----------



## mamascarlatti

Chris said:


> I don't think so. If you have all those chemicals in a row of bottles on a laboratory shelf, you don't have love.


They are not in bottles, they are in an incredibly complex organism, the human body.


----------



## Aksel

Chris said:


> I don't think so. If you have all those chemicals in a row of bottles on a laboratory shelf, you don't have love.


No, of course not. It's a rather simplified chart. 
But if you are interested in reading more about how love works chemically, you can click here


----------



## mueske

Polednice said:


> Saul, just so you know, in my humble opinion, everything you say (at least on the topic of faith) is crap to the point that I'm sure it affects my blood pressure, so I'm not going to waste my time reading your posts on that subject. I invite you to do the same with mine
> 
> Mueske, that all sounds fascinating, and I'm very jealous! I know it's difficult to even consider a specialty at such an early stage, but I suppose I'm supposed to be more interested in language than music given that I'm an English undergrad, so perhaps I'll see your research in the future still


If I ever get published, whatever the subject of research might be, I'll be sure to post it on here.  Though we'll have to wait at least 5 years for that to happen.


----------



## Chris

mamascarlatti said:


> They are not in bottles, they are in an incredibly complex organism, the human body.


You will never reduce the emotional and spiritual to chemicals, whether in bottles, 'complex organisms', or whatever. There are some things we just _know_. I am going to play my Beethoven CDs to lift my spirit. I leave you to play your CDs to alter your chemistry.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> Saul, just so you know, in my humble opinion, everything you say (at least on the topic of faith) is crap to the point that I'm sure it affects my blood pressure, so I'm not going to waste my time reading your posts on that subject. I invite you to do the same with mine
> 
> Mueske, that all sounds fascinating, and I'm very jealous! I know it's difficult to even consider a specialty at such an early stage, but I suppose I'm supposed to be more interested in language than music given that I'm an English undergrad, so perhaps I'll see your research in the future still


What was the the core of the battle between the Greeks and the Jews you know in the time of Chanukah?

The Greeks said that the source of wisdom is in this physical world, meaning the sciences. The Jews said no, the source of all wisdom and intelligence is rooted in the heaven. Meaning that God gave humans wisdom and intelligence, and he also informed them and taught them the secrets of the universe and how he created it.

You are laboring in vain, you will never ever come to know the secrets of creation by yourself. Only God can give this knowledge to humans , and he did give it, in the form of Sod, the inner layer, the deepest layer of the Torah, what is called Kabbalah, to Adam , Noah, Abraham, and Moses. And they know it not because they investigated it, but because they were given it as a gift from God.

You still didn't answer to me why today quantum physics discovers what the Kabbalists knew thousands of years ago.

I'm still waiting for an answer if you can.

And BTW, the Jewish position won, and that's why we celebrate Chanukah.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Chris said:


> There are some things we just _know_. I am going to play my Beethoven CDs to lift my spirit. I leave you to play your CDs to alter your chemistry.


Same thing, actually. I still feel my spirits lifted, but I know "I" am a product of my body, however hard that is to accept intuitively.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel said:


> No, it does not. Love is an actual chemical process. It can be proven scientifically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What truth?
> 
> No, we do not. But their existence still needs proving. For instance, if the Michelson-Morely experiment had not been done in order to prove that luminiferous æther existed, we would not have known that it did not exist. People accepted the fact that ether existed, just like air and water, but after the Michelson-Morely experiment, scientists renounced ether and created other theories to better fit their finds.
> 
> No, elements aren't bound by humans' understanding of them, but we do not know that they actually exist if we can't define them. It exists, but humans cannot know what they are if we don't define them.
> 
> The _elements_ don't need humans to prove them. They aren't living. But in order for us humans to understand the world around us, we need to define it. That is why we for instance know that a sapphire isn't a kind of blue diamond, but rather an aluminium salt.
> But to say that God exists because you say so, is just silly.
> 
> No, science does not. Do you?
> Also, ask any scientist, and he will readily admit that science doesn't know lots of things. And if something is not proven, we cannot say if it exists or not. We have not made contact with extra-terrestrial life as of yet, but it is highly probable that it exists. But we cannot say it exists or not unless we meet one. They might exist without our knowing so, but we do not know that.
> 
> As I said earlier, science is based on the assertion that we do not know. No scientist claim that they know everything.
> 
> Actually, this is basic relativity. To him, the colours will not exist, even though we can't see them. Colours are dependent on someone seeing them.
> 
> Sure, the Kabbalah masters might have known (or at least believed) what scientists find out today, but today, we can actually prove it. The LHC is not an especially old invention.
> 
> As should religionists.


That means when you hurt someone's feelings there should be nothing wrong with it, 'hey what have you done already big deal, you've moved only a few chemicals here and there'...

Truly a pathetic and dark way to look at the world...


----------



## mueske

Chris said:


> You will never reduce the emotional and spiritual to chemicals, whether in bottles, 'complex organisms', or whatever. There are some things we just _know_. I am going to play my Beethoven CDs to lift my spirit. I leave you to play your CDs to alter your chemistry.


Yes we will. Maybe not very soon, but the day will come. Opposing materialism and reductionism is something people need to get over. I think it's a pride thing, something years of religious thinking might have embedded. The sooner we realize we're nothing special (so to speak) the better.

And I'll leave Polednice to clarify the effects of Beethoven on your nervous system, as I don't know (yet! ).


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> That means when you hurt someone's feelings there should be nothing wrong with it, 'hey what have you done already big deal, you've moved only a few chemicals here and there'...
> 
> Truly a pathetic and dark way to look at the world...


No, of course not. Feelings are still feelings even if they are based on chemical reactions and neurotransmissions.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel said:


> No, of course not. Feelings are still feelings even if they are based on chemical reactions and neurotransmissions.


Oh now you change your entire outlook and say it out loud what I was trying to say all along that 'THERE'S MORE TO THIS WORLD THEN JUST ATOMS AND CHEMICALS'.

Thanks.


----------



## Chris

Aksel said:


> No, of course not. It's a rather simplified chart.
> But if you are interested in reading more about how love works chemically, you can click here


I have a degree in pharmacy from which I learned something of neurotransmitters. The stuff in this link is atheistic science based on the atheistic assumption that we are nothing more than an a collection of chemicals. A house built on the sand. How do these people think they can dissect love? Can they take their instruments into people's souls?

'We are fearfully and wonderfully made'


----------



## Polednice

mueske said:


> And I'll leave Polednice to clarify the effects of Beethoven on your nervous system, as I don't know (yet! ).


I'm no expert! But I think what's of most essential importance in discussions such as these - and perhaps should always be a preliminary question before entering a conversation - is everyone's understanding of (or acceptance of, if that is sadly the case) evolution.

Beethoven affects you in personal ways because of life experiences, but also because the brain processes music in some of the same areas it processes speech (which is why patterns of sadness in intonation are found to be the same as those used in keys that people consider 'sad'); it appeals to our motor cortex, as the brain feels a sense of reward when a simple, repetitive task is maintained at an efficient, constant speed; and it plays with our expectations of music structure, based on our individual exposures to Western music or music of other cultures. In short, music is an extreme stimulus for many areas of the brain, particularly emotional ones.

As for other comments about intuitive knowledge: not only is mueske right in saying that we will all be better off when we realise that, as animals, we are nothing special, but we also need to recognise that we actually _cannot trust_ our intuitions and perceptions of the world around us. Sure, our brains are fantastically complex and allow us great capabilities, but they are nevertheless constrained by what was helpful for our evolutionary development in Africa, and our constant struggle for survival. We evolved energetically cheap, effective, but often shoddy adaptations that are intended to allow us long enough lives to reproduce; _not_ to understand the world and, as such, the brain often misleads us.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> I'm no expert!


No kidding...


----------



## Chris

mueske said:


> Yes we will. Maybe not very soon, but the day will come. Opposing materialism and reductionism is something people need to get over. I think it's a pride thing, something years of religious thinking might have embedded. The sooner we realize we're nothing special (so to speak) the better.


This statement illustrates that atheism is a faith in the same way that any religion is a faith.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Chris said:


> This statement illustrates that atheism is a faith in the same way that any religion is a faith.


My position for a long long time...


----------



## mamascarlatti

Chris said:


> This statement illustrates that atheism is a faith in the same way that any religion is a faith.


Faith requires no evidence.

Atheism appeals to people who require scientifically testable evidence for their thinking.

I'll believe in God when someone can offer me proven evidence for its existence. Until that time it's irrelevant to me.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mamascarlatti said:


> Faith requires no evidence.
> 
> Atheism appeals to people who require scientifically testable evidence for their thinking.
> 
> I'll believe in God when someone can offer me proven evidence for its existence. Until that time it's irrelevant to me.


Like if God appears tomorrow all the atheists will see the light?

Remember Pharaoh? even after the 10 plagues he was not moved, because if one doesn't want to believe he will not believe, its all a matter of will.

Yes evil does exist in the world, darkness does exist in the world, and yes some people wont change their minds no matter what they'll see and no matter how many scientific evidence you bring to their attention.

Its like someone would say " I will never believe that bikes can fly, until they will grow wings and speak and smile'. Atheism chose science out of faith precisely because they know that its impossible to prove God in the lab. But if they were truly ''OPEN' to know, they would have asked anyone who is willing to show them a different point of view.

If you think about it, what's the difference where the truth comes from?

Who cares if the source is science or religion?

But to insist that I only accepts 'truths' from science, is like that dreamer who will only believe that bikes can fly only if they grow wings, and begin to speak and smile'.

*Illogical stubbornness directed at an obvious end and conclusion, the initial and ultimate rejection of God.*

That's the atheist motto.


----------



## Polednice

People who adhere to the scientific method are the ones who are truly open-minded, because we continually subject ourselves to overhauls in the way we perceive the universe and ourselves.

What evidence is there that you are open minded? You believe you know the absolute truth through petty revealed wisdom. At least most atheists have the decency to say that they do not know, but they will not follow others blindly unless there is an actual reason to do so.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> People who adhere to the scientific method are the ones who are truly open-minded, because we continually subject ourselves to overhauls in the way we perceive the universe and ourselves.
> 
> What evidence is there that you are open minded? You believe you know the absolute truth through petty revealed wisdom. At least most atheists have the decency to say that they do not know, but they will not follow others blindly unless there is an actual reason to do so.


And yet all those Scientists who hold PhD's and believe in God are butchered by other scientists calling them all sorts of names like 'Heretics'...

Yes Atheism is a religion of the scientists, and any other scientist who feels different is branded a traitor and a heretic.

So much for your 'Open mind'.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Like if God appears tomorrow all the atheists will see the light?


Seeing something is not evidence. I *see* the sun going round the earth. According to scientific evidence from a variety of sources I am wrong.

"Plagues" are a natural phenomenon, inexplicable to those who wrote the religious books that appear to be the basis for your beliefs.

Unlike you, I simply don't believe that because something is currently inexplicable God caused it. I just believe we don't know everything about how the world works yet, and because we are constrained by our Stone Age brains we might never know. I just don't need a supernatural entity to fill the gap.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mamascarlatti said:


> Seeing something is not evidence. I *see* the sun going round the earth. According to scientific evidence from a variety of sources I am wrong.
> 
> "Plagues" are a natural phenomenon, inexplicable to those who wrote the religious books that appear to be the basis for your beliefs.
> 
> Unlike you, I simply don't believe that because something is currently inexplicable God caused it. I just believe we don't know everything about how the world works yet, and because we are constrained by our Stone Age brains we might never know. I just don't need a supernatural entity to fill the gap.


Hidden Miracles

http://www.aish.com/h/pur/t/har/48965501.html


----------



## mamascarlatti

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Hidden Miracles
> 
> http://www.aish.com/h/pur/t/har/48965501.html


Natural phenomena interpreted as miracles through wishful thinking.

http://www.aish.com/h/pur/t/har/48965501.html


----------



## Polednice

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> And yet all those Scientists who hold PhD's and believe in God are butchered by other scientists calling them all sorts of names like 'Heretics'...
> 
> Yes Atheism is a religion of the scientists, and any other scientist who feels different is branded a traitor and a heretic.
> 
> So much for your 'Open mind'.


Unsurprisingly, you didn't answer my question.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mamascarlatti said:


> Natural phenomena interpreted as miracles through wishful thinking.
> 
> http://www.aish.com/h/pur/t/har/48965501.html


Amalek is the source of calling everything 'It just happened' this what cools the heart and mind and is the source of all atheism in the world.

Even in the story of Ester, Haman the vicious villain, even after the shocking reversal of his faith through totally unexpected set of events, he still came to his house and told his wife "All that has *"Happened*" to him".

Haman, the Persian villain was a descendant of Agog, in turn Agog was a descendant of Amalak, the wicked tribe that God says in the Bible that he will wage a war against it until its total annihilation.

Today we can't know for certain who this tribe is, though there are strong traditions and opinions regarding the current whereabouts of this evil tribe, but one thing is for certain, the evil spirit of Amalek manifested itself in the form of atheism and evolution.

I advise you to read the Book of Ester from beginning to end, and witness first hand that there is nothing in this world that 'happens'. Everything is directed and orchestrated in the most astonishing detail by God.

Those who call all the events ' happenings' are associating themselves with that cursed ancient tribe of Amalek where God had written in the Torah the Following:

Exodus
Chapter 17

10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek; and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.

11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.

12 But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

13 And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.

14 And HaShem(God) said unto Moses: 'Write this for a memorial in the book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.'

15 And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Adonai-nissi.

*16 And he said: 'The hand upon the throne of HaShem: HaShem will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.'*


----------



## Polednice

Do you understand that justifying scripture with extracts from scripture is circular and therefore void?


----------



## mamascarlatti

No, really, it's no good quoting a pile of books written by middle eastern pastoralists 2000-3000 years ago as evidence of anything except what they believed.

They might be the sole basis for your thinking but they aren't for mine.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

What if I can prove to you guys without a shadow of a doubt in complete clarity that the Hanging of the 10 Nazi Monsters in Nuremberg 1946 was written and foreseen in the Jewish Torah with stunning accuracy? Would you reconsider and admit that there is someone that controls the events of time in our universe?

I want to know if you're really open minded.

If you are then I will bring to your attention this amazing and astonishing revelation.

Let me hear if you’re serious.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Would have been a bit more useful if the Torah had prophesied the Holocaust in time for people to leave.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mamascarlatti said:


> Would have been a bit more useful if the Torah had prophesied the Holocaust in time for people to leave.


I will deal with that later on, and I have loads of material to inform you to that end, but I want you to answer my question.

Can you commit. If you can, then I will reveal it here, and you'll be astounded and shocked I guarantee.

*What if I can prove to you guys without a shadow of a doubt in complete clarity that the Hanging of the 10 Nazi Monsters in Nuremberg 1946 was written and foreseen in the Jewish Torah with stunning accuracy? Would you reconsider and admit that there is someone that controls the events of time in our universe?*


----------



## mamascarlatti

Yep, you are going to quote me a whole pile of stuff from Esther which if you are determined enough (and boy, are you determined) you could twist into a "prophecy".

If it said nice and unambiguously: in about 2400 years time 10 criminals are going to be hanged for war crimes, while 1 other will commit suicide first, I might be more convinced.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mamascarlatti said:


> Yep, you are going to quote me a whole pile of stuff from Esther which if you are determined enough (and boy, are you determined) you could twist into a "prophecy".
> 
> If it said nice and unambiguously: in about 2400 years time 10 criminals are going to be hanged for war crimes, while 1 other will commit suicide first, I might be more convinced.


You don't know what I'm going to talk about...

So first commit, and then we'll speak.

I want to hear from you that after I reveal to you this astonishing prophecy and after you will believe it to be true, that you'll accept the existence of God.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> You don't know what I'm going to talk about...
> 
> So first commit, and then we'll speak.
> 
> I want to hear from you that after I reveal to you this astonishing prophecy and after you will believe it to be true, that you accept the existence of God.


Sorry, no can do. What you re suggesting is not logical.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mamascarlatti said:


> Sorry, no can do. What you re suggesting is not logical.


Oh its not logical.

How many times in life you'll get a chance like this...

Too bad your blowing it all away.

Ostrich effect...

I'm not asking that you should believe now, but only after you were impressed by this revelation can you commit and realize the existence of God?

This is the most logical simple request.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Without Saul's advice, I wouldn't have known that the modern world owes anything like so much to ancient and modern Judaism. I have learned all sorts of amazing things over the past few years just by following his many threads on forums like this one, across a whole range of issues with Judaism at its centre.

Saul reminds me of the father in that movie, _My Big Fat Greek Wedding_ who spends his time trying to convince everyone that nearly every word in every language was founded upon a Greek work. When he challenges one of his school-age daughter's little friends to name a word, any word, the little smart *** says, "OK, Kimono." Without missing a beat, the father tries to prove that even Japan owes everything to the Greeks.:lol:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Without Saul's advice, I wouldn't have known that the modern world owes anything like so much to ancient and modern Judaism. I have learned all sorts of amazing things over the past few years just by following his many threads on forums like this one, across a whole range of issues with Judaism at its centre.
> 
> Saul reminds me of the father in that movie, _My Big Fat Greek Wedding_ who spends his time trying to convince everyone that nearly every word in every language was founded upon a Greek work. When he challenges one of his school-age daughter's little friends to name a word, any word, the little smart *** says, "OK, Kimono." Without missing a beat, the father tries to prove that even Japan owes everything to the Greeks.:lol:


Did the fat Greek dude presented a book that brings countless examples with detailed explanations proving his point?

No.

That's what one may call 'an astronomical difference'.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Saul will you show me this realisation?

I wont commit to anything though.


----------



## mueske

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Oh now you change your entire outlook and say it out loud what I was trying to say all along that 'THERE'S MORE TO THIS WORLD THEN JUST ATOMS AND CHEMICALS'.
> 
> Thanks.


Read again, baffling how something so simple went completely over your head. Love still exist, we just call the chemical processes that happen when you get that certain feeling love.



Chris said:


> I have a degree in pharmacy from which I learned something of neurotransmitters. The stuff in this link is atheistic science based on the atheistic assumption that we are nothing more than an a collection of chemicals. A house built on the sand. How do these people think they can dissect love? Can they take their instruments into people's souls?
> 
> 'We are fearfully and wonderfully made'


You have a degree in pharmacy and still think stuff like a soul exists? Did you buy that degree at the supermarket?

I really can't quite grasp how someone who should have a big background in biology and physiology can believe still in concepts like "the soul"



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> No kidding...


I'll vouch for him, though I'm also no expert. It makes perfect sense. Memory, emotion (which are in two closely related areas of the brain), motor and language parts become more active.



Chris said:


> This statement illustrates that atheism is a faith in the same way that any religion is a faith.


Atheism is just a lack of believe in god, nothing else. An infant is an atheist, a man or woman who doesn't claim knowledge concerning god is an (agnostic) atheist, a hypothetical man who grew up alone and never developed a concept of a god, is an atheist.

There is no single line of thought connected to what makes one an atheist.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Saul will you show me this realisation?
> 
> I wont commit to anything though.


Sorry, I wont.

I want to know if you guys can connect the dots, and are not going to let extremely valuable information go to waste.

If you'll promise that what I am about to tell you based on Jewish scripture written thousands of years before the hanging of these demons will make you realize that it was impossible without heavenly intervention to predict it.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mueske said:


> Read again, baffling how something so simple went completely over your head. Love still exist, we just call the chemical processes that happen when you get that certain feeling love.


Love doesn't exist, and feeling don't exist too according to people such as yourself, its all nothing but change in the chemicals of the brain...whatever...therefore there should be nothing wrong with hate, or hurting another person's feelings cause this world is nothing but physical movements of chemicals, atoms and molecules...

Scary world you live in...

I choose to look at the world differently, believing and knowing that every physical thing has also a spiritual component that keeps it going.

The human body is not only physical but it has a spiritual part as well, its called a soul.


----------



## Chris

mueske said:


> You have a degree in pharmacy and still think stuff like a soul exists? Did you buy that degree at the supermarket? .


Oooh, catty! It was Nottingham University, which houses the leading school of pharmacy in the UK. But I should say I went in as an atheist and came out as a Christian.

Nobody can preach like the convert.



mueske said:


> I really can't quite grasp how someone who should have a big background in biology and physiology can believe still in concepts like "the soul" .


The reason you can't grasp it is you are dead in your sins. A spiritual corpse. 'The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Corinthians 2:14)

But if you get out a bit more you will discover scientists of stature who believe not only in the existence of the soul but in every word of the Bible. People like Professor Stuart Burgess, head of the Mechanical Engineering department at Bristol University (UK). Prof. Burgess publishes books on creation science as well as publishing research papers in scientific matters unconnected with his faith.



mueske said:


> Atheism is just a lack of believe in god, nothing else. An infant is an atheist, a man or woman who doesn't claim knowledge concerning god is an (agnostic) atheist, a hypothetical man who *grew up alone *and never developed a concept of a god, is an atheist.
> 
> There is no single line of thought connected to what makes one an atheist.


Nobody 'grows up alone' because we all have a conscience telling us that God is there. 'He has set eternity in the hearts of men' (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Nobody will be able to plead ignorance at the Last Judgment.

As for atheism being nothing more than a lack of belief, I can assure you there are plenty of atheists in this country who have made it their life's work to stamp out any public expression of Christianity, let alone practice of it.


----------



## Krummhorn

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> . . .
> So first commit, and then we'll speak.
> 
> I want to hear from you that after I reveal to you this astonishing prophecy and after you will believe it to be true, that you'll accept the existence of God.


Ahem ...

Setting terms now, are we? 

Let's just say that we all agree to dis-agree in this religious matter. Each one of us has our own beliefs or non-beliefs and_ that needs to be respected. _You have stated your beliefs, so now let's move on.

We have strayed w-a-y off topic here ...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Krummhorn said:


> Ahem ...
> 
> Setting terms now, are we?
> 
> Let's just say that we all agree to dis-agree in this religious matter. Each one of us has our own beliefs or non-beliefs and_ that needs to be respected. _You have stated your beliefs, so now let's move on.
> 
> We have strayed w-a-y off topic here ...


I'm all for that, though I apologize if you got from my words that I dont respect others' beliefs. Anyone can believe whatever they may choose, I have said that a number of times. We are exchanging our perspectives on this issues, though I would love to go back to the original textual subject of this thread.

Best Wishes,

Saul


----------



## Polednice

Krummhorn said:


> Ahem ...
> 
> Setting terms now, are we?
> 
> Let's just say that we all agree to dis-agree in this religious matter. Each one of us has our own beliefs or non-beliefs and_ that needs to be respected. _You have stated your beliefs, so now let's move on.
> 
> We have strayed w-a-y off topic here ...


I'll agree to that so long as what you mean by the above is that we ought to respect everyone's rights to believe what they wish, but we do not have to respect the actual beliefs themselves


----------



## Krummhorn

Polednice,

Exactly


----------



## toucan

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Did the fat Greek dude presented a book that brings countless examples with detailed explanations proving his point?


He could have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_words_with_English_derivatives

Especially interesting are the greek *syn* meaning "with" and *phone* meaning "sound" or "voice"

Symphony: bringing sound together.

Which brings us back on topic
("topic:" from the greek *Topos* meaning place)

See you next year. In Athens.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Thats a shame I was hoping to see it. If there is such striking evidence, that may force many people to reconsider their belief's it should be public. I cant tell you what my conclusion will be from evidence I have yet to see. Though that might be familiar to someone such as yourself, for me its the opposite.


----------



## mueske

Last post I'll be making concerning this.



Chris said:


> The reason you can't grasp it is you are dead in your sins. A spiritual corpse. 'The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Corinthians 2:14)


The reason I can't or won't, a far better wording, is because I don't unnecessarily multiply concepts and adhere to the principles of Occam's razor.



Chris said:


> But if you get out a bit more you will discover scientists of stature who believe not only in the existence of the soul but in every word of the Bible. People like Professor Stuart Burgess, head of the Mechanical Engineering department at Bristol University (UK). Prof. Burgess publishes books on creation science as well as publishing research papers in scientific matters unconnected with his faith.


Sure, there are some, but a vast minority. I came across this:

"a leading member of the tiny hard-core group of activist creationists in British academia."

So he is also a creationist, yeah, I'm not going to make this any uglier than it already is.



Chris said:


> Nobody 'grows up alone' because we all have a conscience telling us that God is there. 'He has set eternity in the hearts of men' (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Nobody will be able to plead ignorance at the Last Judgment.


Hypothetically. And no, if someone were to grow up alone, god wouldn't come in the picture. Their intelligence wouldn't develop far enough to grasp such concepts.



Chris said:


> As for atheism being nothing more than a lack of belief, I can assure you there are plenty of atheists in this country who have made it their life's work to stamp out any public expression of Christianity, let alone practice of it.


That's not atheism, that's common sense, except for the rooting out the practice of it. But I don't believe that part, you just like to see it that way. 
A secular society and government isn't more than normal, you're not pushing anything, whereas in a religious society you would be.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Thats a shame I was hoping to see it. If there is such striking evidence, that may force many people to reconsider their belief's it should be public. I cant tell you what my conclusion will be from evidence I have yet to see. Though that might be familiar to someone such as yourself, for me its the opposite.


Forget it then, I'm not going to tell it here unless I hear a prior commitment that if it all makes sense then you guys will change your mind and believe in the existence of God.

I'm not ready to reveal such an amazing thing and then have some people who are not ready to see the truth no matter what, highjack this information and ridicule it.

I don't want this to happen, and I wont change my mind about it.

And if you think for a moment that only the 10 Nazi demons that were hanged in Nuremberg in 1946 were foreseen by the Torah, then you are mistaken.

I have loads of information and prophecies and predictions that were written thousands of years ago by the Torah, and by the Prophets of Israel and the Sages of the Talmud and the Zohar. Detailed scientific revelations, and also recent and current world events that took place were all recorded in the Torah, the Tenach, the Talmud and the Zohar.

Things like the destruction of the twin towers are mentioned, things like the current unrest in the Arab World, things like the Murder of Yitzchak Rabin, things like the Creation of the State of Israel. Things like America's war against the Iraq, things like Bin Laden waging a war on the United States, things like the current occupation of the Temple mount by the Arabs, things like a clear and unbelievable point and point description of the 'peace Process' between Israel and the Palestinians by the Great And Awesome Sage of the Talmud, Yohnotan Ben Uziei, who describes in detail what will happen, and promises that there will never be peace between the two and peace will only come by the coming of the Jewish Messiah, and all the efforts to make peace will never succeed, as we can all see today that the entire world is trying to solve this conflict, and nothing happens, just as the Great Sage said. I can also give information about the Holocaust and all its details as were mentioned in the Torah, and the Prophets much much more.

If you really thought up until now that we Jews believe in God out of blind faith without actual evidence, and without actual logic and rational, you have been greatly mistaken.

This information is open to the public, and there are teachers who teach people who are seriously looking to know and are open minded in accepting the truth whatever it may be.

That's why I initially wanted to hear a clear statement of candid interest and an open mind that if this information makes absolute sense to you, then you will reconsider your entire world outlook, and drop Darwin and Hawkings and all the other scientists who tried to brainwash billions to believe in nonsense.

If you'll give me this simple commitment of seriousness and an open mind, then I will tell you this information, but if not then forget about the whole thing.

Cheers,

Saul


----------



## Polednice

Saul, could you clarify the terms of this agreement for me? I'm not sure which of the following options it is:

1) Regardless of how convincing (or not) I find your 'revelations', I _have_ to believe in God if you show them to me [a commitment I would NOT accept]

OR

2) If your 'revelations' convince me to believe in God, then I must believe in God [well... duh! I'd accept that]


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> Saul, could you clarify the terms of this agreement for me? I'm not sure which of the following options it is:
> 
> 1) Regardless of how convincing (or not) I find your 'revelations', I _have_ to believe in God if you show them to me [a commitment I would NOT accept]
> 
> OR
> 
> 2) If your 'revelations' convince me to believe in God, then I must believe in God [well... duh! I'd accept that]


Number 2, ok so we have our dear Polednice commit and jump on board for the challenge, I want to see if others can join maybe 2 or 3 more and then I will tell you guys.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I will commit to No. 2.

If the evidence persuades me, it persuades me. I wont dismiss it out of prejudice.


----------



## Argus

Artemis said:


> I see that this scintillating discussion has now been elevated to the "Community Forum". I'm not surprised as I thought it would only be a matter of time before it achieved the kudos it deserves.
> 
> So far, I reckon the score is about 75% in favour of Saul. Nice one on the "orange box" to Saul. I haven't seen anything quite so funny from the other side.
> 
> For the present I'm saying nothing further to try to sway the discussion as I wouldn't wish to embarrass any of you with my far superior knowledge.


The only way for Saul to be 'winning' anything is if everything he says is part of some elaborate trolling excercise.

Taken at face value this thread is more like an **** kicking contest and Saul's a one-legged midget.



Saul said:


> Forget it then, I'm not going to tell it here unless I hear a prior commitment that if it all makes sense then you guys will change your mind and believe in the existence of God.
> 
> I'm not ready to reveal such an amazing thing and then have some people who are not ready to see the truth no matter what, highjack this information and ridicule it.
> 
> I don't want this to happen, and I wont change my mind about it.
> 
> And if you think for a moment that only the 10 Nazi demons that were hanged in Nuremberg in 1946 were foreseen by the Torah, then you are mistaken.
> 
> I have loads of information and prophecies and predictions that were written thousands of years ago by the Torah, and by the Prophets of Israel and the Sages of the Talmud and the Zohar. Detailed scientific revelations, and also recent and current world events that took place were all recorded in the Torah, the Tenach, the Talmud and the Zohar.
> 
> Things like the destruction of the twin towers are mentioned, things like the current unrest in the Arab World, things like the Murder of Yitzchak Rabin, things like the Creation of the State of Israel. Things like America's war against the Iraq, things like Bin Laden waging a war on the United States, things like the current occupation of the Temple mount by the Arabs, things like a clear and unbelievable point and point description of the 'peace Process' between Israel and the Palestinians by the Great And Awesome Sage of the Talmud, Yohnotan Ben Uziei, who describes in detail what will happen, and promises that there will never be peace between the two and peace will only come by the coming of the Jewish Messiah, and all the efforts to make peace will never succeed, as we can all see today that the entire world is trying to solve this conflict, and nothing happens, just as the Great Sage said. I can also give information about the Holocaust and all its details as were mentioned in the Torah, and the Prophets much much more.
> 
> If you really thought up until now that we Jews believe in God out of blind faith without actual evidence, and without actual logic and rational, you have been greatly mistaken.
> 
> This information is open to the public, and there are teachers who teach people who are seriously looking to know and are open minded in accepting the truth whatever it may be.
> 
> That's why I initially wanted to hear a clear statement of candid interest and an open mind that if this information makes absolute sense to you, then you will reconsider your entire world outlook, and drop Darwin and Hawkings and all the other scientists who tried to brainwash billions to believe in nonsense.
> 
> If you'll give me this simple commitment of seriousness and an open mind, then I will tell you this information, but if not then forget about the whole thing.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Saul


I bet it's something to do with Judaism.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Argus said:


> The only way for Saul to be 'winning' anything is if everything he says is part of some elaborate trolling excercise.
> 
> Taken at face value this thread is more like an **** kicking contest and Saul's a one-legged midget.
> 
> I bet it's something to do with Judaism.


See why I dont want to post it in a forum...


----------



## Aksel

I will also commit to number two.


----------



## Chris

Chris said:


> As for atheism being nothing more than a lack of belief, I can assure you there are plenty of atheists in this country who have made it their life's work to stamp out any public expression of Christianity, let alone practice of it.





mueske said:


> That's not atheism, that's common sense, except for the rooting out the practice of it. But I don't believe that part, you just like to see it that way.
> A secular society and government isn't more than normal, you're not pushing anything, whereas in a religious society you would be.


I think you have misunderstood my post, at least I hope you have! When I say 'public expression of Christianity' I mean ordinary people expressing a Christian view, not government agencies promoting a Christian agenda. Cases of Christians being harried in this way come up with depressing regularity.


----------



## mamascarlatti

OH for goodness sake (again)

Have you lot never heard of google?

"Prophecy" from the book of Esther about hangings of ten sons of Haman (+refutation)

And no, I don't think this is a prophecy about Nurenberg, nor do I believe in any supernatural beings. I think ingenious people waste their considerable talents looking through old texts to hunt for "prophecies" to justify their beliefs.


----------



## mamascarlatti

Chris said:


> I think you have misunderstood my post, at least I hope you have! When I say 'public expression of Christianity' I mean ordinary people expressing a Christian view, not government agencies promoting a Christian agenda. Cases of Christians being harried in this way come up with depressing regularity.


As atheism:

Bush: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Ok Polednice, emiellucifuge and Aksel and I will first put in front of you a chapter from the Book of Ester and ask you three what you find there redundant and repetitive, I would like to see which one of you will catch the glaring question that has to be raised by reading it simply.

This exercise is necessary in order to sharpen the point and the context of the entire thing.

Some very basic info about the Book of Ester:

Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Esther

*The Book of Esther is one of the books of the Hebrew Bible. The Book of Esther or the Megillah is the basis for the Jewish celebration of Purim. Its full text is read aloud twice during the celebration, in the evening and again the following morning.

The biblical Book of Esther is set in the third year of Ahasuerus, a king of Persia. The name Ahasuerus is equivalent to Xerxes, both deriving from the Persian Khashayarsha, thus Ahasuerus is usually identified as Xerxes I (486-465 BCE), though Ahasuerus is identified as Artaxerxes in the later Greek version of Esther (as well as by Josephus, the Jewish commentary Esther Rabbah, the Ethiopic translation and the Christian theologian Bar-Hebraeus who identified him more precisely as Artaxerxes II [1]). The Book of Esther tells a story of palace intrigue and genocide thwarted by a Jewish queen of Persia.
*

To the challenge then: (if you cant find anything odd then please tell me and I will explain to you, but I want to see if you can find out what doesnt seem right) .

Find out what is 'wrong' in the sentences of this chapter (a major hint concentrate on verses 12 through 14)

1 Now in the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same, when the king's commandment and his decree drew near to be put in execution, in the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have rule over them; whereas it was turned to the contrary, that the Jews had rule over them that hated them;

2 the Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt; and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them was fallen upon all the peoples.

3 And all the princes of the provinces, and the satraps, and the governors, and they that did the king's business, helped the Jews; because the fear of Mordecai was fallen upon them.

4 For Mordecai was great in the king's house, and his fame went forth throughout all the provinces; for the man Mordecai waxed greater and greater.

5 And the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction, and did what they would unto them that hated them.

6 And in Shushan the castle the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men.

7 And Parshandatha, and Dalphon, and Aspatha,

8 and Poratha, and Adalia, and Aridatha,

9 and Parmashta, and Arisai, and Aridai, and Vaizatha,

10 the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jews' enemy, slew they; but on the spoil they laid not their hand.

11 On that day the number of those that were slain in Shushan the castle was brought before the king.

*12 And the king said unto Esther the queen: 'The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the castle, and the ten sons of Haman; what then have they done in the rest of the king's provinces! Now whatever thy petition, it shall be granted thee; and whatever thy request further, it shall be done.'*

*13 Then said Esther: 'If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews that are in Shushan to do tomorrow also according unto this day's decree, and let Haman's ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.'

14 And the king commanded it so to be done; and a decree was given out in Shushan; and they hanged Haman's ten sons.*

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Esther9.html


----------



## Aksel

The ten sons of Haman were hanged after they had been killed. So what? Traitors in Old England were put on spikes after they'd been hanged, drawn and quartered. It's called setting an example.

How this relates to the Nuremberg trials, however, I do not understand. If the deal is that the Jews are supposed to populate south-western Iran, surely it's the Muslims' fault that they no longer do so?


----------



## Chris

Aksel said:


> The ten sons of Haman were hanged after they had been killed. So what? Traitors in Old England were put on spikes after they'd been hanged, drawn and quartered. It's called setting an example.


It was called 'exposing (the bodies) before the Lord' and occurs elsewhere in OT, e.g. Saul's seven descendants in 2 Samuel ch. 21


----------



## Aksel

Chris said:


> It was called 'exposing (the bodies) before the Lord' and occurs elsewhere in OT, e.g. Saul's seven descendants in 2 Samuel ch. 21


But again. What does it have to do with nazis?


----------



## mamascarlatti

Not mention that actually 11 war criminals were condemned (decreed to be hanged) at Nurenberg, (though only 10 hanged).

As I said in my post above, if you go looking for coincidences with enough time, diligence, ingenuity and pre-set beliefs you can certainly manufacture "prophecies".


----------



## Aksel

Just wondering, Saul. Do you believe in Nostradamus?


----------



## mamascarlatti

Aksel said:


> Just wondering, Saul. Do you believe in Nostradamus?


Was he Jewish?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel said:


> The ten sons of Haman were hanged after they had been killed. So what? Traitors in Old England were put on spikes after they'd been hanged, drawn and quartered. It's called setting an example.
> 
> How this relates to the Nuremberg trials, however, I do not understand. If the deal is that the Jews are supposed to populate south-western Iran, surely it's the Muslims' fault that they no longer do so?


Patience, you're getting ahead of yourself. I didn't say much, I only gave a challenge.

The request of Queen Ester is very odd, firstly because the King tells her that the Ten Sons of Haman were already Killed. Why does she insist for hanging them again (hanging in the context of the entire Book of Ester is capital Punishment, and not a description of 'setting an example'.

Examples :

Esther Chapter 5:14:

14 *Then said Zeresh his wife and all his friends unto him: 'Let a gallows be made of fifty cubits high, and in the morning speak thou unto the king that Mordecai may be hanged thereon; then go thou in merrily with the king unto the banquet.' And the thing pleased Haman; and he caused the gallows to be made.*

Esther Chapter 7 -9:10

9 *Then said Harbonah, one of the chamberlains that were before the king: 'Behold also, the gallows fifty cubits high, which Haman hath made for Mordecai, who spoke good for the king, standeth in the house of Haman.' And the king said: 'Hang him thereon.'*
10 *So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then was the king's wrath assuaged.*

So in the simple reading of the style of the Book of Ester, hanging means killing, a form of execution.

Therefore why in the world is Queen Esther requesting the execution of the 10 Sons of Haman the Wicked, when just in the previous sentence the King himself tells her clearly that the Ten Sons of Haman were eliminated and are in fact dead?

That's the question.

But now I will go deeper into the matter please concentrate…

What you have read is an English Translation of the Original Hebrew Text.
But how do we Jews write this Book in what fashion?

We write it in Hebrew letters and words on a leather scroll, and all throughout the Book there are no special or out of the ordinary seperations between the chapters and the texts, its all a continuous volume body of text.

But the Halacha (Jewish law) which was stated in the *Talmud written some 2000 years ago*, says that when coming to the section where the 10 Sons of Haman are mentioned , there has to be seperation between the names of the Sons of Haman and the word 'And'...

An Example

And…………………. Parshandatha,
And ………………….Dalphon
And…………………. Aspatha,
And…………………. Poratha, 
And…………………..Adalia
And…………………..Aridatha
And…………………. Parmashta
And………………….. Arisai
And………………… Aridai 
And ………………….Vaizatha,

Suddenly the entire style of writing is been changed only for this section.

Now there is Jewish Law in reading the Torah independent of the story of Esther.
The Law says that any 'And' in the Torah comes to add something else besides the written simple text.

An example :

The Law says that when Reading the Biblical text of the Torah that says the following:

"And you should fear God"… the word 'And' here connotes to the addition of fearing the Sages of Israel as one would fear God. Again this is an independent Jewish Law with regarding the correct reading of the Verses in their right context, and this law was given to Moses and applies to the previous older Sacred Works, Such as the Five books of Moses, (The Torah) and the Books of Joshua and Judges, and is true for all the Books of the Tenach.

So when this law is applied here, we must understand that the word 'And' in the context of the Hanging of the Sons of Haman, means something additional to the simple text that is in front of us.

Now to go even deeper.

In the Leather Scroll of the Book of Ester that talks about the hanging of the Sons of Haman, we have 3 letters that are written significantly smaller then all the other Letters, this is law written in the Talmud, that these 3 letters * must be written much smaller then the rest*.

Why?

What did the Sages of Israel wanted to tell us?

Lets look at it visually: Pay attention at the highlighted letters

And…………………Parshanda*t*a,
And ……………… Dalphon
And………………… Aspatha,
And………………… Poratha, 
And…………………Adalia
And…………………Aridatha
And…………………Parma*sh*ta (*sh* makes the hebrew letter *Shin*)
And…………………Arisai
And………………… Aridai 
And …………………Vai*z*atha,

Now what letters are written smaller then the rest?

The Hebrew Letter of *Tav , Shin and Zain*.

In the Hebrew Calendar these three letters make up the year 1946.

How in the world did the Sages of Israel Knew 2600 years ago what will take place half world away somewhere in Europe with the enemies of the Jewish people?

Now lets look at the actual 1946 hanging of these monsters, and see what has happened with them and what the last perpetrator and wicked demon had yelled out before the hanging as was recorded by the world media.

On 1 October 1946, after 216 court sessions, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg delivered its verdicts sentencing the leaders of the Nazi party to death by hanging. The author of the following account, Kingsbury Smith of the International News Service, was chosen by lot to represent the American press at the execution of ten of those leaders.

*NurembergGaol, Germany
16 October 1946
International News Service*

…Julius Streicher made his melodramatic appearance at 2:12 a.m.

While his manacles were being removed and his bare hands bound, this ugly, dwarfish little man, wearing a threadbare suit and a well-worn bluish shirt buttoned to the neck but without a tie (he was notorious during his days of power for his flashy dress), glanced at the three wooden scaffolds rising menacingly in front of him. Then he glanced around the room, his eyes resting momentarily upon the small group of witnesses. By this time, his hands were tied securely behind his back. Two guards, one on each arm, directed him to Number One gallows on the left of the entrance. He walked steadily the six feet to the first wooden step but his face was twitching.

As the guards stopped him at the bottom of the steps for identification formality he uttered his piercing scream: 'Heil Hitler!'

The shriek sent a shiver down my back.

As its echo died away an American colonel standing by the steps said sharply, 'Ask the man his name.' In response to the interpreter's query Streicher shouted, 'You know my name well.'

The interpreter repeated his request and the condemned man yelled, 'Julius Streicher.'

As he reached the platform Streicher cried out, 'Now it goes to G-d.' He was pushed the last two steps to the mortal spot beneath the hangman's rope. The rope was being held back against a wooden rail by the hangman.

Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient persecutor of the Jews described in the Old Testament]…

http://ohr.edu/holidays/purim/deeper_insights/3440

Without a question the God of Israel had revealed this secret and many other secrets and prophecies to the Jewish People through their great Prophets and Sages, and everything can be found in the Torah, everything is coded in , hinted, metioned and rooted in the Torah.


----------



## Aksel

mamascarlatti said:


> Was he Jewish?


No, he wasn't. But apparently, he made a smashing cherry jam.

And Saul: Do you have any more evidence on this? Pardon my ignorance on these matters on these matters, but I am in no way convinced. I've heard more convincing prophecies.

And what about the Muslims? Surely, if the Jews are supposed to inhabit Susa, why wasn't it the ones who inhabited Susa who were the ones who were executed in 1946? Because that's what the excerpt is about, isn't it? Or am I reading too much into this?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ok Saul, Ive done my best to approach this neutrally.

If I get the image correctly:

The Jews gained control over a lot of people, and set about killing and destroying all their enemies.
One of their enemies had 10 sons, and these were all hanged.

Im not sure what you mean by wrong. Perhaps a contradiction? I think perhaps this huge genocide perpetrated here is wrong.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Ah, Ive read your post now.



> Therefore why in the world is Queen Esther requesting the execution of the 10 Sons of Haman the Wicked, when just in the previous sentence the King himself tells her clearly that the Ten Sons of Haman were eliminated and are in fact dead?


As for the rest. That is indeed remarkable.

What do you think this proves?
Is it proof for you that there are some prophecies in the scriptures?
Is it proof that god exists?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Ok Saul, Ive done my best to approach this neutrally.
> 
> If I get the image correctly:
> 
> The Jews gained control over a lot of people, and set about killing and destroying all their enemies.
> One of their enemies had 10 sons, and these were all hanged.
> 
> Im not sure what you mean by wrong. Perhaps a contradiction? I think perhaps this huge genocide perpetrated here is wrong.


I wrote the follwing before reading your latest comments...(glad you did understand it cheers)

No, in the Book of Esther Haman had convinced the Ruler of the Kingdom of Persia to murder all the Jewish people in the world in one day, this man was more wicked then Hitler. He wanted to do a massive genocide in one day. And the King agreed with him, and gave him the permission to go with his shocking blood lust.

Yet Thank God a salvation had appeared to the Jewish People in the form of two righteous servants of God, Ester and Mordechi, and through heavenly orchestrated set of events, the entire evil plans of Haman were destroyed, and the Jews were given the opportunity to stand up and defend themselves from their attackers.

Best Wishes,

Saul


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel said:


> No, he wasn't. But apparently, he made a smashing cherry jam.
> 
> And Saul: Do you have any more evidence on this? Pardon my ignorance on these matters on these matters, but I am in no way convinced. I've heard more convincing prophecies.
> 
> And what about the Muslims? Surely, if the Jews are supposed to inhabit Susa, why wasn't it the ones who inhabited Susa who were the ones who were executed in 1946? Because that's what the excerpt is about, isn't it? Or am I reading too much into this?


What Islam has to do with this?

Please explain yourself.

And if you're not convinced by what I told you, then I cant help you with that.
This was very detailed I believe, what else a rational truth seeking decent person want?

I cant bring Queen Esther back to life here to try to convince you. There is a track record of revelations just like these , some even more astonishing then this, but for the seeker of truth, I believe this is just pretty strong evidence logically explained.

*Streicher was swung suddenly to face the witnesses and glared at them. Suddenly he screamed, 'Purim Fest 1946.' [Purim is a Jewish holiday celebrated in the spring, commemorating the execution of Haman, ancient persecutor of the Jews described in the Book of Esther]…*

Darn more evidence then this?

Cheers,

Saul


----------



## Aksel

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> What Islam has to do with this?
> 
> Please explain yourself.
> 
> And if you're not convinced by what I told you, then I cant help you with that.
> This was very detailed I believe, what else a rational truth seeking decent person want?
> 
> I cant bring Queen Esther back to life here to try to convince you. There is a track record of revelations just like these , some even more astonishing then this, but for the seeker of truth, I believe this is just pretty strong evidence logically explained.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Saul


Sorry. I misread.

But do you believe in Nostradamus' prophecies?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Aksel said:


> Sorry. I misread.
> 
> But do you believe in Nostradamus' prophecies?


The General Jewish Law written in the Talmud 2000 years ago prior to the birth of Nostradamus clearly says that Prophecy has ended upon the destruction of the Second Temple.

So if this man said some things, the root had to be the Torah and the Prophets of Israel, for he couldn't have been a prophet based on that Talmudic Law.

To be a prophet is a big big deal, there are major certain requirements that are found in very very few special individuals, but in the time of the Temple there were millions of Jewish Prophets, it was very common in Ancient Israel.

But Prophecy is tied to the Temple, since we don't currently have the Temple, therefore there are no prophets.


----------



## Chris

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> The General Jewish Law written in the Talmud 2000 years ago prior to the birth of Nostradamus clearly says that Prophecy has ended upon the destruction of the Second Temple.
> 
> So if this man said some things, the root had to be the Torah and the Prophets of Israel, for he couldn't have been a prophet based on that Talmudic Law.
> 
> To be a prophet is a big big deal, there are major certain requirements that are found in very very few special individuals, but in the time of the Temple there were millions of Jewish Prophets, it was very common in Ancient Israel.
> 
> But Prophecy is tied to the Temple, since we don't currently have the Temple, therefore there are no prophets.


Two questions.

1. The names of the 10 victims do not appear in what you call the 'English Translation of the Original Hebrew Text'. But surely the names don't appear in the Hebew text of Esther itself. Are you not quoting from some rabbinical accretion? Are you saying these accretions have the same weight as the sacred text?

2. What do you mean by the three Hebrew letters making up 1946? Are Hebrew letters also numbers?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Chris said:


> Two questions.
> 
> 1. The names of the 10 victims do not appear in what you call the 'English Translation of the Original Hebrew Text'. But surely the names don't appear in the Hebew text of Esther itself. Are you not quoting from some rabbinical accretion? Are you saying these accretions have the same weight as the sacred text?
> 
> 2. What do you mean by the three Hebrew letters making up 1946? Are Hebrew letters also numbers?


1. You surely mean criminals and murderers and not 'victims'.
The actual names of the 1946 Nazi Demons are not mentioned literality in the Text of the Hebrew Book of Esther, they are not mentioned in the Translation also, any translation.
I mean that would have been just to obvious to mention openly the names of the 1946 murderers in the Book of Esther.

2. Yes, Each letter in the Hebrew Alphabet has numbers, and also each letter is made up of combinations of other letters. There is a whole section and wisdom within Judaism that is called Gematria.

Interestingly the Mathematical Numerical value of the Name of *Ahmedn*ijad of Iran today, is the same numerical value of the Haman of Persia as mentioned in the Book of Esther, no wonder the strong similarities between these two wicked scum.

One wanted to kill all the Jewish people in one day.
And today *Ahamd*injad wants to kill all the Jews with one Atomic weapon, may he burn in hell.

But don't worry, this evil demon from Iran will be added to the long list of failed and miserable dictators and villains who wanted to destroy the Jewish people, and instead got destroyed themselves.

So we have here three demons who all are related in names. The first one Haman of Persia, got Hanged some 2600 years ago.

Then we have another Nazi scum called Amon Goth of Austria (The wicked murderer from the film Schindler's List, based on a true story, note the similarity between this Amon and the Haman of Ancient Persia) also was hanged.

Then we have today Ahamdinjad, also similar by name both numerically and in pronunciation and by wicked intentions to the ancient Haman of Persia.

Maybe he will be hanged too, would be interesting to see the unfolding of these things.

Haman = Hanged

Amon = Hanged

Ahmadinjad = Still to be seen what will be with him, but one can assume that based on history and based on his evil actions that he will meet the same end as his two evil predecessors.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I have studied Qabalah somewhat.

666 = sun


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> I have studied Qabalah somewhat.
> 
> 666 = sun


I'm sorry to tell you this but you're wrong.

Shemesh (SUN) is 640.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> 1. You surely mean criminals and murderers and not 'victims'.
> The actual names of the 1946 Nazi Demons are not mentioned literality in the Text of the Hebrew Book of Esther, they are not mentioned in the Translation also, any translation.
> I mean that would have been just to obvious to mention openly the names of the 1946 murderers in the Book of Esther.
> 
> 2. Yes, *Each letter in the Hebrew Alphabet has numbers, and also each letter is made up of combinations of other letters. There is a whole section and wisdom within Judaism that is called Gematria.*
> 
> *Interestingly the Mathematical Numerical value of the Name of Ahmednijad of Iran today, is the same numerical value of the Haman of Persia as mentioned in the Book of Esther, no wonder the strong similarities between these two wicked scum.*
> 
> One wanted to kill all the Jewish people in one day.
> And today *Ahamd*injad wants to kill all the Jews with one Atomic weapon, may he burn in hell.
> 
> But don't worry, this evil demon from Iran will be added to the long list of failed and miserable dictators and villains who wanted to destroy the Jewish people, and instead got destroyed themselves.
> 
> *So we have here three demons who all are related in names. The first one Haman of Persia, got Hanged some 2600 years ago.*
> 
> Then we have another Nazi scum called Amon Goth of Austria (The wicked murderer from the film Schindler's List, based on a true story, note the similarity between this Amon and the Haman of Ancient Persia) also was hanged.
> 
> Then we have today Ahamdinjad, also similar by name both numerically and in pronunciation and by wicked intentions to the ancient Haman of Persia.
> 
> Maybe he will be hanged too, would be interesting to see the unfolding of these things.


Since member Saul_Dzorelashvili appears rather talented in religious wisdom in identifying the demons of modern times associated with his favourite book of wisdom, in particular numeric codes of the like, I would like to know who the devil himself is/was as coded by number 666?

Oh hang on one minute, sorry I asked. 666 comes from the Book of Revelations in the New Testament. Therefore, it has no relevance to Judaism, I guess. Do pardon my absolute ignorance.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Since member Saul_Dzorelashvili appears rather talented in religious wisdom in identifying the demons of modern times associated with his favourite book of wisdom, in particular numeric codes of the like, I would like to know who the devil himself is/was as coded by number 666?
> 
> Oh hang on one minute, sorry I asked. 666 comes from the Book of Revelations in the New Testament. Therefore, it has no relevance to Judaism, I guess. Do pardon my absolute ignorance.


I really dont know what you're talking about.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I'm sorry to tell you this but you're wrong.
> 
> Shemesh (SUN) is 640.


Ah well


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

The one thing I do admire about the story of Esther was it served as the dramatic stimulus for 18th century author/poet named Alexander Pope and mathematician John Arbuthnot to compose a libretto of the same name as the text of George Frideric Handel's English masque/oratorio, _Esther_. One excellent piece of work indeed. First version was more of a (private) chamber masque (1718), and then later revised into a larger oratorio format for theatres in 1732.

By the way, I am quoting actual historical facts, i.e. no numerical extrapolations made, in case if you wondering where my numbers and names mentioned above came from. :tiphat:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I really dont know what you're talking about.


Oh, I see. I guess my understated hints were just too subtle, even for modern day religious code breakers.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Oh, I see. I guess my understated hints were just to subtle, even for modern day religious code breakers.


If you want to gain something out of this discussion that we are having, its better to do so in an harmonious manner, and stay away from sarcasm and figurative talking...

Speak straight, it would be way easier, faster and I believe also beneficial.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> If you want to gain something out of this discussion that we are having, its better to do so in an harmonious manner, and stay away from sarcasm and figurative talking...
> 
> *Speak straight, it would be way easier, faster and I believe also beneficial*.


Oh, I absolutely agree - I wish your favourite book of wisdom and its prophecies would do the same, too.


----------



## Chris

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> 1. You surely mean criminals and murderers and not 'victims'.
> The actual names of the 1946 Nazi Demons are not mentioned literality in the Text of the Hebrew Book of Esther, they are not mentioned in the Translation also, any translation.
> I mean that would have been just to obvious to mention openly the names of the 1946 murderers in the Book of Esther.


My mistake...I actually meant the ten sons of Haman, not the ten nazis, but I've just realised they are named in the text of Esther itself (9:7-9)

One other question. You say the letters Tav , Shin and Zain are written smaller than other Hebrew letters. Do you mean they happen to be small letters, or there is a specific instruction to write these letters small when copying a scroll of Esther?


----------



## Polednice

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The one thing I do admire about the story of Esther was it served as the dramatic stimulus for 18th century author/poet named Alexander Pope and mathematician John Arbuthnot to compose a libretto of the same name as the text of George Frideric Handel's English masque/oratorio, _Esther_. One excellent piece of work indeed. First version was more of a (private) chamber masque (1718), and then later revised into a larger oratorio format for theatres in 1732.
> 
> By the way, I am quoting actual historical facts, i.e. no numerical extrapolations made, in case if you wondering where my numbers and names mentioned above came from. :tiphat:


Thank you for saving my sanity with that snippet of actual fact! I'm so glad it also doesn't smell like bullcrap


----------



## Igneous01

i have to nitpick at this assumption here:



> All the languages of the world, all of them are rooted in Ancient Hebrew. The separation of languages from Hebrew took place after humanity had built a Great Tower in Babylon and wanted to wage a war on God


this might be a fine story, but considering the amount of time humans have lived and evolved on this planet (15000 bc - maybe even earlier than this) i find it difficult to believe that ancient hebrew links it all.

first off, Hinduism is one of the OLDEST religions in history, it dates as far back as possibly 8000bc or more, thats 4000 years earlier than judaism.

The Language itself, comprises of linguistic tonalities and articulations that i find hard to believe are similar to hebrew. The language itself is so unique, in that things like mantras and chakras and sacred chanting have a significant effect on the human body and its surroundings, depending on the frequency these words emit.

http://www.gayathripeedam.com/2007/07/science-of-mantra.html

i admit this link is quite dubious in the way information is presented, but literature exists and many scholars have studied the hindu language and its effects on physical surroundings. if i find better sources i will post them.

second thing: It is believed that during the time of the great ice age, russia and north america were joined by a solid mass of ice, where it is believed asian tribes (that lived in present day china, mongolia, eastern russia emigrated into america by crossing the Bering strait, while this only serves as a theory now, it certainly explains how people could have lived in north america even tho it is believed humans originally came from eurasia - and this is way before judaism was even around. Yet they had developed their own language and cultures.

My apologies, but i cannot except such a statement as ludicrous as this. Hebrew is an old language indeed, but it can be traced back to even older languages like Akkadian, Sanskrit, Sumerian, Archaic Japanese and Egyptian. truth is nobody knows, and i dont think anybody will know what language came first.

as for references to symphony, it could be very much Greek, after all it is believed they were the first to invent the "play" in which actors gathered on a festival (i forgot what its called now) also believed to have music accompanied in these plays. I dont know much about persia, so i cannot say for certain who came first. But if you really look at it the word symphony could go even further back then we believe it to currently be.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Well- this thread has made more turns than the South Fork of the Shenandoah River, hasn't it?

Wagner famously said "I believe in God, Mozart, and Beethoven..." However, if one finds oneself more motivated to post _here_ in support of, or in opposition to the concept of God than discussion of Mozart and Beethoven (for instance), then one must consider the possibility that a Classical Music Forum isn't the appropriate venue for such activities.

It's inevitable that posters _on both sides_ of this issue degenerate into belittling each other's deeply held viewpoints, which I don't consider to be much better than direct belittling of an individual.

If there was any evidence that we could discuss such matters without this sort of degeneration, then these discussions could continue. Our track record, as such, shows we cannot. The course of this thread has proven no exception to the rule.

So, consider this the final turn of this meandering thread.


----------

