The Jewish Bible recounts how the “Hebrew” Israelites escape slavery in Egypt to resume their life as slaveholders in Canaan, led by Moses and his faithful deputy Jesus (aka Joshua).
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew first though. Hebrew is a completely different language family than Indo-European which birthed the Greeks, Scythenians etc. While the New Testament was written in Greek and the Old Testament translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC (the sepucla), the original bible was Hebrew. So a complete dislocation from the Indo-Aryans who went on to form the European peoples.
I mean its common knowledge it was written in Hebrew.. Just type it into Google. Not a controversial statement at all? Literally every single source states that, hence why I've been puzzling over the issue over the past couple of weeks.
Do you take for granted that all things asserted as "common knowledge" are true and grounded in real and verifiable truths? If that is the case, it should not be difficult to find an example, a manuscript or piece of one, reflecting that claim (ie, what's called "The Bible" or just The Book) as true. If, however, all you find are sources simply stating the claim —without themselves demonstrating a cited chain of verification, then what you have is comparable to people's blogs and Internet comments and newspaper articles saying saturated fat is unhealthy and cottonseed oil is more healthy for you, or mutually assured destruction is a sound preventative for total war. Lots of people believe in things they think are commonly known, until they look further into how they came to such understandings.
Considering you have zero evidence to challenge a well-established fact that’s not only recognized today but has been consistently upheld for thousands of years—by historians like Strabo, no less—it’s clear who’s relying on weak arguments. Tossing out a casual "do you even question things, bro?" doesn’t cut it. This belief isn’t just some recent propaganda; it’s been accepted through the ages in academic circles. If you don’t like that reality, prove me wrong. But as it stands, you have absolutely no evidence to back your claim.
Why are they academic circles? Is it because they go round and round saying what each other wants to hear, validating the ideology that keeps the circle unbroken?
You assert I have no evidence to "back your claim," but it's not really clear what you think my claim is. Yet, it is clear from the style of your argument that you think someone needs to have evidence to "back a claim" —so then why didn't you provide as I said an example, a manuscript or piece of one, reflecting the claim that the "original language" of The Book is Hebrew. That is, provide a citation or link or even an address for such a manuscript or piece of one. Where is that physical object housed, and how can one examine it for themselves (have you?)? A piece of The Book that's written clearly in Hebrew and verifiably of the correct age. If you don't have that, what do you have to provide as that link to the evidence backing your claim?
You're not going to bother. You don't even think you need to. And yet, if you really and authentically believed that at the root of all *your* beliefs is a reality comprising and thereby establishing facts, you will have that piece of evidence available to back *your* claim.
But, you won't have it. You don't think you need that. You have the words of other people, who form circles and rings of self-reinforcing consensus —and since they are academics, so you call them, all the more reason for you to believe them, too.
I think you’ve completely missed my later comment—which actually aligns much more with the original author. Howeve, it’s absurd to ask me to prove something spanning 3,000 years of history. I have a life, and no, I’m not about to dig through multiple sources to create a convincing argument just to prove something you clearly disagree with already. That’s what academics are paid to do. If you give me $20,000, I’ll gladly spend six months reviewing sources and crafting a conclusive argument (which you’ll still dismiss), but until then, it’s not exactly high on my list of priorities.
With that said, I'm completely open to the possibility that all of this is wrong, and honestly, I’d much prefer it to be. I even think it might be, if you read my later comment. But I’m not about to spend hours digging around just to make arguments on the Internet.
I can’t prove a negative, only you can only prove a positive. And you can’t prove that *any* Hebrew writing existed before the Septuagint. If you can, then cite your source.
The language in Israel before the Septuagint is now known as Paleo Hebrew, as in not Hebrew yet. As far as I know, it only appears in stone inscriptions, none of which have any biblical context. The Hebrew language came into being after the Septuagint, and there IS evidence of this, because this is when the Jews began using the Aramaic alphabet to replace the old Phoenician script of Canaan.
Who cares about Strabo? He was writing 200 years after the fact. The major historical source for the translation of Hebrew text into Greek is the Letter of Aristeas, which is widely regarded as a pseudo epigraphic pile of horseshit. Do some more homework. The Jewish Bible was written in Alexandria. The “common knowledge” history you propagate is the product of foundational Judeo Christian bias in western history. Most early historians had a vested interest in defending the historicity of the bible. That history is now widely regarded as false. The origins of it in “translation” are no less false.
Nobody says “history is translated by the victors”. No, the victors write it themselves.
Interesting. I just read another one of your articles. So, I’m guessing you're familiar with Christian Identity, right? How does that fit into everything? Are you dismissing it entirely? Because they argue it was all just identity theft—that Europeans are actually the central figures of the Bible, and that Jesus was speaking about them and was himself one of them. That kind of ties into what you mentioned about the original texts being of Indo-European origin.
The inquiry runs deep, as mystery that serves political ideology dominates, yet it is clear that some semblance of the early Greeks was multicultural.
Lately there has been a move to remove the Hellenes from the Indo-European root entirely. Part of this, it seems is due to the revision which keeps pushing Dionysus back, further into history.
I suppose all those blondes were after all just figments of artistic imagination.
In the actual Greek bible, Abraham was a pirate and trafficker with at least buisness ties to Canaan. The ancient Greeks were seafarers quite early, and it was clear that all this activity was anything but fully wholesome.
Its funny because it seems that everyone wants to know, who are the Jews, but to look at them, the ones in charge are white, aren't they?
The jews are not related to the Europeans, completely seperate racial group. I think the point here is that they may be claiming an identity which is not there's.
The Jews like to claim that. It enables them to manipulate heavily, but Jews regularly marry into European families, esp. the aristocracy, have done so for centuries, to the point that they are now white.
Look up Tel Aviv university and their analysis of modern Jewsish DNA.
Are there brown and blacks Jews, sure. Judaism did its own efforts at conversion, and genocide.
Doesn't change the fact that modern Jewish DNA = primarily Eastern European now.
Mind blown. Somehow the Phoenicians tie in here as well.
That was the Palanset, who became the Phillistines (Gaza and southern Israel) and carried on using Mycenaean pottery in the region (proving the link).
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew first though. Hebrew is a completely different language family than Indo-European which birthed the Greeks, Scythenians etc. While the New Testament was written in Greek and the Old Testament translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC (the sepucla), the original bible was Hebrew. So a complete dislocation from the Indo-Aryans who went on to form the European peoples.
There is no evidence of Hebrew Scriptures predating the Greek.
I mean its common knowledge it was written in Hebrew.. Just type it into Google. Not a controversial statement at all? Literally every single source states that, hence why I've been puzzling over the issue over the past couple of weeks.
Do you take for granted that all things asserted as "common knowledge" are true and grounded in real and verifiable truths? If that is the case, it should not be difficult to find an example, a manuscript or piece of one, reflecting that claim (ie, what's called "The Bible" or just The Book) as true. If, however, all you find are sources simply stating the claim —without themselves demonstrating a cited chain of verification, then what you have is comparable to people's blogs and Internet comments and newspaper articles saying saturated fat is unhealthy and cottonseed oil is more healthy for you, or mutually assured destruction is a sound preventative for total war. Lots of people believe in things they think are commonly known, until they look further into how they came to such understandings.
Considering you have zero evidence to challenge a well-established fact that’s not only recognized today but has been consistently upheld for thousands of years—by historians like Strabo, no less—it’s clear who’s relying on weak arguments. Tossing out a casual "do you even question things, bro?" doesn’t cut it. This belief isn’t just some recent propaganda; it’s been accepted through the ages in academic circles. If you don’t like that reality, prove me wrong. But as it stands, you have absolutely no evidence to back your claim.
Why are they academic circles? Is it because they go round and round saying what each other wants to hear, validating the ideology that keeps the circle unbroken?
You assert I have no evidence to "back your claim," but it's not really clear what you think my claim is. Yet, it is clear from the style of your argument that you think someone needs to have evidence to "back a claim" —so then why didn't you provide as I said an example, a manuscript or piece of one, reflecting the claim that the "original language" of The Book is Hebrew. That is, provide a citation or link or even an address for such a manuscript or piece of one. Where is that physical object housed, and how can one examine it for themselves (have you?)? A piece of The Book that's written clearly in Hebrew and verifiably of the correct age. If you don't have that, what do you have to provide as that link to the evidence backing your claim?
You're not going to bother. You don't even think you need to. And yet, if you really and authentically believed that at the root of all *your* beliefs is a reality comprising and thereby establishing facts, you will have that piece of evidence available to back *your* claim.
But, you won't have it. You don't think you need that. You have the words of other people, who form circles and rings of self-reinforcing consensus —and since they are academics, so you call them, all the more reason for you to believe them, too.
Even better if Google verifies it, too.
I think you’ve completely missed my later comment—which actually aligns much more with the original author. Howeve, it’s absurd to ask me to prove something spanning 3,000 years of history. I have a life, and no, I’m not about to dig through multiple sources to create a convincing argument just to prove something you clearly disagree with already. That’s what academics are paid to do. If you give me $20,000, I’ll gladly spend six months reviewing sources and crafting a conclusive argument (which you’ll still dismiss), but until then, it’s not exactly high on my list of priorities.
With that said, I'm completely open to the possibility that all of this is wrong, and honestly, I’d much prefer it to be. I even think it might be, if you read my later comment. But I’m not about to spend hours digging around just to make arguments on the Internet.
I can’t prove a negative, only you can only prove a positive. And you can’t prove that *any* Hebrew writing existed before the Septuagint. If you can, then cite your source.
The language in Israel before the Septuagint is now known as Paleo Hebrew, as in not Hebrew yet. As far as I know, it only appears in stone inscriptions, none of which have any biblical context. The Hebrew language came into being after the Septuagint, and there IS evidence of this, because this is when the Jews began using the Aramaic alphabet to replace the old Phoenician script of Canaan.
Who cares about Strabo? He was writing 200 years after the fact. The major historical source for the translation of Hebrew text into Greek is the Letter of Aristeas, which is widely regarded as a pseudo epigraphic pile of horseshit. Do some more homework. The Jewish Bible was written in Alexandria. The “common knowledge” history you propagate is the product of foundational Judeo Christian bias in western history. Most early historians had a vested interest in defending the historicity of the bible. That history is now widely regarded as false. The origins of it in “translation” are no less false.
Nobody says “history is translated by the victors”. No, the victors write it themselves.
Interesting. I just read another one of your articles. So, I’m guessing you're familiar with Christian Identity, right? How does that fit into everything? Are you dismissing it entirely? Because they argue it was all just identity theft—that Europeans are actually the central figures of the Bible, and that Jesus was speaking about them and was himself one of them. That kind of ties into what you mentioned about the original texts being of Indo-European origin.
Question, what is the difference between “common knowledge” and propaganda?
The inquiry runs deep, as mystery that serves political ideology dominates, yet it is clear that some semblance of the early Greeks was multicultural.
Lately there has been a move to remove the Hellenes from the Indo-European root entirely. Part of this, it seems is due to the revision which keeps pushing Dionysus back, further into history.
I suppose all those blondes were after all just figments of artistic imagination.
In the actual Greek bible, Abraham was a pirate and trafficker with at least buisness ties to Canaan. The ancient Greeks were seafarers quite early, and it was clear that all this activity was anything but fully wholesome.
Its funny because it seems that everyone wants to know, who are the Jews, but to look at them, the ones in charge are white, aren't they?
History=Inquiry
The jews are not related to the Europeans, completely seperate racial group. I think the point here is that they may be claiming an identity which is not there's.
The Jews like to claim that. It enables them to manipulate heavily, but Jews regularly marry into European families, esp. the aristocracy, have done so for centuries, to the point that they are now white.
Look up Tel Aviv university and their analysis of modern Jewsish DNA.
Are there brown and blacks Jews, sure. Judaism did its own efforts at conversion, and genocide.
Doesn't change the fact that modern Jewish DNA = primarily Eastern European now.