The suicide killer's father

[smaneck]

Yes, but barnasha asked what crimes Muhammad committed.

In response to Narnian's assertion that Muhammad was a criminal.

[mastralvarado]

The queen of England loves maltese dogs of whom are said to have originated from Malta 2500 years ago.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Queen's love for Maltese dogs proves that English is derived from Maltese?

No. What I'm saying is that the dog got its name from the church's affinity to its defeat of the Arabs at Malta. The dog probably did not come from Malta.

Maltese dogs are properly classed as Spaniel. The spanish language is named after these dogs.

And where is your evidence that Espanol was named after a dog?

There is no evidence, only instinct in this respect.

The queen of England mandated that the primary language of Malta be English. The attempt at exingushing the maltese was not successful. The first time in history a country wants to impose a country that is a colony during peacetime a language other than its own is this.

And what does 20th century British colonial policy have to do with something that supposedly happened in the Dark Ages?

I already stated that I don't believe the Dark Ages existed. Herbert Illig's theory Phantom time hypothesis backs this up.

4. The spanish language has /illa/ borrowed from latin using the words "el" and "la" while the english language has /it/ borrowed from maltese. /Illa/ has no equivalent in greek. However, in arabic, /illah/ means "god". In latin, /illah/ according to Maria, means "ILLA (nominative feminine of ILLE agreed with DIES) means ‘that’". Someone tampered the spanish to objectify the arabic 'illah'. But had no such success with the english.

You can't be serious!

Of course I'm serious. Many things in life are a coincidence. One of these things is the unconscious intent to objectify God or Allah. The trinitarian church had success at this while still remaining monotheist. The trinitarian church has many things to do with latin becoming the official language of the Roman Empire. It has many things to do at substituting grammatical first names with pronouns, in my opinion. It has many things to do at the development of the 'll' dipthong for replacement of the arabic /lam/ 'l' sound ([lˁ] in Allah [8]) with a 'y' sound as in the english 'yeah'.

It is merely a coincidence that the direct articles n Spanish iresemble the word allah. Allah does appear in a corrupted form in Spanish. We find it in the word Ojala which means the same thing as inshallah.. But that proves nothing other than the fact that Muslims occupied Spain for hundreds of years.

/Ojala/ has no bearing in the conversation. We are talking about the evolution of language, specifically how Maltese begot latinized languages. All that matters in science is what 'is' and what 'was' not what can be.

5. As has been stated before, the Island of malta has no fresh water sources contrary to the ocassional rainfall. A muslim population in malta as early as the 8th century would not make any sense unless it in order to invade. This is because the Arabs would have had no reason to invade Malta for its vital natural resources were lacking. Sal'ahudin and any military commander knew this very well, one cannot invade a country without an adequate supply of water at hand. Therefore the arabs invaded malta for a post-invasion of the pagan-ruled Rome. "Archaeological evidence points to a Roman and, later, Greco-Byzantine presence during the next six centuries. Sicily, with which the inhabitants of Malta were certainly in contact, at this time was open to these same influences but most of the island was converted to the Muslim faith in the 8th century A.D. and subsequently adopted the Arabic language. The same probably happened in Malta (1). " source: http://www.aboutmalta.com/grazio/study2.html

None of this is relevant to the question of whether the Romance languages are derived from Arabic.

Romance languages can be traced to Arabic and latin and greek as well by their adoption of the /CH/, /H/ and /LL/ phonemes. The first, /ch/ came from the classical latin's use thereof. The second, /H/ came from the Greek alphabet and the semitic abjad but it is really a replacement for classical latin's /ch/ for addition to an h sound to some words that start with some vowels such as 'homo', 'he', 'hoc' 'hiatus', etc.. The difference between the /h/ used in latin and greek and the /h/ with bar in maltese is very much different since one is silent and the other is guttural. The third, /ll/ is a diphtong meant to replace 'll' in Allah with 'y'; sounds which are similar to the those used for the name of God in Hebrew (the tetragrammaton). Beside the point, in the Arabic language a double consonant was used only in the Qur'an.

This raises a number of questions:

How did the use of a double consonant come to influence both english and spanish?

How did the old english pronoun /hit/ become /it/?

The answer is that pronouns did not exist as they are known today but after the romanization of the greek "antōnumiā" with the roman "praenomen" which is the first name of a person. Hence, I wonder if the mark of the "beast" in the hand is Maltese based "tongues"? Please don't take this as an offense.

6. 1091CE is actually ~820 A.H.. And as hungarian hypothesis corroborates, the Muhammad (PBUH) came to medina around 800 A.H.

What???? 820 A.H. is in the fifteenth century! A.H. does mean anno hijra, does it not? It would really be amazing if Muhammad came to Medina 800 years after the hijra!

I meant anno hungary. ~820 (H.C.) Hungarian Calendar more proper. The context of what I wrote is what's important. I got the A.H. mixed up with H. C.

The amount of words adapted from maltese to english and spanish is quite astounding.

So far the only word you've come up with is 'it' which strikes me as more Germanic.

Germanic is not where the word 'it' came from. It came from Maltese. How did the both spanish (directly) and english (indirectly) get these parts of language from the Arabic? More over, how did the velar /hit/ which was used in Old English become /it/? I have a clue, latinized languages omitted the classical latin's /ch/ and substituted it with /h/ or the maltese /h/ with a crossbar (ħ) of which it can be attested as a fricative phoneme based on the semitic abjads and the Greek heth sound.

The irony is that maltese is the queen's favorite dog while her least favorite language is Maltese

What makes you think Maltese is her least favorite language? British colonial policy? This may come as a shock to you, but the Queen has nothing to do with that.

Ok, the queen may not have had anything to do with the intent to make Maltese an extinct language. But whoever named the Spaniel dog as maltese must have known that the dog's origin was not Malta. Don't bother asking for evidence of this.

and the enemy of the English during the Battle at Malta were the Spanish and the French.

Uh, the Battle of Malta was fought between Aragon and Naples, not the English and French.

I'm talking about the war to defend England from Napoleon. Horatio Nelson defeated French-Spanish forces at this island according to Encarta 2007. Other source claim that an uprising defeated the French-Spaniard allegiance. I'm not here to do your research but here goes anyway...

1798 = ?????
In May, Napoleon sets off to Egypt to destroy British trade, seizing Malta in June. In August, Admiral Nelson defeats the French fleet at the battle of the Nile, fought in Aboukir Bay. This traps the French army in Egypt. In the autumn, another French expedition lands in County Mayo, Ireland, and campaigns for two weeks until defeated.

source:http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/napoleon/timeline1.html

We are talking about the battle in 1283 A.D., are we not? There was another battle during WWII but the French and Spanish played no role in that.

You are going to have to do better than this.

warmest, Susan

The sheer number of contradictions in historical events from at Malta is hard to dismiss. More important is the fact that a cute dog such as the "Maltese" Spaniel and any sweet water-drinking mammal can survive in Malta without traveling to mainland.

Ya'll take care now ,

m

[8] http://www.answers.com/topic/arabic-alphabet-2

[smaneck]

No. What I'm saying is that the dog got its name from the church's affinity to its defeat of the Arabs at Malta. The dog probably did not come from Malta.

According to wikipedia it does.

Getting its name due to the defeat of Arabs is a non-sequitor.

I suspect that the Queen likes Maltese dogs because they make a nice lap dog that doesn't shed. They also don't yap as much as other small dogs.

I already stated that I don't believe the Dark Ages existed. Herbert Illig's theory Phantom time hypothesis backs this up.

A hypothesis is an unproven guess. It can't back anything up.

One of these things is the unconscious intent to objectify God or Allah. The trinitarian church had success at this while still remaining monotheist.

Actually, the Trinity represents an attempt to personify God, not objectify Him.

The trinitarian church has many things to do with latin becoming the official language of the Roman Empire.

You got your history backwards. The Roman Empire *started out* Latin-speaking. When it conquered a large part of the Hellenistic world it became predominantly Greek speaking. When Constantine, the first Christian Emperor moved the capital to Constantinople it became almost entirely Greek speaking, especially when soon afterwords the western half of the Roman Empire began to crumple.

We are talking about the evolution of language, specifically how Maltese begot latinized languages. All that matters in science is what 'is' and what 'was' not what can be.

Well, so far you haven't been able to prove that Maltese begat ajny latinized languages.

Romance languages can be traced to Arabic and latin and greek as well by their adoption of the /CH/, /H/ and /LL/ phonemes.

Romance languages all have a Latin base which has been corrupted mostly by Germanic languages. They may have adopted an Arabic word here and there, but no reputable linguist has ever suggested they are derivatives of Arabic. Latin is an Indo-Eurpean language, not a Semitic one. There are no trilateral roots in Latin.

How did the use of a double consonant come to influence both english and spanish?

Why would double consonants be a problem? Do you have any evidence that Germanic languages were originally without them? Because that is where English comes from. And Spain was ruled by the Germanic Vandals.

How did the old english pronoun /hit/ become /it/?

Hence, I wonder if the mark of the "beast" in the hand is Maltese based "tongues"? Please don't take this as an offense.

LOL. No, I find this all fantastic and funny, not offensive. It completely ignores the influence of the Germanic peoples on the languages of Europe, which aside from Latin is the most decisive thing.

Germanic is not where the word 'it' came from. It came from Maltese.

And your evidence that it didn't come from the Germanic languages is what?

How did the both spanish (directly) and english (indirectly) get these parts of language from the Arabic?

You've yet to prove that they did.

Ok, the queen may not have had anything to do with the intent to make Maltese an extinct language. But whoever named the Spaniel dog as maltese must have known that the dog's origin was not Malta.

Uh, the Maltese dog is not related to the Spaniel, its related to the Spitz.

I'm talking about the war to defend England from Napoleon. Horatio Nelson defeated French-Spanish forces at this island according to Encarta 2007. Other source claim that an uprising defeated the French-Spaniard allegiance. I'm not here to do your research but here goes anyway...

Then it would have even less to do with your theory that European languages are derived from Maltese that the battle in the Middle Ages.

[mastralvarado]

According to wikipedia it does.
Getting its name due to the defeat of Arabs is a non-sequitor.

So sue me.

I suspect that the Queen likes Maltese dogs because they make a nice lap dog that doesn't shed. They also don't yap as much as other small dogs.

Do you mean, these dogs are cleaner? What relevance does this have? Why are you reflecting?

You got your history backwards. The Roman Empire *started out* Latin-speaking. When it conquered a large part of the Hellenistic world it became predominantly Greek speaking. When Constantine, the first Christian Emperor moved the capital to Constantinople it became almost entirely Greek speaking, especially when soon afterwords the western half of the Roman Empire began to crumple.

I don't need to know history in order to know that there is a "suicide killer" language or tongue that will be destroyed in the future or in the past when the Messiah comes. Do you have any other suggestions besides Maltese being this "prodigal"? I certainly can't think of any other language that "fathered" in the sea of Egypt besides Latin. I don't believe languages are created on the sea. The most probable scene is in land.

Well, so far you haven't been able to prove that Maltese begat ajny latinized languages.
Romance languages all have a Latin base which has been corrupted mostly by Germanic languages. They may have adopted an Arabic word here and there, but no reputable linguist has ever suggested they are derivatives of Arabic. Latin is an Indo-Eurpean language, not a Semitic one. There are no trilateral roots in Latin.

There is good reason to believe that Spain was an experiment of the alledgedly dissolved Roman Empire. There is good reason to believe that most of pre "middle ages" history is made up. There is good reason to believe that the spanish language is a conscript and so is some of english (if this is true) because the Caroling-ian was a fraud by these standards.

If you can prove otherwise using other than "historical" documents you can shut me up once and for all on this. As I told you before, it is easy to develop a conscript and so is it for an emperor to secretly order that a new language be created and taught to young people. Remember Babel? God is not the author of confusion.

Why would double consonants be a problem? Do you have any evidence that Germanic languages were originally without them? Because that is where English comes from. And Spain was ruled by the Germanic Vandals.
How did the old english pronoun /hit/ become /it/?
LOL. No, I find this all fantastic and funny, not offensive. It completely ignores the influence of the Germanic peoples on the languages of Europe, which aside from Latin is the most decisive thing.
And your evidence that it didn't come from the Germanic languages is what?
You've yet to prove that they did.

But the real question is who put the germanic vandals at charge of the three religious "castes" that existed at that time [9]. It is very important to understand that the silencing of the guttural sounds proves was intentional and not accidental nor evolutionary:

"España: un enigma histórico
España: un enigma histórico, obra del historiador español Claudio Sánchez Albornoz, publicada en Buenos Aires en 1957 y compuesta por dos volúmenes, escrita con el principal objeto de refutar las tesis que el filólogo y también historiador español Américo Castro había vertido en su trabajo La realidad histórica de España (revisión de un libro anterior titulado España en su historia), que había aparecido en México en 1954. En la síntesis erudita que supone España: un enigma histórico, Sánchez Albornoz replica las tesis de Castro, según las cuales la raíz de la cultura y la socioeconomía españolas, que habrían de conformarse en el nacimiento de la edad moderna (siglo XVI), se encuentra básicamente en los fundamentos aportados en la edad media por las comunidades judías y musulmanas. Por su parte, Sánchez Albornoz hizo especial hincapié en los elementos germánicos (e incluso romanos y, aun, iberos) como aspectos decisivos en la esencia de la modernidad española, todo ello dentro de una interpretación castellanista del devenir histórico hispano (según la cual, la Corona de Castilla fue el eje sobre el que giró el nacimiento de lo que habría de ser el Estado). Interpretación histórica de España, cuyo objeto fue así mismo mostrar los remotos orígenes de la Guerra Civil (1936-1939) que había obligado a ambos polemistas a exiliarse, España: un enigma histórico descansa sobre la visión del pasado hispano como un “drama de violenta pasión”, en palabras de su propio autor." (emphasis added)[/INDENT]

Translation:
Spain: a historical enigma
Spain: a historical enigma, work of the spanish historian Claudio Sánchez Albornoz, published in Buenos Aires in 1957 and composed by two volumes, written with the main objective to refute the thesis of filologian and also spanish historian Américo Castro had verted in his work The historical reality of Spain (revision of a previous book titled Spain and its history), of which had appeard in Mexico at the the Spanish roots of culture and socioeconomics, that would have to conform in the birth of the modern era (Sixth Century), it is found basically in the fundamentals given in the middle ages by the Jewish and Muslim communities. By his part, Sánchez Albornoz made special inference in the germanic elements (and including roman and , even, iberian) as decisive aspects in the essence of spanish modernity, all that inside a Castellian interpretation of the provenience of the historical hispanic (according to whom, the Crown of Castilla was the pivot over the turning birth of what had to become the State). Historical interpretation of Spain , whose object itself was to show the remote origins of the Civil War (1936-1939) who had obliged both polemicists to exhile, Spain: a historical enigma rests on the vision of the hispanic past as a "drama of violent passion", in the author's own words.

Who was behind the Spanish Civil War? Why is Spain not named Iberia? This book in itself is plenty of evidence that spain is being controlled to this date by an outside force. The spanish language is full of the -iano suffix as well as english (-ian). These are linguistic remnants of pagan, roman-deity Janus worship. The incrustation of partners to Allah and preference of the /Y/ over the /'lam/ is in the lenguage itself so how can you say there is no evidence? I already showed you how "they" manupulated an entire nation using a conscript based on germanic, roman and now even from Tubal's descendants: iberian. There is no reason to believe now that the Spanish language "evolved" from latinized vulgar dialects into such a well articulated language. Maltese is known to have borrowed many words from English as well. Maybe Maltese is not the lendee but the borrower after all .

Uh, the Maltese dog is not related to the Spaniel, its related to the Spitz.
Then it would have even less to do with your theory that European languages are derived from Maltese that the battle in the Middle Ages.

Then the incorrect assertion on part of dictionaries and encyclopaedias that Maltese dogs are not Spaniels (as you claim) makes my guess that Spain got its english name from the spaniel dogs wrong. I'm just waiting now for you to back this up with a reputable source.

Being the maltese dog a spitz as you claim (reputable source?), I think that alone proves that these dogs did not come from Malta or at least were made to seem like so.

A hypothesis is an unproven guess. It can't back anything up.
Actually, the Trinity represents an attempt to personify God, not objectify Him.

Ok, the trinity does not objectify God but Fully personalizes Him, the partial personalization of the Roman "praenomen" certainly attempts to do so as well around the same time. A hypostasis is an unproven guess. It can't back anything up.

Regards,

m

[9] Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993--2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[barnasha]

Personification is objectification.

It is merely an abstract object.

On a lighter note, a particularly funny and ironic thing happened recently:

http://bsalert.com/news/2422/Christi...r_Economy.html

[mastralvarado]

Personification is objectification.

It is merely an abstract object.

On a lighter note, a particularly funny and ironic thing happened recently:

http://bsalert.com/news/2422/Christi...r_Economy.html

As supportive of my weak argument, there is not even a remote grin of satisfaction or happiness in my being because of this. We must all feel "history" is repeating itself if this continues... its never too late to repent.

Jazak'allah Khair

[barnasha]

As supportive of my weak argument, there is not even a remote grin of satisfaction or happiness in my being because of this. We must all feel "history" is repeating itself if this continues... its never too late to repent.

Jazak'allah Khair

We should not draw any conclusions, I don't think, based on the rather funny story, above.

Each individual should be judged according on his own merits, not the sociocultural movement (e.g. Christianity) he or she is associated with.

I have met Christians who have a belief in the unscriptural "Trinity" but who exhibit a great compassion and understanding of the teachings of Christ; and my respect for them does not diminish because of their theological divergence from Jesus (the deen - not "religion" - of Islam; the concept of Tawheed/Oneness of God/Abrahamic monotheism)

Even if you screw up what God is in your head, with your logic, if you at least serve mankind and God in your heart, you are much better off than those who lead others astray knowing they are spreading a lie for their own benefit (e.g. getting power from others)

Perhaps thus the former, a Trinitarian, is not complicit in "Kufr" (covering up of the truth) as much as the one who spreads Kufr and helps it live on in others.

[smaneck]

Personification is objectification.

It is merely an abstract object.

No, a person is a subject not an object.

[barnasha]

No, a person is a subject not an object.

Objectification not in the sense of a subject or object, but in the sense of dragging something implicitly intangible down into the realm of human comprehension.


Such is the anthropomorphizing of that which was inherently greater than mankind, the universe which contains him, the mind which he has, and the ideas he can conceive (Abraham's theology).

[smaneck]

So sue me.

Do you mean, these dogs are cleaner? What relevance does this have? Why are you reflecting?

The same relevance Maltese dogs have to the entire questtion of whether Romance languages are derived from Maltese, none whatsoever, any more than British actions in general would be relevant seeing as English is a Germanic, not a Romance language. My entire point is that *all* these things you have been bringing up are irrelevant to your thesis.

I don't need to know history in order to know that there is a "suicide killer" language or tongue that will be destroyed in the future or in the past when the Messiah comes.

What do you need to know and what makes you think this is going to happen?

Do you have any other suggestions besides Maltese being this "prodigal"?

I find your entire proposition weirdly unlikely.

I certainly can't think of any other language that "fathered" in the sea of Egypt besides Latin. I don't believe languages are created on the sea. The most probable scene is in land.

I've forgotten which verse you think refers to this but my recollection is that it had nothing to with it. But Latin was 'fathered" inlnad in Italy, not in the sea.

There is good reason to believe that Spain was an experiment of the alledgedly dissolved Roman Empire.

What good reason?

There is good reason to believe that most of pre "middle ages" history is made up. There is good reason to believe that the spanish language is a conscript and so is some of english (if this is true) because the Caroling-ian was a fraud by these standards.

More like a fantasy than a 'good reason.' Have you checked Islamic sources regarding the clock which Harun ar-Rashid sent Charlemagne? Or was he made up too?

If you can prove otherwise using other than "historical" documents you can shut me up once and for all on this.

LOL. I'm suppose to prove it with something other than evidence? But if you want something besides documents from this period, there is material evidence such as coins.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Charlemagne_coin.JPG

As I told you before, it is easy to develop a conscript and so is it for an emperor to secretly order that a new language be created and taught to young people.

Obviously you know nothing of young people if you think they can secretly be taught a new language and not tell anybody about it..

But the real question is who put the germanic vandals at charge of the three religious "castes" that existed at that time

The Vandals put themselves in charge when they conquered the region. But what three castes are you talking about? You realize the Vandals were Arians, not Catholics?

It is very important to understand that the silencing of the guttural sounds proves was intentional and not accidental nor evolutionary:

Nonsense. Hebrew lost most of the gutturall sounds which Arabic still possess. There is no evidnece that this was anythign but accidental and evolutionary.

I really don't see how the rest of the material you posted in Spanish relates to your thesis except that you seem to imagine conspiracies everywhere.

warmest, Susan

[smaneck]

Such is the anthropomorphizing of that which was inherently greater than mankind, the universe which contains him, the mind which he has, and the ideas he can conceive (Abraham's theology).

Yes, it is anthropomorphizing, definitiely. Objectifying is a different matter.

[barnasha]

Yes, it is anthropomorphizing, definitiely. Objectifying is a different matter.

I'm using it in the sense as Merriam-Websters defines it (both definitions):

1 : to treat as an object or cause to have objective reality
2 : to give expression to (as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others <it is the essence of the fairy tale to objectify differing facets of the child's emotional experience — John Updike>
— ob·jec·ti·fi·ca·tion \-ˌjek-tə-fə-ˈkā-shən\ noun

[mastralvarado]

The same relevance Maltese dogs have to the entire questtion of whether Romance languages are derived from Maltese, none whatsoever, any more than British actions in general would be relevant seeing as English is a Germanic, not a Romance language. My entire point is that *all* these things you have been bringing up are irrelevant to your thesis.

They *are* relevant if you can see them as signs of assurance of instinct. Besides, they are quite cute and they milden the topic of the conversation: " the suicide killer's father ".

What do you need to know and what makes you think this is going to happen?

What I need to know is which *tongue* is going to be "devoted to destruction". That way I can assure you it won't be a semitic one. Germans as you know were tree worshipers. The letter "ae" actually stands for ash tree. The trinitarian church surely could not comprehend the mistake they made when they converted into Latin since the praenomen is not the same thing as a pronoun.

I find your entire proposition weirdly unlikely.

Ok. Ever since Baha'is have made the whole world to believe that the age of the Messiah (Son of David), as Christians call it millennialism, Jews call it Mashiya, and Muslims call it Madhi, there is a tendency to overlook the specific details regarding this 'golden period' on behalf of a specific Baha'i called Smaneck, in a specific time in history. Since you refuse to consider which language this is, there is good reason to believe the Baha'i faith is false.

I quoted a passage in the book of Isaiah that seems to be fairly uncorrupted. It is therefore acceptable as evidence. There, in chapter 11, there is some language or more aptly "tongue" which is described as being "devoted to destruction" [11]. I for one, cannot believe that this is a single language because there are too many non-semitic languages that share many words today. You can take the position, that this happened naturally and that God let this confusion of tongues take place in a natural way. Or you can believe (using your instinct) that there is a culprit for the confusion of languages into what we have today. I propose Latin as the "culprit", Maltese as the "father", and the Latin-based languages as the "sons".

I for one do think God chose semitic languages as the sign vehicle for the transmission of His will. Therefore, the "tongue" that is to be, or had been devoted to destruction is not a semitic language. It may even be perhaps a single person's blasphemy in the sea of Egypt (Mediterranean side) that is what is being conveyed by the LORD. But this is not something can be understood from the context of that passage.

I've forgotten which verse you think refers to this but my recollection is that it had nothing to with it. But Latin was 'fathered" inlnad in Italy, not in the sea.

11 In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, [10] from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.

12 He will raise a signal for the nations
and will assemble the banished of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.
13 The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart,
and those who harass Judah shall be cut off;
Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah,
and Judah shall not harass Ephraim.
14 But they shall swoop down on the shoulder of the Philistines in the west,
and together they shall plunder the people of the east.
They shall put out their hand against Edom and Moab,
and the Ammonites shall obey them.
15 And the Lord will utterly destroy [11]
the tongue of the Sea of Egypt,
and will wave his hand over the River
with his scorching breath, [12]
and strike it into seven channels,
and he will lead people across in sandals.
16 And there will be a highway from Assyria
for the remnant that remains of his people,
as there was for Israel
when they came up from the land of Egypt.

What good reason?

More like a fantasy than a 'good reason.' Have you checked Islamic sources regarding the clock which Harun ar-Rashid sent Charlemagne? Or was he made up too?

http://translate.google.com/translat...-8&sl=ar&tl=en

I didn't know that the Abbasids did meet Charlemagne in person. If this is true, there is good reason to believe that the phantom hypothesis is wrong. What I am saying is not that Charlemagne did not exist but that he did very little or next to nothing to what is attributed to him. Furthermore, I think that the name Charles is an acronym for Crown, Heart, Eagle, Rose, Lion, Eagle, and Sun. That's why the /a/ and the /e/ sound the same in English. The spanish equivalent, "Carlos" has as acronym Corazon, Aguila, Rosa, Leon, Oro, and Sol.

LOL. I'm suppose to prove it with something other than evidence? But if you want something besides documents from this period, there is material evidence such as coins.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Charlemagne_coin.JPG

That's nice. A picture of a roman emperor that doesn't look much like the Charlemagne that most people are familiar with.

Obviously you know nothing of young people if you think they can secretly be taught a new language and not tell anybody about it..

I already told you that the fathers were either in or not in on it. Your opinion is valuable and, now, the most likely scenario is that the parents were in on it. Do you know what you're children are being taught in schools?

The Vandals put themselves in charge when they conquered the region. But what three castes are you talking about? You realize the Vandals were Arians, not Catholics?

The three "castes": Jews, Christians and Muslims. In Spain, something exactly like what is still happening in India did occur and perhaps is still happening[13].

On a lighter note:

An Indian priest who is a frequent visitor to Malta, having received generous financial assistance from the people of Mellieħa, has gone into hiding in the Orissa jungle of India amid strife that has seen several Christians killed in the Kandhamal region.

Fr Vijay Kumar Najak was forced into hiding after receiving several threats.

Hindu mobs have killed 11 people and extensively damaged more than a dozen churches and attacked Christian homes and an orphanage. The violence, now spreading to new districts, was sparked by the murder of a Hindu leader in Kandhamal, a tribal area where Christian missionaries have been active for years.

See what the caste system produces? Violence from fellow human to fellow human without ultimatum. Some Hindus will kill you if you hurt one of their cows.

Nonsense. Hebrew lost most of the gutturall sounds which Arabic still possess. There is no evidnece that this was anythign but accidental and evolutionary.

The losing of the guttural sound is evidence that there is conformity to being peaceful (with tree worshipers); there has to be an agreement to adopting or silencing some phonemes in order for there to be trade of goods. The sign of producing a guttural sound is a half-way point between actually producing a visual sign (or the spitting). The guttural sound is probably an /ultimatum/ phoneme.

:spit:?

I really don't see how the rest of the material you posted in Spanish relates to your thesis except that you seem to imagine conspiracies everywhere.

Smaneck, thank you for this enlightening discussion. I know now that ever since the guttural sound was lost there is a tendency to become "friendly" with the pagan neighbor. This is not what my God wants. My Christian friends who don't know this and are not in on this can ponder for a second what it is that is trying to be conveyed here. You, as a Bahai, have no understanding of the implications this has. There is good reason the romans adopted the 'ae' sound from trading with Sabaeans but they didn't understand it. They became worshipers of nature then. However, catholics have no need to fear this since it is a religion that is not part of the three-"caste" system. Like the parable of the Prodigal Son, the first father is not the heavenly father as you may have already guessed.

Allah knows best,

m

[10] 11:11 Probably Nubia
[11] 11:15 Hebrew devote to destruction
[12] 11:15 Or wind
[13] http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles...or-to-mellieha

[smaneck]

They *are* relevant if you can see them as signs of assurance of instinct.

What is the 'assurance of instinct'?

What I need to know is which *tongue* is going to be "devoted to destruction".

Now that I see the passage in question it appears pretty clear to me that you have completely misunderstood this passage. "The tongue of the Sea of Egypt" has nothing to do with a language, it is a reference to the Nile River. Other translations say this river will 'dry up' not be destroyed. That's why it is followed by this passage: "and will wave his hand over the River
with his scorching breath."

Ok. Ever since Baha'is have made the whole world to believe that the age of the Messiah (Son of David), as Christians call it millennialism, Jews call it Mashiya, and Muslims call it Madhi, there is a tendency to overlook the specific details regarding this 'golden period' on behalf of a specific Baha'i called Smaneck, in a specific time in history.

Uh, the above sentence makes no sense.

Since you refuse to consider which language this is, there is good reason to believe the Baha'i faith is false.

LOL. Since I see the "tongue of the Sea of Egypt" as a reference to the Nile River instead of the Maltese language that proves the Baha'i Faith is false. Great logic there!

I didn't know that the Abbasids did meet Charlemagne in person.

The met with Frank emissaries sent by him, not Charlemagne himself.

If this is true, there is good reason to believe that the phantom hypothesis is wrong. What I am saying is not that Charlemagne did not exist but that he did very little or next to nothing to what is attributed to him.

I would agree that the achievements of the Carolingian Renaissance have been greatly exaggerated. Charlemagne had a standing army of only eight thousand soldiers. Farming at the time was being done with sticks and stones, no metal tools. Agricultural surpluses were almost non-existent. On the other hand virtually all the Latin texts which have survived in medieval Europe date from this period. (Carbon dating confirms this.) And Charlemagne was able to establish diplomatic ties with both the Abbasids and the Byzantines. He even married a Byzantine princess.

Furthermore, I think that the name Charles is an acronym for Crown, Heart, Eagle, Rose, Lion, Eagle, and Sun.

LOL. Where did you get that from?

That's nice. A picture of a roman emperor that doesn't look much like the Charlemagne that most people are familiar with.

What makes you think it is a woman?

Do you know what you're children are being taught in schools?

I did when he was young. Now he's a math major in college and I don't understand I thing he does.

The three "castes": Jews, Christians and Muslims.

There were no Muslims in Spain when the Vandals ruled. Even the Jews largely immigrated there only after the Moors invaded.

warmest, Susan

[mastralvarado]

Professor Smaneck,

What is the 'assurance of instinct'?
Now that I see the passage in question it appears pretty clear to me that you have completely misunderstood this passage.

In Peircean semasiology, which in respect to the relationship between a sign, a dynamic interpretant and a Final interpretant, one possible category of three of a sign can be an assurance of instinct.

"The tongue of the Sea of Egypt" has nothing to do with a language, it is a reference to the Nile River.

This statement is patently false. The tongue, in Hebrew, can also mean the "speech" if understood in a literal sense.

3956. lashown (law-shone')

Or lashon {law-shone'}; also (in plural) feminine lshonah {lesh-o-naw'}; from lashan; the tongue (of man or animals), used literally (as the instrument of licking, eating, or speech), and figuratively (speech, an ingot, a fork of flame, a cove of water) -- + babbler,bay, + evil speaker, language, talker, tongue, wedge.

2763. charam (khaw-ram')

A primitive root; to seclude; specifically (by a ban) to devote to religious uses (especially destruction); physical and reflexive, to be blunt as to the nose -- make accursed, consecrate, (utterly) destroy, devote, forfeit, have a flat nose, utterly (slay, make away).

Other translations say this river will 'dry up' not be destroyed.

I've searched and could not find any translations that say this. Could you mind showing me which translations do translate destruction (not destroyed) as "dry up"??

That's why it is followed by this passage: "and will wave his hand over the River with his scorching breath."

That's what someone who took the time to analyze the verse with their own agenda at hand would conclude.

Uh, the above sentence makes no sense.

LOL. Since I see the "tongue of the Sea of Egypt" as a reference to the Nile River instead of the Maltese language that proves the Baha'i Faith is false. Great logic there!

Its not false because of what you wrote previously but because of what you failed to notice in the first place. I couldn't know whether the Baha'i faith is false for sure. Allah knows best what is in people's hearts. But since now you commented on the text, I take it that there is still hope for you to really ponder on what is being conveyed here.

LOL. Where did you get that from?

If you must know, both Carlos and Charles were names based on the word Carol, but they took different meanings to suit each culture and speech. Carolingian renaissance. Also, for a fact other names such as Oscar and Roland are deviations from this made-up period in history.

What makes you think it is a woman?

I wrote roman and not woman.

I did when he was young. Now he's a math major in college and I don't understand I thing he does.

I'm happy for you.

The met with Frank emissaries sent by him, not Charlemagne himself.
I would agree that the achievements of the Carolingian Renaissance have been greatly exaggerated. Charlemagne had a standing army of only eight thousand soldiers. Farming at the time was being done with sticks and stones, no metal tools. Agricultural surpluses were almost non-existent. On the other hand virtually all the Latin texts which have survived in medieval Europe date from this period. (Carbon dating confirms this.) And Charlemagne was able to establish diplomatic ties with both the Abbasids and the Byzantines. He even married a Byzantine princess.

I don't understand. There is plenty of evidence that Charlemagne existed, but how can you prove that Charlemagne was really not a con-man whose name was not Charlemagne but went by that name in a different period in history that is recorded and the Abbasids and Byzantines bought it?
Certainly coins and a little recorded history are far outweighed by astronomical [H.C. Phantom hypothesis] and dendrochronological [H. Illig Phantom Hypothesis] data. Which do yo think is more precise? Carbon dating or dendrochronological dating?

There were no Muslims in Spain when the Vandals ruled. Even the Jews largely immigrated there only after the Moors invaded.
warmest, Susan

This actually makes sense. Ok, forget about my three-"caste" remark.

Not withstanding your knowledge of historicity,

<Sarcasm>

this is all fine and dandy.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

The whole argument as to the enigma regarding whether "tongue" is actually figurative or literal now relies on my burden of proof. The whole verse context is literal if you care to read it through, except this one word which is figurative and yet at the same time is in referred to as being the literal Nile by biblical commentators[14] and you. Therefore, either the commentators and you are mistaken or I'm mistaken. Please read on.

FACTS

• Geographers never called a river's mouth or delta a "tongue" as there is no such a thing as a river's tongue except according to those who coined the term and their followers.
• A hebrew word can be interpreted as figurative or literal according to the lexicon
• Kenneth Bailey and other NT commentators use parabolic ballads to detect patterns in which Both NT and OT text has coherence using onomastic structural patterns between the paragraphs and lines.
• Hebrews use berei[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] to analyze the hebrew using the whole context including, if need be, the next or previous chapters.

Please reread Isaiah Ch11 verse 15 (every word is *literal* or an *anthropomorphism*):

I see no reason for God to prophesy through His servant Isaiah (PBUH) the "devoting" to "destruction" of a bay or a cove of water. The commentators chose to interpret this passage as such. It is by far not the correct interpretation simply based on the structural-semantic underlying patterns between figurative, anthropomorphic and literal lexicon.

Let's review both sides for a moment:

I choose:

The LORD will literally <devote> to literal <destruction> the literal <tongue> of the literal <sea of Egypt>.

Isa 11:15

And the LORD shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river and shall smite it in the seven streams and make men go over dryshod

You and biblical commentators[14] chose:

The LORD will literally <devote> to literal <destruction> the figurative <tongue> of the literal <sea of Egypt>.

Isa 11:15

And the LORD shall utterly destroy the tongue (cove of water) of the Egyptian sea and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river and shall smite it in the seven streams and make men go over dryshod

At this point, the immediate context is what is being considered not the entire context of the passage. Reading it in the mediate context of the latter passage using a cause-effect logic, one comes to the conclusion that it's the destruction of the *cove of water* what causes the river to be split into seven streams instead of the actual *wind* causing the river to be split.

Otherwise, one can simply assume that the sea of Egypt's (literal) tongue is devoted to destruction and the wind causes the river to be split which makes far more sense. Since commentators believe that tongue had to NOT be human speech, they forcibly interpreted the term as a figurative lexicon and possibly invented in one the figurative interpretations the possibility of tongue = cove of water. The simple approach is always the best interpretation.

"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

Using the entire chapter and the immediate paragraph as context, it does not follow the onomastic pattern. The first part of the passage (1-5) follows <figurative> <literal><figurative> structural pattern. In the second part (6-9) each line follows the <figurative> <literal> <figurative> pattern. Figurative terms are highlighted in green while literals are colored in blue and anthropomorphic terms in black.

SOLUTION

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a Branch shall grow out of his roots

And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him the spirit of wisdom and understanding the spirit of counsel and might the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD

And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes neither reprove after the hearing of his ears

But with righteousness shall he judge the poor and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked
And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins and faithfulness the girdle of his reins
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb and the leopard shall lie down with the kid and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together and a little child shall lead them
And the cow and the bear shall feed their young ones shall lie down together and the lion shall eat straw like the ox
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea

Verse ten follows a <figurative> <literal> <figurative> pattern.

And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand for an ensign of the people to it shall the Gentiles seek and his rest shall be glorious

Verse eleven demonstrates a <literal-literal> pattern through the whole sentence.

11 In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant that remains of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.

The third part of the passage (12-16) each line follows the <literal> <literal> <literal> <literal> structural pattern. However, you and recognized Christian commentators [14] choose to think otherwise in verse 15.

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth

The envy also of Ephraim shall depart and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off Ephraim shall not envy Judah and Judah shall not vex Ephraim

But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west they shall spoil them of the east together they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab and the children of Ammon shall obey them

And the LORD shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river and shall smite it in the seven streams and make men go over dryshod

And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people which shall be left from Assyria like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt

Moreover, Chapter 12 begins with the Prodigal Son parable's conclusion:

And in that day thou shalt say O LORD I will praise thee though thou wast angry with me thine anger is turned away and thou comfortedst me

Read whole chapter 11 chapter in context -- v e r y c a r e f u l l y --noticing the patterns between alternating figurative literal and anthropomorphic constrains. Semioticly, It is like the Parable of the Prodigal Son. In chapter 12, if one takes *the reader* as the younger son, then the "Elder Brother" and "Father" are the one and same.

And in that day thou shalt say O LORD I will praise thee though thou wast angry with me thine anger is turned away and thou comfortedst me

Compare this with Luke 15:21-28:

21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ [15] 22 But the father said to his servants, [16] ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.

25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him,

The irony and sad thing is that what the Biblical Commentator's remarks for this particular verse in Isaiah Chapter 12 are.

Geneva Study Bible
And in that day thou {a} shalt say, O LORD, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thy anger is turned away, and thou didst comfort me.

(a) He shows how the Church will praise God, when they are delivered from their captivity.

Wesley's Notes
12:1 In that day - When this great work of the reduction of Israel, and conversion of the Gentiles is fulfilled.

Regards,

m

[14] http://biblecommenter.com/isaiah/11-15.htm extracted on November 7, 2008 at 12:30 p.m.
[15] Luke 15:21 Some manuscripts add treat me as one of your hired servants
[4] Luke 15:22 Greek bondservants

Edit:

Read Isaiah chapter 10 verse 20-27:
24 Therefore thus says the Lord God of hosts: “O my people, who dwell in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrians when they strike with the rod and lift up their staff against you as the Egyptians did. 25 For in a very little while my fury will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their destruction. 26 And the Lord of hosts will wield against them a whip, as when he struck Midian at the rock of Oreb. And his staff will be over the sea, and he will lift it as he did in Egypt. 27 And in that day his burden will depart from your shoulder, and his yoke from your neck; and the yoke will be broken because of the fat.”