Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Who knew? Hebrew could be the basis for many English and European words

Published

on

Who knew Hebrew could be the basis for many English and European words

Researchers can make inferences based on studying the roots of the words and their meanings, and try to piece together the history of words, though it’s far from an exact science.

 English and European words such as alphabet, earth, loco and habitat could come from Hebrew, according to an independent Israeli linguistics researcher who has written a number of unpublished dictionaries, articles and books.

According to the English Oxford Dictionary, the word etymology refers to “the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.”

Researchers can make inferences based on studying the roots of the words and their meanings, and try to piece together the history of words, though it’s far from an exact science.

Modern works on the subject are lacking, and one Israeli—Tony Daccre Barat, 73, born in Romania and now living in Akko, Israel—has studied linguistics on his own as a hobby for the past four decades.

He and his wife, who has a Ph.D. in architecture, live on a paltry stipend from the government of $1,200 a month. Tony knows Hebrew, Yiddish, Romanian, French, English and some in other languages.

In 1951, he immigrated to Israel with his family and served in the army, studied political science at Haifa University, and later studied linguistics for one year in Paris.

Barat noticed during his studies in Paris that nobody was making the links from European languages to Hebrew, and that there was no desire to do so. “Hebrew is a much older language as well, so it makes sense the roots of words go back before Latin or Greek,” he theorized.

In 1990, Barat returned to Romania and started a consulting company with his wife, assisting Israeli investors.

“Modern scholarship does not deal at all with the etymology of European or world languages from Hebrew,” said Barat. “It seems crazy at first, as Hebrew is written from right to left. But if you look more closely, similarities can be discovered.”

Scholarship exists on the connection between Hebrew and European languages, noted Barat, adding that he has around 1,500 books in his personal library that touch on the subject, often indirectly.

Examples of Hebrew as basis of European words

Barat has many theories regarding the Hebrew roots of certain European language words.

Take the word “earth” in English, which in Hebrew is eretz, or the word more associated with land, adama. In Arabic, it is ard, German erde, and in Romanian tara. The ending of these words can have differing pronunciations weather ending with a “se,” “te” or “de” sound. If you experiment with the different ending accent on these words, they sound quite similar.

Or, for example, the word “phrase” (which is the same in French), which Barat concludes comes from the Hebrew three-letter root paras or farasfrom the word לפרש, meaning to interpret. In Spanish, the word is frase, in Romanian fraza as well, and the same sound in Russia (фраза). The Online Etymology Dictionary says the word comes from the Greek frasi(φράση), but Barat infers it originates in Hebrew.

The word loco in Spanish means “crazy,” “distraught” or “deranged,” and according to dictionaries it comes from the Andalusian Arabic lawqa, signifying a foolish person. Barat theorizes that it comes from the Hebrew word laka (לקה), meaning to be defective, to become ill or to receive lashes.

In Aramaic (a Semitic language that replaced Hebrew for local Jews and which was displaced by Arabic in the seventh-century C.E.), laka means to be stricken with a disease. The Hebrew word likui means suffering from a deficiency.

Another is the word habitat, which Barat thinks comes from the Hebrew word for house, bayit (בית) or ha-bayit. The Online Etymology Dictionaryputs it as originating in 1762 as a Latin term on English flora and fauna, literally “it inhabits.”

Also, “the word alphabet comes from Hebrew,” claims Barat, noting that it is credited to having a Greek origin. Aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and bet is the second and the equivalent to the English “b.” The letter “d” in English is usually attributed to the Greek delta, “but I think it refers to the fourth Hebrew letter daled.”

Asked if there is any way to prove the origins of words beyond theorizing one way or the other, Barat responded: “It is not about proving it, just connecting words that are close. Nobody really knows definitively where many words originate.”

Academics remain skeptical, but …

Professor Gerald Leonard Cohen, an expert in etymology at the department of arts, languages and philosophy at the Missouri University of Science and Technology, told JNS that Barat’s arguments would receive sharp criticism from academics, who would point out the weaknesses in his suggestions.

For example, Barat claims that the word “alphabet” comes from Hebrew, but actually, “it derives from Phoenician. The Greeks had considerable contact with the Phoenicians, and the Phoenician language was very similar to Hebrew.”

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Phoenicians were merchant traders that by the second-millennium BCE “had colonies in the Levant, North Africa, Anatolia and Cyprus.”

“Their alphabet became the basis of the Greek alphabet,” it stated.

Cohen noted that “the Greeks borrowed the alphabet from the Phoenicians, making several changes along the way.” For instance, the Phoenician language did not have letters for vowels, and so Greek needed to develop them. And aleph bet (alphabet) wound up as alphabēt-os in Greek.

But on a positive note, continued Cohen, “amid all the fanciful suggestions, Barat may have wound up spotting a few items that really are worth pursuing, and perhaps other scholars will develop them into polished, scholarly articles.”

0

Conservatism

They don’t want your guns, they want your doctrine

Published

on

They dont want your guns they want your doctrine

Beto O’Rourke may in fact be the most honest of the Presidential candidates. He may have gone full Swalwell in an attempt to revive a disastrous campaign; however in recognizing his present shortcomings, Beto O’Rourke has gone the AOC route of revealing the poorly hidden secrets of the Democrat Party. For years, the right was (falsely) accused of using a straw man fallacy with gun confiscation, but Beto O’Rourke has now been unabashed in championing the policy. O’Rourke merely confirmed what we already knew: the socialists want to confiscate our guns. They want the monopoly on force, so they can upend our way of life.

But this upheaval, revolution, is not about redistributing the wealth, fixing the climate, or reducing violence. Beto O’Rourke’s latest Freudian slip is all the more telling. At the gay town hall hosted by CNN, Beto O’Rourke said that the government should strip away tax exemption from churches that refused to partake in the gay agenda, which includes but is not limited to the performing of marriages, removal of ministry standards that prohibit (blatant) non-Christians, and permitting men to pee with little girls. Put more concisely, Beto O’Rourke wants to use the government to coerce the doctrine of the church.

Blatant unconstitutionality aside, if the socialists have their way, we will be at the mercy of the courts, legally speaking, who have an entrenched precedent of conjuring their own law. There have long been talks by atheist about taxing churches, a less unconstitutional means of persecuting the church. The atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation erroneously claims that we pay more in taxes because churches pay nothing, ignoring the history of the income tax in America. The Supreme Court touched on this issue in 1970, ironically close to Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court maintained in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York that:

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Even a Supreme Court devoid of Christians would have agreed that the Establishment Clause is best maintained through the financial insulation of church and state, that history showed that when the church supporting the state was as threatening to freedom as the reverse. But what Beto is suggesting is a next level takeover. He wants to use government to manipulate the doctrine. So after he has taken your guns, he will use “civil rights” law to target the church. But remember, nothing about Beto O’Rourke is original. He’s just trying to be AOC while also trying to be Eric Swalwell. The Equality Act that Taylor Swift loves to promote would also place churches in the cross hairs of the law, should they remain faithful.

This isn’t a new ambition. Socialism is atheist by its nature and has never existed with a thriving church. In similar fashion, socialism has corresponded with the direct persecution of the church, often with genocidal purposes. An ideology that lumps people in with the collective dismisses the individual pursuit of a relationship with God.

The Second Amendment is a defense mechanism against various forms of government tyranny, among them the aforementioned scenario. Pacifying civilians is never an end but always a means to an end. A disarmed people are neither safer nor freer. In this case, Beto O’Rourke, by the progression of his rhetoric, wants to disarm the populace and coerce doctrine. This is the exact reason to refuse disarming. The socialists want to control our doctrine, by extension, what we think. They ultimately, as Beto O’Rourke’s policy suggestion explicitly demands, want to command us to disobey God, to rewrite doctrine to appease the latest whims of society.

The socialists aren’t floating confiscation just for the sake of confiscation. Institutions that have historically rejected collectivism and adhere to an objective morality standard are natural adversaries to the modern socialist movement. Therefore socialists would see strategic gains in undermining these institutions. This logic is not new or surprising, but is becoming increasingly obvious and less conspiratorial. The words of Beto O’Rourke corroborate the suspicion that gun confiscation is a means to enact religious persecution among other tyrannies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Pete Buttigieg attempts to recreate God in his own image

Published

on

Pete Buttigieg attempts to recreate God in his own image

By Richard Ferguson

During a town hall meeting a CNN host asked Pete Buttigieg that question, “As a Christian, can you point to any teachings in faith that provide instructions to deny services to the LGBTQ community? His answer was a total copy-edit to both Christian and Jewish foundational writings, saying, “When religion is used in that way, to me, it makes God smaller.”

Instead of rebuking Pete’s answer, it was met with thunderous applause.

But just the ‘trinity’ of Pete, the Democrat audience, and it’s sycophants in media want to recreate Judeo-Christian truth into their own image, doesn’t mean the Creator of the universe is in agreement simply because He chose not to rain fire and brimstone from heaven as an immediate response.

Clearly, Almighty God, Creator of the entire universe of all that is seen and unseen can never be small in any way, shape, or form. Only a small mind would view God that way.

If Pete Buttigieg wishes to create a new small religion, it’s his prerogative. Such an effort is supported by the U.S. Constitution and the free will God allows all of us. Maybe he can call it the gospel according to Buttigieg, or just ‘Peteiology,’ but he dare not call it Judaism or Christianity.

Pete’s analogy about a Christian’s rights with his fist ending at the other person’s nose is totally out of place considering we are NOT talking about violence. Unconditional Christian love does NOT mean unconditional approval. Loving others does not mean ignoring wrong behavior that could lead to their annihilation. That is NOT Christian love. Christian love promotes moral guardianship. Just as friends don’t let friends drive drunk, we must not let ‘friends’ corrupt what we know is right.

This is what politicians do best. They frequently twist answers to questions to sound great and loving when in fact they are avoiding the question and giving false answers.

Pete’s form of Christian love seems to be “live and let live” and “let everyone do what’s right in their own eyes” which is not synonymous with the Judeo-Christian ethic. But whether Pete Buttigieg likes it or not, there are many Bible verses about homosexuality. The Judeo-Christian book of Leviticus is very specific.

Are we to have “agape” love for all people? Yes. But trying to copy-edit the Torah is ‘sloppy agape.’ Does the fact that Peter was an altar boy and claims himself to be a very knowledgeable Christian fountain of knowledge make a difference? Satan himself knows scripture inside and out and even quotes it as an ‘angel’ of light.

What is the essence of the one true Christianity? It is simple and absolutely beautiful as written in Matthew 22:36-40

In verse 37 Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” In verses 38-40 Jesus said, “This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Every other commandment and Christian principle is derived from these two simple and lovingly profound commandments. These are very simple, very profound and very HARD to apply in life in this physical world we find ourselves in today. This is why we must pray to God for His guidance every day.

Praying means we need to be humble before God. I cannot find a trace of humility in any of the Democrat candidates for president. These people have put on a thin veneer of humility, thinner than a worn-out paint job on a 1955 Chevy Bel Air left out in the desert sun too long. You should be able to see through their rusted-out socialist philosophies like a worn-out tissue paper.

So, do not believe our schoolboy altar boy who may envision himself as master of the theological universe. In reality, he is attempting to draw people into his deceptive web that includes false religion and recycled socialist dung. Open your eyes dear people and see the truth of things Petey is hiding from you.

Richard Ferguson is a retired business executive who once traveled the country visiting countless corporations and executives singing the praises of Hewett Packard products. Today he is a full-time author, sounding the alarm of how liberal Democrats are attacking the United States from within.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

William Barr nails the secular upheaval of Judeo-Christian morals

Published

on

William Barr nails the secular upheaval of Judeo-Christian morals

Humans have a moral compass. We’ve had it for over 2000 years. Before we had it, there were other parts that were already being formed so mankind would have a basis for morality and absolute truth that differs from postmodernism or its emerging despicable cousin, the post-truth society of false absolutes based on personal feelings.

This moral compass is the Bible, and our adherence to Judeo-Christian beliefs as a nation and in many places around the world has helped mankind keep evil at bay. Our flawed efforts through the millennia have fallen short, not because the Word wasn’t perfect but because we are not perfect. This has eroded to the point that modern society is experiencing a secular upheaval forcing cataclysmic decay of our morality.

We are flawed. Progressives are trying to use these flaws to pull us further away from the truth of our existence and the only truly moral compass we possess. They’re doing it through media, education, and entertainment. They’re attacking churches, synagogues, and adherents to the Bible with an anti-Biblical worldview that is growing increasingly militant.

Attorney General William Barr recognizes this and expressed as much during a speech at Notre Dame last week.

William Barr’s speech on religious freedom should resonate with everyone who recognizes the degradation of our values as a people and a nation. The further we diverge from the Biblical worldview, the worse the world becomes.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending