Post by Immanuel on Aug 27, 2017 11:00:06 GMT
Hello Maveli,
You are welcome. I will try to reply on the remarks that you had.
I came across some information on wiki:
Classical Arabic, also known as Quranic Arabic (although the term is not entirely accurate[5]), is the language used in the Quran as well as in numerous literary texts from Umayyad and Abbasid times (7th to 9th centuries). Many Muslims study Classical Arabic in order to read the Quran in its original language. It is important to note that written Classical Arabic underwent fundamental changes during the early Islamic era, adding dots to distinguish similarly written letters, and adding the Tashkeel (diacritical markings that guide pronunciation) by Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali, Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi, and other scholars. It was the lingua franca across the Middle East, North Africa, Horn of Africa during ancient times.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic#Modern_Standard_Arabic
I find myself a little confused by this information. At first it hints that ‘classic Arabic’ or Quranic Arabic was spread with Quran, but the last sentence makes no sense, regarding the lingua franca in ancient times. Ancient as in 600 AD or BC? BC usually stands for anything ‘ancient’, doesn’t it?
For your information, B.C. stands for "Before Christ" and A.D. "Anno Domini" meaning "in the year of the lord" and is a way of speaking of time before and after the birth of Jesus, according to when they believe him to have lived. It is the way "Western countries" measure time since the first millennium thereafter. I am not in support the decision to use Jesus in order to measure time, but I accept the system in order to have some sort of reference.
Personally, I find that Jesus may have lived from 50 up to 150 years before the official date. If you study my work on Persian kings and Orodes/Hyerodes versus Herod/Herodes, you may see that I suspect the Persian king to be the Roman "satrap" mentioned in the Biblical Gospels and the "Magi" that come to visit Herod to be Zoroastrian clergymen, while Herod was not a Zoroastrian but a ... JEW, like all of the Western side of the Persian empire. We shall not forget that the empire of Persia was ruled from Shush/Susa which is in the southern part of today's Iraq and there are historical sources to support that assumption in order to provide evidence. As you can see I am interested in history and archeology too besides interest in religious backgrounds, and I have studied much of archeological sites that have been found in the Middle-East including the ancient Ur, home town of Abraham, which at the time of Abraham was by the sea but then later the sea withdrew with many kilometers south and I have also tried to manage to pinpoint all those famous historical men on a timeline of when I assume them to have lived.
I am searching for more solid evidence to prove Herod was the Persian Orod/Orodes/Hyerodes instead of a king in Jerusalem or the province of Judea. These were years under Roman occupation after the weakening of the Persian empire after Alexander the Great's conquest, but as you know the Roman Empire never managed to fully expand east but encountered so heavy resistance that they struggled there for centuries. Instead they were forced to negotiate treaties with the opposing faction and in this case it was the Persian Emperor or "Shanshah" (King of Kings). During the time of Jesus, the Persian Empire was recovering the serious defeat of Persepolis and their empire was called the Parthians at that time, very linguistically coincidental with the Pharisee sect of Jesus' Gospels. Unless one has serious problems with logic, they obviously understand that the Pharisees are the Farsees of the Fars region in today's Iran, which in Persian is calls Pars and Parsians, but the Aramaic and Arabic people did not have "Pe" in their language so they substituted the Pe sound for Fe and thereby Pars is called Fars in some sources. You can ask any Iranian about that and they will confirm it.
The original Persian Empire was a unity of several kingdoms which the ancestor Cyrus helped establish. They did not establish the Empire with military conquest as in plunder and loot in mind but there was a sincere idea of liberating people. For example, they freed the then enslaved Jews at Babylon. One reason he did so was because despite what historical sources say, he was a Jew himself.
It is highly controversial, but of the Achaemenid Empire, I am certain that David and Solomon were in there somewhere as kings. They are involved in all that. Official history collides with the expanse of the Persian Empire and David and Solomon could impossibly have had kingdoms expanding as much as they could according to sources without having been the Persian empire. That I have been researching a lot on. According to chronological studies, David and Solomon must have had their kingdoms a few centuries into the first millennium B.C. and that was the height of the Persian Empire and that empire stretched all the way to Egypt in West to India in East, including Jerusalem. Jerusalem was under Persian dominion for most of the time throughout their existence except for a period under Roman rule. Therefore, David and Solomon must have been rulers of the Persian Empire, because they did not live 1000-2000 BC because then everything circulated around the Egyptian Pharaohs. Furthermore, according to the Gospels there are allegedly 28 generations from David to the Messiah and if we put an average of 30 years of age when everyone gets their child then that leaves us with 840 years. My strongest theory is that Jesus was born 50 B.C. and if we subtract that with 840 then we land on 890 B.C. which is in the dawn of the Achaemenid Empire.
We get problems here though, the exile to Babylon must have occurred years before the saving by Cyrus 600–530 BC. However, we can better pinpoint what the Bible means with 14 generations thus. 14 generations must be circa 500 years, so David must have lived about 1050-1100 B.C.
My research on Quran has revealed that Solomon pleads to the royalty of Babylon to stop their looting and ravaging, to be righteous people. After Solomon is gone then Babylon appears to have conquered what was left of Solomon's empire and enslaved the Jews.
There is little to suggest Jerusalem was not where it is supposed to be geographically, but Herod of the Bible's New Testament was likely a Parthian Emperor who travelled from the East seen from Jerusalem and was not officially at the location. Politically he was worried about having an "usurper" emerge among the people to disturb the peace treaty between Parthia and Rome which was relatively fragile. I cannot tell for sure, but Herod was likely positioned in Shush/Susa in today's southern Iraq and travelled to Jerusalem for the events surrounding Jesus' execution. That Parthian Emperor Herod then also probably ordered the execution of every child in Betlehem for the same reason. Kings in that time were often very paranoid about the rise of a rebellion in one of their regions because one revolt could cause a chain reaction throughout their empire, so they beat down harshly on even rumors. The "Magi" who came to Herod were as I said Zoroastrian clergymen, such people were regarded as mystics and they were into things such as astrology.
At a second thought, King David and Solomon were likely kings of Jerusalem and that region during their time, before the rise of Babylon and their capture of the Jews and before the Babylon kingdom was crushed by Cyrus and the Jews rescued. It can be quite likely that the Jews were taken captive around 900 B.C. and freed during Cyrus in 600–530 BC.
Without having been religious in Judaism in any way, a Persian Emperor would hardly have begun to build the allegedly impressive temple in Jerusalem, this was something a king called Artaxerxes ordered. It was extremely expensive during that time according to the Biblical sources. I know however that Persian kings supported their conquered regions to retain their religious beliefs, but I still doubt he would use so much of his resources in rebuilding the Jewish temple in Jerusalem unless there was an ulterior motive of his own. After David and Solomon's empire, Jerusalem basically never had its own rule but were under "occupation" by others. Like I mentioned above, Herod was probably not anyone but Orod of Parthia. Things suggest that the Persians treated Jerusalem with the highest respect however, just as if they were religious about the site, something evidently the Romans did not understand and consecrated at times and even called for the Persian king to settle matters e.g. when Jesus had his court proceeding, AS IT WAS PERSIA WHO WERE PARTHIANS/PHARISEES AND THE RELIGIOUS ELITE IN THE REGION! I.e. the Persians were Jews in their faith and not Zoroastrian as believed but Zoroastrianism was another cult coming from further east and their faith was never referred to as "Zoroastrianism" during that time. Those who believed in Zoroastrianism often influenced and tainted the Jewish faith however with hedonistic elements as we can read about in the Old Testament. The Old Testament often deals with the conflict of Zoroastrianism and their burning of fires at mountaintops versus Judaism (the Jews did not refer to their faith with any particular name though but this is a title we give them) without the strange practices.
When you think of all this, you probably cannot think of another alternative to the truth behind real history. This is my reconstruction of history how it actually occurred.
The Acheamenid Empire adopted Aramaic as their 'lingua franca' while their actual language was 'Middle Persian', 'Avestan or 'Old Persian' and this shows how dominant Aramaic was at the time. It also clearly shows Arabic was insignificant compared to it, if it even existed as its own language as we have discussed here. If the Persian Emperor sought to make himself understood to Arabs he would obviously imprinted his declaration in Arabic too on his inscriptions, but he did not despite that Arabia was nearby. The answer is, the Aramaic of the time an Arab could understand, they basically spoke the same language except dialect differences. Perhaps they had their own slang and expressions that the people of Aram did not have, but in essence it was the same language. If you read the Old Testament, it speaks of Arabs and it appears that there is no difficulty in speaking beyond the boundaries there.
Aramaic gradually died out and lost importance and Greek saw much to that and after the 12th century A.D. very few people still speak Aramaic on Earth and it is doubtful if their version of Aramaic truthfully represents the one of the past. The Arabic that evolved out of Aramaic "as the language of the Arabs" is a clerical fabrication and misrepresents the ancient tongue.
For your information, if you read the New Testament and the Gospels, you can see that the people observing Jesus seem to have problems understanding what he is saying in Aramaic and when he is being executed people can barely understand what he is saying and conjectures about what he actually said. It may suggest Aramaic was already an archaic and dying language at that time, and interestingly the provided writings were all written in Greek. Persian (Parthian) kings are suggested according to sources to have mastered Greek perfectly, showing that Greek was well-spread and one king married a Greek princess which is quite unlikely for an archenemy. Something is very fishy as you can see if we compare official history. The alleged cold relations between Rome and Persia seem strange and it may be the rebellions in between that we read about in historical data. Rome probably also learned that there would be immense problems conquering and controlling Persia and we know that Rome never had a strong control over the Middle-East. Rome as well as Persia likely rose against usurpers and not the official Empires and for most of the time there was a negotiated peace treaty between Rome and Persia.
Knowledge of technology does not die quickly and the Persian empire was very technologically advanced, both in "gadgets" and warfare and therefore Persia could retaliate and recover quite quickly after Alexander the Great. Persia has always been a strong adversary historically. But what truly conquered Persia eventually was the "dumbing effect" of religion, the cancer of Islam. Islam does cause technological advancements and science to be condemned and therefore the life conditions deteriorated gradually among the commoners as they were expected to live according to ritualistic lifestyles and never evolve. Today people are expected in Islam to live like an alleged Muhammed in the 7th century A.D. It is religion and a bad succession of kings which cause Iran to be a technologically inferior and primitive country today 2017, just like Saudi-Arabia and other Middle-Eastern countries, despite having oil. They simply have not been controlled in a way which promotes development of the society.
I am quite harsh on Islam as you read above, but we do have some right to actually be so. Technically it is a very primitive and Paganistic faith and does not lead to spiritual growth because you actively belittle one's own being as a person in favor of a superior, to the point that you nearly deem yourself worthless in comparison despite that your mental effort is essential. The truth is that your personal soul is required to take its space and it is allowed to do so and you are supposed to grow into a powerful being, not work against it. Islam is a delusional religion and at the top of misguidance for any soul, because you do things to yourself which heavily hampers your soul's development. Islam did also not start as that type of doctrine in the 7th century A.D but it started before the time of Jesus, the clergymen you see in the stories of Jesus hold onto a faith in which you belittle yourself in front of God and you cannot be anything like God, just like people in Islam believe, while Jesus teaches the opposite, that the relationship between you and God is a symbiotic one. I speak of Jesus a lot because he is my heaviest "weapon" against Islam since there are stories about him and his struggle against a clergy similar to the one of Islam. But the struggle is not against the clergy itself but it is better to undermine their faith among common people and speaking with authority one can accomplish that, therefore you can conquer them without even raising an arm against them. "The pen is stronger than the sword".
Let us move on now after a lot of rambling:
All the earth worships you
and sings praises to you;
they sing praises to your name.” Selah
Does the author is thus trying to say ‘Peace’ in the end? But the chapter does not end there in case we imply that selah or ‘peace’ would end the sentence as in ‘good-bye’ or ‘peace be with you!’
You can search for a bundled set of lexicons compiled by Edward Lane in the 19th century, there you shall find many various definitions for Selam as well as Selah. Selam has the same root as people used for Islam, but they claim it means "submission". However it does not. Lane's lexicon can be hard to browse, but there is an Android app called 'Project Root List' which gathers definitions from Lane's.
If you relate to the alleged Psalms of David, if you say Selah right in the middle of a proceeding, it may imply harmony and conviction to what has just been said, like a pause in the utterance of the Psalm. It may also be one way of saying "rest assured", to be confident in what has just been said. It is a kind of interjection in the discourse. Either way do the two words refer to the balance of the soul.
Etymologically, I have never heard of anyone saying Selah in greeting people but you say Selam, which means that they should be healthy and fine (i.e. sound). Perhaps it is because Selah would not be a complete enough word to provide sufficient meaning in that context. The Miim in Selam is also a kind of closer for the word, providing condition or status. Nevertheless, Selah and Selam dwell in the same etymological origin.
The language is code-like, you can say, it is based on basic letters adding simple input which in return becomes language. You are right, no matter how much someone corrupts the language as long as the actual sentences are retained as they were, one can restore the meaning of that language if they have access to what each letter stands for. Discovering what the letters intend to say is not always an easy task if you have no one to directly tell you, but the way to go about on it is to use words with indisputable accuracy even spoken today and analyze their letters used in combination. For example, it is easy to see "amen" means "confidence, safety and security" in reference to the mental condition in one's mind so if we take a look at the word Alif - Miim - Nun we can see that the letters wish to tell us something. Now I have already analyzed dozens of words to figure out that these letters wish to tell "Be Thereof Integrity" or "Be Of Integrity", which is very fine in relationship to the word's literal and perceived meaning. Amen is a very simple and easy word to work on in that regard and it is just easy words that is a good start. The word contains the most widely used letters in the Arabic language too.
This is how the language was originally derived, from placing letters together to produce something coherent and then the letters need to have a strictly own firm meaning.
The author of Quran wished to subtly make a remark on that through the 14 initials also placing the letters often with a conjunction (Wa/Waw) afterwards in order to show the careful reader that indeed they are supposed to be read as part of the language. In some cases there is only one single letter followed by a conjunction clearly showing the sole letter is supposed to be read as a word. It is kind of forcing the witted reader that the letter is supposed to take its own meaning there and begin to contemplate from there. The only logical explanation for the thoughtful reader is that the author wished to show that the answer to the language's secret is the letters and through focusing on the letters they may find answers in a world of corruption. This is exactly what I have done, analyzing the language to pieces down to the very morphemes and trying to reproduce the language as it was intended by the author. The project file is an attempt at that. Now I have realized that chapter 2 is not the beginning of a discourse but it resumes after something else and it is not chapter 1. Quran is not consistent in its layout today and that is another thing I have to work on to put it in order. The beginning of chapter 2 forces it to show resumption, meaning there has to be a context before the initial letters. It also just jumps onto a context out of nowhere without introduction, which you can clearly see if you read my translation, saying people believe in deception and hold onto it.
The probable theory is that people instinctively personify things they cannot understand. Both Satan and God are their own individual persons and both take on typical the good versus the bad guy characteristics and the good always wins in the end. In truth none of God versus Satan are real persons per se, God is a unity of souls in an assembly and does not reflect one single person except if there was just one person in that unity which it evidently is not, i.e. both Gabriel and Michael are in it as we know per declaration. There is no human level of good versus bad either, and if you used human terms then God would be a bad person exposing man to this serious "experiment" with bodies actively seeking to break down their subjects. One has to reason on a higher level of cognition, in understanding the underlying dynamics of existence.
The attempted translation from the original Aramaic is probably weak. My qualified guess is that the sentence is supposed to say "Blessed are those who are low in want because theirs is the kingdom of heaven". The one who wants a lot is not qualified for the High Community, because want is an instinctive trait. The translation "Blessed are the poor in spirit" does obviously not make any sense contextually if we read the rest of everything. The rest speak of a distinctly spiritual awareness where the flesh is supposed to be distanced from. Low-spirited here is likely who does not have a strong drive to be a high-achiever.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel
Thank you for your answers, Immanuel. I would like to further clarify on some points you made.
You are welcome. I will try to reply on the remarks that you had.
In fact it is suspicious now that I think of that. There are also other cases in modern history when the Scripture would influence the language, such as the sole reason why ‘modern English’ as we know it today exists only thanks to the Kings James version of the Bible.
I came across some information on wiki:
Classical Arabic, also known as Quranic Arabic (although the term is not entirely accurate[5]), is the language used in the Quran as well as in numerous literary texts from Umayyad and Abbasid times (7th to 9th centuries). Many Muslims study Classical Arabic in order to read the Quran in its original language. It is important to note that written Classical Arabic underwent fundamental changes during the early Islamic era, adding dots to distinguish similarly written letters, and adding the Tashkeel (diacritical markings that guide pronunciation) by Abu al-Aswad al-Du'ali, Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi, and other scholars. It was the lingua franca across the Middle East, North Africa, Horn of Africa during ancient times.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Standard_Arabic#Modern_Standard_Arabic
I find myself a little confused by this information. At first it hints that ‘classic Arabic’ or Quranic Arabic was spread with Quran, but the last sentence makes no sense, regarding the lingua franca in ancient times. Ancient as in 600 AD or BC? BC usually stands for anything ‘ancient’, doesn’t it?
For your information, B.C. stands for "Before Christ" and A.D. "Anno Domini" meaning "in the year of the lord" and is a way of speaking of time before and after the birth of Jesus, according to when they believe him to have lived. It is the way "Western countries" measure time since the first millennium thereafter. I am not in support the decision to use Jesus in order to measure time, but I accept the system in order to have some sort of reference.
Personally, I find that Jesus may have lived from 50 up to 150 years before the official date. If you study my work on Persian kings and Orodes/Hyerodes versus Herod/Herodes, you may see that I suspect the Persian king to be the Roman "satrap" mentioned in the Biblical Gospels and the "Magi" that come to visit Herod to be Zoroastrian clergymen, while Herod was not a Zoroastrian but a ... JEW, like all of the Western side of the Persian empire. We shall not forget that the empire of Persia was ruled from Shush/Susa which is in the southern part of today's Iraq and there are historical sources to support that assumption in order to provide evidence. As you can see I am interested in history and archeology too besides interest in religious backgrounds, and I have studied much of archeological sites that have been found in the Middle-East including the ancient Ur, home town of Abraham, which at the time of Abraham was by the sea but then later the sea withdrew with many kilometers south and I have also tried to manage to pinpoint all those famous historical men on a timeline of when I assume them to have lived.
I am searching for more solid evidence to prove Herod was the Persian Orod/Orodes/Hyerodes instead of a king in Jerusalem or the province of Judea. These were years under Roman occupation after the weakening of the Persian empire after Alexander the Great's conquest, but as you know the Roman Empire never managed to fully expand east but encountered so heavy resistance that they struggled there for centuries. Instead they were forced to negotiate treaties with the opposing faction and in this case it was the Persian Emperor or "Shanshah" (King of Kings). During the time of Jesus, the Persian Empire was recovering the serious defeat of Persepolis and their empire was called the Parthians at that time, very linguistically coincidental with the Pharisee sect of Jesus' Gospels. Unless one has serious problems with logic, they obviously understand that the Pharisees are the Farsees of the Fars region in today's Iran, which in Persian is calls Pars and Parsians, but the Aramaic and Arabic people did not have "Pe" in their language so they substituted the Pe sound for Fe and thereby Pars is called Fars in some sources. You can ask any Iranian about that and they will confirm it.
The original Persian Empire was a unity of several kingdoms which the ancestor Cyrus helped establish. They did not establish the Empire with military conquest as in plunder and loot in mind but there was a sincere idea of liberating people. For example, they freed the then enslaved Jews at Babylon. One reason he did so was because despite what historical sources say, he was a Jew himself.
It is highly controversial, but of the Achaemenid Empire, I am certain that David and Solomon were in there somewhere as kings. They are involved in all that. Official history collides with the expanse of the Persian Empire and David and Solomon could impossibly have had kingdoms expanding as much as they could according to sources without having been the Persian empire. That I have been researching a lot on. According to chronological studies, David and Solomon must have had their kingdoms a few centuries into the first millennium B.C. and that was the height of the Persian Empire and that empire stretched all the way to Egypt in West to India in East, including Jerusalem. Jerusalem was under Persian dominion for most of the time throughout their existence except for a period under Roman rule. Therefore, David and Solomon must have been rulers of the Persian Empire, because they did not live 1000-2000 BC because then everything circulated around the Egyptian Pharaohs. Furthermore, according to the Gospels there are allegedly 28 generations from David to the Messiah and if we put an average of 30 years of age when everyone gets their child then that leaves us with 840 years. My strongest theory is that Jesus was born 50 B.C. and if we subtract that with 840 then we land on 890 B.C. which is in the dawn of the Achaemenid Empire.
We get problems here though, the exile to Babylon must have occurred years before the saving by Cyrus 600–530 BC. However, we can better pinpoint what the Bible means with 14 generations thus. 14 generations must be circa 500 years, so David must have lived about 1050-1100 B.C.
My research on Quran has revealed that Solomon pleads to the royalty of Babylon to stop their looting and ravaging, to be righteous people. After Solomon is gone then Babylon appears to have conquered what was left of Solomon's empire and enslaved the Jews.
There is little to suggest Jerusalem was not where it is supposed to be geographically, but Herod of the Bible's New Testament was likely a Parthian Emperor who travelled from the East seen from Jerusalem and was not officially at the location. Politically he was worried about having an "usurper" emerge among the people to disturb the peace treaty between Parthia and Rome which was relatively fragile. I cannot tell for sure, but Herod was likely positioned in Shush/Susa in today's southern Iraq and travelled to Jerusalem for the events surrounding Jesus' execution. That Parthian Emperor Herod then also probably ordered the execution of every child in Betlehem for the same reason. Kings in that time were often very paranoid about the rise of a rebellion in one of their regions because one revolt could cause a chain reaction throughout their empire, so they beat down harshly on even rumors. The "Magi" who came to Herod were as I said Zoroastrian clergymen, such people were regarded as mystics and they were into things such as astrology.
At a second thought, King David and Solomon were likely kings of Jerusalem and that region during their time, before the rise of Babylon and their capture of the Jews and before the Babylon kingdom was crushed by Cyrus and the Jews rescued. It can be quite likely that the Jews were taken captive around 900 B.C. and freed during Cyrus in 600–530 BC.
Without having been religious in Judaism in any way, a Persian Emperor would hardly have begun to build the allegedly impressive temple in Jerusalem, this was something a king called Artaxerxes ordered. It was extremely expensive during that time according to the Biblical sources. I know however that Persian kings supported their conquered regions to retain their religious beliefs, but I still doubt he would use so much of his resources in rebuilding the Jewish temple in Jerusalem unless there was an ulterior motive of his own. After David and Solomon's empire, Jerusalem basically never had its own rule but were under "occupation" by others. Like I mentioned above, Herod was probably not anyone but Orod of Parthia. Things suggest that the Persians treated Jerusalem with the highest respect however, just as if they were religious about the site, something evidently the Romans did not understand and consecrated at times and even called for the Persian king to settle matters e.g. when Jesus had his court proceeding, AS IT WAS PERSIA WHO WERE PARTHIANS/PHARISEES AND THE RELIGIOUS ELITE IN THE REGION! I.e. the Persians were Jews in their faith and not Zoroastrian as believed but Zoroastrianism was another cult coming from further east and their faith was never referred to as "Zoroastrianism" during that time. Those who believed in Zoroastrianism often influenced and tainted the Jewish faith however with hedonistic elements as we can read about in the Old Testament. The Old Testament often deals with the conflict of Zoroastrianism and their burning of fires at mountaintops versus Judaism (the Jews did not refer to their faith with any particular name though but this is a title we give them) without the strange practices.
When you think of all this, you probably cannot think of another alternative to the truth behind real history. This is my reconstruction of history how it actually occurred.
The Acheamenid Empire adopted Aramaic as their 'lingua franca' while their actual language was 'Middle Persian', 'Avestan or 'Old Persian' and this shows how dominant Aramaic was at the time. It also clearly shows Arabic was insignificant compared to it, if it even existed as its own language as we have discussed here. If the Persian Emperor sought to make himself understood to Arabs he would obviously imprinted his declaration in Arabic too on his inscriptions, but he did not despite that Arabia was nearby. The answer is, the Aramaic of the time an Arab could understand, they basically spoke the same language except dialect differences. Perhaps they had their own slang and expressions that the people of Aram did not have, but in essence it was the same language. If you read the Old Testament, it speaks of Arabs and it appears that there is no difficulty in speaking beyond the boundaries there.
Aramaic gradually died out and lost importance and Greek saw much to that and after the 12th century A.D. very few people still speak Aramaic on Earth and it is doubtful if their version of Aramaic truthfully represents the one of the past. The Arabic that evolved out of Aramaic "as the language of the Arabs" is a clerical fabrication and misrepresents the ancient tongue.
For your information, if you read the New Testament and the Gospels, you can see that the people observing Jesus seem to have problems understanding what he is saying in Aramaic and when he is being executed people can barely understand what he is saying and conjectures about what he actually said. It may suggest Aramaic was already an archaic and dying language at that time, and interestingly the provided writings were all written in Greek. Persian (Parthian) kings are suggested according to sources to have mastered Greek perfectly, showing that Greek was well-spread and one king married a Greek princess which is quite unlikely for an archenemy. Something is very fishy as you can see if we compare official history. The alleged cold relations between Rome and Persia seem strange and it may be the rebellions in between that we read about in historical data. Rome probably also learned that there would be immense problems conquering and controlling Persia and we know that Rome never had a strong control over the Middle-East. Rome as well as Persia likely rose against usurpers and not the official Empires and for most of the time there was a negotiated peace treaty between Rome and Persia.
Knowledge of technology does not die quickly and the Persian empire was very technologically advanced, both in "gadgets" and warfare and therefore Persia could retaliate and recover quite quickly after Alexander the Great. Persia has always been a strong adversary historically. But what truly conquered Persia eventually was the "dumbing effect" of religion, the cancer of Islam. Islam does cause technological advancements and science to be condemned and therefore the life conditions deteriorated gradually among the commoners as they were expected to live according to ritualistic lifestyles and never evolve. Today people are expected in Islam to live like an alleged Muhammed in the 7th century A.D. It is religion and a bad succession of kings which cause Iran to be a technologically inferior and primitive country today 2017, just like Saudi-Arabia and other Middle-Eastern countries, despite having oil. They simply have not been controlled in a way which promotes development of the society.
I am quite harsh on Islam as you read above, but we do have some right to actually be so. Technically it is a very primitive and Paganistic faith and does not lead to spiritual growth because you actively belittle one's own being as a person in favor of a superior, to the point that you nearly deem yourself worthless in comparison despite that your mental effort is essential. The truth is that your personal soul is required to take its space and it is allowed to do so and you are supposed to grow into a powerful being, not work against it. Islam is a delusional religion and at the top of misguidance for any soul, because you do things to yourself which heavily hampers your soul's development. Islam did also not start as that type of doctrine in the 7th century A.D but it started before the time of Jesus, the clergymen you see in the stories of Jesus hold onto a faith in which you belittle yourself in front of God and you cannot be anything like God, just like people in Islam believe, while Jesus teaches the opposite, that the relationship between you and God is a symbiotic one. I speak of Jesus a lot because he is my heaviest "weapon" against Islam since there are stories about him and his struggle against a clergy similar to the one of Islam. But the struggle is not against the clergy itself but it is better to undermine their faith among common people and speaking with authority one can accomplish that, therefore you can conquer them without even raising an arm against them. "The pen is stronger than the sword".
Let us move on now after a lot of rambling:
That is very interesting Immanuel. My attempts, however, only find ‘hello’ for selam and something disputed and untranslated for selah. Psalms 66:5, for instance, goes:
All the earth worships you
and sings praises to you;
they sing praises to your name.” Selah
Does the author is thus trying to say ‘Peace’ in the end? But the chapter does not end there in case we imply that selah or ‘peace’ would end the sentence as in ‘good-bye’ or ‘peace be with you!’
You can search for a bundled set of lexicons compiled by Edward Lane in the 19th century, there you shall find many various definitions for Selam as well as Selah. Selam has the same root as people used for Islam, but they claim it means "submission". However it does not. Lane's lexicon can be hard to browse, but there is an Android app called 'Project Root List' which gathers definitions from Lane's.
If you relate to the alleged Psalms of David, if you say Selah right in the middle of a proceeding, it may imply harmony and conviction to what has just been said, like a pause in the utterance of the Psalm. It may also be one way of saying "rest assured", to be confident in what has just been said. It is a kind of interjection in the discourse. Either way do the two words refer to the balance of the soul.
Etymologically, I have never heard of anyone saying Selah in greeting people but you say Selam, which means that they should be healthy and fine (i.e. sound). Perhaps it is because Selah would not be a complete enough word to provide sufficient meaning in that context. The Miim in Selam is also a kind of closer for the word, providing condition or status. Nevertheless, Selah and Selam dwell in the same etymological origin.
If I understood you correctly, do you mean that these 14 initials represent some sort of a code, which, if deciphered correctly, preserves the same important message as other Scriptures, no matter what other verses talk about? But how do you manage to find their original meanings?
The language is code-like, you can say, it is based on basic letters adding simple input which in return becomes language. You are right, no matter how much someone corrupts the language as long as the actual sentences are retained as they were, one can restore the meaning of that language if they have access to what each letter stands for. Discovering what the letters intend to say is not always an easy task if you have no one to directly tell you, but the way to go about on it is to use words with indisputable accuracy even spoken today and analyze their letters used in combination. For example, it is easy to see "amen" means "confidence, safety and security" in reference to the mental condition in one's mind so if we take a look at the word Alif - Miim - Nun we can see that the letters wish to tell us something. Now I have already analyzed dozens of words to figure out that these letters wish to tell "Be Thereof Integrity" or "Be Of Integrity", which is very fine in relationship to the word's literal and perceived meaning. Amen is a very simple and easy word to work on in that regard and it is just easy words that is a good start. The word contains the most widely used letters in the Arabic language too.
This is how the language was originally derived, from placing letters together to produce something coherent and then the letters need to have a strictly own firm meaning.
The author of Quran wished to subtly make a remark on that through the 14 initials also placing the letters often with a conjunction (Wa/Waw) afterwards in order to show the careful reader that indeed they are supposed to be read as part of the language. In some cases there is only one single letter followed by a conjunction clearly showing the sole letter is supposed to be read as a word. It is kind of forcing the witted reader that the letter is supposed to take its own meaning there and begin to contemplate from there. The only logical explanation for the thoughtful reader is that the author wished to show that the answer to the language's secret is the letters and through focusing on the letters they may find answers in a world of corruption. This is exactly what I have done, analyzing the language to pieces down to the very morphemes and trying to reproduce the language as it was intended by the author. The project file is an attempt at that. Now I have realized that chapter 2 is not the beginning of a discourse but it resumes after something else and it is not chapter 1. Quran is not consistent in its layout today and that is another thing I have to work on to put it in order. The beginning of chapter 2 forces it to show resumption, meaning there has to be a context before the initial letters. It also just jumps onto a context out of nowhere without introduction, which you can clearly see if you read my translation, saying people believe in deception and hold onto it.
Very interesting. Do you have a theory regarding the nature of Satan as a deceiving character, which can also be seen traced in Ancient cultures literature, such as Loki in Norse mythology? I am trying to understand your interpretation regarding Satan as bodily instincts as opposite to spiritual Being. Many ancient cultures seem to perceive devil as a character. When do you think ‘tradition’ to create an evil spirit as opposite to instincts started and what triggered it?
The probable theory is that people instinctively personify things they cannot understand. Both Satan and God are their own individual persons and both take on typical the good versus the bad guy characteristics and the good always wins in the end. In truth none of God versus Satan are real persons per se, God is a unity of souls in an assembly and does not reflect one single person except if there was just one person in that unity which it evidently is not, i.e. both Gabriel and Michael are in it as we know per declaration. There is no human level of good versus bad either, and if you used human terms then God would be a bad person exposing man to this serious "experiment" with bodies actively seeking to break down their subjects. One has to reason on a higher level of cognition, in understanding the underlying dynamics of existence.
Thank you for your answer. But how would you interpret Jesus’s saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. (Matthew 5:3)? Does it not sound as this verse calls off ten principles (Ten Commandments) and pretty much removes the point of spirit in human existence?
The attempted translation from the original Aramaic is probably weak. My qualified guess is that the sentence is supposed to say "Blessed are those who are low in want because theirs is the kingdom of heaven". The one who wants a lot is not qualified for the High Community, because want is an instinctive trait. The translation "Blessed are the poor in spirit" does obviously not make any sense contextually if we read the rest of everything. The rest speak of a distinctly spiritual awareness where the flesh is supposed to be distanced from. Low-spirited here is likely who does not have a strong drive to be a high-achiever.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel