Kindest Regards, E99!
Thank you for the reply!
E99 said:
Aramaic has a close relationship (cognate) with Hebrew. It might have derived from Hebrew.
Again, speaking as a student and not a scholar, it is my understanding that Aramaic is the colloquial tongue of the "common" people, whereas formal Hebrew would have been used by scholars and administration type people (clerics, politicians, lawyers, etc). I am open to correction.
But, briefly, the scriptures do not say that all languages originated from one language, but possibly upwards to seventy languages that were the 'God confused' stem languages from Babel. There was one original pre-Babel language, which possibly survived. From this, its reasoned that the number of original 'Babel' languages is said to go in line with the 70 post flood families originating from the 16 grandsons of Noah. Ancient place names and some languages can be traced back to a number of the names of the grandsons of Noah.
I agree this would be better suited to the other thread, and would make a very welcome addition. In what I did look into, I found a few curiousities, some of which I think I mentioned there. Of course, if what you are saying here holds water by translation, then it would further support my understanding that the flood of Noah was not world wide and all encompassing, that there likely were isolated pockets of civilization that remained outside of the flood zone. Which, incidentally, seems to also be in agreement with some of the geological evidences I have seen presented by people like Glen Morton.
The original individual Chinese characters and radicals are illustrative of events in Genesis and the traditions that the ancient peoples of the middle east practiced. Pre flood and post flood. One well known set of three radicals are those found in the Chinese character for the word ship. There are plenty more.
I am not 100% certain I am following you on this, you may have to spell this one out a little better for me. I have a vague understanding of Chinese ideogram construction. I also understand through some scholarly materials I have read that China and the East have
some (seems to be few, at least at this point) rudimentary similarities with the Mesopotamian cultures. Whether these things were gained through commerce and trade, as I suspect, or through geneology and family ties, or even both, is to my knowledge a wide open question among scholarship.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter in the other thread, so we do not derail this one and can jump start that one. Thanks.