Messaggio
  • EU e-Privacy Directive

    Questo sito utilizza Cookies per gestire autenticazione, navigazione e altre funzioni. Cliccando Accetto, usando il sito, cliccando i link o semplicemente scrollando la pagina accettate l'utilizzo dei Cookies durante la navigazione.

    Leggi la nostra privacy policy

    Leggi e-Privacy Directive Documents

 

How and Why

 

Researchers participating in this study believe that Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life”. He mentions Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah and the flood in several passages of the Gospels.

This translation is different. What can we say? That the One who said: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8.58) and “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world was” (John 17.5) ignored etymologic science?

Would it have been useful or damaging to talk about it with the people of that time, who were already so bitterly divided in factions as for the interpretation, literary or allegorical, of the Holy Writ? (Nowadays, for this and other reasons there are about 500 different confessions in Christianity).
Could His interlocutors understand what time produces on language?

Today, in the familiarity of His affection, we are not afraid of saying “And yet it moves...” conscious of having only portions of the truth in apparent contrast between them.

The members of the editorial board of Genesi Restituita have been studying Biblical Hebrew for nearly seven years and working on the original language in which the Bible was written. The reasons are more or less common, that is, trying to understand the reasons for that irreconcilable difference between Creation and the Gospels. The discrepancies between that God who created the sky, the earth and men; the God who is sorry and grieved, and repents of having made men (Gen. 6.7), and the same God who says through Jesus: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14.9). Another point is trying to understand the reason why the text of Creation, which not coincidentally is at the beginning of the Bible, is considered a mythological text by all lay and religious archaeologists and scientists; undoubtedly ancient and original yet a mythological text…

Isaac Newton was also a great scholar of the Bible and Biblical Hebrew. He stated: “People should not be discouraged by past failure to understand these writings. God vouchsafed the prophecies for the edification of the church. They are not about the past. They are written for future ages. When the time comes, their meaning will be revealed in their fulfillment. Let people be warned by the example of the Jews, who have paid dearly for failing to recognize the promised Messiah. If God got angry with the Jews, He will be angrier with the Christians, who fail to recognize the Antichrist. Thou seest therefore that this is no idle speculation, no matter of indifference but a duty of the greatest moment”. [1]


Thus, the Providence wanted us to discover and properly study the work The Hebraic Tongue Restored, 1815, of the French linguist Antoine Fabre d’Olivét.

After the Napoleonic campaign in Egypt, and about twenty years before Champollion deciphered Egyptian hieroglyphs, this great and unknown linguist and polyglot, whose studies were directed on the origin of speech and the study of the tongues which can lead to it, discovered that also the Hebraic language, using the characters of its alphabet, expressed the ancient Egyptian language, exactly in the same way as the Coptic language, which uses the characters of Greek. The ancient language of the Egyptians, instead of using hieroglyphs or Demotic, is written with other characters, the characters of the Greek alphabet for the Coptic and the characters of the Hebrew alphabet for the Hebrew language. This is the discovery, incredible and unacceptable for the scientific community of that period and today’s.

The words you are reading are written in English. We can translate them into Braille or Morse code. The means we used to write the message has changed but the language is still the same, the English language, with its own vocabulary, grammar and idiomatic expressions.

On this basis, that is the hieroglyph Egyptian language, d’Olivét wrote the etymological dictionary and restored the grammar of the Hebrew language from the deep alteration caused by the LXX. Moreover, he translated the text of Creation but unfortunately only a part of the translation is correct as after the first fatal errors, the logical and philological outcome was irreparably compromised.

All and every honor goes to Antoine Fabre d’Olivét. We have added only further studies to his great work using a program for biblical studies and new scientific knowledge, which were unconceivable in the early 19th century. In seven years, we have made great progress yet with the premise and the intimate and sincere promise of throwing everything away at the first sign of inconsistency or contradiction which would not pass the exam of our demanding conscience.

Thirty-five centuries separate us from the original text and those who have held and kept it with immense care and interpreted it in the best possible way, according to what was translated into Greek twenty-three centuries ago thanks to Ptolemy II Philadelphus for the Library of Alexandria. But in that period of time, 12 centuries, in which the Jewish people suffered numerous deportations, the loss of more complex and presently incomprehensible meanings of Creation occurred. In their exile in Babylon, Hebrew people lost their language [2] and got the Syriac-Aramaean one.

Those who know the difference between modern English and the language in Shakespeare’s times can have an idea of the effects of time on languages. And we are talking of only four centuries ago, when literature had already been a science for centuries. Yet, these centuries are still completely different if we compare them to the 12 centuries mentioned above.

The translation of the Hebrew text into Greek, called the LXX or Septuagint, has produced and determined all the remains of the ancient language, and this has become the only dictionary and grammar of the Hebraic language. And any of our modern translations of the Bible is derived from the LXX, which precedes and is the source of the translations in Coptic, Ethiopian, Arab, Syrian, Persian and Targum.

The Septuagint is the impassable barrier separating us from deep, complete and lost meanings; an impassable barrier before which all the educated, all the wise and all past researchers have failed; all of them, from the third century BC until the nineteenth century AD, until Antoine Fabre d’Olivét.

By means of a systematic analysis, yet very simple and operable by anyone, it is possible verify that the biblical versions coming from the LXX change the meaning of several Hebrew words. This restoration has reestablished the meaning of many words in the new translation, but the new words are the same, every time in every verse in the whole text. The new words are confirmed by the sentence containing them and the new words confirm every sentence. Although the restored text is usually completely different from previous biblical versions, the narrative structure is not distorted in its development or in the numerous digressions but perfectly conforms to it. The restoration of the Hebrew text solves all the inconsistencies and contradictions produced by the LXX, from the simplest to the most serious ones in the various biblical versions; such inconsistencies and contradictions which make the text of Creation a “mythological piece of writing” and “an insult to reason”.

By this we mean that insofar although the new translation seems impossible, incredible or even unacceptable, it is exclusively the scientific result of the etymological dictionary and continuous and crossed confirmations. From this point of view, it is scientifically unexceptionable and perfect. Unfortunately, it is still rough in terms of style yet perfect as for literary content; unassailable and impossible to criticize on all sides: grammatical, logical, philological, religious or historical.

When we talk about scientific criterion, we mean that we have implemented the etymological dictionary to the Hebrew language in such a way as to always comply with grammar, logic and philology. As we do not want to mislead anybody, not even ourselves, in the check of the radical meaning of every single word and all the possible variables which sentences produce, we have always insisted on checking different combinations and those whose meaning was far from the published restoration. Once the sense of a word had been confirmed through cross-collation, we gave it the same meaning in all the verses of the ten chapters of Creation. This is what we mean by scientific criterion applied to language.

Even inexperienced readers can make very simple yet decisive checks on the reliability of the restoration. Write down some words from the restored text then check that in the Restored Translation or in the Interlinear Translation they have always the same meaning every time they are repeated in all the verses of the ten chapters of Creation

Kind readers, guided only by common sense, will read this restoration with due detachment, without prejudice and without taking all what is being read as true. In fact, not depending on his level of education, any reader can check for himself that every single word comes from the Radical Vocabulary either through the continuous comparison with the biblical text or collating it with the Interlinear Translation. Readers can see that only the most complex ideas and concepts have been restored, while the simplest ones have remained almost unchanged. Moreover, even the portions of text which have remained unaltered are the result of collation with the Radical Vocabulary. Readers can specifically see that no group of linguists, whole universities or adequate computers can alter a text, ancient or modern, and produce a restoration that makes the original uncertain or not valid.

 

The Radical Vocabulary

The etymological dictionary compiled by d’Olivét is similar to the dictionaries of our current languages, some verbal roots have only one meaning, others have two or more meanings, and finally some others have a very wide variety of meanings.

To learn how to read Hebrew, the only difficulty is to memorize the Hebrew alphabet, whose correct pronunciation, for the purpose of judging the restoration, is not necessary. So in a day or two of practice, the reader is fully capable of reading both all the original Hebrew text of the Creation and all the Hebrew words of the Radical Vocabulary.


The meaning of the names of numbers

As for the meaning of the names of numbers, those who do not refuse a priori the restored text, must acknowledge with us that the author makes a supernatural use of them.

Each name in number, along with its numerical value, has also the meaning of its name, expressed by the etymological dictionary. In the text of Creation the use of numbers has several expressive features: just in its numerical value or as the meaning of the name related to each number or with a double function of number and name.

This expressive power of numbers is present wherever they are present: the number of the chapters, the number of the verses, the seven days of Creation, the four rivers of Eden or the ten stages, from Adam to Noah, of the creation of the human individuality or as dates or measures etc. Each of the ten chapters has its own main topic, which coincides with the meaning of the name of its number and the topic of most verses follows the same logic. Generally speaking, the issue of the name of a number seems to be the title of that which it announces, or it is the compendium of the topic or topics previously exposed, as in the case of the seven days in which Creation is divided.

With an example not far from reality, it is as if the numbers were coordinates written on the back of each card forming a jigsaw. In several cases, they have been of great help to restore the meaning of obscure verses, as they indicated the subject of the verse and reduced the meanings of the words that made up that verse, bringing each of the individual words to agree with all the other of the verse, a verse which then agreed with the previous and the next verse and with the whole text.

Therefore the etymological dictionary restores the grammar as well as the meaning of the names of numbers. The etymological dictionary, the grammar and the meaning of the names of numbers restore the original text and the original text, in turn, confirms the etymological dictionary, the grammar and the meaning of the names of numbers.

 

Why we?

Unfortunately, the greats of the past could not see d’Olivét’s discoveries and those, many or few, who have studied his work were not as lucky as we are or they did not have the courage/humility to apply solely scientific research. Such investigation produces contrasts from the very beginning, even with Jesus’ words, Who, in some verses of the Gospels, mentions Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel or Noah as people or the flood or the ark in their known meaning.

But resurrected Jesus does not blame His disciples, He said: “Put your finger here and put out your hand” (John 20.27) and we think this is the basis and the criteria of modern science.

With all this we hope that in the light of these new discoveries the precious text of  Creation, which only God may have described, is scientifically analyzed. Considering that even though there is no supporting evidence for the authenticity and reliability of the etymological dictionary, it nevertheless exists and is very specific and detailed, and moreover, it is completely coherent and univocal in those portions of the text that are not restored, i.e. those portions of the text where the topics are simple and have remained in the current use in the daily life of Jews.

 

The scientific analysis


In our view, scientific analysis must be carried out by means of all the rules that govern language and any alleged restoration must also meet the following requirements:

Is the Etymological Dictionary identical to the dictionaries of other languages?

Is the Hebrew language identical to the other languages as regards the division of words into roots and affixes?

Does every single word of the restored text come from the etymological dictionary?

Are all grammar rules complied with?


From the point of view of logic and philology, is the new text continuously and completely correct?

Does the restored text, though it is very different from the LXX, fit perfectly into the narrative structure of LXX itself without altering it?

From a religious, historical and scientific point of view, is the text coherent?

Does the restoration of the text and the reasons supporting it provide exhaustive evidence for the alleged partiality and imperfection of the LXX?

May a group of linguists, whole universities or adequate computers alter a text, ancient or modern, and produce a restoration that makes the original uncertain or not valid?

 

The editors of the restoration claim that some verses are not part of the original text: At the beginning, they were probably marginal notes or comments, and then in time or due to copyists’ mistakes they became part of the text itself (Gen. 2.12, 2.24, 2.25, 8.22, and the proverb in Gen. 10.9). Are these claims supported by consistent and persuasive arguments?

From a linguistic, philological and stylistic point of view, this statement can be verified only by experts in the Hebrew language. On the other hand, any reader can check that if we exclude Gen. 2.12 and consequently reduce the following verses by one unit, they are again visibly in line with the argument expressed by the name of the number indicating them.

Also in Gen. 2.24 and Gen. 2.25 the absurdity about this new woman or wife (among other things she is sought in the fauna) and the female, whose creation occurs in Gen. 1.27 and the statement is repeated in Gen. 5.2 is clear to everybody. It is also clear that in all the text of Creation such moralistic tone is never present. In addition, the readers can see that the text of Creation has constantly a sustained narrative rhythm and, although several verses are more repetitive and slower, there are others with a strong pace (see Gen. 4.9 or Gen. 3.9) and the transition from Gen. 2.22 to Gen. 3.1 is one of them

The verse: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” (Gen. 8.22), differs, as for narrative style, from the text of Creation, and the words harvest, cold, heat, summer, winter and the verb to cease do not come from the etymological dictionary.

D’Olivét himself, despite he considers this verse extraneous to the original text, translates it and writes: “I shall limit myself to giving briefly the etymology, as much to satisfy the curiosity of the reader, as to show him how the hieroglyphic meaning can pass to the figurative and to the literal, for nearly all these terms have been hieroglyphic in their origin”.

We do not agree with d’Olivét about how the hieroglyphic meaning can pass to the figurative and to the literal”, because in this case he goes beyond and ignores the literal sense, which stands between the hieroglyphic and the figurative meaning. Throughout the text of Creation, the meaning is always literal while only two or three times it is figurative yet slightly deviates from the literal meaning, as in Gen. 6.3: “…his days shall be one hundred and twenty years”, a sentence in which the word “days” is understood as time, period, cycle; or in Gen. 3:15: “And I will put enmity between thou and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed”, a sentence where the word “seed”, is understood as offspring, progeny.

The arguments relating to the proverb contained in Gen. 10.9 will be published along with the translation of chapter ten.

 

 

All the results of our work are now put in the hands of the scientific community. We hope they are impartial while analyzing this important, exciting and compromising content, as they would be with any other historical document, in the light of new discoveries.

 

Rememeber Galileo Galilei or Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis

 Moreover, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” and “It is harder to crack prejudice than an atom” and “Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities, etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors”: Albert Einstein

 

And if you want more about such errors:

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

 

 

 

We kindly ask you to inform us about any mistake, from the smallest error to the grossest incongruence.

 

Notes

[1] The Life of Isaac Newton by Richard S. Westfall p. 126.

[2] See Nehemiah cap. 8; Ezra; and d’Olivét’s Introductory Dissertation, part II and III.