Fomenko and the Unvocalized Old Testiment

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
222
Reactions
1,025
I have a concern with Fomenko's theory that I thought I would throw at you. As you may know from my posts I'm VERY interested in Fomenko and absolutely love his proofs. Every other sentence of his works just blow my mind. But, I'm a good skeptic and when a good thought comes to mind I absolutely have to address it. Since there's no way I would be able to Google such a niche question, I feel obliged to ask here and maybe someone can help me resolve this issue.

Fomenko stresses a lot of his theories on the unvocalized roots of words, assuming that most of our historical documents (which, indeed, are copies of copies), the original sources of those that no longer exist, probably were also sourced from unvocalized, but lost, originals. This is the cause for most of the confusion of place names. For example, he likes to bring up PRS = Paris = P-Rus/Prussia, or TRN = Tarquin, etc.

Due to his conclusions that Jesus was Andronicus I Comentus of Constantinople, and that the New Testiment was originally a biography of this Emperor that eventually become a tale of a demi-god... therefore the Old Testiment was written AFTER these events, likely in the 1300-1400's...

(and here's my big question)

....then why is the OT written in unvocalized Hebrew?

Hebrew+Unvocalized+writing+inherent++inhrnt+Affixation[1].jpg


If his Chronology is correct (and, honestly, I'm inclined he's really on to something!), then you would think that by this age that unvocalized text would be a long forgotten art and avoided at all cost. Especially since the OT would have been written to backwardly justify the prophecy fulfillment of Jesus, it wouldn't make sense to wirte it obscurely and hard to interpret. Why would they write it in an obscure language and omit the vowels, mimicing how the most ancient documents would have been written in order to save space?

My only thought is perhaps because if it was a fraud to begin with, then the best way to make something sound ancient is to use unvocalized text.

Also, I wonder if Fomenko would argue that the OT is also a collection of REAL stories and much of the OT may actually be echos of those original sources. When the Scribes continued writing, perhaps they continued the text unvocalized so that they could fill in the blanks and still look authentic.

For example, consider that the OT apparently perfectly described the Kremlin, to the inch, as the second Temple. But this happened in the 1500s.

How does a Fomenkonian reconcile this? Does Fomenko himself talk abotu this exact issue, perhaps I missed it?
 

codis

Well-known member
Messages
230
Reactions
525
I'm having a serious problem with this "unvocalized" texts. "Ambiguous" is too weak a word for that.
It makes sense as a code agreed upon in a closed group, like for internal communication.
Just saying ...
 
OP
mythstifieD

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
222
Reactions
1,025
WLLTHTSVRYGDTHGHTNDDTHWHLDSMSBSRDTTHXTRMHWCLDNYSCRBNTLLGNTNGHTRTCLTTHPTRYNTHPSLMSLSTHNKTSGDDTRMVVRYVWL

Err, I mean:

Well that's a very good thought indeed. The whole idea seems absurd to the extreme. How could any scribe intelligent enough to articulate the poetry in the Psalms also think it's a good idea to remove every vowel?

I can't imagine how they could decode it without a cypher. No punctuation, no spaces, nothing!!!

But at the same time, this is exactly why Fomenko's theory is viable because as these epic chronologies were transported around the world, the vocalizations were all fair game and many name changes occured, and new sentences and people and events had to be added to make it all add up the right way.

But my confusion is that if such a method is so fraught with error, why would the OT have been written in this way? Indeed the OT is the primary example of this technique. In fact, I have a few hard time to find any documents other than scriptures that were written in this format, but perhaps my googlefu is weak.
 

Jim Duyer

Well-known member
Messages
269
Reactions
691
This idea especially gives me problems : "For example, he likes to bring up PRS = Paris = P-Rus/Prussia, or TRN = Tarquin, etc ". Etymologists are able to trace the origin of words by applying some complicated but proven systems of comparison - when did i become y, when did the z or w become redundant, etc. And none of what he has given makes any kind of sense. If PRS was Paris (and nothing like that has even been found outside of his texts) then Prussia would be PRSS and Tarquin TRQN. And since the Old Testament was written without vowels in Hebrew (using Phoenician characters), the inherent would have been NHRNT, etc.
There is some consistency after all. He may have something with some of his ideas (which I personally do not agree with) but he is severely lacking in etymological and lexical-linguistical understanding. It almost seems as if he ran out of answers and decided that perhaps the reason that the names of places do not match is due to some changes done by the Church or Jewish religious folks. Well, that they did screw up much of the Bible is correct, and can be easily proven, but with place names he is off the path. Place names are very personal in nature. Would you live in shits-ville? (even if you happen to currently reside in something quite close to that meaning?) Place names change for two main reasons. New owners or conquerors sometimes, but not always, like to leave their mark and therefore change the name. Or, the place becomes abandoned for some reason and new residents spell the same phrasal meaning in a different way or have translated into their own vernacular. IMHO.
 
OP
mythstifieD

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
222
Reactions
1,025
If PRS was Paris (and nothing like that has even been found outside of his texts) then Prussia would be PRSS and Tarquin TRQN.
I am NOT doing it justice by any means, so don't hold it against Fomenko because he likely explains it better than me.

But we might be backwards here. We can't work inside our existing paradigm, we have to go from a blank slate.

If you were a scribe and saw PRS you'd either think Paris or think Persia. PRS came first, the two scribes INVENTS both Paris and Persia at their own whim. Suddenly the same story gets reflected in two places.
 
Top