In this video, I respond to The Babylon Bee’s video: If Jesus’ Resurrection were a Hoax.
Video 1: A Babylon Bee video which, in my view, strawmans naturalist explanations of the alleged Resurrection.
Below is Part 1 of my video response:
Video 2: This is my video-response to the Babylon Bee’s video, above.
In video 2, I examine the claims that the Apostles were “brutally murdered” for professing belief in the Resurrection. The latest scholarship—indeed the latest Christian scholarship—suggests that they were not. At best, there is some historical evidence that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were martyred.
In video 2, I ponder whether or not stealing the body was even necessary for a belief in the Resurrection to crop up, naturalistically, amongst the Early Church. The latest Scholarship suggests that there was no empty tomb. Even Bart Ehrman[1] has abandoned belief in the ‘honorable burial’ of Jesus. I suggest that—in the unlikely event that it ever even existed!—Jesus’s tomb was so luxurious, that it would have been reused after His death. If we ever did find Jesus’s tomb, there would, in all likelihood, be a corpse interred there. It would then be impossible for us to determine whether or not this corpse would be Jesus’s or the later tomb-occupant’s.
In video 2, I also stress that History is about ascertaining what probably happened in the past, and not about ascertaining what absolutely happened in the past. History has no way of ascertaining what absolutely happened in the past.
As Bart Ehrman stresses, given that History proceeds via methodological naturalism, the silliest and most ad hoc Naturalist explanation for the Resurrection is still going to be much much much more likely than a supernaturalist explanation that entails a man rising from the dead.
Ehrman posulates, for example, that Jesus might have had a twin, and whenever Jesus died, then Jesus’s twin came back on the scene, and began to tell everybody that he was the risen Jesus. This explanation is silly and absurd, and yet, according to Ehrman, it is much more likely than the postulation that a man rose from the dead.
Bart Ehrman does not say that miracles do not happen. As an ontological naturalist, this is, indeed what he privately believes, but this is not something that he can assert as an historical fact. However, what Ehrman does say is that if miracles do happen, then the Historical Method has no means of detecting them.
The Historical Method can only detect natural occurrences proceeding from natural causes. If miracles occur in the past, then the Historical Method is incapable of detecting them. Even then, the Historical method can only detect some natural events proceeding from some natural causes. The Historical Method is far from error-free. Sometimes it fails to detect phenomena that actually occurred in the past. Sometimes the Historical Method detects an occurrence that never occurred in the past.
I think that some Christian Apologists, like Frank Turek, have a hard time understanding this.
If there be an 80% chance that an event occurred in the past, then there is also a 20% chance that this same event did not occur in the past. Sometimes phenomena occur in the past—or, indeed, fail to occur—in the past, against the odds.
[1] The following quote is from Bart Ehrman Blog: ‘One of the most pressing historical questions surrounding the death of Jesus is whether Jesus really was given a decent burial, as the NT Gospels indicate in their story of Joseph of Arimathea. Even though the story that Joseph, a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, received permission to bury Jesus is multiply attested in independent sources (see, e.g., Mark 15:43-47; John 19:38-42), scholars have long adduced reasons for suspecting that the account may have been invented by Christians who wanted to make sure that they could say with confidence that the tomb was empty on the third day. The logic is that if no one knew for sure where Jesus was buried, then no one could say that his tomb was empty; and if the tomb was not empty, then Jesus obviously was not physically raised from the dead. And so the story of the resurrection more or less required a story of a burial, in a known spot, by a known person. For some historians, that makes the story suspicious.
Figure 1: The Latin Alphabet. The word ‘abecedarium,’ in English, can mean ‘an alphabet inscribed into stone.’ Hence, this portico, with the Latin alphabet inscribed onto its frieze, is a diagram of an ‘abecedarium,’ in the English sense of the word, as well.
Introduction:
In beginning our study of the Classical Latin language, we shall begin with its alphabet. We shall learn the Latin name of its letters, and how these letters ought to be pronounced.
The Latin word for ‘alphabet’ is ‘abecedārium.’[i]
Body:
Classical Latin possesses an alphabet that contains twenty-three letters. These letters are as follows:
The Classical Latin Alphabet:
Latin Lowercase Letter:
Latin Uppercase Letter:
Letter Name in Latin:
How to Pronounce the Letter’s Name in Phonemic Transcription:
Table 1: The Classical Latin Alphabet. The diligent student will pronounce the letters of this alphabet, aloud, over and over again; and shall write them out, over and over again; until he/she will have committed this alphabet, and the names of its letters, to memory.
Conclusion:
In this chapter have examined the alphabet of the classical Latin language. We have committed the knowledge:
that the Latin word for ‘alphabet’ is ‘abecedārium;’
that the Latin Alphabet comprises twenty-three letters;
which letters comprise the Latin Alphabet;
the names of the Latin letters;
how the names of the Latin Letters are pronounced in Latin.
to memory. Our now having acquired the above-listed knowledge, we can now move forth to following chapters that will treat of the pronunciation of Latin in greater detail.
Endnotes for the Chapter, ‘The Classical Latin Alphabet:’
[i] The Latin, ‘abecedārium,’ genitive singular: ‘abecedāriī,’ is a 2nd-declension neuter noun. The first four letters of the Latin alphabet are:
‘ā,’ ‘bē,’ ‘cē,’ ‘dē
.
Hence from the first four letters of the Latin alphabet we derive the word:
‘“ā,”-“bē,”-“cē,”-“d’”-“-ārium.”’
The 2nd-declension neuter nominal suffix: ‘-ārium,’ genitive singular: ‘-āriī,’ denotes ‘a place where things are kept.’ Where do we keep our letters? We keep our letters in an ‘alphabet,’ or, in Latin, in an ‘abecedārium.’
Hence, etymologically, in Latin, an ‘abecedārium,’ can be defined as: ‘a place where we keep the Latin letters, “ā,” “bē,” “cē,” “dē,” etc.’
[ii]Properly speaking, there is no ‘j’ or ‘J’ in Latin. However, one will often see this character’s being employed—usually in Church texts and other works composed later than the Classical epoch—to denote a consonantal ‘i,’ or ‘I.’ In Latin, ‘i,’ as a vowel, is pronounced, when short, as /ɪ/ or /i/; and when long as /iː/.
In Latin, consonantal ‘i’ can be represented by the IPA symbol, /j/. The consonantal ‘i,’—or ‘j,’ as one sometimes sees (in Church texts)—represents this very /j/ sound. The consonantal ‘i’ in the Latin word, ‘iugum,’ or ‘jugum,’ /ˈjʊ.ɡʊm/ that means ‘yoke,’ is pronounced as the ‘y’ in the English word, ‘yurt,’ i.e. as: /jεːt/.
[iii]In Classical Latin, properly, ‘u,’ and ‘v’ are the same letter. Properly, a ‘V’ is nothing more than the capital form of the lowercase ‘u.’ Therefore, strictly speaking, the presence of a lowercase ‘v,’ in a classical Latin text, is an aberration. Oxford University Press wishes, eventually, to strike this aberration from all of its Latin publications, and I wish them well with this endeavour. Hence, the word ‘verbum,’ that one may observe in present O.U.P. Latin texts will eventually become ‘uerbum.’ However, this practice, today, is far from standard. I prefer this practice, and this is the practice that is employed by Peter V. Jones and Keith C. Sidwell’s Reading Latin: Text Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986. However, these texts—although I deem them more correct—are still in the minority. At present, in most Latin texts, a ‘u,’ or a ‘U,’ is employed to represent the letter ‘u,’ as a vowel; and a ‘v’ or a ‘V’ is employed to represent the letter ‘u,’ as a consonant. Hence, the letter ‘u,’ or ‘U,’ when short, can be said to represent the phonemes: /ʊ/ or /u/ and, when long it can be said to represent the phoneme /uː/. The letter ‘v’ or ‘V’ can be said to represent the phoneme /w/. This will be the practice employed in this present work. Although not our focus, in Church texts, the letter ‘v,’ or ‘V’ can be said to represent the phoneme /v/.
The technical name for the phoneme, /v/, is ‘voiced labiodental fricative.’
The Phonetics term, ‘voiced,’ informs us that vibrating air from the vocal chords is involved in the pronunciation of /v/.
The Phonetics term, ‘labiodental,’ informs us that both the lips and the teeth are involved in the pronunciation of /v/.
The English adjective, ‘labiodental’ is derived from the New Latin 3rd-declension adjective, ‘labiōdentālis, labiōdentāle,’ genitive singular: ‘labiōdentālis,’ genitive plural: ‘labiōdentālium,’ base: ‘labiōdentāl-.’ This New Latin word is derived from the Classical Latin 2nd-declension neuter noun, ‘labium,’ genitive singular: ‘labiī,’ which means ‘lip;’ and from the Classical Latin 3rd-declension masculine noun, ‘dēns,’ genitive singular: ‘dentis,’ genitive plural: ‘dentium,’ which means ‘tooth;’ and from the 3rd-declension adjectival suffix, ‘-ālis, -āle.’
Hence, etymologically, in this instance, the English adjective, ‘labiodental’ denotes ‘the use of the lips and the teeth in the articulation of a phoneme.’
The Phonetics term, ‘fricative,’ informs us that turbulence, caused by the air escaping from a narrow channel—in this instance, the mouth and lips—is involved in the pronunciation of /v/.
[iiii]As with ‘i,’ the Latin letter, ‘y,’ can function as a vowel or as a consonant. Its name in Latin is ‘ī Graeca’ which means ‘Greek “i.”’ When the character, ‘y,’ functions as a consonant, it is said to represent the phoneme, /j/, and on the occasions that ‘y’ functions as a vowel, when short it can be said to represent the phonemes: /ɪ/ or /i/ and when long—i.e. when a macron should appear above it, as: ‘ȳ’—it can be said to represent the phoneme: /iː/.
The Ancient-Greek word, τὰ στοιχει̃α or, when transliterated ‘tà stoicheĩa,’ is a plural form of the 2nd-declension neuter verb, τὸ στοιχει̃ον genitive: του̃ στοιχείου or, when transliterated: ‘tò stoicheĩon,’ genitive: ‘toũ stoicheíou.’
The Ancient-Greek word, ‘tò stoicheĩon,’ can mean ‘an element in a set.’
Figure 1: The elements of this set are alpha, beta, gamma and delta.
The Ancient-Greek word, ‘tò stoicheĩon,’ is formed from the Ancient-Greek masculine noun, ὁ στοι̃χος genitive: του̃ στοίχου or, when transliterated, ‘ho stoĩchos,’ genitive: ‘toũ stoíchou,’ which means ‘steps,’ or ‘a flight of stairs;’ and the Ancient-Greek 2nd-declension neuter nominal suffix, ‘-eĩon,’ genitive: ‘-eíou’ which denotes ‘a means (of),’ ‘an instrument of;’ etc.
Figure 2: a ‘stoĩchos’ or ‘series of steps.’
The term, ‘stoĩchos,’ according to Wiktionary, may be traced back to the indo-european word:
*steigʰ
, which means:
‘climb.’
Hence, etymologically, the Ancient-Greek term, ‘stoicheĩa,’ can be said to mean: ‘the means of climbing up;’ ‘the means of stepping up;’ ‘the means of ascent;’ etc.
This is highly instructive, as, in truth, Elements is a book that is a Jacob’s ladder, of sorts, by which one can ascend, element by element, into the heavens of mathematical knowledge.
Figure 3: With The Elements of Euclid, we advance in our mathematical knowledge element by element. Each element is, conceptually, like a rung, heaving us upwards to Mathematical prowess; to an implicit knowledge of Euclidean Geometry.
Conventional Arithmetic possesses rules for the order of operations. Which operations ought we to evaluate first? In what order ought we to evaluate operations? This is the topic that this chapter wishes to address. ‘Precedence,’ is also sometimes referred to as ‘the order of operations.’
Body:
The Etymological Definition of ‘Precedence:’
Our English noun, ‘precedence,’ is derived from the Latin substantive participle, ‘praecēdentia.’[3] ‘Praecēdentia,’ in Latin, means ‘the abstract concept of which things go before [other things].’
Figure 2: The English arithmetical term, ‘precendence,’ is derived from a compund of the Latin verb ‘cēdēre,’ which means ‘to go.’ Go, or Golang, as a language, is—syntactically—very like the C Programming Language.
Within the context of Arithmetic, ‘precedence,’ etymologically, means ‘the science of determining which operations go before [other operations];’ ‘the science of determining which operations should be evaluated before [other operations].
The Acronym, ‘P.E.M.D.A.S:’
The acronym, ‘P.E.M.D.A.S.,’ stands for:
Parenthesis;
Exponentiation;
Multiplication and Division;
Addition and Subtraction.
The Acronym, ‘P.E.M.D.A.S.,’ can be easily remembered with the Mnemonic phrase:
As we can observe from the above ordered list, some operations share the same level of precedence. For example, the operation, multiplication, and the operation, division, have the same level of precedence. Multiplication and Division share the third level of precedence, in the above list. When we are confronted with an expression or an equation that contains operations at the same level of precedence, seeing that in Anglophone countries, we read from left to right, then we evaluate operations that possess the same level of precedence from left to right. Hence, when two or more operations—within an equation or an expression—share the same level of precedence, then we evaluate them from left to right. Concerning operations at the same level of precedence, we evaluate from beginning at the leftmost operation, and work our way rightwards.
An Example of Precedence:
In the expression:
2 ÷ 1 + 3 × 42 – 5 + ( 3 – 2 )
, we first evaluate the operation in parenthesis, i.e.:
( 3 – 2 )
. When we evaluate:
( 3 – 2 )
, then we obtain the difference:
1
.
This renders the original expression as:
2 ÷ 1 + 3 × 42 – 5 + ( 1 )
or as:
2 ÷ 1 + 3 × 42 – 5 + 1
.
Second, we evaluate the exponentiation operation i.e.:
42
. When we evaluate:
42
, then this obtains for us the power:
16
. This renders our original expression as:
2 ÷ 1 + 3 × 16 – 5 + 1
.
The operations, Multiplication and Division, share the same level of precedence. However, given that the division operation is further to the left, on the page, than the multiplication operation, then we evaluate the division operation before we evaluate the multiplication operation.
Given that the division operation:
2 ÷ 1
is further to the left, on our page than the multiplication operation:
3 × 16
, then we evaluate:
2 ÷ 1
before we evaluate:
3 × 16
.
When we evaluate:
<!–
2\div1
–>
2 ÷ 1
, then we obtain the quotient:
2
. This renders our original expression as:
2 + 3 × 16 – 5 + 1
. Then we proceed to evaluate:
3 × 16
, and this obtains for us the product:
48
. This renders our original expression as:
2 + 48 – 5 + 1
.
The operations; addition, and subtraction; share the same level of precedence. In the above ordered list, they are at the 4th level of precedence. We evaluate these operations as we should find them, beginning at the leftmost, and working our way rightward. Hence, we evaluate:
2 + 48
first. This obtains for us the sum:
50
. This renders our original expression as:
50 – 5 + 1
. We then proceed to evaluate the operation:
50 – 5
, which obtains for us the difference:
45
. This renders our original expression as:
45 + 1
. We then proceed to evaluate the expression:
45 + 1
. This obtains for us the sum:
46
.
This renders our original expression as:
46
. We have thus simplified the expression:
2 ÷ 1 + 3 × 42 – 5 + ( 3 – 2 )
to:
46
. We have observed mathematical precedence οr the order of operations in our simplification of the expression:
<!–
2 \div 1 + 3 \times 42 – 5 + \left ( 3 – 2 )
–>
2 ÷ 1 + 3 × 42 – 5 + ( 3 – 2 )
to:
46
.
Conclusion:
In this chapter, we have endeavoured to gain for ourselves an implicit understanding of precedence as it pertains to basic or conventional arithmetic. Boolean arithmetic, an arithmetic of logic employed in Computer Science, also possesses precedence or an order of operations, which we shall examine in a subsequent chapter. In the next chapter, we shall examine precedence or the order of operations as it specifically applies to the C programming language.
Figure 1: This is the ‘Shiyn’, the 21st letter of the Hebrew abjad. Its Aramaic name is שִׁין or ‘shīyn’ or ‘shîn’. It is spelt ‘shiyn,chiriq; yod; final nun;’ I drew this shiyn with gel pens. I then scanned it into Vector Magic, and then I tweaked it in Inkscape with the Typography extension.
This is the 21st letter of the Hebrew abjad. An ‘abjad’ in linguistics is an alphabet comprising only consonants and no vowels. The word ‘shiyn,’ is Aramaic for ‘teeth.’ In Proto-Sinaitic, or “Paeleo-Hebrew” this character looks like a pair of incisors.
Figure 2: This is what a ‘shiyn’ looks like in Phoenician or Proto-Sinaitic or Pale-Hebrew.
שֵׁן or ‘shē(i)n’ is ‘tooth’ in Hebrew.
Figure 3: I drew this tooth in Assembly, an app-store app. שֵׁן or ‘shē(i)n’ is ‘tooth’ in Hebrew. It is spelt ‘shiyn,tseire; final nun;’ It is a feminine noun.
Should the dot be placed over the left horn, then this character is pronounced like a clean ‘s’ would in English. The IPA symbol that represents this sound is /s/.
Figure 4: Should we place the dot over the left horn, then we pronounce this character as a clean ‘s’ or /s/.
Should the dot be placed over the right horn, then this character is pronounced like an ‘sh’ would in English. The IPA symbol that represents this sound is /ʃ/.
Figure 4: Should we place the dot over the right horn, then we pronounce this character as a “soft-‘s’” sound; as we would pronounce the digraph ‘sh’ in ‘shop.’ The IPA symbol that represents this phoneme is /ʃ/ or ‘esh’.
One word with which this character is associated is the Hebrew word for fire, which is אֵשׁ or, when transliterated: ‘ē(i)sh.’
Figure 5: It is as though a fire bites into whatever it is consuming. Hence the shiyn, as a pictograph, is said to represent fire, or passion etc.
Figure 5: What the Hebrew word, ‘ē(i)sh’ means when spelled with Proto-sinaitic or Paleo-Hebrew characters. The pictographic meaning of this word seems to be ‘the strength of consuming,’ or ‘strong consuming,’ or ‘leading to consuming,’ etc.
The word for ‘man’ in Hebrew is אִישׁ or, when transliterated, ‘īysh,’ or ‘îsh.’ Man has, as it were, the fire of life inside of him, the götterfunken, or ‘divine spark,’ as Schiller put it. His internal body temperature is 37 degrees celsius. Also, man – if not careful – can be utterly consumed by his appetites and passions.
Figure 6: Ecce homō! Behold the man! It is as though he is animated by some divine flame. However, he is also a collection of passions and appetites, and – if not careful – he can be destroyed by these.
Figure 1: I drew this HTML logo in Scripted SVG. My development skills, especially my ability to develop web images through code, is really beginning to rise to a professional standard.
Figure 2: I mocked up this old website, phouka.com for an e-book that I am putting the finishing touches to, and hope to release upon Amazon, shortly. This website, developed in 2005, employs a pre-html-5 table layout which is now deprecated. Today, the downloading of fonts by a web-accessor is no longer required thanks to @fontface .
Figure 3: I drew this Swift Logo – the Programming Language employed by Apple – in Vector software such as Vector Magic and Inkscape. Apps can be mocked up in Inkscape so as to give the customer a sense of what his/her app’s user experience/ graphical user interface might look like, prior to the app’s development commencing in earnest.
If anyone should require mockups of apps or websites prior to taking this wireframe to a professional website-developer/app-programmer, let me know. Send me a direct message, or something. The advantage of doing this in SVG, is that one can then employ the SVG code and the CSS code generated by Inkscape in the website/app itself.
Click here so as to download a Microsoft Word version of this article.
Click here so as to download a pdf version of this article.
The Famous Syllogism[1] in Greek, Latin and English:
Figure 1: I drew this pencil portrait of George Boole (1815-1864) with Pencils and Photoshop. The Mathematical Analysis of Logic was published in 1847, and An Investigation into the Laws of Thought was published in 1854.
Introduction:
Quite early on, in his Mathematical Analysis of Logic, George Boole–whence in programming and computer science we derive the datatype name, ‘Boolean’– introduces this famous syllogism to us, his readers.
Body:
In Ancient Greek:
ὁ Σωκράτης ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος.
πάντης ἄνθρωποι ἐστι θνητοί.
οὖν ὁ Σωκράτης ἐστι θνητός.
When Transliterated:
ho Sōcrátēs estin ánthrōpos.
pántēs ánthrōpoi esti thnētoí.
oũn ho Sōkrátēs esti thnētos.
In Latin:
Sōcratēs est homō.
Omnēs hominēs sunt mortālēs.
Ergō, Sōcratēs est mortālis.
In English:
Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Conclusion:
The Ancient-Greek term, ὁ λόγος or, when transliterated, ‘ho lógos,’[1] means–within the context of logic– ‘statement,’ or ‘argument.’
The Latin 1st-and-2nd-declension adjectival suffix, ‘-ica, -icus, -icum’ means ‘of,’ ‘about,’ ‘concerning,’ ‘pertaining to,’ etc.
Hence, etymologically, ‘logic’ is ‘the study of the truth or falsehood of statements and arguments.’
Conventional arithmetic or Conventional Algebra has quantity for its subject. George Boole developed an algebra, or an arithmetic that had logic as its subject.
Indeed, in his book, The Laws of Thought he terms this ‘arithmetic’ or ‘algebra’ of his ‘a calculus of logic’ by which he meant ‘a system whereby the truth or falsehood of statements/arguments could be analysed.’
Figure 1: I drew this pencil portrait of Socrates (469/470-399 BC) with Pencils. Vēre Sōcratēs est enim mortālis. Truly Socrates is mortal indeed.
Glossary:
calculus (ˈkælkjʊləs) nounplural-luses
a branch of mathematics, developed independently by Newton and Leibniz. Both differential calculus and integral calculus are concerned with the effect on a function of an infinitesimal change in the independent variable as it tends to zero.
any mathematical system of calculation involving the use of symbols
logic an uninterputed formal system. Compare formal language (sense 2)
(plural-li (ˈkælkjʊˌlaɪ) ) pathology a stonelike concretion of minerals and salts found in ducts or hollow organs of the body[C17 from Latin: pebble, stone used in reckoning, from calx small stone, counter]
calcular(ˈkælkjʊlə) adjective relating to calculus
calculous (ˈkælkjʊləs) or calculary(ˈkælkjʊlərɪ) of or suffering from a calculus. Obsolete form: calculose
calculus of variations a branch of calculus concerned with maxima and minima of definite integrals.[1]
It is my contention that the knowledge of Latin and Greek make STEM[1] easier to learn. A huge number of STEM terms are derived from Greek and Latin.
Fig 1: I drew this portrait of George Boole with pencils. George Boole was self-taught and fluent in Latin, Greek and Hebrew by the time that he was 12.
Vel Symbol:
Fig 1: This is the Vel symbol. You may view the Vector at my CodePen Account.
In Formal Logic this symbol represents ‘disjunction.’ The equivalent in Boolean Algebra is ‘Inclusive Or.’ ‘vel’ is Latin for ‘or.’ One sees this quite a bit in liturgical rubrics[2].
The Wedge Symbol
Fig 1: This is the Wedge symbol. You may view the Vector at my CodePen Account.
In Formal Logic this symbol represents “conjunction.” The equivalent in Boolean Algebra is “And.” In Latin, ‘ac’ or ‘atque’ is ‘and.’ Sometimes this symbol is called this. One sees this quite a bit in ecclesiastical Latin.
‘I announce to ye a great joy: we have a Pope!, the most eminent and most revered [forename] lord of the most holy Roman Church, Cardinal [surname], who hath placed upon himself the name [regnal name].’
In the offertory the priest prays:
‘…prō fidēlibus christiānīs vīvīs atque dēfūnctīs…’
‘…for all faithful Christians living and dead…’
In The Young Pope (2016), a Cardinal, disfavoured by Pius XIII/Jude Law, prays this in the frozen wilderness of Alaska, to whence he was banished.
Figure 1: I drew this Israeli flag in Inkscape and SVG.
In this chapter, we are going to examine the Hebrew word, אָב or ‘āv.’
Figure 2: I drew this Hebrew word ‘āv’ in Inkscape. Sometimes a custom font can really set a piece of graphic design off.
Body:
The Hebrew word for ‘father’ is:
אָב
Which is pronounced:
/ʔaːv/ , /ʔa:v/
, and which can be transliterated as:
‘āv’
.
In Phoenecian, or “Paleo-Hebrew” it is spelt:
Figure 3: The Phoenician, or Paleo-Hebrew word for ‘father.’ Pictographically, it is said to mean ‘the strength of the house;’ ‘the leader of the house.’
According to this intriguing website on Ancient Hebrew this word, pictographically, means ‘the strength of the house;’ ‘The leader (aluph)[1] of the house (beith).’ The site master says that in Classical Hebrew thought, each person was said to be blessed with three fathers:
a biological father: ‘the strength of a household;’ ‘the leader of a household;’
a priest: the ‘leader of the house of God’
God: ‘the leader of the Universe.’
In Biblical Hebrew, ‘the patriarchs;’ or ‘the fathers;’ or ‘Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;’ are called the:
In classical Hebrew, a little goes a long way. By our learning of the word, אָב or ‘āv,’ we have gained a more or less implicit understanding of Ancient-Hebrew and Phoenician culture, as regards how they view concepts such as God, patriarchy and fatherhood.
Maths and Comedy 