<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Micha Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In languages other than Hebrew. And I think that's all we're talking<br>
about. IOW, Adam's speech was in a predecessor to Hebrew as much as a<br>
predecessor to Aramaic or to proto-SinoTibetan. However, the semitic<br>
languages drifted less than others, anchored by Sheim and by proximity<br>
to Hebrew which had no supernatural drift.<br>
<br>
All of the above (except for one idea from RSRH) is mine. Feel free to<br>
argue me out of the notion, or into making the idea more robust. Please.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div><br>
Tir'u baTov!<br>
-Micha<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br>Forgive me, but should we not first take all the evidence into account before blending modern hypotheses with traditional teachings? Any desire to uphold a literal understanding of the Flood and the Dispersion, must answer how it is that Hebrew as spoken in even in ancient times seems descended from other languages and bears resemblance to languages spoken in those parts of the world with the oldest human remains...in Africa, not the Levant.<br>
</div></div></div>