Talk:Eber

Untitled
So how did User:Zestauferov delete all the wrangling that went on in this space? Makes the whole thing as fresh as if it never happened! Wetman 06:59, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * They're at Talk:Heber. Sheesh. His monomania to shove his home-brewed theories down our Wikipedian throats is almost enough to make me ask my doctor for a prescription of Xanax. -- llywrch 01:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Is this why we can't consolidate Heber and Eber?User:Jjzeidner
 * "Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."


 * I think maybe you need it. What exactly are you accusing me of Home brewed this time? Please be specific. This accusation against me comes up a lot from you two e.g. Habiru, sea-peoples, Poenites, Hetto-Iberians, but each time you are shown to be nothing more than throwing insults at me because i know something cocerning areas of study which you yourselves do not know. then you finaly shut up and move on to yet another one of my postings just to mouth-off and self-gratify each other. So please be specific I won't run away. If you can point out why something should be removed here politely and calmly I will oblige.Zestauferov 07:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not running away from your responses, I'm trying to track you down & get you to provide sources for the material you contribute, Zestauferov. I've asked you for references in the past, & either you ignore my requests or reply in a condescending manner "obviously you cannot read French, Russian or Georgian". And the few times you have quoted references, they are to controversial writers (like David Rohl) or to dated sources (like Flinders Petrie), & even then are recast to conform to your own idiosyncratic theories of race. Which you insist on inserting into Wikipedia under your own unique interpretation of NPOV. -- llywrch 19:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * yes yes you are like a record on the skip when it comes to stating how much you disagree with me. Back to the point. what is wrong with this article now. Be specific.Zestauferov 02:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You wanted specific objections to this article? Here they are:

Eber & Hebrews
1.The name Eber appears 3 times in the Bible (twice in Genesis, once in 1 Chronicles), where he is said to be the son of Peleg & Joktan. Where does it say he was the father of the Hebrews? Please provide citations from the text.


 * -You astound me! Everybody knows this. It is common knowledge. Ask any Rabbi who the father of all Hebrews is.Zestauferov 14:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * If it is "common knowledge", then you should be able to offer a citation, yes?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=REAL-tb&q=%22Hebrews+eber%22

Cutting & pasting URLs is about as much time I am going to devote to satisfying your singling out me to proove common knowledge. Perhaps someone else who has more time & sympathy for you (I don't ask for support in my vindication) will indulge you with references from literature. Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that I had to be more explicit. Where in the Bible does it say that Eber was the father of the Hebrews?  The first ten links that this Google search returns all state that it is assumed -- most likely based on similarity of names -- that Eber was the founder of the Hebrew people. And if we accept this conclusion, then what are we to do with Abram/Abraham, who Genesis later devotes so much space to, whose offspring is explicitly said at various places (e.g. Gen. 15:18-21) will father the Hebrew people?


 * If you want to claim that Eber was the actual founder & that Abram/Abraham was a myth,  then you need to provide citations of the scholars who argue this. Otherwise, you are expressing just an opinion, or original research -- which is not Wikipedia's intent.

Are you ok? The first ten hots make no such statements as anyone reading this can verify. In fact it is only the Jewishencyclopaedia which tries to make a distinction between Pelegs descendants and Joktan's. But why are we talking only about the first ten? We should be talking about the majority and the result of the majority is clear. Abraham himself is called a Hebrew. I don't have to proove this everyone knows it except obvioisly the sect which you belong to. You are the one trying to proove The so-called descendants of Eber are not all Hebrews. Well I am sorry you obviously have issues with this which touch a very sensitive part of your faith and I am not going to play anymore games with you on this one.

In Biblical tradition it is Eber and not Abram who is the eponymous ancestor of all Hebrews. This is a statement of universally recognised fact.

I would have thought your sect would have welcomed my use of the word Eberite for Eber's descendants since it allows you two words to distinguish the Proto-Hebrews from the Hebrew descendants of Abram. Zestauferov 00:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Term "Eberite"
2.How do we get from Eber to Eberites in the third sentence? This is where I suspect you have done nothing more than regurgitated your idiosyncratic racial theory about the Heberites & the ancient Hebrews. From this poiont forward this paragraph & the next is irrelevant to this article (which barely even explains who the Biblical Eber was). Does anyone besides you & this [ http://www.stormfront.org /rpo/RACISM.htm possibly racist article] use the term "Heberite"? If so, please provide names & publications.


 * -The standard convention for making a nation out of a patriarch's name given in the Bible is to add an -ITE suffix. Heth becomes Hittite, Canaan becomes Canaanite Ham becomes Hamite, the list goes on and on. Eberite is the English term used commonly on the web, Heberite is the french form of the same but it has also been used to refer to Habiru. It is fair to say that Heberite seems fairly obsolete these days even in French. Hence I replaced the Heberite article with Eberite when this point was raised to me. Zestauferov 14:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * So does anyone else use this term "Eberite" to refer to a distinct people other than you? Again, if so, please provide names & publications.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=REAL-tb&q=Eberite+OR+Eberites+-aspirant+-wikipedia

or more specifically

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=REAL-tb&q=Eberite+OR+Eberites+Eber+-aspirant+-wikipedia

Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * More datadumping. Under section 1 above, 3 of the first 10 links were to forums where anyone can talk to anyone about their beliefs; only 2 links (one to JewishEncyclopedia.com, another quoting Strong's Bible Dictionary) qualify as references; a clear sign Zestauferov didn't bother to check his own research.


 * The "more specific" link Zestauferov lists above is also an unchecked grab-bag of links, none of which support his usage to refer to a distinct proto-Hebrew people. In the first 10 hits listed, 2 are, again to forums where anyone can talk to anyone about their beliefs; however, a couple are to sites offering help to students studying their Hebrew, & offer some interesting information:

Noach discusses Gen. 10:21, where Eber appears for the first time in Genesis, & states "(Cf. Targum Yonathan; Ibn Ezra). Literally, 'the sons of Eber' (see Genesis 10:24, 11:14). In Hebrew, 'Hebrews' are Ivri'im, literally, 'Eberites,' or 'Sons of Eber.' Others, however, translate this verse, 'sons of all who live on the other side of the river' (Rashi; Ramban)." - In other words, there are some scholars who do not believe that Eber is the name of a personage.

Strong's Hebrew bible Dictionary lists two words of interest here:
 * "`eber - from '`abar' (5674); properly, a region across; but used only adverbially (with or without a preposition) on the opposite side (especially of the Jordan; ususally meaning the east):--X against, beyond, by, X from, over, passage, quarter, (other, this) side, straight."
 * "`Ibriy - the same as '`Ibriy' (5680); Ibri, an Israelite:--Ibri."

So one could argue that the similarity of Eber & Hebrew is coincidental.


 * I haven't asked a local rabbi yet, but it's easy for people who don't really know Hebrew to draw associations b/t names; there are so many words which could conceivably share three-letter word stems that it is hard to identify when a word comes from a proper noun, rather than from a verb/noun/adjective with the same root. Everyone mentions the possibility that the Hebrews were named for Eber; scholars are also sure to mention the possibility that the name just means "the region beyond" or "passed over [the river]".
 * Here is a Christian source noting that the more probable origin of the adjective is from Abraham having come from across the river. Easton's Bible Dictionary  This is what I learned in my classes on the Old Testament.  +sj+ 12:58, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)


 * Yes one could start an original theological thesis arguing that Eber & Hebrew were coincidental but it would be very uniqe (now who is guilty of original research & breaking Wiki conventions of most common usage etc?) and alwas viewed as fringe. Everyone can see you are clutching at straws now.


 * Yes there is no research here (why should I? I know the correct usage of the wordsas well as I know the correct useage of anu of the words you see here) I simply datadumped, maybe my contempt for your accusations was not clear enough from the section above? :o) The point is Eberite is a synonym for Hebrews but one which does not carry any connotations. If (as you claim) Abraham was the ancestor of the modern Hebrews then Eberite is a good term to use to refer to the Proto Hebrews, It is in this sense that the term Eberite should be used i.e. to refer to the greater-Hebrew family about which little of certainty can be said. Again we should not be looking at the first ten and given the fact Llywrch misinformed us about the link in the Eber & Hebrews section I recommend reading them for yourselves and making up your own mind.Zestauferov 00:47, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Eber's Location in Arpachschad
3.What does the sentence "Comming from the same area, both Eberites and Hurrians may have shared a common ancestral language" have to do with this Biblical figure? Has anyone besides you connected Eber with the Hurrians? If so, please provide names & publications.


 * -All of the patriarchs are identified with a region some of which are well testified others are all but lost. Again it is common knowledge that the region of Eber was to the north beyond the Euphrates. Also it no controversey that Abram was said to be in Haran with his people beforee moving south into Canaan. This is the Hurrian area. Now if you are criticising even my use of common knowledge I have no response for you but suggest you might be un-necessarily victimising me.Zestauferov 14:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Who locates "Eber" in any region? As I said above, I only know of three citations of Eber in the Old Testament. If anything, I would argue against locating that personage anywhere due to the gloss on his son, Peleg's name: "for in his days was the earth divided" (Gen. 10:25).

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=REAL-tb&q=Eber+%22beyond+the+flood%22+OR+%22Beyond+the+river%22


 * Every serious attempt to locate Eber has described a region beyond the flood (usually interpreted as the flood plains of the Euphrates) or beyond the river (i.e. Euphrates).
 * (NB: I don't think Eber was a region; just a man. +sj+)


 * Fair enough. Personally I don't think any of the National/Regional patriarchs mentioned on the table of nations were necessarily real people just archetypes. Anyway the names on the table of Nations are meant to represent nations whether settled or migratory. My point was that anyone treating Eber as a nation who has tried to pinpoint that nation's original location has looked to the meaning of the name and located them beyond the Euphrates flood-plainsZestauferov 15:02, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The only controversey is whether this is the north Euphrates or South Euphrates (which only began amongst Europeans after 1854 who deemed themselves beyond asking the opinion of locals in the Near East). The bible stated Abram came from Ur of the Kasids. Since Wooley's Ur was unknowm for millenia until 1854 we have to find another location. The only Ur associated with Abraham well known in the middle east is Urfa aka Edessa around which the Hurrians were numerous. Thanks to Josephus, Kasids (Kessed) are thought to be the same as Chaldeans. Chaldean is the old name for Aramaic still used by the Chaldean Christians. Urfa is in the vicinity of Old Aram-Naharain aka Syria. This is only written here to convince Western readers. The fact that Abram came from Urfa is common knowledge in the near East, even amongst Babylonian Sephardim, only European Ashkenazim (& european sephardim?) who were affected by western ideas started to consider wooley's Ur as possibly the original location of Abram's tribe. If you reject this and support Wooley's Ur then Abram's people who arrived there "from the east" must have at least spoken an eastern language related to sumerian and elamite.


 * If you reject all this then at least we can still all agree that Abram's people came from the east and then to an unknown UR-Kasidim and then to Haran which is still beyond the flood (north Euphrates) and is still in what was Hurrian country. Even Assyria & Babylonia refered to Aram-Naharain as Eber-Nauri (Abar Nahara). The Point it Eber is beyond the flood whether you are looking at it from a location to the south east or south west of the Euphrates. Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Still more data-dumping. This is getting tiresome. If Zestauferov cannot be bothered to provide the name of an author, the title & date of her/his publication, who expresses the thesis he has been pushing here perhaps it is because none exists.

More Shirking.Zestauferov 01:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * All I read here is his own theory that Eber has something to do with the Hurrians, based on grabbing evidence from different authors & subjecting it to his own treatment. Again, Wikipedia is not the place for original reseach.

Well the quality of your reading skills is something you hve brought into question long before now.Zestauferov 01:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * And again you cite "common knowledge". Would I be this skeptical if I had heard even one word of this theory? If this is repeated frequently in numerous publications, then it would not be hard for you to offer a reference that fully explains your position & vindicates you. And your claim that this is "common knowledge" contradicts your assertions elsewhere that you know facts that others (such as I) do not know. Obviously I do not know this; can you assume other people know this? (And saying that my skepticism is "un-necessarily victimising" you is unconsciousable: I am trying to learn what your sources are. And if you wilt like this in every argument, maybe I ought to stop answering your posts.)


 * You are not trying to learn uless you really are one of the most ignorant of people who express an interest in reading about Levantine history. I suggest you be honest with yourself and realise that whether you are conscious f it or not you are on a campaign against me and this is obviiously why your skepticism is synicle with regards to me. I suspect though that you have heard of everything I have written about so far but in the last case at least that you are trying to use me to do the source referencing for you (I cannot imagine what your game is concerning Eber & Hebrews or Eber & Eberite though). My comments here are based upon what every "sunday school" kid should learn, but my comments in other places e.g. on Hetto-Iberians require specialist reading. The fact that you do not know something leaves no impression on my opinion of what others may think.Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I am asking for references, & you respond with statements like, "you really are one of the most ignorant of people who express an interest in reading about Levantine history".

Yes I think we can read it above. Despite the truth of the statement I can see now that it was hurtful for me to sayso. I should not have let myselfe be BADGERED into letting something like that slip out. It is very difficult for me to keep cordial when I have to deal with someone like you. I am sure any readers will agree (if not please comment here). Once again I appologise for hurting your feelings.


 * This is an ad hominem attack, pure & simple.

And how many attacks have you launched against me? Like I mentioned before I have lost count. It certianly seems like you believe you represent wiki more than me in the way you are so free with your accusations. Don't you know that adminship is no-big-deal? You only have it because they know how to track you down and know that you are not going to abuse your rights to commit vandalism. Why don't you stop wasting your time NITPICKING and get on with real admin duties before someone nominates you for de-adminship.Zestauferov 01:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * If asked to substantiate anything I said was "common knowledge", at the very least I could say "I saw it in last week's newspaper" or "it was in something I read a few years ago; give me a little time & I will provide the reference." Since I admit that these are unsatisfying answers, I avoid adding anything to Wikipedia unless I can find a reference for it, & have corrected myself when I find I misremember information. Any other answer suggests that "common knowledge" is another way of saying "I think it's right but I can't be bothered to look it up."

No it means "Everyone knows this" and I even provided you with some links to proove the usage of the words which is more than you deserve. I will make a promise that if 20 people will confirm that I have not provided good enough answers to you criticisms here. I will delete all my work and leave wiki. Is that good enough for you?Zestauferov 01:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to get you to leave(!), but it seems to me that you have avoided answering criticisms. For instance: a work such as Wikipedia naturally has trouble with authenticity.  Its goal is both to inform and to provide links to external verification; it is not enough to do only one or the other. You get agitated when others ask you for such links, rather than responding respectfully. +sj+
 * In my own defense Sj I am not usually so agitated and I have been trying to be civil in the face of increasing abuse from Llywrch since November. I don't expect you to believe me but I could not let this pass without defending myself. If you look on this page you will see I am sorry for my aggitation, and am ready to overlook all of Llywrch's insults if he accept my appologies. Zestauferov 15:34, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All about Eber and &#1506;&#1489;&#1512;

 * And since you raise the question, "I cannot imagine what your game is concerning Eber & Hebrews or Eber & Eberite", I will answer it for you. It's a fact that many scholars...And priests and rabbis and clerics for thousands of years...of the book of Genesis have assumed, based on similarity of names, And the fact that Gen10:21 singles out Shem on account of the significance of the children of Eber which would otherwise not be understood. And on account of the grammatical useage in Hebrew that "EVRI" (i.e. Hebrews) means "of EVR". (And no I don't have to proove this either it is common knowledge to anyone who knows hebrew, just as ALL of this info is common knowledge to anyone who studies Judaic traditions.) Zestauferov 01:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I am greatly interested in Judaic traditions, and I know biblical Hebrew. This is not exactly 'common knowledge'.  "EVRI" could mean "of EVR", but it could also mean "of the passing over", or "[who] passed over"; it could mean many other things as well. +sj+ 12:58, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)
 * I am charmed to know you have devoted time to learning Hebrwe, but am very surprised you have never learned that (&#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497;-&#1506;&#1461;&#1489;&#1462;&#1512;) children of Eber is a synonym for Hebrews. Of course EVRI has mvarious meanings but as you know everything in Hebrew is context dependent and we were talking about EVRI as the nation and our Yeshiva teachers teach that (regardless of what the actual meaning might be) &#1506;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; and &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497;-&#1506;&#1461;&#1489;&#1462;&#1512; are synonymous. I think I am allowed to be offended when someone infers our teachers are wrong and belittles the value of our traditions aren't I. Afterall who would be concerned about &#1506;&#1461;&#1489;&#1462;&#1512; more than us?Zestauferov 15:34, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * &#1489;&#1468;&#1456;&#1504;&#1461;&#1497;-&#1506;&#1461;&#1489;&#1462;&#1512;, written with vowels, clearly means "children of &#1506;&#1461;&#1489;&#1462;&#1512;", and is indeed synonymous with &#1506;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501;. However, it is unclear whether "&#1506;&#1461;&#1489;&#1462;&#1512;" refers to a proper noun like a name, or whether it is an adjective.  To make things more complicated, the original text is without vowels... and &#1506;&#1489;&#1512; is used more often in the Bible to mean "from afar"  or "beyond" than it is used as the name a specific person or place.  So a prevalent belief is that &#1506;&#1460;&#1489;&#1456;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;&#1501; refers to the fact that those people had arrived from the country beyond the river.  This is what I was taught, for instance.
 * Also, this was a description used only by foreigners to refer to the tribes; they referred to themselves as Israelites.
 * Israelites only make up one group of the Children of Eber. And Children of Eber is a synonym for Hebrews. That is How Abraham andAram of two Nahors (Aram-Naharaim) can be called Hebrew in the Torah.Zestauferov 15:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * ...that Eber was the founder of the Hebrews. And they say nothing more. To say more is to discuss the conflicting statement...

Conflicting statement? Obviously you mean biblical statement since you are going on about "where in the bible" again and again and are obviously very opposed to common usage.
 * Can you detail for me where you are quoting the conflicting statement you post below from?
 * Can you even give me a datadump on people who argue that "to say more is to discuss this conflicting statement{posted belo}" so I can see which scholarly circles you are refering to?
 * Go on, as an administrator set a good example for me.Zestauferov 01:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * ...that "Abram/Abraham was the founder of the Hebrew people" -- not only better known, but from whom the Jewish & Muslim religions trace their origins. It is not to start inventing from whole cloth some theory about proto-Hebrew peoples, whose existence is not postulated by anyone else.

Eberite is a term which replaces the term Hebrew when refering to the greater (Chaldean) Hebrew family from which Abraham came. This is because as you have proven some people believe the word Hebrew refers only to Abram's descendants and hence that word has connotations.Zestauferov 01:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Alarodian Languages
4.You assert "It is clear that Hurrian-related languages show some affinity with Caucasian languages like that of the Avars." Why do you say "it is clear" when you have not offered any evidence, nor any authorities to prove this theory -- or even suggest that this theory is believed by anyone except you?


 * -Please do some reading about Alarodian languages and you will see what I mean.Zestauferov 14:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not the one making this claim; you are. The burden of proof rests on you.


 * There is no claim here. It is a fact. Hurrian is an Alarodian language and so is Avar. If anything the comment as it is is a little weak. There is nothing to proove thus the "burden" (if there is any) is upon YOU to read and increase your knowledge not upon me to hold your hand and teach you everything. What you are trying to do is steal an education from me through very poor arguments. Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Zestauferov! The goal of an encyclopedia is to "steal and education" from its contributors and offer it to any and every person who reads the encyclopedia.  What part of this process do you dislike?


 * The part where I ham expected to spend my freetime supplying on demand instead of looking after my baby. I enjoy Wiki as a hobby but it is not my job. I supply the refs if they are really needed when I can. As you can see I have edited the Hurrian & Hebrew relationship section following Llywrch's criticism. In time it will be completed. Zestauferov 16:06, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You are avoiding the question. Classifying Hurrian as an Alarodian language is a theory, which I assume is based on evidence -- uniform sound changes that indicate words are related, similar grammatical structures, etc. If you knew what you were talking about, you could point to items like these; instead you are content to make sweeping arguments, & hiding behind phrases like "What you are trying to do is steal an education from me".


 * Oh ok I get it. You want me to put a comment about Alarodian languages in the article to substanciate this claim. Ok it is done. Bare in mind all language families are only hypothetical, hence I don't like to mention them as fact. But if it will make you happy.Zestauferov 01:29, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is the hypothetical nature of these language families that makes it difficult to make any claims about them. Your presentation of such claims as clear may not be appropriate here. +sj+ 12:58, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)

The relationships are clear, it is just that I don't like referring to groupings of languages under a simplified and as you rightly put it hypothetical label like Alarodian or Indo-European etc.. But I did not think this article is the right place to go into a ditailed exposition of the clear relationships between "Alarodian" languages.Zestauferov 15:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Eberites in Arabia and Beyond
5.You again assert "Many Eberites were dispersed among northwestern Afro-Asiatic peoples such as the Canaanites and Arabs." Same questions as above: who believes this, what is the evidence, please provide names & publications.


 * -Common sense if it were not the case how come Hebrew is a canaanite dialect? Ask a rabbi why some Arabian tribes and place names are the same as some of the names listed as descendants of Eber.Zestauferov 14:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * This time, your source is "common sense". I am asking for the names of authorities, & their publications. If one of your students offered "common sense" as an item in her/his bibliography, would you allow that? llywrch


 * Please read through the links posted above. Or better still

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&client=REAL-tb&q=arab+OR+arabs+OR+arabic+Eberite+OR+Eberites+Eber+-aspirant+-wikipedia


 * And what about Yemenite or Ethiopian Jews? Aren't they also Eberites? I avoid the term Hebrew because of its linguistic connotations. The fact is that not all Hebrews speak Hebrew nor necessarily did they have to have spoken Hebrew at some tim ein the past to be Hebrews. Even those who have never practiced Judaism are traditionally still Hebrews by descent alone.


 * You are the one lacking knowledge so it is up to YOU to increase your knowledge. I am not paid to teach you anything. All contribution to Wiki is voluntary either it is appreciated and kept or regarded as suspect and deleted (something which is recognised as much to easy to do at the moment though I belive Jimbo has some plans about how to solve the problem with deletionists).User:Zestauferov


 * Odd, I thought a Jew had to learn Hebrew to celebrate their Bar Mitzvah.
 * Don't you know Hebrew was a dead language for more than 1000 years used only ceremonially?Zestauferov 01:54, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * And this is the first I had heard that neither the Yemenite or the Falasha Jews could not understand Hebrew. And if you want to argue a racial theory in regards to Judaism:
 * Dd I say that? But come to think of it I don't know if anyone but their spiritual leaders understand it or not. Zestauferov 01:54, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * anyone can convert to Judaism (so Jew states) -- it is a religion, after all; &
 * the Falashas are of interest because they are ethnically not related to any other Jewish groups, like the Ashkenazi and Sephardic.

Are we getting off subject here? I take it you are just avoiding saying thankyou for the lesson. Anyway now you know about the Arabic & Hebrew connection.Zestauferov 01:54, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hurrian influences in Hebrew
6.You again assert "Records of the Hurrian Language remain to this day, though the Eberite language is lost, remaining only as the dialectical differences Hebrew has from other Canaanite dialects." How can we be certain of anything said about a language that is lost? If there are Hurrian borrowings in Hebrew, what are they? Please provide examples, & the scholars (their publications) who offered them as samples.


 * -Ok fair comment I cannot list all the numerous borrowings in Hebrew from Hurrian nor list what these words might have originally sounded like in purer Canaanite dialects. I do not know the names of any English books which can give such details. However if you leave the comment in the article it is very possible that someone who does know will add some relevant info. So why not just put a comment next to it asking for details. Someone is sure to oblige eventually and help make Wiki encyclopaedic entries superior to others.Zestauferov 14:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Because this is not how Wikipedia works; we report facts & the opinions & theories of other people.


 * No because I do not have access to any copies of such academic papers with me in my part of the world right now. Off the top of my head I think I remember the root NHR meaning sparkle is a loan into Nuzi Akkadian and subsequently into Assyrian and Hebrew from Hurrian also I think DWD whence derives the name David but I may be totally wrong in these since it is only a vague memory. As I come to think of it this may have been from Myths of Power by Nick Wyatt which deals mainly with cultural influences.Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) Actually I have my list now. Wyatt talks a little about the influences, but the main body I am thinking of is from Hurrian: Studies in Hurrian Grammar, E.A. Speiser, Pennsylvania U. Also Mirjo Salvini, The Habiru prism of King Tunip-Teššup of Tikunani. Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, Rome (1996).


 * I honestly don't know what to say here. Based on your responses above, why should I believe that these "academic papers" ever existed?

Or on the otherhand why shouldn't you?Zestauferov 01:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Our own theories & opinions should not appear here, although some wiggle-room is allowed on occasion. However, after seven pointed questions, you supply a source for part of one of your statements, admit another is a guess on your part, cite "common knowledge" or "common sense" for three & fail to answer the question for the last two. This is not wiggling, this is roaming all over the place!


 * No its called genuinely believing you were not that ignorant. And the above is no guess. Only one 1 of your 7 questions does not have an obvious answer. Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Avars & Hebrews
7.In the next paragraph you claim that "The legend that Avars might have originally been descendants of Eber in the Caucasus with Abraham's third wife Keturah in their ancestry does not jarr aganst biblical traditions." Where does this legend come from? Is it from the Caucasus, from the Talmud, or from South Russia? Who recorded this legend, & where is it published? To my knowledge, the Bible does not say any of Abraham's wives had children by his ancestor five generations previous. (My calculation of the ages & life spans in Genesis 11 show that while Eber died in Abraham's 31st year of age, Abraham didn't take Hagar as his second wife until he was 86, per Gen.16:16.)


 * -The suggestion that the Avar-Huns descend from the Biblical Patriarch Eber (also written &#1506;&#1489;&#1512;) via Abraham's third wife Keturah whose descendants had moved to Central Eurasia is mentioned in the 12thC. "Chronicles of Jerahmeel" by Jerahmeel ben Solomon. And where on earth did you get the idea that Keturah married Eber? Abraham was a descendant of Eber Abraham married Keturah Avars are said to be Eberites descended from Keturah.Zestauferov 14:45, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Finally, after seven pointed questions we see a source. Unfortunately, the only thing I can find about this Jerahmeel ben Solomon is that (according to JewishEncyclopedia.com) is that he revised a chronicle called Sefer Yosippon based on Josephus, & Amazon shows that there is an out-of-print edition of his Chronicles. In any case, this appears to be a medieval Jewish legend, and you have not shown how it "does not jarr aganst biblical traditions". By "biblical traditions", one assumes you are talking about the Old or New Testament (or perhaps the Apocrypha, but I would change that); if that is not the case, then this sentence should read something like: "A medieval Jewish legend, first recorded by the 12th century scholar Jerahmeel ben Solomon, traces the ancestry of the Avars back to Eber."


 * But then that would not a good parralel would it? The legend is that they descend from Keturah and since Abraham was her husband they are also descended from Eber. It does not jarr because there is nothing in the Tanakh & Mishnah to contradict this. Indeed I have heard that the legend that the sons of Keturah occupied central asia originally comes from the Mishnah.Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * As for the idea of a marriage or sexual union between Ketruah & Eber, it came from your statement. As it stands, it gives me the impression that the Avars are the descendants of their son or sons. I can't be blamed for not understanding due to the quality of your English.


 * My English skills or your English? As far as I can tell all of our conflicts have come from the fact that you are not a very careful reader. Which probably explains why you prefer to have everything spoonfed to you on a silver (preferably available in english through amazon) reference to take away any suspicions.Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Your English skills, which is clearly not your native language. And I refuse to address the rest of your statement, & engage in tossing insults back at you.


 * Well I doubt you have any second language skills as good as my English.Zestauferov 02:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Zestauferov, you claim to be well-read in a number of works that I -- & others on Wikipedia -- do not have access to. If you are to refer to them, then it is only to your credit to share your knowledge of them in a manner that we can verify your contributions. If you are not willing to share knowledge of them, then I am forced to conclude that they only exist in your imagination. And based on your previous claims in the way of references, if these publications are not in English, I also insist on you providing an abstract explaining the arguments of the author. -- llywrch 20:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You are judging unscientifically on a fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are thousands of comments given on Wiki without reference to augment an idea. Later they are expanded sometimes by the one who wrote it and sometimes by others. If people like you were running wiki from the start it would never have grown to what it is today. A snippet here a hearsay there, later someone corrects with the source. Unfortunately it is also common that people who do not realise their own knowledge may be incomplete also correct the same snippets sometimes by deleting them, or as you did with the Avar example above mis-quoting them. I do put in my sources whenever I have time and or access to them. You and those like you need to be patient more and to pounce less (you could cut down on the fallacy-based insulting accusations too, I have lost count of those I have recieved now, and I only started posting here at wiki in good faith. Anyone can see that I have never deleted any POV in favour of expanding it perhaps overcompensating sometimes to achieve a true NPOV and being occasionally criticised for writing style resulting from an attempt to be inclusive).Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Zestauferov, obviously you have not entirely answered my request for adequate proof of sources -- although you provided responses to two of my seven questions that show you understand what I am looking for. Would you like to try again? -- llywrch 18:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Llywrch would you like to try writing in a less authoritarian/condescending manner? (for all I know you might just be a very well read 18 year old!) Would you like to appologise for unjustly baring down on me resulting in an unnecessary waste of both of our time? Would you like to appologise for insulting me time and again? I will take back any comments which have hurt you if you will do the same. The only reference missing here now is the one for Hurrian influences inthe Hebrew language. Given time it will arise.Zestauferov 05:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Check your English dictionary, Zestauferov: expressing sketpicism & criticism is not the same as being insulting. I have treated you exactly as my professors treated me in college some 20-odd years ago, asking you to defend your position. In return, all I have received from you are an increasing amount of insults, wafflings &, frankly, intellectual dishonesty. You demand an apology (that is how the word is spelled) from me? That is a clear example of an "authoritarian/condescending manner". -- llywrch 20:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Who made you my professor?

Read again there are no demamds only questions.

I waffle only as much as you do. I apologise when I think I have hurt you (which is more than I can say for you).

Accusing me of intellectual dishonesty is not an insult? What exactly are you refering to the Hurrian influences in Hebrew?

And if you haven't noticed there are a lot more typos than that in my postings.Zestauferov 02:11, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I see no further point in this exchange. In response to my questions, Zestauferov failed to substantiate at any point that this racial theory about the Eberites/Heberites is held by anyone except for himself -- or even acknowledge that it is a theory. His responses evade my questions, hurl abuse & insult at me when I repeated press for useful answers, & claim insult where there is none, & hurl abuse & insult because I do not accept his statements without skepticism. He undoubtedly will claim this a victory, but it is obviously clear to the rest of Wikipedia why he would delude himself with such a fallacious conclusion. -- llywrch 19:07, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, LLywrch -- these theories are clearly prevalent in some communities; they are not "original research"; Zest didn't come up with them to write this article. On the other hand, the people holding these theories may not be serious biblical scholars.  An amateur linuist/biblical historian could come up with these theories based on knowledge of the bible and cursory linguistic analysis; something like a linguist's version of bible codes.  Geographic/historical correlaries are similarly easy to come up with based on lots of reading, lots of free-form pattern matching, and "common sense".  Again, this does not mean that serious biblical scholars would come up with the same opinions.
 * My feeling is that Old Testament scholars in general do not hold the views espoused in this and related articles. It is also clear from some of Zest's references that a significant body of English-speakers, who chat about Biblical history, messianism, and armageddon theories online, do hold some or all of these views.  I can only guess that this is true among non-English speakers as well.
 * Given the difficulty in saying anything definitive about Biblical scholarship or ancient history, I think we should be especially careful in including detailed references for any articles about such topics. +sj+ 12:58, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)

I could not have said it better (I would have done if I could). And many thanks to you for the work on the page. Though I do feel your NPOV comes accross as over belittling unnecessarily the Hebrew perspective pertaining to the Children of Eber (בְּנֵי-עֵבֶר). Thankyou again for your work.Zestauferov 15:58, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is YOU who is obsessed by race. I have never brought up any racial theory. There is only one race -the HUMAN race. Read again, I have more than adequately supplied answers to all of your 7 points except one (Hurrian Influences in Hebrew) which I see others on Wiki have also heard of but if it bothers you so much I will remove reference to it until such time as I can find a quote. There was no competition here for anyone to win, I asked for you to cease accusing me of making things up in a general sense and point out specifics for me to deal with. You pointed out 7 which is the first time you have ever been specific, I expolained the sources and conceeded to inability to supply a source at present for one. You refused to open your eyes to the sources because it upset your faith. Also on the Hurrian & Hebrew point instead of being as gracious as I had been you took it as an opportunity to discredit me. Finally I conceed to take it away if it bothers you so much until such time as I can find the source for it. in the process you dish out insults and I fail to refrain from reciprocation, though I am as I have mentioned in the post before last ever willing to over look these and get on working with you on making a good encyclopaedia with all the other more tollerant Wikipedians.

However it seems you have successfully enticed your admin buddy Josh Cherry to VfD this page and along with it all evidence of your bad grace so you don't need to worry about a thing. Nice little circle of admin abuse going on here I think. Zestauferov 04:23, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Deciphering Truth From Fiction - About Eber
If one know Bible truths, one will be able to decipher truth from fiction with respect to religious materials and the Bible. The genealogy in the Bible is accurate and the story of Noah is one where Noah refers to God as being "the god of Shem." It is Shem, whose faith in God, apparently is approved and it is from Shem whom Abram descends. Eber is in the line of Abram, about six generations prior to Abram. The term Hebrew comes from the name Eber. The name Eber and Heber or not identical and therefore not the same. Both names occur in different time periods and both have different meanings. Originally, descendants of Eber were called Eberites. Later, that was mistakenly changed to Hebrews. Originally descendants of Eber looked to Shem as their forefather or family patriarch and, as time and tribal groupings change, new associations form and people branch-off idealogically. Descendants of Eber would call themselves, possibly, Shemites. Later, other descendants of Shem would separate themselves from and call themselves Eberites and so goes mankind and world history. Descendants of Jobab, great-grandson of Eber, for example, go by the surname of Jo and still, today, refer to themselves as Shemites or as Hebrews in today's world.

Notation: I, Lester D.K. Chow, posted this article using a pseudonym "Eber's Son". I am an actual descendant of Eber and I have the genealogy records to show that I am.

Eber's Son 08:07, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

ERROR noted
I've noted an error in this article. "Shem, the father of all the Children of Eber" is NOT Gen 10:10 in ANY translation. It is Genesis 10:21.

Hammurabi
I changed the identifier of Eber with Hammurabi to Charles N. Pope, as it was not Ahmed Osman who did it, rather, Mr. Pope was just basing his theory on Mr. Osman's.

Hello, If Charles N Pope is not Ahmed Osman writing with double Identities, may I ask who Charles N Pope is and where can we find his biography? Thank You.Observer HG13 (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Eber and the Tower of Babel
Does anyone have a source for saying that Eber and his family refused to build the Tower of Babel, and thus retained the original human language? I didn't see it in Genesis 11. Kebis 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hūd and Eber
Since there is no basis for the claim that Hūd and Eber are the same, I will remove the following statement "The Qur'an discusses a prophet named Hud who was sent to the people of 'Ad (عاد). He may be the same person as Eber." from the main article. Xevorim (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hud seems to actually be the same as Heber, a minor Genesis character. Though the Hud article itself states he may not seem identifiable with any Bible prophet and a purely Arab mythology figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.80.127 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Roots
This important map http://restorationlibrary.org/library_restoration/AOBH/AOBH_016_A.jpg can explain where the descendants of Israelites came from and this map http://www.jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/sitebuilder/images/Map_to_Graves-691x418.jpg also support the future research. Long times ago before Ramayana, Yayati's sons Anu and Turvasu migrated from east to the west, from whom arose the Yavana and Turvk. After the Mahabharata Yadava and Abhira also migrated there from India. The word Yadava became Yada, while Abhira became Habhir (Eber) (Latin: Hebrew). Bocah anon (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any peer-reviewed material by modern, accredited scientists who actually have kept track of the past century of anthropological and genetic studies, and who have given up on nationalistic biases? Because the material you're presenting doesn't look like that. You have a map from a Sunday school in 1880 (before any real study of genetics had begun, and at a time when all anthropological study had nationalistic, even racist, biases), and a map from a tourist trap.  Those don't amount to any sort of evidence.  You also don't have any hard evidence for your attempted etymologies, there's nothing to show they aren't false cognates. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing
I found this blog that has a lot of information about Eber, I am kind of new to editing, would this be a worthwile source to quote:

como conquistar a una mujer

If so let me know and I will go ahead and do the work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.115.1 (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Eber and Avar clarification
Indo-European language-culture developed in Anatolia around the 6th or 7th Millenia BC(Quentin Atkinson) and also that the Semitic Language developed in the area of what is now Syria and Lebanon approximately 3500-4000BC. 'Avar' in the ancient Language of the mittani means 'fertile' or 'productive' as in the land and agricultural past. Eber is either the Semitic name for the Mittani Avar or it is a loan word into the Semitic language from the Ancient Mittani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsavari23 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ancestors of Eber (בני-עבר)
Are there any modern day ethnic groups or religious societies (other than Jewish Hebrews and Muslims) that claim descent genetically and/or culturally from the Prophet Eber? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)