English Was Derived From The Ancient Hebrew
A common objection raised against the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic peoples being Israel is that they cannot possibly be Israelites because the Israelites always wrote from right to left, whereas we write form left to right. Thus Mr. George Goodman, in his pamphlet against Anglo-Israel Identity, states, “It is impossible to conceive of a nation changing its method of writing in so radical a manner.”
This objection is based upon an ignorance of actual facts as history provides at least two instances of nations having so changed their method of writing in this “radical manner.”
It is an acknowledged fact that the early Greeks wrote from right to left, but many years later they wrote form left to right as they still do today. At one period between the use of these two methods of writing they wrote alternately from right to left and left to right. This form of writing was known as “Boustrophedon.” The Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th Edition, Volume III, page 972, states:
“Boustrophedon: A term descriptive of a peculiar form of writing common among the early Greeks. The direction of writing was alternately right to left and left to right in horizontal lines, or conversely, left to right and right to left. It was a transition between the earlier right to left writing and the later left to right style. The term was derived from two Greek words meaning ‘ox’ and ‘to turne,’ from the resemblance of the writing to the winding course taken by oxen in ploughing.”
Even more important for the case, however, is the evidence brought to light by archaeological discovery and referred to by sir Charles Marston. As he states in his book, “The Bible Comes Alive:”“The Israelites had, from the time of Moses onwards, at least three alphabetical scripts. First, what is known as Sinai Hebrew; next, what is known as Phoenician Hebrew; and lastly, after the captivity in Babylon, what is known as the Assyrian Hebrew.” (Page 8, 1938 Edition, page 7, 1944 Edition, The Bible Comes Alive)
Examples were discovered by archaeologists of the oldest of these, the Sinai Hebrew Script. The most important of these discoveries was that of a bowl of red pottery found in a tomb at Lachish in 1931. Across the outside of this bowl was an inscription painted in white letters. This inscription, in the Sinai Hebrew Script, was published in “The Times” of June 24, 1935, by Mr. J.L. Starkey.
Professor Stephen Langdon, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., F.B.A., late Professor Assyriology at Oxford University, wrote in a letter to “The Times” on October 5, 1935, with reference to this inscription: “the inscription as published in “The Times” should be inverted and read from left to right; for this was the original direction of writing in the Sinai Script.”
Thus is appears that not only the Greeks, but also the Israelites changed the direction of their writing. The fact that the Greeks changed their method of writing in this radical manner would provide a sufficient answer to the objection raised. How much more weighty still is the fact that the Israelites did actually change their method of writing in this way once, while still using the same language, how much less impossible is it to conceive of their having again changed their direction of writing after they had lost their Hebrew language and adopted the languages of the peoples among whom they moved during their banishment from Palestine. Thus a knowledge of the historical facts clearly solves this apparent but oft-repeated difficulty. (From The National Message, London, England) (The Lachish Red Bowl, by Bernard L. Bateson, Destiny The Magazine of National Life, July 1946, p. 228)
The English Language - Was Derived From The Hebrew. Professor Max Muller, in his lectures on language, having shown that several of our common English words are derived from the Sanscrit, it struck me to inquire, What would be the result of tracing the obligations of the English language to the Hebrew? And, having gone into this matter to some extent, I now believe that English is derived from the Hebrew.
Dean Alford supposes that the Celtic, Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, and Spanish jointly contribute some five percent of words to our native tongue. As the result of my inquiry I should be inclined to say that THERE ARE NOT MORE THAN FIVE PERCENT OF SAXON WORDS WHICH CANNOT BE TRACED TO HEBREW. I wish, however, not to theorize, but to present the reader with examples, from which he can deduce his own conclusions.
It is the object of the author in the following work, to show, that the Druids of the British Isles were the priests of a very ancient nation called Celtæ. That these Celtæ were a colony from the first race of people, a learned and enlightened people, the descendants of the people who escaped the effects of the deluge on the borders of the Caspian Sea. That they were the earliest occupiers of Greece, Italy, France, and Britain, arriving in those places by a route nearly along the 45th parallel of north latitude. Than, in a similar manner, colonies advanced from the same great nation, by a southern line through Asia, peopling Syria and Africa, and arriving at last, by sea, through the pillars of Hercules, at Britain. In the course of the work, the mode in which the ancient patriarchal religions, as well as those of Greece and Italy, were founded, will be pointed out, and the author flatters himself that he shall have much strengthened the foundations of rational Christianity. (It must be remembered, that the foundation is the substructure of a building, that upon which it stands, and not the upper stories or the ornamental parts. In the following work the author carefully avoids those figments which constitute orthodoxies and heresies, about which foolish man, at the instigation of the priests, persecutes and murders his brother) He will show, that all the languages of the western world were the same, and that one SYSTEM OF LETTERS, THAT OF THE ANCIENT IRISH DRUIDS, PERVADED THE WHOLE; WAS COMMON TO THE BRITISH ISLES AND GAUL, TO THE INHABITANTS OF ITALY, GREECE, SYRIA, ARABIA, PERSIA AND HINDOSTAN; and that one of the two alphabets (of the same system) in which the ancient Irish manuscripts were written, namely, the Beth-Luis-nion, came by Gaul, through Britain, to Ireland; and that the other, the Bobeloth, came through the Straits of Gibraltar.
In examining the very early histories of the Western parts of Europe, we every where meet with the monumental remains of a race of people called Druids. In many places the ruins of which I speak are of very great size, and, perhaps, in remote ages, have been highly ornamented and of great magnificence. Numbers of treatises have been written respecting them and their supposed founders by different people, each of whom in support of his particular system, has made important observations or collected curious original information. But these different works have been much dispersed, and many of them are very difficult to be obtained.
From a consideration of these circumstance I have been induced to entertain an opinion, that the subject is by no means exhausted, and that a general review of the whole might be interesting to the antiquarian public. I have flattered myself, that I possess some advantages which my predecessors have not enjoyed; among which, the opportunity of profiting by their observations is not the least. I have endeavored to avoid what I conceive to be their errors; and, particularly, to guard against a too great pruriency of imagination; a moot into which most people who have a taste for investigations of this kind are apt to fall. It has been my wish to draw a definite line of debarkation between facts which I conceive to stand on clear and unquestionable evidence, and deductions the result merely of theorizing speculations; without some indulgence in which, no improvement would ever take place, and all inquiries of this kind must be dull to the very last degree. By these means I have flattered myself with the hopes of producing a work which may be satisfactory to people who are above the vulgar prejudices of education; people who will not consider every thing to be absurd as a matter of course, merely because to them it is new: but people who will try the evidence, by the correct rules of reason and approved modern criticism.
As proofs of many important circumstances of these people will depend upon etymological researches, I am induced, in the first place, to submit to my reader a few observations respecting the origin of language. And here, in the very beginning, he may be inclined to think that I violate the rule I have just alluded to, for the regulation of my conduct in this discussion; but yet I hope that, by keeping the line between fact and theory well defined, he will not have much reason to complain. In order to get to the bottom of my subject better,
I have found it necessary to make a careful inquiry into the alphabets of several of the ancient languages, from which it is probable that the names of places or people connected with the ancient Druids may have been derived, and to make a comparison between them. This has led me to a speculation respecting the origin of written language itself. It is, indeed, merely a speculation; but as it is only advanced as such, I cannot think that it is an instance of aerial castle-building which may not be pardoned. Besides, it is closely connected with some reasoning upon certain facts which will be found quite original; and will be, I flatter myself, conclusive upon the antiquity of the letters of the Celtæ and their Druids in these countries. It seems to be of consequence to establish these facts in the first place, as, by that means, I shall be enabled without impropriety to assume rather a greater latitude in my range of investigation hereafter.
Probably at first the unlearned reader may be a little alarmed at the show of learning exhibited in the following tables of strange and ugly figures, drawn up in lines and placed in battle array. But when the first terror has subsided, he will find nothing that is difficult; and which, with mere school-boy learning, he will not easily understand. To comprehend the reasoning used in the following work, a knowledge of the languages in the tables of the different alphabets will not be necessary. A very little attention to the principle upon which I proceed, will enable any person to judge of the probability of the consequences deduced from the etymologies of the names of places and people which are used.
The English Language - Derived from the Hebrew, so says R. Govett in an old manuscript. From this point on the writings presented will be presented from his own words: Professor Max Muller, in his lectures on language, having shown that several of our common English words are derived from the Sanscrit, it struck me to inquire, What would be the result of tracing the obligations of the English language to the Hebrew? And, having gone into this matter to some extent, I now believe that English is derived from the Hebrew.
Section 1: I propose to give specimens of the derivation of our names of Animals from the sacred language.
What is the Hebrew name for the Hare? ARNHBit. (I give the letters simply; not according to the Masoretic pointing; adding in smaller type the vowels supplied). Now may not these letters at once hint to us, whence our name of an allied animal is derived? Reverse the order of the A and the R, and you have RANBIT, whence our word RABBIT evidently comes. What is the Hebrew for the terrible serpent, deceiver of our race? NaHHaS. Change the last letter to the foremost place, and you have our SNAKe. Hence too, by A prefixed, we get the Latin Anguis, and the Greek Echis, the letter N being dropped, as it is very often in Hebrew. If the Scripture be true, we might expect this word to be retained; and so it is. The Greek word for the viper is Aspis, whence our word Asp. It comes from the Hebrew ZP'A transposed; which also signifies a viper.
BOA, familiar to us as the name of the destroying Boa. The letters B, P, and F, are perpetually interchanged in their passage from one language to another. From the same Hebrew word comes our English "Eft," a small creature of the lizard kind. And probably the Latin VIPERA comes from the same root; the F or V being prefixed to the commencing vowel.
The Adder proceeds from 'ATaR, "to encircle," and is derived from its coiling itself into a series of circles. The Lion in Hebrew is LeBIAW. The B is dropped in English, Latin, and Greek. And we have Leo in Latin. Perhaps we might say that the B is transferred to the end, and becomes N. KITTEN? From the Hebrew QuiToN, which signifies "a little one." That which the Hebrews applied generally, we have, singularly enough, appropriated to the young of the cat alone. CAMEL? From the Hebrew GeMeL, which signifies the same animal. Here the G of the Hebrew becomes changed into the C or K of the English, Latin, and Greek.
What is the derivation of the word ELEPHANT? It comes from the Hebrew ELePH, which means an ox. But how is an elephant like an ox? I answer, the termination "ant" carries with it, most probably, the word which denoted the difference between it and the common ox. We naturally, on seeing a new creature, associate it with one familiar to us.
Some of the South Sea Islanders, as Williams has informed us, had never beheld a European, or the animals with which we are familiar. Hence, as he observes, "On seeing the goats, they called to their companions to come and look at the wonderful birds with great teeth upon their heads." So with us, "the cock of the woods" and "the wood-cock" are very different birds from the common barn-door cock. This same Hebrew word was the origin of the Greek Elaphos, 'a stag.' And it is very remarkable that we find the same combination of "ant," and "elaph" in the ANTELOPE. I am not clear what is the meaning of "ant."
The Hebrew SHOOR, and the Chaldee TOOR signify an ox; whence we obtain our English STEER. The name of the Jerboa arises from the Hebrew ZHeB'O, which means a hyena. The Chaldee adds the R. Our word BADGER is derived from the Hebrew 'ACBaR, which means a mouse. By transposition we have BACaR, whence "Badger" easily springs. GIRAFFE? From the Hebrew GaRaPH, which signifies "the neck;" and every one who has seen that creature, knows that its great peculiarity is the enormous elongation of its neck. GOAT and KID? From two different pronunciations of the Hebrew GiDI, which signifies that animal in the sacred tongue. Our expression "the giddy heights" perhaps springs from the remembrance of the lofty pinnacles of rock to which these creatures climb. The heights to which the mountain goats climb, produce in us the sensation of "giddiness." ZEBRA?
From the Hebrew ZeBI, which signifies a roe-buck. The "R" in the midst, and the "A" at the end come from the Chaldee, which frequently adds these letters. Indeed, the R occurs so often in English, where it is not found in the Hebrew, as to make it most probable that the Hebrew came to us through the Chaldee. The DOE clearly is traceable to the TOA, or antelope.
Section 2: Now turn to some examples of BIRDS. We have two names of birds spelt differently, but of the same radical base. COOT and KITE, These are off-shoots, I doubt not, from the Hebrew QuAT. (I retain the English letter Q to represent the Hebrew Koph or Quoph, though I suppose it was generally pronounced K). Probably also our CAT is derived therefrom, though whence the confusion arose, it would be difficult to determine, without the history of Genesis XI. The meaning of the Hebrew word is "the pelican," or cormorant.
The Hebrew speaks of a bird called INSOP. This is supposed to be a water-fowl of some kind. The Septuagint renders the word, ibis: our translators, "the great owl." But whatever its original signification, it is the parent of our word SNIPE, a bird fond of marshy places. This is an instance of the Saxon love of brevity. Two syllables in the Hebrew are contracted into on in English. This principle appears often.
DOVE? From the Hebrew DOoB; which signifies to murmur. The B was frequently pronounced V. Sometimes also it was changed into P and PH, as I have noted above. The SARROW is found in most parts of the old world. What is its Hebrew name? ZaPPOR. The Saxon word has manifestly spring from this.
The Z and P combine, the vowel is inserted after them, and the long O, which is Hebrew precedes the R, is set last: 'Sparrow.' The Latin name is another variation of the same letters: PASSER. Hence too the Greek Peristera, 'a dove.' PELICAN? From the Hebrew PeLeG, which signifies a stream or channel. it indicates, then, a water-bird: and it is well known, the Pelican obtains its food from the water. RAVEN derived? From the Hebrew 'ARaB. (I denote the Hebrew letter Ayin by an A or E or O with a comma, thus: 'A, 'E, or 'O). Transpose the two first letters, and add an N, which addition at the close is common in Hebrew, and you have RAVEN. Thence, too, our ROBIN.
The CROW (or Rook) takes his name from his perpetual "Caw-caw." His appellation is derived from the Hebrew QRAW, with a broad A, which means to call. The name "Rook" comes from the same letters transposed. Hence also come our words "cry," and "crew," a number of men whose names are called over, and who must answer to the call. A bird's "craw" comes from the Hebrew GeRaH, which signifies "the cud." We may often hear at nightfall, especially in the spring a harsh, reedy call of a single note, proceeding from the midst of the corn. This cry is uttered by the corn-CRAIN. Its name is derived from the Hebrew HRaiQ, which means the unpleasant sound produced by grinding or gnashing the teeth.
Now, as the genius of our language will not admit of "H" immediately preceding "R," the H is turned into its sister letter C, and it becomes the parent of words descriptive of unpleasant sounds, as creak, croak. This is also the origin of the Greek word for "CROW" KORAX. Hence Keerux, a herald. The HAWK was formerly called HAFOC by the Saxons. It is still in Danish Havik; in German Habicht. It derives its name from the Hebrew HaFoC, which means "the Destroyer." We still retain the word "HAVOC," as meaning destruction. DAW? From DAH, which probably means a kite. Our Chough from SeHOUPH, a 'sea-gull.'
What shall we say is the origin of our word EGRET? It comes from the word 'EGORT, a crane. The word CRANE is derived from the Hebrew GaRaN, a throat. It is related of one of the epicures among the ancients, that, believing the throat to be the organ of taste, he wished his throat were as long as a crane's. From this word is derived the Greek Geranos, and the Latin Grus; each of which signifies "the crane." Our word GULL, to move in a circuit: which is quite characteristic of the sea-gull. The name of the CONDOR comes from the Hebrew QoDoR, which means to be dark; the N being inserted by way of strengthening in the root. From the same base is derived the brook KEDRON. The name TOUCAN is probably obtained from the Hebrew TooQuaN, to be straight; from the remarkably long bill of the bird.
Hebrew is traceable in the Latin and Greek names also. The Latin name of the Nightingale is Luscinia, which is derived from the Hebrew LuSHeN, the tongue. Its melodius voice could but give it its distinguishing title, "the bird with the tongue of melody." So the ASS is in Latin Asinus, which is derived from the Hebrew AZiN, an ear. Its long ears gave it the name of 'the beast with the prominent ears.' The Greeks called the SWALLOW, Chelidon. This comes from the Hebrew HheLID, which signifies "transient." It took its name as being "the bird of passage." Our word SWALLOW comes from the Hebrew SaLO, which we translate "quail" in the history of Israel in the wilderness; but which Forster has shown to mean a red-legged goose.
The Greek Actos signifies an eagle. It takes it origin from the Hebrew AiT, which means, a bird or beast of prey. The Latin Aquila, which also signifies an eagle, comes from the Hebrew AKuL, a devourer. Our Osprey derives from PeRoS, a kind of eagle.
Section 3: Shall we look to some specimens among the FISHES? Where do we obtain the word FISH? From the Hebrew NePHeSH, which generally signifies a living creature; but fishes are the first to which it is applies: Genesis 1:21. But we, after dropping the first letter N, (which is a very unstable one in that language), have appropriated it to one class of animals in the sea. Thence, too, spring the Latin Piscis, and the French Poisson. Hence also probably our Puss.
What is the Hebrew for SCORPION? 'AQRaB. 'But we have no scorpions! How then should that name be naturalized among us?' It is true that we have no scorpions; and let us be thankful for it! But when our ancestors traveled from the east to our shores, they saw a creature in the sea possessed of great claws, moving about like a scorpion; and they cried, "Acrab! 'Acrab!"
The first A was mistaken for the English indefinite article; and our love of monosyllables soon cut it short into CRAB. This is also the parent of the Greek and Latin Scorpio. The S is added by the Chaldee. The 'A and Q change places, and become "Sco." The B becomes a P, and so we have Scorpio.
Hence also the Latin Crabro, 'a hornet.' The Latin word for CRAB, Cancer, (the second C being hard), springs from the Hebrew CaCaR, a circle, with the strengthening N. The fish's body is CIRCULAR. The WHELK is a shell-fish which sticks to the rocks. It comes from the Hebrew 'ELQ, to adhere. The Elk comes from this root. Probably too our LEECH is derived from the same root by transposition. The Hebrew HaDDoQ signifies a thorn. The name probably originally signified some fish with a thorny back. But the English HADDOCK clearly derives thence its name. Our PERCH takes its name, from the Hebrew PeRaHH, which signifies to break out, to shoot out; and it refers probably to its power of erecting the prickles on its back.
Section 4: Shall we now take a glance at INSECTS? The spider in Hebrew is 'ECVIS. With the Chaldee R added, it becomes the French Ecrevisse; which we have turned into CRAYFISH. (Max Muller noticed the two cognate words in French and English, but not its Hebrew origin). Here is a curious change of meaning. The WASP takes its name from its sting. The Hebrew root is 'AZB, the meaning of which is "pain." The peculiar Hebrew letter with which it begins, is often expressed in English by an initial W, as we have seen above in the case of WHELK. Hence, too, the Latin Vespa, 'a wasp.' The FLEA in Hebrew is FR'AS. But philologists are agreed, that the "L" and "R" are constantly interchanged. A lisping pronunciation of "R" makes "L." The "S" was dropped as being in our language a sign of the plural. Thence we have FLEA.
There is a singular worm which surrounds itself with stones and sticks, well known to anglers, and called the CADDIS-WORM. This name is derived from the Hebrew QuaDeSH, which signifies "Holy." Jerusalem in our day is called 'EL KUDS, "the Holy." From this I should gather, that the creature was once regarded as holy. Nor would it be difficult to guess whence its title was derived. The English word BEETLE may be derived from the Hebrew FLaT, by transposition. It is the original of our words FLAT; PLATE; FLEET; FLOAT; FLIT; PETAL; and others.
The word EMMET takes its origin from the Hebrew 'EMiH, "to associate together," "a people" owing to the creature's social propensities. The English MOTH is derived from the Hebrew M'OT, "little," "small" -- whence also our "MOTE," and "MITE." The word WORM springs, I believe, from the Hebrew 'ORM, "to be naked," "to be slippery." Here again the peculiar letter with which the Hebrew word begins, is expressed in English by "W." Hence too the Latin Vermis and the Greek Helmins. The destructive LOCUST takes its name from the Hebrew LoQueSH, "to pluck," "to consume." The GNAT takes its name from NaD, "to fly."
Section 5: I will now give instances in which our names for members of the VEGETABLE KINGDOM are from the Hebrew. Let us notice first the word Shrub, which is derived from the Hebrew ZhRuB, signifying to be straitened; the Shrub being smaller than the tree.
The Latin word for Leaf is Folium; the Greek, Fullon; the French, Feuille. We have ourselves adopted the word TRE-FOIL, or "the three-leaved plant." This word is derived from the Hebrew 'OLI. The Hebrew letter Oin is very peculiar, and, when transferred into other languages, often takes before it what grammarians call "the digamma," or F, in place of aspiration. This, then, gives us the Latin Folium, together with the Greek and French forms.
Leaf is derived from the same letters transposed -- FOIL, Leaf. From the same root we may conclude that the word Loaf arises. The bread made in early times, and in eastern lands, was in the form of a broad thin cake, like Scotch oatmeal cakes. These cakes were stuck against the side of the oven, and so baked. From their thin leaf-like form came the word Loaf. This gives us also, I believe, the derivation of the word Brend. It comes from Broad. In German, the word Brod signifies both Loaf and Bread. The botanic word Frond, taken from the Lain, is derived from the Hebrew FRoD, to spread; N being added, as frequently is the case, to strengthen the root.
The English Berry has its origin in the Hebrew PeRi, which means "Fruit in general." Our word fruit, in the French represented by the same letters, in Spanish Fruto; in the Italian, Frutto, is derived, through the Latin Fructus, from the Hebrew FRuCH, which means "to bud or blossom." The Greek Opora is evidently the offspring of the first of the two words. It signifies "tree fruits," as pears, apples, grapes and etc. Observe the "O" at the commencement; a not uncommon addition in Greek.
Our word Branch takes its rise from BRaCH, "to reach across -- a bar, a cross beam": N being added, as in former instances, to strengthen the root. Bark is derived from BOOK, "to roll round." The R is added by the Chaldee. Hence comes our Book, which was formerly a roll or scroll. Sap owes its origin to the Hebrew ZaB, "to flow;" Gum to the Hebrew GaM, "to join together." Hence the Greek 'Gamos,' marriage. The old English Wort; in German, Wurz; in Swedish, Ort; in French, Vert, verd; in Latin, Viridis, is derived from the Hebrew YROK, "to be green." The first letter here is generally rendered into English by "W." Then the vowel "O" is taken out of its place in order to follow the "W." Here is another example of a word of two syllables in Hebrew being shortened into one in English. The term "wort" is familiar to botanists, as forming an association with many names of plants. Star-wort, mug-wort, spleen-wort. The final K has apparently become T in English, to distinguish it from work. We could go on and on, but we believe this will suffice to prove that the English Language came from the Hebrew!
Pastor Curtis Clair Ewing, in a cassette tape lecture on this subject, destroys all their arguments with the facts of history. His lecture is titled The Hebraic Origin of the English Language, and the following are a few of his deductions:
First: If we can't be Israelites because we don't speak Hebrew, then the Jews can't be Israelites because they don't speak Hebrew either! Many ministers mistakenly think they do, but most European Jews speak Yiddish, which is a corrupted combination of Russian, Polish, and German. They do use the Hebrew alphabet, but that no more proves they are Hebrews than the Norwegian's use of the Roman alphabet proves they are Italians. The Jews in Palestine are attempting to teach Hebrew, but with little success.
Second: The argument that writing from left to right proves we are not Hebrews is specious. Some claim no nation ever changed its writing that way; but if they would took up the term "boustrophedon" in the Encyclopedia or any large dictionary, they would find it means a style of writing where the lines alternate, right to left, then left to right, and that the Greeks used that style in ancient times, as did the Egyptians, and at one time, even the Irish and the Norsemen. Now they have all changed, although opponents of our Israel identity continue to insist no nation ever changed its style of writing!
Third: Most mistakenly believe there was only one Hebrew language, but there were three. The first was known as Sinai Hebrew; then came the Phoenician Hebrew; and then after the Babylonian Captivity, the Tribe of Judah used what is now called Assyrian Hebrew.
From early examples, it appears the earliest was written from left to right, and later from right to left! So, early in their Palestine sojourn, they changed their language and style of writing; and every Bible translator knows that at the time of Christ, the Israelites in Jerusalem spoke Aramaic, a third change in less than 2,000 years! To insist the English‑speaking peoples cannot be Israelites because they do not speak the ancient Hebrew or write from right to left is an utterly nonsensical argument.
Finally: The English language is still similar enough to the ancient Hebrew that it must be the ancestor tongue of English! Here are a few testimonies given in Pastor Ewing's lecture:
Rev. Jacob Tomlin of England, in A Comparative Vocabulary of 48 Languages, wrote there was a close affinity between Hebrew and English, not only in words, but in the arrangement of ideas and the structure of sentences.
William Tyndale, one of the great Reformers and a translator of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into the English Language, said the Hebrew agreed more closely with the English than it did with the Latin.
Ferrar Fenton, who translated the Fenton Bible, once wrote a letter to the famous Professor Totten in which Fenton stated that while he was yet an unbeliever, his thorough studies of the ancient languages, including Hebrew, had convinced him the Welsh language was closely aligned with Hebrew and that the English‑ speaking peoples must be racially aligned with the Hebrews!
Pastor Ewing gave much more information to prove the amazing similarity between Hebrew and English and then concluded his lecture with the statement that since English was rapidly becoming the official trade and political language of all nations, the English language may well be the fulfilling of the promise of God to Israel in Zephaniah 3:9, For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent.
A relative new book which shows, also, that the English Language came from the Hebrew is “The Word; The Dictionary That Reveals The Hebrew Source of English,” by Isaac E. Mozeson, Publisher SPI Books, 99 Spring Street, New York, New York 10012, ISBN 1-5671-942-0, (1989).