Judaism and Supplemental Material

[Swede01]

If that is the sitaution there is nothing any of us on this forum to can do. We are all from different countries and on-line forums are not the best places to get answers on how to become Jewish.

If being Jewish is what you really desire the only option available to you is moving to an area with a Jewish community. If being Jewish is what you really desire it may even mean being Jewish first and not Swedish "culturally." The reason is because in reality really being Jewish is not a religion that you show up, make an oath, and it doesn't matter if you are never seen again. As has been pointed being Jewish is a national and communal commitment. This is the Jewish way of doing things and it has been this way for thousands of years.

Just as an example. I knew a girl in NYC who grew up as a secular Muslim in a secular household. Due to a Hasidic performer she became interesting in Judaism. She got books and started secretly learning w/o telling her family. One day her father, who was a secular Muslim, found her books on Judaism and he flipped out on her. The arguement escalated to the point where she had to move out. She eventually made her way to a completely Jewish Hasidic neighborhood and she successfully converted there and no longer can go home to visit her father because of his reaction.

There is a guy here in Israel who converted and due to his previous family and communal structure he can only visit his family at night and in secret.

I once met a guy here in Jerusalem who grew up and was married in an American Christian family. He had a wife and 3 or 4 kids. He worked as an architech for a Christian company that designed churches. At some point he became aware of Judaism and decided that he wanted to practice as much of it as he could. When he expressed this to his wife you warned him, "You better do that Jewish stuff in the closet!" That is exactly what he did. He did Jewish stuff in the closet of his home. He would take it all off when he left the closet. That went on for a while until one day he forgot to take the kippa off and he went to work. Of course him showing up to his job with a kippa on raised some alarm bells and eventually he lost his job. When his wife find out she divorced him. He told me that the hardest part about the whole thing was when his only son told him to his face, "I don't want to see you again. You are not my dad. My father is dead." When he told me this story it really hit me to my heart YET he said after that he moved to Israel and began seeking an Orthodox conversation. He was learning at a Yeshivah and he was experiencing the greatest joy of his life even with the fact that he lost everything to get that joy.

Lastly, about 100 years ago there was a Catholic priest in Uganda who sat down one day decided to really study his bible. Yet, after some intense study he came to the conclusion that what he was reading was Jewish and foreign to what he was doing as a Catholic. So, he met with his family and had a discussion with them. That discussion led to him and his sons circumcising themselves and trying to live as Jewish as they could. Over the last 100 years he started getting other Ugandans on board with what he was doing until they formed their own Jewish community. During the last 100 years they faced a lot of animostiy from their families, their neighbors, and they survived the Idi Amin regime, until the point when they were able to convert in the last 20 to 30 years.

There is nothing any of us on this forum to can do. We are all from different countries and on-line forums are not the best places to get answers on how to become Jewish. You essentially don't have any options outside of approaching the Jewish community Sweden. Sorry but that is the reality.

I kinda get what you mean but the Reform Community is small in general. You know that right?

 

[Harel13]

appeared that back then he did. The popes used to get married back in the day.

I don't know if the popes used to get married, but serious enforcement of the no-marriage of priesthood did only start circa the 10th century. However,

You also have to remember that some one of the groups that are not tightly connected to the Roman type sometimes do whatever they want.

סתם Catholics = Roman Catholics. Perhaps they simply weren't Catholics?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I don't know if the popes used to get married, but serious enforcement of the no-marriage of priesthood did only start circa the 10th century. However,

It appears that a few of them were before they took their "orders"

סתם Catholics = Roman Catholics. Perhaps they simply weren't Catholics?

I guess it depends on how one wants to define a Catholic. When I was in Ethiopia back in 2001, I remember hearing from someone how the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was essentially old school Catholic but there had been a rift a long time ago - back in the 80's there were some there who had hoped they would be reconnected in some way. From what i understand something similar happend with the Syrian Church of the East.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I kinda get what you mean but the Reform Community is small in general. You know that right?

I do but that is what you are asking for. Again, I don't think anyone on this forum has a way to help you under the circumstances you described.

 

[David Davidovich]

Israelite Demonology Video

1. Starting at 2:59 to 3:17. His claim that ancient Israelis were Canaanites is not a correct term. There is no ancient source that claims that "Israel are Canaanites." This starts off the problem since the Egyptian stela he presents does not make that claim at all.
2. His 10:31 to 10:33 which he bases on what he stated in10:08 to is made with no support as to prove the author’s intent in the direction he gave. Israelite writers muting something – he provides no proof that they were muting something. He further provides no linguistic proof for his statement afterwards of a cultural exchange in this area.

So what about what he mentions at 10:08 to 10:38(link) concerning there being echoes of the personification of death, the Canaanite god Mot(link), being found in Chavakuk - Habakkuk - Chapter 3:3:5(link)? Also, you know Hebrew better than I do, therefore does what he says concerning these verses have any merit?

3God came from Teman; yea, the Holy One from Mt. Paran, with everlasting might. His glory covered the heavens and His splendor filled the earth. גאֱל֙וֹהַּ֙ מִתֵּימָ֣ן יָב֔וֹא וְקָד֥וֹשׁ מֵֽהַר־פָּארָ֖ן סֶ֑לָה כִּסָּ֚ה שָׁמַ֙יִם֙ הוֹד֔וֹ וּתְהִלָּת֖וֹ מָֽלְאָ֥ה הָאָֽרֶץ:4And there was a brightness like the light; they had rays from His hand, and there was His strength hidden. דוְ֙נֹגַהּ֙ כָּא֣וֹר תִּֽהְיֶ֔ה קַרְנַ֥יִם מִיָּד֖וֹ ל֑וֹ וְשָׁ֖ם חֶבְי֥וֹן עֻזּֽוֹ (כתיב עֻזֹּֽה) 5A pestilence went before Him, and sparks went out at His feet. הלְפָנָ֖יו יֵ֣לֶךְ דָּ֑בֶר וְיֵצֵ֥א רֶ֖שֶׁף לְרַגְלָֽיו:

Plus, that makes me think about how I haven't seen one reply in my thread about Leviathan.

There are some other areas, again in this video he uses a lot of Christian created imagery to explain things that have no connection to the imagery that European Christians created.

Further to your question in the Talmudic Demonology video.

1. At 10:34 he presents certain depictions that were found on pottery. The pictures are not in the Talmud and the pottery has no proven connection to the rabbis mentioned in the Talmud or even to the Jewish community. Thus, he provides no evidence to support his use of these pictures to the topic.
2. One of the things I do find interesting, in comparison to you earlier question, he himself states that the Mishnah is mostly void of a conversation about (שדים). Which supports what I have been saying the Mishnah contains the Oral Torah and yet it has only one reference even close to the topic. Also, the Jerusalem Talmud is mostly devoid of this topic too as he himself states at 12:02 to 12:33. Yet, he doesn’t detail what statements are actually made here. I.e. is it a matter of interest or is the difference the location. I.e. (שדים) are not a problem in Israel because of the location, the people in the location, or because what is considered a (שד) is not relevant because of the practices of the Torah done there. Again, is this the Talmud or particular individuals who are “quoted” in the Talmud? I know the answer to this but someone who is not having this information explored with them may not understand it based on this video.
3. At 5:50 to 06:00 he makes a claim w/o evidence for a statement about why the Mishnah was claimed to be Oral Torah and what “the rabbis” intent was for their claim.

So what about what the video says about demonology in the Babylonian Talmud?

 

[David Davidovich]

I see. But out of curiosity, do Jews generally believe that God is the one who created satan/the yetzer hara/the evil inclination/the vital force? Because I had never heard of that before until now.

But how can modern scientific discovers also appear to have proven the Rambam's position correct? Because that's like saying that scientific discovers also appear to have proven that God either does or doesn't exist.

So, out of curiosity, could you briefly explain to me what has been proven to be true in the Torah?

Ehav4Ever, I noticed that you didn't answer the 3 questions above from my post #55. Do you mind answering them?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So what about what he mentions at 10:08 to 10:38(link) concerning there being echoes of the personification of death, the Canaanite god Mot(link), being found in Chavakuk - Habakkuk - Chapter 3:3:5(link)?

I addressed that already in one of my previous responses. He has to "prove" that HERE. Making a claim w/o any evidence for the claim and saying it is "echo" is not scholarly. Interestingly enough the Canaanites never claimed such a thing and neither did any ancient culture that came into contact with Israelis/Jews.

Also, you know Hebrew better than I do, therefore does what he says concerning these verses have any merit?

No. I posit that if he had to do this video in Hebrew from a Hebrew text what is insiunating would fall apart pretty quickly.

Plus, that makes me think about how I haven't seen one reply in my thread about Leviathan.

Why would you expect an reply to that thread?

So what about what the video says about demonology in the Babylonian Talmud?

I responed to that already in one of my previous responses HERE.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Ehav4Ever, I noticed that you didn't answer the 3 questions above from my post #55. Do you mind answering them?

There are only so many hours in a day.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But how can modern scientific discovers also appear to have proven the Rambam's position correct? Because that's like saying that scientific discovers also appear to have proven that God either does or doesn't exist.

Please be aware that the Hebrew Tanakh does not use the word "god." The words used don't mean what the English word god means.

In terms of what has been shown to be reality in our generation. See the following:

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I see. But out of curiosity, do Jews generally believe that God is the one who created satan/the yetzer hara/the evil inclination/the vital force? Because I had never heard of that before until now.

The following may help.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, out of curiosity, could you briefly explain to me what has been proven to be true in the Torah?

Depends on what you mean. For example.

1. Proven to who?
2. Proven by whom?
3. Based on the Hebrew text only or based on a translation?
4. Based on whose definition of "proven to be true?"
5. What aspects of the Hebrew Torah are in question?
6. Are Torath Mosheh Jewish sources the method of accepted interpretation/understanding?

 

[David Davidovich]

I addressed that already in one of my previous responses. He has to "prove" that HERE. Making a claim w/o any evidence for the claim and saying it is "echo" is not scholarly. Interestingly enough the Canaanites never claimed such a thing and neither did any ancient culture that came into contact with Israelis/Jews.

Well, I wouldn't expect the Canaanites to have ever claimed such a thing. Also, I do find it interesting that the Hebrew words that are used at Chavakuk - Habakkuk - Chapter 3:3:5(link) are the same words used in the description of the Canaanite god, Mot. Similar to how the descriptions of Leviathan echo Canaanite and Mesopotamia religious myths.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, I wouldn't expect the Canaanites to have ever claimed such a thing.

I would if someone is going to mention it like it is a historical fact. If it is his own theory the scholarly way of doing things is to mention that it is his personal theory for which he has no information to prove it or support it. What is known and agreed upon is that the Canaanite and Hebrew languages have similar root systems for words like a lot of ancient local languages in the region.

Also, I do find it interesting that the Hebrew words that are used at Chavakuk - Habakkuk - Chapter 3:3:5(link) are the same words used in the description of the Canaanite god, Mot. Similar to how the descriptions of Leviathan echo Canaanite and Mesopotamia religious myths.

The words used in Habaquq were used in Hebrew way before that period in Israeli history. They were also similar to words found in other cultures that had nothing do with any deity. Again, all one has to do is go back and read Hebrew text way prior. Also, consider that there is no proof that the Caanites invented the word and that it didn't exist in any previous culture as a normal word. Further, the Canaanite culture and language is modernly "heavily" theorized by scholars because they [the Canaanites] are no longer here to explain their culture or even how their language was pronounced. (Canaanite did not have vowels used in writing just like ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. did not. Ancient Hebrew pronunciation is known because Jews and Samaritans survived to detail its pronciation.)

Just like how modern scholars don't actually know how ancient Egyptian was pronounced because the culture that spoke it ceased to a exist several thousand years ago. They only make up vowels to supply sounds for what they don't know. The same is true for Canaanite. Their culture died out long enough ago where there are only theories about how to even pronounce their language.

Again, the Canaanites did not have a word that equites to the English word "god." Thus, the challenge that someone who doesn't have the ability to read these ancient languages has is that they can easily be convinced of something with little or no evidence to support it simply because they don't know what the languages say or the cultures around the language.

For example, I could make a claim - with no evidence - that the writers of the American Constitution were influenced by the 9th century Runic poem because of their [the writers of the American constitution] use of the suffix "ing" which sounds like the name of an German pagan deity "Ing."

Even the Leviathan mention in the Tanakh doesn't match what is found Canaanites or Mesopotamia. First, at its core in the Hebrew Tanakh it only means a big water aniamal like a whale. It is rarely used, only in very obscure places in a couple of prophetic writings, and not the Torah, to describe things that are criticisisms of the nations around Israel and their practices. I.e. words are used to speak symbolically of enemy nations to Israel.

Lastly, the Samaritan Israels don't even have the text of Habaquq. Thus, somone would have to explain how the word (מת) exists in their Torah text and language.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, I wouldn't expect the Canaanites to have ever claimed such a thing.

Here are some issues that exist with the modern study of Canaanite.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, I wouldn't expect the Canaanites to have ever claimed such a thing.

One more thing about the Canaanites:

 

[David Davidovich]

David Davidovich said: ↑
Well, I wouldn't expect the Canaanites to have ever claimed such a thing.

I would if someone is going to mention it like it is a historical fact. If it is his own theory the scholarly way of doing things is to mention that it is his personal theory for which he has no information to prove it or support it. What is known and agreed upon is that the Canaanite and Hebrew languages have similar root systems for words like a lot of ancient local languages in the region.

So, are you talking about the ancient Canaanites claiming that ancient Hebrews/Jews were copying their language and their phrases?

The words used in Habaquq were used in Hebrew way before that period in Israeli history.

Interestingly, I've heard that claim before, however, from what I know about more recent archaeological finds, scientists have determined that there are a lot of Mesopotamian languages and findings that are older than the language and the findings of ancient Hebrews.

They were also similar to words found in other cultures that had nothing do with any deity. Again, all one has to do is go back and read Hebrew text way prior. Also, consider that there is no proof that the Caanites invented the word and that it didn't exist in any previous culture as a normal word.

But you're entirely missing the point. The video isn't saying that the Hebrew words are used for the purpose of conveying a god or gods, but it is just simply making the point that Habakkuk 3 is using the Hebrew words Dever and Resheph to convey the chariots that Yahweh was riding and which also happened to be the names of the Canaanite gods of pestilence and fever, respectively. Therefore, why would the Hebrew Bible even use words such as that? Also, Dr. Sledge points out how in the Hebrew Bible, personifications of disease are almost always under the direct command of Yahweh. But why would that be? Especially since it seems so coincidental that plagues demons plentifully existed in ancient Mesopotamian. However, you may watch that segment again if you would like to at 10:39-12:46(click here).

Further, the Canaanite culture and language is modernly "heavily" theorized by scholars because they [the Canaanites] are no longer here to explain their culture or even how their language was pronounced. (Canaanite did not have vowels used in writing just like ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. did not. Ancient Hebrew pronunciation is known because Jews and Samaritans survived to detail its pronciation.)

(*ahem*-clearing throat)

While we would all like to think that we read the Torah the same way our ancestors did three or four thousand years ago, the likelihood is that we don’t. As with other languages, Hebrew changed over time. Even in the time of the Shoftim, we find that members of different tribes pronounced Hebrew differently, as the story in Shoftim 12:5 illustrates. Today, three main traditional pronunciation systems of Hebrew have survived and are used in synagogues around the globe: Ashkenazic, Sepharadic and Teimani. (The Samaritan community also preserves its own Hebrew pronunciation, which differs greatly from the Jewish traditions.)

Since numerous and significant differences exist between the three traditional systems, the obvious question is: which pronunciation system adheres most closely to tradition? In other words, which is more “correct”?

This question has no simple answer. Unfortunately, there are no YouTube videos or vinyl recordings illustrating how Avraham Avinu or Moshe Rabbeinu spoke. No one can prove that one pronunciation system more accurately reflects how the Jews in Eretz Yisrael spoke thousands of years ago. We have only written evidence. Yet written records do not record the pronunciation of words (how would one know how to pronounce “laugh” correctly from written evidence alone?).

click here: The Real Story of Hebrew Pronunciation - Jewish Action

Just like how modern scholars don't actually know how ancient Egyptian was pronounced because the culture that spoke it ceased to a exist several thousand years ago. They only make up vowels to supply sounds for what they don't know. The same is true for Canaanite. Their culture died out long enough ago where there are only theories about how to even pronounce their language.

See my quote above from the Jewish Action website.

Again, the Canaanites did not have a word that equites to the English word "god." Thus, the challenge that someone who doesn't have the ability to read these ancient languages has is that they can easily be convinced of something with little or no evidence to support it simply because they don't know what the languages say or the cultures around the language.

Huh?

In the Bible, El was the deity worshiped by the Hebrew patriarchs, for example as El Shaddai (God Almighty) or El Elyon (God Most High) before the revelation of his name Yahweh to Moses. But El was also worshiped by non-Israelites, such as Melchizedek (Genesis 14:9). Scholars have found much extra-biblical evidence of Canaanite worship of El as the supreme deity, creator of heaven and earth, the father of humankind, the husband of the goddess Asherah, and the parent of many other gods. Canaanite mythology about El may have directly influenced the development of the later Greco-Roman stories of the gods.

click here: El - New World Encyclopedia

Also, I'm not sure why you seem to disqualify all of Dr. Sledge's credentials.

For example, I could make a claim - with no evidence - that the writers of the American Constitution were influenced by the 9th century Runic poem because of their [the writers of the American constitution] use of the suffix "ing" which sounds like the name of an German pagan deity "Ing."

So, you think that Dr. Sledge is just making stuff up in his video.

Even the Leviathan mention in the Tanakh doesn't match what is found Canaanites or Mesopotamia. First, at its core in the Hebrew Tanakh it only means a big water aniamal like a whale. It is rarely used, only in very obscure places in a couple of prophetic writings, and not the Torah, to describe things that are criticisisms of the nations around Israel and their practices. I.e. words are used to speak symbolically of enemy nations to Israel.

I'll save that for the Leviathan thread.

Lastly, the Samaritan Israels don't even have the text of Habaquq. Thus, somone would have to explain how the word (מת) exists in their Torah text and language.

Sorry, but I don't know what that means, and I would have to watch that video some other time because like you said, there are only so many hours in a day. .

 

[David Davidovich]

One more thing about the Canaanites:

View attachment 64295
View attachment 64296
View attachment 64293
View attachment 64294

View attachment 64299
View attachment 64300
View attachment 64297
View attachment 64298

Well, wasn't Melchizedek a king of Canaan? (Also, that would be an interesting topic for a thread. ) But as far as the religion or worship in ancient Canaan:

Before the late nineteenth century, there were only two sources for the study of the Canaanite religion. The first, the Hebrew scriptures, contains numerous references to the Canaanites and their practices, which are generally condemned as abominable (e.g., Lv. 18:3, 27–28). As early as the first century bce, the biblical commentator Philo of Alexandria recognized that Canaan was the biblical symbol of "vice," which the Israelites were naturally bidden to despise (De cong. 83–85). It is generally agreed that the biblical witness to Canaanite religion is highly polemical and, therefore, unreliable; biblical evidence must at the least be used with extreme caution, and in conjunction with extrabiblical sources.

The second source for knowledge of Canaanite religion was those classical texts that preserve descriptions of aspects of it. The best known of these are the Phoenician History of Philo Byblius, of which portions are preserved in Eusebius's Praeparatio evangelica, and The Syrian Goddess, attributed (perhaps falsely) to Lucian of Samothrace. The reliability of Philo Byblius, however, has been the subject of scholarly debate, and the present consensus is that the comparability of the Phoenician History with authentic Canaanite data should not be overstressed. At best, Philo's information probably sheds light on the religion of late Hellenized Phoenicians, and offers no direct evidence for second-millennium Canaanite religion. The same generalization applies to (Pseudo-) Lucian, despite a few scholarly claims to the contrary.

click here: Canaanite Religion: An Overview | Encyclopedia.com

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, wasn't Melchizedek a king of Canaan?

No, according to the Hebrew Torah and Jewish sources he was a leader of a particular group of Benei Noach (Noachides) a particular "city" that existed area of Canaan. He was by no means that king of all of Canaan.

(Also, that would be an interesting topic for a thread. ) But as far as the religion or worship in ancient Canaan:
click here: Canaanite Religion: An Overview | Encyclopedia.com

From the article you referenced in your link.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, are you talking about the ancient Canaanites claiming that ancient Hebrews/Jews were copying their language and their phrases?

I am talking about the author of the video you presented making those claims w/o any evidence presented to support his line of logic. Thus, instead of presenting what he stated as his own theory or the theory of others he presented it as if it is a fact.

Interestingly, I've heard that claim before, however, from what I know about more recent archaeological finds, scientists have determined that there are a lot of Mesopotamian languages and findings that are older than the language and the findings of ancient Hebrews.

Thus, this is what I mean by how not knowing the languages for yourself can be a problem. First, the use of the title of "ancient Hebrews" would need to be defined because according to the Hebrew Torah and Jewish sources......drum roll......Mesoptamian society predated the society that Avraham ben-Terahh (who you would Abraham) started to build and the eventual society his descendents built after him which became known as Yisrael.

According to the Hebrew Torah and Jewish sources Avraham ben-Terahh's family had been living in Ur of the Chasdim (A Mesopotamian society) for several generations. He grew up practicing the culture of the region until he spent some time investigating what was "THE" Source of all creation/reality. At a certain point he concluded that the society he had grown up in was in error and that what they were practicing was not in line with THE Source of all creation/reality. At a certain point when what he found about Hashem, which had been known by previous generations, was in conflict with that was being practiced in the area he left.

Once Avraham ben-Terehh left his culture he was being called Avraham ha-Ivri (Ivri is what English speakers call Hebrew). Jewish sources state that the reason he was called ha-Ivri is because while the world he lived in stood on one side of things culturally he stood on the other. I.e. of course Mesopotamian culture predated his decision to walk away from it and how his walking away later set the stage for Israeli society. This is stated in the Hebrew Tanakh.

Yet, it is interesting that while the entire Mesopotamian culture fell apart and modernly the terorist group isis destroy huge chunks of the remaining local archeology from it, the Israeli people that came from Avraham ben-Terahh have survived even with numerous invasions, expulsions, and such.

But you're entirely missing the point. The video isn't saying that the Hebrew words are used for the purpose of conveying a god or gods, but it is just simply making the point that Habakkuk 3 is using the Hebrew words Dever and Resheph to convey the chariots that Yahweh was riding and which also happened to be the names of the Canaanite gods of pestilence and fever, respectively.

I never said that is what he said. I said that his statement is his "theory" which he provides no support for and he doesn't make it clear that it is his theory. The words used in Habuquq predate Habuquq by thousands of years. Hebrew prior to Habuquq uses similar words because.......drum roll....all Semetic languages have a common three letter root system for how words are developed. I.e. all ancient Middle Eastern languages are linqusitically connnected to the same root system so if one wants to claim that the use of a word in one language that has the same linquistic tools as another local language if one wants to say that author of text used a word that sounds like a name from another you have to prove the connection for that reason. An personal assertion has to be identified as such, as the scholars I provided make clear.

For example, you stated the Hebrew words Dever and Resheph are used. That is not how those words are pronounced.

(דבר) dawvar is a word used long before Habuquq. The "Hebrew" root it comes from also denotes to combine seperate items into one. The same "Hebrew" root is used to denote speaking. On the other hand (רשף) comes from a root that means glowing or to heat up. The reason this is known is because Israelis/Jews have mantianed the knowledge of ancient Hebrew. In order to "prove" that there is connection with an idea that is from the Canaanites you would have to prove that those words in Hebrew were derived from Canaanite and that they were not natural parts of both languages from the start.

Because the Canaanites no longer exist the roots of their words is only speculated on using Hebrew other languages because of what I stated earlier. So, for example ask a scholar to "prove" how the following in Canaanite was pronounced using Canaanite sources.

They often turn to Hebrew to understand it because they don't fully know how the Canaanites understood it. Thus, they use ancient Hebrew as a method to speculate about Canaanite culture which makes it hard to say that ancient Israelis borrowed something from a culture that they don't fully understand.

Take this bit of information for example,

University of Haifa » Most ancient Hebrew biblical inscription deciphered

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Therefore, why would the Hebrew Bible even use words such as that?

Becuase, first there is no such thing as a "Hebrew Bible" there is a Hebrew Tanakh. Different concept alltoegher.

Second, because there is nothing wrong with the words. Ancient Semetic languages have common root systems for how words and language developed. Similar to dialect shifts that happen in a language - you take a word in one language, say it, and in a sister language someone may think you are saying something else. Here are a few examples of what I mean.