Thank you indeed for the Illuminating statements, sir, and in a particular way for what I for one regard to be an excellent mix of essential, easy to remember because well structured general description and those intriguing, difference making details.

Finding this randomly on the internet, and not knowing about your channel, I was not expecting this to be so accurate. Thank you for sharing this. I suppose you went through this quickly for those for whom this is new, but you did simplify it and make it clear. Well done.

@WorldWideWell

8 күн бұрын

Thank you. Please pass the link to others.

Very interesting. Did not know these things. Thank you!

Well done Hous!

@terrinemeth2394

Жыл бұрын

Enjoyed that knowledge...is king James a GOOD translation of the manuscripts?

Well done

very informative!

@WorldWideWell

3 ай бұрын

Thanks, pass it on!!

Hold on sir, this is more confusing than simplistic in some ways - You stated "The oldest manuscripts we have of the OT are only about 1000 years old, about one millennium old." - you said this in reference to the Leningrad Codex of 1008 AD. Later in the video, however, you discuss the Septuagint of 330 BC...so which is it? Is what you mean to say that we do not actually have a copy of the Septuagint of 330 BC in dating??? Is it that we only have fragments from that era and thus not a complete copy? Who was it that had a complete copy in Leningrad in 1008AD? Please clarify this if you would please Mr kind scholarly sir 🙏

@WorldWideWell

12 күн бұрын

Point well taken, I'd have to look up when our oldest complete copy of the Greek Septuagint is from. The Septuagint is an outstanding tool for helping to understand the MT, and many of the NT writers quoted directly from it. We have no complete OT copies in Hebrew from before Codex Leningrad. Just fragments like the DSS, and others. We have more copies of ancient LXX manuscripts and external quotes than from the MT, because when Jews were persecuted, the first thing the raiders often did was burn the Torah scrolls.

@ChristEnlightening

11 күн бұрын

@@WorldWideWell Very interesting, that does clarify what you meant, thank you sir for your prompt and kind response. I may also look into from when is the oldest complete Septuagint. These raiders you speak of, who were they and from what time period are we talking about?

@WorldWideWell

11 күн бұрын

@@ChristEnlightening The Jews were alway subject to violent pogroms, from the Assyrians to the Babylonians, to the Greeks to the Romans to the Russians (see 'Fiddler on the Roof') to the Nazis. Antisemitism is a metastasized cancer that never seems to go away.

@ChristEnlightening

11 күн бұрын

@@WorldWideWell wow so true, I guess I never thought of it that way. They are perhaps the most persecuted people of all time! It seems that they were often travelers and nomads based on the stories-always going to the next place the divine was leading them. People find fault with the Jewish for this I suppose 😕 People also found fault with the Vikings for this, although the Vikings believed everyone had a right to their homeland, which is why they mostly inly conquered invaders and conquesters who were trying to overtake the masses such as GB. Anyway, I’m a free-spirited individual myself , so I get it , not that I’ve been subjugated to the same kind of persecution…whether or not one believes in divine or dark forces being behind events or not it would seem that the salvific teachings and the salvation of the Jewish people by the divine was wished to not be made possible by their destruction throughout all of these time periods of persecutions and holocausts because then those prophecies and teachings cannot be fulfilled and enacted. I know that’s a more theological viewpoint but it is arguably historically sound too that this was the motive of the antagonizing perpetrators. I mean, just look what they did to Yeshua, but He prevailed, Resurrected, and became King of the Universe 🙏🏻☀️✨At least that’s what I see… 🙏🏻

So does the Dead Sea Scrolls agree more with the Septuagint or the Masoretic Texts?

@WorldWideWell

14 күн бұрын

Masoretic Texts, obviously, because both the MT and DSS are in Hebrew, and strikingly close in presentation. Semitic languages are more conservative and change less over time than Indo-European languages. There are countless textual variations in the Greek New Testament and far fewer in the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament.

How do we know for sure the original language of the OT was Hebrew? Also how do we know when the original was written if we don't actually have the original?

@WorldWideWell

Ай бұрын

We have zero evidence that it was anything else but Hebrew, and that's the language that was spoken in that area at the time. The only manuscript evidence says "Hebrew."

@Ones_Complement

Ай бұрын

@@WorldWideWell "The only manuscript evidence says Hebrew." Can you elaborate?

@WorldWideWell

Ай бұрын

@@Ones_Complement The people of Israel who wrote the Old Testament spoke Hebrew. There is no evidence that they wrote in any other language until they started writing in Aramaic with the book of Daniel (a few chapters therein).

@WorldWideWell

Ай бұрын

We have no original copies of any major writings from antiquity (Homer, Plato, the Bible, Roman history, etc.). That doesn't mean we know nothing about antiquity.

So what about the books and verses that were remove from the KJV? Maybe if they release the original hand written deadsea scrolls and all the original manuscripts written in the African languages that were looted from the continent, then we will be able to prove most accurately for ourselves don't you think?

@WorldWideWell

2 ай бұрын

How much do you understand about lower literary textual criticism and the comparison of all of the ancient manuscripts that we have? And how much do you understand about the history of the KJV and how much of it was based on the Latin Vulgate? Remember, the original versions of the KJV mentioned unicorns twice in the book of Numbers...

So basically, the Aramaic Peshitta NT is much "better" than the Greek? but still greek is a good reference

@WorldWideWell

3 күн бұрын

Greek is great. The New Testament was produced through a dance between Semitic/Aramaic and IndoEuropean/Greek. Like a chicken and the egg, which came first? Impossible to know--but both languages were involved.

@truthseeker9070

2 күн бұрын

@@WorldWideWell alright, but somehow greek nomina sacra is tricky but the Mrya in Aramaic is in plane site.

What was the language Pilate used to ask Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews"? Did Pilate presume that Jesus knew Latin or Greek, or Pilate used Aramaic to be sure that there would be no misunderstanding. Presuming Pilate would have had to memorize his question in Aramaic. Without any question, that was the only query of any relevance to the Roman Governor.

@WorldWideWell

17 күн бұрын

See Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus' main self-referernce (Bar Enosh) was much bigger than a Jewish anointed-leader-messiah.

I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are documented to be 2,000 years old

@WorldWideWell

Ай бұрын

Yes they are, and they contain remarkable fragments of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, but far short of a complete copy.

And god said I will make man "like myself! in three different languages!!!!!!!!

So the Bible wasn’t written in Jesus’ language in Aramaic?

@WorldWideWell

2 ай бұрын

Parts of Daniel, yes. And the origin of the gospels was indeed Jesus’ spoken Aramaic teaching.

Jesus spoke Geez, ancient Ethiopian language. Hebrew is fake. The garden of heaven is in Ethiopia, Adam and Eve are Ethiopians. The KJV bible in your hand is incomplete and misinterpreted. These called scholars are invented as any biblical understanding doesn’t require to be scholar but spirituality. Wake up you have been lied to.

@WorldWideWell

25 күн бұрын

You can say that, but no one will agree with you that Hebrew was fake.

@ChristEnlightening

12 күн бұрын

I understand what you are trying to say because I vaguely agree with your standpoint but you are a bit off the mark. It isn't that Hebrew was fake, it's just that it didn't exist in the time that the stories in the OT took place. What did exist, and is surmised by scholars to be the original language of the characters in the stories of the OT, namely, for example, Abraham, would have been, according to, again, the dates provided in the text and some scholars interpretations of it and its historicity, a language that one might call: Canaanite Phoenician.

@WorldWideWell

12 күн бұрын

@@ChristEnlightening Yes, Abraham was a wandering Aramean from Mesopotamia; not a native of the eventual Hebrew homeland of the highlands of what is now Israel. The Hebrew language as written in the OT was most likely in place by the time of David, at which the full alphabetizing of Hebrew was completed. Before that, we can only make educated guesses. Moses' mother tongue was likely Egyptian, perhaps that's why he hesitated to be the spokesman for the Exodus (which would require Semitic public speaking ability). Most Semitic languages are very much alike--if you can read one, you can usually plow through the others with reference materials. They also change less over time than Indo-European languages (Greek/English/etc). For instance, the Aramaic Peshitta NT has way less textual variation over the centuries than the Greek NT.

@ChristEnlightening

11 күн бұрын

@@WorldWideWell Wow. So much wonderful information there. I am now interested to look more into the Aramaic Peshitta for the reasons you mention. Thank you for sharing that. 🙏

can you contact me?

@WorldWideWell

Ай бұрын

Sure. How can I do that?