So great that you reference the theology of inspiration. It basically settles the argument. There is a new paraphrase (they call it a translation) that claims the NT was written in Aramaic and that their "translation" is more accurate. When pressed, the source admitted it was the Peshitta that was being used as their primary text. Sheesh! I appreciate all you do!
Since the early manuscripts were written to a group of people in the Greco-Roman world, to make it accessible, Greek makes sense. That way they don't have to make multiple versions. Besides that, the earliest manuscripts are in Greek, so there is no reason to think otherwise.
The early Christians Jerusalem church was anti everything Roman or Greek, they were against all form of hellenization. Early manuscripts were most certainly Aramaic and Hebrew. Look at the Dead Sea scrolls. They one the survived in Greek are the manuscript that the Romans could live with but not the anti-Roman original Hebrew manuscript.
@gr4707 as far as I know all the texts found in the dead sea scrolls were either OT or not canonical, they were copied by Jews not Christians. I don't see why the apostals would write to gentiles in hebrew. Luke and Mark were most likely not even Hebrews and Luke is writing to theopholus who is not a Jew.
That does not mean that Matthew, for insistence,. might not have first been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The language used would;d have depended on the language of the author’s church.
@@pmaitrasm I don’t know where you get all this trust in Paul. What authority does he have? He is called a liar and the wicked one in almost of non-canonical literature especially Dead Sea scrolls. He is a man who preached to forsake the law, while historical Jesus said ““Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished”.
“Jesus spoke Aramaic so the Bible should be in the language he spoke” is a common Muslim argument against the Bible. I know this argument very well as I witness to Muslims often personally. The Lord Jesus spoke 3 languages, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. We see this throughout the Bible. He spoke Aramaic on the cross (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34). He read from the Tanakh/scroll of Isaiah (Luke 4:16-21). Greeks came and spoke to Philip and Jesus (John 12:20-21). 3 Languages were written on the cross (John 19:20). It's not hard to understand that Jerusalem was a multi-language city. During the Roman occupation (Latin), Greek was the common tongue and obviously, the Jews spoke the Hebrew/Aramaic language. There are other verses which prove this such as Matthew was a Tax collector for the Romans and would have had to been able to communicate with all people (Matthew 10:3; Luke 5:27). Zacchaeus was also a tax collector who spoke with Christ, he also would have needed to be able to communicate with Romans and others on a daily basis (Luke 19:2).
@@rosslewchuk9286 All glory to the Lord Jesus. When we are challenged and take the time to read the scriptures slowly and not rush we have the answers needed to respond. Other great points to consider are Christ spoke with a Roman centurion. Matthew 8:8-10 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this [man], Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it]. When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. (Luke 7:6-10) In order for the Lord Jesus to communicate with the centurion He would have had to speak in the language the Roman knew. There's so many examples from the scriptures.
@@rosslewchuk9286 What are you talking about “transmitted”, we are not Muslims who believe only in Arabic as “God's words”. The inspired word of God was written in Greek, true, but that doesn't mean the words spoken in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek are not inspired. Jesus spoke multiple languages that's a fact. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. Do you believe those are God's words? Christ spoke all throughout the Old Testament, you do know that right?
@@johnschuh8616 There's no such thing as dialect because the Sahaba were from the same tribe, the Quraysh. They do have different Arabic Qur'an's which have different words. I own 3 Hafs, Warsh and Qaloon. To this date, there are 37 different versions of the Qur'an.
To say the language matters is kind of insulting to God. It almost implies that God is more comfortable, or fluent with one particular language over another - which is patently false. How about we let God be God and not worry about it? If he wanted his word penned in Greek, that's His concern - not ours...
The word "Theopneustos" ( Θεοπνευστος ) comes from Greek, combining "theo" meaning "God " and " pneustos " meaning " breathed ". So, it translates to " God-breathed ", often used in the context of describing Scripture as inspired by God. While its not directly translated as " life-giving ", the concept of God's breath bringing life is certainly associated with it.
Thanks for your question. I haven't seen his argument before, but this sounds pretty challenging to conclude from the wording Paul uses. Paul seems to have put this word together for this sentence, so the etymology of the two words together seems to convey his intended meaning. "God" and "Breathed" do not amount to "life" and "giving" in any way I can figure out. He may have some other reasoning I haven't thought of, but at a glance it seems far fetched to me. I hope that helps.
"Matters" in the sense that if we have the inspired word then whether it was translated or not is secondary to the process of inspiration, and the certainty we have in the inspired word.
This is why those in Jesus Christ's day spoke in tongues. It was a divine message saying language isn't a barrier. What matters is we all speak in the righteous language Jesus Christ spoke, which is a universal language linked to our senses. The whole Christian world of many cultural languages can unite under God's Righteous Language and this is important because that language represents a science that angels adhere to and followers of Jesus Christ must, too.
Very helpful video. The only problem I have is - Why the music? You are teaching and I have never heard a teacher who had music playing in the background. I found it quite distracting I’m afraid.
It matters. When we were learning German, we are told that to speak proper German, we must learn to think like Germans. If you do not speak a language, you are unable to think like the people who speak that language. Language matters.
2 Tim 3:[16] *All scripture is given by inspiration of God,* and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 1 Co 2:13 Zep 3:9
This is a topic that is mostly ignored. Having worked in the ministry of Bible translation, I learned a lot about languages and translation methodology. Most scholars seem to agree that the narrative in the Gospels was spoken in either Aramaic or Hebrew. For those in Bible translation, this brings up an interesting situation, the Greek Gospels being a translation with the involvement of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration by the Holy Spirit covers a very wide definition spectrum with scholars and teachers occupying every part of it. One point of struggle is the nature of languages. I have come to realize that word for word is a more or less description, not real thing. A translation is more word for word or more dynamic but a true word for word does not exist. So, even with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, can the Greek translation of the Aramaic or Hebrew word for word be exact?
I've never actually come across anybody claiming that the Bible should be in the language that Jesus spoke. It seems like a very curious position to take; the NT being written in Greek, and the OT (mostly) being written in Hebrew - um, well, these things are what they are. After thousands of years there is no changing that. Regardless of whether or not one believes in such a thing as divine inspiration. (The only difference that I can envisage this matter making is an exegetical one; in some edge cases - and I can't think of any examples - it might make some difference to how we interpret a particular saying of Jesus or some Hebrew prophet if we know that what we're reading is likely a translation.)
If some people need background music they should play their own in the background so that all the rest of us can listen to the teaching without noise distracting us.
Skeptics like to shoot at the circular reasoning of this doctrine. But at the end of the day, you either recognize your master's voice or you don't. That said, I do wonder if the imagery behind the phrase "God-breathed" might be drawing from Genesis 2, where God formed His image bearer and then breathed into him. In that sense, God guides the formation of scripture for the purpose of breathing into it, rather than simply breathing it out. Making such a distinction keeps us from coming unglued if the formation process involves editing, textual variants, and various arguments over canonicity. The God-breathed dimension of scripture is recognized when the reader experiences the illumination of the text. We simply can't remove that component without reducing the bible to a philosophical text. And as we should all learn from the day of Pentecost, the HS is not limited by language. Even the original audience who heard and understood the language Jesus spoke needed "ears to hear and eyes to see" to comprehend what was being taught.
What a contrast to the false god Allah, who requires everyone to learn Arabic... Our God is the true and living God who created language, and then at Babel divided people by making multiple languages, tribes and nations.
Jesus understood all languages and spoke whatever language was necessary to communicate with anyone whom He spoke to. Thankfully God understands all languages. The New testament was originally written in Greek. The Old testament was in Hebrew with Daniel being written in Hebrew and Aramaic. I'm thankful I've got the Bible in English. Men of God wrote the Bible as the Holy Spirit moved on them. They wrote what God wanted them to write. That's why it's called the Word of God and not the word of man. People can argue all they want over what does it mean for the Bible to be inspired, but the Bible answers that question. The guy in the video answered it well also.
Some people try to lecture me that it is wrong to refer to Jesus' name in Greek because he was a Jew and it is wrong to use Greek. I tell them quickly that, if that were true, God wouldn't have let the hospitals be written in Greek. Lone your willingness to share your knowledge.
In Luke 24: 47 Jesus said "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins, will be preached in His name to ALL the nations, beginning in Jerusalem." If he had spoken that in Chinese, and the meaning was accurately translated to our language, then preach REPENTANCE for the FORGIVENESS of SINS in HIS NAME to ALL NATIONS!!!!!
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. Mat 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 0:25 Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. th-cam.com/video/vcN1n_wKOVE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=PUu9hJU7lEl1nmFS
Luke is clearly written by Luke. John is clearly written by John. No one knows who wrote Matthew or Mark. What matters is what is in them. Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic because that was the language of the sinners and common people in his place and time in history; at least that is what modern historians think. Jesus most definitely was not interested in pleasing the Pharisees and Sadducees, who probably spoke in Hebrew out of pride and arrogance. What is troubling is that modern Bibles leave certain traditional religious-sounding Old English words in Old English, instead of translating them into modern English. This can be very confusing to children and the common people: Examples include gospel, church, disciple, doctrine, pastor, bishop and epistle. None of these words are in the Greek New Testament. The correct modern English translations are good news, assembly, follower, teaching, shepherd, overseer and letter. Note that these are all secular words and Jesus is deliberately secular; eating, drinking and associating with sinners and the common people, while railing against the conservative religious leaders of his time. There is no evidence that Jesus is the founder of Christianity, which arose after 180 A.D. when all of the biblical authors had passed on (source: Encyclopedia Britannica; Christianity).
The language of the NT and 1st century Judaea was NOT Aramaic. It was Greek. And the Jews spoke Hebrew. Actual Hebrew. But that doesn't matter since we actually have God's words in English.
Sir, you know that having a translation is never as good as having the original, so it does matter that the Bible was translated from a Semitic language to a European language. I can speak Latin, Arabic, and English (laus Deō) and I can see how much was lost when the Quran was translated from Arabic into Latin by Marracci (and the misunderstandings that arose), despite his probably being the best Latin translation, let alone translating the Quran into English. To say "Oh, but God inspired these people, so we just have to trust them is a cop-out "trust me bro" argument that cannot be independently verified whereas thank God we have the Quran in its original Arabic (a language that continues to be spoken and written and read to this day by millions of people) and thus we have something that every single translation can be compared with to accuracy. With all due respect, you guys just simply don't have that. Why did God Almighty preserve the Quran in its original language and not do the same for the Bible? Something to consider....
Theres no evidence im aware of that Jesus spoke Greek. Several early church historians reference a gospel written in Hebrew by Matthew and there are Syriac (dialect of Aramaic) manuacripts such as rhe Syriac Sinaticus. The greek gospels are the hellenized versions. The originals didnt contain the vrigin birth narratives or the triniatarian verses according to my research
You might need to explain WHY it matters. It matters because the language you speak influences the way you think. Hebrew idioms and culture are very different from other languages.
@@SymphoniasStories Yes this is true. But also historical context is important. First to third century AD in Judea was a constant battle for the Jews against Hellenization. The Greek manuscripts are the Roman version of christianity, which of course survived because the might ROman Empire, and of course influenced by all the Hellenistic ideas floating around in the Roman Empire. Guess who first talked about Logos? Philo of Alexandria! The Hellenistic philophosy was immersed in neoplatonism which yielded the doctrine Trinity. Where are the manuscripts of the disciples, who for certain did not know Greek, who were simple uneducated folks from the first century Judea? That's why we need the manuscripts in the original language! Look at the Dead sea scrolls; all manuscripts are in Aramaic and Hebrew from 1st century Judea. IF you understand the milieu where christainty emerged and how it is all about anti-hellenization, you will be understand how disciples would never write anything in Greek, even if they know the langauge.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
So great that you reference the theology of inspiration. It basically settles the argument. There is a new paraphrase (they call it a translation) that claims the NT was written in Aramaic and that their "translation" is more accurate. When pressed, the source admitted it was the Peshitta that was being used as their primary text. Sheesh! I appreciate all you do!
Since the early manuscripts were written to a group of people in the Greco-Roman world, to make it accessible, Greek makes sense. That way they don't have to make multiple versions. Besides that, the earliest manuscripts are in Greek, so there is no reason to think otherwise.
The early Christians Jerusalem church was anti everything Roman or Greek, they were against all form of hellenization. Early manuscripts were most certainly Aramaic and Hebrew. Look at the Dead Sea scrolls. They one the survived in Greek are the manuscript that the Romans could live with but not the anti-Roman original Hebrew manuscript.
@gr4707 as far as I know all the texts found in the dead sea scrolls were either OT or not canonical, they were copied by Jews not Christians. I don't see why the apostals would write to gentiles in hebrew. Luke and Mark were most likely not even Hebrews and Luke is writing to theopholus who is not a Jew.
That does not mean that Matthew, for insistence,. might not have first been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The language used would;d have depended on the language of the author’s church.
@@gr4707, Those early “Christians” were called infiltrators and deceivers by Saint Paul and that is because they were not really Christians.
@@pmaitrasm I don’t know where you get all this trust in Paul. What authority does he have? He is called a liar and the wicked one in almost of non-canonical literature especially Dead Sea scrolls. He is a man who preached to forsake the law, while historical Jesus said ““Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished”.
“Jesus spoke Aramaic so the Bible should be in the language he spoke” is a common Muslim argument against the Bible. I know this argument very well as I witness to Muslims often personally.
The Lord Jesus spoke 3 languages, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. We see this throughout the Bible.
He spoke Aramaic on the cross (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).
He read from the Tanakh/scroll of Isaiah (Luke 4:16-21).
Greeks came and spoke to Philip and Jesus (John 12:20-21).
3 Languages were written on the cross (John 19:20).
It's not hard to understand that Jerusalem was a multi-language city. During the Roman occupation (Latin), Greek was the common tongue and obviously, the Jews spoke the Hebrew/Aramaic language.
There are other verses which prove this such as Matthew was a Tax collector for the Romans and would have had to been able to communicate with all people (Matthew 10:3; Luke 5:27).
Zacchaeus was also a tax collector who spoke with Christ, he also would have needed to be able to communicate with Romans and others on a daily basis (Luke 19:2).
Intelligently put. Good job witnessing the truth to ignorant people.
@@rosslewchuk9286 All glory to the Lord Jesus. When we are challenged and take the time to read the scriptures slowly and not rush we have the answers needed to respond.
Other great points to consider are Christ spoke with a Roman centurion.
Matthew 8:8-10 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this [man], Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it]. When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. (Luke 7:6-10)
In order for the Lord Jesus to communicate with the centurion He would have had to speak in the language the Roman knew.
There's so many examples from the scriptures.
@@rosslewchuk9286 What are you talking about “transmitted”, we are not Muslims who believe only in Arabic as “God's words”.
The inspired word of God was written in Greek, true, but that doesn't mean the words spoken in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek are not inspired.
Jesus spoke multiple languages that's a fact. The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. Do you believe those are God's words? Christ spoke all throughout the Old Testament, you do know that right?
Ask them in which dialect of Arabic the Koran is written?
@@johnschuh8616 There's no such thing as dialect because the Sahaba were from the same tribe, the Quraysh. They do have different Arabic Qur'an's which have different words. I own 3 Hafs, Warsh and Qaloon. To this date, there are 37 different versions of the Qur'an.
To say the language matters is kind of insulting to God. It almost implies that God is more comfortable, or fluent with one particular language over another - which is patently false. How about we let God be God and not worry about it? If he wanted his word penned in Greek, that's His concern - not ours...
Exactly! Let God be God and let men ponder God's revealed wisdom over the period of time man is allowed to ponder in this life.
"understand who he is"
Daryl great post on this. I will use it for our study group. You are a master and pun intended studied at The Master's College.
Thanks Robert! Great to hear from you!
What do you think of John Poirier's argument that theopneustos actually means "life-giving" and not "God-breathed"?
The word "Theopneustos" ( Θεοπνευστος ) comes from Greek, combining "theo" meaning
"God " and " pneustos " meaning " breathed ". So, it translates to " God-breathed ", often used in the context of describing Scripture as inspired by God. While its not directly translated as " life-giving ", the concept of God's breath bringing life is certainly associated with it.
Thanks for your question. I haven't seen his argument before, but this sounds pretty challenging to conclude from the wording Paul uses. Paul seems to have put this word together for this sentence, so the etymology of the two words together seems to convey his intended meaning. "God" and "Breathed" do not amount to "life" and "giving" in any way I can figure out. He may have some other reasoning I haven't thought of, but at a glance it seems far fetched to me. I hope that helps.
Theopneustos means God inspired.
"matters" in what sense? for studying and understanding the Scriptures as they were meant to be, it matters indeed
"Matters" in the sense that if we have the inspired word then whether it was translated or not is secondary to the process of inspiration, and the certainty we have in the inspired word.
This is why those in Jesus Christ's day spoke in tongues. It was a divine message saying language isn't a barrier. What matters is we all speak in the righteous language Jesus Christ spoke, which is a universal language linked to our senses. The whole Christian world of many cultural languages can unite under God's Righteous Language and this is important because that language represents a science that angels adhere to and followers of Jesus Christ must, too.
Very helpful video. The only problem I have is - Why the music? You are teaching and I have never heard a teacher who had music playing in the background. I found it quite distracting I’m afraid.
Thanks for your feedback!
It matters.
When we were learning German, we are told that to speak proper German, we must learn to think like Germans.
If you do not speak a language, you are unable to think like the people who speak that language.
Language matters.
You are looking quite fit. Keep up the good work.
The music in the background is way too loud and is distracting
2 Tim 3:[16] *All scripture is given by inspiration of God,* and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 1 Co 2:13 Zep 3:9
Jesus is God, he knows every language on earth. He was multi lingual.
Exactly. There's no reason to wonder or question which languages He was able to read or speak.
This is a topic that is mostly ignored. Having worked in the ministry of Bible translation, I learned a lot about languages and translation methodology. Most scholars seem to agree that the narrative in the Gospels was spoken in either Aramaic or Hebrew. For those in Bible translation, this brings up an interesting situation, the Greek Gospels being a translation with the involvement of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration by the Holy Spirit covers a very wide definition spectrum with scholars and teachers occupying every part of it. One point of struggle is the nature of languages. I have come to realize that word for word is a more or less description, not real thing. A translation is more word for word or more dynamic but a true word for word does not exist. So, even with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, can the Greek translation of the Aramaic or Hebrew word for word be exact?
I've never actually come across anybody claiming that the Bible should be in the language that Jesus spoke. It seems like a very curious position to take; the NT being written in Greek, and the OT (mostly) being written in Hebrew - um, well, these things are what they are. After thousands of years there is no changing that. Regardless of whether or not one believes in such a thing as divine inspiration. (The only difference that I can envisage this matter making is an exegetical one; in some edge cases - and I can't think of any examples - it might make some difference to how we interpret a particular saying of Jesus or some Hebrew prophet if we know that what we're reading is likely a translation.)
You can remove most of the music. Not adding anything good. It acts as a background noise
Thanks for your feedback!
@@bmaI like the music.
If some people need background music they should play their own in the background so that all the rest of us can listen to the teaching without noise distracting us.
Skeptics like to shoot at the circular reasoning of this doctrine. But at the end of the day, you either recognize your master's voice or you don't. That said, I do wonder if the imagery behind the phrase "God-breathed" might be drawing from Genesis 2, where God formed His image bearer and then breathed into him. In that sense, God guides the formation of scripture for the purpose of breathing into it, rather than simply breathing it out. Making such a distinction keeps us from coming unglued if the formation process involves editing, textual variants, and various arguments over canonicity. The God-breathed dimension of scripture is recognized when the reader experiences the illumination of the text. We simply can't remove that component without reducing the bible to a philosophical text. And as we should all learn from the day of Pentecost, the HS is not limited by language. Even the original audience who heard and understood the language Jesus spoke needed "ears to hear and eyes to see" to comprehend what was being taught.
What a contrast to the false god Allah, who requires everyone to learn Arabic...
Our God is the true and living God who created language, and then at Babel divided people by making multiple languages, tribes and nations.
Jesus understood all languages and spoke whatever language was necessary to communicate with anyone whom He spoke to. Thankfully God understands all languages. The New testament was originally written in Greek. The Old testament was in Hebrew with Daniel being written in Hebrew and Aramaic. I'm thankful I've got the Bible in English. Men of God wrote the Bible as the Holy Spirit moved on them. They wrote what God wanted them to write. That's why it's called the Word of God and not the word of man. People can argue all they want over what does it mean for the Bible to be inspired, but the Bible answers that question. The guy in the video answered it well also.
Wow you new feel is so dramatic! haha. BTW, love this topic and your take.
Some people try to lecture me that it is wrong to refer to Jesus' name in Greek because he was a Jew and it is wrong to use Greek. I tell them quickly that, if that were true, God wouldn't have let the hospitals be written in Greek.
Lone your willingness to share your knowledge.
Love this so much
In Luke 24: 47 Jesus said "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins, will be preached in His name to ALL the nations, beginning in Jerusalem."
If he had spoken that in Chinese, and the meaning was accurately translated to our language, then preach REPENTANCE for the FORGIVENESS of SINS in HIS NAME to ALL NATIONS!!!!!
Sacred Apostolic Tradition is also inspired by the Holy Spirit.
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
Mat 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
0:25 Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
th-cam.com/video/vcN1n_wKOVE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=PUu9hJU7lEl1nmFS
It does matter because there is something loss in translations. Be honest brother.
Luke is clearly written by Luke. John is clearly written by John. No one knows who wrote Matthew or Mark. What matters is what is in them. Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic because that was the language of the sinners and common people in his place and time in history; at least that is what modern historians think. Jesus most definitely was not interested in pleasing the Pharisees and Sadducees, who probably spoke in Hebrew out of pride and arrogance.
What is troubling is that modern Bibles leave certain traditional religious-sounding Old English words in Old English, instead of translating them into modern English. This can be very confusing to children and the common people: Examples include gospel, church, disciple, doctrine, pastor, bishop and epistle. None of these words are in the Greek New Testament. The correct modern English translations are good news, assembly, follower, teaching, shepherd, overseer and letter. Note that these are all secular words and Jesus is deliberately secular; eating, drinking and associating with sinners and the common people, while railing against the conservative religious leaders of his time. There is no evidence that Jesus is the founder of Christianity, which arose after 180 A.D. when all of the biblical authors had passed on (source: Encyclopedia Britannica; Christianity).
The language of the NT and 1st century Judaea was NOT Aramaic. It was Greek. And the Jews spoke Hebrew. Actual Hebrew. But that doesn't matter since we actually have God's words in English.
Sir, you know that having a translation is never as good as having the original, so it does matter that the Bible was translated from a Semitic language to a European language.
I can speak Latin, Arabic, and English (laus Deō) and I can see how much was lost when the Quran was translated from Arabic into Latin by Marracci (and the misunderstandings that arose), despite his probably being the best Latin translation, let alone translating the Quran into English.
To say "Oh, but God inspired these people, so we just have to trust them is a cop-out "trust me bro" argument that cannot be independently verified whereas thank God we have the Quran in its original Arabic (a language that continues to be spoken and written and read to this day by millions of people) and thus we have something that every single translation can be compared with to accuracy. With all due respect, you guys just simply don't have that.
Why did God Almighty preserve the Quran in its original language and not do the same for the Bible? Something to consider....
Theres no evidence im aware of that Jesus spoke Greek. Several early church historians reference a gospel written in Hebrew by Matthew and there are Syriac (dialect of Aramaic) manuacripts such as rhe Syriac Sinaticus. The greek gospels are the hellenized versions. The originals didnt contain the vrigin birth narratives or the triniatarian verses according to my research
It 100% does. Stop rationalizing and open yourself to the truth.
I laughed out loud at this!
?
You might need to explain WHY it matters. It matters because the language you speak influences the way you think. Hebrew idioms and culture are very different from other languages.
@@SymphoniasStories Yes this is true. But also historical context is important. First to third century AD in Judea was a constant battle for the Jews against Hellenization. The Greek manuscripts are the Roman version of christianity, which of course survived because the might ROman Empire, and of course influenced by all the Hellenistic ideas floating around in the Roman Empire. Guess who first talked about Logos? Philo of Alexandria! The Hellenistic philophosy was immersed in neoplatonism which yielded the doctrine Trinity. Where are the manuscripts of the disciples, who for certain did not know Greek, who were simple uneducated folks from the first century Judea? That's why we need the manuscripts in the original language! Look at the Dead sea scrolls; all manuscripts are in Aramaic and Hebrew from 1st century Judea. IF you understand the milieu where christainty emerged and how it is all about anti-hellenization, you will be understand how disciples would never write anything in Greek, even if they know the langauge.
If it matters as much as you think it does, don't you think God would make it pretty easy for all of His people to learn the languages?
The music in the background is way too loud and is distracting