Response to Ammon Hillman: Was the Old Testament Originally in Greek?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2024
- This video responds to the claim by the Classicist Ammon Hillman that the Hebrew Bible was originally a Greek text that was translated into Hebrew.
Make sure to check out my third evidence, which is arguably the strongest.
@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou
@DrKippDavis
@ladybabylon666
Ammon Hillman, Terrence Howard, Billy Carson. Three remarkable individuals. Not for their claims (which are mostly gibberish cleverly packaged to fool very stupid people), but for their ability to be debunked by both Christian apologists (such as inspiringphilosophy and whaddo you meme) and by atheist skeptics (such as Professor Dave Explains and Kipp Davis)! Now that is an achievement!
I need to see a debate with Ammon Hillman on this
@@alexisjackson8351 I don't dislike him. He's like a Richard Carrier of the Old Testament but I think it's fair to say he doesn't debate well. Also it wouldn't be a debate because all the evidence, really, is on one side
This already happened. And Kip ran away then cried in chat
@jakesstx this is true. It says it all in my view.
@@MuktiArno Says all what? It says that the debate didn't continue because the manner in which it proceeded lacked seriousness and civility.
@cpnlsn88 watch the debate and find out
Ok so was jesus hurting kids. I care more about that then i do which language is older. The truth will be known
I don't see how anyone could ever make a proper assessment of that statement due to the fact that it is unknown if Jesus ever actually existed or not. There so far is not any evidence of him.
@@MJS2241 We're not talking about the "real guy" buddy, we're talking about the narrative of these texts. I know, it must be hard for you to understand something as simple as that, but you can try.
@MJS2241 the historical Jesus is better attested than Julius Cesar! The mythicist position is laughable... move along!
@@EBSMuzik im not a mythisist
There more than likely was a Jesus of Nazareth but he wasn't what you think he was it's lost in the translation.
Looking forward to comparing what Ammon said with what Joel says he said.
Ammon said the Old Testament was translated from an original Greek document into Hebrew. That's the claim. This video only responds to that claim.
@@JoelKorytkothanks...is this recent or a clip from an earlier episode? These seem pretty solid and familiar, maybe I saw you on Kipp's show. Even if Ammon doesn't reply there should be replies from the congregation. Would be foolish to make the "greek first" claim without seeing and answering these examples.
@@G4L4CTICR4DIO it is clipped from Kipp's show
I got a kick out of Hillman's funky hippy humour with Neil, and he may have some groovy things to say about sex and drugs in Dionysian elements in Christianity, but I shut him down quickly on his pretensions of the Old Testament being originally written in Greek. I think that is what he was saying . Universities may want to consider dumping religion degrees and require that scholars have full degrees in Greek and Hebrew to study these beautiful texts. Christian Greek and Hebrew scholars should be learned in Homer and Hesiod as well as the Old and New Testament.
My ten cents was there were Hebrew and Aramaic and whatever “Writings” but the OT was constructed in Greek in Alexandria to make the Septuagint.
As is believed to have happened in Athens to “Homer”…
Your case would be stronger if there weren't many ancient texts purposely using archaicisms and etc in order to give the appearance of being older
When I first heard this I was interested and intrigued. However on further reflection it's a load of rubbish. In parts it even reads like a translation and you can see the writer of the Septuagint struggling with semitic expressions. Certain puns work in Hebrew not necessarily in Greek. Also the Hebrew very clealry has different writers from different perspectives, different writers in the same book and different books from different perspectives. For instance Daniel contains Aramaic and no-one would go to that much trouble. There are books that contradict each other and contradictions within books (because coming from different authors) that just wouldn't be there if one author sat down and worked it all out.
You are 100% correct. Hebrew has no Greek interference. Greek does show interference.
You are so dishonest, it's pathetic!
In numerous videos, Professor Hillman shows, with no ability to argue, that it is exactly the other way around. Because the Hebrew language was diminutive (a kindergarten-level language, comparatively) , it was the Hebrew translation of the original Greek that completely lacked the vocabulary necessary to articulate the sophisticated concepts conveyed.
One example: In the original Greek, there is a reference to "ecstasy". Well, because there is no such work in ancient Hebrew, the Jewish translator chose "knowledge" as the closest translation...totally inaccurate, completely changes context and meaning, and just EMBARRASSING!
Stop arguing based on your pathetic attachment to your FALLACIOUS indoctrination...a little integrity goes a long way!
You should invite him on for a riveting discussion.
Why would the descendants of Abraham, an Akkadian, change entirely from that to a language derived from the Canaanites? Supposedly, they were living in Egypt for over 400 years, wouldn't they have spoken Egyptian by that point even if Abraham had learned to speak Canaanite when he supposedly lived in Canaan for a while? Are we to believe that they went from Akkadian to Canaanite to Egyptian and then back to what is essentially Canaanite? None of that makes sense.
Excellent information here. 🧐
Impressive demonstration. Thank you Dr. Korytko
BUT are there signs to know if it wasn't just a Hebrew scribe with only like 4 years of Greek? Which is why it has the Hebrew idioms/words transliterated?
From this video's limited data that still seems like it could be plausible?
Why aren't there Greek transliterations in the Hebrew text? Why would the alleged original Greek text have these transliterations in the first place? They aren't phrases that exist in Greek. What accounts for them?
@@JoelKorytko Ya that's what I'm proposing why can't the Greek be the original, just done by a Hebrew?
Doesn't it touch all your questions:
no Greek transliterations
has Hebrew transliterations
non Greek phrases
We still get this today when someone tries to write in their 'second' language and they don't fully understand the grammar syntax.
To me this is a theory that explains the data presented. I don't know how one could prove sufficiently with grammar syntax if it is translated or if it is written by someone where Greek is their second language and so is writing in Hebrew grammar syntax and doesn't know some words so just writes it as it sounds. Right this is centuries before a dictionary.
Try asking a grade school student to spell.
Again just seems like this theory also checks all the boxes you present.
@@CaliRaveBoi Why doesn't the Hebrew "translation" show any signs of Greek interference then? Why is it always the other way around? Also why do the literary features often only appear at the Hebrew level (chiasms, wordplay/puns/etymological comments) when they should have been there in the Greek "original"?
@@JoelKorytko Ya you're right, I'm just a peon to all of this. So as long as there are 0 Greek idioms taking what you say in 'good faith' and not cherry picked.
Another thought I had that would bolster your claim, like I said I'm just a peon, would be how many different handwritings there are and if the Hebrew idioms are in nth amount of scripts that would support against a 'second language acolyte' as multiple people should be at differing skill levels.
@@JoelKorytkoYou're willfully ignoring all the evidence of the Greek influence in the Hebrew text. Absolutely everything in the Torah reflects Greek oracular tradition. From the Tree of Zoe to the tabernacle of Moses to the drug induced visions of Ezekiel... IT'S ALL HELENISTIC!
Hi,,what about the jewish from Create,wouldn't they perhaps be bi lingo? I learnt a few languages to read scripture,.And why dose everyone want to be Hebrew?
Do you think the Septuagint is based on a different Hebrew text than the Masoretic text?
@@kennethgreifer5123 In some instances yes. In the majority, no
No-one is salty about which came first.
Wouldn't the word that means West / Sea mean either west or sea depending on where they are?
They did do that in antiquity. God does it in Genesis regarding the rivers in Eden and Eden itself.
Also what's the difference in the languages regarding the amount of words there are per language in this comparison? Like English has thousands of words but Hebrew far less..? I'm not familiar with Greek but I know there must be a significant difference in order to make this argument otherwise your dealing with cultures no?
Lovely presentation btw thank you very much. Have a good night your doing great don't be nervous🧐🤩😋😉
Hey ! Jesus was in that fictional garden with a naked kid?
What does that have to do with this video?
@@JoelKorytko if the old testament was written in Hebrew, would that boy in the new testament have been at home with his parents? That was the main topic of that podcast , not the language in which the old testament was written. Christian rape to which society is still subjected as long as these myths are discussed as real or worst hidden in translations
@@JoelKorytko Lmao the backtracking as soon as someone mentions the pink elephant on the room. These christians are so funny "tHiS vIdEo Is JuSt AbOuT gReEk NoT BeInG tHe MVP/OG pLaYeR AmMoN SaId iT iS" lmao ok bud, you're making a whole video on 1 irrelevant claim Ammon made. What about all the other 99 claims that he has made with concrete EVIDENCE??? "oh yeah no, we don't talk about that" YEAH, OF COURSE YOU DONT.
@@JoeBrandAGand he sees the name "Yahweh" but pronounes it as "Adonai"... lol... dude is a clown! Hail Satan!
Public park get it right
The Hebrew community in Alexandria was likely to be the most educated and best resourced at the time. Papyrus had been rare in the Levant. Back in Jerusalem a small group of priests would have passed down the law mostly via oral tradition. There is no evidence of public access to religious scrolls in Israel until the second century. The Greek seems to be a translation but of gathered oral accounts rather than a source text. Yes the Hebrew comes through but is more like the Kalava or Eddas.. gathered tales
@@SteveGaddTasmusic If the Hebrew Bible we have is not the source text, why does it contain zero indications of Greek influence or interference whereas the LXX shows innumerable signs of interference in the exact ways we would expect if it were a translation from the Hebrew source text we have?
@@JoelKorytko My argument is that while there were possibly collections of scrolls containing specific stories, these were not organised into a series of books in a coherent order. Most of the tradition is likely to be oral tradition.The first historical non biblical accounts of Torah practice in the Levant are 3rd century BC at the earliest. That is within the Macedonian hegemony. The synagogues (Greek root by the way) in which a person who was literate would read from a scroll to create discussion amongst a mostly illiterate population date to no earlier than the 2nd century BC. This indicates that prior to then there was either not public access to the books or that few could read them.
There are plenty of words of Greek origin in the Tanark. A quick Google will reveal that much. Also Platonist ideas are coming in super imposed on the earlier Yahwehist tradition.
Meanwhile all the evidence cited in this video to prove a prior set of written texts could just as easily be evidence for a prior set of oral history traditions codified in Alexandria. Bear in mind that estimates have around 1,000,000 Jews living in Egypt in the 2rd century BC... as many as in Jerusalem and surrounding areas.
The current Hebrew bible takes its current for around 200CE. Sure bits of it existed perhaps back to the early iron age but there was no record of a complete systematically organised collection until the Septuagint.
Ecclesiastes is often thought to reflect a Hellenistic environment, as was notably argued by Rainer Braun in Kohelet und die frühhellenistische Popularphilosophie (de Gruyter, 1973). He writes in his conclusion: "If one compares Ecclesiastes with Greek writers from his time, there are remarkable parallels especially to his contemporaries Phoenix of Colophon, Cercidas of Megalopolis and the representatives of the older diatribe, which up to 250 BCE shows a strong stream of tradition, like Bion or Teles" (p. 179; translated from German).
With respect to 1-2 Chronicles, we read in "Recent Research on Chronicles" by Rodney K. Duke (CBR, 2009): "Greek Influence. In conjunction with the issue of dating Chronicles, there has been a growing trend to debate the possibility of Greek influence on Chronicles...one should note, though, that many scholars fail to make a distinction between ‘Hellenic’ influence (prior to the conquest of Alexander the Great, c. 332 BCE) and ‘Hellenistic’ influence (the spread of Greek culture after the conquest).... Hoglund (1997) argues that the Chronicler used various historiographic practices that are found in the Hellenic world: genealogies as ‘carriers of the organization of society’ (1997: 22); prophets portrayed typologically as wise counselors; authentification by using numbers and source citations; and the use and adaptation of earlier works without attribution (1997: 22-29). So, too, Knoppers finds various features in Chronicles’ genealogies which compare better to Greek practice than to lists from the Ancient Near East" (pp. 20-21).
Daniel also has Greek ideas beyond the use of a few words. One conspicuous example is the four kingdom schema and the series of metals of decreasing value representing different periods, which probably draws on Hesiod.
@@SteveGaddTasmusic I am referring to the Pentateuch. The claim I make is for the Pentateuch. Please point out Greek influence there. I agree that other books could be influenced by a Greek milieu, especially Daniel
Ammon hillman is correct
Why? Are you an expert in Biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek? Hillman only knows Greek, and a little modern Hebrew, so why his word means so much to you?
@@Machike57 yes I am
My channel will soon become available
@@Machike57 because I am Jewish
@@Seth-711 self attested Jewish heritage doesn't qualify your opinion lol
That is correct. But, it goes both ways.
It’s Greekbrew, or Heek. No seriously, pretty convincing examples you bring.
Greek was derived from Canaanite scripture.
Related question : how do you respond to the claim that there are only 9000 hebrew words? This information comes from a couple of sources, aside from Ammon. That's not a typo. 9,000. Nine thousand.
@@MuktiArno The amount of words does not mean the amount of meanings, or of ways in which those words can be paired to create meaning. We also have few ancient Hebrew sources that survived. There could have been more vocabulary outside of the literary spheres of the small corpus that we still have today. In contrast, we have a ton of Greek literature. It is no surprise we have a higher word count there.
@JoelKorytko ok. However it is also suggested that there are no non-liturgical texts in Hebrew. I find that strange. Yes this could explain why there's only 9000 words but to me that is the core of the entire debate. I can bend and agree that maybe the Torah was written in hebrew first, but it still sticks out as a sore thumb this language was used only for liturgical texts. Didn't these people believe in poetry? I think there's a deeper conspiracy afoot here. The similarities between phoencian and hebrew also strikes me. It's as if a secret language was invented just to write this secret book not meant for all eyes. At least initially.
Actually, it's 7,000.
@@MuktiArnonotice he never answered your question... cuz he can't! There is no Hebrew literature other than the 46 found in the Catholic Bible... lol... 🤘🏽😜
@@-WiseGuy-it's actually around 8,168 words... that's it!
Are there any texts not liturgical(Greek or Hebrew) that can be used to strengthen your argument? Referring back to different translations of the same texts is circular logic, no?
@@mvassallo2614 referring to internal and external linguistic data is not circular logic at all
24:07 I love this guy. God is the, "Trivium Quadrivium." I believe, otherwise known, as "The Word"
Ammon Hillman says he will debate anyone. Why don't you invite him 🤔? He is very friendly ☺️. He loves being on people's shows 😅. When I was 4 years old and heard about a talking snake I knew it was All a scam.
@@James-wv3hx He is tagged in the description. I'm happy to hear his response to my arguments
@@JoelKorytko thanks 👍. Your the only response from dozens of my questions to others.
They darent
I said the same thing James-wv3hx!
Joel, are you just grossly misinformed as to what Dr. Hillman is saying, or are you intentionally misrepresenting his hypothesis?
You constantly refer to the Septuagint as a translation from Hebrew into Greek, and yet not once have you brought up any of the primary sources that Dr. Hillman is using to understand the technicality beyond the crude Semitic Hebrew interpretation of the Septuagint.
Also is your criticism based entirely on his discussion with Danny Jones? If so I would strongly suggest that as a supposed “Scholar” let alone a PhD in Oriental studies, that you actually address the sources that Dr. Hillman is using vs. brushing them aside in your attempt for easy clout chasing on someone else’s channel. He has a YT channel and has introductory videos into the Greek, and breaks down in-depth his translations based on those primary sources.
The academic gate keeping is a joke at this point, nobody gives a shit about your opinions of the text, we want to see you attack the primary sources being used by Dr.Hillman; if not then maybe reach out to Dr. Hillman and take his courses on the Ancient Greek so you can actually learn enough to address the primary sources.
@@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός I have a doctorate from Oxford in Septuagint. I can read Greek just fine, and I know the sources. I also know ancient Hebrew, which Ammon does not. Please engage with my evidence and the evidence of every single Septuagint scholar in the world. I'm happy to talk with Ammon if he wants to.
@@JoelKorytko Waving your Doctorate doesn’t mean shit to me, let alone burden shifting the responsibility onto me to engage with every other Septuagint scholar since I’m addressing YOU specifically.
You’re the one making the claim that you’ve in fact read ALL the sources; which if that was the case then you would have been attacking the sources Dr. Hillman is citing from.
Which is precisely why I asked if your only engagement with Dr. Hillman was based on his discussion with Danny Jones, or did you actually look into and watch any of his previous discussions on his YT channel?
@@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός I am saying that every single Septuagint scholar in the world disagrees with Ammon. He is alone. Either we are all completely out of ours minds, or maybe, just maybe, Ammon doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to translations of Hebrew source texts. He does not know Hebrew. I don't need to do comparative studies with other Greek texts when it comes to general themes. I want to deal with the specifics. There are many parallels between all sorts of symbols and themes and motifs across the Mediterranean world. It is not helpful for me to engage with that. Ammon, and you, need to deal with the actual linguistic data that I have presented in this video. I would also hope that you would extend courtesy to someone who has given their life to the study of these texts, as you apparently do for Ammon.
@@JoelKorytkoLook, I’ll meet you halfway; I will look more into some of the scholarship surrounding the Septuagint IF you’d be willing to start reviewing Dr.Hillmans work available on his YT channel and actually attack either his translations of the Greek source texts, or reach out to have a discussion one on one in the future. 👍🏼
@@JoelKorytko I’m also curious, since you did state that you are familiar with the Greek Sources, have you read any of Galen, Dioscorides, or Artemidorus? I’m also curious, is there any medical texts that reference Ancient Hebrew medicine outside of the Biblical sources?
Straight data! This is great, I wish more scholarship would handle claims this way. I see way to much "scholarly consensus" as a response. I dont care how dumb the claim is, attack it with actual data.
@@binhalamela Agreed. And I hate when people rely on consensus. It is a tool, not a right.
What about all of the words in Hebrew that have obviously baser definitions, or are different altogether, indicating that the Greek was superior and more developed.
What about Hebrew having 8,000 words and the Greek having at least 500 K? Why would anyone translate so poorly from an inferior, more limited language into Greek, a clearly more developed and longstanding language.
Ammons latest video clearly proves all of this.
@@JohnnyGnostech His video does not. People translate based on needs. If you need a Greek translation of a Hebrew text, you make it. Maybe they needed it for their religious communities who didn't speak Hebrew as much anymore.
Also, Ammon does not know ancient Hebrew. He is in no position to state that the Hebrew is poor. I know ancient Hebrew. It is not poor at all. It is often beautifully constructed.
Im not an academic or a religious person.
I think Hebrew probably has no Greek influences because they have tried to erase the Greek from history. Look at Israel in 2024 what where they like back then?
I have no previous knowledge about the bible, but Ammon Hillmans theories seem more realistic than what's in the actual bible.
I've always wondered why you're given the bible for free. It's to brainwash you into being a slave
Fair enough. I appreciate the reply. I'm merely citing Ammons' claims for you to address. I'm no language expert. I'm just a curious fellow.
My reason is still inclined to see a language with 8000 words to be inferior to, or less developed than, one with at least 500K unique words, and now estimated to have 1.7 million words when including all word forms of the base words. So your input doesn't seem to hold up to my intuitive reasoning.
20:32 "And in the last days, God will send them a great lie, so that men may believe and be Damned" Where's that from, guys? I've probably quoted it incorrectly...
How bout the most important part. The content is Zoroastrian/Greek apocalypticism.
Whos making things up though to be clear? Ammon? Or the greeks of antiquity? Ammon knows this language. If hes learned it wrong, how and why did he learn it wrong?
It’s not wrong, medical terminology has always been a different thing than laymen’s language. I don’t doubt that he is proficient in Greek medical terminology. I do doubt that he has the best interpretations of texts because he is imposing the use of medical terminology into non medical context.
@@melanielang9833 that's not really an argument because that's exactly what the man specializes in is medical terminology in Greek so what's your point? Medical terminology being difficult to translate has nothing to do with anything for a man as proficient in the language as he is. Is he a strange person? Yes. But that doesn't mean his credentials are false. They are not as a matter of fact. His work is on point, it's just not what we're used to hearing and we think it's bogus because the rituals are strange and taboo but that's not the professors fault either. That's just the ancient Greek's doing their thing. This is how they communicated with the Gods. All of antiquity did these things regarding religious cult activity. Roman influence all over the world was taken too lightly by scholars in the past, these activities crept into every culture they conquered to include yes the Jewish communities. We might not like hearing these things but to get to the truth we need to face some harder to truths.
@@jennifferjude3156 If I say I don’t give a shit, and 3000 years from now that is interpreted as constipation that is not the correct translation related to the context.
Debate him live then.
@smokinhoff9209 My calendar is open. He won't debate Kipp or myself, if I understand correctly. He has been asked.
hahahha you guys are funny. but when i google how many words in ancient Hebrew its only 8000.
So why not just count how many different words are used in the OT? If there is just in the range of 8000-9000, then maybe it was written in Hebrew after all? If written in a more evolved language with double the vocabulary, the OT should contain way over 9000 distinct words.
Ancient Hebrew has only 8000 unique words compared to over a million plus in Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek is a more complex language. What Dr. Hillman is saying is you can only translate a more complex language into an inferior, not an inferior into a more complex language.
I am skeptical of this view. You make five claims: There are over a million+ Ancient Greek words vs 8000 Ancient Hebrew words, Ancient Greek is more complex than Ancient Hebrew, a more complex language is superior to a less complex language (this is implied), Ancient Greek is superior to Ancient Hebrew (this is implied), and you cannot translate a more complex (superior) language into a less complex (inferior) language.
1. How many of the million+ Ancient Greek words are actually words that are unique to a dialect of Ancient Greek? How many unique words exist for the dialect of the authors/translators of the Greek Old Testament? I think this claim needs to be verified and put into a context of time and place. I would not accept this claim without context.
2. How do you define complexity here? Languages have different levels of complexity. Those levels of complexity can be mere accounting (whether or not verbs and adjectives match up to noun gender and number, how verbs represent time, state, and condition, etc), or how much a single word or phrase elucidates or implies a concept. I think you would have to define what you mean by complexity and offer comparisons for this claim to stand. If you are representing Dr. Hillman's perspective, I think you should state his arguments.
3. Given that you have yet to define the parameters of your claims of complexity, the implication that Ancient Greek is more complex than Ancient Hebrew cannot stand on its own.
4. Given that you have yet to define the parameters of your claims of complexity, the implication that Ancient Greek is superior to Ancient Hebrew cannot stand on its own.
5. I think the claim that you cannot translate a less complex language into a more complex language is false and can be proven false by establishing a framework for what makes a language less complex versus more complex, finding contemporary languages that fit the rubric, and asking translators to translate a text in the less complex language into the more complex language, and vice versa, and asking native speakers to describe what they are reading, and what the text means, and then analyzing the results.
If you feel strongly about representing Dr. Hillman's perspectives with your claims, I would challenge you to put in the work, or find scholars with relevant expertise who can put in this type of work and ask them if Dr. Hillman's claims are reasonable.
Watch the livestream on this channel where I deal with this claim as well. It is a totally false claim on Ammon's part. Further, you have to deal with the data in this video. Don't dodge the data going to some abstract (though incorrect) point.
Ammon is correct. The AD1008 Leningrad Codex is the oldest Hebrew Bible.
It's the oldest complete copy, yes, but there are earlier copies that were obviously complete, but damaged, like the Aleppo Codex, and the recently sold Sasson Codex.
Moreover, we have extensive evidence of the contents of the Hebrew Bible in wide circulation long before the 9th century. Most of the books of the HB were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls-at Qumran, Murrabba'at, Nahal Hever and Masada. Some of these mss even attest to complete Torahs, or "Pentateuchs," as early as 150 BCE.
Ammon's understanding of the entire discussion is uninformed and unsophisticated.
@@DrKippDavisThe first European pharaoh of Egypt was Potlemy 1 Meryamun Setepenre, who became the first European pharaoh of Egypt through military force led by Alexander the Greek. When Ptolemy became pharaoh of Egypt, he wanted the Egyptians to consecrate him as a god. He wanted to be called a god because that was the title all of the pharaohs of Egypt were called prior to him. However, the people of Egypt refused to call him a god because they knew the only reason he became a pharaoh was through force, so in “305 BC -Ptolemy took the title of Pharaoh, taking the Egyptian name Meryamun Setepenre, which means “Beloved of Amun (Amun means God) Chosen of Ra(Ra means God)”, and because of the Egyptians refusal to acknowledge him as a God, he began killing the people of Egypt, which caused the Egyptian priests at Memphis to give into his request by agreeing to consecrate him to priesthood, in order to save their own lives.
The key words in the above passage to keep in mind during your reading: Meryamun, Setepenre, Soter, which are words that were used to create the fictitious character of JESUS CHRIST in AD by Roman Emperor Constantine (Meryamun, Setepenre, Soter were used in B.C). The images of Ptolemy below, which are similar to the images that are depicted as “Jesus” today, were forced upon the Africans and were ordered to be worshipped by the people of Rome.
@@oliverlaw02LOL. This is just completely wrong on pretty much every level.
There are a bunch of half truths in here. The new hellenistic rulers were accepted with some reticence but they did not go on any bloodbath rampages. The Ptolemies sought to incorporate Greek and Egyptian identity, and they used the cult of Sarapis, as well as support (= financing and propping up) of the indigenous cultic systems, to garner favor. There were some Egyptian revolts at the end of the 3rd century BCE and onwards but these were not under Ptolemy I. These revolts were not about the deification of the hellenistic rulers but about economic matters
@drkippdavis @oliverlaw02
Forget about Ammon. For God sakes your an oxford grad. Hes from a prestigious school too. Its about the core of thos issue. Where the translation problem and why are you all fighting ??? Come together and fix it so the rest of us dummies can obtain some semblance of the truth. There are issues and problems with this ALL OVER THE PLACE . Where do they begin? Is it a language thing? Or a cutural thing? Is it a syntax thing? Can it be fixed? Can we get to the basic original texts? If its not possible thats ok too guys. Youve done well but you gotta stop bickering and talk to each other. I dont think you can blame Ammon. I think its bigger than him and you alone.
i didn't know that there was somebody that claimed the TaNaKH was originally penned in Greek and thus, the Hebrew texts are all translations... lol
Did you end that statement of ignorance with a smug laugh?? So you already know the truth of the matter, do you, genius?? Do you believe in magic bejesus too?🤦♂️
@-WiseGuy- the truth of the matter is that the proposition that the TaNaKH (or what is often called "the Old Testament) being originally written in Greek and the Hebrew Text is a translation is a laughable proposition to ANYONE who has read BOTH the LXX AND the Hebrew.
Oh yeah? Hmm...
"Biblical scholars agree that the first five books of the Hebrew Bible were translated from Biblical Hebrew into Koine Greek BY JEWS living in the Ptolemaic Kingdom..."
So, it is generally believed that the translations into Greek were DONE BY JEWS. Gee, what a strange idea to think it was THEY who didn't have a grasp of the Greek, not the other way around.🤔
is there a comment you are responding to that I'm not aware of? Me and the people in the video agree that the translation known as the LXX was done by Jews FROM Hebrew.. In fact, that is our ENTIRE POINT. The LXX is translational Greek and the Hebrew traditions largely reflect what was being translated. (not the other way around). @@-WiseGuy-
@@matthewmencel5978
I don't know what your asking about. The order of comments is pretty clear.
It's a moronic assumption to think the translation errors were done by fluent speakers of Greek. Obviously, it makes infinitely more sense that it was the jews themselves who didn't know the greek well enough.
Modern academia has lost almost all credibility!
The Old Testament was originally in Greek then translated into Hebrew.
Remember Hebrew was a dead language for almost 2,000 years, probably even longer.
You imply a claim, but it isn't directly stated. What are you getting at when you say that Hebrew was a dead language for almost 2,000 years? When did Hebrew die out, exactly, and how does that match up with the time of the composition of the Septuagint? Even if it was the case that Hebrew had died out in every day use, can you show that there were no texts in Hebrew that the religious Jews of the Hellenistic era were using as part of their faith and culture? How does your claim prove that the Old Testament was written in Greek originally? I smell an empty claim without data to back it up.
@@christopherscholl639copa banana cross doctor
My thought is this. We are told that the Old Testament wasn't unified until the second century ad. We are also told that 72 scribes translated the original Hebrew into Greek, in isolation, which sounds like a fairytale.
Laying the fairytale aside, the Old Testament wasn't canonized for another 400 years. How did the 72 scribes get their hands on 72 complete sets of the Tanak if the Tanak wasn't canonized?
The kicker beyond this absurdity is they all translated 39 separate writings in, drum roll...72 days. The creation if this fairytale raises red flags.
It seems the only way to establish Tanak primacy is yo go line by line via live stream. This would take months, if not yeas, but I would watch every minute of it. It would be fascinating!
You convinced me. Well done!
Just DEBATE the Guy and QUIT YOUR WHINNING. i watched your buddy run away from Ammon so lets see you and your buddies take him on. Na i smell chicken.
copium tears are delicious [definitive..lol]
lol
Hail Satan
Don't take too much of it all at once!
The Greek was derived from the Hebrew
Where is all the ancient Hebrew literature? Show me Hebrew medical texts. Show me Hebrew romance novels. Where's the Hebrew comedy or satire? Where's the palace records? When you only have 8,000 words in your vocabulary, you're on a 3rd grader's level of communication. Ancient Hebrew got devoured by Ancient Greek!
Are you saying that the Hebrews were just horrible at preserving their sources... while we still have Homer? You people are hilarious... 🤣
Hail Satan! 🤘🏽😜
Credibility shot??🤔
Around 15 minutes in (my 1st fact check on your claims), you demonstrate that you clearly don't know the greek or you don't know the bible. Nothing close to your translation is in that passage:
1 Sam 5:4
"And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him."
Such a rudimentary contradiction makes me seriously doubt your trustworthiness as a "scholar".
I didn't translate that verse as a whole. I pointed out that the phrase אֶל־הַמִּפְתָּן, which your translation above renders as "upon the threshold", is transliterated in the Greek because the translator did not understand the word. I'm not sure you understand my argument. What I referred to is absolutely in that verse.
@@JoelKorytko
Your words [translated phrase]:
"The things before Anathoth..."
Anathoth is the name of a city. There's no such mention in that entire section, and, in contradistinction to your own translation, you just asserted it refers to "upon the threshold". So, again, your claims are entirely fallacious, not to mention inconsistent.
Is there some version you have secret knowledge of that is so distinct, it says something totally different than all the commonly available ones??🤔
@@-WiseGuy- amathoth is the Greek transliteration of המפת, which is the term for threshold. You aren't following my argument. Thanks for watching!
@@JoelKorytko
Are you capable of a straightforward linear exchange or not?
You keep trying to deflect to "your argument". I don't care (nor should anyone else) about arguments proposed by a supposed "expert" who can't even offer consistent explanations for things he LITERALLY said.
1) You translated an excerpt supposedly from the bible, as an example.
2) I checked your translation and assertion of that example, as an initial test for accuracy. (You not translating the verse as a whole is entirely irrelevant to the point.)
3) Your translation, in no way, reflected what is actually in the 1 Sam biblical passage. And, again, your translation included a city that's not even mentioned.
4) Noticing it to be completely wrong, I reasonably challenged the veracity of your claim.
5) You keep avoiding the fact that your translation was patently false. (Perhaps you need to go back and listen to your own words.)
6) I've been giving you every opportunity to defend and substantiate your position. You only deflect and avoid.
Why in the world should anyone trust the perspective of someone who can't directly confront and admit to being proved WRONG...even regarding such relatively small details? How can your judgment be trusted regarding more consequential matters? You are only further exposing how inept and self-discrediting our very broken "education" system truly is!🤦♂️
@@-WiseGuy- Dude. I translated the Greek text. It says "the things before amapheth" = τα εμπροσθια αμαφεθ. That's in the Greek of 1 Sam. 5:4. I'm literally just translating the Septuagint, which is different than the Hebrew text that you cited from. I'm not sure what to tell you at this point. There's no error on my part here.