The birth place of Abraham: In the Bible, New Testament, Saint Stephen refers to it as the "land of the Chaldeans" when he retells the story of Abraham in Acts 7 (Acts 7:4). Ur Kaśdim is mentioned four times in the Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament, in the Book of Genesis (Genesis 11:28, Genesis 11:31, Genesis 15:7), and the Book of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 9:7). The distinction "Kaśdim" is usually rendered in English as "of the Chaldees." In Genesis, the name is found in 11:28, 11:31 and 15:7. Although not explicitly stated in the Tanakh, it is generally understood to be the birthplace of Abraham. Genesis 11:27-28 names it as the death place of Abraham's brother Haran, and the point of departure of Terah's household, including his son Abraham. In Genesis 12:1, after Abraham and his father Terah have left Ur Kaśdim for the city of Haran, God instructs Abraham to leave his native land (Hebrew מולדת moledet). The traditional Jewish interpretation of the word moledet is "birthplace". In Genesis 24:4-10, Abraham instructs his servant to bring a wife for Isaac from his moledet, and the servant departs for Haran. The Septuagint translation of Genesis does not include the term "Ur"; instead it describes the "Land of the Chaldees" (Greek χώρα Χαλδαίων, Chora Chaldaion). Some scholars have held that biblical Ur was not a city at all, but simply a word for land. The Book of Jubilees states that Ur was founded in 1688 Anno Mundi (year of the world) by 'Ur son of Kesed, presumably the offspring of Arphaxad, adding that in this same year wars began on Earth. "And ’Ûr, the son of Kêsêd, built the city of ’Arâ of the Chaldees, and called its name after his own name and the name of his father." (Jubilees 11:3). Some interpretations are that Abraham was born in Haran. There’s still an ongoing debate about where ‘Ur’ it is but it’s either in Urpah, Turkey or in Iraq. Most scientists believe it is the ancient Sumerian city Ur that is now in Iraq. In general Ur in Sumerian language is city.
@Marshmallow983
2 ай бұрын
Volume is too low.
@cricklicklers9382
2 ай бұрын
thank you.
@SCUT_Z0NE
2 ай бұрын
Very interesting theory only flawed due to ignorance in Hebrew and Aramaic… It’s a good idea to start learning to distinguish ע from א from ה Then you will learn that the original way the words sound as well as their meaning have zero connection to each other as a thumb rule. Abraham אברהם Hebrew 1. עברי 2. עברית Iberian Peninsula חצי האי האיברי See the difference? For English speakers distinguishing the sounds of the letters may result in total misunderstanding and wrong interpretation
@sonsofgodministries8940
2 ай бұрын
Hebrew didn’t exist, and is a dialect of Arabic
@SCUT_Z0NE
2 ай бұрын
@@sonsofgodministries8940you’re absolutely wrong. Get yourself educated.
@SCUT_Z0NE
2 ай бұрын
@@sonsofgodministries8940 Hebrew is not a dialect of Arabic. I don’t know where you picked this notion from… The oldest language called Hebrew is certainly older than the oldest language called Arabic, though the oldest form of Arabic still intelligible to modern speakers (early Modern Standard Arabic) is probably older than Modern Hebrew. I actually pointed out to the linguistic origins of it without over extending due to the nature of this media. Of course Hebrew as it is used in its modern form did not exist. That is a renewed/ revived language. It was to give you an idea of something that is as close as possible to a language you can obtain basic knowledge of to get an idea of what I am referring to. As for Christianity and the original language that was used in its beginning: Modern scholarship understands that Jesus would have most likely understood some Hebrew but argue that Aramaic was the language during Jesus' time in the Galilee, and would have been the language spoken in His ministry and to His disciples. Before Arabic became so wide spread in the Middle East, the Aramaic language had that role. The Aramaic language began in approximately the 11th century B.C.E and was used among the Aramaeans. The Aramaeans were from what is now Syria and some of the surrounding territory. I am more than willing to educate you about the original language of the Bible and holy scriptures but considering you lecture on biblical matters your ignorance is quite surprising. The Hebrew Bible (The Jews call it Tanakh) was mainly written in Biblical Hebrew with some portions Biblical Aramaic. (In particular in Daniel and Ezra). Biblical Hebrew עִבְרִית מִקְרָאִית (Ivrit Miqra'it) or לְשׁוֹן הַמִּקְרָא (Leshon ha-Miqra), also called Classical Hebrew, is an archaic form of the Hebrew language, (which makes reading the Bible challenging for modern Hebrew Speakers). The Biblical Hebrew is a language in the Canaanitic branch of the Semitic languages spoken by the Israelites in the area known as the Land of Israel. The term "Hebrew" was not used for the language in the Hebrew Bible, which was referred to as שְֹפַת כְּנַעַן "language of Canaan" or יְהוּדִית, "Judean", but it was used in Koine Greek and Mishnaic Hebrew texts. The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was into Greek. This translation is known as the Septuagint (LXX), a name that derives from a legend that seventy separate translators all produced identical texts; this legend was created to promote the authority of this translation. In fact, the development of the Septuagint was a gradual process: it began some time in the 3rd or 2nd century BCE, when the first portion of the Hebrew Bible, the Torah, was translated into Koine Greek. Over the next century, other books were translated as well. The Septuagint was widely used by Greek-speaking Jews. It differs somewhat in content from the later standardised Hebrew Bible, known as the Masoretic Text (MT). Later, for Christians, the Septuagint became the received text of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church, and the basis of its canon. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome was based upon the Hebrew for those books of the Bible preserved in the Jewish canon (as reflected in the Masoretic Text), and on the Greek text for the rest. Other ancient Jewish translations, such as the Aramaic Targums, conform closely to the Masoretic Text, and all medieval and modern Jewish translations are based upon the same. Christian translations also tend to be based upon the Hebrew, though some denominations prefer the Septuagint (or may cite variant readings from both). As for the deuterocanonical books. Here is where it gets more tricky: It’s widely accepted that these books were mostly written between 300 BCE and 300 CE. The thing is that they were written in different times, places, contexts and languages by multiple authors for different reasons. There’s no agreement between scholars there and debate revolves around which languages each of the deuterocanonicals was originally written. Many of the oldest surviving texts are in Koine Greek, but show features of Semitic languages (usually Semitisms like Hebrew, Aramaic or Syriac), which leads some scholars to argue that the original text, even though lost, may have been written in a Semitic language rather than Greek. On the other hand in other cases, the Greek seems more fluent and may be considered original. One of the youngest of these books, 2 Esdras, has a complex composition history with a probable mix of Hebrew, Latin and Greek origins. And now for the really interesting part: The books of the Christian New Testament are widely agreed to have originally been written in Greek, specifically Koine Greek, even though some authors often included translations from Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Certainly the Pauline Epistles were written in Greek (for Greek-speaking audiences). Koine Greek was the most prevalent form of Greek which emerged in post-classical antiquity (around c.300 BC to AD 300), and marks the third period in the history of the Greek language. It’s also called Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Common, or New Testament Greek. Some scholars believe that some books of the Greek New Testament (in particular, the Gospel of Matthew) are actually translations of a Hebrew or Aramaic original; For example in the opening to the Gospel of John, which some scholars argue to be a Greek translation of an Aramaic hymn; Of these, a small number accept the Syriac Peshitta as representative of the original. Some traditional Roman Catholic scholars believe the Gospel of Mark was originally written in Latin. Yet, the received text of the New Testament is Greek and nearly all translations are based upon the Greek text.
@SCUT_Z0NE
2 ай бұрын
@@sonsofgodministries8940 you’re still wrong. I’m wondering if you’re taking the time to educate yourself to stand corrected because you’re misinformed and misleading all the people that trust you and follow you.
@padraigmcdermott5533
2 ай бұрын
@@SCUT_Z0NE Sir with all due respect, although it seems like he confidently spouts nonsense, I can assure you Josh has some crazy mystical access to the ether where he download this information from. Sure it may reek of lack of education, and utter nonsensical statements, but that's just because your mortal mind can't yet grasp the Gnosis.
Пікірлер: 14