"The word “Christ,” which to modern readers seems like a family name, just means “anointed one” and is the Greek version of the Hebrew word “Mashiah” or “anointed.”
The word 'Christ' is not based on the neo-Hebrew 'Mashiah'. Let the truth be told about the modern written Hebrew of today. The modern Hebrew (neo-Hebrew) word 'Mashiah' was actually translated from the Greek 'chrīstos' in 900 AD. So, it is the opposite of what is being claimed here. The original Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew) was already lost to antiquity for over a thousand years.
Look up "Hebrew" and even Wikipedia tells us that the written Hebrew of modern times (neo-Hebrew) is not paleo-Hebrew. Paleo-Hebrew is the original writings of the books of the Old Testament (OT). As I said, paleo-Hebrew was lost to antiquity.
Modern written Hebrew is based on the work by the Masoretes in 900 AD. Who are the Masoretes? They are Pharisaic Jews (Pharisees), who recreated a new written 'Hebrew' from Arabic and other existing Canaanitish languages because the original Hebrew was lost in antiquity. The Masoretes used the Greek Septuagint Old Testament to create a new written 'Hebrew' that had vowel points.
The oldest Bible OT there is the Septuagint, which was transliterated from the original paleo-Hebrew in circa 285 BC. The original Hebrew written language was by that time becoming extinct.
According to tradition, it was Ptolemy Philadelphus, who purchased the freedom of Israelites in his territories, arranged for 6 scholars from each of the 12 tribes to translate the first 5 books of the Old Testament from paleo-Hebrew into Greek around 285 BC. By this time a practical knowledge of the Hebrew written language was all but lost.
The original written Hebrew consisted only of consonants and relied on an oral knowledge to decipher the consonant only words. Think of the 'cat' and remove the vowel. It becomes 'ct'. Without the vowel, the word 'ct' could be cat, cot, cut, cute, acute, coat, etc. An individual of knowledge would be required to orally teach others what the word 'ct' was. This is how the priestly class taught and passed on the writings of the bible. The paleo-Hebrew writings were designed for the bible deciphering. This is how the Hebrew written language was passed down generation after generation. It was central to understanding the bible.
With the written Hebrew language being greatly eclipsed and dominated by the very popular Greek language, which was the international language of the day, Hebrew was in danger of being lost. Ptolemy gathered together 72 scholars and in a short period of time they completed the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is from Greek pentáteuchos and is the first five books of the Old Testament. The Latin name 'Septuagint' means 70, and was later applied to the translation in circa 1555 AD, for there was approximately 70 translators. This is also the reason why the abbreviation 'LXX' is used for this reason. After the first 5 books were finished, the translators set out to work on the rest of the OT. The exact date this was accomplished is not known, but it is certain the complete OT was finished within 100 years and it is likely it was completed within a few years by the same translators.
Did you know that all Protestant bibles are based on the Pharisaic Masoretic Text that was given to the Catholic Church in 900 AD? Does anyone know why the Masoretes re-engineered the OT in a made-up written language? Could it be that in their own writings they believed the bible shouldn't be understood by the public and should remain strictly in the confines of understanding to the rabbis? In other words, they were attempting to undue what Ptolemy did in 285 BC.
In regards, to the bible, if you want to discern the truth, it is best to use old versions of the protestant bible (1636 KJV, Geneva Bible) the Catholic pre-1964 Jerusalem bible, LXX, and a good English-Greek Lexicon (Strong's, Thayers, and especially Liddell-Scott-Jones) to verify and understand the translations. Relying on only the English fails to adequately 'paint' the complete picture of meaning as does the Greek.
Are you bleeping high?! That is a broad brush, like many broad brushes, not a true statement. Have you looked into different translations fren? The dead sea scrolls (either the oldest, or nearly the oldest document) confirm the best translations. ESV is a word for word translation with grammatical changes made to fit English because English, as a language, blows chunks. Both ESV and NIV, not to mention other translations like HCSB have all derived from the oldest transcripts, being translated by Christians of different denominations, all agreeing on the different definitions of words. These denominations are not picked at random, they are ones that hold firmly to the conception that the word of God is holy and perfect, that man inspired by God wrote what he desired. The Geneva Bible is a fine Bible, I have no known issues with it. It is however a couple hundred years old, so if you wanna bust out a thesaurus to read it, that's your choice. If you think that people 500 years ago were un-corruptable, but we are ultra-corruptable, then I believe you've dug yourself in too deep mentally into realities that don't exist. There is a danger of saying everyone and everything that disagrees with me is wrong, and is Deep State meant to confuse us. Some people are genuinely mistaken, they do things to the best of their abilities to the best of their knowledge, but it is fraught with sin, and has the likelihood to be errant. When it comes to translations, you have to look at those who translated it, what were their intentions in the translation, and how does it pan out? What effective changes did they make? Reading the NIV, which is a phrase for phrase translation, compared to the ESV, which is more word for word, you notice the phrasing is different between the two. When you look at the effectual change, there really isn't any. A Christian who studied one over the other is not any better or worse off. Does this mean the two translations are equal? No, I think the concept of the ESV (much like a modern Geneva Bible) is a cleaner translation, because of its particular focus on things like word for word being more important than phrase for phrase based on who the translators are, it gives them [the translators] more authority to change things, even if barely slightly. I'd prefer the translators have as little responsibility as possible, much like the government should have the smallest responsibility as possible. To say that all protestant bibles etc. Do you realize how many people are under the umbrella of Protestant. Any non-Catholic Christian is considered a protestant, whether they claim the title or not. So I think you do wrong by your claim, in the future, please be more specific about who you say is blasphemous, or strike with a more appropriate strike. What you basically said is, all churches that are not catholic, are evil / retarded. This is not true, and I think most Catholics wouldn't agree with many directions taken by the catholic church, which many things in the catholic church is derived from the Vatican II flavor of Bible, which is now considered one of the worst translations (ditched by the catholic church for a while I'm pretty sure [I'm not catholic, so I don't really follow modern Catholicism]).
The word 'Christ' is not based on the neo-Hebrew 'Mashiah'. Let the truth be told about the modern written Hebrew of today. The modern Hebrew (neo-Hebrew) word 'Mashiah' was actually translated from the Greek 'chrīstos' in 900 AD. So, it is the opposite of what is being claimed here. The original Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew) was already lost to antiquity for over a thousand years.
Look up "Hebrew" and even Wikipedia tells us that the written Hebrew of modern times (neo-Hebrew) is not paleo-Hebrew. Paleo-Hebrew is the original writings of the books of the Old Testament (OT). As I said, paleo-Hebrew was lost to antiquity.
Modern written Hebrew is based on the work by the Masoretes in 900 AD. Who are the Masoretes? They are Pharisaic Jews (Pharisees), who recreated a new written 'Hebrew' from Arabic and other existing Canaanitish languages because the original Hebrew was lost in antiquity. The Masoretes used the Greek Septuagint Old Testament to create a new written 'Hebrew' that had vowel points.
The oldest Bible OT there is the Septuagint, which was transliterated from the original paleo-Hebrew in circa 285 BC. The original Hebrew written language was by that time becoming extinct.
According to tradition, it was Ptolemy Philadelphus, who purchased the freedom of Israelites in his territories, arranged for 6 scholars from each of the 12 tribes to translate the first 5 books of the Old Testament from paleo-Hebrew into Greek around 285 BC. By this time a practical knowledge of the Hebrew written language was all but lost.
The original written Hebrew consisted only of consonants and relied on an oral knowledge to decipher the consonant only words. Think of the 'cat' and remove the vowel. It becomes 'ct'. Without the vowel, the word 'ct' could be cat, cot, cut, cute, acute, coat, etc. An individual of knowledge would be required to orally teach others what the word 'ct' was. This is how the priestly class taught and passed on the writings of the bible. The paleo-Hebrew writings were designed for the bible deciphering. This is how the Hebrew written language was passed down generation after generation. It was central to understanding the bible.
With the written Hebrew language being greatly eclipsed and dominated by the very popular Greek language, which was the international language of the day, Hebrew was in danger of being lost. Ptolemy gathered together 72 scholars and in a short period of time they completed the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is from Greek pentáteuchos and is the first five books of the Old Testament. The Latin name 'Septuagint' means 70, and was later applied to the translation in circa 1555 AD, for there was approximately 70 translators. This is also the reason why the abbreviation 'LXX' is used for this reason. After the first 5 books were finished, the translators set out to work on the rest of the OT. The exact date this was accomplished is not known, but it is certain the complete OT was finished within 100 years and it is likely it was completed within a few years by the same translators.
Did you know that all Protestant bibles are based on the Pharisaic Masoretic Text that was given to the Catholic Church in 900 AD? Does anyone know why the Masoretes re-engineered the OT in a made-up written language? Could it be that in their own writings they believed the bible shouldn't be understood by the public and should remain strictly in the confines of understanding to the rabbis? In other words, they were attempting to undue what Ptolemy did in 285 BC.
In regards, to the bible, if you want to discern the truth, it is best to use old versions of the protestant bible (1636 KJV, Geneva Bible) the Catholic pre-1964 Jerusalem bible, LXX, and a good English-Greek Lexicon (Strong's, Thayers, and especially Liddell-Scott-Jones) to verify and understand the translations. Relying on only the English fails to adequately 'paint' the complete picture of meaning as does the Greek.
Are you bleeping high?! That is a broad brush, like many broad brushes, not a true statement. Have you looked into different translations fren? The dead sea scrolls (either the oldest, or nearly the oldest document) confirm the best translations. ESV is a word for word translation with grammatical changes made to fit English because English, as a language, blows chunks. Both ESV and NIV, not to mention other translations like HCSB have all derived from the oldest transcripts, being translated by Christians of different denominations, all agreeing on the different definitions of words. These denominations are not picked at random, they are ones that hold firmly to the conception that the word of God is holy and perfect, that man inspired by God wrote what he desired. The Geneva Bible is a fine Bible, I have no known issues with it. It is however a couple hundred years old, so if you wanna bust out a thesaurus to read it, that's your choice. If you think that people 500 years ago were un-corruptable, but we are ultra-corruptable, then I believe you've dug yourself in too deep mentally into realities that don't exist. There is a danger of saying everyone and everything that disagrees with me is wrong, and is Deep State meant to confuse us. Some people are genuinely mistaken, they do things to the best of their abilities to the best of their knowledge, but it is fraught with sin, and has the likelihood to be errant. When it comes to translations, you have to look at those who translated it, what were their intentions in the translation, and how does it pan out? What effective changes did they make? Reading the NIV, which is a phrase for phrase translation, compared to the ESV, which is more word for word, you notice the phrasing is different between the two. When you look at the effectual change, there really isn't any. A Christian who studied one over the other is not any better or worse off. Does this mean the two translations are equal? No, I think the concept of the ESV (much like a modern Geneva Bible) is a cleaner translation, because of its particular focus on things like word for word being more important than phrase for phrase based on who the translators are, it gives them [the translators] more authority to change things, even if barely slightly. I'd prefer the translators have as little responsibility as possible, much like the government should have the smallest responsibility as possible. To say that all protestant bibles etc. Do you realize how many people are under the umbrella of Protestant. Any non-Catholic Christian is considered a protestant, whether they claim the title or not. So I think you do wrong by your claim, in the future, please be more specific about who you say is blasphemous, or strike with a more appropriate strike. What you basically said is, all churches that are not catholic, are evil / retarded. This is not true, and I think most Catholics wouldn't agree with many directions taken by the catholic church, which many things in the catholic church is derived from the Vatican II flavor of Bible, which is now considered one of the worst translations (ditched by the catholic church for a while I'm pretty sure [I'm not catholic, so I don't really follow modern Catholicism]).