With a word for Father, we want to thank you for the freedom that we have today. We do ask that you would allow us to continue to have this freedom. Lord, we do ask that you would encourage us this afternoon with our discussion. In Jesus' name, Amen. Alright, let's go with a question. Oh, Tammy. Did you hear from Jill? I had not heard from Jill. Because she said she was feeling a little fatigued, so she was taking a nap. She was going to try and call in, but she wasn't sure when she would wake up. Alright, well Jill, if you're listening right now, please feel free to call in. It was great to hear from you. Can I start with question number one? John, number one, please. Three questions and the answer. From what language was the earliest Old Testament Latin version translated? That would be the Greek Old Testament. Greek, that's right, Greek. Bill, number two, please. What popular North African theologian quoted from the old Latin version in the 3rd century? That would be Tertullian. Tertullian, that's right. The old Latin version, so it was in existence then, in the 3rd century. It was based on something, wasn't it? Number three, number three, please, Mom, go ahead. I didn't do it, I didn't have time. Okay. How about helping her out, then, with number three, Tammy? Well, I'll try. Well, if I could, I would. Oh, no, you want to copy mine? No, I won't help. Okay. Alright. Who believes... I did it. Who believes that the very word, role game, is falsely used by Jerome? Well, let me look. Okay. I read a lot of this, but I don't remember. Having a hard time getting caught up. I'm sorry. But I didn't... Wilkinson. Wilkinson, that's right. Anna, number four, please. Um... How do many involved in textual research wrongly treat the scripture? They treat it as if it is the word of man. Yes. The word of man is just a... Naturalistically. Naturalistically. It's just a revocation of literature. That's right. Mrs. Grummer, number five, gets this. Who was the first textual critic and what did he say? It was Satan? Yeah, God said, that's right, that's what he said. I got one before Satan. What's that one? God himself. In what sense? Okay, he said that he would preserve his words. Yes, that's right, he would preserve his words. I wouldn't give Satan any credit for anything. Don't give him any credit, that's right. Mrs. Grumber, go ahead and take the next one, please. What's that, seven? I think so. No, it's six. Oh, it's six. Six, I'm sorry. led to Rome's three Latin religions, list to Rome's three Latin religions of the Psalms, six. The Roman pastorate, P-S-A-L-T-A-R-A-T-A-L-T, the Gallican pastor and the Hebrew pastor. That fancy word is Psalter, I think. Isn't it, Jacob? Psalter? Okay, I say you can take number seven. You were supposed to take number six, but I was losing my marbles a little bit here, Jacob. I lost my cracker and my sheets on that one. Number seven, Jacob. How many years did Jerome work on translating the Hebrew Old Testament into Latin? Fifteen years. Was it fourteen or was it fifteen? I got to take my shoes off for this one. Which part of the year? I guess if you start... Okay, but I think we're coming up with 14 here. We'll accept 15, Jacob. We'll accept 15, Jacob. Could you name the first list of Roman-Sweet-Latin revisions that I have? The Roman Psalter. Roman Psalter, that's the difference from the Psalter? The Psalter isn't, all three of them in the Psalter. The Old Latin? They're all in the Psalter. All three of them have, there's two words in each of the titles. And the second word in each of the titles is psalter. So it's the Roman psalter, the Galilean psalter, the Greek psalter. I'm interested to know what you heard. I heard psalter and then something else. Okay, let me check on page 26. You don't have to do this because I can't. Oh, hi Paul. Hi Elaine. Good to see you. 26. We had a question about this trick question. 26. Oh, there's the Roman Psalter. There's the Hebrew Psalter. Oh, there they are. Got it? Yeah. I read this this morning. Okay, question number 8. Elaine, question number 8. So, seven. Number seven. No, we were just talking about that. We were having a debate. Okay, who wants number seven, Elaine? Number seven. We had that. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you're right. We had a debate. Yeah, you're right. I know we did, but we were just asking whether we did or not. Okay, number eight, Elaine. Okay, this well-described apocryphal translation That's right, we should reluctant. Okay, and number nine, Paul, number nine. Okay, did you want me to read it? Yeah, go ahead and read it, Paul can answer it. Yes, yes, please read it, Elaine, and then Paul can answer it. Okay, so what line is the American 10-year-old trying to avoid? You're looking for the word Hebrew, right Paul? Hebrew language? From Hebrew. It wasn't this from the Aramaic, it was the Hebrew. I mean, there's a little bit of Aramaic, but primarily Hebrew. The degenerate form of Hebrew. What is that actually? A translation? Or was it more of just a corruption of the original Hebrew? Well, it says originate. It probably was more of a degeneration or something. No, no, it says translated. Which one is it? Number nine. Oh, wait a minute, it says... Okay, my edition, okay, so I should check with my edition. My edition says, the word of the Samaritan Pentateuch, originate. So it should say originate. Originate. So the word should be... originate, so somebody, we'll stick with the word originate rather than translate. See what the text says on page 28. What does it say? It says the Samaritan Pentateuch is not really a translation into a different language by direct descendant of the original Hebrew scriptures in the same language. So the word originate would be much better. For some reason I changed it at the last minute. I changed it from originate to translate. So you're trying to trick No, I wasn't trying to trick anybody. It was really, we were supposed to say, it really wasn't translated. Okay. Alright, um, let me see, next person. Oh, Anna, what's your question? Observation. Well, um, since we're talking about technical things. Good, good. Um, in number three, it adds who believes in the very word vogue, it was famously used by Rome, and it has I'm getting close, but see, those were Mormon words paraphrasing what the other person, what Benjamin Wilkinson said, and it almost seems like maybe Jerome himself didn't come up with the term Vulgate, but rather the institution of Rome. So I just wanted to clarify. Thank you for the clarification. John, number 10. How many people did Sargon II remove from Samaria? 27,290. All right. Goal number 11. Under whose dominion were the Samaritans? The Jews. All right. And after that, it was the Romans. I was just trying to follow where... I mean, I was thinking that was what you were looking for, but they were also under the Assyrians for a while. Okay, that's true. Later on, they were under the Romans. All right. So, anyway. But that's what you were getting at, because you were trying to get at the point of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Yes. Why it escaped from the Hebrew. My question wasn't specific enough, but yeah, that's what I was trying to get to. 10th and 12th, please. Who falsely claimed that the Samaritan Pentateuch was superior to the Masoretic Text? Let me see, Anna, number 13, please. According to Mormon, what two dialects are practically identical? The Samaritan dialect and the Aramaic. That's good. Good. Let's see, number 14, Mrs. Mormon. What documents have been said to have some influence upon the Septuagint, Septuagint 14, the Aramaic targets? And the target, again, is this kind of paraphrased summary, first it was just a word-of-mouth one, then it was written down. Jacob, number 15, please. What is the name of the Greek translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch? The Samaritan. Good, that's good. The Samaritan Pentateuch. On page 32. Page 32. Yeah, there was smertin in there, but they were in copy, and then they put an I and an OT in there. Uh, Elaine, number 18, number 16, please. Okay, that's good. The naturalistic critic. And, um... The naturalistic critic. Number, um, number 17. Paul, what was the oral Aramaic paraphrase known as? What was the oral Aramaic paraphrase known as? It's for you, Paul. John, what helped him out? Targum. Targum, that's right. Aramaic Targum. Bill, number 18, please. List the names of two Targums. That would be the Targum Hankelos and the Palestinian Targums. Okay. There were actually two Palestinian Targums. One was Yohanan Ben Uzziel, and what was the other one? I don't remember. And... Jonathan Ben Uzziel. Okay, this is... And what do the Targums avoid? What do they avoid? Other Targums? I don't know. What do they avoid, Tammy? Anthropomorphisms. Yes, references to God. Anne, number 20, please. What did she say? Anthropomorphisms? Anthropomorphisms. Anthropomorphisms. Or references to God. Well, it's giving the characteristics of man to God. Yes, that's right. I am. That's what it is. And Anna, number 20, please. What are some things about the class discussions and meetings you have found interesting? Originally, when giving the Oral Paraphrases programs, the master translator did not have a scroll in front of him because they didn't want people to think they were reading actual scripture. Is that it? Well, I also had a comment about number seven. Oh, please do. The book said that program refers more directly to a written paraphrase. So, it can be used to refer to a formal paraphrase, but specifically, a more precise name is written. Good. We need, we want preciseness. Especially here. This is Grummer, something you need to explain to us. I take it. You need to explain it. One of the things about the classic expression theory that I found interesting, I think that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, You know, they were arguing over whether it was B, C, or A, D, and I think that matters a little. But, you know, what really matters is still written in Hebrew. I mean, they called it a proto-Hebrew, though, right? That's coming up. That's today's discussion. Yeah, that's right, they did. They will, they have. Proto, yeah. There were protos in your, Jacob, you're right. Well, part of that question was reading, so. Yes, that's true, you're right. How about you, Elaine? Number 20, please. Okay, that's fine. That'll work. That's right. And how about you, Paul? Number 20, please. Number 20 is, let me read it to you. What are some things about the class discussion in reading You have found interesting. Yes. Thank you for your honesty. Okay. Okay. Okay. Honesty. Okay, that'll be good. Maybe they can figure out a way to get this in Braille for you, Paul. I'm not sure if we can or not. I'm not sure how much it will cost to put it in Braille. Just a second. Tammy did it back there. I was just wondering what they were talking about. I thought they said Bill Shepard. Yes they did. They said it's very complicated for them to read and they thought Bill Shepard could help them understand and read. You need some glasses Elaine? Oh so you want to borrow Bill Shepard's glasses? I'd love to give them to you because I needed new glasses a long time ago. OK. John, in the front, please. Well, I was just getting into this one. I wasn't here for the class discussions. You know, it's interesting how there's so much manuscript evidence over the years. And you have to look at so much of it. We don't always go to the books, though. The majority of the manuscript evidence supports the underlying text of the King James Bible, and yet the majority of the world wants to reject that with a small percentage of manuscript evidence. It even contradicts itself. Yes, right. And just how blind they can be, just how poor they are, you know, by Satan's ways. How about you, Bill, number 20? Interesting for me was the targums, which are commentaries, may have influenced the corruption of scripture copies. It's suggested in the text, in the book here, that the targums were used to help edify people, they were used to educate people, but it seems like it's a complicated process. people are confusing scripture with Tarkin's. Anyhow, how the Tarkin's were used in expressing the thoughts of the early church fathers and the people who were writing the Tarkin's at that time shows that those people were no different than people today. We interpret things in a very personal way. Are we really praying for understanding when we read scripture? And are we open enough to accept whatever God wants us to understand? I mean, I don't grasp everything that I read, but I've changed my views and my views have evolved and they're going to continue to evolve until the day I die. Because I want more and more and more light. And it seems that people have a little bit too much trust in themselves. So when they read something they feel qualified to answer. When a lot of times they're not really qualified to answer. And I think that's how some of the old manuscripts got corrupted. By replacing, in fact I read several years ago somewhere, I can't remember where, that Origen had done some editing and may have used these corrupt sources in his writing, and it might be in the Hexapla and other places. But what Dr. Mormon is pointing out is what John said all along, and what Dr. Waite says all along, that we can trust the King James Bible because God promised to preserve his words. And we're seeing here how a man, when they trust themselves, things get corrected very quickly. That's right. That's right. One thing we've got to remember, though, when we talk about King James, I'm definitely in favor of the King James, but some people forget that is... Thank you. That's for English-speaking people. If those people speak another language and they need the Bible translated, again, from the same sources, the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, then utilize the King James into their language, not translate from the King James into another language, because we've taken one more step away from them, and it can easily get perverted. We forget the promises of God and rely on the early church fathers, in a lot of cases, to accept this new American standard. English standard, which we should not be doing. No, we shouldn't be doing that. We should reserve his words. That's right. I don't need physical evidence or naturalistic evidence to believe that. It's a matter of faith, isn't it? That's right. So what are your thoughts on number 20? Question number 20 for you. Question number 20. Question 20, please. Well, I guess the main thing that I'm seeing here is that where the quote unquote manuscript evidence is always pointing to a naturalistic explanation. And it's more often than not, well, it's so far everything I've seen is either in the case of the Septuagint, not Septuagint, the Samaritan Penitent, it's a corruption of the original Hebrew or it's actually a translation, as opposed to actually the word God inspired, you know, given by inspiration of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. So that sort of stands to stand for itself as far as giving us what we should trust, not throw out all these other things. That's right. That's good. Anything else? So we have a new section here, Dead Sea Scrolls. So we have this new section where we talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls. We will be talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls. But before we talk about the Desi Shoals, let's look at the Syriac version. Now, Syriac is the language of the Mesopotamian region. They have a Western dialect and an Eastern dialect. The Eastern dialect is distinguished from the Western dialect. Western dialect, as we saw there in the text, was the dialect that was spoken when Lord Jesus Christ was here on Earth in Aramaic. Now... Yes? Where's Mesopotamia? Mesopotamia... Land between the rivers. Land between the rivers. So it's over this way. Over that way. Way over that way. Okay. Someone suggested that be changed for the next decade. And so this is our map for the next couple of years here. But the idea of the Aramaic, the Syriac version, during the time of Christ we have this language being used. What did you say? I'll stop talking, but what did you say was the time of Christ language? The Western Aramaic was spoken during the time of Christ. The Western Aramaic was spoken when Christ was on the earth. As opposed to the East, Eastern, or a version of East about him. Was it also a regional thing, as far as the Western Aramaic? It was more like Turkey, that area? It would be regional. It would be regional as well. So, that's what the West means. It's a regional thing. And so the Jerusalem Palestine columns are that western umbrella of language. They should have established English at that time. There would be less confusion. At least for me. At least for me. For Americans, right? And so, there were several translations that were made into the Syriac language. Anna? I think that God chose Hebrew and Greek for a reason, and He was there throughout all of history, guiding the languages as they develop, because there are certain things about the Hebrew that express things in the way that God wanted to express them, and there are certain things in the Greek that express things in the way that God wanted to express them. And so here we have listed the Peshitta. Peshitta. And Peshitta basically, as you saw, basically means simple. It's the Peshitta version. Now, as far as the origin of the Peshitta, We have an observation. In many cases, the Pashita agreed to the Hebrew and with the Palestinian targum. Now, which means this particular Palestinian targum was pretty accurate then, even though it was more of a paraphrase. But yet, it was yet an accurate paraphrase. So it's agreed with the Hebrew. It has agreement with the Palestinian targum. and with other pappages, it presupposes the Septuagint. Now as far as... So there's this disagreement. Now when we talk about internal evidence that's being discussed here, we have, it says here on page 35, He talks about the linguistic affinities that have been noticed between the Palestinian Aramaic Targum, which is Western Aramaic, and the Syriac translation of the Pentateuch. Now, as we've heard, the term Syriac in the Pentateuch, of course, the Pentateuch only is the first five books of the Bible, although it does have Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. And as far as the origination of the Pentateuch, it originated with the East Aramaic, which had a relationship with Jerusalem. That's the region of the country they were in. So we have the Word of God being translated, being represented in the Syriac language, in the Peshitta. Particularly, we have these Old Testaments. Now, there's parts of Syriac versions that we have that are translated into Syriac, but the Peshitta here, we have the first five books of the scriptures. Now, he talks about the house of Fiad be a being. How a being translated, rather converted, to Judaism in around 40 or so A.D. And the translation was first-century. They were saying the translation is first-century. Now, if this is correct, if this is correct as far as the, when this Peshitka was translated, it was an Old Testament translation and an Old Testament translation after the time of Christ not much after, but after the time of Christ they're bringing a Syriac translation in from the Hebrew into Syriac, the Peshitta so in other words, Christ had already come Messiah had come and yet they are looking for the Old Testament they're still looking, these Jewish people are still looking for the Messiah perhaps they haven't heard yet, maybe the Gospel hasn't reached them yet maybe did and they rejected it, but nonetheless we have this convert to Judaism and so we have his children, it was some wrote that his children were sent to Jerusalem to be educated. So then we have the need for the Hebrew scriptures. They didn't know Hebrew, they weren't from that area of the country, it was translated into Syriac for them so they could read it, so they could read it easily. Now, you have to notice on page 36, when you examine the manuscripts of the Pashita Pentateuch, you have to realize that in the early period there existed two texts. So there's two editions of the Pashita. One's more literal, and the other one has more liberties and more more paraphrased from the sermon. And we talked about the Syriac Church Fathers, who follow the Hebrew more closely. Whenever we do a translation, it is very important to follow the receptor languages, the Hebrew, the Greek, the Aramaic, as close as possible. And you must pick the best Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts that are available, the best ones that are available, and do a verbal a word-for-word, a form-for-form translation of the Scripture. And when you take too much liberty in that, we'll see perhaps later on in our discussion today, how there's paraphrasing, there's things in our last discussion, we had people change the Word of God because they didn't like how certain things sounded. They were prejudiced against certain things in Scripture, so they changed it to meet their preferences. not all much has changed today, surprisingly. I mean, we look at what went on 1,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 2,500 years ago, maybe not quite that long ago, but still, it's a very similar mindset that they have, as far as how they're dealing with the Word of God, how we're dealing with the Word of God. Now, we have, again, the Tupacites, one is a literal translation, and the other rendering, has been more of a targum, a targum, which, again, originally was a paraphrase. Anna Vanna pointed out it was a written paraphrase. So a targum means paraphrase. I mean, there was a part of the discussion last week or the week before about how it was a verbal paraphrase, and then the verbal paraphrase was written down. So maybe the targums are a writing down of the paraphrase, of the verbal paraphrase. Let me clarify that, Anna. He used to refer to both, but in his strictest sense, it refers to a written paraphrase. Okay, good. In a pure sense. What's your tonal location? 36, I think. 35, 36. 36 would be fine. Now, it's... What's wrong? I'm just telling myself this is hard. I'm telling myself. How does it compare to eschatology? How does it compare to biblical prophecy? It's harder. Is it? Because I know the other, I don't know this. Prophecy is much harder. I'm surprised. So, we'll take a survey later on as far as... It's a much smaller book. It's a much smaller book. much smaller book. So, when we have these two Syriac Church Fathers, there's a lot here. You want to use a text which follows the Hebrew more closely. When you translate, you want to follow the Hebrew as close as you can. Go ahead and have a word-for-word, form-for-form translation of the text. with many things, there's two views of how, sometimes more than two views, of how things originated. And so, the same is here with this Peshitta. Another view, as far as it originated with the Christians in the area, with the Syriac Church, which included large elements of those who had access to Hebrew Scripture. So, between the two views, where are they going to take the, I mean, possibly there could be Syriac Possibly both views would probably stand, but they would not necessarily be the same translation. They would be independent translations, but as far as you take the view of the second view here, the alternate view, of how the church was behind it, the church was behind getting a translation of the Hebrew, the Syriac, that could be a plausible idea, a plausible method. And so we're just kind of surmising and guessing which method it was. And I like the idea of the church being behind it and translating it into, translating the Hebrew of the church as they greet it. For someone that's computed and converted to Judaism, which is, I mean, it's possible, it's likely, but there's only a very small one that's only one's family that converted it. But yes, some of this, if they're from a royal family, they have the means whereby to push a translation through. But if you have somebody that's, especially in the first century, especially after the resurrection, it would be more meaningful, those tests would be more meaningful. I mean, I don't think it's meaningful to the Jewish people, but in the first century, eight hundred, you know, within ten years of the Resurrection, I would think anyone that would be going to Jerusalem, on any stage, anyone they would know about the Resurrection, they would hear about it somehow. And they would be challenged with that, with the Resurrection. They would be challenged, they would be confronted with that. And so, this second view, as far as being a translation originating from the desire of the Church to have it into their own language, like today, Bible translations today, For the most part, I haven't done any scientific analysis on this, but for the most part, I believe it's for Christians. It's to disseminate the Bible, the Word of God, in a vernacular, a foreign vernacular, a foreign language, so that the people can read it and grow thereby. Yes. Yes. This man here, do you believe, did a pre-treatment rapture also, so that would also help to validate the reason to text closely, right? Yes. Who else was he talking about? He was talking about each of you. Here's a picture of what he did live. He said there were three church fathers. Four lines down from the top. Oh, I see. I don't know. Do you know anything about that? I'm not sure. I don't have any data on Jacob. Now, the Gesta Fashita, again, is only the first five books of the Bible. The official Fashita is the first five books, and they add it to it. And so we have, he talks about how the rest of the scripture are more, sometimes it's more exacting, sometimes it's more loose in translation. As far as the words of Kenyon, he talks about Kenyon's view of it. Kenyon says, they show considerable in terms of style, method, and clearly the work of different hands. In other words, we have these proverbs as close to the Targums as Ezekiel and the minor proverbs are somewhat clearly translated. So Kenyon is observing the fact that the original Peshitta, which is the first five books, and we added to it the rest of the books of the Old Testament, they were of a different translation style, different translation technique, and by a different translator altogether. Now, interestingly, we have here the omission of the hapakopho in the Peshitta. But then, later on, through pressure and so forth, of some sort, I suppose, it was added back in there. But it was originally without. It was absent. Also, what was absent, according to the Kenyans, was the Book of Chronicles. It was also missing from this particular translation of the greater Old Testament. And so they omitted, which was a good thing, they omitted the Habakkuk book. And so there was corruptions in the middle of the 3rd century. Again, Jacob, you mentioned this earlier, don't you, about origin? But there's some parallel, something that's curious about this. When origin moved from Alexandria to Caesarea, we had corruption beginning to enter into the Paschita-type manuscripts. But within the Syrian church itself, within the Syrian church itself, there was a split in the 5th century. There was a split and a division between the two. So we had Division A, Division B, or Group 1, Group 2, however you want to say it. And so when we had the Eastern Branch and the Western Branch, they split up. They each took with them their copy of the Bible. They may have had more than one copy, but each took with them their own copy. But yet, for some reason, corruptionists came in to these copies. We have more and more revisions going through the Western texts of the Peshitta, of the Syriac version, than we do of the Eastern. The Eastern, they kept and they retained with less and less revisions. And so, because it was more isolated within the location of the church. And so, Tammy, do you have a question? No? Okay. And so, we have here how the Jerusalem Syriac was made from the LXX, and there's only a few fragments that are remaining. And we have a couple of Bishop Tulla, in Mesopotamia in 1617, or rather 617. He made a short version. And then we have one in the space of the fifth column of Origen. We talked about Origen's fifth column in Hexaplex last week, but again, he's taking this fifth column, he's taking this and translating it from that. As John was saying earlier, it's very important for us to go from the original language when possible. When possible, go from the original language, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and translate into the foreign language. Whatever foreign language that might be. That's different than Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Here, in this example, we have it going from the 5th column of Origen, which wasn't a very strong translation to begin with. So you have a translation of a translation, a second generation of a translation. So, again, the one in the east was more literal, but the one in the west was not. Yes? I don't have any towns to tell you. Turkey. Turkey is in the east. Thank you. Turkey. Israel is in the east. Right. Jordan. Okay. Okay. I'll have some place up here. Phoenicia. Phoenicia. The yellow. The yellow. No, the yellow. The yellow going up. Phoenicia. Okay. So what does that have to do with anything? Well, somebody asked a question. Can you please list some countries? I'm delaying between east and west. Phoenicia is this area of the east, and then Turkey up here is the area of the east. Turkey's up here. Turkey's that way. get a bigger map, I'm pleased with the other map for so long. Okay, I think I'm out of it. Some of this life is not what we had before. Off of the map. What'd you say? We had the other one out for years. That's why we changed it, because someone said we had to put it up for years. And now the safe version wants to come in back. Well, that's good. Is it there? Do you need help? I always need help. So, here we go. So here's your figure map. So, Persia then. Persia. Persia, Babylon. They would be east. They're over here? Okay, I'm just thinking of the Eastern Church in Constantinople. Right. They used it. They sheathed it. Yes. But that's not any relationship to the east or west. Because geographically it's not. I don't think you can say that anymore. No, it's okay. Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. So, we have this corruption coming in as soon as you moved from Alexandria, Egypt, to Caesarea. And so at the end of the first quarter of the 5th century, made a schism again, as we talked about before. There was a division between the two churches. One went to the east and they broke apart. They broke apart into two pieces. And so the eastern one underwent fewer revisions. The one that underwent fewer revisions. Now, as far as the Jerusalem Syriac, was made from the Septuagint as well. And we have, there are a few fragments of that that remain to today. And again, we talked about Bishop Tala's translation. That's based upon a fifth column of Origen's Hexapha. Hexapha is, there are eight languages in all the column. In fact, six comes from six. Six languages. Six translations. Six of them, all in the same, all together, in a parallel sense. As far as the oldest Syriac manuscript that has a date on it is the British Museum. is what they think is the oldest one. It has a date, it's 464. And somehow it has an actual date on it. It's not even like guessing what the date is. It's actually dated. Sometimes we have newspapers and magazines and even letters that we write that we date today. And so this manuscript actually has a date on it. Now, looking at the Coptic language. Today in Egypt, they speak, Coptic was the language that was spoken in Egypt. the natives of Egypt. And so we have a Bible translated into their language for their use, which is a very wonderful thing. You see, if you didn't know, at one point, if you didn't know the Hebrew, the Greek, or the Aramaic, you wouldn't be able to read the Bible, because it was in all different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So this is very, very wonderful, because from near the very beginning of the first century church, second century church, and so forth, we have translations of the Bible being made. Translations of the Bible being made. And there's still some countries, some languages in the world, the Bible hasn't been put into yet. But there is a push. Granted, the people that are trying to do this, sadly, they're basing it on the wrong Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic Greek texts. There's another sector which, they don't know Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and so they're using a translation from foreign language, whether English, Spanish, German, you know, whatever the language might be, to translate it for my translation. Which, okay, it's something, it's a start. But the goal needs to be to get the translation from the Hebrew, the Aramaic, and the Greek. So right here, right close by, promised land, come from a neighbor, one that's close by, countries, you have the language being put into copy. so that the Egyptians could read the words of God. Now, as far as, there was some uniquenesses to this translation, to the Coptic, I should say. It apparently has Greek letters, the Greek alphabet, but they supplement the alphabet with six additional characters. So you have the Greek alphabet, but with six additional letters. And then there's some Greek words in the vocabulary of the Catholic. So it's kind of a, I'm not sure how closely it resembles the Greek. I know that there are some similarities, some similarities, a small sector of similarities between Portuguese and Spanish. It's a completely different language, I know that. But in some vocabulary, there may be some similar words. And so, the point with the Coptic is that there was a lot of influence by the Greek, and so there's a lot of Greek word in the vocabulary. They used the Greek alphabet with an additional six characters. I mean, sometimes, in our culture, we have Latin as influence, sometimes Greek, but Latin, a lot of Latin in our language. Well, not a lot, but there's some. or some Latin in our language. Why do you say so? I would say maybe that those are words or terms by Latin because of William the Conqueror coming over from Normandy in 1066 and bringing the French language with him, which is a Romance language. Okay, so during the Battle of Hastings and William the Conqueror, he brought some Germanic languages with him. Oh, say that one more time. The Romance languages. English is a Germanic language along with German, Danish, and Scandinavian languages. However, English has also been influenced by the Romance languages. And having said that, so we have the Coptic being influenced by the Greek language. Even their alphabet is Greek, except with an additional six characters, six letters. They weren't happy with the letters they had, so they gave yet more letters. They were happy with what they had. But there's this great similarity between the two. Now, as far as the source is concerned, again, we have some type of Septuagint being used. Again, a translation of a translation being used. We have here, Demings, he's done some textual research on the book of Daniel, and he noted that the book of Daniel was a blending, there was this blending of origin, and the Egyptian, and somebody else, it had this blending of the two. And so, he's not necessarily relying solely, there wasn't necessarily a reliance upon the Greek, the Hebrew, or the Aramaic, As far as the next version is concerned, so we looked at the Syriac, the Coptic, the Ethiopic version. Now, as far as the Ethiopic version is concerned, we have, which of course is the language of Ethiopia, which is in some place in northern, in the Mediterranean basin, I believe, we have taking place between the 5th and 8th centuries, the Bible was translated into Ethiopic language. And the British Museum has a copy of this as a result of a necessary war in 1867. There was a war in 1867, we're in Syria, and as a result of that war, the British Museum was able to obtain a copy. of this scripture of the Ethiopian, of the Ethiopic version. That's where Ethiopia is down there in Africa next to Egypt. It's along the Nile River. Along the Nile River. It's south of Egypt. It's south of Egypt. It's south of Egypt. Possibly bordering the Red Sea. Possibly on the Red Sea itself, bordering the Red Sea. It's right out here, this corner here, if you can't quite see it. So it's Egypt out here, but we can't see much else on this map. No, it seems to be down... Yeah, it's not on that map at all. It's south of Egypt. Egypt is south, Ethiopia is further south. So, Kenyon says they were made from the Septuagint, as far as these translations now, but Under says The Arabic was influenced by the Hebrew, and the Samaritan texts, and the Armenian that come from the Syriac, and the Armenian and the Greek form the basis of the Georgian version, as far as when we're coming into looking at this version for the Ethiopic version. Now, if you turn the Bible into the Coptic language, and the Assyriac language, and the Ethiopian language. These are languages that are... There must be believers, people who want the Bible in these languages. Now, it would be interesting to do a study on the Hebrew language, as far as how it was used. Because all about the Mediterranean Basin we had people who knew Hebrew, because The Mediterranean Sea is the gateway to all these countries. And of course, we have Israel is right there on the eastern side of the Mediterranean. So they were able to come, especially if they could go all around these different areas of this Mediterranean Basin. Hebrew was being taken. Hebrew was being learned. Hebrew was being taught. But yet, we have the Bible be translated into these other languages. As far as Kenyon says, Kenyon says, he wants, on this diagram we have for page 39, Kenyon's diagram, but if you notice the diagram of Kenyon is as far as Kenyon wants to put an early date for the Septuagint. As we discussed earlier in another class, we want to have a later date on the Septuagint. So we look at his diagram, he would lean to an early date, whereas we were saying we would go to a more after, rather BC and AD date. As far as the Dead Sea Scrolls are concerned, we have The Etsy scrolls were found, have been found, have been discovered or rediscovered, you know, within the last hundred years. Now, does anyone... In the 1950s. 47 in fact. Well, Mrs. Grover, do you know anyone who was around in the... Bill, do you remember any of the Etsy scrolls in the 47? Were you born in 48? No, I was born in 48. 48, okay. Alright. Mrs. Grummer, do you know anyone who was around in 1947? Oh, she's on mute. Just a second, Mrs. Grummer. Oh, you're back. You're back. You're muted, okay. No, I know. I'm alive, but no, I don't. Okay. Do you know anyone who was born before 1947? Yeah, we were born in 1947. So, that's interesting. Do you remember anything about, any discussion about the Dead Sea Scrolls in your early childhood? And maybe you were a teenager or? Oh no, I didn't. Okay. Do you know, Mom, do you know anyone who was born before 1947? Yeah, I've seen them. Okay. I was. I've seen the dead people. Okay. So tell me about them. Tell me about, first of all, tell me about what did you know about them back in 1947? Nothing. Newspapers? Did the newspapers say anything about them? They could have. Let's see, I got married in 1948, I think. And I went to Bible, I got out of high school first. Okay, so you did go to Bible college. You graduated Bible college in 48? 48. Okay, so in the last year of Bible college, any discussion whatsoever with the Dead Sea Scrolls? I don't remember. I don't remember too much about them. But you said you've seen them? Yeah, we were in Israel, I'm pretty sure we saw them. I think we saw them in places with lights on in class. I can't really remember, to be truthful, I can't remember too much about it. Here's an exhibition of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Franklin Institute just a few years ago. I didn't go, but anybody who went could have seen some of it there. Now what he does, he starts out with this discussion about how... Some little boy threw a stone in the thing. There was a shepherd and fur goat, his lost goat, his lost sheep, his lost goat, and Like we said, it was a stone that was thrown. He discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. But he starts out, he gives a brief background as far as how... Oh, can I say something? Yes. Something about Isaiah with the Dead Sea Scrolls, false Isaiah. Two copies of Isaiah. Isaiah A, Isaiah B, you know. What did Bill say? He said two copies of Isaiah. OK. I am remembering, aren't I? Come slowly. One of them, at least one of them, follows very closely the Masoretic Hebrew text. Right. And that's real important. And it's a point that a lot of people like to gloss over, because that text is dated 200 years before the birth of Christ. that's very, very significant, especially Book of Isaiah, with chapter 53 in there. I mean, we'll get to assume that there's like a, again, two views as far as how this all happened. But the idea gives a history as far as how the rabbis would treat the Word of God. When they got to a certain point, they would put them in a special room, or maybe a special cave, put them in a special room, and if they were worn out, and they would eventually bury them when they were worn out. Anna? I don't know if you want to equate the cave with the room necessarily, because it wasn't, it was a Jewish sect that went to that T-Square, wasn't it? Yes, so it could be that their methods were slightly different. Yes, their methods could be slightly different, but there was a reason why they were abandoned. Yes. We don't know the exact reason, but there were two possibilities. There was a reason why they were abandoned, but as far as he talks about it, he wasn't implying the fact that they were abandoned. I brought that into the discussion a little bit as far as, perhaps they were, it's just like with the Vaticanus, you know, that manuscript that was found, or the Sinaiticus, I should say, Sinaiticus, how that manuscript was. So, when copies of the Hebrew scripture got worn out, they would As he says here, page 40 is it? Page 39, page 40. Eventually they would bury them. They don't want to read it to pieces as far as when they were going through it for scrolls. He says they were reverently buried. As far as this Nash papyrus, the date of the Nash papyrus It was assigned to the 2nd century AD by Albright. But Albright moved it back to the 2nd century BC. It contained the Ten Commandments. It's probably closer to Deuteronomy than Exodus. Also, transposes the 6th commandment, which is Athlonah Hill, with the 7th commandment. Just as the Greek text codex B Does so codex B has the has that done must it must be? As far as the national pirates is concerned now All right, all right says The Dead Sea Scrolls Are hailed as the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times It is a very fascinating discovery We have to be cautious with them. We have to be very, very cautious with them. As far as from an archaeological standpoint, it is very fascinating. All the book of these translations, the Coptic, the Syriac, the Ethiopian. Yes, go ahead. Sorry, somewhere around 1947, wasn't Israel made into a nation? Yes. 49, someplace? I think it was 48. See, that's when I got married. I remember nothing about that. When I was there, in Dallas, I was not a student. Well, did they say any churches you were attending? I don't remember anything. I attended Sculpin Memorial. I attended churches. They might have, but I don't remember anything. So I feel sort of strange, because here I'm living in this historic period. But I was newly married. I was having children, and I was doing all that, and I guess I wasn't listening. I think I would remember something about this. Right? So, as we see later on in the text, you find one in the neighborhood of about 10 different caves they found. And it was a group of caves about 11 miles or so down the road. They also had some manuscripts in them as well. Now, they were discovered at Wadi Qumran. Now, Wadi is like a blow valley. Wadi Qumran. And again, we said the Arab boy where Eric Shepherd was looking for his goat, and he came across all these containers with scrolls inside of them. And so, in 1955, the Monastery of St. Mark sold them, sold their share to the State of Israel, so the State of Israel does have a share portion of these Dead Sea Scrolls. They have all of them now, because they were split up, but now they have all of them. In 1955, the Monastery of St. Mark in 1955, the Monastery of St. Mark sold their portion of the manuscripts to the to Israel, the nation of Israel, the state of Israel. Now, there are seven primary types of manuscripts we have represented. We have Isaiah, we have the letter Isaiah A, Isaiah B, the first two chapters of Habakkuk, verse by verse commentary on it as well. We have included in these scrolls the rule of the community, a code of rules written in Hebrew, a collection of Hebrew hymns, so we have the rule of the community, basically the ordinances of the community, a collection of Hebrew hymns, we have the rule of war, the laws of war, the nature of war, and there was an Aramaic paraphrase of chapters 5 to 15 of Genesis. And so we now know how strictly So the only thing we've come out of here so far is the Isaiah A and Isaiah B, as far as... Let's go back the first two chapters. First two chapters? Let's go back it. Let's go back it, oh. Okay. Yes, I think you might be right. First two. Anna. Okay, so when I first read this, I thought, oh, this is all that we got from the Dead Sea Squirrels, so it's mostly Isaiah. But then when I looked at it just now, it says it includes the following documents. Does it include other things, or is it a complete list of what it includes? It's virtually, I think it's pretty close to the most we have. We have 10 Ks plus some of this, 10 miles down the road. I think there was, but we'll keep on looking. But I think that this may be pretty close to what it includes. Unless it's one of the caves. Because they really like cave number four. Isaiah was in cave four. Isaiah was in cave four? No, I don't think so. Okay. Now, of all these manuscripts that are saying that A Isaiah is the oldest. We've heard that before, haven't we? Now, after, then we have, after these manuscripts have been discovered, the first cave, ten other caves, the same was found, others found other types of treasures. So we have ten caves that were involved. In other caves? Ten caves. And then there was another. There's the first cave, ten other caves. Oh, ten other? That would be eleven. Okay, that would be eleven. I'm sorry, ten other caves. I guess then these are from the first cave. Yes. Okay, I think I understand. Thank you. Sure, you're welcome. And so in 1952, as we said before, there was another cave that was discovered. Now, we have here, as far as the Qumran settlement, he talks about this on page 41 a little bit, as far as the settlement area of Qumran. They had things in common, the tents, and sometimes houses, and common water, common food, kind of a communal type of area. One central building, for gatherings and different types of rituals that he stated there. And there was also a writing room where scrolls were to be copied. Now, Cross believes that the community was founded in 140 BC by a group of regular Jews who steadfastly refused to recognize Simon Maccabeus high priests. This is where it gets interesting. Many of these dissenters were priests themselves of the family of Zadok, to which all the high priests have belonged since the days of Solomon. And so we have kind of a historical dispute as far as which historical account, or which account, which interpretation, which belief, one we want to follow. Now, Albrecht believes the Isaiah B, is that what we were saying earlier? Isaiah B follows a master of text poster. Isaiah A, the complete one. B is only complete from chapters 41 on, and the earlier chapters are in fragments. Yeah, it's Masoretic, yeah. On page 47? Yeah. On page 47? Does he see any? I said page 42. Page 42? Page 40, look at the bottom. It listed different types of pecs. Yeah, the one there at the bottom, Isaiah and the most complete copy of Isaiah in Hebrew. Right, but... And then talk about the Caliph on the right. Well, first... Isaiah A was, yeah, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll, Isaiah A, was generally regarded by scholars as a victor for the Masoretic, the traditional Hebrew text of the Old Testament. That's what it says on page 42. Yeah, underneath the book, 3, Okay, so I'm wondering if it means that we're complete and we're close, but we'll figure out that. I'm going to take 40 threads. As far as right there at the point 3 of page 43 of the Dead Sea Scrolls and all those texts... Oh yeah, it says the second Isaiah scroll integrates even more closely with the Masoretic Texts. And so, even though it may not be complete, we have a greater... So both are Masoretic? Yes. But one is closer. But one is closer is not as complete. Right. That's good. And so he's got the list of what's discovered in the K-4. The Egyptian text represented by the Septuagint. Palestinian text represented by the mainstream 4Q. A Proto-Masoic text represented by a Greek text of Samuel. the K4. So Albright believes the protomaster text was developed by Babylonians during the days of captivity, and then brought back to Palestine by the returning exiles in the late 6th and 5th centuries. But of course there's always another side of this. A driver, he disagrees with Albright. He says, He's denied these back in the state from pre-Christian times. He relates them instead to the Jewish revolt against Roman in AD 66, 73, making them roughly contemporary with the New Testament. He believes the righteous teacher mentioned in the scrolls was Manahem, a leader of the revolt, and perhaps the son of the rebel Judas mentioned in Acts 5.37. And so we have kind of a description, description, description, discrepancy rather, of these things here. As far as you notice here on page 44, you know, it's, he talks about, on page 44, he talks about this tragic, the so-called textual criticism has been left in the hands of those who proceed where there is a totally oblivious to this promise, as far as God's promise. And worse, many who claim to be fundamentalists take the same naturalistic approach to the transmission of the Holy Scriptures. We're on page 44. And so, we have to remember that Christ's promise, not one jot or one tittle has passed away, so this is a fulfillment of the promise of Christ. So this is the end of this discussion. But there's the end of the sign, too. So my. Now, what are the thoughts you have about this class? Well, the last doctor, part of this chapter was. The way you read sometimes can be confusing. You've got to read it over a couple of times. But, you know, it still comes back to the same thing. It's like, and we see this today, so much today. The last quote that you made there, out of the book here, says that it's tragic that so-called sexual criticism is left in the hands of those who perceive, who claim to be fundamentalistic, the same naturalistic approach to the transmission of the Holy Scripture. You see that so much today? that are eager that once were pro-King James and left that position. Those are being told. And not only that, but most of us, if we're asked what's our opinion on something or what we think about something, we're not thinking of scripture verse. We're trying to organize our own thoughts. How about you, Mr. Gramer, should I let you out about this section, this chapter? I think I'm going to leave the room for a second. Hi, I'm Jacob. You can give your thoughts for us. We'll give your thoughts for us, and we'll get back to you in a minute. Yeah, it's funny that the Arab, it was an Arab boy that found these scrolls, and his name was Muhammad, and that's quite ironic because the Quran, Muhammad, That's a common theme over there. He never wrote anything. He was illiterate. But they wrote it way later, not for my witnesses. In any way, it was supposed to be recited. That's what the root of the word is. But anyway, I didn't get to the point. In the Koran, it talks specifically about the Old Testament and the New Testament being reliable and that people shouldn't depend on it. in the Hadiths, the Surah, the Sunnah, the Surah, the traditions of Baha'u'llah, he contradicts that and says that the text was corrupted, but he won't say when it was corrupted. He says that now it's a corrupted text. There must be the Mecca verses which were considered peaceful and tolerant, all that, and the Medina verses. When he went to Medina, they rejected him, the Jews and the Christians, and there was a slaughter in the Babylon churches and such. Anyway, there's a lot in that story, but it's just, if you went by the Quran, Adam's 90 feet tall, there's seven fires, they're all round and flat like pancakes, and seven hells, and it's so ridiculous when you start looking into it. Yes. He relished, I reckon we just heard about a boy named Muhammad. Yes, that is so impressive. How about you both, Sebastian and Firas? Well, it's all new to me. I'm in the process of digesting some of it. Right. And you're going to see some more. But it's interesting. Anyway, how are you? How's your health? Can you get a little closer to the phone, please? I'm having a hard time hearing you. Yeah, I got my phone, so I know my phone's charged. All right, Tom, you give me your thoughts first, and then I can hear you pretty well. Well, I have been a little bit in and out of the military lines, which, I know I told this in an interview that you were going to throw on me, because I see the roles I'm going on as well, and I was proud of that. Great. Good. How about you mums, what about you? Elaine, what are your thoughts? Make sure you get real close to the phone for me please. Yes. That is interesting. I agree. It was very interesting how it was discovered. She said she thought it was interesting how they discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tammy, your thoughts, please. Well, when you talked about the Dead Sea Scrolls, I was a little distracted by the maybe just different things. And I've often heard people use them as a defense for the Hebrew scripture. But we can't be trusting in something other than God's promises and God's word. And it's a distraction when they bring out the Dead Sea Scrolls to say this proves that you know, the Hebrew Masoretic text is the correct one. My position on the Hebrew Masoretic text has to be by faith, and like Dr. Wong just brings out at the very end, rather than on some artifact. Is that the right word? Artifact. Thank you. Artifact. Because, you know, it could be gone, you know, tomorrow. And we can't trust in things to bring us to faith in Christ, we have to trust the words that He has promised to preserve. It's like, if you don't have Noah's Ark, you know, they're always looking, if they're going to find it, I don't think we're going to ever find it. No, we're not going to. And the various other ones, they're not going to find it, because what will man do? He'll worship that heart of God. You see that in the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, they have so many pieces of the so-called original cross that can make numerous crosses. How about you, Mrs. Brommer? I'm talking to my dad. Okay, I got the memo. Ann, how about you? Your thoughts? Well, I had a lot of good thoughts that people had and some of them I had as well. And now I have to come up with original thoughts. Hopefully you can save these thoughts here for anyone else who has them. So next time I'll let you go first, perhaps. No, it doesn't matter. It's fine. Well, it's interesting. We have a lot of different types of thinking we're talking about. understand the text, and sometimes, you know, we were talking about how things weren't directly translated, and that's something that, you know, one has to think about when translating the scriptures. You can't, you have to, you should learn Greek and Hebrew. But then, then it's another problem. Ideally, you want the people that, whose native language you're translating to, you want them to actually be translating, but to do that, they would have to learn Hebrew and Greek, and it's a, Anyway, it's a huge effort, and we've been very blessed by having it. Yes, we have. And ideally, we would have to be able to talk to Hebrew and the Greeks, and ask them their language, to teach them to a person. I mean, last week, a pastor was trying to teach Greek to some Chinese-speaking students, I'm sure the people that were trying to say this in new English would be able to think of the root a little quicker than they wanted to think. But still, I think it would help. They did learn some things about the Greek language. Any final thoughts or comments about this section? Go. Yeah, I have to think back a little bit on what I've heard some people defending the modern versions of the Bible keep saying that we have all this modern manuscript evidence, all this new evidence supporting their point of view. And they're always quick to point out the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls may not be proof of one thing or another. It's simply evidence to be added to the body to look at. Whichever way it really is, I don't know for sure. Whether they say it follows their text more or the Masoretic text more, I don't know. It's probably not that important at all. You know, like Tommy says, we have enough information from the Mazarites themselves rather than the people from Qumran. But it's all interesting. It all fits the puzzle. Someday when we go to be with the Lord, he'll explain how everything actually happened and then we'll know for certain. I won't care. I'll say, hey, look, here's the original right here. Forget that stuff. All these things will be tied in to our faith, you know, and the purpose of it, and the purpose for a man's rebellion against God, you know, so that we understand everything. Any more thoughts or comments? There's evidence to support or against. We had the same problem in creation of science, the interpretation of the evidence. How are you interpreting the evidence that you're looking at and what kind of glasses are you seeing it through? We also clearly see through just what we were reading. In today's section, though there is a corruption that's happening here or there, it's a concealed lie of God that's preserved His Word, as He promised that He would preserve it. That's right. Well, John, would you please close the class? Dear Heavenly Father, we thank You for this class today. Lord, we thank You for us being able to come together for this class. Lord, we thank You for the teacher. We pray for those who are not able to make it to the next day, or to the next session, for whatever reason, Lord. We pray that they'll be back next week. For those who are online, Lord, and have been with us, Lord, we thank you. We pray for you for that. Lord, we thank you, mostly, for sending your Son, Jesus Christ, to die on our cross at Calvary, to save us from our sins. For we know that your Word says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, and that life is in the blood. We know that that life is in the very blood of Jesus Christ Himself. that was shed on Calvary's cross. Father, we ask that you be with us throughout this week, and bring us back together to class again, Lord. We pray for those in the community and the world around us, that they'll receive the gospel message, and that we can play some part in that, Lord. In your name we pray. Amen. Amen.