How come Hebrew's language translate from millions of years from the past?
459500
It isn't from millions of years in the past, only a few thousand. We translate many languages that old, such as Egyptian and various Cuneiform languages. But knowledge of Hebrew has been remarkably preserved through the millennia compared to these other languages, and we also have many other linguistic tools at our disposal to help us get accurate translations of the Hebrew texts.
833240
The oldest written records in the world are Sumerian from the southern end of the Euphrates and Tigris River valleys (modern Iraq).  This is the oldest written language based on the dating of the city ruins in which the records were found.  Sumerians were not "an Arab tribe".  Their language is unrelated to any other language in the world.\n\nSumerian (5000 years old), Ancient Egyptian (4500 years old), Hittite (3500 years old), Mycenean Greek (3500 years old), Latin (2800 years old), Sanskrit (2500 years old), Old Chinese (2500 years old), Mayan (2500 years old).
1131458
There are many differences:\nChronologically- Biblical Hebrew is obviously the language of most of the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament), which most scholars believe was written between about 1000 BCE (Some of the Psalms) and the 2nd century BCE (the book of Daniel, written mostly in Aramaic), with the bulk of the work having been written around the time of the exile (6th century BCE). This applies only to the consonants of the text-the vowels were not added until the Middle Ages starting about the 8th century CE.\nModern Hebrew was revived in the late 19th century in Palestine, and is the language spoken in modern day Israel.\n\nPhonologically- Although the exact pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew is uncertain (We don't have the tapes), it is fairly certain that there were several major differences in pronunciation from Modern Hebrew. Most of these differences can be attributed to the influence of European languages, which do not have certain consonants in their inventory, and therefore, the Ashkenazi Jews who spoke these European languages neutralized their pronunciation: \nIn BH ayin was pronounced as it is in Arabic (a voiced pharyngeal fricative), and was distinct from aleph (a glottal stop) In Modern Hebrew, both ayin and aleph are pronounced as a glottal stop (similar to the pause between English uh-oh)\nIn BH qoph was a uvular stop (as in Standard Arabic), and kaph was a velar stop. In MH they are both velar stops (similar to English k)\nThe so-called 'emphatic' consonants (tet, tsadi, and according to some scholars, qoph) were pharyngealized /t/, /s/ and /k/ respectively in BH. In Modern Hebrew, however, the pharyngealization has been dropped-tet is pronouncied exactly the same as tav (similar to English t), and tsadi is pronounced /ts/ (similar to the ts in English cats).\nIn BH, resh was pronounced as a tap (similar to Spanish /r/), but in MH it is a voiced velar fricative (similar to French /r/).\nIn BH, when gimel (English /g/), dalet (English /d/), and tav (English /t/) would be spirantized following a vowel (they would become fricatives instead of stops, i.e. gimel would be pronounced similar to Spanish /g/ in 'lago', dalet would be pronounced similar to English /th/ in 'there', and tav would be pronounced similar to English /th/ in 'thin'). In MH these consonants are pronounced as /g/, /d/, and /t/, regardless of whether they follow a vowel.\n\nMorphosyntax- There are many differences between BH and MH:\nBH had what scholars call the waw-consecutive that would be prefixed to the verb, which was often used to mark a sequentiality in a chain of events. In the narrative portions of the Bible, this is the most common verb form. In MH, however, this form does not exist.\nThe cohortative and jussive that were used in BH similar to 'let/may' constructions in English (i.e. 'may he live') do not exist in MH.\nMH uses constructions with the verb 'to be' plus the prensent tense to denote imperfective aspect. This construction did not exist in BH.\nThe verbal system in BH is generally thought to use aspect instead of tense, i.e. perfect=completed action vs. imperfect=incomplete or ongoing action, compared to MH tense system, i.e. future, past, & present tenses, although this is debatable. Everyone will agree, however, that there are major differences in the verbal systems of BH and MH. \nWord order in BH is generally thought to have been verb-subject-object, i.e. hit the boy the ball, compared to MH subject-verb-object word order (same as English).\n\nOrthography- MH has developed a standardized orthography, that uses the letters yod and vav to denote certain vowels. The orthography of BH, on the other hand, is not standardized, and often does not use yod and vav to mark /i/, /o/, and /u/ vowels.\n\nVocabulary- MH has had to add many new words to its lexicon that  either do not mean the same thing in BH, or did not exist at all. Many of these new words in MH ha
148353
well..as i am an Arabic speaker,,ithink because this language is very rooted ,very historical and it was spoken for more than centuries and centuries,and that it was kept from generation to another ,,,reason?because the Quran (like the bible in christianty)was written in Arabic,and the Quran was written from like a very very long time i can't remember really and people didn't dare to change any single word or transform it ,that's why it is still existing to this day ,however the Arabic language was not effected by any language like the others .Arabic language is very rich in words ,also in it's grammer that's why it's very hard to study it !\nAbout the poetry i'm not sure but i guess because poetry was the only way to transform their feelings and their thoughts  ,,,
372918
Aramaic, Greek and Latin were the languages of Jesus' time. He spoke in Aramaic but most of the scriptures were written in Greek and Hebrew.
175867
It evolved over time--still IS evolving.  Basically it developed out of the languages various groups brought with them when they invaded England.  The Angles, Saxons and Jutes came over and gave the language its Germanic base (which it still has)--that's Old English. (Go ahead--just try and read "Beowulf" in the original...)  The Danes joined in and added Scandinavian words, and then the French came over in 1066 and added French--now you get Middle English.  (And you can try to read Chaucer in the original--better, but still really hard.)  It kept getting refined after that, in every generation; by the time you get to Shakespeare and the King James Bible (1600s) it's mostly modern English if you don't count the thees and thous.  So I guess the correct answer is, we all do.\n\nThe thing about English is that, unlike some other languages, it's really adaptable--it's able to absorb words from many other languages.  It's possible to have one sentence in English that has words that started as Greek, Latin, German, Danish, French, Arabic and Spanish.  If you don't believe me...Come with me between Algebra and Psychology class--we'll pick up a couple of burritos... :-)
110952
This was the value of the Dead sea scrolls.  It gave scholars a chance to see what had changed in time since they were written and modern day editions.  The surprising thing was that there was a remarkable similarlity.\n\nHave you heard the saying, every translator is a liar?  This is because language changes with the culture.  A word like gay has has had its meaning changed dramatically over the last fifty years.\nUnless scholars change the words of scripture to reflect current usage, then the meaning will be lost.  So to stay authentic, the bible translations must change.
1066741
The original was written in Hebrew & Greek but now in English written bibles I have found that the King James Version is the closest. Don't take my word for that but it is the bible that I study from. What you need to do is pray about it and ask God to show you where He wants you to read His Word from.
978997
The best way you can find out what the bible says in "real terms" is to read it in Hebrew. That is the original language  it was written in. I find it useful when reading to have The Exhaustive concorance of the Bible near by.
999441
Basic answer  -- the languages have many similarities for TWO reaons --   an ancient COMMON ancestry, and much CONTACT through the millennia.\n\nThe three languages you listed -- Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic-- all go back to one ancient "root" language we might call "Common Semitic".  This is the starting place for understanding why a speaker of one language may understand, or at least easily learn, another of the languages.  It's a bit like French, Italian and Spanish speakers whose languages all go back to Latin.\n\nNow much of the ancient historical relationship amongst the different Semitic languages is obscure, and some of it is highly debated, since that 'language history' has to be reconstructed based on clues left in the languages (or in written records of earlier forms of the languages).     The "family tree" model also has some significant weaknesses (see below), but is still useful for drawing a rough picture.\n\nHere's a sketch:\n\n1) HEBREW and Aramaic are fairly closely related, coming from two 'subbranches' of part of the large tree of Semitic.  "Aramaic" actually covers a diversity of dialects.    Hebrew is a "Canaanite" language (the last remaining), and was spoken by the 'people of Israel' up to the time of the Babylonian Captivity in the 6th century B.C..   (The precise beginnings of Hebrew are murky.)\n\nThese two subbranches are the main representatives of what are usually called the "Northwest Semitic languages", though in more recent systems they may also be called "North Central Semitic" languages.\n\n2) ARAMAIC - Historically we know that various types of Aramaic were spoken in Syria (a region called "Aram" in the first millennium)-- in the lands between the Mediterranean coast and Mesopotamia.   These lands and peoples came under the control of the Assyrians ("Neo-Assyrian Empire"), then the Babylonians ("Neo-Babylonian Empre" of Nebuchadnezzar, etc), and later the (non-Semitic) Persians.   But rather than these peoples adopting the language of their Mesopotamian conquerors (esp. the "Neo-Assyrian" and "Neo-Babylonian" dialects of the Eastern Semitic language scholars call "Akkadian"),  Aramaic itself became the lingua franca of these empires, and eventually many of the legal documents were written in Aramaic.  (Persia continued this practice.)  [Note that "Neo-Babylonian" is NOT Aramaic, but the dialect of Akkadian.]\n\nLeading members of the Hebrew-speaking peoples of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were carried into exile by the Assyrians & Babylonians.  When their descendants returned they brought the Aramaic language back with them, though they continued to use Hebrew for religious purposes.  (Because these returnees were chiefly from the former Kingdom of Judah, they were called "Judahites", from which we get the word "Jews" ["Juedisch" /"Yiddish" in German]. )\n\nAramaic dialects of various sorts continued to dominate the region for many centuries (though Greek was also used for various purposes after the rise of the Greek Empire and esp its Mesopotamain offshoot, the Seleucids).  In the early centuries of the church the later Aramaic dialect/language known as Syriac  was dominant (hence one of the earliest translations of the New Testament is the Syriac).\n\n3) Another Semitic language, ARABIC, swept across the region and displaced most of the Aramaic dialects with the rise of Islam and Arab conquest (though a few small pockets preserved Aramaic, and a handful of "Neo-Aramaic" dialects survive to this day).   But what exactly is the relationship of this Semitic language, esp. to Aramaic?\n\nThe "family tree" explanation has shifted a bit over the years.  Arabic used to be classified with "Southern Semitic" languages (including Southern Arabian and, more dis
276376
IF ITS HEBREW IT  THE BEGING OF THE WORLD
576607
The simple answer is two-fold. 1. The Bible was written in three languages. 2. No translation is perfect.  Here is the long answer:\n\nThe Bible has been translated numerous times for over two thousand years.  The books which compose the Bible were written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.  Obviously, this poses a problem for most people who would like to read the Bible.\n\nAround 285 BC, the Septuagint was created.  The Septuagint was simply a Greek translation of the Old Testament.  Many people of the time could read Greek, and since the New Testament was originally written in Greek, this proved useful.  In approximately 400 AD the Vulgate was produced by Jerome at Bethlehem.  This was a Latin translation of the entire Bible.  Its name comes from the fact that it was written in Vulgar Latin (Vulgar, when used to describe a language simply means that the common person could read and understand it).  The Vulgate was the primary translation used by the Catholic Church until Vatican 2 in the 1960s.\n\nA few other translations, such as the Wycliffe (1380ish AD, English) were written, but with the Church backing only the Vulgate, it wasn't until the Reformation that new translations were seen as necessary.\n\nDuring the Protestant Reformation, reformers believed that it was important for everyone to be able to read the Bible.  Martin Luther created a German Translation that continues to be used today.\n\nAt the same time, in England, a few people began to work on English translations.  Many English translations were written between the years of 1520 and 1610, including the Tyndale, Matthews, and Bishops translations.\n\nIn 1611 the King James Version was produced.  The translators of this version relied on the earlier English translations, but they also studied earlier sources.  Since none of the original texts survived, all translations have had to rely on manuscripts.  The manuscripts of the early books had to be hand-copied by a scribe, and they do deviate from one another slightly in different places.\n\nLater translations, like the NIV, will usually consult the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic transcripts.  In many cases, if you look at the preface of your translation, you can see which manuscripts were used as the primary sources.  The NIV relies more on less common manuscripts than the KJV.\n\nA few final things to consider.  Many words have different meanings in English.  Many of the differences you find are simply word-choice.  Also, translators are not perfect, it is entirely possible that one made a mistake.  Every English translation has at least one mistake somewhere.  In addition to this, the English language has changed over the last 400 years since the KJV was produced.  Modern translations will try to use the current vernacular.\n\nOne of my sources is a KJV Bible that has a section on Bible history, the other is a handbook.  I tried to cite them as correctly as possible, but I was trying to do MLA from memory. (Too lazy to look it up, e-mail if you really want more info on the sources, but this is enough to find them in a library or on the Internet.)
865372
Old Testament\nHow do we know the Bible has been kept in tact for over 2,000 years of copying? Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, our earliest Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text, dating around 800 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the time of Jesus and were copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies.\n\nNew Testament\nIn considering the New Testament we have tens of thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century, when the printing press was invented. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy, making collusion unlikely. The oldest manuscript, the John Rylands manuscript, has been dated to 125 A.D. and was found in Egypt, some distance from where the New Testament was originally composed in Asia Minor). Many early Christian papyri, discovered in 1935, have been dated to 150 A.D., and include the four gospels. The Papyrus Bodmer II, discovered in 1956, has been dated to 200 A.D., and contains 14 chapters and portions of the last seven chapters of the gospel of John. The Chester Beatty biblical papyri, discovered in 1931, has been dated to 200-250 A.D. and contains the Gospels, Acts, Paul's Epistles, and Revelation. The number of manuscripts is extensive compared to other ancient historical writings, such as Caesar's "Gallic Wars" (10 Greek manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), the "Annals" of Tacitus (2 manuscripts, the earliest 950 years after the original), Livy (20 manuscripts, the earliest 350 years after the original), and Plato (7 manuscripts).\n\nThousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (dated 95 A.D.) cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. The letters of Ignatius (dated 115 A.D.) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D. In addition, there is internal evidence for a first century date for the writing of the New Testament. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul in prison, awaiting trial (Acts 28:30-31 (1)). It is likely that Luke wrote Acts during this time, before Paul finally appeared before Nero. This would be about 62-63 A.D., meaning that Acts and Luke were written within thirty years of ministry and death of Jesus. Another internal evidence is that there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Although Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus' prophecy that the temple and city would be destroyed within that generation (Matthew 24:1-2 (2),Mark 13:1-2 (3), Luke 21:5-9,20-24,32(4)), no New Testament book refers to this event as having happened. If they had been written after 70 A.D., it is likely that letters written after 70 A.D. would have mentioned the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. As stated by Nelson Glueck, former president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, and renowned Jewish archaeologist, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written between the forties and eighties of the first century A.D."\n\nWith all of the massive manuscript evidence you would think there would be massive discrepancies -
183624
Was the Old Testament originally written in Hebrew?\n----YES\n\nWas the New Testament originally written in Greek?\n--------YES, although Christians claim there was, originally, a Hebrew version. The fact that it did not survive shows that the Greek version was more important to the early Christians than the Hebrew, indicating the degree to which they were assimilated into Greek religion and Culture.\n\nHow difficult are these languages to learn?\n-------Hebrew is easy, i cannot speak for Greek. I teach people to read (vocalize) the Hebrew text, not to translate, just to pronounce, in just 3 hours.\n\nHow beneficial would it be for me to learn them?\n------if you dont want to rely on someone else's translations, it is vital that you learn them!\n\nAnd where would I get a copy of the Bible in both English and Greek/Hebrew\n--------I recommend the Koren Publishing Company's translation. The Koren Publishing Company is in Jerusalem, so, unfortunately, they called their translation The Jerusalem Bible, which, in the U.S., is the name of a Catholic translation, and they are not the same thing. Most Barnes and Nobles have the Koren translation, which has the Hebrew on the left and the English on the right. Unfortunately the English still sounds like something from King James, but at least the translation tried to be literal. Of course, this is only the Hebrew Scriptures, and a Greek/English, i know nothing about.\n\nI would urge you NOT to get what is called an Interlinnear translation. All they do is take their copyrighted translation and match those individual words to the Hebrew that they want translated that way, regardless of whether or not it means what their copyrighted translation says.
830958
Not only that, but *originals* for the vast majority of books in the bible haven't existed for thousands of years.  All the translators have to work from are copies of copies of copies of copies...\nOh, but of course, we *know* that nobody made any errors, changes, or intentional additions or deletions when they made those hand-written copies, right? ;-)\n\nForget about the actual content, OF COURSE there are errors in just getting what's called the bible into your hands from the people who originally wrote the books.  Anyone who thinks there are no errors of any kind in the bible is very, very deluded.
886943
Greek, aramic and hebrew.
520118
Originality from Ashkenazi Jews. Then being developed under 4 main eras;\n1) early years : France, Northern Italy & Germany, surge the born of Laaz, 2) old years : Eastern Germany, Poland & Eastern Europe territories, 3) middle years : Poland as the centre of Yiddish & being written in Hebrew, 4) Modern years : declining era because of the Holocaust and the repression of Soviet Jews under Stalin, only remained in several part including Haskalah and some parts in western Europe.\nBut, nowadays Yiddish being used in some community including the ultra-Orthodox populations living in New York and parts of Israel. Matter or fact, some universities does offers Yiddish as language being offered as it is parralel to Jew. In fact, German linguists also learn Yiddish because the development of the German language, is related to the medieval versions of it that today are manifested only in Yiddish.\nThe best answer is Israel because of the origins and nowadays situations.