What writing system/script was used during the time of Jesus Christ; old hebrew, hebrew, samaritan or aramaic?
821544
Hebrew and Aramaic.\nThe two share the same alphabet.\nAramaic was the spoken language, and Hebrew was the language of scholarship and learning.
556286
What bible you speak of..Jewish, Christian or Muslim bible? does not matter which one you would use as tolite paper..it is so so so wrong to do that...
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.
898837
Several have pointed out the basic origins of our alphabet, ultimately in the early Semitic alphabets of the 2nd millennium BC, a form of which Phoenician traders of the 1st millennium BC spread around the Mediterranean (esp. to the Greeks,  and from one group of Greeks to the Etruscans, and from them to the Romans -- hence the Latin alphabet we now use a form of).\n\nAs for the ORDER of these alphabets, some clarification is needed.\n\nBelow I will explain where your friend's suggestion may come from (I'm assuming he misread a lowercase for a capital and meant the letter "L").    But here's the big picture:\n\n1) Our very term "alphabet" is based on a Greek version which began with the letters "alpha" and "beta".  These words were nonsense in Greek, borrowed from the Phoenician names "aleph" and "beth" (meaning "ox" and "house" --words that began with these respective letters).   That is, the essential order of our alphabet (with modifications for letters added later by the Greeks and Romans), is an order used by the Phoenicians, as well as by others in their region who spoke related languages --this included speakers of Hebrew .\n\n2) Specific evidence for THIS order among the Semitic groups?  Of the texts we have in Phoenician,  I do not know of any of these that are specifically "abecedary" texts (that is, lists of the letters in a standardized a-b-c type order).    But the evidence for this order in first millennium BC Hebrew is quite strong in the biblical texts, esp. in their "acrostic poems", in which successive verses or sets of verses begin with the letters in the 'order of the alphabet'.    The most famous example is Psalm 119 in which the eight verses of each stanza start with the same letter.   In fact, almost any English Bible you pick up will display the Hebrew characters and names above the stanzas of this psalm.\n\n3) Actually, the evidence for this order -- beginning with "aleph" -- goes back to about 1300 B.C., where it is found in a number of "abecedary texts" apparently written in scribal schools in the Syrian port city of Ugarit.  (The characters are in an alphabet adapted to be written in "cuneiform", but are still the same basic letters as the other alphabetic texts we know.)    There is some suggestion that the order reflects the propsed Egyptian roots of the whole Semitic alphabet, but no evidence of this has been found. (And at least one writer has proposed that the Ugartic alphabet was organized as a mnenomic device, and has attempted to reconstruct a poem based on the word-names of the letters.)\n\n4) This is at least the DOMINANT order.  But there is another group of languages -- including writings in "Old South Arabiab" and later in "Ge`ez" (also called "Classical Ethiopic") that used a different order, that starts with the equivalent of "h".   This "South Semitic" order is first found in South Arabian inscriptions inthe mid-1st millennium BC...  or so we long thought.    It turns out that two texts found at Ugarit --one found back in 1933, but not appreciated; another found much later-- have since the 1990s been recognized as reflecting the South Semitic order.   With just two of them, and the peculiarities and uncertainties about these specific texts, it is difficult to know what to make of them.   There are some, however, who argue that this order may be just as old as the standard 'aleph-bet' order (and have looked forevidence in the lists of Egyptian symbols ['glyphs'] thought to be behind them).\n\n**5)  As for the "L" first suggestion.  Many have suggested that the 22-letter Phoenician and Hebrew alphabet was typically broken into TWO pieces of eleven letters each.   Looking at the Hebrew alphabet (perhaps at Psalm 119) you see that the first three letters of the seco
126346
I don't remember reading that, but if you want to look for yourself, here's a GREAT website:  www.biblegateway.net.  totally searchable in lots of versions and languages.  (by the way, I typed Jesus and hell into the search and came up empty, to save you some time)
751673
The Revelation of Jesus Christ was written by the Apostle John in 95 A.D. \nFirst, second and Third John were written 90-95 A.D.\nThe Gospel according to John was written 85-90 A.D.\nJohn would have been approximately between 80 and 100 years old during this time.
407732
There is a form of writing known as angelic script, also called the celestial alphabet. This is bred from alchemical writings with ties to hassidic and orthodox hebrew practice. From it are derived seals and sigils. Due to the number of angels, not all have their names written in specific seals and sigils. Also since the seals are usually used in specific practice, the higher angels are the ones called upon for protection/guidance/help/so forth.\n\nFor all intensive purposes though, the hierarchy, in specific the kabbalah (the sephirotic system of names) would be the best way to go, as it holds very closely with core orthodox hebrew teachings, which is where angels orginated.\n\nCheck the links, its interesting stuff.
189890
Yeshua, in Aramaic, the original language of the New Testament-this in reference to the name "Jesus".\nHowever, Jesus has MANY names-among them: I AM, Emmanuel, the Word, the everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, the King of Kings, Alpha and Omega, and the Lamb of God. The reason Jesus has so many names is that He IS so many things and has many titles. But I would say Yeshua and I AM are the simplest answer to your question. \nTake care. Buttercup
1062903
Old Testament  \nChristian name for the Hebrew Bible, which serves as the first division of the Christian Bible (see New Testament ). The designations Old and New seem to have been adopted after c.AD 200 to distinguish the books of the Mosaic covenant and those of the new covenant.\n\nNew Testament \nThe distinctively Christian portion of the Bible , consisting of 27 books of varying lengths dating from the earliest Christian period. The seven epistles whose authorship by St. Paul is undisputed were written c.AD 50-AD 60
324034
The bible(new testament) was written 30-60 years after Jesus died.  The authors never met Jesus, did not know him, and wrote down stories they had HEARD about him.\nJust like the game "telephone", stories become greatly exaggerated.
49145
Heh, heh... thanks bro. ;)\n\nI have seen some rare textual changes that have changed the meaning or even elimination of a word because they could not see how it fits. Hebrew letters can look very close to one another, much like our "l" and "i". So any distortion in the leather parchment could be a problem or the flaking of the ink could cause problems as well.\nMy mentor once told me that when the military creates a complex code, they transmit it with parity, or multiple times, so that if the coded message is in any way garbled, they can compare it to earlier or later transmissions. The Bible does the same thing by repeating the important messages several times. This is why Deuteronomy is called Deuteronomy. It's "repeating what we already know is true".\nCan these people explain to me why the entire 2,000 year old Isaiah scroll found in Qumran is virtually identical with the modern copies found in every synagogue in the world?\nRemember that Revelation carries an eternal curse of damnation for anyone who adds or subtracts from the text of scripture, and I do not think King James was hoping for political advantage at the expense of his soul.\nToday, we still have the original Hebrew and Greek text. Changing the scriptures would offer us ZERO political gain. Yet is still translates the same as the original King James, only with todays vernacular. \nI wonder if these people even research beyond their own notions. Do they have such skepticism when they read their dosage instructions for medication?
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
638165
The Gospels were written my early Christian anonymous authors.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not authors but were used as a thematic reference to each version of the story.  There were hundreds of "Gospels" that did not make it into the Canon we call the New Testament.
719259
Just about everyone in Judaea was speaking Aramaic. At that time, Hebrew had already passed out of use as a daily language. Hebrew was used in religious rites and in the synagogue, but not in daily life. This is not entirely unlike the passing of Latin from daily European life centuries before it passed out of academic and religious life.\n\nEven today Hebrew is a restored language. It does not have a complete continuity through a line of native Hebrew speakers.\n\nGiven where Jesus lived (Capernaum) it is also quite likely he spoke Greek. He would not have had many opportunities to use Latin there, but in cosmopolitan Jerusalem, he might have encountered Latin speakers (the titulus crucis was written in Latin, Greek, and Aramaic.)
68579
I think it was Aramaic or Hebrew. I saw a website that might help: http://phoenicia.org/semlang.html
1154143
The English word "Bible" is from the Greek phrase ta biblia, "the books," an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus.
549780
probably Hebraic and Aramaic