According to this video there are a remarkable number of linguistic coincidences which ‘strongly suggest’ that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. I’m waiting for the emails to start popping up asking about the validity of this video, so let me show it here and add some comments:
Let me make a few points which are straight from a well articularted post by Dan Wallace here:
- It is debatable whether Jesus spoke most of the time in Aramaic; he may have done much of his teaching in Greek. It is also not true that Aramaic is the oldest form of Hebrew.
- A sleight of hand has occurred: First, it is claimed that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but then it is claimed that he spoke in Hebrew. Which is it? Although the characters for both languages are the same, the vocabulary has some key differences, especially in vowel points but also often in the very consonants used.
- Is Isaiah really the source for the Christian view of Satan? It may contribute to our understanding, but even that is disputed. The one passage that may speak about Satan is indeed Isa 14. But part of the reason for this being so interpreted is due to the influence of the KJV. At v. 12 the King James says, “O Lucifer, son of the morning!” The word lucifer, however, is simply a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate at this point. It is not another name for Satan. The Hebrew word, helel means ‘morning star’ or ‘shining one.’ Most modern translations (the NKJV is the only exception I found of the translations I checked) do not translate helel as Lucifer; rather they have ‘shining one,’ ‘day star,’ ‘morning star,’ etc. (cf., e.g., NET, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NAB, NJB, HCSB). Of course, there are still excellent scholars who believe that Isa 14 is ultimately a reference to Satan, though in the historical context it was directed at the Babylonian king.
- To have the idea of ‘lightning from the heights’ would normally require a preposition, not a conjunction (see next point).
- It seems to be an illegitimate leap to say ‘lightning and the heights’ means the same thing as ‘lightning from the heights.’ Indeed, there is a perfectly good Hebrew word that means ‘from’: min. But that would produce baraq min-bamot. It’s getting more difficult to see the validity of the narrator’s linguistic points.
- When all is said and done, the evidence is simply bogus. Jesus didn’t speak in Hebrew, and the Hebrew that is given here does not mean ‘lightning from the heights.’ Baraq ubamah means ‘lightning and height.’ But that can hardly be the underlying Aramaic (which is not Hebrew) for the Greek text of Luke 10.18. Thus, a linguistic leap from Greek to Aramaic to Hebrew, with the grammar and vocabulary changing along the way, is required to make Luke 10.18 mean what the narrator wants it to mean.
Wallace ends with this penetrating insight:
This is hardly a case of “I report; you decide.” It is rather a case of “I’ll tell you only part of the evidence, and will use some fancy exegetical gymnastics to make everything fit; and based on the skewered evidence, you decide.”
Comments are closed