Different Hebrew
A "scholar" suggested that we dare not use Easton because it is so old. He said it cannot be trusted. "Back then", he said, "they didn't even know that Chaldee, Aramaic, and Hebrew were three different languages." "7.
Connection between Chaldean, Syriac, and Samaritan as "Aramaic language" was first identified in 1679 by German theologian Johann Wilhelm Hilliger. " https://www.factsnippet.com/site/facts-about-aramaic-language.html
I picked up a new seminary text book on Hebrew 101. The author somewhere discovered that there are 23 letters in Hebrew alphabet. Fro hundreds of years we have been told that there are 22; 27 if you count final forms separately. By formation, there are 28. The author decided that the 'sin' and 'shin' are two letters, even though they have the same numeric value of 21.
I bought the book to see what a first year Hebrew vocabulary looked like. Then I realized the whole first year was spent learning the niqqud (vowel hints) and grammar based on the nikkud. Jesus never saw the niqqud. They were added about 600 AD.
The reason scholars cannot read the OT the way Jesus did is because they read a different version of Hebrew than Jesus read.
Jesus read 'amar' אמר. He understood it to be "said", "word" and "lamb". When they added nikkud they made 'lamb' into 'emeer' so you would not see that the Word is the Lamb. The Baptist proclaimed "Behold the Lamb/Word of God."
Scholars have decided that 'emeer' is Aramaic'. 'Emeer' did not exist as a Bible word until 600 AD. They obfuscate Christ even more. Are scholars too smart? Or are they hostile to the word of God?
Now we are to use the latest and greatest Dictionaries available, which according to my scholar friend, will be obsolete in 20 years.
