The stupidity and contradictions never stop with Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. He continues to claim The God Culture is a team but it is simply not possible that a team would continue to get EVERYTHING wrong. If it turns out there is an actual God Culture team they are the most unqualified people for the job of researching the Bible, history, linguistics, paleography, archaeology, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
 |
| NEW!!! Yahusha's Sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1st Century. WOW!!! |
Tim and the gang, IF there is a gang, are now claiming that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically in the Commentary on Nahum. Here is the passage in question.
[And chokes prey for its lionesses; and it fills] its caves [with prey] and its dens with victims (ii, 12a—b).
Interpreted, this concerns the furious young lion [who executes revenge] on those who seek smooth things and hangs men alive, ... formerly in Israel. Because of a man hanged alive on [the] tree, He proclaims, ‘Behold I am against [you, says the Lord of Hosts’].
https://couldbeanonymous.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/complete-scrolls.pdf
What Tim is going to do is take ahold of "Because of a man hanged alive on a tree" and say that has to be a reference to Jesus Christ because he is the ONLY man who's being hanged on a tree, or crucified, matters. He will also claim that this passage is wrongly translated because of the addition of "who executes revenge" in brackets and he will also deride paleographic dating as mere unscientific guess work. Below are the most important statements he makes trying to twist this passage into a reference to Jesus Christ.
1:07 The whole Dead Sea scroll, uh, malfunction of what they call scholarship is really truly utter fraud. Uh, so, yeah they don't find it and we're not surprised cuz it's right there sitting on top of their nose. And what do they do? Well, first they screw up the date in a false science, uh, that guesses at a date. Yeah, that's what they do they don't actually test many times, uh, you know carbon dating. But even if they did there's still a margin of error that could take it into the next century. So it really doesn't tell you anything when you're thinking about trying to nail it down to a very, very specific era of you know 30 to 40 years. Uh, literally impossible to do so and it's okay we don't have to that's the whole thing. It's the demand for such that science doesn't even have to support it that it's just ludicrous. Stop demanding things, right? That's what we should do. Stop demanding things that man can't even date and can't even do anyway. Pretty easy
Got it? The text is undatable using proper scientific methods including carbon dating and paleography. Moreover people who demand the Dead Sea Scrolls be subject to such testing are stupid.
4:50 However, no one can seem to think over there at the Dead Sea scroll, uh, you know Library, the Leon Levy Library, all of it. The Rockefeller funded uh disaster, uh, of interpretation. At least we have the Dead Sea Scrolls at least some of the translations are okay uh but their interpretations, these guys are idiots.
This is a particularly ignorant statement. Tim derides the scholarly interpretation of the scrolls but says the translations are OK. Only an idiot would not understand ALL translation is interpretation. Unbelievable.
7:02 This concerns the Furious Young Lion that's singular notice. Now, it's not Yahusha and we know that he can be, uh, referred to as a lion as well in Prophecy but that's not what this is this is very clear this is a furious Young Lion who's doing some bad stuff here. So, uh, this is Pontius Pilate very obviously I mean anybody can read this even at first blush and really kind of almost see this but hopefully you will now.
Why is it obvious that this lion is Pontius Pilate? Tim does not say. It is obvious to Tim because he has already decided that this passage is about Jesus being crucified and the man who ordered his crucifixion is Pontius Pilate. But why is this furious young lion Pilate? Tim also wants his audience to know that there is only one lion mentioned in the text and not many lions as some scholars say and who Tim never cites. Surely Tim has read this whole commentary and knows that the furious young lion is mentioned in the fragment just before the one he is interpreting.
The lion tears enough for its cubs and it chokes prey for its lionesses (ii, 12a).
[Interpreted, this] concerns the furious young lion who strikes by means of his great men, and by means of the men of his council.
Now, how is this Pilate? Tim has already said there is only one furious young lion so there has to be a strict identification between these two furious young lions. So, how is this Pilate? Tim does not say. He ignores it completely.
7:46 And notice we have brackets here as we move forward. uh now what does that mean? It means they added this part to the sentence, to the translation, it's not actually there. Now, there's nothing wrong with doing that if it's logical, reasonable, and they're not just throwing in something to basically change the whole doctrine of the passage. Oh, oops that's what they're doing in blatant fraud. Let's see.
So, it says "who executes Revenge." So, this this Furious Young Lion executes Revenge. Okay you could say that about Pontius Pilate I, I mean you could but are you kidding? The guy washed his hands he tried not he tried to say "no." No the Pharisees twisted his arm uh he wasn't exactly the one executing Revenge other than for them but here's how it reads: uh, "who executes Revenge." Uh, what they're trying to do is set up the Pharisees as the persecuted here because those poor Pharisees, I mean, you know, they they, they were just trying to kill a man. What's wrong with that? Right? Okay. What it really should say is something more like "on behalf of." Ok? Not "who executes Revenge." Nonsense.
Wow. Now Tim is not only engaging in commentary but in translation! It should be noted that the bracketed words are not a problem for Tim. It is the word "on" following the brackets with which he takes issue. Instead of "on" Tim thinks it should read "on behalf of." Why exactly should it say "on behalf of?" Has Tim looked at the Hebrew? No. This new translation is based not on what the actual Hebrew text says but on Tim's own fancy. It is totally ludicrous.
10:50 So, who does the hanging here? The Furious Young Lion Pontius Pilate does. He's the Executioner. then it says "formerly in Israel." So, this fragment is written when after the event because it's talking about something that was formerly there and formerly happened. Duh. This text really dates itself.
"Because of a man." Okay. One man. There's only one to which this could even refer in fact and that's Yahusha you'll see. One man. Okay. "Because of a man hanged alive on the tree he proclaims behold I am against you says Yahweh of hosts." Wow. Now, let's break this down cuz there's actually a lot there to unpack and by the end of this short video you're going to understand it and again test it for yourself.
First notice this man as Peter and Luke affirm was hanged on a tree. We know that is scripture. that is a Biblical way to identify Yahusha. Now, it's not a cross. Uh, it's an upright stake, a single piece of Timber not two. Uh, not in any passage by the way. There's not a single passage that ever identifies an actual cross. That's an English translation of the Greek word stauros which is always a stake, a single piece of wood usually pointed on the end but not always, uh and Yahusha was attached to one of those. Uh, it's called a tree but appropriately so, uh, so, anyway. Watch our videos on the cross and the great, the Greek, uh, stake and we cover that well.
This is clear that a singular man was hanged on a tree and well, uh, caused Yahua to react against those who executed him. That's pretty severe. That's pretty serious when he reacts. This is Yahusha and no one else. There's really no other fit to this and you'll see as we go through.
It is true that Jesus was hung on a "tree" and died but he also resurrected. If this is indeed Jesus where is the mention of His resurrection? It simply is not there. That is rather odd since the resurrection is pretty important.
20:06 Uh, that is poor and no wonder he can't, you know, figure this out and ends up leading uh to really the hiding of this incredible Revelation that's been sitting right there. Yahusha is found his crucifixion is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls written about the period that it happened, concurrently. Wow. This is amazing. When you think about it this is incredible.
This is the core of Tim's entire argument. Dead Sea Scroll Scholars are dishonest frauds who cannot connect a man dying on a tree to Jesus Christ who died on a tree.
The amount of ignorance in this video is breathtaking. Tim wants us to believe this fragment was written shortly after Jesus was crucified based on his interpretation not of the original Hebrew but of Vermes English translation. For Tim, Vermes' commentary and bracket additions are maliciously fraudulent while his translation is acceptable even though the translation is itself an interpretation. However, as I showed above it is the translation and not the bracketed words with which Tim takes issue. If this fragment was written after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ why is there no mention of His resurrection?
Tim is also taking this one fragment out of context. This fragment is from a whole commentary on Nahum. How does this interpretation fit in with the rest of the commentary? It is a matter of fact that this commentary mentions the names of two Greek kings. Who are they? Tim does not care as he dismisses them completely.
18:46 "Substantial remains of a Naham commentary we retrieved from cave four. they cover parts of chapters 1 and two of the biblical book and the first 14 chapters of chapter 3. their historical significance has been discussed in chapter 3. It is worthy of note that the commentator employs not only cryptograms Kittim, Furious Young Lion, Etc." Indeed he does and that's not really that cryptic when you understand you know a lot of these things especially when they're repeated over and over in the Dead Sea Scrolls these these aren't Shockers at all. "But the actual names of two Greek Kings." Oops! Well, no not not in terms of of uh of what we're talking about not at all. Uh, Demetrius and, uh, Antiochus except for both of them are gone uh by this era that this is supposedly dated from 50 to 1 BC. Doesn't he know that? Doesn't he read his own writing? That's pretty bad. Anyway, so, the Greeks are gone and Rome is in power so forget the Greeks there that he mentions, I don't know why.
Tim is at a loss why Vermes mentions the names of two Greek kings Demetrius and Antiochus. Is he for real? The names are in the text! That's why he mentions them. This is beyond stupid especially as Tim had no problem with Antiochus being name dropped when he used this very same fragment to "disprove" The Book of Maccabees.
Take a look again at the title card for this video. "FRESH DISCOVERY!" "How did scholars HIDE this?" It's simply amazing that scholars who have devoted their entire lives to studying the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient languages, 2nd Temple Period literature, and the culture of the time are bested again and again by a magazine publisher who admits he is not a linguist and has a degree in marketing. How is this possible?
It's not. The real question is why is Timothy Jay Schwab such a clueless utter moron and why does anyone believe the ridiculous garbage that he spews?
How did scholars miss that the Dead Sea Scrolls, far from being a collection of documents pertaining to a specific community complete with rules and their own unique interpretation of the Bible, is actually all about Jesus Christ? It's because they hate Jesus, of course and the Dead Sea Scrolls are all about Jesus.
5:35 They tried to rule out 30 or so years later of course. Uh, why? Well because that would be Messiah in this text and of course that couldn't possibly be because well, they hate him. What do you expect? What are they doing? Managing the Dead Sea Scrolls which are all about Him that's the real question. Now, problem we ain't fallen for any more of this ridiculous leaven.
Now, it must be said that while Tim is very stupid his audience is even more so. The morons who listen to him will believe everything he says without doing what he says which is test all things including himself. They will hear Tim read about a man being hanged on a tree in this Nahum commentary fragment and agree that it can only be Jesus Christ who was also hanged on a tree.
This interpretation of the Nahum Commentary is on par with Tim's linguistic method whereby a Filipino word sounds like a Hebrew word therefore it IS a Hebrew word. It is also on par with Tim's interpretation of Jesus saying "Come unto me all who are weary and I will give you rest" to mean we have to keep the Sabbath because we rest on the Sabbath therefore Jesus must have been talking about the Sabbath when he mentioned rest. It is silly and ridiculous beyond belief. It is amazing how, when you think he cannot get any stupider, Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture will always surprise you with something even more stupid than before.
No comments:
Post a Comment