I Need a Job with Snopes!

I've come out of seculsion to post a quick analysis of a video that's been going around on the internet strongly suggesting that Jesus revealed the name of the anti-Christ...and guess who it is!!??

For those interested, here a link to the video on YouTube.

Now, I don't claim to be a Hebrew scholar, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So here you go.

1) Aramaic is not the "most ancient form of Hebrew." It seems to me that this is a gross oversimplification of how semitic languages developed.

2) The video rightly indicates that Jesus most likely spoke Aramaic, but then shifts to say that if Jesus spoke those words today (because Jewish Rabbis speak Hebrew...when? I'm not sure since most Rabbis conduct worship services in language of wherever they are) He would speak them in Hebrew. This appears to be a sleight of hand. They are trying to equate Aramaic with Hebrew which is just wrong. They are both dialects of Semitic languages and close to each other on that account.

3) References made in the video to Lucifer are highly controversial. Here is the text on the word for "lightening" in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: The crux interpretum is Isa 14:12, "How you are fallen from heaven Lucifer (KJV son of the morning, hêl¢l ben shaµar)," That the passage occurs in the context of a satire on the king of Babylon no one will deny. Yet many Christians have taken this verse (along with perhaps Ezek 28), and on the basis of verses such as Lk 10:18; 1 Tim 3:6, have assumed that here is something on Satan's origin, especially his expulsion from heaven subsequent to his pompous display of arrogance. The New Bible Commentary (rev. ed., p. 600) calls such exegesis "a precarious conjecture." And E. J. Young can say flatly (p. 441), "It cannot apply to Satan." Among evangelicals Archer (WBC, p. 622) is the most open to a supernatural, cosmic interpretation. We feel safest with the application of the phrase to the Babylonian tyrant whose gross pride provided fuel for the prophet's invective.

4) In Is. 14:12-19, of the two references I noted to "cast" or "cut" down, neither use the word "bamah" referred to in the video. Perhaps it is used in other passages, but not in this one. Even so, the claim in the video is false because it indicates that those passages "that directly refer to Satan" use "bamah" and at least in Is. 14:12-19 of the two instances that I looked at, that is incorrect.

5) In my experience, the Hebrew letter identified in the video that they claim is transliterated as "u" or "o", is actually transliterated as "w" or "v." It is waw or vav. I used to say vav. It is often used as a conjunction, as the video claims. But the video uses it for a preposition "from" whereas a conjunction is "or" "but" or most commonly "and."

6) Finally, and I do not claim to be an expert on eschatology, but I'm quite sure that the anti-Christ is not identical with Satan in Scripture.

I report. You decide.