Insomniac wrote:
>> "Matthew Amsel" <matthew.amsel at mail.mcgill.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D6CEF06.3C64 at mail.mcgill.ca...> > Dan Holzman wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <hw_a9.15521$Ic7.1464026 at news2.west.cox.net>,
> > > John Knight <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> The King James version of the Holy Bible is not an authority on
> > > >> ancient Hebrew, nor does it assert to being so.
> > > >
> > > >It's the most widely spread Hebrew writing ever, and it's primary
> connection
> > > >to jews is through words like the following:
> > >
> > > The KJV of the Bible is not written in Hebrew. The New Testament
> > > portion of it isn't even translated by many steps from Hebrew.
> > as i recall, the kjv is the english translation of the latin translation
> > of the greek translation of the hebrew. (or did it skip the latin?)
>> The New Testament never WAS in Hebrew. It was in Greek and Latin.
i know THAT. i meant the old testament portion
