Replies

Yes they did mean it to be a Judaized version of Aramaic known as Chaldee, which was the spoken language of the 1st century Palestinian Jews, derived from Syriac (i.e. Aramaic), and sometimes called Judeo-Aramaic by some scholars.

Let's be clear here: Chaldee is often erroneously called by modern scholars as eastern Aramaic when it is really "Akkadic" not Aramaic. The term "Aramaic", though thrown around erroneously by pseudo scholars, means "Syriac" -- neither Chaldee [Akkadic] nor Hebrew -- although all of these are closely related. The Hebrew that Moses and the prophets and chroniclers of the OT wrote in had a lot of Chaldean words in it --- but it was still called HEBREW, whether it is spelled Ibriy or Hebraisti -- HEBREW nonetheless.

Let's be clear here: Chaldee is often erroneously called by modern scholars as eastern Aramaic when it is really "Akkadic" not Aramaic

Reference please.

The Hebrew that Moses and the prophets and chroniclers of the OT wrote in had a lot of Chaldean words in it --- but it was still called HEBREW...

We are talking about the languge of the post-Babylonian Jews, not the languge of Moses and the pre-Babylonian prophets.

whether it is spelled Ibriy or Hebraisti -- HEBREW nonetheless

WRONG! The Jews do not call the language of Moses "Ibry" (in fact, there is no such entity as the "Ibriy language" anywhere in the Bible, and the Greeks do not call it Hebraisti.

The Hebrew word for the Hebrew language is Yehudiyth, and the Greek equivalent (not used in the New Testament) is Ioudiasti. For what it's worth, the New Adevnt addresses this issue

In later times the term "sacred language" was sometimes employed by the Jews to designate the Bible Hebrew in opposition to the "profane language", i.e. the Aramaean dialects which eventually usurped the place of the other as a spoken language. In New-Testament usage the current Aramaic of the time is frequently called Hebrew (hebrais dialektos, Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14), not in the strict sense of the word, but because it was the dialect in use among the Jews of Palestine.

Isaiah (19:18) calls the languge of the Jews "Canaan!" So, how reliable is the bible when it comes to this? Not very! Just as it is not very reliable as a source of scientific or technical concepts.

But historical and linguistic evidence of what you derogatively call "pseudo scholars" tells us that the pre-Babylonian Jews spoke OT Hebrew and post-Babylonian Jews in Palestine slowly but surely replaced Hebrew with a specific dialect of the Aramaic group of languages, namely the Chaldee (or Chaldean).

Unfortunately the Greek term for Chaldee version of Aramaic spoke by the 1st century Palestinian Jews is Hebraisti, and as such was erroneously translated into and otherwise unrleiable Vulgate Bible as "Hebrew" and thus confused with the Old Testament Hebrew.

And since Erasmus used Vulgate as a source when creating Textus Receptus, he simply re-energized the error. And since TR is the substrate for the KJV, the conceptual error is perpetuated in English-language bibles to this day.

This is how translational error lead to conceptual error and conceptual errors to theological errors.