מה שקורה באמת

In today’s episode, we’ll be comparing some of the similarities between two Semitic languages, Hebrew and Aramaic, with Berta and Sidorie (Assyrian Neo-Aramaic speakers) and Hila and Noa (Hebrew speakers from Israel) challenging each other with a list of words and sentences. Hebrew and Aramaic have many similarities, which Hebrew being a Northwest Semitic language and the only living Canaanite language left in world, while Neo-Aramaic consists of several languages which are varieties of Aramaic. Among these, the Northeastern Neo-Aramaic and Central Neo-Aramaic dialects are spoken primarily, but not exclusively, by ethnic Assyrians, who are native to Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. Assyrians are among the Christian minorities in the Middle East, being members of the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church (Eastern Rite Catholics), Syriac Orthodox Church, Ancient Church of the East, Assyrian Pentecostal Church and Assyrian Evangelical Church. Ancient Hebrew went extinct as a spoken language many centuries ago. However, it survived as a liturgical language for Judaism thanks to Jewish liturgy, rabbinic literature, intra-Jewish commerce, and other texts. For this reason, Hebrew is now considered the only truly successful example of a revived dead language. In the 19th century, it was revived as a spoken and literary language. Hebrew became the lingua franca of Palestine's Jews, and subsequently the official language of the State of Israel. After Israel, the United States has the second largest Hebrew-speaking population in the world. If you live in the Greater Toronto Area and would like to participate in a future video, and if you have any suggestions or feedback, please contact us on Instagram as we are unable to respond to all YouTube comments. Shahrzad (@shahrzad.pe):

Bahador (@BahadorAlast):

My apologies for the few typos in the video. I would like to take a minute to address them. In the video the words nefesh (נפש) and sakhah (שחה) were read, but I had written נְשָׁמָה and לשחות as I had multiple terms. "len" (ܠܢ) in the first Assyrian Aramaic sentence is a vernacular contraction and should be spelt (ܠܐ ܝܘܢ). "reshakh" (ܪܫܟ̣) has a silent feminine yod at the end, so should be spelt (ܪܫܟ̣ܝ). Also, just to note, the word "shna" (ܫܢܐ) is the absolute state of the feminine noun meaning year - and that's more a feature of Biblical Aramaic and Classical Syriac. In modern Assyrian absolute state is only used in fossilized vocabulary borrowed from Classical Syriac, so it's practically never used. So in almost all cases, the emphatic state which is "sheta" (ܫܢ̄ܬܐ) in the singular, and "shinne" (ܫܢ̈ܐ) in the plural are used.

The origin of life is a much-debated topic. Some have dedicated their lives to finding an answer. Others write the question off as unanswerable. Just what is the probability of life occurring spontaneously from non-life with the ability to reproduce? We should remember that just because something exists does not mean the probability of the event is 100%, as the event may have been the result of a willful intervention. It has become abundantly clear that earth is the only place where life exists in our solar system. All of the other planetary bodies have been explored to one extent or another, without revealing the existence of any organic tissue. Well, how many planets might be out there in the Milky Way and the galaxies beyond? Can we expect that somewhere else life has spontaneously developed and is flourishing? What is the probability of finding life outside of the earth? Traditionally people under the influence of religion have viewed life on earth as the product of a deliberate and planned creation. Others explain the presence of life through a slow process of development or evolution, which presently seems to be the most accepted point of view. Well, how do mathematicians assess the probability of the origin of life? ---------- www.tomorrowsworld.org Viewpoint Archives - http://www.lcgCanada.org/viewpoint-archive.php Subscribe here:

#tomorrowsworld,#viewpoint,#probabilityoflife

Some of the classic reasons given for you to believe in evolution are actually some of the best reasons NOT to believe. Follow along with Kyle Butt as he looks at vestigial organs and junk DNA, the fossil record and transitional organisms, genetic mutations, natural selection of peppered moths, and homology. Hear what evolutionists have to say about these reasons and how the evidence stacks up.

Such a resemblance...