Posted on 01/03/2017 10:37:25 AM PST by AC Beach Patrol
You either didn’t read the article, or you did, but have no understanding of what you read.
“Failure to properly relate a cultural idiom proves that the translator had no understanding of the underlying culture in the original language of the translated text.”
The problem with your contention is that the idea of “failure” is subjectively your own. In addition to that there is the problem that Luke’s gospel and Acts were originally written in GREEK.
“Basically, all of the Greek translations of the Messianic writings were “babblefished” from Hebrew to other languages.”
There’s no real evidence that Luke originally wrote in Hebrew. As the New Bible Dictionary says: “It is generally admitted that Luke is the most literary author of the New Testament. His prologue proves that he was able to write in irreproachable, pure, literary Greek” (p.758). And “From the literary style of Luke and Acts, and from the character of the contents of the books, it is clear that Luke was a well-educated Greek.”
“In the case of the Greek translations, the LXX was used as their babblefish.”
In the case of the GREEK ORIGINALS the Septuagint was used as their source of Old Testament quotes and quite profitably so.
“I don’t expect you to understand any of this; your Bible understanding is childishly trivial.”
No, actually I clearly understand far more than you do. I not only understand your attempt at an argument but could make it far better than you in some regards having read some of the best literature on it (Tresmontant, Carmignac). Since I have that knowledge I also know why you’re unable to make a good argument and will continue to fail to do so.
.
Its readily apparent that you are mentally challenged.
The cultural anomalies are what prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they were not written in Greek.
If they were not written in Hebrew, they aren’t even a part of the word of God. (unless you know more than Paul)
.
“Its readily apparent that you are mentally challenged.”
It’s seems obvious you’re projecting again.
“The cultural anomalies are what prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they were not written in Greek.”
No, it was written in Greek.
“If they were not written in Hebrew, they aren’t even a part of the word of God. (unless you know more than Paul)”
So parts of the Old Testament and phrases in the New Testament written in Aramaic are not really scripture? https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/aramaic-thoughts/index.cgi?a=189 Leave it to you to deny scripture.
.
There is no “new testament,” scripturally speaking.
Just a misnomer at best.
There is just one word, without division. The messianic writings are all originally written in Yehova’s language, the language he gave to his Kehillah.
Roman pagans are not the keepers thereof.
.
Amen.
“There is no “new testament,” scripturally speaking.”
Of course there is - Jeremiah 31:31-34 shows there would be a new covenant. The books about that new covenant coming into being and being preached are called the New Testament. “Testament” and “Covenant”, are sometimes used interchangeably by translators: http://www.redeemerlutheranchurch.org/diatheke.htm
“Just a misnomer at best.”
No, it’s actually a very accurate understanding of the reality of Jeremiah’s prophecy coming into being.
“There is just one word, without division.”
Except that it is repeatedly divided up into books and two testaments. Genesis is not Ruth. Ezra is not Lamentations. There are plenty of divisions in scripture. We can say there is one Word - the Word made flesh - Christ. But again, Genesis is not Ruth.
“The messianic writings are all originally written in Yehova’s language, the language he gave to his Kehillah.”
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. Those are the languages God used. As I linked to before - and you, of course, ran away from:
“Apart from two short passages, (Genesis 31:47 and Jeremiah 10:11) Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; and Daniel 2:4-7:28 are the portions of the Old Testament that are written in Aramaic. The rationale for the two sections of Ezra that are in Aramaic is easy to determine. These are the passages that deal with official correspondence regarding the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem under the auspices of Darius and Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:8; 5:6) and the mission of Ezra under the auspices of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11). It is the form of Aramaic that Fitzmyer calls “Official Aramaic” and is found throughout the period roughly from 700 to 200 BC. As such, this phase of the language is attested in Egypt, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Assyria, Babylon, and the Indus Valley. There is some local variation, but not much, and the general character of the language is consistent throughout this incredibly broad area.”
“Roman pagans are not the keepers thereof.”
And you’re still wrong. Anyone still lurking here can see how you keep avoiding the evidence shown to you. They know you’ve lost this debate and will continue to lose.
Playing the vladimir twist tango?
The messianic writings are not the covenant.
Everything that is now in Greek had to be first written by a believer in Hebrew.
The Greek stuff is mega sloppy, and full of confusion.
(just like you)
“Playing the vladimir twist tango?”
You can’t apparently deal with the evidence posted. Typical.
“The messianic writings are not the covenant.”
They are about the New Covenant and, hence, are called the New Testament.
“Everything that is now in Greek had to be first written by a believer in Hebrew.”
Nope. We know this because not even all of the Old Testament was first written in Hebrew and certainly no one would bother writing to the Greek and Latin speaking peoples of the Greco-Roman world in Hebrew.
“The Greek stuff is mega sloppy, and full of confusion.
(just like you)”
Actually, it isn’t and neither am I. There are no known “Hebrew originals” so those books you call “mega sloppy” are all we have that show us God’s inspired Word from the New Testament era. It doesn’t surprise me you would sum up God’s Word as “mega sloppy, and full of confusion.” That’s exactly how your latter day judaizing is.
.
I dealt with it truthfully and factually.
What I had to deal with was nonsense.
.
There are no “originals” in any language, but there are now a large number of copies of the original hebrew Matthew located.
“There are no “originals” in any language, but there are now a large number of copies of the original hebrew Matthew located.”
Nope. There are no early Hebrew copies. Some morons, not knowing any better make the mistake of thinking that medieval copies, usually produced in Spain, are actually very early copies of a Hebrew original. They’re completely mistaken, of course, but what can you expect from morons? Even other not-very-bright people - anti-Catholic ones at that - know what you’re saying is nonsense and have told you this before: http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3057706/replies?c=500
“I dealt with it truthfully and factually.”
No, you didn’t really deal with it at all. I don’t think you can. It would take knowledge and some ability so you’re probably never going to do it.
“What I had to deal with was nonsense.”
What you had to deal with so far is irrefutable. You keep proving that in post after post.
You’re just a latter-day judaizer. . . and not a very knowledgeable or able one apparently.
.
I’m sure that you have no idea what a judaizer would be.
Up to the time of Iraneus and Hipolytus the leaders of Yeshua’s way held that it was “The Teaching.” (Torah)
And they definitely were not ‘Judahizing.’
Judahism, just like the catholic church, held that the ways of men could supersede the commandments of Yehova. That is exactly what the Way rejects. That was the essence of Yeshua’s Earthly ministry was all about.
.
“I’m sure that you have no idea what a judaizer would be.”
I’m posting to one.
“Up to the time of Iraneus and Hipolytus the leaders of Yeshua’s way held that it was “The Teaching.” (Torah)”
You can’t even spell Irenaeus’ and Hippolytus’ name correctly. If you can’t even do that, then I have no logical reason to think you know anything about them that matters.
“And they definitely were not ‘Judahizing.’”
And you can’t even spell that correctly either: http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/judaizers.html
“Judahism, just like the catholic church, held that the ways of men could supersede the commandments of Yehova. That is exactly what the Way rejects. That was the essence of Yeshua’s Earthly ministry was all about.”
I don’t mind the fact that you keep embarrassing yourself by posting error after error. I think all anti-Catholics like you should be exposed for the sciolists you all are.
.
We all get your message: disagreeing with your foolishness is error.
Enjoy.
“We all get your message: disagreeing with your foolishness is error.”
No, as I posted a link last night, even many of the anti-Catholics who have been here don’t agree with you. The foolishness is all yours - and everyone here knows it.
“Enjoy.”
How can I not enjoy watching you repeatedly fail to prove your false claims? Watching you post is like watching the best sitcom ever.
They're confused too though, by the Lies they inherited from Rome, just as Jeremiah said.
Jer 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.