Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
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
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.
***I question what you believe in though. Your Saviour doesn’t seem to be the same Saviour that finished it all at Calvary. Your Saviour only got part of the job done. You have to commit to a lifetime of works in the hope that when you die you’ve done enough and been good enough to be saved.
My Saviour paid it all. I only have to believe and my Saviour will send the Holy Spirit to indwell me and guide me. My works are done from a desire to serve my Saviour. I don’t expect them to buy anything.***
Well, to begin with, I will state once again that the Protestant possessive appears backwards to me. I belong to God, and am His creature made in His image, not vice versa.
I’m intrigued at the above statement though. A vast majority of the Gospel is instruction on how we should be acting, and what we should be doing. Do the Reformed think of this as an aftereffect or secondary message?
Gave???? I laugh --- the Greeks only let loose of them when the hordes of Islam began to invade the east and destroy those Byzantine Churches and everything in them. It was only then that all those Greeks began sending their manuscripts to the west for safe-keeping.
And you criticize the KJV translators for taking this Received Greek Text and translating it into the English??? What were they supposed to do with it -- stuff it away for another thousand years like the Greek Orthodox did??? Where in God's name was your Greek/English or Greek/German or Greek/anything translation for all those and these years???? in limbo??? in your imaginations???? Did you think that God ordained salvation only for the Greeks????
And now today the Greek Orthodox Church has abandoned that very Greek Text that they gave to the West and that was read in all their Greek lectionaries in all their Greek churches for all those centuries. And they have now abandoned that traditional Received Greek Text and adopted the two most corrupt manuscripts in history -- Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus. And the EO has the aqudacity to brag about Tradition -- What happened to that Traditional Greek Text?
And part of that is learning that without Him, we can do nothing - and also, so that we can bring forth Spiritual fruit, we will be pruned.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:1-5
For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. - 2 Corinthians:7-9
And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men [it is] impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. – Matthew 10:23-25
Two [things] have I required of thee; deny me [them] not before I die: Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny [thee], and say, Who [is] the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God [in vain]. – Proverbs 30:7-9
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. - Matthew 6:33
Moreover, Christians should always beware the distractions and idolatries of mortal life.
Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth [it] not, then cometh the wicked [one], and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth [it]; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. - Matthew 13:18-23
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
Well certainly we can all agree on this! :) We just have to decide whether it is more reasonable to believe that Paul wrote plainly in most cases, or was he the most cryptic writer in the history of literature. :) Of course we might disagree on what "plainly" means.
It leads one towards the Gnostics, as evidenced by several folks on boards here.
I suppose it could lead to Gnosticism, but in general it just leads to error. I haven't seen any Gnosticism on this thread as I understand the term. Reformers do not claim anything that is "secret". It's all right there in the Bible. :)
The great deceiver nets a great number of souls by deceit and by causing misunderstanding. He is harvesting a great bounty.
Yes, satan certainly is harvesting a great number of souls. Praise and glory be to God that He has given His children a Comforter to protect them against any attack that would result in destruction. That was His promise and I rely on it with my life.
***Oh, and you know the majority of protestants?***
They are in non Apostolic churches. By their fruits shall ye know them.
I have no clue, but the official name in Israel is Ivrit or Ivriyth (Sephardic pronunciation). It is not the name for the Hebrew language to be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is the modern name for modern Hebrew.
And some brain-dead Reformer 2,000 years from now will say it is the language of the Old Testament! Well, it's not. The Jews did not call their language in the Old Testament as "Hebrew" (Ibriyth). They called it Yehudiyth.
In fact, Slavic languages don't even have an equiavlent word for a "Jew." The Slavonic term, obviously derived from Greek, is Ебрей (Ebrei, pron. as yevrey), in other words from the word "Hebrew."
The way Old Testament Hebrew is diffreentiated in Slavonic from the Palestinian language of the 1st century is by calling the OT language старееврейский (stareyevreyskiy, "Old Hebrew"). In Russia, the modern Hebrew is called Ivrit, just as in Israel.
So it is clear that the names can be confusing, which is one more reason why one must go to the source and not create concepts based on translations.
The Bible must be understood in context of the original languages and in the historical reality in which it was written. It cannot be correctly interpreted through faulty translations, and through the prism of the 21st century American culture.
Just as the American culture cannot be understood by living and growing up abroad. There is nothing worse than someone who has never been to America telling Americans what they are like. Or, vice verse, for Americans telling non-Americans what they are like.
***One size will never fit all at the human level.
Assuming that because one size doesn’t fit all, therefore a given presentation, personna, whatever—can’t have any redeeming social or spiritual value is a hazardous judgment—in my experience.
Beyond that . . . folks are quite welcome to avoid my posts. I’m not offended. My posts are primarily aimed at whomever they may have some eternal value for. I’d rather others ignored them. But that’s really up to them, of course! LOL.
Now, if folks are trying to tell me that my personna, style, motives, etc. are worthless or worse . . . wellll . . . I don’t think that message will get too far. I’ve too many decades seeing otherwise first hand.***
Presenting a misrepresentation of the Church of Jessus Christ in multicoloured and multi fonted fashion doesn’t seem to have much spiritual value.
Yet, some of it is "cryptic" and "understood" only by those who have been given knowledge...in fact "the mind of Chirst." [1 Cor 2;16]
No -- it is not. The Chaldean version of Aramaic was called "Chaldaios" [Chaldean] by the Greeks.
and as such was erroneously translated into and otherwise unrleiable Vulgate Bible as "Hebrew" and thus confused with the Old Testament Hebrew.
So everyone else makes errors and is wrong -- everyone except the Greeks????
And just what do all those Greek words "Hebraikos, Hebraios, Hebrais, Hebraisti" mean???? They all translate into "Hebrew", don't they????
Why is it that the Greek Orthodox are unable to tell the truth about their own language and what their own words mean??? No wonder God had to rescue the Greek Text from Greek captivity and give it to those who could tell the world what it really says.
If we are going to quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, let us do so in a more complete fashion.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07176a.htm says that:
Hebrew Language and Literature
Hebrew was the language spoken by the ancient Israelites, and in which were composed nearly all of the books of the Old Testament. The name Hebrew as applied to the language is quite recent in Biblical usage, occurring for the first time in the Greek prologue of Ecclesiasticus, about 130 B.C. (hebraisti, rendered by the Vulgate verba hebraica). In Isaias, xix, 18, it is designated as the “language of Chanaan”. In other passages (2 Kings 17:26; Isaiah 36:11; Nehemiah 13:24) it is referred to adverbially as the “Jews’ language” (, ioudaisti, judaice). 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. Among Biblical scholars the language of the Old Testament is sometimes termed “ancient” or “classical” Hebrew in opposition to the neo-Hebrew of the Mishna. With the exception of a few fragments, viz. one verse of Jeremias (x, 11), some chapters of Daniel (ii, 4b-vii, 28) and Esdras (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:26), which are in Aramaic, all the protocanonical books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew. The same is true also of some of the deuterocanonical books or fragments (concerning Sirach there is no longer any doubt, and there is a fair probability with regard to Daniel 3:24-90; 13; 14; and 1 Maccabees) and likewise some of the Apocrypha, e.g. the Book of Henoch, the Psalms of Solomon, etc. apart from these writings no written documents of the Hebrew language have come down to us except a few meagre inscriptions, e.g. that of Siloe discovered in Jerusalem in 1880, and belonging to the eighth century B.C. a score of seals dating from before the Captivity and containing scarcely anything but proper names, and finally a few coins belonging to the period of the Machabees.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Sigh.
You sure put things a lot more graciously and palatably.
Thanks much.
No, just for doing such a lousy job.
Where in God's name was your Greek/English or Greek/German or Greek/anything translation for all those and these years?
Why would Greeks make translations for others?
And now today the Greek Orthodox Church has abandoned that very Greek Text that they gave to the West and that was read in all their Greek lectionaries in all their Greek churches for all those centuries
What a crock! What went into Textus Receptus were two 12th century unreliable Byzantine text-type copies of clopies of copies. only an idiot can consider that reliable. besides, Erasmus used the unreliable Vulgate for those parts of the Bible he couldn't find in Greek. And in one instance he even retro-translated a whole section from Vuglate Latin into his (lousy) Greek and passed it on as the "ancient" Received Text!
the two most corrupt manuscripts in history -- Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus
The Greek Orthodox Church uses Codex Alexandrinus, which is the same text trecived by Erasmus and which is a lot more corrupt than the older 4th century Codices Vaticanus and Sinaitcus, the least "polished" and altered and the oldest, of all other manuscripts. In fact the Received Text are copies of the 12th century copies of the highly "harmonzied" and choregraphed end of 5th century C. Alexandrinus, which has been throughly "Christianized."
What exactly is "corrupt" about the oldest Bibles that's not found in those produced on later versions of "received text?" The whole Bible is one big human corruption—additins, delitions, word swapapings, erasures, changes, scribal errors, you name it.
We are not even close to anything that resembles a "received text," and the Erasmus's book by that name and its KJV deirvative are about as far out on the periphery as it gets.
doesn’t seem to have much spiritual value.
= = =
IF The Lord is telling you to AVOID reading my posts, I’m not about to argue with Him!
Far be it from me to waste your time or worse! LOL.
As to spiritual value, or not . . . I think I’ll go with The Lord’s assessment.
Scripture says that He tests us with PRAISE.
Human praise is comforting, gratifying, encouraging. And, honor to whom honor is due. Certainly to be a Barnabas is a fitting Biblical way of traveling—much to be preferred over lots of other options—on average, most of the time—in most contexts.
But in the overall scheme of things . . . It’s highly likely that, comparatively, only Daddy’s Praise amounts to anything significantly eternal.
Better to be focused on our Lord so extensively and thoroughly that neither praise nor assaults cause the least flutter in our spirits, emotions, minds.
And . . . yet . . . to avoid being so “Heavenly minded” in silly ways that we are of no earthly good.
##########
But, thank you for your exhortation. I’m sure Daddy will be checking His records to see where He went wrong in His assessments. Perhaps He’ll ring you up for a refresher course in proper judgment about such things.
Your post is truly one of the most bizarre I have read on FR. Do you know anything at all about Orthodoxy?
“And now today the Greek Orthodox Church has abandoned that very Greek Text that they gave to the West and that was read in all their Greek lectionaries in all their Greek churches for all those centuries.”
and
“What happened to that Traditional Greek Text?”
OC, we use the exact same scriptures Liturgically that we have used since at the latest the late 4th century, the Byzantine Text. We don’t use the Alexandrian texts and we certainly don’t use the Latin texts. What do you mean?
As for giving you Westerners the scriptures, we did. The canon you read as scripture, the “bible” you Westerners love to thump, was established by a bunch of Greek speaking bishops in a “I’ll trade you a Letter to the Hebrews for a Revelation of John” type process. You read the canon you do, with some small changes to avoid problems raised by the proetstant revolution, because we Greeks said that canon was in accord with what The Church taught...not the other way around, OC.
You ask why we didn’t translate the NT into other languages. We did, as I assume you well know. Funny how the translations of the NT into Arabic, Coptic, Amharic, Aramaic, Syriac, Church Slavonic, Armenian, Georgian, Ge’ez, and a number of other Semitic and Turkic languages, oh, and I forgot, Japanese,Mandarin and Cantonese, are all absolutely faithful to the Greek, even if the understanding of some of the words was divergent. But when we head west of the Adriatic, we find perversion after perversion of the text. You know why, UC? Its because the East had no particular agenda whereas from the the West did, especially by the 16th century.
I am absolutely convinced that God ordained salvation for the Greeks, and all the rest of the world too...and He chose Greek for His new scriptures, not English, or German or Latin.
Where in the NT is that word?
So everyone else makes errors and is wrong -- everyone except the Greeks????
It's their languge! Who can tell us that dude is "incorrect?"
"Hebraikos, Hebraios, Hebrais, Hebraisti" mean???? They all translate into "Hebrew", don't they?
The language of the Pelstinian Jews of the 1st century AD, which was Chaldean. They distinguish is from the OT Hewbrew by calling it Ioudaisti.
Why is it that the Greek Orthodox are unable to tell the truth about their own language and what their own words mean???
the lie didn't start with the Greek Orthodox. It was born in the West and then given permanent residence in the Reformation.
No wonder God had to rescue the Greek Text from Greek captivity and give it to those who could tell the world what it really says
That Greek text is a collection of corrupt copies of copies tgo the neth degree of 12 to 14th century documents which contain such fraudlent verses as C. Johanneum and P. Adultaere.
And since you are at it, prove to me that God was involved in the "rescue" of Textus Receptus. Prove it!!!! I am sick of Protestants placing God behind their every claim, as if they are the official mouthpieces of God. Prove it or take it back!
LOLOL -- So is New Advent going to tell us also that the Syrians called that language they all spoke throughout Mesopotamia "Hebrew" [Hebraisti] as well, instead of calling it by the Syriac word "Aramiyth" meaning "Aramaic"??? How ludicrous is their argument --- in "the strict sense of the word", of course!!!!
The funny thing is that every criticism of Catholics is met with, “they don’t know Catholicism”.
It appears that the gnosticism is with the secret society who has the lock on all knowledge. The only way to obtain this secret knowledge is to join the secret society.
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.