Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: OneWingedShark

Daniel 4 was in aramaic, because it is the personal testimony of Nebuchadnezzar, not the writings of Daniel.

A few aramaic words in other books because they have no parallel in Hebrew.


55 posted on 11/09/2014 7:26:07 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: editor-surveyor
Daniel 4 was in aramaic, because it is the personal testimony of Nebuchadnezzar, not the writings of Daniel.

And yet the Bible records its pre-Babel conversations in Hebrew — there's nothing to indicate that Hebrew was spoken pre-Babel.
(IOW, that testimony could easily have been included as a Hebrew translation, if it were imperative to keep the scriptures Hebrew.)

A few aramaic words in other books because they have no parallel in Hebrew.

*nod* — Such it is with multiple-languages, if your language doesn't have a concept you borrow it from another.
I'm just really leery of the language matters most/holy tongue types (especially the name guys) as it comes off to me as magic-wordism where concepts and understanding are discarded in favor of particular throat-and-mouth noises — Pentecost is an interesting counter-example to that mode of thought, IMO, as the foreigners heard the message in their own tongue, not that they were suddenly made able to understand Hebrew.

57 posted on 11/09/2014 8:11:21 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson