Same goes for tittle. Tittle is used by Greek grammarians of the accents and diacritical points. It means the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. One example would be the difference between the letter L and I. The difference is only one small mark.
Again, it is not a vowel mark. Therefore the rest of your argument is invalid.
"Jot and tittle" has a meaning going beyond the meaning of its individual words. It is an expression that means "the least part of". The NIV translates the phrase, "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen." Hebrew vowel markings were sometimes not even written. Yet not writing them has lead to false vocalizations, which has resulted in changes in word meanings.
Even though vowel markings can be less than "the smallest letter" and "the least stroke of a pen", they can determine whether or not the meaning of a scriptural passage can become corrupted.
Therefore, when Jesus referred to the least part of the law and the prophets, which He Himself inspired to be written with their full vowel markings included for clarity, He had to be referring to vowel markings as well.
Are you actually suggesting that Hebrew writing, which can be misinterpreted when bereft of vowel markings, NEVER made use of them until the Middle Ages? If that is your position, please confirm it.
You exude airs like the college professor who teaches his students that the Ohio Decalogue stones are proof of Israelites on this continent 2000 years ago. His little lecture is available on the Internet and has been thoroughly debunked, but he continues to teach the lies to his ignorant students. Sorry, little john, we are not so ignorant as to ignore your foolishness. And just so you realize we do read your drivel before posting, hw about you provide proof that Jesus instruct someone to write down what you characterize. You see, john, when God inspired the recording of the Law and Prophets, He was not acting as Jesus, He was acting as God The Father Almighty, a part of the Trinity. Your false religion separates the Trinity into three separate gods. So your duplicitous deceit is not going to float when you assert ‘when Jesus referred to the least part of the law and the prophets, which He Himself inspired to be written with their full vowel markings’. You cult does not teach that Jesus inspired the writing, it teaches that before god sired the mormonism jesus, the law and prophets were written. When you practice to deceive, john, you must keep all your lies in order or be revealed for what you’re doing, deceiving. Sadly, you’re most obviously deceiving yourself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2753623/posts?page=414#414
The NIV translates the phrase, "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen."
How the NIV translates it is not how it is in the Greek John - that is the deciding point.
Hebrew vowel markings were sometimes not even written.
John, I consider you to be intelligent. This statement fractures that belief to the core. If the marking is not written, it is not a marking John. We are not playing with invisible ink here.
Even though vowel markings can be less than "the smallest letter" and "the least stroke of a pen", they can determine whether or not the meaning of a scriptural passage can become corrupted.
JOhn, you made the claim that jots and tittles were vowel marks. Now you are trying to obfuscate the issue. Particularly when smithian translation techniques consisted of an agate pebble in a hat, to some inspiration for the JST.
Therefore, when Jesus referred to the least part of the law and the prophets, which He Himself inspired to be written with their full vowel markings included for clarity, He had to be referring to vowel markings as well.
As already proven out - those are a later addition. Your train of logic derailed long ago John. Making a big assumption with absolutely no or even false evidence John.
Are you actually suggesting that Hebrew writing, which can be misinterpreted when bereft of vowel markings, NEVER made use of them until the Middle Ages?
It is not just my "position" John, but facts of life from linguists. Vowel markings were not started until AD 600, when the masorites started adding marks because the scattering of the Jews and loss of the close oral traditions were causing the language to be lost.
Again, John, please research before you further ruin what little credibility you have left on this subject.
Hebrew vowel markings were sometimes not even written. Yet not writing them has lead to false vocalizations, which has resulted in changes in word meanings.
Even though vowel markings can be less than “the smallest letter” and “the least stroke of a pen”, they can determine whether or not the meaning of a scriptural passage can become corrupted.
- - - - - -
That is incorrect. The Masorites added the vowel markings because of the diaspora in the Middle ages and the need to clarify pronunciation when reading aloud because of the difficulty in passing it on orally.
However, anyone at the time of Christ and before, would have known the words without vowel markings and anyone with a knowledge of Hebrew beyond first year, can read it correctly without the vowel markings. Vowel markings or lack thereof does not change the meanings of the words in Hebrew. As I posted above, one of our finals was a translation without markings. Hebrew structure is such that a particular form of the word (sans vowels) is recognizable and carries a certain meaning. So your claim that an absence of vowels would have led to meaning changes is errant.
Vowel additions or deletions would not affect the meaning or translation of scripture at all. Modern Hebrew often does not contain the vowel markings yet does not lead to misinterpretation at all.
And yes, Hebrew never had vowel marking until the middle ages and vowels do not affect word meanings or translation. That is fact.
Therefore, when Jesus referred to the least part of the law and the prophets, which He Himself inspired to be written with their full vowel markings included for clarity, He had to be referring to vowel markings as well.
- - - - - - - -
I missed this one. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. That is funny. The Hebrew/Aramaic that Jesus spoke had no vowel marks. Again, take a look at the Dead Sea Scrolls.