Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: metmom; CynicalBear; Jeremiah Jr; Greetings_Puny_Humans
I already have, and you know it. All you have to do is explain those tiny little Hebrew (and Aramaic) word puns hidden beneath the Greek..

That's not proof. That's speculation and opinion.

No, it is proof positive of strong Hebrew and Aramaic influences upon the text.

Proof is texts, physical fragments of ancient writings.

No, it isn't. As I have said elsewhere on this thread, the same was said of the Masoretic Text. The Greek/Latin tradition was older by a long shot. Yet the proofs within textual criticism were strong enough for all of Protestantism to adopt the Masoretic tradition instead.

And now, archaeology and anthropology have largely proved the Masoretic, primarily through the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bar Kochba letters. By your standard, until the DSS apeared, you should have been fighting for the Roman church wrt the Old Testament. Older is not necessarily better. Nor is it necessarily proof.

993 posted on 07/07/2014 12:25:22 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies ]


To: roamer_1; metmom
>>No, it is proof positive of strong Hebrew and Aramaic influences upon the text.<<

Um, duh! They were after all Hebrew who spoke Aramaic. The New Testament however was penned in the common language of the day to reach a larger audience which was Greek.

This Hebrew wann be and sacred name nonsense really needs to stop. It’s contrary to what the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write.

995 posted on 07/07/2014 12:40:50 PM PDT by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | View Replies ]

To: roamer_1; metmom; CynicalBear; Jeremiah Jr; Greetings_Puny_Humans; Springfield Reformer; ...
I already have, and you know it. All you have to do is explain those tiny little Hebrew (and Aramaic) word puns hidden beneath the Greek..
That's not proof. That's speculation and opinion.

No, it is proof positive of strong Hebrew and Aramaic influences upon the text.

Why must this "dead horse" continue to be beaten? In numerous OTHER threads, your contention for Hebrew NT originals have been disputed by clear and undeniable evidence. Why is this such an important point? We already know that Jesus spoke Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek - probably even Latin - to those people He came in contact with during His earthly presence. That the inscription over His cross was written in three languages is also known. Why is it improbable, then, to some that when it came time to WRITE DOWN His teachings and the continued revelation from the Holy Spirit, He would have them write in the lingua franca of Greek? All those idioms and puns and whatnots are easily explained by this and there is NO need to further argue the point. Besides, if anyone wants a Hebrew translation, it is available today and can be crosschecked to determine if English-speakers are missing out on anything.

I'd love to be able to know both Hebrew and Greek as they were spoken in the first century, but I'm not an ancient Hebrew and Greek scholar, so I will depend upon those that are and read their commentaries to learn the deeper context sometimes missing in the English. It's a wonderful opportunity we have today to do that, but I am sure that the Gospel is clear no matter what language a person speaks - that is the power of God unto salvation to all those who believe - to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

998 posted on 07/07/2014 1:04:06 PM PDT by boatbums (Proud member of the Free Republic Bible Thumpers Brigade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 993 | 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