02-02-2013, 02:59 AM
Shlama,
yeah, the part about angels not understanding Aramaic, and yet in Daniel 7 (written in Aramaic), we have an angelic being speaking in Aramaic to Daniel... but let's pay no attention to such silliness, right?
it is of importance to see the leaning the author of the articles takes when he addresses a word that he says could be either Hebrew or Aramaic -- well, then, it must be Hebrew in his perspective. why? and then the words which ARE understood to be Aramaic, yet are now assimilated into the Hebrew language, ie, GEHENNA, he says they could have been Hebrew before entering the Aramaic tongue! i'm sorry, this is so much stretching it is just silliness.
to me, the entire argument of Hebrew only falls apart when one takes as truth the statement made in Acts 1:19 that the name Kh'qel D'ma (field of blood) is the name of the field in the LANGUAGE OF THE REGION. fyi -- they are in Judea.
so what language is Kh'qel D'ma?
Aramaic. Hebrew doesn't call a field KH'qel, but SHADEH. the Peshitta calls a field KH'qel (or various inflections of such) 9 times -- 8 outside the above ref. from Acts, mostly in the Gospels, but also in Peter, too.
now what else is there to argue about? Scripture TELLS us the language of the region by the name of the field. this isn't hard. i don't know why Mr. Minge is saying opposite what the Inspired Word is saying. that troubles me. if he wants to say that the testimony of Scripture is invalid, leave him be. i'll take the Word of Alaha over the word of Minge.
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
yeah, the part about angels not understanding Aramaic, and yet in Daniel 7 (written in Aramaic), we have an angelic being speaking in Aramaic to Daniel... but let's pay no attention to such silliness, right?
it is of importance to see the leaning the author of the articles takes when he addresses a word that he says could be either Hebrew or Aramaic -- well, then, it must be Hebrew in his perspective. why? and then the words which ARE understood to be Aramaic, yet are now assimilated into the Hebrew language, ie, GEHENNA, he says they could have been Hebrew before entering the Aramaic tongue! i'm sorry, this is so much stretching it is just silliness.
to me, the entire argument of Hebrew only falls apart when one takes as truth the statement made in Acts 1:19 that the name Kh'qel D'ma (field of blood) is the name of the field in the LANGUAGE OF THE REGION. fyi -- they are in Judea.
so what language is Kh'qel D'ma?
Aramaic. Hebrew doesn't call a field KH'qel, but SHADEH. the Peshitta calls a field KH'qel (or various inflections of such) 9 times -- 8 outside the above ref. from Acts, mostly in the Gospels, but also in Peter, too.
now what else is there to argue about? Scripture TELLS us the language of the region by the name of the field. this isn't hard. i don't know why Mr. Minge is saying opposite what the Inspired Word is saying. that troubles me. if he wants to say that the testimony of Scripture is invalid, leave him be. i'll take the Word of Alaha over the word of Minge.
Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy