Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting)

[distazo]

Your wrong... (sorry, I cannot be longer)

Well, please don't let me keep you if you are in such a rush <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> but I'll point out that your answer totally fails to address my post: "There is no evidence to support the alleged secondary meaning of "mlk" as "[u]destroy / vaporize"[/u] in Jennings, Payne Smith, or CAL..." The CAL entry you posted, sir, says nothing whatsoever of "destroy / vaporize," which is the crux of this alleged primacy proof.

mlk does indeed carry the meaning 'vaporize' or 'dissolve away'. Notice Isaiah 51:6 where it speaks of the heavens, that they will 'be dissolved away' (mlk) like smoke.

Thomas

True that scatter is not the same as 'destroy'.
Still, I believe Marc 9:49 contains a wordplay which only works in the Peshitta.

"Every sacrife shall be salted with salt" does not show up the wordplay. And the Greek lacks it too.

In Dutch, it happens to work more or less the same. The verb can mean as 'salt(ing)' as well as 'disperse/sprinkle'' (sorry does still not work in English, as 'scattering salt' makes no sense).

There are hundreds of wordplays existing only in the Syriac Aramaic. The same applies to Hebrew. The OT is FULL of wordplays and gems, but the Greek Septuagint lacks it. Why, wonder why?

<!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->