05-06-2013, 05:11 PM
I should have quoted the English translation of the Aramaic. But I will right now. How is Acts 1:19 significant to this issue?
Acts 1:19 (Etheridge); "And this has been known of all who dwell in JERUSALEM, and so is called IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COUNTRY 'Hakel-damo,' the interpretation of which is, 'A field of blood.' "
But here is Lamsa on Acts 1:19 (He seems to attempt to be more specific or add to it for some reason); Lamsa, Acts 1:19, "And this very thing is known to all who dwell in JERUSALEM; so that the field is called IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COUNTRY - 'Khakal-Dema,' whic is to say "Koriathdem,' the field of blood."
Is Peter basically doing the same thing as the writer John (John 1:41, John 1:42, John 5:2, John 19:13 and John 19:17) ??
Kindly,
Mike
Acts 1:19 (Etheridge); "And this has been known of all who dwell in JERUSALEM, and so is called IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COUNTRY 'Hakel-damo,' the interpretation of which is, 'A field of blood.' "
But here is Lamsa on Acts 1:19 (He seems to attempt to be more specific or add to it for some reason); Lamsa, Acts 1:19, "And this very thing is known to all who dwell in JERUSALEM; so that the field is called IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COUNTRY - 'Khakal-Dema,' whic is to say "Koriathdem,' the field of blood."
Is Peter basically doing the same thing as the writer John (John 1:41, John 1:42, John 5:2, John 19:13 and John 19:17) ??
Kindly,
Mike