04-05-2004, 03:08 PM
Akhi Paul,
Thanks for the attempt at clarification.
Brock seems to shed considerable darkness upon a simple word which has become a war zone between Eastern and Western churches. He may be the world's expert Aramaic scholar; he is also human with biases and prejudices like you and I are.I don't see great wisdom or understanding in the conclusions he draws- "qnoma is not this and it is not that; it is untranslateable; "
"I am right about this and everyone else be damned", seems to be his position. I cannot take the word of a man who contradicts the plain sense of scripture;
Matthew 12:25 and Mark 3:24,25 -both passages use "napsha" in the place where "qnoma" occurs in the parallel sentence of Luke 11:17.
You say they are not exact synonyms. I ask, "Are synonyms ever exact?" Is not the point that , given the context, they are close enough to be used interchangeably ?
These three verses of scripture weigh more than all the scriptureless scholarship of all the experts in the world. You cannot tell me that Matthew, Mark or Luke used the wrong word in those verses. Their understanding, and obviously the Holy Spirit's use of these two words, reveals that these words are certainly very close in meaning, if not identical.
Where is Brock's citation of scriptural of evidence for his position ?
He reminds me of Westcott and Hort, who were supposedly the world's experts on the Greek NT, at whose feet the western churches practically worshipped for giving them a "Revised New Testament" and Greek text, based on the "most accurate" mss., when what they were doing was putting the Bible on the chopping block to be butchered.
I am extremely skeptical of "authorities", especially those whose work seems to result in the stealing away of scripture from the people, and the "corruption of the simplicity which is in The Christ."- even if it involves only one word of scripture.(2 Cor. 11:3)
If the words in question are worlds apart, they would not be used interchangeably as they are. If they are close in meaning, what are we arguing about ?
The Aramaic-Greek translators of the first century, including Luke, used Greek cognates "eautos" and "upostasis" for "qnoma". "Napsha" is also translated into "eautos" in not a few places. How would you have translated "qnoma" into Greek ?
Does Brock's statement suffice to negate the work of first century Luke in this translation ? Was Luke a westerner too?
Was Luke wrong to put "qnoma" for "napsha" in Luke 11:17 ? Or were Matthew and Mark wrong in putting "napsha" instead of "qnoma" ?
They obviously had not read Brock ! <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="" title="Sleepy" /><!-- s --> They would have known that "qnoma" cannot mean "napsha" (self).
[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fxrwb F0ygs [/font]
Dave B
Thanks for the attempt at clarification.
Brock seems to shed considerable darkness upon a simple word which has become a war zone between Eastern and Western churches. He may be the world's expert Aramaic scholar; he is also human with biases and prejudices like you and I are.I don't see great wisdom or understanding in the conclusions he draws- "qnoma is not this and it is not that; it is untranslateable; "
"I am right about this and everyone else be damned", seems to be his position. I cannot take the word of a man who contradicts the plain sense of scripture;
Matthew 12:25 and Mark 3:24,25 -both passages use "napsha" in the place where "qnoma" occurs in the parallel sentence of Luke 11:17.
You say they are not exact synonyms. I ask, "Are synonyms ever exact?" Is not the point that , given the context, they are close enough to be used interchangeably ?
These three verses of scripture weigh more than all the scriptureless scholarship of all the experts in the world. You cannot tell me that Matthew, Mark or Luke used the wrong word in those verses. Their understanding, and obviously the Holy Spirit's use of these two words, reveals that these words are certainly very close in meaning, if not identical.
Where is Brock's citation of scriptural of evidence for his position ?
He reminds me of Westcott and Hort, who were supposedly the world's experts on the Greek NT, at whose feet the western churches practically worshipped for giving them a "Revised New Testament" and Greek text, based on the "most accurate" mss., when what they were doing was putting the Bible on the chopping block to be butchered.
I am extremely skeptical of "authorities", especially those whose work seems to result in the stealing away of scripture from the people, and the "corruption of the simplicity which is in The Christ."- even if it involves only one word of scripture.(2 Cor. 11:3)
If the words in question are worlds apart, they would not be used interchangeably as they are. If they are close in meaning, what are we arguing about ?
The Aramaic-Greek translators of the first century, including Luke, used Greek cognates "eautos" and "upostasis" for "qnoma". "Napsha" is also translated into "eautos" in not a few places. How would you have translated "qnoma" into Greek ?
Does Brock's statement suffice to negate the work of first century Luke in this translation ? Was Luke a westerner too?
Was Luke wrong to put "qnoma" for "napsha" in Luke 11:17 ? Or were Matthew and Mark wrong in putting "napsha" instead of "qnoma" ?
They obviously had not read Brock ! <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="" title="Sleepy" /><!-- s --> They would have known that "qnoma" cannot mean "napsha" (self).[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fxrwb F0ygs [/font]
Dave B