Acts 2:24 Redux

[Paul Younan]

Paul isn't quoting from a single Psalm here. It is a Drash, a compilation of different OT books he is referring to.

Heh, ok, the apostle Paul is doing this same thing of quoting from compilations and whatnots rather than a pure text of sorts? Ok, I'm sure that this is believable Paul, yes we are just robots master, what do you wish for us to believe now?

Dave, I provided the various OT sections that Paul was drashing. Don't be a robot - it's your own Greek Primacists who admitted that the LXX (specifically, a manuscript by the name of Codex Alexandrius) was revised to conform to this drash from Paul.

Paul, we make "logical" conclusions on the data available, not far reaching conclusions based on extreme circumstances, or bias, which that seems to be what you would rather us choose from.

Your words would have some merit if it were I who made that claim. I didn't - I'm simply pointing out to you that several "western scholars" demonstrated that the LXX was revised to conform to Paul's expansion in Romans 3:13-18.

Call them liars, not me.

The Greek Christians obviously went back, as was their habit, and revised the LXX reading with this gloss from the NT.

Hmmm, this is interesting here, first Paul and his friends say on this board that the greek NT is a copy from the syriac, but now the greek Christians were heretics that added that gloss in this section and revised the LXX to say the same thing,.....but the same exact text in the syriac is a true quote from a compilation of whatnots that is in the tried and true language of Jesus??!?

Precisely. Glad you got it this time.

Ok, again Paul, what do you want us to believe here? That is outwardly illogical to anyone here and it does not fare well with your objective.

You're the only one calling it illogical. I would venture to say that everyone else here would agree with me. Wanna bet? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Dave, quit playing and explain how Acts 2:24 in the Greek got the word "pains" from "cords" unless they were translating an Aramaic word that means both "pain" and "cord".

Well I already did. Let's look at what I said:

So,....after all this, the only rational conclusion as to why the syriac text has a word that could possibly mean "cords" rather than the standard greek wording of the "travail" from the LXX, is that the greek follows the LXX wording and the syriac followed the greek NT text and corrected it according to the Hebrew version, when they translated it.

That's no explanation at all. That's your wishful thinking and last-ditch attempt to salvage your position. Do you have any evidence that a correction happened here according to the Hebrew version? Evidence as in manuscripts?

If not, then its an argument from silence....and it's YOU that is making ludicrous assumptions.

I ask the question for the umpteenth time - How did the Greek get the word "pain" in there if they were not translating from an Aramaic source???

Don't mention the LXX again....this isn't a quotation from the LXX. This is Shimon Keepa making a speech in Aramaic to fellow Jews. Read the context of Acts 2:24.

I ask the question for the umpteenth time - How did the Greek get the word "pain" in there if they were not translating from an Aramaic source??? (don't mention the LXX again - this isn't a quotation from the LXX.)

Finally - who wrote the incorrect word "pain" here?

Was it Luke, or Zorba?