Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Galilean
#1
Shlama all,

I recently read the article at http://teguhhindarto.blogspot.com/2012/1...0.html?m=1 (This article is in Indonesian).

My questions are:

1. The writer said (a Hebrew Primacist) that Hebrew was the original language rather than Aramaic in Galilee at 1st century. He quoted from as following information:
a. Mark Chancey and Eric M. Meyers, ?How Jewish was Sepphoris in Jesus? time? Biblical Archaelogical Review, July-August 2000, p.33.
b. Talmud, Ketuvot 52b (it is said that the Galilean wrote letters in the same way with Jerusalem people/Jews).
c. Encylopedia Judaica, Vol 7, p. 266. (the fact is the Galilean was Jews at 102 BC, the enemy would attack the town in Sabbath but the Galilean 'do nothing' ).
d. Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 2000, p.198: the Jerusalem Synagogue had the same architecture.
e. Bernard Spolsky and Robert L. Cooper, The Languages of Jerusalem 1991, p. 22.
f. Talmud, Eruvin 53a,b.

The last, he said the assumption that Hebrew was the language of Judea and Aramaic for Jews in Galilee is ahistory.

Tawdee for the enlightment.
Reply
#2
Does he believe that all the original Hebrew words, which he says Jesus spoke (rather than Aramaic), and which the Apostles by the inspiration of The Holy Spirit wrote down, has all been lost in the 1st century?

Jesus said that His words would never pass away...and yet, where are all his Hebrew words which He spoke at today, if He spoke them in that language?

I say, no sir...we have all His words, which The Holy Spirit intended us to hear, right here in the Aramaic New Testament. Not lost, not corrupted.

But, one doesn't have to believe this, they can believe that we do not have his original words anymore...just some translations of them, which may or may not be accurate in translation...unless you say that the translations are inspired too!

If so, you are asked, which version is inspired, and which translation is the more correct one, since they all differ to some degree, some more, some less so, some having more words or less words in them...and some having this word or that word used. Which words did He actually say then?

I say, we have the very words of The Messiah, as was spoken by Him in Aramaic, as recorded in the Eastern Aramaic New Testament. And that the Greek text derives it's origin from it's text.

Until this is shown not to be the case, with some amount of real proof...then, I'll stick with it. I have found nothing wrong with it thus far in any case.

.
Reply
#3
Shlama Thirdwoe,

Thirdwoe Wrote:Does he believe that all the original Hebrew words, which he says Jesus spoke (rather than Aramaic), and which the Apostles by the inspiration of The Holy Spirit wrote down, has all been lost in the 1st century?

He assumed about this from archaelogical/history matters that I mention previously. And by this link: http://teguhhindarto.blogspot.com/2012/1...n.html?m=1
He would add that according to Understanding the Difficult Word of Jesus, p.37, Prof Yigael Yadin in Masada said that there were 14 scrolls, 4000 coins and 700 ostraca had been founded in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. The ratio of Hebrew and Aramaic was 9:1, so it proved that time Hebrew language was populair than Aramaic. From 215 coins that had been founded by Ya?akov Meshorer, a curator of Numismatic Department of the Israel Museum, 'only' 99 in Hebrew and 1 in Aramaic. (Ibid, p. 55).
So he challenges to others to prove if any other archaelogist opinion.

Tawdee.
Reply
#4
Masada? Qumran?

I hope you know that those who dwelled in these places, and who hid their items when being overtaken by the Roman Army, were super zealots, who would have indeed held tenaciously to the Hebrew language, rather than at all use the Aramaic of the common people, and certainly not Greek or Latin unless necessary.

Hebrew was indeed still used, but not much among the common people, it was more heard read in the Temple and Synagogues during the liturgies...same as is done today in some Churches, where they preserve the text language, while speaking another in daily use.

I think God would have had used the language most widely used to convey His revelation through His Word (Messiah), and His Apostles...who then would have made translations as others came into the Church who spoke Greek or Latin.

I don't believe that an original "Hebrew New Testament" has been totally lost...and all the original words that Messiah and His Apostles spoke and wrote down is lost. The Messiah said that His words would never pass away. And I believe we have them in the Aramaic New Testament. I believe it is the Word of God...and is priceless.
Reply
#5
Shlama Aramaic,

Quote:I hope you know that those who dwelled in these places, and who hid their items when being overtaken by the Roman Army, were super zealots
what do you mean super zealots?

Quote:Hebrew was indeed still used, but not much among the common people, it was more heard read in the Temple and Synagogues during the liturgies...same as is done today in some Churches, where they preserve the text language, while speaking another in daily use.
I agree.

Quote:I don't believe that an original "Hebrew New Testament" has been totally lost
I have another question on this...I heard that the "originally" Hebrew manuscripts of NT had been burnt and it is located in Yad Vashem, Israel. Is this true information? as far as I know that the location is a holocoust museum.

Tawdee.
Reply
#6
Do you miss me, Phil? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Listen,

If you want to stick with the Greek translation...in whatever version you might choose, and if you like to think that Ivan Panin's version is the autograph in printed form...then read it up, buy multiple copies and place them around your house... It's up to you. But in any case, please try to emulate the character that it teaches a Christian man to walk in.

As for me, I will stick with The Aramaic New Testament. I love God's words in the Aramaic language, though I do not say the Greek text is not God's word in the Greek language...you just have to sift through it to find them. Ivan believed he found them all...and you believe what he says about that. Great, go read it and practice what you read there, if not, your religion is vain and you are wasting your time.

You asked: "Explain why 90% of all Jesus' quotes in the New Testament are from the Septuagint!"

90% eh? Do this... Show all the quotations here, and lets examine them.

If this line of reasoning continues to run wild in your mind, then eventually you will say that Jesus wore a toga and liked to attend the Olympic games, and dreamed of becoming a gladiator one day.


.
Reply
#7
Paul Younan has dispelled the myth that the New Testament writers commonly quoted the Septuagint. If the quotes match up with the Septuagint, even that does not prove anything. It is far more likely that Jesus made use of the Aramaic Targumim and a pre-Masoretic Tanach. Luke 4:16-20 shows that, unlike most Jewish men of His time, the Messiah could read and speak Hebrew. Jesus almost certainly spoke Aramaic when teaching, and it wouldn't be hard to translate the Hebrew Tanach into the common Aramaic tongue (as was done in the synagogues). Why would Jesus suddenly start spouting out Greek during an Aramaic sermon to a bunch of people who could not speak Greek? According to Josephus, few in Israel could speak Greek very well (including himself). What did Jesus say about the Bible He used?

"For truly I say to you: that until heaven and earth pass away, not one Yodh or one stroke will pass from the law until everything happens."- Matthew 5:18, Younan Aramaic-English Interlinear Gospels

The Greek says iota, but most scholars seem to agree that Jesus was actually referencing the Hebrew/Aramaic letter yodh, which (like iota) is the smallest letter of the language (this is why the King James Version translates iota as "jot"). The Greek language (therefore also the Septuagint) has no yodh letter. The fact that Jesus divided the Tanach into the Law, Prophets, and Writings in Luke 24:44 is also revealing, as He made no mention of the Apocrypha (which is present in the Septuagint).
Reply
#8
Most always, they aren't even your own words, Phil...

So, why should you be upset they get deleted? You just cut and paste all that stuff, and think that the longer your posts are, the more right they become. Not.

We have heard all that stuff before, from those who wrote it, not you, are you going to quote the whole internet on the subject?

Listen up...what is shown here, from the text itself, which you can't read, or think is worth much, is that it is indeed the source text.

You don't agree...fine... Move along, because we don't buy what you are trying to sell here.

You have stated your beliefs, and have cut and pasted large amounts of what you wanted us to read from other people's opinions ans assumptions, and we don't see things as you or they do.

Go ahead, call us whatever names you need to, you have done that too...so, why are you still here? An ax to grind maybe? An attempt at an ego boost perhaps? Some lingering doubts in your mind maybe?

Whatever it was...according to Mr. Silver, who has been very patient and gracious to you... you are done here now, and I say thank God for that. Now, go do something productive with the time you have left down here, and start acting like a Christian while your at it.

That is good advice...take it, and go.

.
Reply
#9
goodbye, Phil.
Reply
#10
People aren't answering your questions because you break out into incoherent rants that are way too time-consuming to read. You also spend most of the posts mocking us. We've answered your questions quite a bit when we haven't had too. If you're not going to participate in intelligent and respectful debate, then don't post on here your disagreements. I pray for you that God will bring you to repentance and change your attitude.
Reply
#11
godparticle Wrote:oh stephen has been sooooo gracious with me <!-- sConfusedneaky: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sneaky1.gif" alt="Confusedneaky:" title="Sneaky" /><!-- sConfusedneaky: --> .


Just do one thing thirdwoe, show me PROOF, real proof, of aramaic primacy, right here, right now, show me!

This post has been edited by the forum moderator.

gp:
If you don't agree with Aramaic Primacy that's not at all a problem for us (can I say us?) However, you claim to be a Greek Primacist, which you are not. You are a Panin promoter and I doubt if any New Testament Forums will receive your message about Panin and his absolute nonsense. So, which textual manuscript do you follow? No two Greek Manuscripts up to the time of Erasmus are in agreement with each other. So which manuscript stands alone for Greek Primacy?

That to say this , my dear brother Philip: I use the Khabouris Codex and the Mingana Syriac 148 manuscripts. They are virtually verbatim with each other. Even the UBS Peshitta New Testament is a lot closer to verbatim with the Khabouris and Mingana Syriac 148. I invite you to check out <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->. There are five different Greek New Testaments interlinear alongside the Aramaic of the Khabouris and the UBS Peshitta text. By studying these all together you can see for yourself the various differences. Look, if tou find synonyms in all of the Greek manuscripts in various places this is a pretty clear sign that it is a translation from an earlier language. The Assyrian Church of the East has one Eastern Peshitta and it is verbatim with the other Eastern Peshitta manuscripts. At least the Aramaic Gospel was received by the Assyrian Church by the hand of Thomas, who took it all the way to India. Now get this, Thomas did this in 33 A.D. long before there was any Complete Greek New Testament. Every Greek manuscript shows the extensive use of synonyms. This means that the Greek New Testament in it's various flavours has been copied by many scribes at different times and in diverse places. You are obviously betting on a lame horse. Open your mind dear friend. At least read, yes read the literature on this site.

Shlama,
Stephen
Reply
#12
gp-

While we have your undivided attention again, will you please tell us your thoughts of the Book of Acts?
I've asked you any number of times. Mebbe you overlooked the question or didn't have the time with all those root canal surgeries you've had planned.
I'm asking you again. If you have the time to waste bandwidth to Post your supposed retorts, then you should have time to answer this:

What do you believe about Acts? Who wrote it, when, etc. Simple, basic stuff.

CW
Reply
#13
gp-

As I compose this, you are online.

I am asking YOU the question. I'm not playing a game here. I do not want to figure out what you believe about Acts.
YOU TELL US!

You quite often quote and use Acts in your Posts. I want to know WHY.
Stop playing games.

What do you know and believe about Acts.

SIMPLE!

CW
Reply
#14
godparticle Wrote:I am asking YOU the question! YOU TELL US!

gp-

Pleas tell us what you believe and know about Acts.

CW
Reply
#15
Don't cast your pearls before swine, Charles. It's very hard to keep a good attitude with someone who mocks at every turn.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)