Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting)
#4
Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Thank you for the response. However, as you duly pointed out, "malach" in Isaiah 51:6 is Hebrew, and the Peshitta Tanakh uses the root "abr" from where we get Hebrew. It seems that the Peshitta Tanakh gives the sense of "passing away," which therefore dissolves any relevant association to the Aramaic root "mlk" in Mark 9:49.

However, you lead me in a good direction, which is that the use of "malach" also appears in Psalm 107:34 - "a land of fruit becomes a salty desert, for the evil of those who dwell in it." Here, the word in Aramaic Peshitta Tanakh is "melchata" and some English versions read "barreness" or even "scorched."

This, therefore, would be a more defensible citation to show that "mlk" in Mark 9:49 could have a secondary meaning of "destroy / vaporize," since both appear in Aramaic Peshitta texts, whereas such correlation doesn't appear in Isaiah 56:6 in the Aramaic text. (The word there is "abr".) Again, the strength of the claim that we are discussing is that the Aramaic would need to have a verifiable secondary meaning that makes the Greek look very clumsy for saying "Everything by fire will be salted" in Mark 9:49.

In conclusion, the secondary meaning claim is still a bit weak for me, and I would like to find better evidence to back such primacy claims. I will be attempting to post the other five claims / examples that were supposed to be included in this post, but instead only this Mark 9:49 claim posted successfully. The website was giving me technical problems and wouldn't let me post the rest.

Thomas
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting) - by Thomas - 01-05-2015, 09:26 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)