Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 Corinthians Aramaic primacy doubted...
IPOstapyuk Wrote:There is uncertainty about sound "Armaya".
One word can be pronounced differently with respective meanings
"Aramean" and "Gentile".
Is it true or it is some dictionary bias?
Somebody please prove that context shows that it can mean Gentile.
On the other side, using this idea one can wipe out the presence of the Arameans in the New Testament.
Personally, I do not believe a dictionary about something important unless context proves
I just refuse to blindly accept that "Armya" means Gentile so far.

In Revelation 9:11 (western canon) it says: "Armayt" It means 'in Aramaic'. Now, imagine, if it would mean 'in gentile language' would that not be nonsense? And if the Aramaic writer (John) would have meant Greek, why did he not write 'Yawnayit'?
Of course, the Greek version of revelation has there 'in Greek' but this is the same story as everywhere in the NT. The Greek translator simply replaced every occurrence of 'Aramaic' people and language to Greek.

Here is evidence, staring in your own eyes, that Greek translators EVEN if it would mean 'Aramaic' (armayt), according to our current lexicons/dictionaries, they still refused to translate it as such: Is the word, indicated by 'Armayt' really an Aramaic word and not a Greek 'loanword' or a 'gentile tongue' (whatever that may be)?
It says: "Shra" Which can mean 'faithful' or 'strong'. So, if 'shra' is 'gentile tongue', let somebody (Greek primacist?) stand up and explain it to me.

I know this is not hard evidence, but a good clue! (BUt unfortunately, the CoE does not accept revelation as being part of the canon)

Messages In This Thread
Re: 1 Corinthians Aramaic primacy doubted... - by distazo - 05-14-2013, 06:19 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)