Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,143
    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryfl View Post
    Sounds good. Now, are we seeking to establish whether the Peshitta NT, (for the moment looking at it from your view) when quoting from the OT, translated from the LXX?

    Ron
    I think we are doing a general study to look at all the facts:

    1) Does the Peshitta show any direct dependence on the LXX?

    2) Does the Greek NT show any direct dependence on the Peshitta?

    And your original question:

    3) Are the textual variations in the Greek NT best explained as arising from the variety of Greek words that can be used to translate the Aramaic original?

    I think we need to review all the evidence for these three questions to answer the big question which is the title of this thread:

    4) Is there evidence to support an Aramaic origin of the New Testament writings?

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    747
    Okie, as there are quite a few quotes in Romans, I will pick out some that I think are relevant to the discussion, starting with this one:

    11. According to what is written: "As I live, says THE LORD JEHOVAH, every knee shall bow to me and to me every tongue shall swear." Peshitta

    That to me shall bow, every knee and every tongue shall swear. DSS

    Rom 14:11 For it is written, " 'As I live,' says the Lord, 'to me every knee will bow. Every tongue will confess to God.' " WEB

    that to Me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear by God, LXX


    The Greek adds, “to God”, following The LXX version of Isaiah 45:23. However, The Hebrew and Peshitta OT agree with the Peshitta reading here in the NT. Even the Dead Sea Great Isaiah Scroll (100 B.C.) agrees with the Peshitta reading, and with The Masoretic text of Isaiah generally throughout its 66 chapters.

    You can read the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah in it's entirety here. You can also obtain it on CD from the same author, Fred Miller.

    http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm
    Last edited by gregoryfl; 02-17-2010 at 06:40 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lake district U.K
    Posts
    314

    Convoluted argument and cloudy conclusion

    I have tried to follow this convoluted arguuement wth little success. I get the impression that some seem to think that the New Testament was written in Arabic or Hebrew or a mixture. Have you lost sight of the fact that the Holy spirit set his seal on his word? The new testamen must have been written in Greek or the pattern would not be there. The same applies to the septuagent. The Law and the prophets were written in hebrew and sealed by the creator himself . I have failed to find his signature in the LXX.
    Alec

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,143
    Quote Originally Posted by alec cotton View Post
    I have tried to follow this convoluted arguuement wth little success. I get the impression that some seem to think that the New Testament was written in Arabic or Hebrew or a mixture. Have you lost sight of the fact that the Holy spirit set his seal on his word? The new testamen must have been written in Greek or the pattern would not be there. The same applies to the septuagent. The Law and the prophets were written in hebrew and sealed by the creator himself . I have failed to find his signature in the LXX.
    Alec
    Hey there my friend!

    I agree completely. The patterns in the Greek NT clearly indicate that it was "sealed by God." And besides that, it makes perfect sense that the NT, which is for the whole world, should be written in the language of the Gentiles rather than the Hebrew. Also, the nature of the languages are very different. Greek is like scientific laser light compared to the poetic vagueness of the Hebrew. It's like the left/right brain - Logic vs. Intuition, or Law vs. Wisdom (which sections are symmetrically placed on the left/right of the Bible Wheel, just like the human brain).

    I think the evidence is overwhelming for an original Greek NT, but I don't think our discussion has been "convoluted." We've been exploring the evidence from all angles. It seems to be a very good thing to do.

    All the very best!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    747
    I understand how you would see what I am sharing as convoluted. To me it is not. It truly depends on ones viewpoint. What appears as plain appears so because one considers it so. Now, that does not make it right by any means, but does help me sympathize with how you see it differently than I.

    Ron

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    747
    Since the early church quoted more often than not either from the LXX directly, opposed to the Hebrew texts we have today, or perhaps from the Hebrew texts that the LXX was translated from, of which we possess no copies, while it may not have God's signature, however you define that, it does appear to have God's direction at the very least in our having a more accurate understanding of what the original texts would have said.

    Ron
    Last edited by gregoryfl; 03-03-2010 at 02:11 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,143
    Quote Originally Posted by gregoryfl View Post
    I understand how you would see what I am sharing as convoluted. To me it is not. It truly depends on ones viewpoint. What appears as plain appears so because one considers it so. Now, that does not make it right by any means, but does help me sympathize with how you see it differently than I.

    Ron
    Hey Ron,

    I hope you notice that I said "I don't think our discussion has been 'convoluted.' We've been exploring the evidence from all angles. It seems to be a very good thing to do."

    I very much enjoy the various rabbit trails we hopped down, and I hope it continues. Of course, it seems to me that the evidence continues to mount for a Greek original NT except perhaps Matthew and Hebrews, but even if those are translations into Greek, I would assert that those are two cases of inspired translations! It's difficult for me to accept a semi-inspired NT.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •