Can you imagine this

That is because the Hebrew is based on a consonantal root system. Variations in pronunciation lead to nuances and variations in meaning,* but the root determines a commonality of underlying meaning behind the variations.

this is also the case with this Greek word, how the author managed to make the statement i dared not to ask. Presumably not content merely with the realms of scripture he would like to force exegesis onto the etymology of a words well!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
That is because the Hebrew is based on a consonantal root system. Variations in pronunciation lead to nuances and variations in meaning,* [b]but the root determines a commonality of underlying meaning behind the variations.

this is also the case with this Greek word, how the author managed to make the statement i dared not to ask. Presumably ...[text shortened]... with the realms of scripture he would like to force exegesis onto the etymology of a words well![/b]

Well, I’m specializing these days. 😉


Actually, I hadn’t worked with the Hebrew much for about a year, and have lately been getting back into it. (I have a great talent for fast forgetting whatever I haven’t worked with for awhile and I’m having to relearn a bit.) I can vocalize pointed text, and recognize a few words; and I just started working with Rosetta Stone (modern Hebrew), so maybe I can gain at least a basic fluency over the coming year. Most of my past study was focused really on how the language works.


You and I discussed pointed (Masoretic) text versus unpointed text before: what I didn’t know is that apparently most modern Hebrew, like in newspapers and such, is written unpointed! (Sigh.) In Rosetta Stone, you can work with either/both.


I’ve got a bit on my plate right now, so I’m really just popping in here occasionally to see what’s going on—mostly just reading and not posting. Back in the day when I wasn’t specializing so much, one of the two most rewarding, and most sustained “mano y mano” debates I had one here in my five or six years, was with Epi—and it touched quite a bit on the kind of thing you are both arguing here. (It ended with a friendly impasse, of course; but it was the kind of debate that required research, and a lot of digging into the texts, and it was very rewarding and educational. I have always enjoyed arguing with Epi, because he makes you work hard. Epi’s an old friend, you’re a newer friend. And I wish you both well.)


BTW, thanks again for your input on the short-lived “covenant” thread. Your input (and Conrau’s) was helpful; too bad others didn’t wade in.


Again, to you and Epi both: shalom v’chaim: well-being and life!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
(I see that you're very good in cutting and pasting.)

Compare the Swedish translation 2000 with the King James 1600 the Domareboken kapitel 19 and the Judges chapter 19.
How many verses starts with an 'and' in the English translation? How many verses starts with 'och' in the Swedish translation? What do you think is the best translation?
If I was a ...[text shortened]...
You see that I answer your questions, honour me with answers of my questions to you.

I bump this again, for you, robbie, I think you forgot about it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I bump this again, for you, robbie, I think you forgot about it.

when you remove your assertion of bias, then we can talk!

Was hat Luther gesagt? Luther's translation predates KJV and I would geuss even the swedish translation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
when you remove your assertion of bias, then we can talk!

If that's what's hindering you, then I don't talk about bias anymore.
When you say that religion can be dealt with scientifically, I have the same objections.
Happy?

Originally posted by expuddlepirate
Was hat Luther gesagt? Luther's translation predates KJV and I would geuss even the swedish translation.

What did he gesagt, Luther? And what is the relevance?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If that's what's hindering you, then I don't talk about bias anymore.
When you say that religion can be dealt with scientifically, I have the same objections.
Happy?

why thankyou, yes I am happy you have went up in my estimation no end 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why thankyou, yes I am happy you have went up in my estimation no end 🙂

But you're still avoiding my question.

Do you want to repeat the posting or can you turn back to page 2 yourself? You'll find it as the last posting on that page.

If I'm high in your estimation, then please bother to keep our dialogue going, and don't make me repeat my questions over and over again.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What did he gesagt, Luther? And what is the relevance?

Richter kapital 19 says "Und" as well as most english translations do.

Originally posted by expuddlepirate
Richter kapital 19 says "Und" as well as most english translations do.

Again: What is the relevance?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
That is because the Hebrew is based on a consonantal root system. Variations in pronunciation lead to nuances and variations in meaning,* [b]but the root determines a commonality of underlying meaning behind the variations.

this is also the case with this Greek word, how the author managed to make the statement i dared not to ask. Presumably ...[text shortened]... with the realms of scripture he would like to force exegesis onto the etymology of a words well![/b]

It's linguistic nonsense, because if you have a root word with various offshoots, arbitrarily replacing the meaning of each of those offshoots with the meaning of the root word whitewashes the intended meaning. What you are essentially claiming, robbie, is that any word which shares the root kolazo (to cut off) must be translated as "to cut off". This is a (deliberate on your part) blurring of the author's, as I said, intended meaning. If you can't see why that's significant, then I suppose you deserve to err.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But you're still avoiding my question.

Do you want to repeat the posting or can you turn back to page 2 yourself? You'll find it as the last posting on that page.

If I'm high in your estimation, then please bother to keep our dialogue going, and don't make me repeat my questions over and over again.

no i am not avoiding, i did not realise what you were asking, a translation of 2000 should certainly be more accurate than one given in the 1600s, that is of course if the translation is accurate.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It's linguistic nonsense, because if you have a root word with various offshoots, arbitrarily replacing the meaning of each of those offshoots with the meaning of the root word whitewashes the intended meaning. What you are essentially claiming, robbie, is that any word which shares the root kolazo (to cut off) must be translated as "to cu is a (deliberate on your part) blurring of the author's, as I said, intended meaning.

the intended meaning or your exegesis, yip, fess up a clear case of imposing your agenda on scripture. Look there are heaps of scriptures which state that the wicked shall suffer destruction or shall be cut off, but no, you would like to perpetuate the myth that eternal punishment means eternal torment. You cannot EPi take a scripture in isolation like this and use it as a front for some church dogma.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the intended meaning or your exegesis, yip, fess up a clear case of imposing your agenda on scripture. Look there are heaps of scriptures which state that the wicked shall suffer destruction or shall be cut off, but no, you would like to perpetuate the myth that eternal punishment means eternal torment. You cannot EPi take a scripture in isolation like this and use it as a front for some church dogma.

the intended meaning or your exegesis, yip, fess up a clear case of imposing your agenda on scripture.

No, the intended meaning of the word is clear by its usage; the word itself, kolasis. That word doesn't mean "to cut off." You are the one imposing your agenda on scripture. I'm trying to save it from your willful acts of linguistic nonsense.

You cannot EPi take a scripture in isolation like this and use it as a front for some church dogma.

This scripture is not in isolation.

If anyone wants to see an example of someone imposing his agenda on scripture, then watch robbie tackle the following:
__________


Matt. 8:12, "but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (weeping and gnashing of teeth implies consciousness).

Matt. 13:41-42, "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (weeping and gnashing of teeth implies consciousness).

Rev. 14:9-11, "And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."”