Originally posted by robbie carrobie nope, ive told you i am wasting no more time discussing the trinity, i want to discus what is in the bible, not what is not.
My question doesn't involve the trinity now does it? Why are you so divisive?
Do I dare add another question: why are you so evasive?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie nope, we simply have better things to do than argue with people, for as the scriptures state, 'a workman of the lord does not need to fight'.
I wasn't fighting, simply educating the poor lost souls who ended up on my doorstep...
Originally posted by Doward I wasn't fighting, simply educating the poor lost souls who ended up on my doorstep...
why are you so divisive?
well there they were, doing their best to inculcate interest in the Bible while you were sitting cosy at home, how telling, I told you, i am uninterested in discussing anything that is not biblical, produce a text if you want me to discuss it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie well there they were, doing their best to inculcate interest in the Bible while you were sitting cosy at home, how telling, I told you, i am uninterested in discussing anything that is not biblical, produce a text if you want me to discuss it.
I have to rest from my labors sometime...
I am merely responding to a scripture that you posted (Ephesians 4:4-6)
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Yes the etymology of it may be different dear Beetle, however it may also lend itself , as a kind of circumstantial evidence to an understanding of how the word came to be used laterally. This coupled with the present understanding, put together within the context, compounded by how others have attempted to translate it provide like a basis for at l ...[text shortened]... cot, in fact i may dig out my koine book, for about the fifth time and try to learn to read. 🙂
OK;
Regarding your interest to the Greek language, I wish you heartily all the best!
😵
Regarding your interest to the Greek language, I wish you heartily all the best!
😵
thanks dear Beetle i have tried many times and given up, 🙁
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
09 Jul '11 01:111 edit
I won't get too involved in what exactly ophthamlos haplous means. In context, it seems Jesus is talking about how a good character is manifested clearly in his appearance whereas the evil man will conceal his character. It is definitely a strange expression anyway.
One thing we haven't discussed in this thread is that very often words have no meaning. The author is sometimes a kind of 'chatterbox': he strings words together, not really pondering the weight of their meaning. He just enjoys the sound of them but isn't entirely committed to their meaning. I think everyone on this forum has experienced the occasional poster who just pompously cobbles words together, pretending that there is some serious meaning when in fact it is just really incoherent babble. Now I am not saying that Jesus is that kind of person but it does seem that he often is deliberately vague. The expression is supposed to be enigmatic.
The problem for the translator then is not to capture the nuances of the original text but to try to maintain the vagueness.
Originally posted by RJHinds You said, "(although I presume Jesus's parables had to be translated from
Aramaic to Greek)." What makes you think Jesus did not speak Hebrew
or Greek? Aramaic was not a common language in Israel at that time.
It didn't become common until after Israel was renamed Palestine in 132 AD.
Originally posted by RJHinds You said, "(although I presume Jesus's parables had to be translated from
Aramaic to Greek)." What makes you think Jesus did not speak Hebrew
or Greek? Aramaic was not a common language in Israel at that time.
It didn't become common until after Israel was renamed Palestine in 132 AD.
I used the verb "presume" because I do not know 100% ... however from the little knowledge I have I understand that Aramaic was the predominant tongue of the natives in Nazareth and surrounding areas (of course they had smatterings of Hebrew, Greek and Latin but why would Jesus use those languages over the local tongue?)
Wiki has this to say
Aramaic, as a Semitic language, was a common language of the Eastern Mediterranean during and after the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid Empires (722 BC – 330 BC). Aramaic remained a common language of Israel in the 1st century AD, despite the subsequent Macedonian-Greek (331 BC) and Roman (63 BC) invasions
Originally posted by wolfgang59 I used the verb "presume" because I do not know 100% ... however from the little knowledge I have I understand that Aramaic was the predominant tongue of the natives in Nazareth and surrounding areas (of course they had smatterings of Hebrew, Greek and Latin but why would Jesus use those languages over the local tongue?)
Wiki has this to say
Aram ...[text shortened]... reek (331 BC) and Roman (63 BC) invasions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus
This is news to me. I think I must agree with what is written in the big
square at the beginning of the article, especially on the language. There
is a lot of unverifiable speculation in the article. I think I will stick with
the more scholarly notion that Jesus spoke primarily Greek and Hebrew,
with a little Aramaic that he might have picked up.
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
09 Jul '11 23:30
Originally posted by RJHinds This is news to me. I think I must agree with what is written in the big
square at the beginning of the article, especially on the language. There
is a lot of unverifiable speculation in the article. I think I will stick with
the more scholarly notion that Jesus spoke primarily Greek and Hebrew,
with a little Aramaic that he might have picked up.
The scholarly opinion is that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I have never heard any serious scholar suggest he spoke Greek. Perhaps he spoke Hebrew, clearly he was able to read biblical Hebrew if the gospels are reliable.
Originally posted by RJHinds This is news to me. I think I must agree with what is written in the big
square at the beginning of the article, especially on the language. There
is a lot of unverifiable speculation in the article. I think I will stick with
the more scholarly notion that Jesus spoke primarily Greek and Hebrew,
with a little Aramaic that he might have picked up.
Even in the unlikely event that Greek was Jesus's first language it most certainly was not the language of the people he was preaching to!
08 Jul '11 16:40
Lost in translation
Back to Top