The Greek word

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes I can understand that because I live in American and speak and write American English which picks up many words from other languages. We have many Spanish speaking people living in the USA and we sometimes speak Spanish - English when talking to each other.

However, when you say prototype, it suggests to me that you do not merely mean a translation f ...[text shortened]... was in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. I do not think that is the meaning of Eusebius.

The original was in Aramaic, and then it was translated into Greek -this is exactly what Eusebius believed😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The original was in Aramaic, and then it was translated into Greek -this is exactly what Eusebius believed😵

Well, one can believe many things, but that does not mean they are all true. Other than his belief, as you claim, do you have any solid evidence to point to?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, one can believe many things, but that does not mean they are all true. Other than his belief, as you claim, do you have any solid evidence to point to?

One can believe whatever if there is a solid evidence, yes. I have no problem to admit that I see no reason why Eusebius would falsely claim that there was a prototype since I admit that the prototype is either lost or not yet found -always given that Koine was not the apostle's mother tongue and that therefore his Greek is not in accordance with the standard AtticoIonian grammar and syntax
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
One can believe whatever if there is a solid evidence, yes. I have no problem to admit that I see no reason why Eusebius would falsely claim that there was a prototype since I admit that the prototype is either lost or not yet found -always given that Koine was not the apostle's mother tongue and that therefore his Greek is not in accordance with the standard AtticoIonian grammar and syntax
😵

Well, Eusebius wasn't even born until the end of the 3rd century. So what he may have believed, if indeed he did believe what you claim, is no more than speculation. There seems to be no one closer to the events that believed such a thing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, Eusebius wasn't even born until the end of the 3rd century. So what he may have believed, if indeed he did believe what you claim, is no more than speculation. There seems to be no one closer to the events that believed such a thing.

Exactly, RJ.
This is the reason why we cannot easily conclude what the scribe wanted to say, due to the fact that Koine was not his mother tongue and his use of that language is problematic😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Exactly, RJ.
This is the reason why we cannot easily conclude what the scribe wanted to say, due to the fact that Koine was not his mother tongue and his use of that language is problematic😵

Well, it looks like it is best to go with what we know for sure. And that is that the most original copies we have of the New Testament scriptures are in the Greek, so the common written language of that period must have been Greek.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, it looks like it is best to go with what we know for sure. And that is that the most original copies we have of the New Testament scriptures are in the Greek, so the common written language of that period must have been Greek.

Edit: "Well, it looks like it is best to go with what we know for sure."

The sole thing we know for sure is that Eusebius’ testimony isn’t the only one as regards this matter. There are also Papias, Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2), Origen, Jerome (Ad Damasum xx; Ad Hedib., iv), Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Ioannis Chrysostomos and Augustine. All of them said that Matthew wrote his gospel in the mother tongue of the Jews and they ascribe the Greek Gospel to Matthew, therefore they affirm that the Greek text is the translation of the Aramaic prototype. Oh well;

Your rest comment is irrelevant to the issue we are talking about;
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "Well, it looks like it is best to go with what we know for sure."

The sole thing we know for sure is that Eusebius’ testimony isn’t the only one as regards this matter. There are also Papias, Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2), Origen, Jerome (Ad Damasum xx; Ad Hedib., iv), Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Ioannis Chrysostom ...[text shortened]... ic prototype. Oh well;

Your rest comment is irrelevant to the issue we are talking about;
😵

I guess it is all irrelevant, because we have no Aramaic prototype to verify their speculations, if what you say is true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I guess it is all irrelevant, because we have no Aramaic prototype to verify their speculations, if what you say is true.

The point is that Mat. 28:16-17 will be a cause of controversy as long as we remain with no Aramaic prototype at our disposal; in this case, the passage will keep up being exploited by the personages of the differ Christian denominations according to their convenience
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The point is that Mat. 28:16-17 will be a cause of controversy as long as we remain with no Aramaic prototype at our disposal; in this case, the passage will keep up being exploited by the personages of the differ Christian denominations according to their convenience
😵

It seems very clear to me that the word should be translated "worshipped" with or without an Aramaic prototype. Even with an Aramaic prototype the JWs will come up with some other excuse for their unusual translation "do obeisance" that makes no sense to us American English speakers and doesn't even sound right.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It seems very clear to me that the word should be translated "worshipped" with or without an Aramaic prototype. Even with an Aramaic prototype the JWs will come up with some other excuse for their unusual translation "do obeisance" that makes no sense to us American English speakers and doesn't even sound right.

The translation of the v. proskyneo as the v. worship is well defended and fully acceptable by the Orthodox Greek Christians due to the reasons I explained at my last post at the 2nd page of this thread; and the reason why the JW organisation rejects this specific translation and promotes the translation "do obeisance" is also well backed up, acceptable in full and makes perfect sense, as I explained at the same post and also at the first post of mine as regards the OP and the proper translation of the v. proskyneo.

This is merely one case of controversy amongst many, which is solved by means of hermeneutics😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The translation of the v. proskyneo as the v. worship is well defended and fully acceptable by the Orthodox Greek Christians due to the reasons I explained at my last post at the 2nd page of this thread; and the reason why the JW organisation rejects this specific translation and promotes the translation "do obeisance" is also well backed up, acceptable ...[text shortened]...
This is merely one case of controversy amongst many, which is solved by means of hermeneutics😵

Well, I had already solved it by common sense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I had already solved it by common sense.

Nope RJ, you had already solved it by doctrinal hermeneutics; common sense properly defined and common sense as you appear to understand it, are not two different horses but a rabbit with three horns and a shark with one hoof😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Nope RJ, you had already solved it by doctrinal hermeneutics; common sense properly defined and common sense as you appear to understand it, are not two different horses but a rabbit with three horns and a shark with one hoof😵

Well, I shall leave you to your hermeneutics, because it does not seem to be in my league.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I shall leave you to your hermeneutics, because it does not seem to be in my league.

The whole thing is related to Christian hermeneutics, not to my hermeneutics.

Be well😵