Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-13-2013, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Yes, that was the translation in the Greek LXX, but I am referring to the original Hebrew text.

The “Paul” of Romans could not read Hebrew. The “Paul” of Romans got his material from the LXX. The LXX was his bible. The “Paul” of Romans was unaware of any differences between the Hebrew and Greek translations.

stephan huller · 01-13-2013, 08:13 PM

That's not necessarily true. It may be the most likely explanation or it may be just the most convenient one. We can't be sure. Marqe cites the Greek (the Samaritikon?), the Samaritan Targum (Aramaic) and the Hebrew. There may be reasons for his using the Greek that we aren't aware of (his audience's needs).

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-13-2013, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

That's not necessarily true. It may be the most likely explanation or it may be just the most convenient one. We can't be sure. Marqe cites the Greek (the Samaritikon?), the Samaritan Targum (Aramaic) and the Hebrew. There may be reasons for his using the Greek that we aren't aware of (his audience's needs).

The “Paul” of Romans got his material from the LXX. You can tell be the way he butchers Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:9-13, and by the way he butchers Isaiah 45:23 in Romans 14:8-11. Paul never heard of Yahweh. His bible read “the Lord.”

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-13-2013, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

That's not necessarily true. It may be the most likely explanation or it may be just the most convenient one. We can't be sure. Marqe cites the Greek (the Samaritikon?), the Samaritan Targum (Aramaic) and the Hebrew. There may be reasons for his using the Greek that we aren't aware of (his audience's needs).

Btw – that (your entire post) is just useless bullshit.

Bingo the Clown-O · 01-13-2013, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

That's not necessarily true. ... There may be reasons for his using the Greek that we aren't aware of (his audience's needs).

What about pets?

Do we know if “Paul” had any pets?

I guess we just don’t know.

Do we.

Sheshbazzar · 01-13-2013, 08:33 PM

Acknowledging the texts, 'Paul' is careful to clearly state that he is 'truely a JEW' of the stock of ISRAEL, of the TRIBE of BENJAMIN, a HEBREW of the HEBREWS; respecting The LAW, a PHARISEE " (Acts 21:39, 22:3 and Phil 3:5)

As a JEW, a BENJAMINITE, and a HEBREW PHARISEE 'brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of The LAW of the fathers', Paul would have been fully trained and proficient in the intricacies Hebrew.

Its silly to invent a 'Paul' other than that one that describes himself in these texts.

Paul's Gentile audience was composed of primarily Hellenistic Jews and other Greek speaking peoples, it is natural that he would normally address them in the Greek language as very few in that Greek speaking audience would be able to follow or comprehend Hebrew (or Aramaic) speech.
But when he addressed an audience that could understand Hebrew, he was fully capable of employing it, as indicated by Acts 21:40 & 22:2

Onias · 01-13-2013, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The fullness of Law of Yahweh was not revealed until the time of Moses according to Scripture.
Righteous men before this time were justified by Yahweh without the obligations of Moses' Laws.

Abram was obedient in that he was willing to obey the voice of Yahweh, even to the point of offering up Isaac his only son on the altar.
This was not in obedience to any Law that he had received, but rather in sure confidence that the same voice that had guided him, would see to it that his son Isaac would survive.
He was so tested and his faith in Yahweh was so proven unshakable. Therefore Yahweh blessed him. Not for obedience to the dictates and details of a Jewish Law still yet to be revealed. Abraham was justified by faith in Yahweh his Elohim, and found to be righteous by Yahweh without the works of the Law.

My gosh, I did not realize I was conversing with a believer. And yet you dispute the validity of Gen 26:5! I realized long ago a discussion with a believer is futile.

Onias · 01-13-2013, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Yes, that was the translation in the Greek LXX, but I am referring to the original Hebrew text.

The “Paul” of Romans could not read Hebrew. The “Paul” of Romans got his material from the LXX. The LXX was his bible. The “Paul” of Romans was unaware of any differences between the Hebrew and Greek translations.

Yes, and Paul was probably not even a Jew but an alias for Marcion!

Onias · 01-13-2013, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

That's not necessarily true. It may be the most likely explanation or it may be just the most convenient one. We can't be sure. Marqe cites the Greek (the Samaritikon?), the Samaritan Targum (Aramaic) and the Hebrew. There may be reasons for his using the Greek that we aren't aware of (his audience's needs).

The “Paul” of Romans got his material from the LXX. You can tell be the way he butchers Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:9-13, and by the way he butchers Isaiah 45:23 in Romans 14:8-11. Paul never heard of Yahweh. His bible read “the Lord.”

He also butchers Hab 2:4 and every other verse he quotes from the OT. That's what gave me the clue he did the same to Gen 15:6. If I were religious, I would think Paul was the Antichrist. After all, Jesus predicted his coming in John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."

Onias · 01-13-2013, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Acknowledging the texts, 'Paul' is careful to clearly state that he is 'truely a JEW' of the stock of ISRAEL, of the TRIBE of BENJAMIN, a HEBREW of the HEBREWS; respecting The LAW, a PHARISEE " (Acts 21:39, 22:3 and Phil 3:5)

As a JEW, a BENJAMINITE, and a HEBREW PHARISEE 'brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of The LAW of the fathers', Paul would have been fully trained and proficient in the intricacies Hebrew.

Its silly to invent a 'Paul' other than that one that describes himself in these texts.

Paul's Gentile audience was composed of primarily Hellenistic Jews and other Greek speaking peoples, it is natural that he would normally address them in the Greek language as very few in that Greek speaking audience would be able to follow or comprehend Hebrew (or Aramaic) speech.
But when he addressed an audience that could understand Hebrew, he was fully capable of employing it, as indicated by Acts 21:40 & 22:2

Oh my gosh! I see that you take Paul at face value!! How can I argue with a true believer? Now I understand why the traditional translation of Gen 15:6 is so dear to you! But is faith the supreme virtue or is reason?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-13-2013, 08:13 PM	#22
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	That's not necessarily true. It may be the most likely explanation or it may be just the most convenient one. We can't be sure. Marqe cites the Greek (the Samaritikon?), the Samaritan Targum (Aramaic) and the Hebrew. There may be reasons for his using the Greek that we aren't aware of (his audience's needs).

01-13-2013, 08:33 PM	#26
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Acknowledging the texts, 'Paul' is careful to clearly state that he is 'truely a JEW' of the stock of ISRAEL, of the TRIBE of BENJAMIN, a HEBREW of the HEBREWS; respecting The LAW, a PHARISEE " (Acts 21:39, 22:3 and Phil 3:5) As a JEW, a BENJAMINITE, and a HEBREW PHARISEE 'brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of The LAW of the fathers', Paul would have been fully trained and proficient in the intricacies Hebrew. Its silly to invent a 'Paul' other than that one that describes himself in these texts. Paul's Gentile audience was composed of primarily Hellenistic Jews and other Greek speaking peoples, it is natural that he would normally address them in the Greek language as very few in that Greek speaking audience would be able to follow or comprehend Hebrew (or Aramaic) speech. But when he addressed an audience that could understand Hebrew, he was fully capable of employing it, as indicated by Acts 21:40 & 22:2

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.