|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
11-17-2003, 07:41 PM
|
#21 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,490
|
P.S. - I looked at James 3:5 for the use of "yqd" and I don't see the "wordplay" there. What is it supposed to be? "Boast" in the Syriac, at this point in the text, is not "yqd". It is appears to be f9t4mw or "arrogant". "yqd" is used later in the verse as "what a great forest is kindled (or burned) by a small spark." My translation is probably not the best, but you can see that "yqd" is used as "burned"...
It seems like someone is stretching their case on this "split-word". |
|
|
11-17-2003, 07:41 PM
|
#22 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
|
|
|
|
11-17-2003, 07:58 PM
|
#23 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Quote:
My post there is in the split word forum. |
|
|
|
|
11-18-2003, 06:09 AM
|
#24 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,490
|
Another thought on the whole Aramaic thing. If the NT was all originally written in Aramaic, then why do all the quotes seem to be from the LXX?
Take for example the famous "virgin" / "young woman" variation in Matthew 1:23. The peshitta has the equivalent of Hebrew word "bethulah" which is the equivalent of the LXX's "parthenos", both meaning "virgin" in opposition to the actual Hebrew text which reads "alma" (or "young woman"). Verse 23 also "interprets" (or "translates") Emmanuel. Perhaps that was deemed necessary in Syriac for some reason, but even I can recognize what the name means in the Syriac without the "interpretation". Why would they have really needed that unless they had simply been translating what was in the original Greek? |
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
