spin

It would be useful for him to at least look at the original texts, so as not to make such blatant errors. Relying on English is not good enough. If he could deal with any of the languages he has made so many errors in he might be able to answer a few of his irrelevant questions.


spin

spin

This gets the Doh! award of the week. :rolling:

We are dealing with a period of at least 1600 years before the present. Current speakers of Aramaic have little relevance in our knowledge of the Aramaic which was spoken then. It's a bit like using a modern English speaker's knowledge of that language to help us understand Anglo-Saxon. First step for our floundering friend to make is to show when his numerical terms for week days were actually in use. When that's done, he can come back and we'll have a little more homework for him.


spin

judge

Hi Cweb.

You may have nissed the point here (easy as the arguments have not always been clear).

This si Spins argument if you missed it.


Spin (who is afraid to reveal his actual experience with aramaic ) claims that this is an explanation within the text.

The text refers to "the courtyard that was the praetorium. "

Spin instead transltes this ..."that is, the praetorium"

As if it is an explanation for Roman (or perhaps non Semitic) as Spin uses these terms interchangeably.
In other words Spin is arguing that the text says....for those of you who don't know what the courtyard is, it is the preatorium.

In fact the text reads as I said..."The courtyard that was the praetorium.

Spin then runs away when challenged on this point. This is why Spin refuses to tell us exactly what his expertise in Aramaic is I suspect.

If spin actually lets on he will have to eat his words perhaps.

Spin why not level with us and tell us why your translation ius correct but on the other hand why you run away when asked about your experience and expertise with Aramaic to make such a claim.

gregor2

judge

How many times must it be said - your repeated attacks on spin by saying that he knows only Greek and Hebrew and doesn't know aramaic is ineffectual if YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ARAMAIC, HEBREW, OR GREEK.

What is not clear about this statement?

Amaleq13

While it is apparently true that the wording in Aramaic is not as explicit, it still appears to be defining "the courtyard" as "the praetorium". I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here.

judge

Yes you are correct. My point is that there is more than one way to read it but Spion insists that his reading (that it is an explnation for non semitic or Roman audiences) is about as flimsy as one can get.

And this is supposed to one of his great "proofs".

judge

Spin is the one claiming that this possibly ambigous sentence must be read his way.

Is it not reasonable to ask his expertise and experience with the language? :huh:

There seems to be no difference between fundamentalist religious approaches and Spins approach.

Spin who outright refuses to inform us if he has any prior experience with aramaic and who has repeatedly shown his incompetence in this area insists the texy must read his way to give him his "proof".

Infidels are not a very skeptical lot it appears.

judge

This is not a fair assumption. prior to the discovery of the DSS the oldest HB were in Greek too.

Greek fragments abound because they didn't mind keeping damaged MSS.

In other traditions damaged mss were copied and destroyed. Thus we find no peshitta fragments, of HB fragments either. Apart from the DSS which were not meant to get to that stage.

CX

I must please remind everyone to maintain some decorum here please. Address arguments rather than personalities. Attacking one's personal acumen in a given linguistic tool is irrelevant and detracts considerably from the real discussion. Thanks.

spin

This is just rubbish. Please get a dictionary and look up d)ytyh. (Dalet-Alef-Yod-Taw-Yod-He)

When you've done that, come back and try again.

For others, this Aramaic word, d)ytyh, ostensibly the verb "to be" in the present 3rd person singular feminine, is often used in the nt when giving explanatory information.

In Mk 15:34, Jesus says "Ely, Ely, lama sabaktany" that is ('d)ytyh') "my God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?"

In Mk 15:42, we are told of "the eve of preparation, that is ('d)ytyh') before the Shabbat,"

In Acts 9:38, we read of "Lydda, that is ('d)ytyh') near Yoppa."

In Acts 24:24, we read of Drusilla, "who is ('d)ytyh') a Jewess."

In Rom 16:1, "I commend to you our syster Phoebe, who is ('d)ytyh') a servant of the church of Cenchrea."

There is no "that" or "who" in the Aramaic, but these words are necessary in English to make sense of the texts.

It's not strange to find in Mk 15:16, "the soldiers led him to the palace, that is ('d)ytyh') the praetorium ('pr+wryn')." How on earth judge can get "the courtyard that was the praetorium" and miss what the Aramaic is doing, other than by reading Murdoch's old translation of the Peshitta nt, is a linguistic mystery.


spin