Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-29-2004, 05:06 AM | #11 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
The text we have of Matthew is a Greek source which often shows itself to have been written in Greek, which often quotes the LXX and related Greek sources, and which is dependent on the Greek source Mark. Quote:
Abraham/Isaac, Isaac/Jacob 2, Jacob/Judah, Judah/Perez 4, Perez/Hezron, Hezron/Aram 6, Aram/Aminadab, Aminadab/Nahshon 8, Nahshon/Salmon, Salmon/Boaz10, Boaz/Obed, Obed/Jesse 12, Jesse/David 13 Sorry, you can't eke an argument here to support your attempt to redefine GOWRA. Both GOWRA and BA`ALA make good translations of ANER according to the context. Joseph was Mary's man (ANER) in 1:16 and that's how it was translated into Syriac, though it could have been translated as "husband", which is the case in v.19. Here's a test for you: try your hardest to turn GOWRA into "father" in 1 Co 7:3, 14, & 16. Each of these texts are apparently talking about husbands, which should suggest that your notion of GOWRA being an alternative to AB and able to mean "father" is not viable. (In fact, try to turn any other example of GOWRA, besides your attempt at Mt 1:16, into "father".) GOWRA simply means "man" as ANER does, but both can imply "husband", as even "man" can ("My man comes home and ignores the kids," says woman), despite the fact that Syriac has a dedicated word for "husband". spin |
||
08-29-2004, 05:18 AM | #12 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Quote:
Vorkosian |
|
08-29-2004, 05:47 AM | #13 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Mumble, mumble, but weren't all the names added later? Oh, I guess one can't assume that xians understand that. But then, they'll want proof that Matthew didn't write that text in the Hebrew dialect which was later translated into Greek. Eusebius, citing Papias, indicates that Matthew did it that way, so it must be true. You atheists are just trying to pull the wool over unsuspecting people's eyes. Of course Matthew wrote his gospel. We have his name on it and Papias says he wrote it. What more do you need? Shite, perhaps we should have a rethink. Perhaps Gulliver did write that book of travels. spin |
|
08-29-2004, 07:50 AM | #14 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Quote:
|
|
08-29-2004, 08:05 AM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Quote:
Why not compare the use of the word gowra with the way the word gowra is used in matthew? |
|
08-29-2004, 08:21 AM | #16 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Quote:
Becuase it seems it has long been known that the language used in the peshitta is the same as that spoken by Christ. "Generally it may be observed that the language used by our Saviour and his apostles being that ordinarily employed by the Hebrews in Palestine at the time, and called by St. Luke (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 1), Papias, and Irenaeus, the Hebrew Dialect, is so very similar and closely allied with the Syriac of the New Testament, called the Peshitto, that the two may be considered identical, with the exception, perhaps, of some very slight dialectical peculiarities. These facts are so well known to all who have given attention to this subject, that it is not necessary for me to enter into any proof of them in this place." Remains of a very ancient recension of the four gospels in Syriac' William Cureton Publ.: John Murray, London 1858 Quote:
|
||
08-29-2004, 03:52 PM | #17 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Quote:
The second group has two, Judah and Perez and so on. And further comment on your thoughts on matthew. Quote:
Not so according to Siegfried H. Horn, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. 'I am quite sure that Matthew quoted from a Hebrew text that agreed with the Vorlage that the Greek translators [of the LXX] used.' I seems that some scholarship sees things a little more complicated, why should we favor your view? |
||
08-29-2004, 08:39 PM | #18 | |||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Do to the first 14 exactly what you did with the third. Please, stop and think before you post yet again. Quote:
As for your other posts: Quote:
Please read Mt 19:5 to understand your problem: ... a man (GOWRA) shall leave his father (ABWHY, ie AB-WHY his father) and his mother ... The linguistics of the situation are simple: look at how the word is used in other situations and see how that applies to the specific case you are analysing. GOWRA means "man" always has, and doesn't mean "father". Your one attempt in the past is to forget that GOWRA means "man" in order to attempt to force a second word for "father" because a verse talks about a man (GOWRA) and his daughter. You ignore every other use of GOWRA. That's why I asked you to look at them in order to check your premises for your wayward analysis of Mt 1:16. So you ignored my comments on Mt 1:16. Funny, judge, very funny. Quote:
As to my knowledge of Aramaic, I at least admit my lack of knowledge. You don't. You not only don't know it, but usually use other people's work, cutting and pasting it, and I have seen some of your sources. I do have a knowledge of Hebrew, which is a substantial help. Quote:
spin |
|||||||
08-30-2004, 12:59 AM | #19 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Thanks again for your input Spin. I think will return later and do thread on this bearing in mind all you have raised. If no one argued with me I might never learn anything.
You have however Quote:
"Which gowra among you if his son ask him for a loaf[/b] here the man is clearly also a father. In other words a gawra can be a father. As for the 14 generations Jeconiah is part of the second group of 14. You can't therefore include him in the third group as well. Here I will lay it out for you. First group: fourteen Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab,Nahshon,Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, King David. Second group: fourteen Solomon Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, *Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah Third group: can only be fourteen if gawra means father of mary not husband 1.Shealtiel,2.Zerubbabel, 3.Abiud, 4.Eliakim, *5.Azor, 6.Zadok, 7.Akim, 8.Eliud, 9.Eleazar, 10.Matthan, 11. Jacob, 12 Joseph, the husband (should read father) of 13Mary, 14Jesus, who is called Christ. You have tried to include jeconiah in both groups! Now as we know that matthew verse 19 tells us that the husband of Mary is her baala one must ask who is the joseph in verse 19 who is her gowra? If this is the husband of Mary then why is this man not referred to as her baala? Thirdly it is all very well to hypothesise that mattew was written in greek but your argument would carry a lot more weight if you provded some references. here is another one from eusebius Church history book V chapt 10 Book V, concerning an Egyptian father named Pantaenus who lived in the 2nd century: "Of these Pantaenus was one:it is stated that he went as far as India, where he appears to have found that Matthew's Gospel had arrived before him and was in the hands of some there who had come to know Christ. Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left behind Matthew's account in the actual Aramaic characters, and it was preserved till the time of Pantaenus's mission." Quoted from the translation by G. A. Williamson, The History of the Church, Dorset Press, New York, 1965, pages 213-214.. As our earliest witnesses tell us mattew did not write in greek isn't it reasonable that you provide some reference to back up your argument that he did write in greek? Thanks again for your time. |
|
08-30-2004, 01:28 AM | #20 | |||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Your one attempt in the past is to forget that GOWRA means "man" in order to attempt to force a second word for "father" because a verse talks about a man (GOWRA) and his daughter. Quote:
Or what man (GOWRA) is there of you, who, if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone? As always, GOWRA means "man", as every translation (except that of your bunch) has it. A man can have a son, though this doesn't imply that GOWRA can in itself mean "father". You think "Father" because of the contextual pointer "son" (BAR). When you read Mt 1:16 you read "the man (GOWRA) of Mary" and nearly everyone thinks "husband" because of the contextual pointer "Mary", ie the man of Mary implies husband. On the generations cafuffle, you are still trying to have it both ways. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
spin |
|||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|