cass256

In the Bible software on the internet, the greek word seems to be saying the language was not specifically Hebrew, but simply the language the Jews were speaking at the time. Strong's (I have no other Greek dictionary) says Chaldee for Jews, and that only shows the opinion it could be different from Hebrew. Isn't Chaldean possibly Aramaic? If it was "Hebrew", the language, to specify, it seems "Hebraikos" should have been used, even if the sentence may have needed a different structure. The word used was "Hebraisti" which means "in the Jewish tongue", or the Hebrew (as a people) tongue. ie. in whatever language the Hebrews used at the time, and so not necessarily Hebrew the language. It is no proof either way. However, it does explain how other versions of the Bible can say Hebrew, even though the word leaves a chaldean language as an option, or possible alternative. I am no expert in any language, so who reads this please don't bash me...bash Strong's, or the internet bible web site.. I am only pointing out that there are alternatives, not solid proof of "Hebrew" when reading King james as opposed to NIV. This is from the king james, translated using Strong's.
I used http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednameb...ngs/index2.htm


1444
ebraikoV
Hebraikos
heb-rah-ee-kos'
from Eber - Eber 1443; Hebraic or the Jewish language:--Hebrew.

1445
ebraioV
Hebraios
heb-rah'-yos
from Eber - Eber 1443; a Hebræan (i.e. Hebrew) or Jew:--Hebrew.

1446
ebraiV
Hebrais
heb-rah-is'
from Eber - Eber 1443; the Hebraistic (Hebrew) or Jewish (Chaldee) language:--Hebrew.

1447
ebraisti
Hebraisti
heb-rah-is-tee'
adverb from ebraiV - Hebrais 1446; Hebraistically or in the Jewish (Chaldee) language:--in (the) Hebrew (tongue).

Pilate

Judge don't let them intimidate you. Feel free to tell them what you think!
don't give up your freedom just to be accepted by ... who knows who.
I see some people here upset that some have had the courage to stand up to the guru. What worries them is that some sheep have scattered.
I hear people alluding subjection to the guru (when they say that they were torn apart and rightfully so). What kind of talk it that? Is this a cult? This is the kind of stuff that took place in the cult of the Davidians (David Coresh) and Jim Jones.
Some people here have left the Church to get away from its authority and now they have fallen under the authority of the guru, who has turned them into some kind of obeisant groopies.
He uses a big stick (a loose mouth, full of arrogance- in the first e-mail I got from him he used on me the four letter word f--k) and he shapes up anyone who threatens his authority. He has his gauchos supporting him to lasso in the stray sheep. The guru and the gauchos own this farm. There is no free thinking here.
The guru had it made, until one person, a mere "rookie" came here and threw a few facts at him and his apple cart was turned upside down! His contemptuous remarks show that he is shaken. He is out of words, or better, out of facts. Furthermore, he cannot stand on his own. He needs others, the gauchos, to protect him and to assist him to make condmnations. And this he calls scholarship.
He does not fight man-to-man. He fights mob-to-man!

cass256

So what was do the majority believe? The Most High god was EL, also the Cananaanite god, and not YaHWeh? Jacob was allotted to YaHWeH, by EL the Most High?. Yeshua was the "son of man" in his own description. The sun of god maybe as jacob became the son of YaHWeh a god who was allotted Jacob's line, but lesser god than EL?
and when Yeshua cried out on the cross, "my god, my god"
he was calling out to YaHWeh? and not EL the Most High?

Was he purposefully saying it to fufill Psalm whatever number it was, or did the writer put the words into his mouth to fulfill and convince that Yeshua was the Messiah...? ...or was Yeshua realizing that he was actually forsaken, when he did not expect to be?

Why did he not call out "Father, my father..", if he was the son of God? or son of YaHWeH?

..and for those who believe "Jesus" WAS God, why was he caling out to "God", it only made him look "not God".

spin

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Who is the gaucho, amigo?
Why is he standing
In your spangled leather poncho
And your elevator shoes?

Pilate

Yes. This is what I found in various dictionaries and encyclopedias.

“... which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.� (John 5:2 KJV)
The King james version says in the "Hebrew tongue." The NIV and the NIRV say in Aramaic. The New Thayer's Greeek English Lexicon (which is not approve by the guru) says the word Βηθεσδά is Chaldean (see Thayer's page 100).
Perhaps the precise translation of this word was not important to most translators. But this fact is important to the field of higher criticism (determining from where the writers of the Bible got their information/inspiration.

Wow! Stop and read this again! What have the guru and the gauchos done to the people in this forum for this person to say [SIZE=4]"please don't bash me"[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]This is evidence of mental abuse.[/SIZE]
This is what I have been talking about. People here have been subjected to fear. There is no freedom of speech here. This is not healthy, friends.
I am giving you some constructive criticism. "Don't bash me" as this person said. Thank me for it.
But if you choose to bash me, you wil lose.

spin

Naturally Jn 5:1 has h epilegomenh ebraisti bhQesda, ie "which is called in Hebrew Bethesda". It's not strange to note that byt and xsd, two Hebrew words, can be the source of the Greek form which Jn calls Hebrew. Why can't we trust what Jn says? Is there any reason to doubt the gospel writer? If so, why?


spin

spin

The reason why we have to be careful of our sources is that they can easily lead us astray. Strongs is a work of well over a century ago and so it misses out on all the scholarship of the past century and more importantly it lacks knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Strongs was essentially a work aimed at providing basic language access to the bible for ordinary people so it is much simplified and based on less rigorous content than the standard lexicon Brown Driver Briggs (BDB), which now even provides Strongs numbers access to Hebrew words. BDB is dated but has a strong scholarly base. Strongs is mainly just dated, and while it can provide useful information at a personal level (any information is better than none), it is at best a front line tool and needs its gaps being covered. Strongs, because it wants to be helpful, but with knowledge that is too old at times, can provide information that is simply old opinions and now seen as such. This is not always the case, but regarding certain critical issues it follows ideas which are now though suspect. Strongs can be useful, but be prepared to be let down by it once in a while.


spin

Pilate

Who is this self-apointed guru that can tell others about Strong's? What credentials has he to talk about something that is above his understanding?

Pilate

Do not listen to this nonsense. He is trying to confuse you with the byt and the xsd, trying to sound profound.
Tha basic fact is: it is a Chaldean word.Period

Amaleq13

These are examples of 'ad hominem' attacks because, rather than focus on the specific claims made, they address the individual who made them. They are against the rules but, more importantly IMO, they are totally irrelevant in a rational discussion.

spin offered very specific factors he thinks should be taken into consideration when relying on Strong's. They seemed reasonable to me. Do you have a substantive critique of those claims?