|
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
YOU CAN ONLY MAKE THIS "ARGUMENT" BECAUSE YOU ARE A BIBLICAL FUNDAMENTALIST.
LEARN SOME FACTS ABOUT THE BIBLE.
I have many times clearly said the Greek Septuagint is the original bible
from
which "hebrew" ones are translations.
That may be the single most idiotic thing you continue to repeat. If you
knew ANYTHING AT ALL about the Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic languages, or
about the Bible itself, you would know how abysmally stupid that claim
is.
I'm intrigued. Please elaborate.
I trust you haven't been following this fascinating thread with bated
breath ...
(a) The language of the Septuagint (LXX) is obviously at a glance
translated from a Hebrew and Aramaic original. It exhibits Semitisms
throughout, and the proper names are quite clearly transliterated from
Semitic originals.
(b) The Hebrew Scriptures are not written in some uniform dialect of
Hebrew, as would have been the result of a translation project from a
Greek original, but display any number of different temporal varieties,
from extremely archaic (e.g. Song of Deborah in Judges 5, Song of Miriam
in Exodus 15, a few of the Psalms) to very recent (Qohelet
[Ecclesiastes] is all but Mishnaic Hebrew, with a verbal system very
different from that of the rest of the books).
(c) Regional variations have also been discerned, with the "Succession
Narrative" of Samuel-Kings identified as Northern or "Israelian"
dialect.
(d) Even the Aramaic of Ezra is discernibly several centuries earlier
than the Aramaic of Daniel.
Thanks, that really has cleared it up for me.
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955
|
|