I see there's a "Gerard Bouw" as one of the members.
I wonder whether this is Gerardus Bouw, the geocentrist who allegedly validated Gail Riplinger's "Acrostic Algebra" as mathematically sound?
__________________
Take care,
Scott >>>Minion of BASSENCO<<< as outed by Shiloh
"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis
Here's a thread titled Timothy's Scriptures that seeks to ask what language Timothy learned the Scriptures in? Fair question.
After a dozen or so posts about the status of Hebrew as a "living language" in Palestine, the aforementioned Gerard Bouw drops this gem:
It is the Roman Catholic Church that pushes the myth that Aramaic, not Hebrew was spoken by the Jews in New Testament times. The issue is the primacy of Peter. In Aramaic Peter means rock, in Hebrew it means stone.
By the same token, the RCC promotes the idea that at least Matthew was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. It's easy to show that false for then why would it have Jesus say "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" in Mat. 27:46 and the follow that by "that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" If it were written in Aramaic or Hebrew why not translate it directly instead of transliterating the Aramaic and then adding the translation?
Peter means nothing, in either Aramaic or Hebrew. Petros was Peter's Greek name. Jesus nicknamed Simon Cephas, which is the Aramaic word for rock (and which John hastens to add, in John 1:42, means "Peter"); this also was the name Paul used for Peter in 1 Corinthians and Galatians.
Notice that in his second paragraph, Bouw defeats his own argument. If Aramaic wasn't spoken in the region, why does Jesus sometimes speak Aramaic, e.g. Eli, eli, lama sabachtani ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"); Talitha kumi ("Little girl, I say to you, arise"); or Ephphatha ("Be opened!")? And why do the Gospel authors then have to explain these expressions to their readers? If Jesus didn't speak Aramaic, why not just write out the Greek he did speak?
Aramaic is a Semitic language, related to Hebrew. It was the native tongue of the Arameans, who had settled throughout the territories occupied by the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Empires, such that these regimes were effectively bilingual (the native language of the Assyrians and Chaldeans being Akkadian), and during the subsequent Persian Empire, Assyrian became the ANE's lingua franca.
After decades of occupation and further decades of exile, it's not at all surprising that the Hebrews effectively adopted Aramaic as their mother language. By the time of the Jews' restoration to Israel, virtually no one even spoke Hebrew anymore, such that when Ezra read the Law to the people, translators were required (Neh. 8:8).
Hebrew retained its use as a religious language, but was not revived as a spoken language until the 19th century, thanks to Eliezer ben-Yehuda and the rise of Zionism. Meanwhile, the Persians had themselves been overthrown by Alexander the Great, and the Greeks then were conquered by the Romans. By the time Jesus was born, the lingua franca of the Empire was Greek, the local language of Palestine was Aramaic, and the religious language of Judaism was Hebrew. Thus Jesus was most likely trilingual: speaking Greek to interact with Gentiles and dispersed Jews, Hebrew in the synagogues, and Aramaic as his mother tongue.
__________________
Take care,
Scott >>>Minion of BASSENCO<<< as outed by Shiloh
"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis
A number of former AV1611 people, although not a great number, have found their way to a new forum in which I serve: http://www.avbbf.com/
This forum is not as exclusively doctrinal in nature as AV1611, nor is it a playground for dilettantes, as are some other forums (I am not referring to this one). We try to strike a balance.
Interesting... Your theological points include the following statement: "We believe that the Authorized Version of the Bible, commonly called the King James Bible of 1611, as edited and standardized in 1769, is God's perfect and unique word,"
Bible"protector" disagrees and sets up the so-called PCE (1900s) as the "standard."
Why do KJVOs narrow their views to particular editions?
If a particular edition is the "standard," would it not be evident to all KJVOs?
__________________ Simply observing the floccinoccinihilipilification of the KJVO movement.
A number of former AV1611 people, although not a great number, have found their way to a new forum in which I serve: http://www.avbbf.com/
This forum is not as exclusively doctrinal in nature as AV1611, nor is it a playground for dilettantes, as are some other forums (I am not referring to this one). We try to strike a balance.
14. We specifically and emphatically disavow the man-made "theologies" of Roman Catholicism, Five-Point Calvinism, Mormonism, Pentecostalism, Hyper-Dispensationalism, extreme Arminianism, and any other human scheme of interpretation which varies from the teachings of the Bible. Although we disavow these doctrines, we have no contempt for, or hostility toward, those who sincerely believe them. We will, of course, seek to persuade them, in charity, following God's invitation to "come, and let us reason together."
15. We are dispensationalists and believe in "rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15)
Sigh. Thankfully there are AV adherents that embrace the covenantal and Reformed teachings from Scripture.
A number of former AV1611 people, although not a great number, have found their way to a new forum in which I serve: http://www.avbbf.com/
This forum is not as exclusively doctrinal in nature as AV1611, nor is it a playground for dilettantes, as are some other forums (I am not referring to this one). We try to strike a balance.
It's good that ya reject the false pseudo/quasi-Christian cults & their beliefs, butcha saddle yerselves with this false, man-made doctrine:
17. We believe that the Authorized Version of the Bible, commonly called the King James Bible of 1611, as edited and standardized in 1769, is God's perfect and unique word,
It's unique, as is every version, but it aint perfect. We have shownya two proven goofs, "Easter" in Acts 12:4, & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. There are others, but no KJVO can get past either of these.
and His final propositional revelation to man in the English language; that it supercedes the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts from which it was translated; A translation CANNOT supercede its SOURCE. It's absurd to believe so.
that all English versions of the Bible since 1769 are counterfeits and frauds;
PATENTLY FALSE!
and that the Authorized King James Bible is God's perfect word,
I just showedya above that it aint perfect.
and the only rule of faith and practice.
For old fuddy-duddies who believe a MAN-MADE DOCTRINE over the acts of GOD.
We believe that there are reliable versions and unreliable versions in other languages;
Ya got THAT much right, anyway.
but that where any of these conflict with, or contradict, the King James Bible, the King James Bible is the standard against which all others must be measured.
Ridiculous.
We specifically disavow allegiance to "the original autographs," because God, in His wisdom, did not choose to preserve them.
But He DID preserve copies thereof, which are closer to the autographa than any translation. Now, what will ya say if God DID preserve some of the autigrapha & they are discovered, & found to be in conflict with some things in the KJV? Remember, the KJV, Textus Receptus, and "Majority text" DO NOT MATCH.
The Authorized Version, called the King James Bible, is God's unique, preserved, and perfect propositional revelation, for which we thank Him, and which we strive to study, learn, and obey.
The KJV is nothing more than a 400-yr. old English translation of God's word, no more 'inspired' and holier than any other valid translation. It was written in the English of its day, which is long-past. Just as GOD made His word available in the English of that day, He now has it available in OUR English. That's an indisputable truth.
We have shown the readers where the current KJVO myth comes from...it's ENTIRELY MAN-MADE. You CANNOT prove any differently.
It amazes me that you dudes & dudettes can rightly reject the man-made hooey of the cults, but believe a doctrine that's just as man-made and false as anything the Roamin' Calf-Licks, Jabroney False Witlesses, Seven-Day Ad-Libbers, Morons, or any of these cults comes up with...the KJVO myth, which has less Scripturalsupport than many of the dox you reject!
Do I hear the words "DOUBLE STANDARD" in the background?
__________________
"robycop3 - the avowed enemy of ALL man-made doctrines of worship!"
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Now that AV1611 has been closed, where did everyone go?
Linear Mode
