My Bible's more correct than your Bible

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mark did not write in either of those languages! Try learning Aramaic as well

And more nonsense.

 

[James the Persian]

Mark did not write in either of those languages! Try learning Aramaic as well

As Jay said, nonsense. Mark's Gospel was written in Koine (Greek). However, you're half right. None of the New Testament was written in Latin, so learning that language won't help you understand the original texts, though it will help you read early western translations.

James

 

[Merlin]

So you thinka guy who lived in Jerusalem and listen to Peter spoke and wrote fluent Greek? What language do you think Peter spoke? Indeed, what language do you think Jesus spoke?

 

[James the Persian]

So you thinka guy who lived in Jerusalem and listen to Peter spoke and wrote fluent Greek? What language do you think Peter spoke? Indeed, what language do you think Jesus spoke?

Well, given that Koine was the lingua franca of the entire eastern mediterranean and that there was a huge diaspora Jewish community using Koine as both its common and liturgical language (the Septuagint translation was their version of the scriptures and had been for about 300 years - it was also the original Old Testament of the Church) it's not such a difficult thing to believe is it? It's no less likely than a modern Israeli learning English to get on better in business.

In fact, if you ever troubled yourself to learn both Aramaic and Koine and were to read the texts in their original language, you'd see that the level of Greek knowledge (and the use of Aramaicisms) varies greatly from author to author. None of the texts were written in Aramaic. In fact the only early Aramaic text, the Pe****ta, is a translation from Koine (and is a sort of combination of all four Gospels). Seems like you need to do more reading on the origins and authors of the New Testament, to be honest.

James

 

[Merlin]

Well, given that Koine was the lingua franca of the entire eastern mediterranean and that there was a huge diaspora Jewish community using Koine as both its common and liturgical language (the Septuagint translation was their version of the scriptures and had been for about 300 years - it was also the original Old Testament of the Church) it's not such a difficult thing to believe is it? It's no less likely than a modern Israeli learning English to get on better in business.

In fact, if you ever troubled yourself to learn both Aramaic and Koine and were to read the texts in their original language, you'd see that the level of Greek knowledge (and the use of Aramaicisms) varies greatly from author to author. None of the texts were written in Aramaic. In fact the only early Aramaic text, the Pe****ta, is a translation from Koine (and is a sort of combination of all four Gospels). Seems like you need to do more reading on the origins and authors of the New Testament, to be honest.

James

what dates are you talking about? the translation was largely of interest to those living in Egypt. I don't think the Jews in Jerusalem ever changed from Hebrew scrolls

 

[James the Persian]

what dates are you talking about? the translation was largely of interest to those living in Egypt. I don't think the Jews in Jerusalem ever changed from Hebrew scrolls

Did you miss the word 'diaspora'? Obviously the Jews in Palestine didn't use the Septuagint because they weren't part of the diaspora. However, it was used a lot more widely than just Egypt - pretty much throughout the Roman Empire, in fact, and certainly in Greece, Asia Minor, Italy, Gaul and the Iberian peninsular.

I don't think I actually referred to any dates in my post. The Septuagint translations date from between 300 and 100 BC, though, if that's what you meant. The Pe****ta is, I believe, mid to late 2nd century, though I'd have to look it up to be certain.

James

 

[Merlin]

Did you miss the word 'diaspora'? Obviously the Jews in Palestine didn't use the Septuagint because they weren't part of the diaspora. However, it was used a lot more widely than just Egypt - pretty much throughout the Roman Empire, in fact, and certainly in Greece, Asia Minor, Italy, Gaul and the Iberian peninsular.

I don't think I actually referred to any dates in my post. The Septuagint translations date from between 300 and 100 BC, though, if that's what you meant. The Pe****ta is, I believe, mid to late 2nd century, though I'd have to look it up to be certain.

James

Aramaic Language, Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. Originally the language of the Aramaeans (see Aram), it was used, in many dialectical forms, in Mesopotamia and Syria before 1000BC and later became the lingua franca of the Middle East (see Assyro-Babylonian Language). Aramaic survived the fall of Nineveh (612BC) and Babylon (539BC) and remained the official language of the Persian Empire (539-337BC). Ancient inscriptions in Aramaic have been found over a vast area extending from Egypt to China.

Before the Christian era, Aramaic had become the language of the Jews in Palestine. Jesus preached in Aramaic, and parts of the Old Testament and much of the rabbinical literature were written in that language. Christian Aramaic, usually called Syriac, also developed an extensive literature, especially from the 4th to 7th centuries.

Aramaic began to decline in the 7th century AD. Aramaic survives today in Eastern and Western dialects, mostly as the language of Christians living in a few scattered communities in Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.

[From Encyclopaedia Britannica]

so Jesus certainly spoke in Aramaic, so if He wrote anything it would be in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

[James the Persian]

Aramaic Language, Semitic language closely related to Hebrew. Originally the language of the Aramaeans (see Aram), it was used, in many dialectical forms, in Mesopotamia and Syria before 1000BC and later became the lingua franca of the Middle East (see Assyro-Babylonian Language). Aramaic survived the fall of Nineveh (612BC) and Babylon (539BC) and remained the official language of the Persian Empire (539-337BC). Ancient inscriptions in Aramaic have been found over a vast area extending from Egypt to China.

Before the Christian era, Aramaic had become the language of the Jews in Palestine. Jesus preached in Aramaic, and parts of the Old Testament and much of the rabbinical literature were written in that language. Christian Aramaic, usually called Syriac, also developed an extensive literature, especially from the 4th to 7th centuries.

Aramaic began to decline in the 7th century AD. Aramaic survives today in Eastern and Western dialects, mostly as the language of Christians living in a few scattered communities in Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.

[From Encyclopaedia Britannica]

so Jesus certainly spoke in Aramaic, so if He wrote anything it would be in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

And? What's that supposed to prove? The fact that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Persian Empire hardly has any bearing on what happened hundreds of years later when the area was dominated by Rome, and before that the Greek culture of Alexander the Great and, in Egypt, the Ptolemaic dynasty (and the majority of the areas I mentioned never fell under the Persian Empire even at its apogee). Western Europe has likewise had several different common languages during different historical periods.

There were certainly Aramaic speaking Christian communities, hence the need for the Pe****ta. In fact there still are, in both my own Church and the Oriental Orthodox church, parishes that use Aramaic as their liturgical language, but what relevance this is supposed to have to the original language of the New Testament escapes me. The problem for your argument is this - if the scriptures were written in Aramaic (for which you haven't produced a single shred of evidence) why on earth did early Aramaic speaking Christians have to produce the translation from Koine that is the Pe****ta?

Oh, and I don't think anyone here has ever denied that Christ spoke Aramaic - it's clear that He did - but He didn't write the Gospels or, indeed, any of the New Testament, so this has no more bearing on the argument than if I were to say that the original manuscript of Julius Caesar was in Latin because, whilst the author (Shakespeare) was an English speaker, the subject of the play was Roman and would have spoken Latin. It's a completely nonsensical argument.

James

 

[Merlin]

And? What's that supposed to prove? The fact that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Persian Empire hardly has any bearing on what happened hundreds of years later when the area was dominated by Rome, and before that the Greek culture of Alexander the Great and, in Egypt, the Ptolemaic dynasty (and the majority of the areas I mentioned never fell under the Persian Empire even at its apogee). Western Europe has likewise had several different common languages during different historical periods.

There were certainly Aramaic speaking Christian communities, hence the need for the Pe****ta. In fact there still are, in both my own Church and the Oriental Orthodox church, parishes that use Aramaic as their liturgical language, but what relevance this is supposed to have to the original language of the New Testament escapes me. The problem for your argument is this - if the scriptures were written in Aramaic (for which you haven't produced a single shred of evidence) why on earth did early Aramaic speaking Christians have to produce the translation from Koine that is the Pe****ta?

Oh, and I don't think anyone here has ever denied that Christ spoke Aramaic - it's clear that He did - but He didn't write the Gospels or, indeed, any of the New Testament, so this has no more bearing on the argument than if I were to say that the original manuscript of Julius Caesar was in Latin because, whilst the author (Shakespeare) was an English speaker, the subject of the play was Roman and would have spoken Latin. It's a completely nonsensical argument.

James

I thought we were only talking about the early gospels? Did the original writings of Mark and Luke survive?

Obviously the very first writings of Paul would be either Latin or Greek as he was a Roman citizen.

Before the Christian era, Aramaic had become the language of the Jews in Palestine. Jesus preached in Aramaic, and parts of the Old Testament and much of the rabbinical literature were written in that language. Christian Aramaic, usually called Syriac, also developed an extensive literature, especially from the 4th to 7th centuries.

who knows?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I thought we were only talking about the early gospels?

Therefore?

 

[James the Persian]

I thought we were only talking about the early gospels? Did the original writings of Mark and Luke survive?

Obviously the very first writings of Paul would be either Latin or Greek as he was a Roman citizen.

Before the Christian era, Aramaic had become the language of the Jews in Palestine. Jesus preached in Aramaic, and parts of the Old Testament and much of the rabbinical literature were written in that language. Christian Aramaic, usually called Syriac, also developed an extensive literature, especially from the 4th to 7th centuries.

who knows?

Paul certainly wrote in Koine and not Latin. All of the Gospels were likewise written in Koine and, as I said, certain New Testament writings show evidence that the author's first language was not Koine. The Koine texts are the originals and the Aramaic ones are translations of them. This is the standard belief of the Church and I know of no evidence whatsoever that contradicts this - you certainly haven't provided any. Actually, the fact that Aramaic Christian literature had its heyday between the 4th and 7th centuries supports my position, not yours - the entire New Testament was already complete by that period. It's also worth noting that the vast majority, and possibly all, of the New Testament texts were written outside Palestine. Certainly the writings of Paul and John, and the fact that Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria - where even the Jews spoke Koine - would certainly suggest that he used the language. Luke's close association with Paul also suggests that he would have been familiar with the Koine speaking diaspora Jews and so it's no great stretch to suppose that he knew and used the language. In any case, from an evangelistic point of view (which is of obvious relevance to the Gospels), Koine, as a major common language of the Empire, would certainly have been far superior to Aramaic, which few people outside the Roman Middle East would have spoken. I'm afraid it falls to you to provide some evidence for your supposed Aramaic Gospels if you expect us to take you seriously. The weight of evidence seems firmly against you and you have yet to provide a single scrap of counter evidence.

James

 

[Merlin]

Paul certainly wrote in Koine and not Latin. All of the Gospels were likewise written in Koine and, as I said, certain New Testament writings show evidence that the author's first language was not Koine. The Koine texts are the originals and the Aramaic ones are translations of them. This is the standard belief of the Church and I know of no evidence whatsoever that contradicts this - you certainly haven't provided any. Actually, the fact that Aramaic Christian literature had its heyday between the 4th and 7th centuries supports my position, not yours - the entire New Testament was already complete by that period. It's also worth noting that the vast majority, and possibly all, of the New Testament texts were written outside Palestine. Certainly the writings of Paul and John, and the fact that Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria - where even the Jews spoke Koine - would certainly suggest that he used the language. Luke's close association with Paul also suggests that he would have been familiar with the Koine speaking diaspora Jews and so it's no great stretch to suppose that he knew and used the language. In any case, from an evangelistic point of view (which is of obvious relevance to the Gospels), Koine, as a major common language of the Empire, would certainly have been far superior to Aramaic, which few people outside the Roman Middle East would have spoken. I'm afraid it falls to you to provide some evidence for your supposed Aramaic Gospels if you expect us to take you seriously. The weight of evidence seems firmly against you and you have yet to provide a single scrap of counter evidence.

James

why you are up tight about this I am not now sure, but

"Before the Christian era, Aramaic had become the language of the Jews in Palestine. Jesus preached in Aramaic, and parts of the Old Testament and much of the rabbinical literature were written in that language" EB

It does not say only between 4th and 7th, but from pre-christian to then. OK?

k

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Before the Christian era, Aramaic had become the language of the Jews in Palestine. Jesus preached in Aramaic, and parts of the Old Testament and much of the rabbinical literature were written in that language" EB

What does this have to do with the New Testament?

 

[Merlin]

What does this have to do with the New Testament?

sorry, I will spell it out.

I was making the point that if Aramaic was the language pre Christian, and Aramaic was the language in the fourth century, why did it disappear in the middle?

But I am not actually uptight about it?

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

The traditional Christian church tells us that the Bible is written by God. That is completely false. The Bible was written by man. The Bible is mostly man's interpretation of God, not God's direct revelation.

It must also be understood that the Bible was written 2000 years ago and is outdated to a certain extent. The Bible is a fantastic book, however the real problem comes in who is "interpreting" it. The interpretation of the Christian church as to what the Bible says are incredibly confused, and distorted. They will come to your door and tell you it is right in the Bible. It is not right in the Bible, it is in their interpretation of the Bible.

It also must be understood that the people who ran the church would actually extract and cut out the things from the Bible that they didn't like. An example of this is reincarnation. The bible used to be filled with references to reincarnation. In 505 AD. the Ecumenical Council made a decree to extract all references to reincarnation from the Bible. This is an "indisputable fact", for it is in the minutes of the meeting, which can be looked up in the appropriate historical reference book.

Secondly, this belief is just a product of their incredible self righteousness. They actually believe that the Bible and teachings of Jesus is the only path to God. All other religions and spiritual Masters, such as Buddha, Krishna, Sai Baba, Hinduism, Judaism, the Islamic faith are all of the devil.

They say they follow the teachings of Jesus who clearly preached unconditional love. Yet this group is one of the most conditionally love, judgmental, intolerant, attacking, self righteous, group of people on planet earth. Their religion is based on fear and guilt. Anything that goes wrong, they believe, is God punishing you.

The Christian church is doing the exact same thing the Jewish religion did with the coming of Christ 2000 years ago. The Jewish religion remained stuck in the law, and didn't allow themselves to evolve to the next dispensation of truth. The traditional Christian church is now doing the exact same thing.

 

[Merlin]

The traditional Christian church tells us that the Bible is written by God. That is completely false. The Bible was written by man. The Bible is mostly man's interpretation of God, not God's direct revelation.

It must also be understood that the Bible was written 2000 years ago and is outdated to a certain extent. The Bible is a fantastic book, however the real problem comes in who is "interpreting" it. The interpretation of the Christian church as to what the Bible says are incredibly confused, and distorted. They will come to your door and tell you it is right in the Bible. It is not right in the Bible, it is in their interpretation of the Bible.

It also must be understood that the people who ran the church would actually extract and cut out the things from the Bible that they didn't like. An example of this is reincarnation. The bible used to be filled with references to reincarnation. In 505 AD. the Ecumenical Council made a decree to extract all references to reincarnation from the Bible. This is an "indisputable fact", for it is in the minutes of the meeting, which can be looked up in the appropriate historical reference book.

Secondly, this belief is just a product of their incredible self righteousness. They actually believe that the Bible and teachings of Jesus is the only path to God. All other religions and spiritual Masters, such as Buddha, Krishna, Sai Baba, Hinduism, Judaism, the Islamic faith are all of the devil.

They say they follow the teachings of Jesus who clearly preached unconditional love. Yet this group is one of the most conditionally love, judgmental, intolerant, attacking, self righteous, group of people on planet earth. Their religion is based on fear and guilt. Anything that goes wrong, they believe, is God punishing you.

The Christian church is doing the exact same thing the Jewish religion did with the coming of Christ 2000 years ago. The Jewish religion remained stuck in the law, and didn't allow themselves to evolve to the next dispensation of truth. The traditional Christian church is now doing the exact same thing.

Well said. I agree with most of that, although of course lots of the Bible was written much longer ago than 2000 years. The oral tradition through which Genesis was handed down began in the Bronze Age.

Probably where I would divert from what I think you said it is that you are (I believe) trying to replace a whole series of (what you call) bigoted religions and sects with your own 'definite views'. You have to admit that you may be right, but you have no more proof of being right than any of the others.

It is possible that God, in his wisdom, sent enough religions so that we can all find one in which we are comfortable. The most important thing is to get through to Him. If you need Jesus to get there, then do so. If you need the teachings of Muhammad (peace be upon him), then worship within Islam.

 

[Scott1]

They say they follow the teachings of Jesus who clearly preached unconditional love. Yet this group is one of the most conditionally love, judgmental, intolerant, attacking, self righteous, group of people on planet earth. Their religion is based on fear and guilt. Anything that goes wrong, they believe, is God punishing you.

Having a bad day?.... Sheesh..

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Having a bad day?.... Sheesh..

Bad day? No, I am having a wonderful day. That which I posted is from my past experience with Chrisitans.

They say they follow the teachings of Jesus who clearly preached unconditional love. Yet this group is one of the most conditionally love, judgmental, intolerant, attacking, self righteous, group of people on planet earth. Their religion is based on fear and guilt. Anything that goes wrong, they believe, is God punishing you.

It is what the Christians teach. My grandfather went to his grave not forgiving me for having sex before marriage. I see Christians picketing and spouting judgement towards homosexuals. I am not judging the Christians or the doctrines, merely making observations.

 

[Scott1]

Bad day? No, I am having a wonderful day. That which I posted is from my past experience with Chrisitans.

I'm glad you are having a wonderful day.

It is what the Christians teach. My grandfather went to his grave not forgiving me for having sex before marriage. I see Christians picketing and spouting judgement towards homosexuals. It is not a judgement, but an observation.

Ummmm... I can feel the love..... have fun with your observations... and I'll pray that you come to the same level of peace and tolerance that you are trying to project onto "Christians ".

In Christ,
Scott

 

[Katzpur]

Secondly, this belief is just a product of their incredible self righteousness. They actually believe that the Bible and teachings of Jesus is the only path to God. All other religions and spiritual Masters, such as Buddha, Krishna, Sai Baba, Hinduism, Judaism, the Islamic faith are all of the devil.

They say they follow the teachings of Jesus who clearly preached unconditional love. Yet this group is one of the most conditionally love, judgmental, intolerant, attacking, self righteous, group of people on planet earth. Their religion is based on fear and guilt. Anything that goes wrong, they believe, is God punishing you.

Hi, Spirit.

Gosh, I've been around here for six months now and somehow I never noticed how strongly you feel about Christians. I really wish you wouldn't paint us all with one brush, because I certainly don't see myself as the kind of person you're describing. If I am, I've got a lot of work to do to change.

Kathryn