Rex, you said in your recent post:
"I meant Aramaic was "more" modern than ancient Hebrew... It is you that assumed that I was implying it was widely in use today... I know Aramaic is not that modern..."
But what you said earlier was:
"I might also mention that the new testament was written in Aramaic(Modern Hebrew) first before it was written into Greek..."
How could this be understood as anything but the assertion that Aramaic is modern Hebrew? They aren't even the same language. You might as well have said (I'm making up the document) "I might also mention that the new journal was written in Greek(Latin) first before it was written into Italian..." This has nothing to do with modern of ancient. Aramaic is not a form of Hebrew. Hebrew is not a form of Aramaic. The statement you made was not clear. If you were clear, there would be no cloud preventing me from understanding what you meant. You'll notice that in my post I also address all of the other issues.
Quote:I was saying the new testament was written in Aramaic before it was translated (by the apostles themselves) into Greek...
By the apostles themselves? How do you know the apostles had any connection to the texts at all? I'm sure you're more familiar with the issues involving the Greek Testament than you are with the issues involving the Tanach so I'm not going to link you to anything. And I'm sure you're also aware of why I might find your position a bit hard to swallow. But if we discuss this we're getting very far from Genesis and should probably start a new thread.
Quote:Well, have a nice prayer... we can split hairs when you get back. thx
Thank you. It's more like a complete day off from the things that tie me to the world of doing instead of just being but I will indeed pray.
Dauer
