This sounds interesting

@EclipseEventSigns @praise_yeshua thank you both for displaying how a cordial and respectful discussion can happen on a forum. I really appreciate that we can discuss our differences in a friedly manner as we all seek after truth and share our thoughts and ideas about what we have learned and been taught in our spiritual / faith journeys. Thanks for being a good example to us all that we can emulate.
 
The ONLY reason I engaged with you yesterday is that after an initial comment where you displayed this present type of attitude, you actually responded without ad hominems and disrespect but actually presented your views in a discussion. The way this forums rules state it should be conducted.
I have heard everything you responded with before. Researched it all. And I'm quite confident you have not heard my complete take on things before - because no one has come to the conclusions that I have. Believe me, I have searched. There are no other scholars because all of them either are still tied to false church tradition or if they accept alternate views, they have a very faulty view of Scripture.
This is not the way I would like to be treated in discussions and I choose to remove myself - unless there is evidence of a change in attitude.

I believe this is relative to your comments on dating. I take each topic as its own own individual component to be challenged.

I will choose my words more wisely. This is a complex discussion and my intent was to simply challenge your certainty. I hope you can see that.
 
The messed up calendar:

In September 1752, eleven days were removed from the calendar. This was because the earlier version of the calendar, the Roman Julian Calendar, was 11 days longer than the Gregorian Calendar. The New Year was also moved from March 25 to Jan 1st at this time. The removal of the 11 days caused riots in villages because people thought the government was trying to cheat them out of 11 days of their lives. [BingChat]
The term "messed up" gives the impression that things were in chaos and in complete disarray. Actually, the problem was well understood - for centuries. They needed a recognized authority to enact wide ranging corrections. And at the time, that still was the Pope of the Roman Church.

Notice that in the link you shared, there is nothing about changing the day of the week. One day it was a certain date and the following weekday they proclaimed it a different date. No changing of the weekday.

This calendar correction is well known. It's in all accurate date converters. It's not some mystery. It's one of the reasons for the invention of the Julian Day system. This is not the same as the Julian Calendar. A Julian Day is a specific number assigned to a particular day in history. It refers to the same day whether in Julian calendar, Gregorian calendar, Babylonian, Jewish, Greek, Aztec...... It makes calendar math much more easy. And it's one of the ways to show that there has been no shifting of weekdays.
 
I believe this is relative to your comments on dating. I take each topic as its own own individual component to be challenged.

I will choose my words more wisely. This is a complex discussion and my intent was to simply challenge your certainty. I hope you can see that.
Ok. Thanks for that. If I can ask that you rephrase your previous challenges, we could continue.
 
Ok. Thanks for that. If I can ask that you rephrase your previous challenges, we could continue.

Acts 17 presents a clear "picture" of what language was used in the OT "manuscripts" searched in the early church.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
 
There's no doubt the Christians started using the LXX and the Jews hated that, and began altering or suppressing it.

The LXX has some original readings and beautiful wording, but also some really obviously bad mistakes and mistranslations.

We should just take it for what it is, not more, not less.
 
There's no doubt the Christians started using the LXX and the Jews hated that, and began altering or suppressing it.

The LXX has some original readings and beautiful wording, but also some really obviously bad mistakes and mistranslations.

We should just take it for what it is, not more, not less.

Some of those mistakes are because of the efforts of Jerome to produce the Vulgate. If he had never produced the Vulgate, the LXX wouldn't have been abandoned like it was in some very important areas of the world. Augustine basically begged Jerome to not reject the LXX. I'm not promoting men over anything but I give Augustine the credit for resisting Jerome.

There are difficult choices to be made with the LXX but there are equally difficult choices to be made with the MT. I give the "edge" to the LXX but I don't reject the MT entirely. I simply point out the lack of certainty in some areas so people will embrace the LXX and just not blindly reject it as being inferior. (Not saying anyone is doing just that here).
 
Last edited:
It's hard to get over the original language is just one level closer to a translation of it...?

Do you have an idea that Hebrew was heavily corrupted somewhere or deliberately sabotaged?
 
It's hard to get over the original language is just one level closer to a translation of it...?

Do you have an idea that Hebrew was heavily corrupted somewhere or deliberately sabotaged?

I believe Greek is a worthy language "on par/superior" to what is surviving in Hebrew. I believe expert Jews accurately translated Hebrew in the Torah in the original LXX. Which is itself a witness to the LXX residing still today. If you go back and try to find a witness to the "Torah" distinction in contrast to the "prophets", you can't find it before the work of the seventy. In fact, Josephus actually appealed to work of the 70 in the Torah. Which is one of the reasons I often ask someone to actually quote with Josephus wrote. There are many false claims out there about him.

I believe issues were introduced before and after the dispersion of the Jews. If you take a look at the historical records we have of "proto-Hebrew" vs the block script use of modern Hebrew (which is found in the MT and DSS) you will see a dramatic difference. In fact, proto-Hebrew is not easily recognized because it is so vastly different in script.

Some try to make a connection between the "streams" of texts in Aramaic to early church but they are tenuous at best. There is no internal evidence for it in the extant NT. There is for the LXX.

Just a summary. It is topic I enjoy. Just my penny.
 
I believe issues were introduced before and after the dispersion of the Jews. If you take a look at the historical records we have of "proto-Hebrew" vs the block script use of modern Hebrew (which is found in the MT and DSS) you will see a dramatic difference. In fact, proto-Hebrew is not easily recognized because it is so vastly different in script.

You do realize the Greek alphabet was also originally adopted from Phoenician?

The form of a letter is not going to somehow affect the meaning of words.... seems like a poor argument.
 
Acts 17 presents a clear "picture" of what language was used in the OT "manuscripts" searched in the early church.

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
You state there is a clear picture stated in Acts 17. I assume you mean Greek as that is something you highlighted in the verse. However, it is quite clear that the word translated as "Greek" is referring to type of people group and not the language of the scriptures they were diligently searching. There is not an absolute statement here as you seem to be suggesting.

As with most things, an accurate understanding comes from investigating the entire subject, not just a single verse. Luke is very particular in describing classes of people who he is referring to. He is consistent through the entire book of Acts.

Ioudaîos - Jews, ethnically Jewish - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2453/lsb/mgnt/0-1/
For example Acts 17:17

sebo hellen
God-fearing - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4576/lsb/mgnt/0-1/
Greeks - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1672/lsb/mgnt/0-1/
Those other than Jews; that is, gentiles. Not necessarily ethnic Greek. But in general, people of the world. But represented as Greek since that was the lingua franca of the Roman empire.
For example Acts 17:4
Sometimes Luke refers to them as proselytes - those gentiles who adopted Judaism.
God-fearing proselytes as in Acts 2:10, Acts 13:43

The narrative in Acts 17 is describing the difference of behaviour to the Gospel in two cities - Thessalonica and Berea.
[Act 17:1-2 LSB] 1 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
...later...
[Act 17:10 LSB] 10 And the brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
...and even later in Athens:
[Act 17:17 LSB] 17 So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing [Gentiles], and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be present.
...and even more later:
[Act 18:7 LSB] 7 Then he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a God-fearer, whose house was next to the synagogue.

Always connected with the synagogue in each of the particular areas. Always with Jewish culture.

The particular verse that was referenced: [Act 17:12 LSB] 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with not a few prominent Greek women and men.
It's actually saying that many of the Jews in the synagogue believed. "Along with", as in, a number of lesser amount made up of prominent women and not a few Greek (gentile) men. (I state the adjectives this way as that is what the Greek texts actually states).

This passage can not be used to give evidence that the Old Testament in Greek was the main language that was being searched by these believers. Evidences of what language was in use has to be built up in other ways, but that is not the point of this comment.
 
Last edited:
You do realize the Greek alphabet was also originally adopted from Phoenician?

Where the Scriptures written in Phoenician and transitioned to Greek. I don't believe your appeal actually matches the circumstances of what happened. This is exactly what Hebrew Onlyists claim. They claim the dramatic change in script did not change the alphabet. Which is utter ridiculous.

The form of a letter is not going to somehow affect the meaning of words.... seems like a poor argument.

You just made an argument against the transition from Phoenician to Greek yet you're ignore that is exactly what happened between the proto-Hebrew and block script Hebrew.

Which one is it? I can't possible see anyone studying proto-Hebrew and seeing a natural unobstructed translation to block-script Hebrew.

Just how do you know the alphabet didn't change. It is rather obvious that it must have changed.
 
This passage can not be used to give evidence that the Old Testament in Greek was the main language that was being searched by these believers. Evidences of what language was in use has to be built up in other ways, but that is not the point of this comment.

Even if it did, it would not further prove a special or superior inspiration or accuracy.
 
Which one is it? I can't possible see anyone studying proto-Hebrew and seeing a natural unobstructed translation to block-script Hebrew.

You give no reason why?

Just how do you know the alphabet didn't change. It is rather obvious that it must have changed.

Rather obvious?

I've never even heard of it before, lol.

I can show you old English texts where the letters are different, but the words are the same... how is that proof of anything.


The rest of your points I could not figure out what you were saying.
 
You state there is a clear picture stated in Acts 17. I assume you mean Greek as that is something you highlighted in the verse. However, it is quite clear that the word translated as "Greek" is referring to type of people group and not the language of the scriptures they were diligently searching. There is not an absolute statement here as you seem to be suggesting.

Are you actually claiming this "Greek" people spoke Aramaic and searched the Aramaic Scriptures? Please be clear. It is rather obvious they didn't. They were Greek. It would be a very rare oddity for them to know and search Aramaic references.

Always connected with the synagogue in each of the particular areas. Always with Jewish culture.

These Jews spoke Greek. These Jews shared their Scriptures with the Greek culture. You're insisting that Greek people fluently speak Aramaic.

The particular verse that was referenced: [Act 17:12 LSB] 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with not a few prominent Greek women and men.
It's actually saying that many of the Jews in the synagogue believed. "Along with", as in, a number of lesser amount made up of prominent women and not a few Greek (gentile) men. (I state the adjectives this way as that is what the Greek texts actually states).

This passage can not be used to give evidence that the Old Testament in Greek was the main language that was being searched by these believers. Evidences of what language was in use has to be built up in other ways, but that is not the point of this comment.

You left out "not a few". The grammatical construct of the statement does not establish a separate group of "Greek women" and "Greek men".

From the ESV = Act 17:12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

Not a few Greek women and men.

Also, the next verse present a scenario wherein the "Jews" you referenced began to argue with these people. There is no appeal to any "translation issues".

Act 17:13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds.

Notice the inclusion of the CROWD as one reference. No mention whatsoever about an inaccurate translation. Which excludes the possibility of an alternate rendering. They all shared the same reference. Which was Greek. They all understood the same language. In fact, Paul was conversing with them in Greek.....

Paul later silenced the descenter when he spoke to them in the Hebrew tongue.

Act 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,
 
You give no reason why?

Do you expect me to post a reference to proto-Hebrew script? Have you reviewed the script before? I believe if you review the archeological evidence, you will see the dramatic differences.

Rather obvious?

I've never even heard of it before, lol.

Must not be true then..... :)


I can show you old English texts where the letters are different, but the words are the same... how is that proof of anything.


The rest of your points I could not figure out what you were saying.

English is a "cluster" of German, French and Latin" influence. Old English is primarily a German language. The alphabet between Old English and Modern English is significantly different.

Point of interest with English.... Webster tried to "standardize" English with his dictionary. It didn't work. Words have changed significantly in the English language throughout history. There is a reason you find "mansion" in the NT associated with some early English NT translation. It is because the translators injected their bias for the Latin language into the translation. This has happened many times throughout history and with many different languages.

Another point of interest. The reason we even know ancient Egyptian symbols is because of our extensive knowledge of Greek and the Rosetta Stone. (not the software) :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom