quote:
Do you even pay attention to what you write???
Certainly. I must pay attention, because you do not.
quote:
Please, sort out your "original" language and earliest "translation" language.
It is you who are confused.
Please show me where I stated that the OT was ORIGINALLY in greek. I stated that the septuagint is the oldest we've got. It is a translation. It is still the oldest we've got. Please pay attention. Hubris and idiocy are poor bedfellows.
quote:
They can't be the same, can they? I mean, you don't write Bible in Septuagint and then translate it to Septuagint, do you?
?????? Write it in 'septuagint'? The 'septuagint' isn't a language. It is the name of a book. The 'septuagint' was written in Greek.
quote:
Hmmm... Perhaps you sould read Josephus Flavius
I am aware of what Josephus has to say. Josephus is A source not an infallible one. Let's look at a few things.
quote:
...who actually writes about his own time (and a little bit before that...
In regard to the septuagint, Josephus is actually writing about events which occured three hundred years previously. This is hardly 'writing about his own time.' Josephus, like pretty much all of the historians of the time, recorded what he had heard. That is, he recorded folk tale and legend, as well as fact. Remember the Alamo? Most people 'remember' it incorrectly. The legend has superseded the fact.
quote:
instead of supplying me with Catholic sites and works by Sir Godfrey Driver
It is improper to cite scholars in the field? Please... you sound like a child.
Josephus' account is based in a tradition that started with what is called the
Letter of Aristeas. There are some problems with this letter which you can read about
here. The author clearly dispels the legend, though equivocates on why the septuagint was written.
Here is a nice neat account. Read it. I dare you.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Septuagint.htm
quote:
do you really belive that a country forgot it's own language while living in it's own country?
They weren't a country, nor were they living in 'their' country. The Isrealites had been shuffled around as slaves and chased around as outcasts for many hundreds of years.
quote:
It's like saying Americans forgot English because of too much Chineese imigrants.
More like saying the Chinese immigrants forgot Chisese once they moved to the US. You might want to check the stats. The use of a native tongue drops in the second generation.
hmmm... the majority of native american indians have more or less forgot thier tongues and they are living in 'their' country. In WW2, for example, the US used Navajo(?) as a code because there were only 30-something speakers of the language. The time frame is about right as well.
quote:
I know, I smoke pot sometimes, but what the hell are you smoking?
It is perhaps the fact that I don't smoke pot, or anything else, that I am able to think critically about these things. The pot does explain the blatant disregard for fact and the opting for myth instead.
quote:
Anyways, Hebrew never was a dead language
Nope, but damn close.
quote:
in every period they had some books written in Hebrew (which means it was remembered)
Latin is considered a dead language, yet there are books written in it and some people can read them-- proportionally, very very few people. Thus the need for translations from Latin into other languages. The hebrew of the time was in a similar position.
quote:
After all, how do you think, Israelis in 1948, established their State with Hebrew as their primary language? A Hebrew fairy came by?
Actually, it was a guy named Eliezar Ben Yehuda (1858-1922).
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.morim.com/hebrew_us.htm
You may note:
After ceasing to exist as a spoken language about 250 B.C., it was reborn as a modern language in the 19th century, and today it is the principal language of the State of Israel.
How many people do you think read Hebrew when next to no one spoke it?
quote:
The diference between the two is mostly SPELLING.
Depends on how ancient you mean. Modern Hebrew is based on the Hebrew of the Masoretic more or less. But the Masoretic is between 2500 and 1500 years younger than the original OT, depending on the particular book. We don't have COPIES OLDER THAN THE MASORETIC.
quote:
but there are copies in Hebrew, read something about Dead Sea Scrolls. Once you've done Google research, let me know what you found on the NET.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of the various books of the OT. Frequently very tiny fragments and there are variant versions of the texts represented. I mentioned, in a previous post, that I am aware of this. Perhaps you are not paying attention?
quote:
I mean, I admire your ambition and all but to quote "Sir Godfrey Driver" on ancient hebrew history (taken of an internet site found on google) and automatically assume you are right... hmmmm, no comment...
Actually, I'd bet that I've been researching this longer than you've been out of diapers, or damn near. From what I see, you swallow every myth that comes your way, so maybe you need to do the research now.
quote:
As far as bible code... I really don't care.
LOL.... right.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com