The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 261 guests, and 25 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#133905 02/27/05 06:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Quote
Originally posted by Stephanos I:
During some recent reading and joing in on a Bible Basics class a following question was possed. What text should we as Christians use?
After having done some studies, personally I believe we need another current English Translation based on the LXX. In the NT Jesus and the Apostles quote the OT 350 times, 300 times follow the LXX exactly and the other 50 are either from the Hebrew Text or are paraphrases of the LXX.
Given the fact that the MT (Massoretic Texts) water down the OT quotes concerning the Messiah, I think we really need to consider seriously a return to a reading based on the LXX.

Stephanos I

Any comments?
PS I am also a proponent for the longer canon of the the Septuagint.
Hi Stephanos I,

It is interesting that you use the term 'water down'with reference to the MT of messianic passages. Did you have some evidence of this you could share? Thanks, wg

#133906 02/27/05 08:34 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Actually there are several passage which negate or obscure Christological reference, the most ovious is the change of Parthenos ( a virgin to almah a young woman) shall concieve and bear a son from Isaiah.
Could do a more extensive study of this but have so little time right now.
Stephanos I

#133907 03/12/05 01:31 AM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 217
Quote
Originally posted by Stephanos I:
Actually there are several passage which negate or obscure Christological reference, the most ovious is the change of Parthenos ( a virgin to almah a young woman) shall concieve and bear a son from Isaiah.
Could do a more extensive study of this but have so little time right now.
Stephanos I
Sorry to get back to you after so much time; seems we both are busy! :-)

I find it interesting that one would demand "Christological" significance of Isaiah. The Prophet is clearly talking about a pregnant woman who lived in his day, not a virgin who was yet pregnant, nor a young woman of marriageable age yet pregnant. The Prophet lived only 700 years before Jesus....

The fact is that the LXX (200 B.C.E.) had already been translated, poorly maybe(?). almah really does mean maiden/young woman of marriageable age. To translate properly makes no threat to Christology. Christology is post-Resurrectional! :-) Christology makes little sense if it tries to do so before the death of Christ, never mind His ministry, baptism or birth, yes!

We cannot change the fact that the LXX was on the scene when Our Lord ministered, died and was raised to new life, but we can be faithful translators. Translating faithfully is not a threat to faith, Christological or otherwise.

Not translating faithfully makes more doubters of those who show some interest in Christian Faith but after doing the 'homework' find that we who are already in the Church have been duplicitous.

Wouldn't you agree that is the case? Pax, wg

#133908 03/12/05 03:14 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Not really. I still hold that for the Christian, it is the Septuagint greek translation that is authoratative and not some Hebrew text written or should I say constructed at least 900 years after the death of Christ.
Stephanos I

#133909 03/12/05 06:23 PM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,532
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,532
Hi Ray,

This thread just got opened today after a long burial, so my apologies because I actually didn't see your last post on it until now. Anyway, you wrote back in 2/27 and I am responding 3/12. It is Saturday and Ron is saying...Let's go!...and I am saying "one more post, please." wink

Anyway, you wrote such a kind thing about my post.

Your patience with researching it has done us all well.

I must admit I didn't do much. You are the one who has patiently researched it and I do appreciate your work on the subject.

In your post you also wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In as much as the Catholic Church and early fathers agree that both Daniel and John�s Revelation - were both already fulfilled in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus - it makes no sense to me for others to try and divinate future geopolitical events. Like the meeting you related that you attended - in the history of Christianity that type of interpretation - has never - panned out. That alone should be a hint to us that - it is unworkable and a waste of time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree...
unfortunately many are spending a lot of time on the matter of as you say, 'divinate future geopolitical events'. Ummmm. Now that is an interesting way to express it. I think it seems every so many years it comes to the theology of 'the sky is falling again'...maybe cause there is 'nothing new under the sun'.

So we pray, love them, reflect another interpretation when they will let us, and live on in hope that the pendulum will start swinging again.

I think the obsession many have over interpreting the 'signs of the times' and the focus on that CAN lead to error and distortion and take one's eyes off the teachings of Jesus and off trying to live (sinners as we are) with focus on following Christ and serving others one day at a time in our daily walk. (sorry, run on sentence) I have seen that happen and how the pushing of that thinking can become very presumptous. Actually I think it has been the "end times" since Jesus lived and walked in the hills of Galilee. [Mainly though his warning about the things that would happen referred to the destruction of Jerusalem.] Anyway, as we all face the process of going from death to life again it will be our personal end time and our new beginning. That is good enough for me. Of course, the Lord will come back some day but no one knows the time or the hour.

Theophan(Bob)on our forum here suggested a Lenten meditation a few weeks ago regarding the contemplation of prayerful repentance, contemplating death, grieving over loss, and realizing metanoia . I have been doing that and have let Daniel sort of go for now anyway. And since the sun is finally shining in Arizona we are taking some time to be out in it too. cool

Thanks for your good posting. I assume you are well and may you and Kathy have a fruitful Lent and joyous Easter soon.

I hope you will forgive any misunderstandings we have had as I have forgiven you. I know your intentions have always been good. Being 1/2 German as well as Irish the reasonable side of my nature does prevail. Really! wink

Take care, friend,

Mary Jo

P.S. Am posting a lot on another forum right now - more or less the lighter stuff but still good and meaningful for me, but this one is my forum 'home.' smile Sounds like you are doing something like that, but let us see more of you round here ya hear!! smile

#133910 03/14/05 02:03 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by Porter:
Hi Ray,

I agree...
unfortunately many are spending a lot of time on the matter of as you say, 'divinate future geopolitical events'. Ummmm. Now that is an interesting way to express it. I think it seems every so many years it comes to the theology of 'the sky is falling again'...maybe cause there is 'nothing new under the sun'.

About the last comment in your reply � it is water under the bridge.

As regards Daniel�

Yes� I spent weeks (part time) on it. It is slow going. There is much to study - around it. I can study the Hebrew but that is slow going as it is not native to me.

Fascinating really.

The Babylonian exile - quite a subject. It seems that between the time of Moses and the destruction of the First Temple� things had gone down hill. With the great wealth of the Davidic kingdom and Solomon - Israel had become a wealthy merchant nation and treated Yahweh as if he were a fertility God (like the Canaanites). So - after so many prophets come to warn about how Israel was now a whore - there was, what was called the Deuteronomic Reform (the start of the Pharisees). And all the too-detailed laws of the book of Deuteronomy - were written. (another example of how the OT is not in chronological order).

At first, Jeremiah was all for the reform� but then � since hearts did not change - he turned against the reform which only tended to even more treat God - as a fertility god. �Follow these precepts and it will go well for you.� became the motto of the Deuteronomy reform. The concept of �glory� came into being at that time - where how much wealth and cattle and such you had was your �glory� that measured your holiness. As in the gospels with the man born blind that Jesus gave sight to - when asked - the Pharisees replied ��Why should we believe you - who was born in sin..!� Worldly success became a sign of holiness (being favored by God) and troubles became a sign of sin or punishment for secret sins (remember the speeches in Job?).

A fertility god �If I say my prayers right and observe the ceremonies and keep myself from sin - I should have a smooth life.� How often to we think that way? Often enough.

In any event - because the (now profit seeking) Israelites decided to ignore the Sabbath years (called Jubilee by us) where they were to set slaves free and return all land taken in debit to its original owners (not a real sound economic practice) - and not plant or harvest that year �. so God gave the reason for the exile in 2 Chronicles and in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (here paraphrased) �Because you have ignored the Sabbath years - I will give the land rest - from YOU!�

70 years (according to the First Temple lunar calendar cycles).

Jeremiah says 70 years, Ezekiel says 70 years, 2 Chronicles says 70 years and Daniel himself said he understood Jeremiah�s 70 years. And so 70 years it is and not 490 years.

So the point of the stories about the three cast into the fire and such - have a purpose. The point of them is not so much �have faith is you are unfortunate enough to find yourself persecuted� but more so the point Daniel is making is that (as off posed to the fertility god type concepts) - � Providentially arranged suffering (like being in exile) IS the tool that God uses to purify us. In other words �If you want to be my disciple pick up your cross and follow me.�. The cross - is not optional.

The man born blind - was not �born in sin� - he was born with a �cross� for his own purification.

Do you see the difference? Of course you do.

This makes me think of how many times in our lives - that we treat God as if he were a fertility God. How often - we pray and toe the line - because we expect the results of a - smooth life. And how often we see trivial life problems (being out of work - being sick - etc..) as punishments - or being out-of-favor with God.

In any event - the words translated as �70 weeks of years� is a mistranslation. It is not easy to tell you why� because it has to do with how numbers and formed in the Hebrew language. The same word root is used for the number �seven�, and the word �week�, and year. To form a plural - of a masculine word you give it a masculine extension - to form the plural of a feminine word you give it a feminine extension. Example: in English you just add an �s� to the word. Table (singular) becomes tables (plural). In the English there is only implied gender. In Hebrew there is a real gender (like French). The �trick� Daniel does is he form the plural of a masculine by using the feminine extension (ta-da!)

In English (as well as Hebrew) there are three forms of number.
Singular (one)
Plural (more than one)
And a dual number (feet, eyes, etc�) two feet - two eyes - a pair - a duality.

In the English we can indicate this duality (a pair) by a change in spelling (Example: foot / feet).

Suffice it to say that the real literal translation of the words in question are �seven set-of-seven� and not �seventy weeks of years�. It is the formula for calculating the Sabbath years as it appears within the Temple scroll of the Dead Sea scrolls set.

So where as Daniel already said he understood Jeremiahs �70 years� as the length of Exile - Gabriel does not contradict that (as he would have if he has answered seventy weeks of years - 490). Gabriel replies with the standard Temple formula for calculating Sabbath cycles - which is the same thing Jesus does when he replied to Peter (�How many times should I forgive?� ... �Seventy times seven�). That answer (seventy time seven) is the same formula given in month cycle.

You see - there are four Sabbaths� a cycle.

Sabbath day (every seven)
Sabbath year (every seven)
Great Sabbath year (every seven Sabbath years - 50 years)

And the �perfect� Sabbath cycle that resets it all to begin again (70th year).

That - is all there is of the Sabbath lunar cycle.

If you will to research it go here...
http://www.creation-answers.com/
and email him if you care to. Mention me.

That may not make sense to you because it is according to a Lunar month - 10 lunar months equals one lunar year. A bit of study to learn these cycles and I am not done there yet. This lunar calendar was not used after the exile. The second temple calendar was corrupted due to the necessity of economics (dealing with other nations on an economic basis). The first temple calendar has only been partially recovered by researchers.

How do you calculate each type of Sabbath in the Sabbath cycle?? - by using this one formula Seven set-of-seven.

Except for the base (seven days) all others are found by - seven times seven sets (of whatever type of Sabbath you are counting by). .Seven times seven sets of week-Sabbaths, or seven time seven sets of Sabbath years - or seven times seven sets of great Sabbaths - or seven time seven sets of perfect Sabbath years �. See? It is a �generic� formula for locating any of the Sabbath cycles.

Of course - seven sets of seven - also applies to the seven visions� that is - seven cycles (the seven visions).

Anyway�

As interesting as all that is� it has also dawned on me that - God probably has a reason - that we all begin believing in him - through an idea of a melleniaraisn like �return�. Did we not all begin by believing and expecting some type of - physical face to face accounting of our action. If, regarding all those who expect a millionaires like accounting - if we remove their belief - but yet they have not a more mature belief to replace it with - have we done them - any favors?? Perhaps - not.

There is a Jewish law - �Do not tear down another man�s temple - least he have no place to worship God.� That law is the reason why Israel does not tear down the Dome of the Rock Muslim mosques - and built the third Jewish Temple.

So� while I have made some good progress on the structure of Daniel - is there any wisdom to me - publishing it? Probably - not.

It is a pious zealot attitude which tries to fit historical events with the visions - up to the time of Jesus (490 years). It is a mistake.

Scriptures has three levels of meaning (and three only)

A literal meaning.
A moral meaning.
A spiritual meaning (allegorical or pre-figurative or prophetic meaning).

The literal meaning of Daniel was fulfilled in 70 years (the end of exile and building of the Second Temple).

The moral meaning of Daniel is - providential suffering bringing about spiritual transformation. Pick up - your cross. Metanoia (as you said it so well).

And the prophetic meaning of Daniel is - the immediate events surrounding the life of Jesus Christ (his arrest, crucifixion and resurrection).

The prophetic meaning does not cover 490 years - it really only covers a short time (a few notable events) of Jesus life down here.

The problem with melleiarnist like interpretations � is that they are trying to make the prophetic meaning the - same - as the literal meaning. And so they look to have the literal fulfillment be the same as the prophetic meaning.

The literal meaning (the end of exile and rebuilding the Tempel) is � symbolic � of the prophetic meaning (the last days of the Son of Man - Jesus) - they are not the same thing. Those who misinterpret try like hell to make it - the same thing. They are obsessed with sequential time

The book of Daniel was completely fulfilled literally (end of Babylonian exile), morally (pick up your cross) and prophetically (death and resurrection of the Son of Man).

But - it would do no one much good for me to �publish� any more details on the structure of Daniel and what it means. You, yourself - were on the right track with your interest in a comparison of the Son of Man vision with the Lamb of God vision�. And the last events of Jesus life.

I am sure that if God were here right now - he would advise �Let every man read it and take from it what he needs for his faith.� And it would be wise for me (us) not to disturb that and upset those who, as yet, have no need to dig deeper.

Perhaps the man who needs to dig deeper is at a disadvantage from those who need only simple things to have a vibrant faith.

-ray


-ray
#133911 03/14/05 11:45 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
I am still researching the First Temple formula phrase "seventy time seven-sets-of-seven" and have not yet nailed it down tightly. I am in the ball park. The First Temple relgious calandar is lost to history but a few researchers have reconstructed something partial of it. Enough for me to know that it is a general formula for calculating any Sabbath within the cycle of Sabbaths.

It seems to mean (when used by Daniel and Jesus) to mean "the great day of the Lord" and is not time specific but rather indicates - an expereince not on the level of a physical expereince but a spiritual expereince. A personal expereince to the heart and mind rather than to the body.

That is in the ball park.

-ray


-ray
#133912 03/14/05 04:53 PM
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,293
Likes: 17
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,293
Likes: 17
Wildgoose,

The Hebrew word almah is much like the English word maiden and although it does not directly translate as virgin it does imply virginity just as maiden does. The LXX translator's choice of parthenos is entirely appropriate, and is backed up its use in St. Matthew's Gospel. I also refer you to
http://www.lxx.org/pdfs/stsimeon.pdf

Now the above legend may be met by scorn from the scholarly but the Eastern Churches are unwilling to disregard pious legend because modern scholarship is skeptical.

"I find it interesting that one would demand "Christological" significance of Isaiah. The Prophet is clearly talking about a pregnant woman who lived in his day, not a virgin who was yet pregnant, nor a young woman of marriageable age yet pregnant. The Prophet lived only 700 years before Jesus...."

I find it interesting that anyone would try to remove it. Why anyone would trust the MT which was not begun until the 6th century and not finished until the 10th over the LXX which the early Church and Fathers used I also find interesting.

Fr. Deacon Lance


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
#133913 03/14/05 11:26 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Ray Kaliss invites us to consider that "the NT items were transliterated from the Aramaic to the Greek". Of what conceivable use would such a transliteration be? Who would want to read Aramaic in the Greek alphabet?

On a more serious note, I strongly suggest the excellent book "Invitation to the Septuagint", Jobes and Silva, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, 2000.

Incognitus

#133914 03/15/05 06:29 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by incognitus:
Who would want to read Aramaic in the Greek alphabet?

Incognitus
Maybe - Greeks?

Seriously - the Jewish tendency to transliterate over translate for certain passages is proven beyond a doubt. Clement claims Mark hand delivered his gospel to Alexandria in Hebrew (the current Aramaic is probable what he meant). The Antioch church of the East claims Matthew hand delivered the gospels to them in the original form - Aramaic. These two are the first two churches founded after Jerusalem - that would indicate some originality. If Jesus preferred the Greek of the LXX - I would think he would have directed the apostles in that sentiment. I do not think Jesus just forgot to tell them.

If one considered the witness of early church fathers to be at all accurate - then there - is - witness that all but Luke was originally written in Aramaic - and no witness what so-ever that all gospels were originally Greek. Perhaps some use the early fathers - selectively?

I thank God that we do not have the originals of - anything. The idea of a primacy to any early manuscript is a Protestant concept to break away from the infallibility of the Pope and allow Kings to become heads of their own churches.

Primacy? over what? Church doctrine? Theology?� Impossible. One has to make a difference between theology (can not be attained by human reason or the study of scriptures - because scriptures can not reveal theology or contain theology) and scriptures (a human witness to the - economy - of God�s action in history).

Shall we believe in �scriptures alone� as long as it is our preferred version?

Shall we compete the scholars who claim that the Peshitta has primacy - with the scholars who claim the LXX has primacy - and then throw our salvation in with the winner?

A witness - is a witness - is a human witness (Old or New - Testament) and is not the same thing as that which it is witnessing to. It is other than what it is witnessing to and incapable of containing what it is witnessing to. What can be simpler than the definition of a witness as being fundamentally diffrent from the event witnessed to?

If the New Testement is a witness to the Word of God (John 1:1 said Jesus himself is that Word-Logos) than the New Testiment can not iself be that - Word - but only a witness to it. Scriptures is not the Word of God - it is human witness - to - the the acts of the Word of God. Providence.

Economy� the Providential actions of God within history. Witness - a human testimony as to the events. There is nothing infallible about that human testimony or else it would not be a human testimony. No human testimony can be entirely accurate or fault free. That is why Jewish law demands the witness of three testimonies in any legal matter. So that between the evidence given by three people - some belief can be given to the reconstruction of events (three Aramaic gospels - do you get it? Three Jewish witnesses making their evidence - legitimate.).

Any idea of a �primacy� to any translation or transliteration of scriptures - is a false god in itself. Primacy - over what? Realities of church doctrine?? Scriptures take their meaning from the church - the church does not take its meaning from scriptures. The church never needed scriptures and did very well when it did not have them. So where is the wisdom of defining anything about the church - through an idea of primacy to any version?? �. �Scripture alone� - anyone?? Didn�t we trash-can that method? If not - than we should all become Protestants who already held that belief - for they are far out in front of us.

Keep in mind also - that any translation - begins - with a transliteration. That is a necessity. It is not done any other way. Most questions regarding ambiguities of a translation are resolved by transliterating the original language text.

If one is to claim that Jesus made the LXX perfect despite human use to write it - that is a fundamental violation of free will of its human writers - and that is something the Eastern Church tells us in its theology - God would not do. God never ever - violates human free will. Otherwise we would need to believe Calvin�s explanation of predestination - robots - mindless with no free will. That is not holiness.

If God would have desired a primacy to any manuscripts for Christianity - he would made that be real - and Jesus would have written his own book with his own error free hand. If such a thing were valuable to our salvation - did God forget to do it??

Obviously - God did not think any primacy to any version of scripture was any more important than to each individual church using a copy appropriate to itself and its task within its own culture.

In fact I would say it was the hand of Providence - which intentional disallows any primacy to any particular version - by having all originals either lost or seriously questioned. They are best lost with the Ark, the Temple, the grave of Moses - and anything else than men can not resist turning into an idol.

-ray


-ray
#133915 03/15/05 07:11 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by Deacon Lance:
Wildgoose,

The Hebrew word almah is much like the English word maiden and although it does not directly translate as virgin it does imply virginity just as maiden does.
Fr. Deacon Lance
I will second that fact.

Within the Jewish culture of the time we are speaking of - to be a maiden - necessarily meant also a to be a virgin. To be a woman (as differentiated from a maiden) necessitated having consummated the marriage through intercourse (or even not married but having had intercourse).

A betrothed could be called a wife after the betrothal - but was not called a woman until after consummation.

Maiden = virgin
Wife = engaged to be married as well as already married
Woman = used as we would use the term �mother�.

A maiden can be a wife but not a mother. A mother can be a wife but not a maiden.

Hence the English term �old maid� meaning - still a virgin in old age.

I believe (but am not sure) that �wench� was reserved for girls not married but who had intercourse already.

The use of these descriptions (that is what they are) came down to be used up to late in England. There is no confusion as to how they were used and what they indicated. Hence the English term �old maid� meaning - still a virgin in old age. I believe (but am not sure) that �wench� was reserved for girls not married but who had intercourse already.

The Hebrew of Isaiah is explicit�

a maiden (who is by necessity of the term) also a virgin - is pregnant with child.

Some Jewish scholar admit it - some want to avoid a connection with Jesus. But to deny its proper use disrupts other portions of scripture which use the same terminology.

One prime example is Genesis�
Maid = ish
Wife = ishah
Woman or mother = Eve
(the transformation of the name of the woman within the narration of Genesis).

Such a thing (virgin giving birth) is not unheard of. There have been a few documented cases since and I imagine there were some before Jesus. Also � Jesus was also not the first to resurrect (even Lazareth resurrected before Jesus did) � but the combination of the two (unusual in themselves) is only recorded to one man - Jesus of Nazareth. That alone - would make him significant in all of human history.

Dear Deacon � I am not telling you anything you do not already know. Thank you for being the occasion of saying it.

As always, I admire your level headedness. You are an example of good reasoning.

-ray


-ray
#133916 03/15/05 01:35 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
One more clear example of transliteration from Aramaic to Greek - names.

Yeshuah is transliterated into Greek - Jesus.

Barrabbis is not a name at all - it is a transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning �son of a rabbi� - into Greek. The man is un-named.

Barnun - a transliteration of �son of the tribe of Nun.�

If God has not minded that these things happen with translated versions (because that has come to be by his permission) why should we trump the decision of God?

Let each independent church use whatever translation it feels is more appropriate for its own people.

The thought that the Spirit of God guides his churches should be more than just words - it should be believed.

Sorry if I seem terse. May irritation really belongs on a few who trumpet the primacy of the Aramaic. I have had to listen to the same talk of �primacy� regarding the Peshitta and I tire of it. And so I am also irritated at any suggestion of a primacy of the LXX. �My idol is better than your idol� � if you ask me. That did not work back then for the Greek fathers who tried to excummunicate everyone who would not adopt thier Greek terminology - and it will not work now. The church continuues today in its diversity and that is exactly were unity is to be found.


-ray
#133917 03/15/05 06:46 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Quote
Originally posted by RayK:
One more clear example of transliteration from Aramaic to Greek - names.

Yeshuah is transliterated into Greek - Jesus.

Barrabbis is not a name at all - it is a transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning �son of a rabbi� - into Greek. The man is un-named.

Barnun - a transliteration of �son of the tribe of Nun.�

"Barrabis", (a term which I've never encountered in Sacred Scripture) did you mean "Barabbas"?

As for the term "Barnun", I don't recall Joshua's being referred to as "Joshua Barnun". He is referrerd to as "Joshua son of Nun". I would be interested in a citation related to "Barnun" used in Sacred Scripture.

#133918 03/16/05 04:18 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Deacon John,
One question of the subject.
What is the icon that your using?
Stephanos I
would like to get it for the deacons and deacon candidates as a gift

#133919 03/16/05 09:16 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Father Stephanos:

The icon is of Ss Lawrence and Stephen from Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Here's the website:

Mounted "L" Icons [htmadmin.phpwebhosting.com]

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5