Yuku free message boards

Original authors are one thing, intervening translators another.
It's mighty imprudent 2 me 2 blame Matthew 4 others' scribal errors.

Thank you 4 ur kind greeting.

Dominus vobiscum

I'll not lie, 2 u, Argy, i own no Koine lexicons, i do not read the entire dialect. However, when it is considered that it is an objective fact that both the New Testament (hereafter the NT) and the Septuagint version of the Old Testament were written in Koine, this becomes irrelevant. Do i have 2 be able 2 read the dialect in order 2 know that the NT was written in it?

Brush up on ur debating skills you must, Argy.

Well, Argy, misconceptions are quite another matter; 1 on which both u and i are in total agreement. I do know at least some root Koine words, such as the 1 cited above. The mere fact that i don't own any lexicons of Koine says nothing about the knowledge i DO have. And besides, my main point was not 2 prove the NT's truth, only 2 suggest that the NT writer would have understood something about the connotations of the word [i]heos[/i] that the average Bible reader probably would not 2day.

Argy, let me tell u something about myself. I'm an agnostic, and probably will remain so until (modern sense) i die. At least 4 the most part, U and i will probably agree on a gr8 many things concerning faith (the above greetings r intended 2 be humorous). But, having been raised Catholic, and also having researched religion, theology, philosophy and history 4 almost a decade, i have heard the arguments of many Catholic/Orthodox apologists, and couldn't help but think that when looked at from the historical/theological/linguistic perspective, the arguments 4 Mary's perpetual virginity made sense (i refer here 2 the early church's belief in it rather than my own). Consider this: were u 2 write a book 2day, it would be intended 4 an English-speaking audience. However difficult translation efforts r, this would be much easier than it was 2,000 yrs. ago, yet at the same time very difficult 4 the translator 2day. However, in the 1st century, these concerns scarcely existed, as over half of the Mediterranean world spoke Koine. The community addressed in Matthew's Gospel and others who would circulate and read it could never have known that other cultural/ethnic groups would be reading it, much less that it would be considered inspired scripture a mere century afterward, and canonized as such only 2 centuries after even this (the 2nd century). If over half the world spoke English when ur book was published, would u worry very much about translation/exegetical issues?

We could if we understood that divine inspiration was limited only 2 what God wanted us 2 know about Himself, that the writers each had different writing styles/purposes, and that they were not always trying 2 write exact history; we must also factor in time, age and memory, and also truncation of events.