Re: Biblical Plants
- From: nmm1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Nick Maclaren)
- Date: 28 Apr 2007 13:43:46 GMT
In article <SD$CrCHon0MGFwhp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
David Rance <david.rance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
|>
|> Well, I have never heard that interpretation before! It is certainly not
|> mainstream theology. Aramaic is only a dialect of Hebrew, not a separate
|> language. "Bar" means "son of" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. What branch
|> of Christianity teaches you your interpretation?
Well, I have never heard THAT before! All of the references I have
seen give New Testament Aramaic and Old Testament Hebrew the sort of
relationship that modern German and Old Norse have. I.e. a sort of
avuncular relationship, not even a direct one - let alone calling
Aramaic merely a dialect of Hebrew!
"Son"/"sohn" means "son" in both German and Old Norse.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: Nick Maclaren
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: Nick Maclaren
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: Nick Maclaren
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: David Rance
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: bluebell
- Re: Biblical Plants
- References:
- Biblical Plants
- From: Baldoni
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: Des Higgins
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: shazzbat
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: bluebell
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: Stewart Robert Hinsley
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: bluebell
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: K
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: bluebell
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: David Rance
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: bluebell
- Re: Biblical Plants
- From: David Rance
- Biblical Plants
- Prev by Date: Re: Biblical Plants
- Next by Date: Re: Biblical Plants
- Previous by thread: Re: Biblical Plants
- Next by thread: Re: Biblical Plants
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|