B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Chris Watts wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 9:52 am Now this destruction of Israel was 10 times worse than the ones inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar's father in 603 BC, and then by his son in 597 and 587 BC, so much worse was Rome's than Babylon's. Yet there is clear evidence of a Jewish minority living and remaining in the land.

Absolutely.

Jason Hare wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 10:07 am

“I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.” (John 18:20, NIV)

Does “all” mean “all” here? All of the Jews come to the synagogue and to the temple without exception?

Too bad you do’t know koiné Greek, because that’s a mistranslation.

Jason Hare wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 10:07 am

A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there. (Acts 22:12, NIV)

Is it true that Ananias was respected by ALL of the Jews? Has there ever been a single person in history that was respected by an ENTIRE people group without exception, even among a specific ethnogroup within a given area? No exceptions? Really?

Here the translation is correct, but you do not listen to the translation.

Jason Hare wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 10:07 am I contest that the claim that “all means all” is just foolish.

Your use of a mistranslation of one verse, then not listening to a correct translation of a different verse don’t speak well of you.

Karl W. Randolph.

Chris Watts wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2024 4:57 am There are a hundred things I wanted to say, evidence that seriously challenges your reasoning, from both the Tanach

What evidence do you have that contradicts Jeremiah, who was an eyewitness to the events? He added events that came after what was mentioned in 2 Kings.

Chris Watts wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2024 4:57 am not to mention outside facts of proven reputability,

Oh? What outside facts of proven reputatility? Do you mean to say that people speculating millennia later are more accurate than eyewitnesses?

Chris Watts wrote: Sat Oct 05, 2024 4:57 am I wrote a whole post about 45 minutes ago but have deleted it. Karl your pedantic replies constantly re-inforce my feelings that you simply do not want engage with what challenges your beliefs on these two issues. I am finished with you on these particular topics.

Chris watts

I take the position that the Bible has an accurate record of history. Apparently you don’t agree. There we part ways.

Karl W. Randolph.

Chris Watts wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 9:52 am It is, for me certainly, a poignant point to consider that when Hadrian sent in three legions and more to put down the Bar Kochba armies in 133 AD thereabouts - the historians of the day especially Cassius Dios (?) and many others recorded at least half a million dead, 900 towns destroyed and thousands sold into slavery and hundreds taken to the arenas. The land was emptied and the Land destroyed utterly. Now I can not read latin, but I know without a doubt that words such as 'All' and 'Utterly destroyed" and "no one left" are words employed by these writers to express and elevate the 'SENSE' of the event rather than the 'Actuality'. For these same historians record how many Jews settled along the coasts of Galilee and even further south beyond the Shephalah, and we know that the Mishna began in Galilee here around 200 AD, and NOT IN ARAMAIC either. ALthough Jews were forbidden from even coming within a few miles of Jerusalem, and the land was utterly devastated by 135 AD Jews actually remained.

Now this destruction of Israel was 10 times worse than the ones inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar's father in 603 BC, and then by his son in 597 and 587 BC, so much worse was Rome's than Babylon's. Yet there is clear evidence of a Jewish minority living and remaining in the land.

Chris watts

So you trust Hadrian more than you trust Jeremiah? Interesting.

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 11:01 pm Your use of a mistranslation of one verse, then not listening to a correct translation of a different verse don’t speak well of you.

I do know Koinē. I simply used Bible Gateway to search for “all the Jews.” I didn’t look at the Greek at that point, since my purpose was to show that “all” doesn’t always mean “every single one without exception.” Additionally, I couldn’t care less about you thinking that something “doesn’t speak well of” me. You well know my opinion of you and of your valueless retorts.

That said, ἐγὼ πάντοτε ἐδίδαξα ἐν συναγωγῇ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, ὅπου πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι συνέρχονται, καὶ ἐν κρυπτῷ ἐλάλησα οὐδέν certainly means “I have always taught in [the] synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I have spoken nothing in secret.” How is this different in meaning to what the NIV says? Don’t tell me that you pretend to know Koinē better than everyone else in the world, too!

kwrandolph wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 11:23 pm

Chris Watts wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 9:52 am It is, for me certainly, a poignant point to consider that when Hadrian sent in three legions and more to put down the Bar Kochba armies in 133 AD thereabouts - the historians of the day especially Cassius Dios (?) and many others recorded at least half a million dead, 900 towns destroyed and thousands sold into slavery and hundreds taken to the arenas. The land was emptied and the Land destroyed utterly. Now I can not read latin, but I know without a doubt that words such as 'All' and 'Utterly destroyed" and "no one left" are words employed by these writers to express and elevate the 'SENSE' of the event rather than the 'Actuality'. For these same historians record how many Jews settled along the coasts of Galilee and even further south beyond the Shephalah, and we know that the Mishna began in Galilee here around 200 AD, and NOT IN ARAMAIC either. ALthough Jews were forbidden from even coming within a few miles of Jerusalem, and the land was utterly devastated by 135 AD Jews actually remained.

Now this destruction of Israel was 10 times worse than the ones inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar's father in 603 BC, and then by his son in 597 and 587 BC, so much worse was Rome's than Babylon's. Yet there is clear evidence of a Jewish minority living and remaining in the land.

Chris watts

So you trust Hadrian more than you trust Jeremiah? Interesting.

Karl W. Randolph.

This is simply an extremely childish response and you have purposely missed the point about what I was emphasizing. I roll my eyes in disbelief. Or would you prefer an emoji?

As for my other posts above, well Karl, you certainly win an award for purposefully evading the essential issues, as have all your other replies to me. This is disappointing because as I said previously, scripture gives us a sneak preview, you watch a trailer of a film and then claim this as the Complete narrative - I do not ever question the historical accuracy of what Jeremiah saw and wrote, in the same way I would not doubt the reliability of a friend's statement that all his savings had been wiped out in a crash despite him having just a tiny percentage left. Or that an article about Ukraine says that all the towns and villages of Eastern Ukraine are emptied when there are some towns left with some residents REFUSING to leave, I could go on....its the 'Sense of the Upheaval or the Seriousness of the witnesses' Situation or feelings that are being expressed, not the absurd situation where you have not a single man woman or child left in all the land of Judah.

Yet you have still failed to reply to Talmid's challenge when he said : ""See 2 Kgs. 24:14 and 25:11-12. The poorest people were left to work the vineyards and fields""

============================================================================================

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 4:57 am
"""not to mention outside facts of proven reputability""",

KARL REPLIED : Oh? What outside facts of proven reputability? Do you mean to say that people speculating millennia later are more accurate than eyewitnesses?

This particular interjection was answering to your claim that hebrew was not spoken as a first language after roughly 520 BC thereabouts. I gave you some evidence that challenges your position. It had nothing to do with the 'ALL' quibble in Jeremiah.

chris watts

Chris Watts wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:54 am

kwrandolph wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 11:23 pm

Chris Watts wrote: Sun Oct 06, 2024 9:52 am It is, for me certainly, a poignant point to consider that when Hadrian sent in three legions and more to put down the Bar Kochba armies in 133 AD thereabouts - the historians of the day especially Cassius Dios (?) and many others recorded at least half a million dead, 900 towns destroyed and thousands sold into slavery and hundreds taken to the arenas. The land was emptied and the Land destroyed utterly. Now I can not read latin, but I know without a doubt that words such as 'All' and 'Utterly destroyed" and "no one left" are words employed by these writers to express and elevate the 'SENSE' of the event rather than the 'Actuality'. For these same historians record how many Jews settled along the coasts of Galilee and even further south beyond the Shephalah, and we know that the Mishna began in Galilee here around 200 AD, and NOT IN ARAMAIC either. ALthough Jews were forbidden from even coming within a few miles of Jerusalem, and the land was utterly devastated by 135 AD Jews actually remained.

Now this destruction of Israel was 10 times worse than the ones inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar's father in 603 BC, and then by his son in 597 and 587 BC, so much worse was Rome's than Babylon's. Yet there is clear evidence of a Jewish minority living and remaining in the land.

Chris watts

So you trust Hadrian more than you trust Jeremiah? Interesting.

Karl W. Randolph.

This is simply an extremely childish response and you have purposely missed the point about what I was emphasizing. I roll my eyes in disbelief. Or would you prefer an emoji?

And you don’t think I rolled my eyes at your response? Why do you think I answered with just a one-liner?

Chris Watts wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:54 am As for my other posts above, well Karl, you certainly win an award for purposefully evading the essential issues, as have all your other replies to me. This is disappointing because as I said previously, scripture gives us a sneak preview, you watch a trailer of a film and then claim this as the Complete narrative

But does that give you the right to contradict what Scripture records?

Chris Watts wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:54 am - I do not ever question the historical accuracy of what Jeremiah saw and wrote,

Then why do you contradict him?

Chris Watts wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:54 am …I could go on....its the 'Sense of the Upheaval or the Seriousness of the witnesses' Situation or feelings that are being expressed, not the absurd situation where you have not a single man woman or child left in all the land of Judah.

Oh, so Jeremiah is absurd?

Chris Watts wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:54 am Yet you have still failed to reply to Talmid's challenge when he said : ""See 2 Kgs. 24:14 and 25:11-12. The poorest people were left to work the vineyards and fields""

The answer there is Jeremiah 41–44. Did you read it?

Chris Watts wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:54 am ============================================================================================

Chris Watts wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 4:57 am
"""not to mention outside facts of proven reputability""",

KARL REPLIED : Oh? What outside facts of proven reputability? Do you mean to say that people speculating millennia later are more accurate than eyewitnesses?

This particular interjection was answering to your claim that hebrew was not spoken as a first language after roughly 520 BC thereabouts. I gave you some evidence that challenges your position.

You have given me zero evidence.

You have given evidence that Hebrew continued to be spoken as a second language, much like Latin is still spoken among some circles, but none that backs up your claim, other than speculation and hand-waving.

I agree that Hebrew continued being spoken … as a second language. Much like Latin in medieval Europe.

Chris Watts wrote: Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:54 am It had nothing to do with the 'ALL' quibble in Jeremiah.

chris watts

Yes it does deal with Jeremiah. You make the claim that Jeremiah lied when he wrote that all Jews left behind in Judea by Nebuchadnezzar fled to Egypt, including their wives and children. Instead you argue without evidence that there was a significant population of Jews who remained in Judea, therefore they maintained the speaking of Hebrew as a native language.

Jeremiah indicated that he wanted to stay in Judea. If there were other Jews who remained in Judea, Jeremiah could have stayed with them. Instead he ended up in Egypt. That’s another evidence that all Jews left Judea—some taken to Babylon, the rest fleeing to Egypt.

I trust Jeremiah not modern speculation.

Do you see any reason to continue this discussion? I don’t.

Karl W. Randolph.

You make the claim that Jeremiah lied

Yes, I wish to continue by expressing my disappointment with the way you twist my words to mean something other than what I am saying. As I said before, you have seen the trailer to a movie, and you hold that up as evidence for an entire narrative. Jeremiah's words were the trailer, the narrative is based on that, but there are other peoples' stories un-written where common sense prevails in this narrative as well.

Evidence that challenges (not necessarily proves without any doubt at all) but seriously challenges your belief that hebrew was a second language re-taught after 6th century BC exists, I also provided a link to a PDF written by Chomsky in 1951, there are also suggestive things in the NT to counter your stance.

(I suppose in acts 21:40, where many nasty little Jews from Asia, who had come to Jerusalem and did not like the apostles or Paul, spoke Turkish as their first language and had only learned Hebrew as a second language, were quite happy for Paul to speak to them in their re-learned second language, but did not shout at him to speak in Aramaic or Greek or Turkish ) Surely it would have been more natural for Paul to have spoken Greek to them, being that he was from that part of the world and was fluent in Greek. After all did not the centurion ask him that).

As to the subject of that all encompassing word from Jeremiah "ALL" take a look at Acts 21:30, this is how the majority of people write when expressing TRUTHS that elaborate a TRUE sense of something but that can not be taken as a literal rendition of absolute totality and literalness, unless of course you would now claim that not a single man or woman in that city was too busy baking bread to take part, or that some nice kind men and women were not disgusted at this violent outburst? ALL the city means ALL the city and yet does NOT mean ALL the city. Is this a logic that you can not wrap your head around Karl?

Answer me this from Jeremiah 9:1 in Hebrew (9:2 Eng) : מִֽי־יִתְּנֵ֣נִי בַמִּדְבָּ֗ר מְלוֹן֙ אֹֽרְחִ֔ים וְאֶֽעֶזְבָה֙ אֶת־עַמִּ֔י וְאֵלְכָ֖ה מֵֽאִתָּ֑ם כִּ֤י כֻלָּם֙ מְנָ֣אֲפִ֔ים עֲצֶ֖רֶת בֹּגְדִֽים Does that mean the house wife and the farmer down the road who gave Jeremiah Water and bread on his journeys? Or does that mean that there was not ONE SINGLE GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS person left in all the land?

No doubt you will have some ingenious comments.

Chris watts

The definitions of "vernacular" I've seen indicate the language is one natively spoken, not a second language or one not used everyday by ordinary people. So Oxford and American Heritage dictionaries, 2 standard works.

Chris Watts wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 4:17 am

You make the claim that Jeremiah lied

Yes, I wish to continue by expressing my disappointment with the way you twist my words to mean something other than what I am saying.

How so? When Jeremiah said “All”, how is your answer that he didn’t mean all not saying that he lied?

Chris Watts wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 4:17 am As I said before, you have seen the trailer to a movie, and you hold that up as evidence for an entire narrative. Jeremiah's words were the trailer, the narrative is based on that, but there are other peoples' stories un-written where common sense prevails in this narrative as well.

The unwritten message is that if there were a population who remained on the land, then Jeremiah would have remained with them. But because there was no such population, therefore Jeremiah was forced to go to Egypt. Did you consider that common sense? How is your “common sense” not calling Jeremiah a liar?

Chris Watts wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 4:17 am Evidence that challenges (not necessarily proves without any doubt at all) but seriously challenges your belief that hebrew was a second language re-taught after 6th century BC exists, I also provided a link to a PDF written by Chomsky in 1951, there are also suggestive things in the NT to counter your stance.

How is Chomsky evidence? Nehemiah 13:24 relates that the kids born to non-Jewish mothers were not learning Hebrew. If Hebrew were the language of the market and street, that would not be a problem because the kids would learn Hebrew from their friends. That they didn’t learn Hebrew is evidence that Hebrew was not spoken on the street, in public.

I had a fellow student in college, when he started first grade, he went out to recess and all his classmates jabbered away and he understood nothing. By Christmas, he spoke fluent Apache—he was the only non-Apache in class. He stayed in that milieu until he went away to college, only to have the college hire him as a translator.

I have lived among immigrants. Even when the parents speak their native tongues at home, by second grade the children speak fluent English. Usually children start picking up English before starting school, from their playmates. The exception are the children not born here. So the picture given in Nehemiah is that Hebrew was not spoken in public, therefore, after a generation or two, not learned natively either.

Chris Watts wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 4:17 am (I suppose in acts 21:40, where many nasty little Jews from Asia, who had come to Jerusalem and did not like the apostles or Paul, spoke Turkish as their first language and had only learned Hebrew as a second language, were quite happy for Paul to speak to them in their re-learned second language, but did not shout at him to speak in Aramaic or Greek or Turkish ) Surely it would have been more natural for Paul to have spoken Greek to them, being that he was from that part of the world and was fluent in Greek. After all did not the centurion ask him that).

Don’t you remember Paul’s training? That he spoke Hebrew, how is that evidence that he learned Hebrew at his mother’s knee? Any more than a man during the European Renaissance speaking Latin means that he learned Latin at his mother’s knee? In both cases, is not such language use evidence of erudition?

Chris Watts wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 4:17 am As to the subject of that all encompassing word from Jeremiah "ALL" take a look at Acts 21:30,

How is language use in a different language that doesn’t use the word “all” (I read the Byzantine tradition of New Testament where the word is ολη) evidence that allows us not to read Jeremiah literally? Are you reading something into that verse that is not stated?

Chris Watts wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 4:17 am this is how the majority of people write when expressing TRUTHS that elaborate a TRUE sense of something but that can not be taken as a literal rendition of absolute totality and literalness, unless of course you would now claim that not a single man or woman in that city was too busy baking bread to take part, or that some nice kind men and women were not disgusted at this violent outburst? ALL the city means ALL the city and yet does NOT mean ALL the city. Is this a logic that you can not wrap your head around Karl?

When it says that “the whold city was moved” without describing how people were moved, how many were moved in opposition to those who attacked Paul? How many were moved but unable to take part in any action? How many even knew what was going on? Did you read the following verses?

Chris Watts wrote: Tue Oct 08, 2024 4:17 am Answer me this from Jeremiah 9:1 in Hebrew (9:2 Eng) : מִֽי־יִתְּנֵ֣נִי בַמִּדְבָּ֗ר מְלוֹן֙ אֹֽרְחִ֔ים וְאֶֽעֶזְבָה֙ אֶת־עַמִּ֔י וְאֵלְכָ֖ה מֵֽאִתָּ֑ם כִּ֤י כֻלָּם֙ מְנָ֣אֲפִ֔ים עֲצֶ֖רֶת בֹּגְדִֽים Does that mean the house wife and the farmer down the road who gave Jeremiah Water and bread on his journeys? Or does that mean that there was not ONE SINGLE GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS person left in all the land?

No doubt you will have some ingenious comments.

Chris watts

Look at the difference in language used between this and Jeremiah 43. How is Jeremiah 9:1 different from Elijah’s statement in 1 Kings 19:14? Yet God corrected Elijah in verse 18. God also corrected Jeremiah. Jeremiah 9:1 was a cry of despair. Jeremiah 43 sober recounting of events. Can’t you see the differences?

As for on the way to Egypt, there was no farmer to give bread and water to Jeremiah. Rather those who were not willing to go to Egype were forced to go.

Karl W. Randolph.