The Book of Revelation - The Songs in Heaven are in Aramaic

[CrowCross]

What are you trying to say?

What are you trying to say?

 

[Arial]

All the same old peanut gallery sniping at things they don't understand. Mocking things without doing an ounce of research to see if things are true or not. It's so tiring. Just because you don't think it's true, doesn't make it so.

People do not have to believe what you believe. They do not have to accept your statements and "proofs" as facts or actual proofs. They do not even have to be interested in or knowledgeable of the same things you are. It is no reason to call people names, or demean everyone for not being just as you are. Which is your MO every time you post. Consider yourself warned.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

People do not have to believe what you believe. They do not have to accept your statements and "proofs" as facts or actual proofs. They do not even have to be interested in or knowledgeable of the same things you are. It is no reason to call people names, or demean everyone for not being just as you are. Which is your MO every time you post. Consider yourself warned.

People do have to do some research in order to comment in a meaningful way. It's the MO of most people on this forum that they do NOT do any kind of research before spewing their nonsense.

 

[Arial]

People do have to do some research in order to comment in a meaningful way. It's the MO of most people on this forum that they do NOT do any kind of research before spewing their nonsense.

According to you. But like I said, that is no excuse for what you do. That is the end of it. Any more discussion of this matter will be deleted.

 

[Mr GLee]

What are you even talking about? The evidence is in the ORIGINAL text that I provided for EVERYONE to examine for themselves. You didn't do that. You have no business commenting with out spending some actual effort and researching it for yourself. You can be ignored.

Hi thanks I would offer.

The original text is still sola scriptura sealed with 7 seals till the end of time . It is that we are to defend with the Armor .it as it is written. It defends us from Aramaic songs

You offered . . This shows that these songs will be sung in Aramaic in heaven. as if God was still bring new revelations . That idea is inspired from earth used to venerate dying flesh .

The Pharisees tried to sing thier own hard metal rap. lol

Mathew 11:17 CJB We made happy music, but you wouldn’t dance! We made sad music, but you wouldn’t cry!’

A very striking feature of the Apocalypse is the amount of lyric verse which it contains. In chapter after chapter, and often more than once in a single chapter, the vision pauses for a brief chorus sung by angels or other heavenly beings, by the army of martyrs (15:3), or again by all created things (5 :i3). These doxologies and little songs of triumph are all in strict metrical form. They are generally not printed as poetry in our texts and translations, and thus the reader loses some of the impression which they could create. A large part of the Apocalypse is in rhythmical form, after the manner of the O. T. prophecies; to what extent the rhythm is in a definite literary mode, or occasionally becomes truly metrical, it may some day be possible to determine. The lyrical outbursts, however, are not patterned on Hebrew prophecy, but are a new feature. We seem to have here a bit of the early Church hymnology, that of the Jewish- Christian congregations

I believe its easy to see you venerate puff up the dying flesh as the temporal things seen as army of martyrs or again by all created "dying things". Sound like a apocrypha

A large part of the Apocalypse is in rhythmical signified form, Without parables scriptures. . Christ the one good teaching master spoke not.

Not again . . .we made you happy with Aramaic music, but you wouldn’t dance! We made sad music, but you wouldn’t cry!’

Mankind knows His living world its written as mystery hiding from some revealing to others . God has given us tools to search them out.

Now days of identity theft after the king of lying signs or tunes to wonder after Satan . its seem seeking after lying wonders out of body I had a vision to marvel after is the new mystery solver.. . .to wonder ,wonder ,wonder after .making prophecy (sola scriptura) without effect .

Replacing it with Limbo the wondering authority

Psalm 33:3Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.

Psalm 40:3And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the Lord.

Psalm 96:1O sing unto the Lord a new song:sing unto the Lord, all the earth.

Psalm 98:1O sing unto the Lord a new song; for he hath done marvellous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory.

Psalm 144:9 I will sing a new song unto thee, O God: upon a psaltery and an instrument of ten strings will I sing praises unto thee.

Old gospel Song in any language .

"Wonderful living words of life"

Sing them over again to me wonderful words of life, beautiful words, wonderful words of life. Sweetly echoes the gospel song beautiful wonderful words of life. teach me faith and duty (etc

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Hi thanks I would offer.

The original text is still sola scriptura sealed with 7 seals till the end of time . It is that we are to defend with the Armor .it as it is written. It defends us from Aramaic songs

You offered . . This shows that these songs will be sung in Aramaic in heaven. as if God was still bring new revelations . That idea is inspired from earth used to venerate dying flesh .

The Pharisees tried to sing thier own hard metal rap. lol

Mathew 11:17 CJB We made happy music, but you wouldn’t dance! We made sad music, but you wouldn’t cry!’



I believe its easy to see you venerate puff up the dying flesh as the temporal things seen as army of martyrs or again by all created "dying things". Sound like a apocrypha

A large part of the Apocalypse is in rhythmical signified form, Without parables scriptures. . Christ the one good teaching master spoke not.

Not again . . .we made you happy with Aramaic music, but you wouldn’t dance! We made sad music, but you wouldn’t cry!’

Mankind knows His living world its written as mystery hiding from some revealing to others . God has given us tools to search them out.

Now days of identity theft after the king of lying signs or tunes to wonder after Satan . its seem seeking after lying wonders out of body I had a vision to marvel after is the new mystery solver.. . .to wonder ,wonder ,wonder after .making prophecy (sola scriptura) without effect .

Replacing it with Limbo the wondering authority

Psalm 33:3Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.

Psalm 40:3And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the Lord.

Psalm 96:1O sing unto the Lord a new song:sing unto the Lord, all the earth.

Psalm 98:1O sing unto the Lord a new song; for he hath done marvellous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory.

Psalm 144:9 I will sing a new song unto thee, O God: upon a psaltery and an instrument of ten strings will I sing praises unto thee.

Old gospel Song in any language .

"Wonderful living words of life"

Sing them over again to me wonderful words of life, beautiful words, wonderful words of life. Sweetly echoes the gospel song beautiful wonderful words of life. teach me faith and duty (etc

Again. You didn't even investigate the evidences I posted to start the thread. Nothing you state is true. And unless you deal with the subject, no response to you is needed.

 

[Mr GLee]

Nonsensical jibber jabber is all you offer. I have shown actual proof of what the original text was.

Actual proof of exactly what a jibber jabber tune. ?.

What would that have to do with to gospel ?

Whats the point?

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Actual proof of exactly what a jibber jabber tune. ?.

What would that have to do with to gospel ?

Whats the point?

You'd better watch yourself. You are blaspheming the Word of God.

 

[Josheb]

But according to C. C. Torrey: [for John the language of the Christian Church was only Aramaic]

What did Torrey use to prove his claim?

Here are 3 songs which he has back translated from the Greek into Aramaic. How could he do this. Because the "mistakes" in the Greek reflect actual Aramaic grammatical rules.

What are those three "mistakes"?

Scholars who are experts in Greek very easily point out that Revelation is written in attrotious Greek - full of errors in verb tenses and gender.

John's Greek is particularly bad. Bad Greek does not necessarily mean an Aramaic origin. If that were the case, we might argue Post 11 was originally written in Aramaic (or some other langue) because of its atrocious English.

Would you please flesh out the case for these claims a little better? Thanks

• How did Torrey prove Aramaic was the language of the entire early Church?
• What specific three mistakes did Torrey find in Revelations' Greek that led him to conclude it was originally written in Aramaic (backwards is a post hoc argument that goes to show a fault in his reasoning and rationale so there must be something else).
• What does Torrey say about the possibility John was just plain bad at Koine Greek? I can write in French, but I cannot write well in French. My writing something in French does not mean I wrote it first in English (or Aramaic, or Greek).

I might ask similar questions about Bloomfield, Charles, and Vanderkam but, for now, let's stick with Torrey. I don't dispute the possibility, or even the probability, but I do find the case presented (in all your posts I've read) wanting and over-trusting of the source materials. If Torrey's book was read, then you know his arguments. Summarize them in a manner proving his claims correct.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

What did Torrey use to prove his claim?

What are those three "mistakes"?

John's Greek is particularly bad. Bad Greek does not necessarily mean an Aramaic origin. If that were the case, we might argue Post 11 was originally written in Aramaic (or some other langue) because of its atrocious English.

Would you please flesh out the case for these claims a little better? Thanks

• How did Torrey prove Aramaic was the language of the entire early Church?
• What specific three mistakes did Torrey find in Revelations' Greek that led him to conclude it was originally written in Aramaic (backwards is a post hoc argument that goes to show a fault in his reasoning and rationale so there must be something else).
• What does Torrey say about the possibility John was just plain bad at Koine Greek? I can write in French, but I cannot write well in French. My writing something in French does not mean I wrote it first in English (or Aramaic, or Greek).

I might ask similar questions about Bloomfield, Charles, and Vanderkam but, for now, let's stick with Torrey. I don't dispute the possibility, or even the probability, but I do find the case presented (in all your posts I've read) wanting and over-trusting of the source materials. If Torrey's book was read, then you know his arguments. Summarize them in a manner proving his claims correct.

Again. 'Do your OWN research. It is pointless for me to do any more "explaining" without a SINGLE person even interested in reading the source material.. I simply do not have the interest or time to "discuss" otherwise.

 

[Josheb]

Again. 'Do your OWN research. It is pointless for me to do any more "explaining" without a SINGLE person even interested in reading the source material.. I simply do not have the interest or time to "discuss" otherwise.

I may by the books but your premise others doing their own homework is flawed. Providing a summary of their work provides a reason and motive to purchase those sources for oneself. Not doing so, and refusing to do so, conversely, provides reason and motive not to do so. I happen to be an individual who likes to read diverse sources (as well as someone who's a little weak on textual criticism). Doing a little investigation, I notice Torrey, Bloomfield, Charles, and Vanderkam come from differing povs (Semitic scholar, Dispensational Methodist, Reformed Anglican, etc.) as well as their comfort with extra-canonical and pseudepigraphic material and at least a certain degree of Judaization (which has become very popular in certain sections of Christianity). That's reason for both intrigue and concern. It's not that I am opposed to the case for Aramaic. I subscribe to F. F. Bruce's similar arguments about language for believing Matthew, and not Mark, was the first gospel penned. I've just been reading about some of the problems reading Irenaeus, such as his belief Jesus taught the disciples well into his forties and his claim to have met Polycarp when he was a child, which make at least some of Irenaeus' claims suspect (as well as those ECFs who used Irenaeus as an authoritative source). The assertion of backwards translation might be correct, but Occam's Razor says John's lack of skill with Koine Greek is the more likely explanation (or some combination of both). We don't see these problems with Paul, who was Greek by birth and likely skilled in multiple languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Latin at a minimum). At any rate, you're the apologist for this op's sources, so the blatant refusal to summarize their rationale and provide others a reason to go to those sources on their own is noteworthy. I've got Bloomfield's book on Revelation and was prompted by this op to move it to the top of the stack. Torrey's "Documents..." is out of print but I managed to find a digital copy in one of my subscription services. Post 30'2 inquiries are what any reader should be asking of these authors, questions I'll be asking as I read, questions you should have asked and for which you, presumably have answers (but refuse to share?).

I will, therefore, ask my questions again and if the refusal persists then I will move on.

• How did Torrey prove Aramaic was the language of the entire early Church?
• What specific three mistakes did Torrey find in Revelations' Greek that led him to conclude it was originally written in Aramaic (backwards is a post hoc argument that goes to show a fault in his reasoning and rationale so there must be something else).
• What does Torrey say about the possibility John was just plain bad at Koine Greek? I can write in French, but I cannot write well in French. My writing something in French does not mean I wrote it first in English (or Aramaic, or Greek).

Short, simple, direct, succinct answers will do. Those that motivate a reading of these sources is even better.

 

[Mr GLee]

You'd better watch yourself. You are blaspheming the Word of God.

Hi Thanks

You should be careful. Only Christ has the power to rebuke. You could be blaspheming in that way.

Now why am I accused of blasphemy? ?

I would think it's only a musical gospel if Christ is singing

Luke 7:31-33King James Version31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

False gospel .

True below

Zephaniah 3:17 The Lord thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

I may by the books but your premise others doing their own homework is flawed. Providing a summary of their work provides a reason and motive to purchase those sources for oneself. Not doing so, and refusing to do so, conversely, provides reason and motive not to do so. I happen to be an individual who likes to read diverse sources (as well as someone who's a little weak on textual criticism). Doing a little investigation, I notice Torrey, Bloomfield, Charles, and Vanderkam come from differing povs (Semitic scholar, Dispensational Methodist, Reformed Anglican, etc.) as well as their comfort with extra-canonical and pseudepigraphic material and at least a certain degree of Judaization (which has become very popular in certain sections of Christianity). That's reason for both intrigue and concern. It's not that I am opposed to the case for Aramaic. I subscribe to F. F. Bruce's similar arguments about language for believing Matthew, and not Mark, was the first gospel penned. I've just been reading about some of the problems reading Irenaeus, such as his belief Jesus taught the disciples well into his forties and his claim to have met Polycarp when he was a child, which make at least some of Irenaeus' claims suspect (as well as those ECFs who used Irenaeus as an authoritative source). The assertion of backwards translation might be correct, but Occam's Razor says John's lack of skill with Koine Greek is the more likely explanation (or some combination of both). We don't see these problems with Paul, who was Greek by birth and likely skilled in multiple languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Latin at a minimum). At any rate, you're the apologist for this op's sources, so the blatant refusal to summarize their rationale and provide others a reason to go to those sources on their own is noteworthy. I've got Bloomfield's book on Revelation and was prompted by this op to move it to the top of the stack. Torrey's "Documents..." is out of print but I managed to find a digital copy in one of my subscription services. Post 30'2 inquiries are what any reader should be asking of these authors, questions I'll be asking as I read, questions you should have asked and for which you, presumably have answers (but refuse to share?).

I will, therefore, ask my questions again and if the refusal persists then I will move on.

• How did Torrey prove Aramaic was the language of the entire early Church?
• What specific three mistakes did Torrey find in Revelations' Greek that led him to conclude it was originally written in Aramaic (backwards is a post hoc argument that goes to show a fault in his reasoning and rationale so there must be something else).
• What does Torrey say about the possibility John was just plain bad at Koine Greek? I can write in French, but I cannot write well in French. My writing something in French does not mean I wrote it first in English (or Aramaic, or Greek).

Short, simple, direct, succinct answers will do. Those that motivate a reading of these sources is even better.

Yes, please move on. Only interested in people who actually are interested in discussing the topic and willing to read and do some actual research. Otherwise it's just pointless.

 

[Mr GLee]

No. None of what you write is applicable or even plausible. I've shown exactly how it SHOULD be understood.

God comes to us singing the language of parables. Which without the signified tongue he spoke (sang not) '

Isaiah 51:11 Therefore the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away.

Not a song of someone who thought in Hebrew but wrote in Greek. The confusing of tongues sounds with out meaning . Like what I said is not what I meant just musical sounds without meaning as some sort of secret language (Gnosticism)

You sang your song and no one danced.

Matthew 11:17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

Luke 7:32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.