Highcuerayte:
lol...... i have done the best I can do.

Interlinears are contextual analyzing of versions of the Bible using the interprataion of that version. Strong's is still to be used to find if the Greek used in the interlinear to interprete the versions are in the original context of the original manuscript. So the above still boils down to Strong's exhaustive concordance which in it, Heis originally means "One" not "Of the first".

I awaits your next twisting

Your 'best' is ignorance at its best.
You made a claim that FIRST is not in 'original manuscript' and I just showed you that it is. WHO/WHAT told you FIRST is not in Greek? Can you show me your 'original manuscripts' that lack FIRST

I have underlined the Greek word FIRST for you.

vooks:


Your 'best' is ignorance at its best.
You made a claim that FIRST is not in 'original manuscript' and I just showed you that it is. WHO/WHAT told you FIRST is not in Greek? Can you show me your 'original manuscripts' that lack HEIS?

I have underlined the Greek word FIRST for you.

and that is not the original manuscript. The word 'sabbaton" contradicts the word 'Heis".

The Original manuscript which was translated to Greek from Aramaic don't have those in it. Oo I forget you have no idea it was written in Aramaic .

Who and what? James Strong Exhaustive concordance of the Bible.

Show you again? Have done that in the analyzation.

Highcuerayte:
and that is not the original manuscript. The word 'sabbaton" contradicts the word 'Heis".

The Original manuscript which was translated to Greek from Aramaic don't have those in it. Oo I forget you have no idea it was written in Aramaic .

Who and what? James Strong Exhaustive concordance of the Bible.

Show you again? Have done that in the analyzation.

I have backed my position by citing my sources. It is your turn to cite yours. The NT was written in Greek not Aramaic. EVERY book by any decent NT theologian would prove this so there is no need quoting them. PROVE NT was written in Aramaic. What is the name of the 'original manuscript which was translated from Aramaic'? And what is the name of the Aramaic manuscript?

Here is a catalogues of all KNOWN NT manuscripts. All the earliest ones without exception are in Greek. If you hallucinated and saw some Aramaic manuscripts please include them here and you will be a hero

Highcuerayte
Here is a chance to redeem yourself.
What is the FIRST day of the week according to the Jewish reckoning of time from the scriptures?

vooks:


I have backed my position by citing my sources. It is your turn to cite yours. The NT was written in Greek not Aramaic. EVERY book by any decent NT theologian would prove this so there is no need quoting them. PROVE NT was written in Aramaic

Let start with a simple question,

Which language did Jesus speak?

vooks:
Highcuerayte
Here is a chance to redeem yourself.
What is the FIRST day of the week according to the Jewish reckoning of time from the scriptures?

The phrase "First day of the week" doesn't exist in the original manuscript.

Highcuerayte:
Let start with a simple question,

Which language did Jesus speak?

You are digressing. Here is what I need;
1. I asked for any scholarly proof or even a mere claim that NT was written in Aramaic but translated into Greek
2. Since you claim to know what was NOT in the Aramaic manuscript but was added DURING the translation to Greek, could you give us the names of these Aramaic manuscripts you are so well acquainted with enough to know their contents?

The key to learning is having a teachable spirit. Being stubborn like a mule in ignorance is the hallmark of simpletons. I pray you are not.

Highcuerayte:
The phrase "First day of the week" doesn't exist in the original manuscript.

Get me the 'original manuscript'. ALL manuscripts have names and dates and language. Which 'original manuscript' are you talking of?

And btw, what do you mean by 'original manuscript'?

Try and be reasonable enough and cite your sources. Your word is not the gospel

Highcuerayte,
One thing you NEVER do with when engaging me is making silly and baseless claims because I will call you out.

You first claimed FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK was not in the original manuscript. I countered that by educating you on interpolation. Only the word DAY is interpolated. Then you claimed FIRST as well was not in the 'original manuscripts'. I ably prove you wrong from Mounce. You whined that interlinears are translations of English into Greek or something and are thus unreliable. I demolished this nonsense by demonstrating that FIRST is in the Greek text by quoting two different Greek NT. You made another wild and extremely silly claim; NT was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek, and that FIRST was not in Aramaic. I asked for the names of these Aramaic manuscripts. You have none.

Listen buddy, I engage in idle banter when am extremely idle. This is why I gave you my time. I can tell you are just making up claims to avoid learning. I can't help you with that, but am mighty entertained by your gimmicks

vooks:


You are digressing. Here is what I need;
1. I asked for any scholarly proof or even a mere claim that NT was written in Aramaic but translated into Greek
2. Since you claim to know what was NOT in the Aramaic manuscript but was added DURING the translation to Greek, could you give us the names of these Aramaic manuscripts you are so well acquainted with enough to know their contents?

The key to learning is having a teachable spirit. Being stubborn like a mule in ignorance is the hallmark of simpletons. I pray you are not.

This is no digression, it is common sense challenging the validity of the Gospels being written in Greek. That a supposed white man (Scholar) said something doesn't mean it is true and that can't be challenge.

So i ask again, what language did Jesus speak? Since the Gospels were firsthand knowledge of those who walk and listen to him.

vooks:
Highcuerayte,
One thing you NEVER do with when engaging me is making silly and baseless claims because I will call you out.

You first claimed FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK was not in the original manuscript. I countered that by educating you on interpolation. Only the word DAY is interpolated. Then you claimed FIRST as well was not in the 'original manuscripts'. I ably prove you wrong from Mounce. You whined that interlinears are translations of English into Greek or something and are thus unreliable. I demolished this nonsense by demonstrating that FIRST is in the Greek text by quoting two different Greek NT. You made another wild and extremely silly claim; NT was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek, and that FIRST was not in Aramaic. I asked for the names of these Aramaic manuscripts. You have none.

Listen buddy, I engage in idle banter when am extremely idle. This is why I gave you my time. I can tell you are just making up claims to avoid learning. I can't help you with that, but am mighty entertained by your gimmicks

Stop ranting and discuss.

vooks:
Highcuerayte,
One thing you NEVER do with when engaging me is making silly and baseless claims because I will call you out.

You first claimed FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK was not in the original manuscript. I countered that by educating you on interpolation. Only the word DAY is interpolated. Then you claimed FIRST as well was not in the 'original manuscripts'. I ably prove you wrong from Mounce. You whined that interlinears are translations of English into Greek or something and are thus unreliable. I demolished this nonsense by demonstrating that FIRST is in the Greek text by quoting two different Greek NT. You made another wild and extremely silly claim; NT was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek, and that FIRST was not in Aramaic. I asked for the names of these Aramaic manuscripts. You have none.

Listen buddy, I engage in idle banter when am extremely idle. This is why I gave you my time.
I can tell you are just making up claims to avoid learning. I can't help you with that, but am mighty entertained by your gimmicks

LOL, what I guess, which is a fact, is that Highcuerayte is saying Jesus's teachings & preachings were done in Aramaic
The ''Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani'' utterance on the cross was left intact when translating to Greek in making the NT though

Highcuerayte:
This is no digression, it is common sense challenging the validity of the Gospels being written in Greek. That a supposed white man (Scholar) said something doesn't mean it is true and that can't be challenge.

So i ask again, what language did Jesus speak? Since the Gospels were firsthand knowledge of those who walk and listen to him.

He asked for scholarly proof, how you managed to twist that into skin color is baffling

Highcuerayte:
Stop ranting and discuss.

He isnt ranting,
he hinted about a sloppiness and was advising you to be more careful next time as he easily can catch you out
I'll heed to that warning if I were you

MuttleyLaff:
LOL, what I guess, which is a fact, is that Highcuerayte is saying Jesus's teachings & preachings were done in Aramaic
The ''Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani'' utterance on the cross was left intact when translating to Greek in making the NT though

He specifically said NT was originally done in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. There is a difference between claiming Jesus spoke Aramaic and NT was written in Aramaic

Please look at his posts and if he amends them, just look at where I have quoted him

He asked for scholarly proof, how you managed to twist that into skin color is baffling

He isnt ranting,
he hinted about a sloppiness and was advising you to be more careful next time as he easily can catch you out
I'll heed to that warning if I were you

Thank you sir. A bigger problem than making unsubstantiated claims is making them on the fly. He makes them up as he goes. Very dishonest character

MuttleyLaff:
LOL, what I guess, which is a fact, is that Highcuerayte is saying Jesus's teachings & preachings were done in Aramaic
The ''Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani'' utterance on the cross was left intact when translating to Greek in making the NT though

He asked for scholarly proof, how you managed to twist that into skin color is baffling

He isnt ranting,
he hinted about a sloppiness and was advising you to be more careful next time as he easily can catch you out
I'll heed to that warning if I were you

What am saying is, they were (the four Gospels) written first by the Apostle before translating it into Greek for public reading. Jesus speak and teach in Aramaic and the Gospel is an orderly record of what "we heard". Notes were made by the Apostles as Christ delivers his speech... translation were made to make Greeks understand these things. That's what am trying to let him see.

Highcuerayte:
This is no digression, it is common sense challenging the validity of the Gospels being written in Greek. That a supposed white man (Scholar) said something doesn't mean it is true and that can't be challenge.

So i ask again, what language did Jesus speak? Since the Gospels were firsthand knowledge of those who walk and listen to him.

You should only challenge scholarly consensus with scholarship not silly claims. Now please answer my questions

Highcuerayte:
What am saying is, they were (the four Gospels) written first by the Apostle before translating it into Greek for public reading. Jesus speak and teach in Aramaic and the Gospel is an orderly record of what "we heard". Notes were made by the Apostles as Christ delivers his speech... translation were made to make Greeks understand these things. That's what am trying to let him see.

What we are asking for is PROOF that the gospels were FIRST written in Aramaic. You claimed the word FIRST in Luke 24 was not in the Aramaic but was inserted as it was translated into Greek. Says who? What proof do you have? Your infertile imagination?

vooks:


You should only challenge scholarly consensus with scholarship not silly claims. Now please answer my questions

In your answers to my question lies the answer to your question.

Lol....Silly claims and you are afraid to answer them. Peter wasn't a scholar yet he knew much than the scribe (scholars) of his days.

Answer the question broz.

vooks:


What we are asking for is PROOF that the gospels were FIRST written in Aramaic. You claimed the word FIRST in Luke 24 was not in the Aramaic but was inserted as it was translated into Greek. Says who? What proof do you have? Your infertile imagination?

This proof is evidently present in Strong's concordance while you fail to see it is amusing.


As per the Aramaic translation have explained that too,if you failed to see it that's up to you.

Highcuerayte:
This proof is evidently present in Strong's concordance while you fail to see it is amusing.


As per the Aramaic translation have explained that too,if you failed to see it that's up to you.

Which Aramaic translation. Do you know what a translation is?
How does Strong's Concordance prove anything? Can you intelligently demonstrate the 'evidently present' proof in the Strong's Concordance?

Highcuerayte:
In your answers to my question lies the answer to your question.

Lol....Silly claims and you are afraid to answer them. Peter wasn't a scholar yet he knew much than the scribe (scholars) of his days.

Answer the question broz.

Peter's imagined credentials are no proof for Aramaic manuscript that was later translated into Greek. Please drop nonsense and marry critical thinking

Highcuerayte,
Please be wise. Do you think Jesus TAUGHT Luke 24:1? Any reasonable primate would tell that is a HISTORICAL account and it has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. Where is the Aramaic manuscript?

Point remains, Luke 24:1 was penned in Greek and;
1. The languages Jesus spoke/taught in no way affect the verse because it is. It an account of what Jesus SAID
2. There is ZERO proof of Aramaic manuscripts of the gospels which were later translated into Greek (only a person of unsound mind would make such a claim and stick to it)