Mark Sanguinetti

Acts 17:16-34 16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." 21(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.) 22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' 29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by man's design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." 32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others. NIV

You may be confusing Aramaic with Hebrew. Do you know Aramaic and do you know Hebrew? And your complaining about biblical Greek here sounds very political. I am sure there are many more Greek texts of the New Testament than Aramaic. I don't know Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, but here is a link I found. http://www.aent.org/pdf/ALEF%20TAV.pdf

Rev 1:7-8 8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." NKJV Rev 1:11-12 11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea." NKJV Rev 21:4-6 5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful." 6 And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. NKJV Rev 22:12-13 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." NKJV Here is another of the many examples of the original language of the New Testament, the alpha and the omega. Sorry but these are not Aramaic. Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet and omega is the last letter of the Greek alphabet.

Where are you copying and pasting your information from James?

Some of the longer posts are difficult to read and perhaps bias towards a certain viewpoint. However, some long posts are easier to read, yet scholarly while exhibiting a non-bias approach. And frankly, I am just amazed at all the bible scholars and researchers on the internet who cover this subject. And all I had to do to research this is type in a search engine "what language was the New Testament originally written in?"

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_two.htm The Original Language of the New Testament Part Two By Gary F. Zeolla In Part One on this article, it was stated that some claim the New Testament (NT) was not originally written in Greek as is commonly believed. They claim the NT was actually originally written in Aramaic. One major proponent of this view was George Lamsa, as seen in the introduction to his Lamsa's Bible. However, it was shown in Part One that the NT writers knew Greek and most likely were writing in Greek from their use of the Septuagint and from information contained within the NT. This second part of this two-part article will continue this discussion. Note: All Scripture references are taken from the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament: Second Edition (ALT). The Language of the Early Church Lamsa was quoted in Part One as claiming, "For several centuries, the Christian movement was directed and guided by the Jews." (p.xi). But there is much evidence within the pages of the NT, particularly in the Book of Acts, that his was not the case. Very early in time, the Church became more and more Greek, not Jewish. This can be seen starting with Acts 6: 1And in these days, the disciples increasing [in number], there came to be a complaint from the Hellenists [fig., Greek-speaking Jews] towards the Hebrews [fig., Aramaic-speaking Jews], because their widows were being overlooked in the daily service [fig., distribution of food]. 2So the twelve having summoned the congregation of the disciples, said, "It is not desirable [for] us, having left the word of God, to be serving tables. 3Therefore, brothers [and sisters], look for seven men from [among] you*, being well spoken of, full of [the] Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint over this need [or, necessity]. 4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word." 5And the word was pleasing before the whole congregation. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of [the] Holy Spirit, and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor and Timon and Parmenas and Nicolaus, a proselyte [i.e. convert to Judaism] from Antioch, 6whom they set before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid [their] hands on them. 7And the word of God kept spreading, and the number of the disciples kept being increased greatly in Jerusalem, and a large crowd of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. I quoted this passage through verse 7 to show that this dispute occurred in Jerusalem. So it was while the Church was still mainly found in Jerusalem that there was a sufficient number of Greek-speaking Jews as to cause problems within the congregation. And once the Gospel began to spread beyond Jerusalem, the number of Greek-speaking Jews entering the Church continued to grow. 19Then indeed the ones having been scattered because of the affliction [or, persecution], the one having occurred over Stephen, passed through as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews only. 20But some of them were male Cyprians and Cyrenians, who having entered into Antioch, began speaking to the Hellenists [fig., Greek-speaking Jews], proclaiming the Gospel of the Lord Jesus. 21And [the] hand of [the] Lord was with them, and a large number having believed turned to the Lord (Acts 11:19-21). About this time, a major change occurred in the Church. Rather than the Gospel only being proclaimed to Jews, it began to be proclaimed to Gentiles. This began with Peter proclaiming the Gospel to Cornelius. 1Now [there] was a certain man in Caesarea, by name Cornelius, a centurion of a garrison [of soldiers], the one being called Italian [fig., a captain of the Italian Regiment], 2devout and fearing God [i.e. a worshipper of the one true God, but not a full convert to Judaism, also called "God-worshiping"] together with all his house, and doing [or, giving] many charitable gifts to the people and imploring God through all [fig. continually]…. 34Then Peter having opened his mouth, said, "Truly, I comprehend that God is not One to accept faces [fig., to be prejudice], 35but in every nation the one fearing Him and working righteousness is acceptable to Him…. 44While Peter [was] still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all the ones hearing the word. 45And the believing ones from the circumcision were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the free gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues [fig., other languages] and magnifying God. Then Peter answered, 47"Surely no one is able to forbid the water, can he, [for] these not to be baptized who received the Holy Spirit just as we also [did]?" 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they urgently asked him to stay several days (Acts 10:1,2,34,35, 44-47). It is very doubtful that Cornelius, a Gentile, knew Aramaic. So this is further proof to add to what was seen in Part One that Peter knew Greek. But more importantly, we now have Gentiles becoming part of the Church. And these Gentiles knew Greek, not Aramaic. And as the Book of Acts continues, it becomes clear that the Church is becoming more and more composed of Greek-speaking people. 1Now it happened in Iconium [that] they entered by the same [way] into the synagogue of the Jews, and they spoke in such a manner [that] a large number of both Jews and Greeks believed (Acts 14:1). 1Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And look! A certain disciple was there, by name Timothy, a son of a certain believing Jewish woman but of a Greek father, 2who was well spoken of by the brothers [and sisters] in Lystra and Iconium (Acts 16:1,2). 4And some of them believed and were joined with Paul and Silas, both a large number of the God-worshiping Greeks and not a few [fig., a large number] of the first [fig., prominent] women (Acts 17:4) 4Now he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath, and he was persuading Jews and Greeks (Acts 18:4). 10Now this took place for two years, with the result that all the ones living in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks (Acts 19:10). 17Now from Miletus, having sent to Ephesus, he summoned the elders of the assembly. 18Then when they came to him, he said to them, "You* know from [the] first day from which I set foot in Asia how I was with you* all the time, 19serving as a slave to the Lord with all humility and many tears and trials, the [trials] having happened to me by the plots of the Jews; 20how I did not keep back any of the [things] benefiting [you*, but I] declared to you* and taught you* publicly and in every house, 21solemnly testifying both to Jews and to Greeks [about] repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus (Acts 20:17-21). So it clear that by the time the Book of Acts closes (circa 63 AD), the Church is now composed of just as many if not more Greeks than Jews. And again, many of even the Jews would have been Greek-speaking Jews. So it is safe to say that within a few decades, the Church had more Greek speaking members than Hebrew speaking members. The importance of this will be seen as we look at when the NT books were written. Dating and "Target Audiences" of NT Books Lamsa claims, "[The Gospels] were written a few years after the resurrection and some portions were written by Matthew while Jesus was preaching. They were not handed down orally and then written after the Pauline Epistles, as some western scholars say; they were written many years before those Epistles" (p.ix). As the Church became more and more composed of Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles rather than Aramaic-speaking Jews, it becomes more likely that the Gospels would have been written in Greek. It simply would make no sense for them to be written in Aramaic if the "target audience" mostly spoke Greek. So Lamsa needs to claim the Gospels were written very early. But his claim goes counter to most any Biblical scholar of today. This can be seen in the introductions to the Gospels contained in study Bibles and commentaries. They will almost unanimously date the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to between 50-70 AD. And John's Gospel is usually dated much later, around 90 AD. And it should be noted that these are the dates given by conservative Bible scholars. Liberal scholars would probably date the Gospels even later. There is not sufficient space in this article to go into all of the proofs given for these dates. So I will refer the reader to any of the wealth of study Bibles and commentaries currently available. Further is the target audience of the Gospels. Again, information in this regard can be found in study Bibles and commentaries. But it is generally agreed that Matthew was probably directed towards Jews. So a case could be made on this basis that it was written in Aramaic. However, Mark was most likely addressed to Gentiles living in Rome. And Part One of this article discussed that Luke (along with Acts) was addressed to Theophilus, a Gentile (see Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). So Mark, Luke, and Acts would most logically have been written in Greek. John's Gospel seems to be the most universal of the Gospels, with his many references to the Gospel being for "the world" (e.g. 1:9-13, 29; 3:16,17; 4:42; 6:14,33,51; 8:12; 9:5; 11:49-52; 12:46; 17:21). With this universal emphasis, it would seem most likely that John would be written in the universal language of the time, which was Greek, not Aramaic. John's epistles and the Revelation are also generally dated to the 90's AD. And 1John and the Revelation also have a universal aspect to them (e.g. 1John 2:2; Rev 5:9,10; 7:9,10; 14:6,7). As for Paul, Lamsa claims that his epistles were directed towards Jews. Lamsa writes, "Paul, in nearly all of his epistles, speaks of the Hebrew fathers, subjugation in Egypt, crossing the Red sea, eating manna, and wandering in the desert. This proves beyond a doubt that these letters were written to members of the Hebrew race and not to the Gentile world who knew nothing of Hebrew history and divine promises to them (p.xi). However, most of Paul's epistles were written to churches that he had founded and had extensive ministry among. And this ministry would have included the teaching of the OT. So even his Gentile readers would have familiar with the OT. Furthermore, Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 2:9). He always presented the Gospel "to the Jew first" (Romans 1:16); but invariably, the Jews for the most part would reject the Gospel, so Paul then turned to the Gentiles (e.g. Acts 13:46). So the churches he directed his epistles towards would have been primarily made up of Gentiles. Moreover, there were many Greek-speaking Jews outside of Jerusalem. So many of even Paul's Jewish converts mostly likely spoke Greek. So the majority of the readers of Paul's epistle would have spoken Greek. All of this argues for Paul writing his epistles in Greek. That leaves the general epistles. I've already mentioned about John's epistles. The rest were written between 50-70 AD. So my comments about the synoptic Gospels would apply here. Now Peter was the apostle to the circumcision, but he would have been writing to Jews outside of Judea. This can be seen from his reference to "the Dispersion" (1:1). As I indicate in the ALT, this is the scattering of Jews outside of Judea. And as was discussed previously, Jews outside of Judea were more likely to be speaking Greek than Aramaic. Peter also mentions about his being "in Babylon" (5:13). Opinions vary as to what city Peter meant by this, but it most definitely was not in Judea. James is possibly the earliest book of the NT to be written, and it most likely was written to Jews. But these were "scattered abroad" (1:1). So they also would have been living outside of Judea. Jude is closely related to 2Peter. Which came first is a matter of debate. But both books appear to have been somewhat later, in the 60's AD. So overall, the dating of the NT books and their target audiences strongly argue for them being written in Greek not Aramaic. Again, much more on these points can be found in study Bibles and commentaries. Manuscript Evidence There are over 5000 extant Greek manuscripts of the NT. And some of these date to the early second century. Meanwhile, only a handful of Aramaic texts exist, and these date from the fourth to the seventh centuries (Aland, pp. xxxiv-xxxv). With this limited amount of manuscript evidence, it is hard to determine the original Aramaic text. Believing in the providence of God as I do, this would be a rather intolerable situation. What God has preserved for us is a wealth of Greek manuscripts. And through textual criticism we can determine very accurately what the original Greek NT contained. See my book Differences Between Bible Version for much in this regard. Matthew 19:24 One last claim Lamsa makes is that there are verses that don't make much sense in the Greek text but that make more sense in the Aramaic. He claims this is due to the Greek text having been "mistranslated" from the Aramaic. One such example he gives is Matthew 19:24, "Now again I say to you*, it is easier [for] a camel to pass through an eye of a needle, than [for] a rich [person] to enter into the kingdom of God." Lamsa states that the Aramaic word for "camel" resembles the word for "rope." So he claims the original Aramaic had "rope" but the alleged translator mistook the word and rendered it as "camel." So his implication is that "rope" makes more sense here than "camel." But the use of "camel" in this verse makes perfect sense. Jesus was using hyperbole by referring to the largest animal in Judea and how ridiculous it would be to try to thread it through a needle. He uses a similar hyperbole when He declares to the Pharisees, "Blind guides! The ones straining out the gnat, but swallowing the camel! (Matt 23:24). Conclusion Overall, the only book of the NT for which there is any significant possible evidence of an Aramaic original is Matthew. But even then, there are good contrary arguments. But for the rest of the NT, the evidence strongly supports what is generally taught and believed in the Church, that the NT was originally written in Greek. It is for this reason that so many in Church history have taken the time to learn Greek. And feeling it is important for even non-Greek readers to get as close as possible to this original Greek text, I translated my Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament. If I hadn't believed in the originality and importance of the Greek text, I would not put in the time and effort involved in producing this translation. References: All Scripture references taken from the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible: Second Edition. Copyright © 2005 by Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.dtl.org). Previously copyrighted © 1999, 2001 by Gary F. Zeolla. Aland, Kurt, et. al. The Greek New Testament: Third Corrected Edition. Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1983. Barker, Kenneth, general editor. The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985. Carson, D. A. Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Vol. 8). Frank E. Gaebelein, general editor. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985 And other volumes in Expositor's. Lamsa, George M. The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (a.k.a. Lamsa's Bible). Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1957. Sproul, R. C. general editor. New Geneva Study Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995. The above article originally appeared in the free Darkness to Light newsletter. It was posted on this Web site in May 2, 2005.

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_one.htm The Original Language of the New Testament Part One By Gary F. Zeolla The New Testament was originally written in Greek. This is what I have been taught and believed as long as I have been a Christian. But there are some who claim the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. This would mean the Greek manuscripts are just translations of this Aramaic original. This two-part article will look at this and related claims. Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references are taken from the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament: Second Edition (ALT). Interest in Aramaic For the most part, the Old Testament (OT) was originally written in Hebrew. On this, there is little debate. But there are a couple of small sections that were written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; Daniel chapters 2-7, and one verse in Jeremiah). Aramaic is similar but not identical to Hebrew. By the time of Christ, Jews living in Judea for the most part spoke Aramaic. This is seen in the movie The Passion of the Christ with the entire dialog being in Aramaic (with English subtitles). It is possibly due to this movie that there has been a resurgence of interest in Aramaic. But long before this, one notable proponent of the idea of an Aramaic original for the New Testament (NT) was George Lamsa. His Lamsa's Bible (published in 1957) was translated from the Syriac Pedangta. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic. In the introduction to Lasma's Bible are claimed evidences for an Aramaic Original for the NT. Papias One commonly cited evidence for an Aramaic original for the NT is a statement made by the Church Father Papias. The translation of this statement is rather difficult as will be discussed in a minute. But below is the translation of this statement as found in the book The Apostolic Fathers by Lightfoot and Harmer. So then Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he could (p. 529). This quote is used as evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. This claim is discussed in depth in the introduction to the commentary on Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Vol. 8, pages 3-17). I cannot repeat all of the arguments from these pages here. But I will give a couple of highlights. As stated, the translation of the sentence is difficult. First, the word "Hebrew" could also be rendered "Aramaic." But most important is the word "oracles." The Greek word is the plural form of "logos." It's most basic meaning is "word" or "saying." So it seems likely Matthew is referring to the words of Jesus. But the Gospel of Matthew includes much more than this. It also includes narrative by Matthew and accounts of the actions of Jesus. Now Luke does use a form of "logos" to refer to his Gospel (Acts 1:1). But it is in the singular, not plural. And Luke specifically says that what he wrote included the things "which Jesus began both to be doing and to be teaching." So it is generally rendered as "account." But by putting it in the plural, Papias seems to indicate he is not referring to a singular, complete "account" as Luke is but of specific "words." Hence "sayings" seems to be the best translation. So it's possible that Papias is referring to something other than the canonical Gospel. One theory is it is the so-called "Q" source of the sayings of Jesus that some have theorized the Gospel writers used. Or maybe it was an earlier draft by Matthew that he himself later used to compose his Gospel. Or it is even possible that Matthew wrote two versions of his Gospel, one in Greek and one in Aramaic. So there are various possibilities as to what is meant by Papias' statement. As such, this one vague statement does not necessary prove that canonical Gospel Of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. Moreover, the statement only refers to the Gospel of Matthew. It has no bearing on the original language of the rest of the NT. The Use of the Septuagint Expositor's goes into detail on the various reasons the Gospel of Matthew was not originally written in Aramaic. One of the strongest is that Matthew quotes from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT from the third century B.C. It is abbreviated as "LXX." The name and abbreviation are based on the tradition that 70 or 72 Jewish scholars worked on the translation, six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. For the second edition of the ALT, I carefully reviewed all of the quotes in the NT from the OT. I included the notation "LXX" after the OT verse reference when the wording of the quote in the NT differed from the wording of the source verse in the Hebrew but was similar or even identical to that of the LXX. And there were many such instances in Matthew and the rest of the NT, far more than I had originally thought. For instance, there are six places in the Gospel of Matthew where the OT quote is clearly from the LXX (3:3; 12:21; 13:14,15; 15:8,9; 19:5; 21:16). It should also be noted that there are also many times when the wording of the NT quotation is basically identical to that of the Hebrew text but differs from the LXX. So in those passages the NT writer was obviously quoting from the Hebrew (e.g. Matthew 2:15). And there are times when the quote in the NT, the Hebrew, and the LXX are all basically the same. So the NT writer could have been quoting from either the Hebrew or the LXX (e.g. Matthew 1:23). So having studied the issue, it is apparent the NT writers were familiar with both the Hebrew text of the OT and with the LXX, and they freely quoted from either of these. But if Matthew were writing in Aramaic for a strictly Aramaic speaking audience, it would have been more logical for him to have used the Hebrew Scriptures throughout. Moreover, as Expositor's states, "It cannot be argued that the alleged translator decided to use the LXX for all OT quotations in order to save himself some work, for only some of them are from the LXX" (p.13). Moreover, there are also cases where only the form of the OT verse as it appears in the LXX would "fit" in the context in which the NT writer is quoting the verse. For instance, Matthew 21:14-16 reads: 14And lame and blind [people] came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. 15But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous [things] which He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, "We give praise to You, the Son of David," they expressed indignation. 16And they said to Him, "Do You hear what these [ones] are saying?" But Jesus says to them, "Yes, did you* never read, ‘Out of [the] mouth of young children and nursing infants You prepared praise for Yourself?'" [Psalm 8:2, LXX]. Verse 16 includes a quotation from Psalm 8:2. This verse reads in the NKJV (which is translated from the Hebrew), "Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength." Not only is this significantly different from how the quote appears in the NT, but this wording would not "fit" in the context. The passage is talking about "praise" not "strength." However, this verse reads in Lancelot Brenton's translation of the LXX, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise." The differences in wording between this translation and how I translated the quote is simply due to translation differences; the Greek text is identical in the LXX and in NT. So in this passage, the quote is clearly from the LXX and only the way the verse is worded in the LXX would fit in the context. So the LXX is clearly the original source for the quote, not the Hebrew text. And what makes this particularly interesting is this a statement of Jesus. So it was Jesus who originally used the LXX in his discussion with the "the chief priests and the scribes." More on the import of this in a minute. But here, it should be noted that this use of the LXX only makes sense if the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. And similar instances could be given for other books of the NT. The Language of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Writers of the NT Lamsa claims, "The Gospels, as well as the Epistles, were written in Aramaic, the language of the Jewish people in Palestine and in the Greco-Roman world" (p.ix). And further, "For several centuries, the Christian movement was directed and guided by the Jews. All of the apostles and the evangelists were Jewish" (p.xi). So Lamsa is claiming Jesus, the apostles, the Gospel writers, and their audience spoke Aramaic. And further he is claiming that the Church was primary Jewish and remained so for centuries. And it is true that Jesus and the original apostles were Jews. And it is true that for the most part Jews in Palestine at that time spoke Aramaic. However, Luke, the writer of two NT books (the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts) was most likely a Gentile. Luke's writings were directed towards "most excellent Theophilus." This is a Greek name and title for a person of rank in the Roman government (see Acts 23:26; 24:30). So Theophilus was most likely a Gentile who spoke Greek. Furthermore, Luke writes in Acts 1:18,19: 18(This one indeed then acquired a field by [the] payment of [his] unrighteousness, and having fallen headfirst, he burst open in the middle and all his inward parts were poured out. 19And it became known to all the ones living in Jerusalem, with the result that that place is called, in their own language [i.e. Aramaic], Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.) This paragraph appears within a discourse by Peter. However, I put these verses in parentheses in the ALT as they do not seem to be a part of Peter's discourse. They are most likely comments added my Luke for the benefit of the readers of the Book of Acts. In this comments Luke refers to "their own language." I added the explanatory note that this is Aramaic. Again, for the most part this is true. But note that Luke then translated the Aramaic term for his readers. So it appears he was writing in Greek for people who knew only Greek. If he had been writing in Aramaic to Aramaic readers, it would have been unnecessary to provide a translation. It should also be noted that Luke's translation of "field of blood" appears in Lamsa's Bible as well. So it cannot be claimed that the supposed translator of the Aramaic original into Greek added this translation. It appears in the Aramaic text. This only makes sense if in fact the Book of Acts was written in Greek and was then translated into Aramaic. And with Acts being a follow-up to the Gospel of Luke, it is only logical that Luke was written in Greek as well. Going back to the Gospel of Matthew, it contains this interesting bit of information about Matthew, "And passing by from there, Jesus saw a man sitting at the tax-office, being called Matthew, and He says to him, "Be following Me!" And having stood up, he followed Him" (Matthew 9:9). Matthew was collecting taxes from Jews for the Roman government. To engage in such a business would have required him to have known Aramaic to be able to speak to the Jews, but he also would had to have known Greek (and maybe Latin) to have spoken to the Roman officials. Then there's this interesting exchange in John 12:20-22: 20Now [there] were some Greeks from the ones going up so that they should prostrate themselves in worship at the feast. 21Then these [Greeks] came to Philip, the [one] from Bethsaida of Galilee, and were asking him, saying, "Lord [or, Sir], we desire to see Jesus." 22Philip comes and tells Andrew, and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. So Philip, one of the apostles, was able to converse with Greeks. And it appears he brought these Greeks to Andrew and then to Jesus. Jesus' subsequent discourse is then addressed to "them" (v.23). The "them" probably included these visiting Greeks. So it's very possible Jesus' subsequent discourse was in Greek. As for Peter, the difference between the Greek of his two epistles is instructive. The first is written in very stylistic Greek while the second is written in very simple Greek. So the first appears to be written by someone very familiar with the Greek language while someone for whom Greek was a second language probably wrote the second. Some have used this difference to claim that 2Peter was not actually written by Peter. But a better explanation is seen in the text itself. 1Peter ends with the following: 12By Silvanus, the faithful brother as I consider [him], through [whom] I wrote a few [words], encouraging and testifying this to be [the] true grace of God in which you* have stood firm (5:12). "By Silvanus … through [whom] I wrote a few [words]" indicates that Peter probably dedicated his first epistle to Silvanus. In writing down the dictation, Silvanus probably "cleaned up" Peter's crude Greek. But the second epistle contains no such "by" line. So it was written directly by Peter and contains the kind of Greek you would expect from a fisherman for whom Greek was a second language. So Jesus, at least some of the apostles, and the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke most likely knew Greek. Similarly, Paul, the writer of half of the books of the NT, clearly knew both Aramaic and Greek. This is seen in the following passage from Acts: 37And Paul being about to be brought into the barracks says to the commanding officer, "Is it permitted for me to speak to you?" Then he said, "Do you know Greek? 38So you are not the Egyptian, the one having incited a riot before these days and having led the four thousand men of the assassins into the desert, are you?" 39But Paul said, "I indeed am a man, a Jew of Tarsus of Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant [fig., an important] city. Now I implore you, permit me to speak to the people." 1"Men, brothers and fathers, now pay attention to my defense to you*." 2Now they having heard that in the Hebrew dialect he was speaking to them, they gave [him] even more silence. (Acts 21:37-22:2). And finally, to re-iterate from before, OT quotes that are clearly taken from the LXX appear throughout the NT. Quotes from the LXX appear in all four Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1Corinthians, Ephesians, 2Timothy, Hebrews, James, and 1Peter. So writers of all of these books had to have known Greek and have been writing in Greek. The most interesting book in this list is the Epistle to the Hebrews. There are seven quotes from or clear references to the LXX in Hebrews (1:6; 2:13; 8:12; 10:6,7; 11:20; 12:5,6; 12:12). So although written to Hebrews, the writer was clearly writing in Greek and most likely to Greek-speaking Jews. The Original Language of the New Testament Part Two http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_two.htm References: Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references taken from the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament of the Holy Bible: Second Edition. Copyright © 2005 by Gary F. Zeolla of Darkness to Light ministry (www.dtl.org). Previously copyrighted © 1999, 2001 by Gary F. Zeolla. Brenton, Sir Lancelot C. L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986. Carson, D. A. Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Vol. 8). Frank E. Gaebelein, general editor. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1985 And other volumes in Expositor's. Lamsa, George M. The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (a.k.a. Lamsa's Bible). Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1957. Lightfoot, J. B. and J. R. Harmar. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek and English. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988. New King James Version (NKJV). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publisher, 1982.

So I see what you are saying now. You agree with my reasoning, at least I think you do, but you say there was a core group of Aramaic speaking people who believed in Jesus Christ in all these Greek speaking cities that I just named. I have never heard of that. I researched this a bit and now I see there were a few Jewish people in Corinth, as one example who would have spoken Aramaic, Acquila and Prescilla. Of course, the main language was still Greek. CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE When Paul left Corinth 18 months later, a Christian congregation flourished. The congregation was composed primarily of former pagans (1 Cor 12:2), most of them apparently from the lower classes (1 Cor 1:26 f). Some were slaves (1 Cor 7:21). A few wealthier persons (1 Cor 11:22-32) and Jews, however, (8) were among the believers. (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright ©1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

What you are saying is like people of the United States, that were born here and did not migrate from a foreign country being sent literature printed in languages from a foreign country that they did not understand. If you knew English and you knew, for example, Russian. And you were writing an article to send to people in the United States. Which language would you send it in?

Paul, was the apostle to the Gentiles and he spent time in the various cities. There primary language was Greek. To communicate with them he had to have spoken Greek. To write epistles to them he had to have written them or had them written in Greek. I doubt if the majority or even very many of people in Corinth, Thessalonica, Phillippi, Ephesus, Rome and Galatia even knew Aramaic. In fact, likely that very few if any of the people of these cities knew Aramaic. However, they would have known Greek. Even people of Rome with their Latin language would have had as a second language Greek.

http://www.dtl.org/bible/article/language/part_one.htm The dominant language of the first century when the New Testament was written was Greek. This was often the second language for the majority of people, in particular the Jews. Jesus, Paul, Peter and others likely had Greek as a second language similar to what we have today in Europe where people know more than one language. Luke the writer of Acts and the gospel of Luke was a Gentile. Peter, likely did not write the books that are given his name in the New Testament, but rather dictated this information to someone else. This person likely too was knowledgeable of Greek. But the most obvious is why would the writer (Paul) of 1 and 2 Corinthians or the book of Ephesians originally write them in Aramaic when they were originally sent to be read by Greek speaking people? Paul was highly educated and likely could also write in Greek. Either that or he had to work with a Greek translator while he was writing these books. Even this would still make the original copies in Greek because the original had to have been written in the language of the people that they were sent to. The above link is a study which looks to be helpful in determining the original language of the New Testament.

Sunesis, are you familiar with the year of Jubilee? It is part of the Old Testament law. It is where at the end of every 50 year period all debts for individual people are forgiven. So if God thought enough of man to make that part of the law. Why wouldn't God follow the same thing and forgive man's sins, which are often looked at scripturally as a form of debt, at the end of a certain time period? Also historically as I have read, the reconciliation of all to God at the end of time, was a popular belief among believers in Jesus Christ up to about the 4th century. Thanks for checking this out Sunesis, but there may be more of this to uncover.

Geisha, you sound like 99% of the population. New knowledge and concepts take time to learn and adjust to. Give it some time though. Down the road you might find this to be true. Thanks for considering the possibility though. And with my site the first page is a good starting point. I recommend reading that page first. Then go to what ever page that seems good to you. Of course, to read some teachings go to the bible teaching page and see what is available. I have links toward the bottom of this page. I have teachings from 5 other teachers on my site and I think they are all very good teachers.

Hi Geisha, thanks for posting. Actually I touch on a little bit of what you just posted on the first page of the web site that I just recently placed on the world wide web. Although, the overall subject of the site is a different one with a different emphasis. This one deals with the reconciliation of all through the Lord Jesus Christ. You might like the site. Have a great day. http://www.christian-universalism.info/

Gen2, all you are doing right now is accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing. And nothing else. Gen, the book of Revelation really is a difficult book to understand. Below is an example from the Nelson Bible dictionary. Read about the imagery in it. For example below, do you know what the following is? Because I don't know. "an angel whose legs are pillars of fire, men who ride on horses while smiting the earth with plagues of destruction, and a fiery red dragon with seven heads and ten horns who crouches before a heavenly woman about to deliver a child." REVELATION OF JOHN The last book of the Bible, and the only book of APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE in the New Testament. Apocalypse, the title of this book in the original Greek, means "unveiling" or "disclosure" of hidden things known only to God. Other examples of apocalyptic literature can be found in the Old Testament in Daniel (chaps. Dan), Isaiah (24-27), Ezekiel (chaps. 37-41), and Zechariah (chaps. 9-12). Like its counterparts, the Book of Revelation depicts the end of the present age and the coming of God's future kingdom through symbols, images, and numbers. These symbols include an angel whose legs are pillars of fire, men who ride on horses while smiting the earth with plagues of destruction, and a fiery red dragon with seven heads and ten horns who crouches before a heavenly woman about to deliver a child. Why was apocalyptic literature written in such imagery? One reason is that these books were written in dangerous times when it was safer to hide one's message in imags than to speak plainly. Moreover, the symbolism preserved an element of mystery about details of time and place. The purpose of such symbolism, however, was not to confuse, but to inform and strengthen believers in the face of persecution. Although the keys to some symbols have been lost, the overall message of this book is clear: God is all-powerful. No countermoves of the devil, no matter how strong, can frustrate the righteous purposes of God. (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright ©1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers) Do you know what the difference between us in this discussion is? I know when I don't know something, but you think you know everything. One thing I do know though is that if I would have insulted you as much as you have insulted me lately on this forum you would have been whinning and complaining by now telling everyone how badly I have treated you. On second thought you are already complaining. You are now telling everyone how much I have hurt your feelings. Sorry, but what ever hurt you are feeling now and where ever it came from I am not going to be able to help you on this. And for you to think that I don't like you is just plain baloney. Gen2, you may need some emotional counseling, but I am not qualified to offer this to you.

I have heard that most people that believe in the after life believe that resurrections in some form happens every time someone dies. Some also believe that some go directly to heaven and some go to hell to be tormented eternally. Does that make their beliefs true or based on the bible? 1 Cor 15:50-57 50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment (Greek word NT:823 atomos, atomon that cannot be cut in two or divided, indivisible; 1 Cor 15:52 (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft) , in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55 "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. NASU If one wants to learn about the resurrection of the dead they should read 1 Corinthians chapter 15. There are 4 usages of the word resurrection in this chapter and the whole chapter deals with this concept. In contrast there is only 2 usages in the book of Revelation that has the word resurrection. These two usages are Revelation chapter 20 verses 5 and 6 which I have previously quoted. The book of Revelation is a very difficult book to read with a lot of imagery and symbolism. I don't think it is a good idea to base ones foundational theology on this book because of all the difficult imagery and symbolism.

Good job Roy. You looked up that Greek word that Tom mentioned using the Strong's number 726 and posted what you found for everyone to look at and examine.

That sounds reasonable Tom. But I and perhaps everyone here does not know biblical Greek (harpazo). I could look up this word though if I knew the Strong's number that represents harpazo in the biblical Greek text. Does any one know what that number is? Thanks for posting Tom. Good to hear from you.

Hi Tom: Good to hear from you. I always value your comments and thanks for posting. Let me give you a little simple explanation of how I study things. When I am studying a biblical subject I locate biblical words that pertain to the subject and see how they are used in the bible and in their context. Then I use the Strong's numbering system for the New Testament and see all the places where these words are used and in the context of the scriptures. Then by studying the scriptures of how the various related biblical words are used I gain more understanding. This is a very simple, yet effective method of study. Do you see the problem with the above method of study when using words that are not used in the bible? And I do not want to argue about the use of words. That is a waste of time for everyone. Words are descriptive in nature and are in the eye of the beholder. One can take unscriptural words and use them to teach biblical truth or they can take unscriptural words and use them to teach error.

So Roy, are you one of those people who believes that right after you die your soul goes immediately to heaven to be with God and Jesus or to hell to be tormented forever? Because if you do I have a different view of death and the after life.

Gen, I just sent you a private message. If you want to discuss this outside of the forum then return my message. In the meantime, please try to not take this discussion personally. And if you have a different view than what I and others have stated then please state your views on this forum. And if you have already stated some of them here I must have missed it so please restate your views. And please read these scriptures and ask God for understanding. 1 Cor 13:8-13 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. NIV And if you want to read my interpretation of the above scriptures you can ask me and I will answer you.

Gen2, all I did was point out that the word rapture is not found in the bible. I was not making any judgements at all. You should be thanking me for biblical input that not everyone on this forum has. Gen, I know you are a very smart lady. But no one knows everything about everything. We all have our areas of good knowledge and areas where we are mediocre in knowledge. So now I am an a$$ for contributing something from a bible software program to this forum discussion? You have, to put it mildly, over reacted. And I just read your prior post Gen. So then what do you believe? Do you believe there is more than two resurrections? Do you believe like they taught in the Way ministry that there is a gathering together, which is a form of resurrection of the dead, then some time later a resurrection of the just. Then at the end of time as we know it the resurrection of the unjust? Instead of being so judgmental with me and merely criticizing my viewpoint which I have taken the time to state. And which I might add has some similarities with some of the other people on this forum including the person who started this thread, who I think looks to be knowledgeable and well researched on this subject. Why don't you instead tell us what you actually believe. And actually as I understand it there are 3 resurrections to spiritual life. The first one was God raising Jesus Christ from the dead. The next one the resurrection of the just. Then the final one the resurrection of the unjust.

A good observation CMAN and I don't buy it either. And that is why I recently authored this web site. http://www.christian-universalism.info

It sounds like you are not familiar with the book of Revelation and the doctrinal errors that can crepe in with its interpretation. I was merely warning people about this. Why do you have a problem with that CMAN? REVELATION OF JOHN The last book of the Bible, and the only book of APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE in the New Testament. Apocalypse, the title of this book in the original Greek, means "unveiling" or "disclosure" of hidden things known only to God. Other examples of apocalyptic literature can be found in the Old Testament in Daniel (chaps. Dan), Isaiah (24-27), Ezekiel (chaps. 37-41), and Zechariah (chaps. 9-12). Like its counterparts, the Book of Revelation depicts the end of the present age and the coming of God's future kingdom through symbols, images, and numbers. These symbols include an angel whose legs are pillars of fire, men who ride on horses while smiting the earth with plagues of destruction, and a fiery red dragon with seven heads and ten horns who crouches before a heavenly woman about to deliver a child. Why was apocalyptic literature written in such imagery? One reason is that these books were written in dangerous times when it was safer to hide one's message in images than to speak plainly. Moreover, the symbolism preserved an element of mystery about details of time and place. The purpose of such symbolism, however, was not to confuse, but to inform and strengthen believers in the face of persecution. Although the keys to some symbols have been lost, the overall message of this book is clear: God is all-powerful. No countermoves of the devil, no matter how strong, can frustrate the righteous purposes of God. (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright ©1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Gen, I am only adding biblical insight. To many times people use unbiblical words with a result of a degradation of understanding. You are not the only person that uses the word rapture. I am just pointing out what I see in my bible software. For everyone I recommend that you check the first page of the link that I just provided. When it comes to the prophetic future we see through a glass darkly. There is no reason to argue about something that no one has perfect vision of.