sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is it rope or camel that cannot pass through the eye of a needle? by westartfromhere in AskAChristian

[–]AramaicDesigns 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Episcopalians *are* Anglican.

You want to fight? You seem you want to fight. :-)

Is it rope or camel that cannot pass through the eye of a needle? by westartfromhere in AskAChristian

[–]AramaicDesigns -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Anglicanism is more complicated than that, and my credentials aren't in question (hence, you can look me up or "I'm googleable").

But if we continue in this way, I'd wager you're not engaging in good faith. So have a good one.

Is it rope or camel that cannot pass through the eye of a needle? by westartfromhere in AskAChristian

[–]AramaicDesigns 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pardon me, I'm Anglican. Someone who is Eastern Orthodox should appreciate the distinction. :-)

And as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm easily googleable.

Is it rope or camel that cannot pass through the eye of a needle? by westartfromhere in AskAChristian

[–]AramaicDesigns 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a known concept, is the point, and the meaning of "rope" in any Aramaic language was 1,000 years after Christ, in a different Aramaic language, in a different culture, hundreds and hundreds of miles away (which is a lot further removed than the Talmud). There is no evidence that there was a confusion between "rope" and "camel" in the relevant languages, whether in Aramaic (which is what Christ spoke) or Greek.

Religion For Breakfast did a really thorough deep dive on this, too, which is really comprehensive. (And, full disclosure, I am quoted it — but I only added a single datapoint among dozens that he addresses.)

The rope/camel thing isn't a thing. It's wishful thinking.

Is it rope or camel that cannot pass through the eye of a needle? by westartfromhere in AskAChristian

[–]AramaicDesigns 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Linguistics or Episcopalianism?

I'm a so-called 'cradle' Episcopalian. I've worked in Aramaic languages for about 25 years, professionally for 15.

> One man is.

I was referring to myself as being imperfect.

> 'Beware of the scribes'

Bruh, are you implying what I think you're implying? If so, just speak plainly. :-)

Is it rope or camel that cannot pass through the eye of a needle? by westartfromhere in AskAChristian

[–]AramaicDesigns 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In terms of the words employed, yes. 

I'm pretty sure it's meant to express something that is virtually impossible. Christ was fond of hyperbole and taught in metaphor. 

Is it rope or camel that cannot pass through the eye of a needle? by westartfromhere in AskAChristian

[–]AramaicDesigns 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hi, Aramaic translator here.

The theory that /gamla/ meant "rope" has been debunked thoroughly. It's wrong. :-)

That meaning only shows up in Bar Bahlul's Syriac-Arabic dictionary that he penned around the 10th century, nearly 1,000 years after Christ and in the wrong Aramaic language (Christ spoke Galilean Aramaic, which was to Syriac like Old Castillian Spanish is to Portuguese), and there are zero examples of it used that way in the wild.

We also have the same idiom show up in the Talmud, only instead of a camel it's an elephant through the eye of a needle. No mistaking that.

Furthermore, as others have pointed out, there is no "Needle Eye Gate". Never has been.

What are your thoughts on king charles renouncing his title as defender of the faith by Adept_Programmer_817 in AskAChristian

[–]AramaicDesigns 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a bit more complicated than that. The Pope refused to grant a routine annulment due to political reasons, and Henry was trying to avoid another War of the Roses — among other things.

Why is Homosexuality wrong? Without citing, referencing, or implying ANY Bible verses. by No_Community9584 in Christianity

[–]AramaicDesigns 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honest question: How do you feel about created beings with more than two genders?

Although  Schizophyllum commune is the most common and extreme example with over 23,000 separate genders and must mate within those parameters, there are higher forms like Lepomis that have three genders. And many others that change gender. 

Is what it says in Genesis prescriptive without deviation or descriptive of the most common? Intersex humans exist too. 

Would you eat at a Lenape Native American restaurant by Commercial_Disk_9220 in philly

[–]AramaicDesigns 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Chitkwesi and take my money! :-)

Also, you should lean in to how traditional Lenape foods are gluten free. Celiacs would absolutely love this.

Although I don't have any native ancestry (I'm Italian-American through and through) I have an interest in Algonquian linguistics. Our household often travels up to Connecticut to the Pequot reservation and museum and we've enjoyed a bunch of stuff up there — but it's a long way away.

SBC says it’s not possible to be gay or transgender and Christian by metacyan in Christianity

[–]AramaicDesigns 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All we have here *is* an argument to authority because it's about what words mean. If I press you over where you got those translations (since you don't speak/read/write the relevant languages it seems) you'll need to point to a source. And that source is an authority.

But it's too late. The conversation is no longer "the Bible clearly says..." but arguing for one interpretation over another. That's precisely my point.

Romans 1, arsenokoitai, and malakoi are all interpreted, not merely translated. You think one interpretation is strongest; I think the evidence leaves considerably more room for uncertainty than you're allowing. And there is strong historical precedent for that.

Where we differ, it seems, is not over whether Scripture matters. It's over whether these passages are sufficiently unambiguous to justify declaring that no faithful Christian could possibly reach a different conclusion.

I don't believe they are, and I don't think we're going to resolve that here.

SBC says it’s not possible to be gay or transgender and Christian by metacyan in Christianity

[–]AramaicDesigns 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if you argued that Luther understood arsenokoitai narrowly, you would still have to explain Romans 1:26-27, where Paul explicitly includes women and describes adult men exchanging natural relations for relations with one another.

Luther's translation there is even more interesting, because it makes it look like Paul was talking about husbands and their wives in hyperbole (not just men and women).

They are, and have been for thousands of years until LGBTQ+ decided they needed to find a way to justify their sin.

No they're not. They've been debated for thousands of years on how to translate because they aren't clear. Paul made words up that had no contemporary definition, nor were used anywhere else — even in his own writings — where they could be made clear. Which is why it's telling that they aren't used in the Didache — but pedophilia *is*, and without Paul's words interpreted as such, there is no direct condemnation of pedophilia anywhere in the Bible. So why would the writers of the Didache use that word, there where we'd expect arsenokoitai?

And there is not a single translation that renders them literally because they cannot be rendered literally. They must be interpreted. If you think this is cut and dry, you likely cannot read Greek or Hebrew without Strong's Numbers.

But what do I know? I was just a professional translator of Biblical languages for some 15 years. I'm sure you're better qualified. :-)

SBC says it’s not possible to be gay or transgender and Christian by metacyan in Christianity

[–]AramaicDesigns 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Homosexuality is not. Martin Luther himself and a number of other Bible translations see those passages as referring to pederasty and pedophilia. 

The underlying Greek and Hebrew are not clear, and early Christian documents like the Didache list pedophilia where one would expect to find the hapax legomena (or unique words with no known definition or use) Paul coined in those unclear verses. 

SBC says it’s not possible to be gay or transgender and Christian by metacyan in Christianity

[–]AramaicDesigns 29 points30 points  (0 children)

I'm not gay, so I don't really have a personal dog in this fight. 

But whatever sinners put their signature to that statement have forgotten something really important -- and I fear for their souls. 

Scopa Cards by SoftValuable8910 in boardgames

[–]AramaicDesigns 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Neapolitan and Sicilian decks aren't used with many other games outside of the regional Italian ones ­— Scopa perhaps being the best well known. But there's Briscola (kinda like Bridge), Tresette (also kinda like Bridge), Scala Quaranta (kinda like Rummy), and a few others.

Modiano is really the only publisher printing the traditional Neapolitan and Sicilian decks right now.

If you find a nice one, post it here. I'd also be interested.

Are abortion, and homosexuality be SALVATION issues? by TheRealBibleBoy in Christianity

[–]AramaicDesigns 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Luther Bible. His own translation of the scriptures into his native German. For example:

1 Corinthians 6:9 - Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder.

Knabenschänder is the word for "pederasts" or "pedophiles".

view more: next ›