Language

[Haipule]

The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and translated into Greek, the Septuagint, BCE complete with an Apocrypha. The NT was written in mostly KoinE Greek in the mid to late first century. As far as 700 AD, we have some earlier manuscripts copies of some books and partials since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, all Greek was the Codex Vaticanus which is paleographically dated to the fourth century.

Despite the claim that there's such a thing as Koine Greek no one has been able to produce such a Greek alphabet.  Can you do it?  And there was no comprehensive Bible until around 690 A.D.  BTW, the Apocrypha was included from the start and was in almost every version.  Do you know when someone got a bug up his butt and deleted it?  I'll tell you if you want to know.

It's cool that you know these things. I go with the alphabet of the autographed language Scripture commonly accepted in the several interlinear bibles I own. KoinE(Jerusalem area Greek creole street language) was a dialect of the Attic Greek of Alexander the Great. Which itself, is a dialect of the Classical Greek.

As far as the Apocrypha, the Jewish "Holy Scriptures(OT)" books, are the same as English KJV, NIV and NASV only in a different order. However, there is a much longer version of Jeremiah somewhere but, I don't remember where? Yet, the Apocrypha is not included in the versions of the Jewish "Holy Scriptures" I have seen. So, if someone did take them out I would guess its was post-Septuagint(Torah was early koinE 3rd century BC).

I hope your not going to say, "That dude from Hippo" because that dude was a complete clown! How did he become a saint?

Many of the older versions of Scripture such as the Coptic are translated from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew/Aramaic texts. So yes, they include the Apocrypha.

---

Having studied a little more, I realize this is an old argument with out a consensus. I though Max Muller list of speculative theories was interesting:

Bow-wow
Pooh-pooh
ding-dong
yo-he-ho
ta-ta

I'm going with tic-tac-toe because no one wins!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Despite the claim that there's such a thing as Koine Greek no one has been able to produce such a Greek alphabet.  Can you do it?  And there was no comprehensive Bible until around 690 A.D.  BTW, the Apocrypha was included from the start and was in almost every version.  Do you know when someone got a bug up his butt and deleted it?  I'll tell you if you want to know.

It's cool that you know these things. I go with the alphabet of the autographed language Scripture commonly accepted in the several interlinear bibles I own. KoinE(Jerusalem area Greek creole street language) was a dialect of the Attic Greek of Alexander the Great. Which itself, is a dialect of the Classical Greek.

As far as the Apocrypha, the Jewish "Holy Scriptures(OT)" books, are the same as English KJV, NIV and NASV only in a different order. However, there is a much longer version of Jeremiah somewhere but, I don't remember where? Yet, the Apocrypha is not included in the versions of the Jewish "Holy Scriptures" I have seen. So, if someone did take them out I would guess its was post-Septuagint(Torah was early koinE 3rd century BC).

I hope your not going to say, "That dude from Hippo" because that dude was a complete clown! How did he become a saint?

Many of the older versions of Scripture such as the Coptic are translated from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew/Aramaic texts. So yes, they include the Apocrypha.

---

Having studied a little more, I realize this is an old argument with out a consensus. I though Max Muller list of speculative theories was interesting:

Bow-wow
Pooh-pooh
ding-dong
yo-he-ho
ta-ta

I'm going with tic-tac-toe because no one wins!

Two English guys, Westcott & Hort, led the effort to rewrite the Bible in the 1870s.  Once consequence of that is that the writers deleted the Apocrypha in their version so it's only been gone about 132-135 years.

http://rockingodshouse.com/why-were-14-b...e-in-1881/

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_08a.asp

That'll get you started.  You can Google Westcott & Hort for a lot of articles about them.  The New York Times archives is loaded with articles from that time period covering the Bible revisions and religious issues.  You can read them for free on a PDF format.  You can also examine some old Bibles on various sites and they all have the Apocrypha as an integral part.  

All of the Greek language Bibles that claim to be from the Third or Fourth Centuries are fakes.

[Simon Moon]

A part of language is etymology. I read an interesting book written by the linguist John McWhorter, frequent guest on fox news, titled, "The POWER of BABLE". In it he states:

"In Old English, the word that became silly meant “blessed.” Just as wanting to do something implies that one will do it, blessedness implies innocence. That kind of implication led people to gradually incorporate innocence into their conception of the word, and through time innocence ended up becoming the main connotation rather than the “definition 2” one, just as one sound gradually becomes another one through shades of the new sound gradually encroaching on the original one. Thus, by the Middle Ages silly meant “innocent”: about 1400, we find sentences such as Cely art thou, hooli virgyne marie. If one is innocent, one is deserving of compassion, and this was the next meaning of the word (a 1470 statement: Sely Scotland, that of helpe has gret neide), but because the deserving of compassion has a way of implying weakness, before long the meaning of silly was “weak” (1633: Thou onely art The mightie God, but I a sillie worm). From here it was a short step to “simple” or “ignorant,” and finally silly came to mean “foolish”- having begun meaning “sanctified by God”!"-- The POWER of BABLE, by John McWhorter, page 32

---

Yes, I agree. How humans acquired language, is a valid question. There are scientists in several applicable fields studying the subject.

I probably also agree that humanity did not 'invent' intellect or the ability to use language. They were acquired through natural evolutionary mechanisms.

What is not valid, however, is your claim that we must have been given language. Unless you can support it with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument, that we were indeed 'given language'.

Who is the language giver? What is your evidence?

Thank you! I think it was a valid question and so wrote it as a question.

You still don't get it. Your question was valid, yes.

BUT your premises weren't valid or sound, therefore, they do not lead to your conclusion.

Again, this is basic logic 101. You really should read a book on basic logic and forming valid and sound syllogisms.

The statement that man cannot think beyond his vocabulary is also valid.

Not without supporting it with demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, it isn't. As it is, it is nothing more than an unsupported assertion.

But, since we are on the Christian thread, biblically, God formed Adam and gave him a breath. Adam's job was to name the animals which would require a genius intellect from the start.

Another unsupported assertion.

Not to mention, that ALL of the scientific evidence available (fossil, DNA, comparative anatomy, etc), pretty much disproves that there was ever a 'first man, first woman' as depicted in the Biblical myth.

Then we have the tower of Babel where the language became languages. It says God did this or nothing would be impossible for man. Yet, now we have the internet and nothing is impossible for us now! Ha Ha Ha!

Another unsupported assertion.

No wonder you believe in ancient myths.

I can give you no scientific evidence for a Giver and you can give me no evidence of "natural evolutionary mechanisms". To say, "I am here, I can think, I can speak" does not prove an evolutionary process of human life nor the ability to even say it proves it was a process of evolution just because you said it. Evolution, when it comes to mankind and man things, drives me ape! Beyond that, go for'em Cuz!

There is tons of compelling natural evidence for explanations for language. Ignore it all you want, but it exists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because it is impossible to think beyond your vocabulary; I would say that man could not, and did not invent language. It must have been given to him from the start. Any thoughts?

I think there are feelings we have that cannot be expressed accurately, or perhaps even at all, with language.

As for inventing language, I think man did. If not man, who?

---

True language is a special thing that is exclusive to man.

Factually incorrect.

[Haipule]

Yes, there are tons of theories but, there is nothing definitive so I'm sticking with my tic-tac-toe theory because no one can win or when.

[Godscreated]

True language is a special thing that is exclusive to man.

Factually incorrect.

 You expect that little answer to be proof of something.

GC

[Haipule]

A part of language is etymology. I read an interesting book written by the linguist John McWhorter, frequent guest on fox news, titled, "The POWER of BABLE". In it he states:

"In Old English, the word that became silly meant “blessed.” Just as wanting to do something implies that one will do it, blessedness implies innocence. That kind of implication led people to gradually incorporate innocence into their conception of the word, and through time innocence ended up becoming the main connotation rather than the “definition 2” one, just as one sound gradually becomes another one through shades of the new sound gradually encroaching on the original one. Thus, by the Middle Ages silly meant “innocent”: about 1400, we find sentences such as Cely art thou, hooli virgyne marie. If one is innocent, one is deserving of compassion, and this was the next meaning of the word (a 1470 statement: Sely Scotland, that of helpe has gret neide), but because the deserving of compassion has a way of implying weakness, before long the meaning of silly was “weak” (1633: Thou onely art The mightie God, but I a sillie worm). From here it was a short step to “simple” or “ignorant,” and finally silly came to mean “foolish”- having begun meaning “sanctified by God”!"-- The POWER of BABLE, by John McWhorter, page 32

---

Thank you! I think it was a valid question and so wrote it as a question.

You still don't get it. Your question was valid, yes.

BUT your premises weren't valid or sound, therefore, they do not lead to your conclusion.

Again, this is basic logic 101. You really should read a book on basic logic and forming valid and sound syllogisms.

The statement that man cannot think beyond his vocabulary is also valid.

Not without supporting it with demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, it isn't. As it is, it is nothing more than an unsupported assertion.

But, since we are on the Christian thread, biblically, God formed Adam and gave him a breath. Adam's job was to name the animals which would require a genius intellect from the start.

Another unsupported assertion.

Not to mention, that ALL of the scientific evidence available (fossil, DNA, comparative anatomy, etc), pretty much disproves that there was ever a 'first man, first woman' as depicted in the Biblical myth.

Then we have the tower of Babel where the language became languages. It says God did this or nothing would be impossible for man. Yet, now we have the internet and nothing is impossible for us now! Ha Ha Ha!

Another unsupported assertion.

No wonder you believe in ancient myths.

I can give you no scientific evidence for a Giver and you can give me no evidence of "natural evolutionary mechanisms". To say, "I am here, I can think, I can speak" does not prove an evolutionary process of human life nor the ability to even say it proves it was a process of evolution just because you said it. Evolution, when it comes to mankind and man things, drives me ape! Beyond that, go for'em Cuz!

There is tons of compelling natural evidence for explanations for language. Ignore it all you want, but it exists.

Evolution in language proves that Evolution is the genius! Who is Evolution that I may worship her? Congratulations, you have PROVED the evolution of Dumassedry! (did I spell it wrong or, did I invent another word?)! You and Evolution are the champions of mankind! You and Evolution are the "natural selection"! You and Evolution are the survivalists! I am the devolution! I'm sooo SCREWED! Who is "Evolution" again?

And, I am the asshole that argued with you!

Sorry Simon, I was laughing when I wrote that. Thank you for the chat though! Actually, I respect you and appreciate your comments! Happy late Festivus for the rest of us Day!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Factually incorrect.

 You expect that little answer to be proof of something.

GC

You can read or not read as you see fit, answer or not answer (as in this case). I don't expect you to try to learn, or to admit being incorrect.

And as usual, I'm not disappointed.

[Godscreated]

 You expect that little answer to be proof of something.

GC

You can read or not read as you see fit, answer or not answer (as in this case). I don't expect you to try to learn, or to admit being incorrect.

And as usual, I'm not disappointed.

Good.

[Brian37]

Bark bark woof arf grrrrrrr ruff.

Um........... animals have language.

No shit, even parrots can mimic and even understand human language.

Even my cat communicates with me for food or attention. The narcissism of humans is mundane, unfortunate, but also expected. Humans are NOT an apex, we simply have different adaptations. Cockroaches cant write a book, no. But they are better and faster ad breeding, and far more likely to survive a global catastrophe like that which killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. 

Humans think we are so invincible but we are not. If  you think that, look up the water bear.