01-14-2011, 06:50 PM
Sorry, this will be my last question on here and only thought of this once I saw a few and remembered another few posts from before. I remember the Crawford was supported by Dave B. so well that I was surprised Mr. Roth wouldnt use it. I remember I asked him once but cant remember what he said. Im still using my AENT to "correct" my NKJV do I can still read a normal bible but make note of the Aramaic primacisms, if you will. I remember Rev. 9:11, the Crawford uses the word "in Aramaic" but the Harklean uses the words "in Greek".
Isnt that a great pointer to an original, or am I just too simple to understand the complexity behind Revelation and its supposed origins?
Isnt that a great pointer to an original, or am I just too simple to understand the complexity behind Revelation and its supposed origins?
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear Elohim, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc.12:13