I understand what you are saying WW, but Hebrew is not the same thing as Spirit,
True, but neither is Greek or any other language.
which is why I think God can ordain Hebrews write in Greek for a result He desires.
Or have it translated.
Paul was clearly multi-lingual, and his letters were to Greek speaking churches. Can we really say it would have been better for Hebrew letters to have been sent to those churches? Would not Paul have done so, if it were better, and a 'basis for doctrine'?
Obviously Greek would be a better choice in that case. Just like an English or Spanish translation is the best choice for the majority of todays Americans. But only because most don't read Hebrew and/or Greek. So the choice is an English/Spanish Bible or none at all. The least of two evils :-)
You know in retrospect I think I made some of my posts too black and white (to bring a point across). Some books have more proof of Jewish origins than others. Matthew is quite often mentioned as written in Hebrew and translated lateron.
Speaking about writing and translating, in those days many couldn't read or write. They hired professionals to write for them. But still their name would be on the document. Just like a CEO dictating a letter to a typist.
Also keep in mind the Bible is just a fraction of the things that happend. I firmly believe Jesus spoke many more wise words that we can read in our Bibles. Likewise when we read about an Apostle traveling to a church he said more to them than the verses that are recorded. I can very well imagine that the Apostle gave a teaching that we know as 5 verses. But the 10 hour discussion explanation that followed isn't written down.
Well, in my mind that's quite obvious. An Apostle travels for months, speaks 5 verses and that's it?
Note that I'm not
saying 1000's of verses are missing from the Bible. I'm just saying not everything was written down.
Another example if the Septuagint, which is as example of Hebrew definitely translated into Greek, and which is regarded as much more stilted as a result. The NT does not have this same stiltedness, flowing much better in Greek.
What's best is a matter of opinion. Some scholars say the Greek often makes little sense.
(just) talking about spelling and grammar rules, but about "does it make any sense?".
Translating (back*) into Hebrew uncovers Hebrew idioms that are/were unknown in Greek.
I'll explain that with an simple example.
"Yesterday it rained pipe stems where I live."
I think that grammatically fairly correct English. But does it make sense to you? It's a Dutch idiom that should be translated into English as "Yesterday it rained cats and dogs where I live. If that idiom has a deeper meaning in Dutch that meaning will be lost to the English reader because those readers are clueless what the first translation means, and correct English translation doesn't have that deeper meaning.
I guess, to repeat myself, I would just state that all your questions could apply to those who sent out Greek epistles. You say Greek is "unable to show the depth of the mind of the writer/translator". Well then, why did Paul dare to send out Greek epistles, if they were going to veil the depths of what he was trying to say? Why not rather command the churches to all learn Hebrew?
I think I already answered that in the first quote. It's better than nothing. The audience has it's limitations. The NT is heavily rooted in the OT. The NT isn't God's way of getting rid of everything OT and start anew with all His teachings. So when Jesus refered to something from the OT He did just that. He wasn't in any way altering those Scriptures. So He pointed to the whole teaching attached to those passages. And those things were are understood with a Jewish mind. Jesus only gave sermons to Jews, not gentiles.
Ultimately, the thoughts that matter are God's, and He does not limit Himself by language. I would hazard to call Him 'Omni-lingual!'!!!
He surely is but He's also limited by the strong and weak points of any language.