Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Romans 1:17 query
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Hmmm, I thought for sure you mentioned about being a unitarian Dave. Then that would be my bad and I have to retract that particular part of my post.

Which leads me to wonder what it is you really believe Dave? I can almost say with certainty that you are born-again but do you believe in the gifts or not? You certainly put down The Spirit's infilling so it would come as no suprise to me if you deny the works of The Spirit also.

Something I think your missing Dave is in 1 John. The part about The Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one?!?

Let me ask you a really particular question Paul, are the majority of such people who dealt with this sort of thing Christians or Catholics? I'm not trying to be evasive here, I would like to know.
Dave Wrote:Let me ask you a really particular question Paul, are the majority of such people who dealt with this sort of thing Christians or Catholics? I'm not trying to be evasive here, I would like to know.

The people who I am referring to never called themselves "Christians" or "Catholics" - they called themselves "Meshikhaye." I know it comes as a big surprise to you that there is a group who doesn't associate itself in any way, shape or form with any of your groups....nor accepts any of your labels.

Does it matter? Which side of those bloody two camps in Northern Ireland do you think were dying for Meshikha's sake? Or, did none of them die for "Kreestos?" Wuh happened? Kill off all those pagans in Europe, fail in the Crusades to butcher more infidels like Muslims, Jews and Nestorians......then you got nobody else to turn on and butcher but yourselves?

Surprised that there is still such a thing as non-believers killing believers, since all YOU have been doing since is killing fellow believers and non-believers alike? Is that why you ask if they are "Christians" or "Catholics?" Are you from Northern Ireland? There is that much difference to you, and to God by association with you?

Ever in a theological debate, aren't you? Have to define things to a minute level, haven't you?

Thank Alaha Islam saved us from "Christians" like you, Dave. Had Alaha not put that gap inbetween us, "Christians" like you would have sealed our fate long ago.....just like you tried with those other big-nosed darkies....the Jews....first in the early Church you drove them out of, then right into the kettles of Auschwitz you drove them into - you know, those "Kreestos-killers"?

By the way - I'll use "Kreestos" in my exchanges with you from now on, seeing how much closer Greek was to Aramaic than that silly little dialect...you know, "Syriac."

Greek is MUCH, MUCH closer to Aramaic than Syriac is - you know! After all, Syriac's ONLY a dialect. Greek is an altogether different language - which is, of course, far preferable than a stoopid DIALECT.

Man, you crack me up. Don't ever change, Dave. Please stay the same. You make my point for me far better than I ever could. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Now Paul, did I get your panties in a bunch?

Heh, it was simple question, it wasn't intended to make you defensive about things. Simple question Christians or Catholics?

There is a problem at times when people associate death with faith. Not everyone is a true martyr and death is quite cheap anymore.

There is also problems with theology and doctrine when it comes to certain sects and groups of people who call themselves Christians, or similar names, when in fact they are living within their minds. To them belief is good enough. It is standard teaching at times, especially in the Catholic churches. I used to be catholic for a short while when I was growing up, so I am aquainted with the lack of salvation teaching and the "baptism is good enough" manmade doctrines. Here I am believing in God and see no reason I wouldn't go to heaven when in fact I was just as far away from God as I was when I was born into this world.

To be a Christian you must be born again. I didn't set the standard Jesus did. It is written down as a quote from Jesus. For those who think otherwise, He says, "Depart from me for I never knew you."

It's not my particular doctrine or theological bent, it is His. He makes the distinction on purpose for His reasons.


As far as the syriac text:

What's interesting lately is this theory of the aramaic new testament being original. First, there is no true aramaic print text being presented by any of the followers of this theory, it is a text in a dialect of aramaic called syriac. Second, it has no originality to it, it follows the standarized text types rather than the western text types that ruled the 1st to 3rd centuries. This particular western text is everywhere within the church fathers quotations yet this syriac text has no similarity to it. It follows the condensed Byzantine text type similar to the received and majority text types.

That second one is really the tell-tell sign that this is just a theory. If this syriac text would have given us the original western text in it's complete unadulterated form rather than a standardized form, it would have every single scholar in the community on it ears over it, but it don't.

There is no dated text earlier than the late 4th to 5th century, none. Yet, it is theorized as being original. Church leaders within the Church of The East go as far as to say it was handed down by the apostles themselves. Quite amazing to say the least when it has not a shred of history to it. Actually, no one knows where it came from because they can't locate any information on it.

All of this is fact, there is no sugar coat here.

The people who have most recently taken a liking to it in America are those who would call themselves messianic Christians, but it is not a readily used version within the fundamentalist groups. It's as if God refuses to vear away from the greek scriptures on purpose, and certainly refuses to use something new from the syriac camps.

It could be speculated that the Greek was a translation from one language then the syriac was a translation of the greek. Many have went about showing the aspect of this, how the syriac follows the greek too closely.

In summary, all of this is complete fact, yet there are the non-scholars and entertainers who would have you believe different. One must follow The Holy Spirit completely in things and be especially careful of the pitfalls that mankind attempts to throw up at the Body of Christ.


I should write a book about this, it is quite easy to summarize things. It would probably help many.

You see Paul, I won't look the other way and just accept what someone says or introduces to me, to do so would be foolish on my part. Anyone can look at the facts and educate themselves on this theory quite easily. Whenever someone does, the facts are easily noticed and it helps people to avoid the assumptions and ideals that many would have the uninitiated believe.

Truth is a wonderful thing, but it can be a troublesome thing for those who want to avoid the light of truth so that they can promote their personal agendas in the dark.
It would be prudent to get back to the study here:

Quote:Actual breakdown:

9 out of 89 occurrences of the Spirit of God are masculine.

44 out of 373 occurrences of spirit (of whatever sort) are masculine.

9/89 = 10.1 % masculine

44/373 = 11.8 % masculine


So far there has not been anything wrong leveled against the study other than personal opinions. The study seems to stand on it's own here. Of course it goes against the grain of established theology, yet it does shed light on the claims of originality in this particular syriac text.
Quote:Is that an action of faith, Dave, or is that the type of person you were speaking of who are just thrown to the dogs by God, having obviously done something wrong?

This was interesting. Here Paul was attributing the act of death with faith in relation to denial of islam. I thought about it for a bit.

What's funny is, I'm not sure why folks would think that they should worry about renouncing Jesus when such an act is not part of the heart. I mean, if I speak out the words "I renounce you Jesus and I accept islam" it has no meaning within me because that is not what my heart really wants or means. It's quite easy to turn around and say " Sorry Jesus, I didn't mean that" and I would get the nod from heaven inside and be about my business. Even if I was made to write it out, it would have no meaning.

To formally renounce Jesus I would have to have that true desire within my heart to do it on my own, obviously being made to do it at knifepoint is not of my will, and He knows that.

There is no condemnation with those who are of Christ.

There is no guilt someone can throw at me over actions like this. I'm clothed in His righteousness, not my own, so how could I at knifepoint truly renounce Jesus when I am being forced to accept something else. It is not of my own freewill. I could go through the motions of it and it would mean nothing simply because I don't feel that inside and I didn't do that on my own.

I'm not sure what to make of it, other than those people were not truly aquainted with The Lord, because He would have given them the knowledge otherwise what to do in the situation, and it looks like that didn't happen if people were dieing for whatever cause this was.

Did these people prey upon their insecurities? Most likely, but it shouldn't have had affect.

I don't know, maybe I just have a better view towards living to fight another day. Really, the true enemy is satan, and he can be chipped down to size over time, and it doesn't take that long in prayer if you know what your doing.
Dave, you fool. At least Shimon Keepa wept bitterly at his denial of Meshikha in Geth-Sheman, you are justifying your denial ahead of time.

Do you really think for one moment that your would-be executioner would be satisfied with your mere words in exchange for your neck?

Do you really think that it was over with at that point? That they wouldn't be looking for you (and your freshly-cut foreskin) at the next gathering in the local mosque?

Do you really think that your daughters and sisters, whom they had by the way taken captive, weren't being forced to kneel down five times a day towards Mecca by their new Muslim husbands? And your daughters weren't given Muslim names? And you weren't?

How about your language? Do you think for one moment you could speak it publicly, or would you have had to learn the new "holy" language, Arabic?

Man, you live in a fantasy world Dave.

PS - all your poppycock about the Greek text being behind the "Syriac" is disproven dozens of time with the examples on this forum. We already know what the standard theories are - you aren't trumpeting any new insight or knowledge that we haven't already heard before. Schools also happen to teach that there is no God, and that we began as a one-celled accident in an ancient soup.

When you can explain how Acts 2:24 (among dozens of other examples) could have possibly come about by translating from the Greek (and not the other way around, which is what the evidence shows) then your blanket statements you learned from encyclopedias will have some merit.

Acts 2:24, Dave. Let's start with that one. Begin to explain how this happened, and do your little dance.
Paul,
Freely I can admit that I am unable to relate to all of it with regards to the islam issues. But, I do not claim to be an expert at historical backgrounds here.

In reality though, what does this have to do with the OT study or the text of the syriac version? Are you bent on proving my lack of knowledge in one area as a means to justify you saying that I could not know anything if I don't know this or that? It would seem so.

I'm a fool huh? The end comes for everyone Paul, death awaits us all. This is a truth that you and everyone on here can agree to. I guess we will be able to see then if I'm a fool by your standards or God's standard.

But anyways,

Quote:PS - all your poppycock about the Greek text being behind the "Syriac" is disproven dozens of time with the examples on this forum.

Look at one of the facts:

Quote:If this syriac text would have given us the original western text in it's complete unadulterated form rather than a standardized form, it would have every single scholar in the community on it ears over it, but it don't.

Am I just lying here or being deceptive to people to suit some cause of my own? Of course not, it is easily looked up and found out. This is a complete fact about the syriac and greek texts, and easily seen. If anyone is going to claim originality then let's have original. I can understand copies like the next one can, but if documented history proves the text that's copied as a man-made standardized version, then that's what it is. I don't try to say or believe different .

Now that would be foolish to many people to turn a blind eye to the truth of something like that to continue to promote it as original when one knows the facts such as these. How could somebody do that when the facts are that evident and easily found out to be true? It happens all the time when someone places another's words and knowledge as fact without continually ensuring what is said is correct.

The standards are high Paul, not mediocre. For example, there are Christian bands right now who will not label their band as Christian for fear of not meeting the standards by the Christian community. My standard is no different, and I think others should raise their standards on subjects as this rather than just be fed whatever. But that is personal.
Dave,

The problem with your assumption is that you are using the mess of Greek variants, what you call the "Western Text", prior to the time THEY (the Greeks) standardized it based on the Peshitta.

Then you say "Aha! See, the Greek mess is older than the Greek standardization, therefore since the Peshitta is closer (but not close) to the Greek Standardization than it is to the Greek mess, that proves that the Peshitta MUST be based on it."

You've set up, a priori, a condition which is unknowable and unprovable.

It works just as well in my scenario. The Aramaic text, the original, was preserved among Aramaic-speakers. The Greek Mess (what you call "Western Texts") was a series of independent translations that turned out to be a big friggin mess (like your English versions today, which can't even agree with one another.)

Later, the Greeks standardized based on the ancient Aramaic. Walla!

All your Greek and Latin "fathers" can go to you know where, for all I care. What the hell do I care what version(s) they used? They had more Greek and Latin translations than you have English, and that's saying something. And none of these languages are what the Message was preached in, anyways.

Quit your dancing, and explain Acts 2:24 from your hypothesis. Then I'll be impressed. Right now, I'm not.

My standards are high, too. Start satisfying them by explaining Acts 2:24 - it's a simple one. We'll move on to harder examples after that.
Dear Dave,

Dave Wrote:There is a problem at times when people associate death with faith. Not everyone is a true martyr and death is quite cheap anymore.

Don't be so judgmental Dave. Many people died for their faith in Jesus Christ. It is not for you to decide whether their martyrdom is acceptable to God or not. Furthermore, you have not suffered any persecution or discrimination like those Christians living in other part of the world.

Dave Wrote:There is also problems with theology and doctrine when it comes to certain sects and groups of people who call themselves Christians, or similar names, when in fact they are living within their minds. To them belief is good enough...
To be a Christian you must be born again. I didn't set the standard Jesus did. It is written down as a quote from Jesus. For those who think otherwise, He says, "Depart from me for I never knew you."

It's not my particular doctrine or theological bent, it is His. He makes the distinction on purpose for His reasons.

As far as I know, no one whom you are debating and ridiculing here are denying the standards set by Jesus. It was you who set your own standards upon others. Anyone who disagrees with your personal opinions are considered by you as unbelievers or lesser Christian than you. Many times in this forum, you attributed your own personal opinions that came from "within your own mind" to the Holy Spirit of God.

Dave Wrote:As far as the syriac text:

What's interesting lately is this theory of the aramaic new testament being original. First, there is no true aramaic print text being presented by any of the followers of this theory, it is a text in a dialect of aramaic called syriac. Second, it has no originality to it, it follows the standarized text types rather than the western text types that ruled the 1st to 3rd centuries. This particular western text is everywhere within the church fathers quotations yet this syriac text has no similarity to it. It follows the condensed Byzantine text type similar to the received and majority text types.

That second one is really the tell-tell sign that this is just a theory. If this syriac text would have given us the original western text in it's complete unadulterated form rather than a standardized form, it would have every single scholar in the community on it ears over it, but it don't.

There is no dated text earlier than the late 4th to 5th century, none. Yet, it is theorized as being original. Church leaders within the Church of The East go as far as to say it was handed down by the apostles themselves. Quite amazing to say the least when it has not a shred of history to it. Actually, no one knows where it came from because they can't locate any information on it.

All of this is fact, there is no sugar coat here.

The above statement is already answered in this forum. That is what this forum for. Many facts were presented. You refuse to believe them, because you already have your own opinions and how things should be or should be done. You can continue with your own beliefs. No one is forcing you to believe the way we believe. I do not condemn you for believing differently. But I don't think you will treat me the same way.

What originality do you expect? I have about 70 printed Bibles at home. I have read the Bible in Indonesian, Malay, major English versions, Hebrew, Septuagint Greek, Greek New Testament (many times), Aramaic NT, Latin Vulgate, and German (for the purpose of learning German language). I don't find them differ much. They are all basically the same.

Again and again you failed to see that it was not your opinions that turned people against you. It was your arrogant attitude and trolling behavior in this forum. You think you are more knowledgable than others when the truth is you don't even know or read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek Bibles. You equate being bold with being arrogant. Being humble with being timid. No wonder you behave in such a manner.

Pride makes you look down upon other people. Pride, deceptively, makes you feel more special than other people. It gives you a sense of importance which demands that you be treated in a particular way. If your personal opinions are rejected it means people are actually rejecting God.


Dave Wrote:The people who have most recently taken a liking to it in America are those who would call themselves messianic Christians, but it is not a readily used version within the fundamentalist groups. It's as if God refuses to vear away from the greek scriptures on purpose, and certainly refuses to use something new from the syriac camps.

It could be speculated that the Greek was a translation from one language
then the syriac was a translation of the greek. Many have went about showing the aspect of this, how the syriac follows the greek too closely.

Again and again you are making baseless assumptions and wild speculations on how things should be or should be done. It was Catholic priest Desiderius Erasmus who first published the Greek New Testament in Europe so that the word of God would be available to common folks, but it is not a readily used version like the Latin Vulgate within the fundamentalist groups at that time - the Catholics. The Catholics could say the same thing like what you said - God certainly refuses to use something new from the Greek camps.

A few years ago I was surprised to discover a Modern Greek translation of the Bible (including the New Testament). I am a non-Greek speaking person took the trouble to learn New Testament Greek so that I can read the New Testament Greek in the original. What is wrong with these Greek speaking people? Don't they understand New Testament Greek? That is what I said to myself. But after I read the Modern Greek grammar I started to understand the reason why there is a need for Modern translation. So I hope you will understand that being not in used or no longer in use does not mean that it is not the original or that it is discarded by God.


Dave Wrote:In summary, all of this is complete fact, yet there are the non-scholars and entertainers who would have you believe different. One must follow The Holy Spirit completely in things and be especially careful of the pitfalls that mankind attempts to throw up at the Body of Christ.

You said this because you were humiliated earlier. You have no knowledge in Hebrew, or Aramaic, or Greek compared to the persons you are debating and yet you are acting like an expert. Your "Holy Spirit" is not Holy Spirit to others, because you have no text of the Scripture to rely on. What you uttered and blabbered are based upon what is "within your own mind." Whenever the text of the Scriptures disagree with your preconceived "ideals" you would reject it.

Anyway, it is not your lack of knowledge or scholarship that makes others disrespect your opinions. It was your pride. You considered others who disagree with your opinions as being against God. You think that you are the only one here who knows God. You think that you are the only one who is spiritual.

Dave Wrote:Everyone and their grandmother's entertainer on here promotes originality of the syriac text and how accurate the "scribes" were who wrote it. I beg to differ, particularly in this area.

You can have your own opinions. No one is forcing you to comply. But why must bring others' grandmother into this?

Dave Wrote:I should write a book about this, it is quite easy to summarize things. It would probably help many.

Empty talks and wishful thinking are cheap. Go ahead and write if you think you will benefit others. Paul Younan is doing something about his conviction. His translation of Peshitta is a great help to many. Dave Bauscher is doing something about his conviction. He is writing a book and his participation is this forum is a great help to many. Even young Chris drmlanc Lancaster is doing something about his conviction. He is compiling a book and many appreciate him.

But don't simply write a book out of hatred/envy for Paul or some members in this forum who have refuted you many times. Don't write a book because you feel the need to humiliate these people. Don't hate the Peshitta because you consider "this sect of people" are not Christians. Be fair in your approach. Don't be biased in your approach. Judge fairly. How? Look at the causes of misjudgment:

preconceived idea, prejudgment, prejudice, prenotion, preconception, presumption, presume, presentiment, presuppose, forejudge, one-sided views, partial views, narrow views, confined views, superficial views, one-sided ideas, partial ideas, narrow ideas, confined ideas, superficial ideas, one-sided conceptions, partial conceptions, narrow conceptions, confined conceptions, superficial conceptions, one-sided notions, partial notions, narrow notions, confined notions, superficial notions, narrow mind, opinionated, self-opinioned, bigotry, miscalculate, misreckon, miscompute, misjudge, misestimate, misthink, misconjecture, misconceive, rush to a conclusion, look only at one side of the shield, view with jaundiced eye, view through distorting spectacles; not see beyond one's nose, party spirit, partisanship, clannishness, unreasonable, stupid, foolish


Dave, it is very easy to criticize the works of others. It is very easy for you to sit at the comfort of your home judging other Christians who are discriminated and persecuted that they are not Christians because they do not live according to your "Azusa Street." Why?

Empty vessels make the loudest noise.


Dave Wrote:You see Paul, I won't look the other way and just accept what someone says or introduces to me, to do so would be foolish on my part. Anyone can look at the facts and educate themselves on this theory quite easily. Whenever someone does, the facts are easily noticed and it helps people to avoid the assumptions and ideals that many would have the uninitiated believe.

Truth is a wonderful thing, but it can be a troublesome thing for those who
want to avoid the light of truth so that they can promote their personal
agendas in the dark.


Dave, do you think that you are the only one who seek the truth? Others don't? You think that God only listens to your prayers not others. That is the problem with you that you failed to see.

Dave, I am like you too. I do not simply accept what someone says without looking at the facts and examining the facts. That is why about fourteen years ago I decided to learn New Testament Greek. I wanted to know whether the English and Indonesian translations that I am using are accurate or correct. A while later, I decided to learn Hebrew because I wanted to understand the word of God more. Then, I was introduced to textual criticism because I wanted to examine the ancient manuscripts of the Bible. Bought and read Latin Vulgate bibles too.

I asked God concerning the variants in the Greek New Testament manuscripts. Then I discovered the Aramaic Peshitta. Ordered it at the Bible Society. Bought three different copies. I found the answers to my prayer in the Peshitta. Many variants in Greek NT can be explained from the Peshitta.

Then, I found <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org">http://www.peshitta.org</a><!-- w -->. So happy. Yes, really happy. For example, 2 days ago Dave Bauscher helped me in explaining the variant ptoma & soma in the manuscripts of the Greek Gospel of Matthew.

If you want to write a book go ahead and write it. If you want to study Hebrew, go ahead. But you must carefully examine yourself the reason for writing a book or studying Hebrew. What is your motive? What is your agenda? Is it because you love the Word of God? Or is it because you wanted to debate others? I don't know your motive and agenda in learning Hebrew but I am happy that you wanted to learn Hebrew as I do not doubt your love for God. I just hope that you have the right motive so that you can be properly motivated in learning the language.


Dave Wrote:Yes, I'm quite arrogant, I'm quite bold, and I'm happy about that since I'm also completely in tune with what God wants done.

Dave, try not to confuse being arrogant with being bold. Being timid with being humble.

The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished. (Proverbs 16:5)

God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. (James 4:6)


Pride is destructive in its very nature in that it seeks to put down others to elevate self. Pride deceives us into an exalted view of ourselves in one way or another. Pride can make us look down upon other people. Pride hates correction from others. It is defensive and will always make excuses. It will often attack when threatened. It causes us to be critical of other people.

Dave, be careful with what you are opposing because you do not really know what you are opposing here. Perhaps you could learn something from the advice given by Gamaliel the Pharisee to the Jewish Sanhedrin:

Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God. (Acts 5:38-39)

Dave, you should leave the members of this forum alone because you have been playing the same broken record again and again.

Whatever grudges you have against the members of this forum, please do not hate the Bible even if it is a translation. God has been using the Peshitta to save souls and preserving it for the past 1900 years. If the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament is indeed from the Apostles, you will only find yourselves fighting against God. If it is not, just leave us alone. There are others who wanted to learn it. It helps us in solving the variants found in the Greek New Testament.

Stop hijacking the threads in this forum by changing the original topic of discussion of the thread. If you don't want to learn Aramaic Peshitta it is fine. But please do not disrupt others who wanted to learn it. Paul Younan is doing us a great service by translating the Peshitta - even to a student of Greek New Testament. His interlinear of the Peshitta helps us who does not know Syriac to be able to check the Syriac text referred to by our Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Your "more spiritual than thou" attitude here is only disrupting others who wanted to learn from Paul. So stop being hostile toward others Dave. We can disagree on many things. But we should not grumble against each other.

Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you???who are you to judge your neighbor? (James 4:11-12)



Peace to you Dave,


Dan
Paul your Greek mess theory is brilliant. It explains why Byz and Alex are not THAT different from Peshitta as you would expect from independant translations. So I always thought there must have been helluva lot of standardisations along the way. Zorba never shied from that, what would he care, he wasn't charged with keeping the Scriptures true and error-free.
Paul,

I'm not sure why you are bent on using linguistic theory against me here. That is one-sided and easily manipulated by the technician against the layman wrongly. You know this and so do I, that I would automatically be placing you in the chair of advantage if I was to do so.

But I will do just this one though. I'll give my observations and state some facts on this one particular text only, that is it, no more. I'm not one of the usuals that provide the entertainment for the masses on here, although I get the distinct feeling how Jesus felt when the scribes and pharisee's would attempt to trip Him up at times.

I'll try not to tip my observations in a bias'd sort of way and let the living word here talk to all of us. I'll italicize any extra words that are not in the texts that I can find. I will view this as a product and I'm observing and reaching conclusions over it as the end-user or consumer.

Acts 2:24 translations:

Different Syriac translations:

24 (YOUNAN) But God raised Him and loosed the cords of Sheol because it was not possible that He be held in Sheol in it.

24 (LAMSA) Whom God has raised up, having destroyed the pains of death, because it was not possible for Sheol to hold him.

24 (MURDOCH) But God hath resuscitated him, and hath loosed the cords {or: pangs} of the grave; because it could not be, that he should be held in the grave.

The note in Murdoch's is actually his, that is not made up by me, it is in the Online Bible program, which this translation came from.


A few well known Greek to English translations:

24 (AV) Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
24 (ASV) whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
24 (RSV) But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
24 (YLT) whom God did raise up, having loosed the pains of the death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it,
24 (NKJV) "whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.


An interlinear of the GNT:

24 (IGNT) on o {WHOM} yeov {GOD} anesthsen {RAISED UP,} lusav {HAVING LOOSED} tav {THE} wdinav tou {THROES} yanatou {OF DEATH,} kayoti {INASMUCH AS} ouk {IT WAS} hn {NOT} dunaton {POSSIBLE} krateisyai {FOR TO BE HELD} auton {HIM} up {BY} autou {IT;}


A translation of the Bezae Western text:

24 (WILSON) Whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of Hades, because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.


Abstract translation, Greek to Hebrew to English:

24 (Deilitch) Whom God raised up, having freed Him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.


Initial observations:

Does one text or the other have an advantage in comparison? Greek can point towards the neutral, but otherwise, No.

Does the western text offer a better text in this area? Not with the available translation.

Does the syriac text offer a better text over the greek? Not with the available translation.

Does one text or the other come into better agreement with the context? No, not at this particular time.

Does any of the texts agree within themselves? Yes.

Example from the greek:

24 (Deilitch) Whom God raised up, having freed Him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

Example from the syriac:

24 (MURDOCH) But God hath resuscitated him, and hath loosed the cords {or: pangs} of the grave; because it could not be, that he should be held in the grave.

Rough translation in english by Murdoch, lacks poetic prose considerably.


Does the particular section of the text cross-reference the OT? No.

Does the section of the text affect doctrine? Not from the inital onsight. Neither language tends to enlighten any doctrinal issues that may have been overlooked.


Improvement section:

Can the product be improved? Yes. The various translations can be compared to provide the end-user a better product to utilize.

Example of a better greek translation into english:

Whom God raised up, having freed from the agony of death, inasmuch as it was impossible that He could be held by it.

Example of a better syriac translation into english:

But God hath raised Him, having loosed the cords of death, because it was impossible that He be held in the grave.

Can the texts be combined to provide a better insight into english? Not really. There would be no additional improvements.


Conclusions on this particular section of text:

The greek offers better poetic prose while the syriac is rougher in nature. The particular syriac text of Acts 2:4 offers no additional improvments or theological insight at this juncture. The translations though, can be improved considerably in either language to promote a better "flow" or majestic appeal in the english language.
Quote:Dave,

The problem with your assumption is that you are using the mess of Greek variants, what you call the "Western Text", prior to the time THEY (the Greeks) standardized it based on the Peshitta.

Ok, let's talk about assumptions some.

Assumption #1: The greek standarized text had to have been translated from the syriac standardized text.

Wrong. For all we know, the original could have been Hebrew that the greek was translated from. There is no way to "definitively" know that the greek was translated from syriac since hebrew, aramaic, syriac, and other semitic languages share similar structures.

Quote:And none of these languages are what the Message was preached in, anyways.

Assumption #2: Syriac was the language that Jesus spoke so these are the original texts.

Wrong. No one knows with any certainty what language or languages The Lord spoke. It's all guess work. But syriac is none-the-less promoted as the language that Jesus spoke and this is used deceptively to justify the syriac scriptures as being the language of The Lord to the naive and uninitated.
Pages: 1 2 3 4