Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Acts 2:24 Redux
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Dear Paul,


Paul Younan Wrote:Dan,

I am not hateful of anyone. Nor am I prideful of being a part of any nationalistic or linguistic group. If I were either, I wouldn't have married outside of my ethnic and linguistic group.

I am glad that you are not.


Paul Younan Wrote:What I do strongly defend is the integrity of the teachings of an Asian Man in their original context, both culturally and linguistically. Because His teachings are the basis of my faith.

The teachings of this Asian Man have been hijacked, both culturally and linguistically for the last 2,000 years. He has been remade, and His words have been recast into a foreign tongue. And it is this very foreign tongue that is esteemed today as the basis of Christianity.

I am glad you believe in having the integrity of the teachings of the Messiah. But I don't understand why there is a need to classify or label the Messiah as an "Asian Man." Living in Singapore I can be considered as an Asian. Being an Asian is not the reason why I believe in the teachings of the Messiah. His teachings of love for one another is universal - acceptable to both East and West , North and South. I would still believe in the Messiah if He came as an African or a European. I hope you do too.

I also don't understand why you said "last 2000 years." The Messiah was born 2000 years ago. So it cannot be 2000 years. If you are referring to "Constantine the mass-murderer" then the actual number should be "last 1692 years" (i.e. 2005 - 313).

However, I understand the need to carefully understand the teachings of the Messiah if that is what you meant by "Asian Man", but I don't think that the teachings of the Messiah have been hijacked by the Christians in the West. The Apostles and early disciples were commanded to preach the Gospel to the whole world. The early Christians in the West lived under persecution for about 3 centuries until one day the Emperor discovered that this sect of hated people called Christians became so numerous in number in his empire that he decided to adopt this new religion as the official religion of his empire. Just because some politicians made use of Christianity for political worldly reasons will not make Christianity false.


Paul Younan Wrote:The teachings of this Asian Man have been hijacked, both culturally and linguistically for the last 2,000 years. He has been remade, and His words have been recast into a foreign tongue. And it is this very foreign tongue that is esteemed today as the basis of Christianity.

Translation of the Message of the teachings of the Messiah into foreign tounges is required because not all people could understand Aramaic. No two languages are exactly alike.

If translations of the Bible into other languages are nothing but "junks" then these people believed in "junks" and died for their faith in vain. So it is not right to brand Christians who lived in foreign lands as "idiots" just because they used and believed in the teachings found in translations. In some countries today, Christians could be persecuted just for possessing a Bible in their own language. They must be "idiots" then for being willing to die for a faith in a translation. Not many people out there are as fortunate as you to know Aramaic. If their daily Bible reading are nothing but eating junk food then it is not fair that the teachings of the Messiah is available to a selected few like you who know the language.

If God is to judge us by how much Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek we know I think I have failed. Probably many people out there will fail too. I am glad that the central message of the Messiah is that there is only One God and Jesus is whom He sent, repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and the love for one another though this is harder than acquiring a foreign language. As far as I know these teachings could be found in all major translations.

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:34-35)


Paul Younan Wrote:Meanwhile, His people have been marginalized and baked in ovens. And his cousins who speak His language have been marginalized in Councils in another empire other than their own.

I'm tired of this propoganda. I'm tired of being told that we are just another sect of Christianity, which we are not. We don't use that name. How would you like if I called you something that you don't use?

When the Western Church stops placing labels on me that I reject, as did those who came before me, then I will return the favor.

I'm not a "Nestorian" - I never met the man and neither did anyone in the 2,000 year history of our Persian Church. Is that hard to understand? Nestorius was a Greek - I'm not a Greek.

I'm not an "East-Syrian." Syria is not in Beth-Nahrin. I'm an Assyrian. Is that hard to understand?

I'm not a speaker of "Syriac." That's a Greek term. I'm a speaker of Aramaic. My ancestors, the Assyrians, spoke Aramaic. They made Aramaic the lingua-franca of its day. In other words, I tell you what I speak - not the other way around. I don't tell you what you speak, you tell me what you speak and I'll accept it. If you tell me your language is called "Aasdfkbhsdfjb" by you, then I will refer to your language as "Aasdfkbhsdfjb."

This happened in the past. It is not fair to generalize all Christians as idiots. It is not right to generalize all Christians as murderers just because of what some politicians who crept into the church as priests did. Being a disciple of the Messiah comes with a disclaimer - Matthew 7:21-23

To the Greeks "Aramaic" is "Syriac." Not much thing could be done except educating people to the truth about Syriac. Anyway, Aramaic has its own word for "Greek" and Greek has its own word for "Greek." Should the Greeks demand the same from the Arameans? I don't think so because no two languages are alike. Each language has its own word origin.


Paul Younan Wrote:In other words, Dan (and I'm not talking to you directly), stop reshaping and remaking me into an image based on your specifications. That's what they did 2,000 years ago, and that's why your scriptural tradition is in the shape that it is in today - the laughing stock of all scriptural traditions.

Even though I have seen your points in this forum I still don't understand why you are against translations like LXX and GNT so much to the point of hating the term "Christian." Without the translation of the Message into other languages, the teachings of the Messiah would be confined to those people who speak the language only. In fact many Assyrians today even do not know their own mother tounge. How much more a South East Asian like me.

If the Message was not translated into other languages "2,000 years ago" then not many people would know the teachings of the Messiah. I am glad that the early disciples obeyed Matthew 28:19 "2,000 years ago." If not, today I could still be an idol worshipper.

Christians in the past were persecuted under successive Roman Caesars. Information in the past was not widely spread and available as freely as today. Their holy books were burned and they were killed for trying to protect these books. I am not surprised to see that after a few hundred years their children started to believe that these holy books that their fathers died trying to protect were the original. These are the only holy books that they know of. These are the books that taught them about God and the Messiah.



Paul Younan Wrote:I don't know why you think I'm upset, or I'm here to make friends. I'm not upset, and I'm not here to make friends. I have plenty of friends. I'm not a priest, preacher, counselor, therapist, role model or even a terribly nice person.

I'm not doing this so that I can paint a facade and run for a popularity contest. I'm not anyone's spokesperson. I don't care to be the poster-child of the Aramaic Primacy movement.

I'm here to fulfill a promise I made to my God. In the process, I'm here to debate with anyone who wishes to debate against my perspective. Dave is one of those people who's willing, if not able, to debate the other side of the issue. He will stand or fall based on the strength of his argument, or his ability to present it.

I am glad that you have plenty of friends. There is no harm in making a few more extra friends. To me it is better to destroy our enemies by making them our friends. That is just my opinion based on my understanding of "Love your enemies" teaching. Others could understand the meaning differently.

Paul Younan Wrote:The way to really earn my anger, which has only happened rarely and which Dave hasn't done, is to somehow implicate me or my history into the above two travesties.

I have nothing to do with Nestorius. Not the LXX, not the GNT. I have nothing to do with Ephesus or Nicaea. I have nothing to do with Constantine the mass-murderer. Nothing to do with the Crusades, with the Spanish Inquisition or with the Pilgrims. Nothing to do with the Reformation or Auschwitz. I have nothing to do with the slave ships which brought bar-Khela's ancestors here and stuffed the GNT down their throat. I have nothing to do with Western Christianity, good or bad.

My history is different than this.

I think Dave and many Western Christians out there who read LXX, GNT, etc have nothing to do with Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Auschwitz either (unless Dave publicly said otherwise that I am not aware of).

I don't think the people who brought the Africans to America stuffed the GNT down the slave throats. That is too much of an exaggeration. The English speaking people were having hard time reading Greek. How much more the slaves!

Every one has his or her own history to tell.

My history is different than this too.


Paul Younan Wrote:In my perspective, there has been no greater damage done to the teachings of my Lord than the following, in order of importance:

(1) The remaking of His message into a foreign language
(2) The making of a Religion named after Him into a state-sponsored faith

....

I don't understand why you are so upset with the "remaking of His message into a foreign language." Is the message of the Messiah confined to one language only? If it is then why take the trouble to create an English interlinear of the Peshitta? Isn't it better to teach the language instead? Isn't it your intention to make the Peshitta accessible to the laymen out there so that they could understand the Message more?

As far as I know the messages of worshipping One God, do not steal, do not lie, loving one another as disciples, etc are very clear in every languages. Of course the translations could not be better than the original and should be the source of references should there be any doctrinal disputes.

When the Bible is translated into another language, the recepients might interpret the meaning of the same text differently. This should be understood as we normally will interpret what we see around us in different ways according to the level of knowledge or experience or cultural background that we have acquired in life.

For an example, look at Jing's post in another thread

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1116">viewtopic.php?t=1116</a><!-- l -->
Jing Wrote:Yes, YESU has been so hanized that some may think the surname of YESU is YE and His Father YEHEHUA (for Jehovah or Yahweh) has the same surname YE. LOL.

To understand the joke above you need to understand the 3 words naming system in Chinese. The first word is the surname. If God is to find fault with us for making mistakes like this that is due to our level of knowledge and cultural background then I don't know how many could be saved.


Regarding state-sponsored faith, not much thing the early Christians could do about it. They have been persecuted for centuries. If the state decided to adopt Christianity as the official religion, of course they would rejoice in it. No one would like to live under persecution and discrimination. Wolves in sheep's clothing will always be among us until the Messiah comes to separate us.


Paul Younan Wrote:So, don't call me a Christian. First of all, it's a Greek term that I don't accept. Second of all, it was used by Greek believers in Antioch. I'm not from Antioch.

In Mesopotamia, we called ourselves Meshikhaye after Meshikha. "Christian" denotes a history that I'm not a part of. Neither is Andrew. Have you noticed that Jews who believe their Meshikha do not call themselves "Christians", either?

You respect their wishes. right?

Respect mine.


I don't understand why you are ashamed of being called a "Christian." In the Peshitta there are many Greek terms adopted by Aramaic speakers too. I am not from Antioch too but I am glad that the disciples went to share their faith to the Greeks there. The Greeks there could have argued that the terms and teachings taught by the early disciples were not Greek as a basis for their rejection of the teachings of the Messiah. I am glad that they did not.

Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord. (Acts 11:20-21)

If you are referring to Andrew Gabriel Roth and "Messianic Jews" then I have heard about it. But I am more interested with the standards set by the writings of the Apostles here.


If the author of Acts of the Apostles had no problem with the Greek word "Christian / Kristyane" in Acts 11: 26 as the perfect Greek translation of Aramaic "Meshikhaye" then why should we be ashamed of being called "Christians"? When we called ourselves "Christians" we are associating / identifying ourselves with the early disciples of the Messiah in the book of Acts not the Nazis of Auschwitz nor the American slave traders.

I Peter 4: 14 explains the origin of the word Kristyane / Christians in the book of Acts. Many of the disciples in Antioch were Greeks. When they believed in the Gospel that was brought to them they need to understand what "Meshikhaye" means in their own language. This fact in the Bible is contrary to what was given by some commentators regarding the meaning of "Christians" i.e. it was a derogatory term given by pagans to the disciples.
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] 0hl0d Fxb4m 0xwrd Jwkybw= 0xy4md hm4 Yp0 L9 Jwtn0 Nydsxtm J0w Jwkyl9 0xynttm
[/font]

I know that you are not the spokeperson for the COE like what you have explained earlier. But visiting some COE web sites I found that they have no problems with being called Christians, or using the words Christianity, Jesus Christ, etc to desribe their faith in English.

Peace.
I did not want the topic to stray too far off subject. I read what you posted Dan and have some agreements with it.

Back to topic here.

Paul wrote in another post:

Quote: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.)

I was looking around on the web for some items that Trimm did on comparisons a while back, but was unable to find what he had shown on the revisionary aspect of the peshitta and the byzantine greek texts, so I'll work with what I had copied down from his.

What I want to do is attempt to present a picture of this revisionary process that happened. Most of the time when a standardization has happened in the NT, it involves a condensing and shortening of the sentences and words of God into a smaller form for some reason. Standardization happened in the OT also, but it amounted to the removal of texts and some moving around and shifting of things instead of the changing of the word, at least for the most part. This was discovered when the DSS appeared on the scene, elsewise no one knew about it beforehand, and probably answers one of the questions as to why it is taken so long for those sorts of texts to come to light, and the money aspect also, we can't forget that.

Here is an example of a standardization:

Quote:Mt. 10:42

Codex D: his reward will not be lost

Old Syriac: his reward shall not be lost

Alexandrian &
Byzantine: he shall in no way lose his reward

Peshitta: his reward is not lost

See how it got shortened in the syriac?

Here is better example from Trimm with some explanations:

Quote:Mt. 18:2
DuTillet Hebrew Matthew: ???And Yeshua called to one boy??????(a certain boy)

Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew: ???And he called one boy??????(a certain boy)

Old Syriac Matthew: ???And Yeshua called to one boy??????(a certain boy)

In the Hebrew and in the Old Syriac Aramaic (but not the Peshitta) we
have a common Semitic idiom by which a ???certain??? thing is modified with
the word ???one???. In this case Yeshua calls ???one boy??? in the Hebrew and
Aramaic, i.e. ???a certain boy???. Codex D has: ???And Iesus called the one
boy?????? This Western Greek reading preserves the Semitic idiom ???one boy???
which has no place in the Greek language.

However the traditional Greek has been revised into smoother Greek to
read: ???And he called a boy??????

And the Peshitta was revised to agree with the traditional Greek text to
read: ???And Yeshua called a boy??????

That example tends to paint a better picture of the tampering that happened as the years went on by both sides of the fields.

Standardization is an evil, brought on by men who thought they were doing something good, or in the case of the OT, the removal of texts that certain folks thought were too much for people outside of themselves, or who knows the reasons, really, it is still evil brought on by satan.

I don't care if people want to follow the traditional greek, syriac, or the aramaic texts as Paul and his friends put it, but no one can claim originality of this text or the traditional greek simply because of the standardizational aspect that the Western texts can show in relationship to them. By the way, this is common knowledge within the scholarly circles, and when one starts to look it over with an eye towards understanding without bias, the evidence is outright and overwhelming.

If anyone wants true originality, then they would have to head to the Western family of texts, of which all the oldest fragments of manuscripts and texts are a witness of.

Claiming this is the language that Jesus spoke and so this must be the original text, is (just to be as candid as possible with everyone here) stupid.
Dave Wrote:I don't care if people want to follow the traditional greek, syriac, or the aramaic texts as Paul and his friends put it, but no one can claim originality of this text or the traditional greek simply because of the standardizational aspect that the Western texts can show in relationship to them. By the way, this is common knowledge within the scholarly circles, and when one starts to look it over with an eye towards understanding without bias, the evidence is outright and overwhelming.

If anyone wants true originality, then they would have to head to the Western family of texts, of which all the oldest manuscripts and fragments are a witness of.

Claiming this is the language that Jesus spoke and so this must be the original text, is (just to be as candid as possible with everyone here) stupid.


<!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

Dave, with all respect make sure you know what you are talking about before making statements like that. Don't just refute something for the sake of winning a debate. You are shooting your own self with that statement above and you don't realize it.

What is the Western family of texts? Do you have any idea? (Don't use Google to search for answer). What are the oldest manuscripts and fragments that testify to Matthew 18:2 here?


This is the reading of the Byzantine / majority text for Matthew 18:2 and it is in agreement with the Peshitta :

kai proskalesamenos o ijsous paidion estjsen auto en mesw autwn


This is the reading of the Alexandrine text:

kai proskalesamenos paidion estjsen auto en mesw autwn


This is the reading of Codex D:

kai proskalesamenos o ijsous paidion en estjsen auto en mesw autwn



As you can see from the above, the oldest manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus (4th century) and Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) missed out the word ijsous. They do not have the word en either. Codex D (5th century) has ijsous like the majority text but has an additional word en like Syriac Curetonian and Syriac Sinaiticus. Regarding "fragments" (if by "fragments" you mean the papyri), as far as I know there is no witness to this text from the papyri.

The variants of the Greek text for this passage only shows the superiority of the Peshitta. The missing ijsous in two old manuscripts like Codex B and Codex Aleph could be attributed to the carelessness of the copyist. The additional word en in Codex D could be attributed to the addition made by the copyist as all Greek manuscripts do not have this word. If you are free at home, try to copy your English Bible with your own hand. See how many words you missed out and how many words you unintentionally added after you finished copying. <!-- sConfusedatisfied: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/satisfied.gif" alt="Confusedatisfied:" title="Satisfied" /><!-- sConfusedatisfied: -->


*note on the possible reason for copyist mistake in Codex D :

Matthew 18: 2 in Codex D
kai proskalesamenos o ijsous paidion en estjsen auto en mesw autwn

The copyist could have copied the word en twice. If you have copied from a book before, you will(or might) know what I mean. en in Greek could mean "one" or "in." en (pronounced hen) means one. en (pronounced en) means in.

When one starts to look it over with an eye towards understanding without bias, the evidence is outright and overwhelming. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->



Knowledge without zeal is useless. <!-- sSleepy --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="Sleepy" title="Sleepy" /><!-- sSleepy -->
A zeal without knowledge is dangerous. <!-- s:bomb: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bomb.gif" alt=":bomb:" title="The Bomb" /><!-- s:bomb: -->
Sometimes, a little knowledge is also dangerous. <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->


Off to bed and a long break from this forum.

Peace.
Quote:Dave, with all respect make sure you know what you are talking about before making statements like that. Don't just refute something for the sake of winning a debate. You are shooting your own self with that statement above and you don't realize it.

Noted Dan. Thanks for the insight.

My statement was a blanket statement in general. The traditional text would hold a few keys that the western text would have missed as we may not have a particular text in some areas to compare. That, I can freely concede without a zeal towards the debate win. It's not about me, it's about correctness and originality, and if the traditional text would have the correct reading in an area(s), then one must accept it as such.

Would it be easier to just accept the traditional text and ignore the aspect of the western text? Oh of course, but if your a perfectionist like myself, you could never do that knowing what you know. Besides, if I start ignoring truth such as that, and accepting second best because I can't deal with the truth, then I take the chance that less truth will be presented to me from that point on.

That is a particular about me, nothing set in stone, just something I hold as a standard for myself to adhere to.


Quote:Knowledge without zeal is useless.
A zeal without knowledge is dangerous.
Sometimes, a little knowledge is also dangerous.



A proverb of Dan <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
I had a thought... If "Khad Semiticisms" prove originality then this is awesome!!! So the Peshitta is the original rather than Old Scratch A and Old Scratch B...

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27">viewtopic.php?t=27</a><!-- l -->

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28">viewtopic.php?t=28</a><!-- l -->
I think how inconsistant the text of the greek and syriac were as compared to the Western was the outline. Does the peshitta text have more?

We can't take everything that Mister Trimm dreams up as gospel, but he has an ability to look at things others don't or just miss altogether. That is probably sacrilege in some folks's eyes here as they don't like Trimm.

If the peshitta has that aspect in there, that is a plus, but why is the other texts exhibiting them at times when it doesn't? That is an inconsistancy, but such things can be utilized to reach to the original in a way.

I know that is not the idea here as others want to just rely on the syriac text, and make stabs at and trash the greek text at will, and whenever they want, but it is my objective to reach for something more than to be just doing that.
Dave Wrote:Would it be easier to just accept the traditional text and ignore the aspect of the western text? Oh of course, but if your a perfectionist like myself, you could never do that knowing what you know. Besides, if I start ignoring truth such as that, and accepting second best because I can't deal with the truth, then I take the chance that less truth will be presented to me from that point on.

That is a particular about me, nothing set in stone, just something I hold as a standard for myself to adhere to.


What is the "Western text" that you have been trumpeting about lately? Do you have any clue? Don't Google for answer. Read some works by textual scholars or at least subscribe to scholarly journals like New Testament Studies published by Cambridge University.

Do not confuse yourself with the terms given by scholars like "Byzantine text", "Alexandrian text", "Western non-interpolation text", "Caesarean text", etc. These are the terms used to show textual relationships between ancient manuscripts of the Greek NT given by textual scholars like J.J. Griesbach, B.F. Westcott, F.J.A. Hort, etc. If you think that "Western text" must be right just because you are a Westerner then you made a great mistake.

What is the basis for your conclusion that "Western text" type is correct? Hmmm... Errrrr... I am a Westerner, a "Prostestant" (maybe).... The Western world is Christian. Therefore, "westen text" must be correct. Therefore, Byzantine text type must be wrong because I disagree with Byzantine church. Alexandrian text type must be wrong because I don't like Egyptian church. Or.... I am a Calvinist. Codex Bezae is named after Theodore Beza, a friend of John Calvin. Therefore it must be 100% correct like Calvin. Or.... I like Cambridge University where this manuscript is kept, because it is one of the best universities in the world. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> Is that how you think subconciously? (I don't mean to offend you. I asked you in this manner because I am not sure whether you have done any study on "Western text" type).


What is the primary witnesses for "Western text" type? Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (designated as Codex D by textual scholars) and some Old Latin mss. Codex D is dated around 5th or 6th century A.D. & it contains only the Gospels and the book of Acts. Are you foolish enough to conclude that we must disregard the majority "traditional text" to follow Codex D (or in your words "western text")? What is your basis for the epistles in the New Testament? You have no text to rely on. All you have is nothing but wild assumptions.

The "Byzantine text" type basically agrees closely with the Aramaic Peshitta. Sir Frederick G. Kenyon who was the former director and principle librarian of the British museum, dated the Peshitta around 150 A.D. Dean (of Chichester) John William Burgon the number one defender of the traditional received text of the Greek NT, noted that the churches of the region of Syria have always used the Peshilta.

If you cannot accept the Peshitta as the original, at least show some respect to the Greek New Testament. Your allegation about "standardization" by "evil" scribes shows no respect for the word of God. Try to copy the Greek New Testament yourself since you are a perfectionist. See whether you can copy it perfectly and correctly.

The variants in the Greek NT are mostly due to the errors of unintentional ommission and addition of the copyists. Many of the various readings of the Greek NT manuscripts can be explained by the Aramaic primacy of the Peshitta. Just look at the many English Bibles today in the bokkshops. If the English is the original, do we need so many translations with various readings? The same can be said about the Greek NT. Some of the variants under close inspection revealed the semitic origin of the Greek NT. The job of the scribe is to copy the manuscripts accurately if not correctly. Why would they wanted to alter or "standardize" the text if the Greek NT is the original? Do you think that they are evil? Don't need to answer this question. Try to copy the Bible without making any mistake.


Peace.
Spending too much time in this forum. Taking a long break from this forum. <!-- s:listen: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/listen.gif" alt=":listen:" title="Listen" /><!-- s:listen: -->
Relax Dan, you are looking at one who really doesn't care about culture simply because God doesn't care about it either. So, the wording of "Western" has nothing to do with my location or my decent.

I mean really buddy, you have no idea of just how much your talking to a brick wall when it comes to culture and ethnic stuff with me. I could care the least little bit about either simply because it has nothing to do with Chrisitanity, and those who trumpet their heritage and background as something important in front of people are not right within themselves.


Quote:What is the "Western text" that you have been trumpeting about lately? Do you have any clue? Don't Google for answer.

Heh, what do you mean don't google for answer? What? I have a computer and now I cannot use that to formulate conclusions? Come on.

Here is a site that may help:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html">http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html</a><!-- m -->

In addition to those listed, here are some fragments:

Quote:P29 - This is a 3rd century fragment in the Oxford Bodl. Library containing Acts 26:7-8, 20

P38 - This is a 3rd century fragment at the University of Michigan containing Acts 18:27-19:6, 12-16

P45 - This is the well known 3rd century ???Chester Beatty I??? Papyri containing several fragments from the Four Gospels and Acts.

P48 - This 3rd century fragment contains Acts 23:11-17, 25-29.

P52 - This is the famous ???John Rylands??? Fragment??? containing John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment dates to about 130 C.E. and is the oldest known fragment of any portion of the New Testament. This fragment follows the Western Text against the traditional Greek text.

And there are others besides the ancient witness's such as Sinaiticus, that the first 8 chapters in John are from the western text.

Western is just a name some scholars labeled onto it to denote the family, for their reasons. I there is a sort of symbology behind it, I am completely oblivious to the obvious on that, and don't really care one way or another.


Quote:If you cannot accept the Peshitta as the original, at least show some respect to the Greek New Testament. Your allegation about "standardization" by "evil" scribes shows no respect for the word of God. Try to copy the Greek New Testament yourself since you are a perfectionist. See whether you can copy it perfectly and correctly.

Well, I'm an equal opportunity condemner, so why would I put down the peshitta and not the greek standardized text if they both appear the same? Wouldn't I be way off base if I didn't? I assure you that Paul and others would be all over me in a heartbeat for a bias'd sort of outlook like that.

Look at the reasoning here Dan, how many bibles have been literally thrown at God's people by mankind in the last 15 to 20 years? I know over here in America the amount has been rediculous. What do they offer? The same standardized text that has been involved in the church for years, but now I should accept another standardized text from another language? And one that has some additional doctrinal issues tied up in it such as that "Father of Mary" issue in Matthew?

<!-- sSleepy --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="Sleepy" title="Sleepy" /><!-- sSleepy --> Not!

Do you think that I will not work on this text, that I am just this person that gripes about the bible being incorrect? You would be wrong to assume that. Just because I have been directed to learn Hebrew doesn't mean that God will not want me learn other languages.

Look at my situation Dan; no kids, no wife, no alimony, my house is paid for, I will retire from the military service in another year, I will have a monthly retirement check, etc. It will just be me, my dog, my gun, and my truck. I should be in the position to spend time on such things wouldn't you think?

Although I have had to give up things that others would have not been able to, the payback is extreme from God for my obedience. But enough of that.

Quote:The variants in the Greek NT are mostly due to the errors of unintentional ommission and addition of the copyists. Many of the various readings of the Greek NT manuscripts can be explained by the Aramaic primacy of the Peshitta.

Of course that is where I differ in opinion here than you and the others on here, as you have seen from me.


God knows what texts are from the originals, and how they go together, I just got to pay attention to Him rather than just man in this issue. And that is another issue that God could care less about either, tradition, but let's not open that can of worms here.
Dave Wrote:
Quote:Paul isn't quoting from a single Psalm here. It is a Drash, a compilation of different OT books he is referring to.

Heh, ok, the apostle Paul is doing this same thing of quoting from compilations and whatnots rather than a pure text of sorts? Ok, I'm sure that this is believable Paul, yes we are just robots master, what do you wish for us to believe now?

Dave, I provided the various OT sections that Paul was drashing. Don't be a robot - it's your own Greek Primacists who admitted that the LXX (specifically, a manuscript by the name of Codex Alexandrius) was revised to conform to this drash from Paul.

Dave Wrote:Paul, we make "logical" conclusions on the data available, not far reaching conclusions based on extreme circumstances, or bias, which that seems to be what you would rather us choose from.

Your words would have some merit if it were I who made that claim. I didn't - I'm simply pointing out to you that several "western scholars" demonstrated that the LXX was revised to conform to Paul's expansion in Romans 3:13-18.

Call them liars, not me.

Dave Wrote:
Quote:The Greek Christians obviously went back, as was their habit, and revised the LXX reading with this gloss from the NT.

Hmmm, this is interesting here, first Paul and his friends say on this board that the greek NT is a copy from the syriac, but now the greek Christians were heretics that added that gloss in this section and revised the LXX to say the same thing,.....but the same exact text in the syriac is a true quote from a compilation of whatnots that is in the tried and true language of Jesus??!?

Precisely. Glad you got it this time.

Dave Wrote:Ok, again Paul, what do you want us to believe here? That is outwardly illogical to anyone here and it does not fare well with your objective.

You're the only one calling it illogical. I would venture to say that everyone else here would agree with me. Wanna bet? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Dave Wrote:
Quote:Dave, quit playing and explain how Acts 2:24 in the Greek got the word "pains" from "cords" unless they were translating an Aramaic word that means both "pain" and "cord".

Well I already did. Let's look at what I said:

Quote:So,....after all this, the only rational conclusion as to why the syriac text has a word that could possibly mean "cords" rather than the standard greek wording of the "travail" from the LXX, is that the greek follows the LXX wording and the syriac followed the greek NT text and corrected it according to the Hebrew version, when they translated it.

That's no explanation at all. That's your wishful thinking and last-ditch attempt to salvage your position. Do you have any evidence that a correction happened here according to the Hebrew version? Evidence as in manuscripts?

If not, then its an argument from silence....and it's YOU that is making ludicrous assumptions.

I ask the question for the umpteenth time - How did the Greek get the word "pain" in there if they were not translating from an Aramaic source???

Don't mention the LXX again....this isn't a quotation from the LXX. This is Shimon Keepa making a speech in Aramaic to fellow Jews. Read the context of Acts 2:24.

I ask the question for the umpteenth time - How did the Greek get the word "pain" in there if they were not translating from an Aramaic source??? (don't mention the LXX again - this isn't a quotation from the LXX.)

Finally - who wrote the incorrect word "pain" here?

Was it Luke, or Zorba?
Akhi Dan,

You are misunderstanding me in a very fundamental way. Perhaps I have done a poor job explaining my position. Let me try again.

Translations are good. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be spending years of my life doing this one. Translations are very good.

What is bad, what I was referring to as "junk" - is the replacement of an original text with a translation as the basis for a faith. Basis.

What I mean by basis is this: that theology is based on nuances, on observations on the meaning of words of the translated version.

That God has been made into three "persons" because the Greek word used to translate the Aramaic means "person." Hence, God has been given a "Mother."

Also, what is junk is a religion that is founded upon a translation. What I mean by that is this: not that Christianity is junk, but that if the Apostles and even Meshikha would have used, as the basis of their new religion, a text in a translated tongue - then I would call Christianity junk.

NOTE: Meshikha and His Apostles did not base their religion on quotations from a scriptural translation in a foreign tongue. If they did, I would be a Jew.

I hope I have made myself a little more clear now. I know, it was my fault because sometimes I do not make my point clear enough and I speak too generally. I'm blaming myself.

Finally, the word "Christian" puts me into a category of history in which I do not belong. Yes, I realize that English-based websites and CoE parishes here have become accustomed to using this English translation of a Greek term. And yes, I realize that the author of Acts used it to describe Greek-speaking Christians.

Again, the label "Christian" places me into a historical perspective in which I do not belong. It is a Greek term used historically of Greek Christians and by those whom they converted.

There is nothing about "Christian History" to which you can point and say I am a part of. It's simply inaccurate - as if I called you a "Meshikhaya" - notice I don't call you that simply because you are not, nor have you ever been known by this name.

I don't hate the name "Christian" - I hate some of the things done in history by that name - including to my own people and church. Therefore, I choose to call myself by something else - by what we've always called ourselves. This is not something new. We've always called ourselves "Meshikhaye".

Likewise, I'm not a "Catholic" or a "Baptist". I'm not a "Jehova's Witness", either.

You may think I'm being nit-picky about terms. I'm not. The name "Christian" is not an umbrella-term for all who believe in the teachings of Meshikha. It is a specific history to which I do not belong, it is a specific (Greek-based) milieu ("setting", environment") of which I am not a part of.

I hope that made sense.
Dave,

Forget about the Aramaic NT for a moment. It all boils down to a simple multiple-choice question:

The Greek manuscripts all, without exception, say "pains." This is because....

(a) Shimon said "pains," or
(b) Luke recorded "pains," or
© Zorba translated "pains."

Which is it?
Quote:Your words would have some merit if it were I who made that claim. I didn't - I'm simply pointing out to you that several "western scholars" demonstrated that the LXX was revised to conform to Paul's expansion in Romans 3:13-18.

The whole problem is this, why does the syriac conform to this LXX section and not correct the problem with the greek?

You would have me handing out kudos to you and everyone over the syriac if it had agreed with it's own OT text, but it doesn't. Again, inconsistancy.

That is all it amounts to. Who screwed up here? Does the greek follow this syriac text or does the syriac text follow the greek? You guys say that the greek was translated from the syriac, so why does it agree here with this text instead of the Hebrew and Peshitta OT? Was this what the apostle Paul preached or did someone add this in? It makes no sense.

Quote:You're the only one calling it illogical. I would venture to say that everyone else here would agree with me. Wanna bet?

Yes Paul, you have that following here, and I'm the judas, but what about the scholarly world and the following of God's people? Do they agree with what you and others are preaching here? You know the answer to that, need I rub it in? I've been watching for a while to see if there has been an impact with fundamental Christianity, ah,... nope.

Basically, there are the very few followers of the text who have chirped up every once and a while over the years in the scholarly world, but by and large, it has not made the inroads in that arena either that you and others would have hoped for. Lamsa tried the hardest, even conforming his text to the KJV at times and he didn't fool God's people then, nor the scholarly world.

I don't have the bias here my friend. I cut the greek down at times also because of it's standardization, same with the syriac. I approach it in a total neutral sense.

Quote:That's no explanation at all. That's your wishful thinking and last-ditch attempt to salvage your position. Do you have any evidence that a correction happened here according to the Hebrew version? Evidence as in manuscripts?

If not, then its an argument from silence....and it's YOU that is making ludicrous assumptions.

Last ditch effort, ludicrous huh? I'm not the one with the fire blazing over this in the aramaic primacy arena at the moment Paul. I noticed you doing the damage control efforts over this. If it was not an issue, you would have not proceeded to raise the dust at such a fury in an attempt to dismiss this at any cost to these folks.

Does the emperor have no clothes? Did I catch you with your pants down in this area Paul? Seems so, your actions speak.

It is a totally sound and logical approach by me to the mess of this issue. Many have looked at it over the years and seen it the same way quite a few years prior to me, many men who were of a much higher caliber than me in the scholarly arena, and they seen through it.

If the syriac text had it's merit, folks would not be trying to do everything that there is possible here to persuade, convince, and sell this to people. You and others would not need to, God would be witnessing it for you and people would be flocking to it in droves.

I will say it again, the only rational conclusion as to why the syriac text has a word that could possibly mean "cords" rather than the standard greek wording of the "travail" from the LXX, is that the greek follows the LXX wording and the syriac followed the greek NT text and corrected it according to the Hebrew version, when they translated it.

No matter if the "western" greek folks went back into the LXX and interpolated it, like you proposed, I would not be able to even say what I say here if the syriac text would have followed the Hebrew and it's own Peshitta OT text in this area.

Why did it not correct the greek OT in this area also if it was so original and inspired?

Why should I concede when your proposing that it was this conglomeration of texts the apostles used instead of an actual text of some sorts? Is that really your answer here Paul, a drash? I'm not reaching here at all costs, you are. My conclusion of it is sound.
Dave Wrote:The whole problem is this, why does the syriac conform to this LXX section and not correct the problem with the greek?

It doesn't, Dave. The LXX (one specific manuscript - Codex Alexandrius) was revised to read like Romans 3:13-18. That's what the authors of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) said - not me.

Even two medieval Hebrew manuscripts were revised to read the way Romans 3:13-18 reads.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Dave Wrote:You would have me handing out kudos to you and everyone over the syriac if it had agreed with it's own OT text, but it doesn't. Again, inconsistancy.


Neither does the Greek.

(a) The Aramaic does not use any known Aramaic OT text
(b) The Greek does not use any known Greek OT text

Read my latest installment on the "Aramaic Primacy" forum here:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1122

There are about 50 examples on there right now, right from your beloved Greek NT and Septuagint which prove my point.

Dave Wrote:That is all it amounts to. Who screwed up here?

Use your own lines. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Dave Wrote:Does the greek follow this syriac text or does the syriac text follow the greek?

Does the Greek follow the Peshitta OT? No, why would it? The Peshitta doesn't even follow the Peshitta OT. Why would the Greek?

Nor does the Greek follow the Septuagint. Again, see here:

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1122

This argument is getting really old here, Dave. And it has NOTHING to do with Acts 2:24.

It's pathetic, really. C'MON.

Dave Wrote:You guys say that the greek was translated from the syriac, so why does it agree here with this text instead of the Hebrew and Peshitta OT?

It doesn't agree with the Septuagint. If you look at the oldest manuscripts of the Septuagint, they don't read this way. Only one manuscript - Codes Alexandrius, reads this way.

And, according to the editors of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, this one single manuscript was edited later to conform to Paul's Drash in Romans 3:13-18.

Are you listening here, or am I typing for nothing? Pay attention.

Dave Wrote:Was this what the apostle Paul preached or did someone add this in? It makes no sense.

It's what the Apostle Paul preached. It was later added to the LXX. Again, see the notes in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

Dave Wrote:Yes Paul, you have that following here, and I'm the judas, but what about the scholarly world and the following of God's people? Do they agree with what you and others are preaching here? You know the answer to that, need I rub it in? I've been watching for a while to see if there has been an impact with fundamental Christianity, ah,... nope.

Do I care? Ah, nope. Do you really think I'm doing this for the benefit of your "Fundamental (American) Christianity?" PA-LEEZE, Dave. I could care less what they, and you, think. We were around a lot longer than you, and we will be around a lot longer after you. Look at history.

Dave Wrote:Basically, there are the very few followers of the text who have chirped up every once and a while over the years in the scholarly world, but by and large, it has not made the inroads in that arena either that you and others would have hoped for. Lamsa tried the hardest, even conforming his text to the KJV at times and he didn't fool God's people then, nor the scholarly world.

Um, did you forget 80 million people all across the continent of Asia at its height 700 years ago? The largest Christian body at the time?

Of course you forgot about them. They weren't White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestants, were they? That's who you are referring to when you say "Fundamental Christianity", isn't it?

Dave Wrote:I don't have the bias here my friend.

No, not bias. Only racism. Like Babylon being evil and all, right? And that evil language, Aramaic?

Dave Wrote:I cut the greek down at times also because of it's standardization, same with the syriac. I approach it in a total neutral sense.

Na, you're just wishy-washy. You don't know what to believe in. It bothers you that Meshikha was a dark, swarthy man who spoke in that Arabic-like gutteral language of those sand-dwelling folks.....maybe that He even wore a towel on his head?

Dave Wrote:Last ditch effort, ludicrous huh? I'm not the one with the fire blazing over this in the aramaic primacy arena at the moment Paul. I noticed you doing the damage control efforts over this. If it was not an issue, you would have not proceeded to raise the dust at such a fury in an attempt to dismiss this at any cost to these folks.

Damage control? Dave, seriously!

Ask anyone here who it is, you or I, who can't even answer a simple question. Who's doing the damage control?

First, I make you look like a fool because you jumped the gun calling the Holy Spirit a broad, then I confront you with this Acts 2:24 thingie - and you bring up ROMANS 3:13 !!!!

Who's doing damage control? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Dave Wrote:Does the emperor have no clothes? Did I catch you with your pants down in this area Paul?

Keep your dreams out of this. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Dave Wrote:It is a totally sound and logical approach by me to the mess of this issue. Many have looked at it over the years and seen it the same way quite a few years prior to me, many men who were of a much higher caliber than me in the scholarly arena, and they seen through it.

Western men, right? Who didn't understand, or speak, Aramaic...right? Otherwise, what need would they have had to make a Greek, Latin, German or English translation?

What if I told you that many (eastern) men who were of a much higher caliber than you in the scholarly arena seen through it? And they happened to understand Meshikha's language?

Would that hold the same weight with you, even though they had a little more melatonin than those other men you spoke of?

Dave Wrote:If the syriac text had it's merit, folks would not be trying to do everything that there is possible here to persuade, convince, and sell this to people. You and others would not need to, God would be witnessing it for you and people would be flocking to it in droves.

God has always witnessed to it, Dave. That's why the Church of the East has been called the Greatest Missionary Church that has ever existed. And a white man (John Stewart) said that.

Ooo, I think I scored a point with you this time. If I had said that "Mar Nimrod" said that the Church of the East was the greatest missionary church that has ever existed, you would have brushed that off as cultural pride - wouldn't you?

Dave Wrote:I will say it again, the only rational conclusion as to why the syriac text has a word that could possibly mean "cords" rather than the standard greek wording of the "travail" from the LXX, is that the greek follows the LXX wording and the syriac followed the greek NT text and corrected it according to the Hebrew version, when they translated it.

You have absolutely no proof of that ever happening. If you had early Aramaic fragments that read differently from the Peshitta, then you would be able to reasonably postulate that a revision occured here.

As such, your theory is bunk.

Besides, that still doesn't answer the main question. I already told you, forget about the Aramaic text.....imagine the Greek NT is the only thing that ever existed and that there's no such thing as an Aramaic NT.

Go it? OK, now....answer this simple multiple-choice question:

The Greek manuscripts all, without exception, say "pains." This is because.... (circle one)

(a) Shimon said "pains," or
(b) Luke recorded "pains," or
© Zorba translated "pains."

Which is it?


Dave Wrote:No matter if the "western" greek folks went back into the LXX and interpolated it, like you proposed,

I DIDN'T PROPOSE IT, DAVE. I AM MERELY REPEATING WHAT THE GOOD FOLKS WHO WROTE THE BHS SAID.

I DIDN'T PROPOSE IT, DAVE.

Dave Wrote:I would not be able to even say what I say here if the syriac text would have followed the Hebrew and it's own Peshitta OT text in this area.

Dave, why would the Peshitta NT (written by Palestinian Jews) follow the Peshitta OT (a version created by Mesopotamian Jews) ????

The Peshitta OT wasn't used in Palestine at the time, Dave. And neither was the Septuagint. And the MSS Hebrew text did not exist at the time (as the Masoretes hadn't done their standardization work yet for a few more centuries.)

That's why the quotes in the NT oftentimes don't match up to anything at all.....and the other reason is because they were, more often than not, paraphrases rather than direct quotes.

Do you think Meshikha was like one of your American ministers on a podium, wearing a suit and tie and with a leather-bound bible in his hand preaching and telling the people to look up a specific verse?

Do you think he actually was carrying around that big-ass scroll around from the synagogue wherever he went?

Dave, quit watching televangelists, ok?

Dave Wrote:Why did it not correct the greek OT in this area also if it was so original and inspired?

The Greek OT (like the Greek NT) had plenty of "correcting" done to it over the centuries, dude.

Paul Wrote:Why should I concede when your proposing that it was this conglomeration of texts the apostles used instead of an actual text of some sorts? Is that really your answer here Paul, a drash? I'm not reaching here at all costs, you are. My conclusion of it is sound.

Of course it's a drash. Do you realize how often Paul does that in his writing? If not, read some of Andrew's posts here or in his book. It was like, totally his style man.

Dave, I've had fun in this little exchange - I really have. But I need you to ask the Spirit one thing for me, please, because I know She talks to you - and let me know what the answer is as soon as She gives it, please:

The Greek manuscripts all, without exception, say "pains." This is because.... (circle one)

(a) Shimon said "pains," or
(b) Luke recorded "pains," or
© Zorba translated "pains."

Which is it?
Relax Paul, I'm not the racist type.

I stand by what I posted in this Paul. You can attempt to reason another way with me in this but I choose to reach a conclusion on it.

Asking questions, proposing theories, and "staying in the game no matter what" is nothing that I have not seen before on other boards.

We have been hard on each other here and now it is time to move on. I have my reasons for what I choose and so do you, if we are unable to come into agreement, then it will only get worse.

We will have to just agree to disagree.
Fine, Dave.

But remember, I will always be waiting for you to answer the following question...no matter how uneasy it makes you feel, you should really confront it head-on.

The Greek manuscripts all, without exception, say "pains." This is because.... (circle one)

(a) Shimon said "pains," or
(b) Luke recorded "pains," or
© Zorba translated "pains."

Which is it?

You don't have to answer, of course. It just proves which one you know it is but are too prideful to say.

You know that if you answer (a) or (b), I've got you by the nads. If you answer ©, then your pride will be hurt. There are no other options but these three above.

I'll let it go - have a nice night.
Pages: 1 2 3 4