Peshitta Forum

Full Version: "MarYah deception" ???
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Akhi Jerry. I hope aren't basing your judgement on sedra3. It's horribly flawed.

And it is not the work of Dr. Kiraz. He only turned it into a database. And I put it on the web. It's the best we have in electronic format for now. It has a lot of errors, but I cannot alter it per my copyright license with The Way International. It's the work of The Way International.

Pick up a copy of Thackston's grammar. It's an excellent tool for beginners. You'll really enjoy leaning the grammar rather then learning grammar from a lexicon.

There is no reason to classify Meem Resh Aleph as anything special. There is no grammatical form for adding a Yodh to a noun.

Lord is a rather frequently used term. Again, if the Emphatic were MRYA you would see it used all over he place for any sort of lord. Think of the secular usage.
Paul, I have another avenue I am going to explore. There are only 7 hits on Mau-Rau` in the entire NT, so it is not a difficult task for me to do a full concordance on it, to see if the context calls for emphatic or absolute. My argument was based on it being absolute.

But if Mau-Rau` is conclusively the emphatic, then I will have to rethink MauR-Yau`, as both can't be the emphatic at the same time.
Thirdwoe Wrote:Jerry,

The Miltha of GOD spoke to Moses and gave him The Name of GOD. And the Miltha of God IS GOD, and the Miltha of God, in the fullness of time became a Human Being for our salvation living among us, as one of us, in the Person of Y'shua, The Messiah, who IS THE MILTHA of GOD, The Father.

Do you disagree with any of what I just said? And if so, what exactly and correct it with what GOD has taught us in His Holy Scriptures.
Thirdwoe, i think the problemactually is when someone attempts to hold on to their argument because of their theologicla position. It is a way to keep ignorance. If we want truth, we have to not care what truth is, but rather what is true.
Jerry Wrote:Paul, I have another avenue I am going to explore. There are only 7 hits on Mau-Rau` in the entire NT, so it is not a difficult task for me to do a full concordance on it, to see if the context calls for emphatic or absolute. My argument was based on it being absolute.

See Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21: "Mara de Shmayya" (The Lord of Heaven"). The Emphatic Mara is indicated due to its position prior to the Daleth Proclitic. If it were Absolute it would be Mara Shmayya, without the Proclitic.

See especially Luke 14:23 for the Emphatic - "w Emar Mara l Awadeh" (and said the lord to his servant....). Contextually the only possibility here is the Emphatic.

Do note, Akhi Jerry, that the Absolute and Emphatic for the lexical root MRA are identical, and unaltered from the root. For the Absolute form, see Matthew 13:52, 20:1, 20:11 - "Mara Beytha" ("Lord of the House") without the Daleth Proclitic. Also Matthew 20:8, "Mara Karma" ("Lord of the Vineyard")

It is immaterial to the argument whether or not the noun is in the Emphatic, or in the Absolute. In neither case would you introduce a Yodh to form the state. Not for the Emphatic, and not for the Absolute. Nouns don't behave that way in the Emphatic or the Absolute.

Jerry Wrote:But if Mau-Rau` is conclusively the emphatic, then I will have to rethink MauR-Yau`, as both can't be the emphatic at the same time.

This. If MRYA is not the Emphatic of MRA (and it isn't), then what is it? And why is it only used of God and Christ? Never, for instance, of a king, or a landlord or a male head of household.

Remember that in English you do not add a suffix of "-or" to a noun root, only to a verb root, when creating a substantive. Creat-or is fine, King-or is not. In the same way, you do not add a Yodh to a noun root in Aramaic to form an Emphatic.

Two different grammatical conventions, for two different parts of speech.

+Shamasha
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Jeremy,

You're welcome, I'm glad that helped. I may just make an article about it so we can finally just point people to that rather than risk having confusion surrounding this very important topic.

The thing that is very disturbing to me is the unfortunate position Prof. Brock is taking on this subject. If you recall, I had a debate regarding this topic online a little while back. Prof. Brock chimed in in support of my opponent, by citing r-(-a and b-r-a as lexical roots in favor of his position. It's inexcusable that a professor, the chair in fact, of Syriac Studies at a prestigious university (Oxford, of all) could make such an elementary mistake as this - confusing the Emphatic state from Substantivization of Participles from III-weak verbs, vs. the Emphatic State of the Normal III-weak Noun. Below is the relevant section from Thackston's Grammar:

http://www.peshitta.org/images/thackston203.jpg

+Shamasha


Shlama akhi Paul,


i hope you do put something up -- it would be so helpful to so many!

ah yes i recall Prof. Brock's pov. why it doesn't work makes so much sense now with the grammatical evidence in place. i can ease my neurotic mind and lay this issue to rest, finally, for me!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Quote:you do not add a Yodh to a noun root in Aramaic to form an Emphatic.


excellent point that should be the cause for much consideration for those left wondering.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Burning one Wrote:ah yes i recall Prof. Brock's pov. why it doesn't work makes so much sense now with the grammatical evidence in place.

How do you begin to explain to someone who is not familiar with English, but insists on telling you that in order to get the Emphatic for a noun in English, you must append a -er suffix to the noun?

You come back with, "Sir, that's only required sometimes when you are forming a noun from a verb, like read or write..."

Yet this person insists on telling you that "Dog-er" should be the word for "The Dog", just because "Writ-er" is derived from "Write."

Honest to God, some people forget that this is a living language, Aramaic. At least wait a few more decades until it dies and no one can come to its defense, before they mangle it!!!!

+Shamasha
Paul Younan Wrote:Honest to God, some people forget that this is a living language, Aramaic. At least wait a few more decades until it dies and no one can come to its defense, before they mangle it!!!!

+Shamasha


be at peace: Alaha enjoys revitalizing dead things, so when Messiah comes, He will happily "restore" His language and set em all right! of course, there will be some guy in the back (outer darkness?) saying "you're not sayin' it right!" <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: --> i guess that's when He will throw us all for a loop and a sword REALLY will come from His mouth! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->
Thirdwoe Wrote:Jerry,

The Miltha of GOD spoke to Moses and gave him The Name of GOD. And the Miltha of God IS GOD, and the Miltha of God, in the fullness of time became a Human Being for our salvation living among us, as one of us, in the Person of Y'shua, The Messiah, who IS THE MILTHA of GOD, The Father.

Do you disagree with any of what I just said? And if so, what exactly and correct it with what GOD has taught us in His Holy Scriptures.

Akhan Thirdwoe:

Suddenly, the full weight of 1Corinthians 12:3 bears down upon us. It is easy enough for an unbeliever to call Jesus "lord", but when the intended effect of "...no one can call Jesus MarYah, except by the Holy Spirit" is realized (this is not as clear in the Greek "Kurios" as it is in the Aramaic "MarYah"), an epiphany occurs.

Thus the venomous backlash we are receiving, the ridicule and the blasphemous words and images in that article (see the picture of Frankenstein's monster under the Holy Name of God.) Be strong and well brother.

+Shamasha
Jerry Wrote:If (MauR-Yau`) is the proper noun MarYah, then it forces (Mau-Rau`) to be the singular emphatic "the-lord". Since there is no (MauR), then there is no singular absolute "lord". That is possible, but with 755 occurances of the word "lord", you would think it would be used in the singular absolute at least once.


Shlama akhi Jerry,


did you get a chance to look at the Compendious link Paul shared? it gave instance of the ancient usage of MAR (MauR), which would work then for the proposal of MARYA indeed being a transliteration of the compound MAR+YAH. while the grammatical link was not understood previously for me, it was the ancient usage of MAR that i was trying to find example of, which would at least make the compound MARYAH be valid. so for me, that conclusive evidence helped immensely, as well. MAR (MauR) was in use anciently, which would allow for the creation of the compound MAR+YAH.

personally, i'd like to see more examples of MAR in ancient usage for good measure, but that one historical evidence, along with the grammatical factor, was finally enough for me to give in and settle my thoughts on the matter. i don't know if it is enough for you, but maybe more consideration + evidence would help.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Thirdwoe Wrote:Jerry,

The Miltha of GOD spoke to Moses and gave him The Name of GOD. And the Miltha of God IS GOD, and the Miltha of God, in the fullness of time became a Human Being for our salvation living among us, as one of us, in the Person of Y'shua, The Messiah, who IS THE MILTHA of GOD, The Father.

Do you disagree with any of what I just said? And if so, what exactly and correct it with what GOD has taught us in His Holy Scriptures.
You don't say this explicitly, but do you think one has to adopt the hypothesis of the personal pronoun MarYah before they can know that Yeshua is the Word in flesh?

Assure to me that you can isolate a speculative theory like MarYah from actual biblical knowledge, then I will consider your question.
Jerry,

I'ts not a "speculative theory" It's The Truth.

The Miltha of God, IS GOD, and the Miltha of God became a Human Being for our salvation, in the Person of Y'shua. Y'shua IS MarYah=The Master YHWH, manifested in the flesh/Humanity...Just as The Holy Scriptures teach us.

Do you disagree?
If you can't answer my question, Yes or No, then I can't answer yours.
Akhan Jerry, if you don't mind me chiming in. The Greeks and Latins came to the same conclusion without the need for MarYah so obviously the two can be separate.
In other words we aren't suggesting that the Divine nature of the Messiah is dependent on the meaning, one way or the other, of MarYah. One can arrive at that conclusion quite comfortably on the scriptures in English or any other faithful translation.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15