Phil,
Nothing was read wrong, by me there, but, it looks pretty obvious the Greek scribes read the Aramaic word wrong there...and which way it should read in the Greek and the English translations of it, is up for debate, as it could work out in the context either way... though I see that in 1 Cor 3:15 it is "burn", not "boast", "burn" being the prevailing meaning of the same Aramaic word as found in 1 Cor 13:3 penned by the same God inspired Apostles, who was an Aramaic speaking man, not a Hellenist in any sense of the word...but rather...a "Hebrew of the Hebrews".
And I see that the Greek scribes got it right that time, unless we can find a variant of "boast" in that verse as well in the Greek MSS. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="
" title="Smile" /><!-- s
-->
Let's discuss some more...for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
You said:
Quote:So, we have two alternative words in the Greek text, and the Aramaic only has one word with both meanings in it according to Mr Younan. What does this prove? You will argue that this means the Greek translator had to pick one of the two meanings from the Aramaic word,
Not just two words in the Greek texts, Phil....but four! The truth is staring you right in the face and you can't see it?
Lets walk this out a bit...
In the Aramaic texts, all of them, as far as I know... as I have checked various Aramaic NT manuscripts from the 5th-16th century... and they all have the very same word there...no variants, and no variations of the word either.
And this would be the case if it was the source text, rather than a translation...if we had 2 variants and 4 variations of the two words shown in this place in the Aramaic text, and the Greek word could be rendered one way or the other...then it would be easy to say it was the translation, not the source text.
We don't have that in the Aramaic NT...
But, what do we find in the Greek texts here?
We find at least two variants and a total of 4 variations there.
This is indicative of translations...just read any number of the various literal English NTs from the Aramaic, Greek, or Latin texts, and you will see that some have this word or that word, and some say it this way or that way, with shades of meaning coming out in various words from the one source word, and sometimes they may even bring a whole different meaning to the verse. You know you are reading translations, when you see this going on.
Lets look a bit closer then at the Greek texts.
Quote:The reading kauchvswmai (kauchswmai, "I might boast") is in manuscripts like ??46 ?? A B 048 33 1739* .
The competing reading, kauqhvsomai (kauqhsomai, "I will burn"), is found in C D F G L 81 1175 1881* and a host of patristic writers.
A few other Byzantine Greek readings include: kauqhvswmai (kauqhswmai) ("I might burn") and kauqh' ("it might be burned") read by 1505.
Why all the confusion from the Greek scribes here? Two different words, two different tenses...This is easily shown to be a translation problem going on here, rendering the Aramaic text different ways and in different tenses, and coming up with two different meanings from one source word....whereas the Aramaic text is steady eddy all the way around.
Phil,
On a personal note... I say this to try to help you.
I know you have spent over 10 years or so being fascinated with Ivan Panin's claims. You bought all his books, and have become his advocate and text evangelist of sorts, going from chat board to chat board trying to tell everyone there that Ivan found the Autograph, and all others are corruptions...but, you have time and time again not been taken seriously....and have been banned repeatedly over the years, as you get frustrated and begin to be very rude and insulting to those who didn't accept, hook, line, and sinker, what you wanted them to swallow.
Not so? But, it is so, just ask these guys below, all who don't like to say who they really are but have the very same personality and have the very same agenda.
ccc
Panman
imago dei
MkIII
Bereanz
Miracles
And now, you have invested a number of years working on your own English version, which you believe will out sell all other versions of the Bible...and will be the new "Authorized Version" being blessed by God Himself...where you seem to think that your renderings are inspired by the Holy Spirit...and thus perfect and divine in nature...the world's 1st ever such translation. Not.
You hope to show them all that you were right all along...and they will have to admit you were not just some Ivan Panin fanatic.
So, because of all this....of course the Aramaic New Testament HAS TO BE the translation, in your mind....I mean, what would it mean to you if you were wrong about all this for so long, after all you have said....and after you have put all your eggs in Ivan's Numeric basket?
Yes...you are in quite a pickle, I see.
Speaking of Idioms...have you ever read the Aramaic text and seen all the Semitic idioms given there, and then checked the Greek text out in those same places? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Phil, you came here to prove us wrong and to prove Ivan Panin and your "translation" of his text, right...but, as you can see, we won't buy what you are selling either.
So, you can insult us more if you like...insinuate that we must be demon possessed...Pharisees...half wits, or even "Brothers"... Whatever you need to do, Phil...
But, the truth will remain the same, no matter what you believe, or how you treat us, your Brothers in Messiah...and we will show you the real evidence from the text's too, and not just mere assumptions, opinions, and or guesses, which is all you have been bringing to the table, with no real proof to speak of thus far. Please stop, and show us something solid.
Do you hate the Aramaic New Testament? I hope not. Do you say it should be destroyed? I hope not. I don't hate the Greek or Latin NT, at all...or the honest English versions of its text...and I understand the nature of translations are such that none of them can be said to be perfect in all respects...yours included.
-Chuck
.