Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greek primacists favoring certain anciet texts
#61
Shlama Akhi Ooze,

Quote:You know I think I gave up on the idea of a perfect text. As a matter of faith I beleive that the Gospels in their original form were perfect. But I don't think we have an absolute perfect text out there. the reasoning behind this is basically concerning the infallibility of humans. The reason is simply this, if being a Protestant you might cough at that the thought of Papal Infallibiity, then likewise you should also have a problem with scribal infallibility when it comes to copying and translating as well. As a former student, researcher I know even trying to be as accurate and professional as you can be, you still make mistakes.


I think what some on this forum need to think about are the Bible doctrines of inspiration , infallibilty and preservation of scripture.

You say that the original was perfect. I ask you to tell me how many Christians had access to that perfect original. How long did that original last ? Was the church so careless as to allow that original to become corrupted and lost forever ? Is this what our Lord taught about what happens to his words ?

If we are not sure all scripture is preserved, how can we know any of it is
accurate ? Is it not all based on guesswork & probability ?
If we are weak on the doctrine of scriptural infallibility and preservation,
we will begin to question other basic doctrine as well, even the doctrines of Christ and salvation., as these come from scripture and nowhere else.

Do we in America have the original words of our Constitution ? Yes we do. Would we be so careless as to allow even one word of the original perish ? No, we would not. We are vowed to defend it with our lives. We have made sufficient copies to prevent that from happening.

You apparently are ignorant of the scribal traditions of determining the original readings from a handful of imperfect manuscripts. Scribes even today of the hebrew tradition know well how this is done. We don't need perfect mss. to produce a perfect manuscript.

It seems some, perhaps many, have very low expectations of their Creator and of his promise to reveal his truth to every generation without favor or respect of persons.
We must also remember that the Greek text is a translation of the perfect original you speak of.


Ps 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Ps 102:12 But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations.


Ps 119:90 Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.

Ps 135:13 Thy name, O LORD, endureth for ever; and thy memorial, O LORD, throughout all generations.


"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall never pass away."

What's the matter , brother; don't you believe in the perpetual miracles of God and His word?
If He can't keep His word from destruction, what can He keep?


Tibotha w'Shlama,

Dave Bauscher
Reply
#62
Rob Wrote:Wowwwww, ??ber long stuff! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> I'll have to finish later.

Quote:? I don't really understand. I'm saying that my faith in God preserving his word is throughout all time in all circumstances, not just up to a certain extent.
.

Ok I buy that.
Reply
#63
I would say that God's word is perserved. But the issue of fallibility and infallibility should be self evident. I think if the doctine of infalliblity etc. that many people believe was really right their actually would be no need for this forum. Bascially all the ancient texts, would say the same exact thing in the same exact way. The only differences that would exist would be ones that would obvious come from language and dialectial differences. But between comparing copies within the same basic language griup, lets say Alexandrian Greek vs. Byzantine, Vs. Roman Sinactius etc. there would be no difference.


Anyway you don't see that in the ancient texts. What you see, is their is a high ammount of agreement, several times more than secular works. Like the Iliad, the writing of Julius Cesar, etc. But you know here and there is a word difference. And sometimes those word differences can affect how you should interpret the text. Anyway as a Orthodox person I see the Church is the object of Faith, not the Bible. In the Holy Creeds we profess belief in Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, and not in a Holy Infallible All Sufficent Canon.


I believe the Holy Scriptures are inspired and profitable for instruction etc. But that they are ultimately the product of the inpiration of the Holy Spirit, and are an outgrowth of the authority of the Church.


And I will be happy to elaborate, explain, discuss and even debate more with you on this topic on theooze.com So as not to distract or hijack the discussion, from the basic purpose of this web site.
Reply
#64
Nice input Ooze! There is much to learn in that for all of us!

Quote:Your approach involves two critical errors in textual study

It comes down to this, was it correct or not? Did the comparison show a superior understanding from the hebrew text?
Reply
#65
Shlama Akhi Dave,

It's arbitrary. I showed you specific evidence when you first came on the forum and you actually found a fantastic proof of Aramaic primacy which cleared up a contradition in the Greek text.

The point is this: I showed you how the verb in that inflection could have been a 3rd-person feminine or masculine verb. I demonstrated overwhelmingly with empirical evidence how the error happened.

That's what's missing in your proposal. The how. I don't want to know why - why is arbitrary - I want to know how. You propose that it's a superior reading. I would be happy to entertain the idea, as long as it's clearly documented how the error in Aramaic arose from a Hebrew source.

And the Greeks would have had to make the same error independently...since you are claiming that they didn't translate from the Aramaic.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. It's just that I put a lot of effort and research into a piece of evidence that I propose supports my position - and I expect those who wish to debate me to return the favor.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#66
I understand Paul.

But there is a problem with that method being utilized all the time though. If I'm unable to reach back into that language then I'm at fault because of that very fact. That discludes The Holy Spirit out of having the final word in it.
Reply
#67
Then let the Holy Spirit speak, Akhi Dave. Ask Him to reveal the manner by which the mistranslation occured. Show the Hebrew word "by" and demonstrate how the Aramaic and Greek translators mistook it for an "and".

The Hebrew for "by" is a Beth proclitic - looks like this: b whereas the Hebrew for "and" is a Waw proclitic - looks like this w (these two are the same thing in Aramaic, by the way.)

You could, for instance, propose that the Waw may have had a ink smudge mark on the bottom, which would have made it look almost like the Beth proclitic.

Conversely, you could propose that the ink on the Beth proclitic was worn on the bottom and faded, thereby making it look like a Waw proclitic and became mistranslated.

Now you've proposed the how and it would be up to the reader to decide whether your evidence is plausible.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#68
GRRRRRRR,.....


Alright, alright, alright,....I'll learn the languages.

Lately The Holy Spirit has been very gently nudging me towards learning aramaic. Mainly because I would have plenty of time to do it soon.

I would make myself out to be stupid by denying the wisdom you just spoke to me Paul.
Reply
#69
Rob Wrote:Dan, 'Yeshu' is a devious Rabbinic acronym for "May his name be blotted out" found in the Talmud and unfortunately, in Modern Israeli vocabulary.


I believe Yeshu' is the correct transliteration into English of Aramaic [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)](w4y[/font] and Greek Ijsous or Latin Iesus. The suffix s or s is required in Greek and Latin but not required in English. For example, the names Cephas and Barnabas which came from the Aramaic Kepha and Barnaba.
One of the first owners of the facsimile of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802837867/ref=nosim/ultimyourulti-20"><b>Codex Leningrad</b></a>
Reply
#70
Yeshu isn't the correct transliteration because it's derived from Hebrew; Yehoshua, or "Joshua".
Reply
#71
Shlama Ooze,

Quote:But the issue of fallibility and infallibility should be self evident. I think if the doctine of infalliblity etc. that many people believe was really right their actually would be no need for this forum. Bascially all the ancient texts, would say the same exact thing in the same exact way.

I believe the Holy Scriptures are inspired and profitable for instruction etc. But that they are ultimately the product of the inpiration of the Holy Spirit, and are an outgrowth of the authority of the Church.

The doctrine of infallibilty is self evident in any manuscript or version of Matthew or Isaiah, or Luke or The Psalms, or Deuteronomy. It is a doctrine of both testaments which you have obviously missed:
Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Ps 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.
Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
De 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

You are commanded to live by every word of God.
God has not failed us. He has preserved every word, or we could not keep it. Our Lord obviously believed it had been preserved in His time from 1500 years previous.

You say this forum would not be necessary if infallibilty were true. I say it is true. The reason the forum is needed is that many people are ignorant and unbelieving. They need educating.

As far as the ancient texts, your statement does not apply to The Peshitta mss. I have analyzed the Peshitta versions and The Greek mss. The Peshitta versions are separated by no more than 100 letters in The NT apart from the passage on the adulteress and difference in the canons.

These differences are easily corrected by collation of mss..

To say inspiration and scripture are an outgrowth of church authority is a gross error. The scriptures are God's word and work. Inspiration cannot be man's work, nor can any writer of scripture take credit for that scripture. He would tell you it is the word of the living God.

Greek has been a decoy from the source. Search the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures for the truth. The Greek will ultimately come to a dead end, for it is a translation of the word, not the word itself.

Blessings,

Dave B
Reply
#72
Rob Wrote:Yeshu isn't the correct transliteration because it's derived from Hebrew; Yehoshua, or "Joshua".

Yeshu' explains the reason why we get our English's Jesus instead of Joshua. For example, there are some stupid ignorant people out there who are making wild speculations that Jesus is derived from JeZEUS. These ignorants have no knowledge of the origin of the name Jesus in English.

Jesus has nothing to do with Zeus. Jesus is Jesu just like Barnabas is Barnaba and Cephas is Keepha, because the suffix S is not required in English.
One of the first owners of the facsimile of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802837867/ref=nosim/ultimyourulti-20"><b>Codex Leningrad</b></a>
Reply
#73
Quote:Yeshu' explains the reason why we get our English's Jesus instead of Joshua. For example, there are some stupid ignorant people out there who are making wild speculations that Jesus is derived from JeZEUS. These ignorants have no knowledge of the origin of the name Jesus in English.

Jesus has nothing to do with Zeus. Jesus is Jesu just like Barnabas is Barnaba and Cephas is Keepha, because the suffix S is not required in English.
You're succumbing to a logical fallacy, Dan. You're assuming that because the S suffix is not present in Hebrew/Aramaic that all of a sudden, Hebrew/Aramaic has no suffix. You're also speculating that the translation of the name has more weight than the original name itself. I challenge you to find a single use of 'Yeshu' in which it is not used as a slanderous acronym.

Furthermore, the LXX translates Joshua into Iesou without the S suffix, vindicating my argument, since the German word 'Jesu' comes from the GNT: Iesous, just without the Greek suffix. Check it for yourself.
Reply
#74
Hi Rob,


Greek names and all nouns have 5 forms for the singular number of each of 3 genders.
General nouns have 5 singular cases and 5 plural cases. Those forms are:
Nominative, genitive,dative, accusative and vocative.
The three genders- Masculine,feminine, neuter, combined mean that there are 30 noun cases , most of which are spelled differently.

The masculine "o Ihsous" is declined thus:

Nominative - "o Ihsous" (Subject of the verb)
Genitive - " tou Ihsou" (Possessive form or form of origin and object of some preps.)
Dative - " tw Ihsou" (Indirect object)
Accusative - "ton Ihsoun" (Direct object)
Vocative - "Ihsou" (Direct address)

These are all proper Greek spellings of the same name.

All these forms are used in the GNT and also in the LXX.





Blessings,


Dave B
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)