Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Luke 24:1
#16
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

It appears that you have missed the point of what I am saying.

I have no dispute as to whether
Crawford Codex reads ?????????????? or whether
Khabouris Codex reads ???????????? ????????????????

My point was that b''khad b'shaba" or d'Had,b'$ab'a` or even D'KHaD,B'SHaB'aA in aramaic is represented as ???????????????????????? which is a conjunction of two words "one" and "Sabbath" and is literally rendered as one word "onesabbath" this is idiomaticaly refered to as one into the sabbath aka Sunday. This is not shown in the text of luke 24:1. What is shown in the text is ???????????? ???????????????? the literal rendering of this phrase is "in one sabbath" and is properly shown as two words but can be shown as one. If you look closely at the phrase in the text you will see that it differs slightly from ???????????????????????? in that the aramaic letter beth is added. Beth, when attached to the beginning of a word, represents the preposition 'in, with or at, in this case it represents "in". It is this subtle difference that changes the meaning in the two phrases, and is not purely dialectic as you asserted earlier. The proof is there in your online lexicon check it out.

Now that I have answered your question, please can we focus on the question that I asked earlier if you do not mind, what evidence do you have that "week" means Sabbath?

Shlama w???burkate
#17
Shlama Akhi Claud:
I'm finished with this thread. All the best in your studies.

Shlama,
Stephen
#18
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

So I take that you have no evidence to substantiate that a week" means Sabbath, and as result the first day of the week is the the proper english translation in luke 24:1. I have to admit I am not surprised, because as I said from the outset it has been translated this way by most translators for tradition and doctrinal leanings.

There a number of bible translations which translate luke 24:1 more accurately they include:

Coverdale bible 1535
Bishops Bible 1568
both the above refered bibles predate the the King James Version
More recent trnsalations include:
Youngs Literal translation
Concordant literal translation
Literal translation of the holy bible JP Green

Thank you for at least attempting to offer some insight to the questions I have raised, perhaps there is someone else in the forum who can offer an explanation.

Shlama w???burkate

Claud.
#19
Claud,

Earlier today I tried to go through this thread very carefully. What you have written is new to me and I have never seen it before. I must admit I don't know anything about Aramaic. I was a beginner in NT Greek and making some progress until Aramaic Primacy came along. Now, to some extent I am an Aramaic Primacist. Honestly, I am going back and forth now.

But about your statements on Luke 24:1 are you saying that Y'shua rose again on the morning of the Sabbath??

And, are you aware of any place in the New TEstament that this same word is used but would have to be rendered as week?? I believe 1 Cor 16:1 might reveal some further clues - just off the top of my head.

Claud, I tried to follow you carefully but got lost at some points, like when you elaborated on the seven sabbaths. But anyway I will close it here. I have limited time now and please forgive the sloppiness of this reply. But that is it in a nutshell. I just though I would say something because I have never in my life have read it that way that you have. I had always thought that Y'shua arose early on the first of the week. But of course, my compass was the Greek NT. On the other hand all of the Aramaic NT translations say that Y'shua arose early on the first of the week or that Mary and His disciples found the empty tomb early on the first of the week. But again, you are stating that Y'shua arose early morning on the Sabbath (the 7th day). Right??

Kindly,

Mike Karoules
Georgia
#20
Shlama Akhi Mike,

Yes , I am saying that Yeshua rose on the Sabbath morning.

I can appreciate if you have never heard this before it will come as some what of a shock, I know exactly how you feel, it took me months to understand this. We have been so blinded by tradition and doctrinal leanings to such an extent that simple words have been twisted to mean something else and we do not even think to question it. It is not a difficult topic to understand, the hardest thing is to drop our previous misconception. I can give you detailed information if really want to understand this topic.

The point about counting seven sabbaths to pentecost was that at time of the 1st Century the first weekly sabbath after the passover was known as the first sabbath, it is this day that is commonly mistranslated as the first day of the week. I hope that helps


Other places where in the New Testament that this same word is used but would have to be rendered as week are as follows:

MATTHEW 28:1it
MARK 16:2
MARK 16:9
John 20:1
John 20:19
Acts 20:7
1Corinthians 16:2

Shlama w???burkate

Claud.
#21
Quote:Shlama Akhi Stephen,

So I take that you have no evidence to substantiate that a week" means Sabbath, and as result the first day of the week is the the proper english translation in luke 24:1.

Shlama Akhi Claud:
The reason that I have personally discontinued this thread, is because I perceive that you have an agenda that is not based upon Aramaic Primacy. You appear to be using this forum to present your theory of a Shabbat morning resurrection of Messiah. You are most certainly free to hold whatever view you want, but you can't use this forum as a pulpit. This isn't that kind of forum. So I'm going to have to ask you to graciously discontinue this thread so that I don't have to take any action. Again, all the best in your studies.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
(Forum Moderator)
#22
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

That is precisely the reason why I did not even bother to respond to this thread up until this point, after so many years you begin to recognize with the very first post, very first sentence, the intention of the poster. Not to mention that Claud has no clue about Aramaic, I have seriously tried to hold back my chuckles when reading his explanation of the Beth Proclitic as used here. Talk about trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole....more like a rectangular peg into a round hole!
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#23
Shlama Akhi Paul:
I know, I know. I tried to present the simple text in as unambiguous a manner as I could. I invoked your earlier "days of the week" list. I even posted an exerpt from the Crawford Codex for about 12 hours so the two variations could be easily shown. I'm ready to move on now. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shlama,
Stephen
#24
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

I am really sorry that you perceive that am using the forum to present a Shabbat morning resurrection of Messiah theory. I make no apology about the fact that this is my belief, however in the discussion of the translation, it is necessary to talk about it. I am actually trying to establish the primacy of the aramaic, from a verse that I believe has been mistranslated in the greek. your presentation of the codices was unecessary it was not something I was disputing, you clearly misunderstood what I have said.



Shlama Akhi Paul,

I freely admit the aramaic is new to me, I certainly did not make up what I said, but rather than have a good little chuckle to yourself and then write a rather belittling response why don't you explain in detail. This was the whole point of me joining this forum ie to learn. Just because I do not readilly swallow what either you or stephen have said is no reason to accuse me of pushing an agenda. If I wanted to push my own beliefs I would simply start my own forum.

With respect to your days of the week list you should check out <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.homeschoolhowtos.com/static/ChartOfTheWeek.pdf">http://www.homeschoolhowtos.com/static/ ... heWeek.pdf</a><!-- m --> "by William Mead Jones in 1886.


The point I was making to Stephen was that the counting towards sabbath method of refering to the week days was not used at the time of Yeshua.The ancient Aramaic Targum called Pseudo-Jonathan, which is dated to before the ministry of Messiah Yeshua, renders the end of Gen. 1:5 ("the first day"), as the following:

???????? ??????

...which is transliterated yoma khada (literally, "day one"). A later Aramaic Targum (Onkelos) renders the "first day" as yom khad:

?????? ????

Since Aramaic and Hebrew are pretty similar, the evidence indicates that the first day ("Sunday") was not known as khad b'shabat at the time of Messiah. Usage of this phrase evolved to later mean Sunday, and this should not be used to support understanding it that way at the time of Messiah. The more likely scenario is the one in relation to Sabbath is counting towards Pentecost.


What it boils down to is there any valid evidence that supports your assertion that a week means or is equivalent to sabbath.

If you can properly demonstrate this then your translation is correct. But it looks to me like you have simply followed the poor translation which has often been used by translators who translate from Greek manuscripts.

There are also other points I wanted bring up in the Greek which I would like to understand if they are there in the aramaic, as you will see this clearly about establishing the primacy of the Aramaic.

For example luke 23:56 to 24:1

In the greek ?????? and ???? is used, in most cases ?????? is not translated and ???? is often incorrectly translated as ???now???. Are these two equivalent words present in the Aramaic?

Shlama Akhi Stephen,

I am really sorry that you perceive that am using the forum to present a Shabbat morning resurrection of Messiah theory. I make no apology about the fact that this is my belief, however in the discussion of the translation, it is necessary to talk about it. I am actually trying to establish the primacy of the aramaic, from a verse that I believe has been mistranslated in the greek. your presentation of the codices was unecessary it was not something I was disputing, you clearly misunderstood what I have said.



Shlama Akhi Paul,

I freely admit the aramaic is new to me, I certainly did not make up what I said, but rather than have a good little chuckle to yourself and then write a rather belittling response why don't you explain in detail. This was the whole point of me joining this forum ie to learn. Just because I do not readilly swallow what either you or stephen have said is no reason to accuse me of pushing an agenda. If I wanted to push my own beliefs I would simply start my own forum.

With respect to your days of the week list you should check out <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.homeschoolhowtos.com/static/ChartOfTheWeek.pdf">http://www.homeschoolhowtos.com/static/ ... heWeek.pdf</a><!-- m --> "by William Mead Jones in 1886.


The point I was making to Stephen was that the counting towards sabbath method of refering to the week days was not used at the time of Yeshua.The ancient Aramaic Targum called Pseudo-Jonathan, which is dated to before the ministry of Messiah Yeshua, renders the end of Gen. 1:5 ("the first day"), as the following:

???????? ??????

...which is transliterated yoma khada (literally, "day one"). A later Aramaic Targum (Onkelos) renders the "first day" as yom khad:

?????? ????

Since Aramaic and Hebrew are pretty similar, the evidence indicates that the first day ("Sunday") was not known as khad b'shabat at the time of Messiah. Usage of this phrase evolved to later mean Sunday, and this should not be used to support understanding it that way at the time of Messiah. The more likely scenario is the one in relation to Sabbath is counting towards Pentecost.


What it boils down to is there any valid evidence that supports your assertion that a week means or is equivalent to sabbath.

If you can properly demonstrate this then your translation is correct. But it looks to me like you have simply followed the poor translation which has often been used by translators who translate from Greek manuscripts.

There are also other points I wanted bring up in the Greek which I would like to understand if they are there in the aramaic, as you will see this clearly about establishing the primacy of the Aramaic.

For example luke 23:56 to 24:1

In the greek ?????? and ???? is used, in most cases ?????? is not translated and ???? is often incorrectly translated as ???now???. Are these two equivalent words present in the present in the Aramaic?

Shlama w???burkate

Claud.
#25
Shlama Akhi Claud,

claud Wrote:(snip)... but rather than have a good little chuckle to yourself and then write a rather belittling response why don't you explain in detail.

Because we've explained this in detail many times in the past, and I can guarantee you we will be asked to explain it many more times in the future.

The answer to your question will not matter a single Yodh to you....it's been my experience that, more often than not, people like you already have their minds made up and are simply looking for an audience and background applause when no one is willing to match their misplaced passion on the topic.....not because they are not able, but simply because they've been worn down mentally from having to endlessly repeat themselves. It's almost like being interrogated by the FBI over several days, being asked the same question OVER and OVER again....eventually, no matter what the question is, no matter how innocent, the subject just gives up and gives in. <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->

Here is the explanation, in detail:

The word, Ekhad~Khad (Hebrew~Aramaic) is a number. It literally means "one", or figuratively "first".

The word, Shavua~Shaba (Hebrew~Aramaic) is a number. It literally means "seven", or figuratively "week".

In Luke 24:1, The Beth Proclitic, ??, is prepended to both of the words above. The Beth Proclitic, can be used to mean the following:

* on
* in
* of
* by
* through
* with

The translation of b-Khad, therefore, is "on the first".

The translation of b-Shaba, therefore, is "of the week".

The literal name for Sunday, in Aramaic, is "Khad b'Shaba" (first of the week)

The only difference between the Aramaic name for Sunday, "Khad b'Shaba", and Luke 24:1, is a tiny little intsy-wintsy Beth Proclitic before the name of the day.......meaning, instead of "Sunday"....a whoppingly, surprisingly, shockingly different......(drum roll) ...... "ON Sunday."

So there you have it.

And, if you are wondering why I became much more demeaning and sarcastic that Akhan Stephen, it's because there is only one thing more frustrating to me than having to repeat myself over and over again.....that is someone posting with an obvious bias and agenda, under the guise of inquiry, all the while accusing his opponents of being the ones that are influenced by tradition and dogma.

Quote:The point I was making to Stephen was that the counting towards sabbath method of refering to the week days was not used at the time of Yeshua. (snip)...which is transliterated yoma khada (literally, "day one"). A later Aramaic Targum (Onkelos) renders the "first day" as yom khad:

So I suppose in 1Corinthians 16:2, the Apostle Paul, by using the phrase "b'Kul Khad b'Shaba" was using the wrong name of the day of the week, huh? Maybe the Apostle Paul should have consulted the names of the days of the week according to Targum Onkelos? Pretty smart there, you are Claud. You've even bothered to shed some light to us dumb brown folks how our names of the days of the week came to be all screwed up, how silly were we! Duh! Thanks so much for clearing this up for us!

Or wait a minute, this may be better than you originally thought! Perhaps according to this brilliant theory - the Apostle Paul meant for us to only have a collection on that special Sabbath that happens once a year, so we don't have to collect every week....right? Wow, now that's a great theory to propose now that we are in a recession! Perfect!

But Wait! If you order in the next 10 minutes, we'll also throw in Acts 20:7 - where the infamous "Khad b'Shabba" (the wrong name of the day of the week during Meshikha's lifetime, according to Claud) presents itself again. Only this time, it's apparently that "special" Sabbath again....since that makes soooo much sense in the context, of course!

The other glaring problem in your theory: The Sabbath in Aramaic is "Shabtha", not "Shaba". Your explanation for Luke 24:1 makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Quote:This was the whole point of me joining this forum ie to learn.

Oh, don't even go there with the victim act.

That's one hell of a way to present how you came across to everyone else here. A student seeking to learn should not take the tone that you did. What you don't realize is how silly that sounds to someone who actually does know the topic matter. I'm not an expert in Quantum Physics, which is why I would not go onto a forum dedicated to that topic shooting my mouth off about how those scientists are wrong about superfluidity or probability distributions. It doesn't take much to be a Google expert, it also doesn't take much to make a fool out of yourself and needlessly anger and insult a whole bunch of people in the process.

Quote:But it looks to me like you have simply followed the poor translation which has often been used by translators who translate from Greek manuscripts.

Wow, to YOUR trained eye! That really means something to me, Claud. I am humbled and soooo sorry for my poor translation. Again, I'm brown so you have to forgive my ignorance.

Finally, I am not in need of anything from anyone surnamed Jones ... thanks for the link, though.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#26
Paul Younan Wrote:Finally, I am not in need of anything from anyone surnamed Jones ... thanks for the link, though.

<!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->
Ya'aqub Younan-Levine
Aramaica.org
#27
Paul,

Wow, such vitriol I???m stunned seems like I really struck a nerve. You do not know anything about me, but yet you presume to know me.
There is much I could say in response, but there is no point putting fuel on the fire, you are clearly upset.

However, I did raise another question which I raised in a previous post and despite what you might think I am genuinely seeking answer.

In the greek Luke 23:56 and 24:1 ?????? and ???? is used, in most cases ?????? is not translated and ???? is often translated as ???now???. Are these two equivalent words present in the present in the Aramaic?
Just in case you are wondering what the agenda is I am seeking to understand whether these words have been added in the Greek. Would you be so good as to oblige me with an answer?

Shabbat shalom,

Claud.
#28
Camera - and ... action. Something happening at last, I have been bored to death with the English reserve surrounding me.

claud Wrote:Paul,
Wow, such vitriol
[..]
Would you be so good as to oblige me with an answer?
Claud, you cleary have not read past posts of Shamasha Paul Younan. Vitriol? Just a little sarcasm or irony. Swallow it. You struck a nerve? ROTFL, I bet Paul couldn't care less and "chuckle" is the proper word. After this last post of yours I wouldn't expect an answer. Why don't you study some more Aramaic first?

P.S. I'm not considering Paul or anyone else on this forum "a guru" but I know that if one of my children wants something from me they cannot use tricks to get it, only a simple "please", or a smile.

P.P.S. "I am really sorry that you .. " - is an example of how not to apologize. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.wikihow.com/Apologize">http://www.wikihow.com/Apologize</a><!-- m -->, Yeah, I know, your dialectic exercises with Paul and Stephen is none of my business, but I've read that page recently and learned from it myself.

Still all the best, have a peaceful Shabbat,
Jerzy
#29
Shlama Claud,

claud Wrote:Wow, such vitriol I???m stunned seems like I really struck a nerve. You do not know anything about me, but yet you presume to know me.
There is much I could say in response, but there is no point putting fuel on the fire, you are clearly upset.

I don't know how long you've been lurking on the forum before deciding to join, but people who have been here long enough know that I do not get upset easily. It's actually a rare event, and no I am not upset right now.

Nor were my comments meant in a mean spirit, again people who have been around know my style of writing is heavily sarcastic. I may come across to a newbie as a jerk, however that's the newbie's problem not mine.

claud Wrote:However, I did raise another question which I raised in a previous post and despite what you might think I am genuinely seeking answer.

In the greek Luke 23:56 and 24:1 ?????? and ???? is used, in most cases ?????? is not translated and ???? is often translated as ???now???. Are these two equivalent words present in the present in the Aramaic?

In 24:1 the Aramaic word [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Nyd[/font] ("now/therefore/but") is present and rendered by the Greek ????

?????? is not represented by any Aramaic word.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#30
So Akhi Claud,

Now a question for you, that you have not answered. Acts 20:5-7 is quoted below for your convenience:

Quote:These men went on ahead and waited for us at Troas. But we sailed from Philippi after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days. On the first day of the week ("khad b'Shaba") we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

Let's summarize the key points:

(a) The Feast of Unleavened Bread is, of course, after Passover. (Nisan 15-21), so they left Philippi on Nisan 22. Okay?
(b) Five days later they joined the others at Troas. (Now, it's Nisan 27)
© They stayed there for seven more days (Now, we're done with Nisan and we're in the the month of Iyar)
(d) They came together to break bread on the first Khad b'Shaba in the month of Iyar.

Your quote from earlier in the thread is below, verbatim:

Quote:Thus, there was an annual date known as "First Sabbath," just after Passover.

How, pray tell, does this fit into the cockamamie hypothesis that Khad b'Shaba, as found in Luke 24:1, means what you have coined "The First Sabbath" (i.e., the once-a-year Sabbath immediately after Passover?)

I'm counting that at least 3 Sabbaths transpired after the Passover spoken of in Acts 20:5-7, before they got to break bread.

If you concede that "Sunday" is meant, then why did Luke (like Paul in 1Cor) use the wrong name for the day of the week? I thought it was supposed to be "Yom Khada", right? Targum Onkelos? Remember?

I eagerly await your response.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)