09-27-2011, 03:06 AM
:
That's strange Dave...both Tischendorf's and the online Sinaticus Manuscript translation shows "Chuch of the Lord" for Acts 20:28. Which is where i got the reading from. I didn't think to look at the text itself....But, I just did...and if you look very closely at the Manuscript itself...in that section, and right under this verse and around it...there is a ghost text, which has been errased and written over...perhaps, Tishendorf and the site host of the Sinaiticus Manuscript Online knows something more than we do about this?...since they both translate it to read "Church of the Lord"...They have/had the Manuscript in front of them...when translating it. Also the Translation of H.T. Anderson in the 1800s also translated it "the Church of the Lord". So, what gives? Three witnesses who translated the actual manuscript, all went with "Church of the Lord."
Also, these 3 verses as well, which are not in the Eastern Peshitta, are not found in the Sinaticus: 8:37; 15:34; 28:29 if what read is correct.
You said:
I show their translations because they go with The Eastern Peshitta Text for that verse. Why should we make the Eastern Peshitta conform to the Greek or Latin texts, which are all later in origin than it is...and judge the Aramaic Text, against their various readings of the same verse?
Which Eastern Aramaic Text, shows "Church of God" or "Chuch of the Lord"? Are there any?
We can see from the Greek, Latin, and the qoutes of the Church Father's...that this verse has a number of variant readings... "Church of God", Church of the Lord" "Chuch of God and the Lord"...so, which is the right one?
I say, that "Church of Christ" is the right one....as preserved in the Eastern Peshitta. And this is in agreement with the rest of the New Testament, as seen in these verses, which attest to what is found in Acts 20:28 in the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta.
Acts 20:28 ?Take care therefore, of your souls, and the entire flock, who The Spirit of Holiness has established you as overseers, to shepherd The Church of M?shikah, that was acquired by His blood.?
Ephesians 1:7-8 ?In whom, we have redemption by His blood and remission of sins, according to the wealth of His goodness to those who abound in all wisdom and understanding.
1 Peter 1:18-19 ?While you know that you were not by silver, which gets old, and not with gold, saved from empty deeds, who receive from the Father, but by precious blood of The Lamb, without blemish or impurity, by M?shikah.?
Hebrews 9:14 ?Therefore, how abundantly the blood of M'shikah, by The Eternal Spirit, offered His Soul with no blemish to Alaha, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living Alaha?
1 John 1:7 ?But if we walk in The Light as He is in The Light, we have communion with each other, and the blood of Y?shua, His Son, purges us from all of our sins.?
Where are the other verses in the New Testament... that teaches it was the "blood of God" that purges, cleanses, redeems, and remits our sins? As these all have The M'shikah, The Lamb, Y'shua.
Now...something fishy is going on with this "Blood of God" and "Blood of Christ"...as is seen by the shorter and longer versions of the later to the Ephesians said to be from Bishop Ignatius of Antioch.
Shorter Greek version: "Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God,you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you."
Longer Greek Version: "Being the followers of the love of God towards man, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of Christ, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you."
Shorter Syriac Version: "..and ye are imitators of God, and are fervent in the blood of God, and have speedily completed a work congenial to you;"
This is the 1st and only time we see that "The Blood of God" is mentioned from an early 2nd Century source, in any writting of the Church Father's...and there is the variant again...and of all the Church Father's of the early 2nd Century, this is only given this way in this passage, in the Ephesian letter said to be from Ignatius...and there is the variant...so which one is the true reading?
And in all the other places that the redeeming Blood is mentioned by the Chruch Father's of the early 2nd Century...14 times...it is "The Blood of Christ", which they speak of. I could give all the qoutes...if you want to see them.
In the early 3rd Century...Tertulian also mentions "The Blood of God" once in his letter to his wife. "So far as I know, ?we are not our own, but bought with a price;? and what kind of price? The blood of God."
In all the writtings, the Chruch father's from the eary 2nd to the 5th Century...only these two places have a referance to "the blood of God"...yet the term "the blood of Christ" is refered to many, many times in the same writtings. I just checked.
I personally do not care which proves to be the correct version, as its true either way...as I believe and teach that The Messiah is GOD/The Word...incarnate in Y'shua of Nazareth. The issue for me is...is the Eastern Peshitta reading in Acts 20:28 that Original form or not...on a textual basis...and if not why not?
Blessings,
Chuck
That's strange Dave...both Tischendorf's and the online Sinaticus Manuscript translation shows "Chuch of the Lord" for Acts 20:28. Which is where i got the reading from. I didn't think to look at the text itself....But, I just did...and if you look very closely at the Manuscript itself...in that section, and right under this verse and around it...there is a ghost text, which has been errased and written over...perhaps, Tishendorf and the site host of the Sinaiticus Manuscript Online knows something more than we do about this?...since they both translate it to read "Church of the Lord"...They have/had the Manuscript in front of them...when translating it. Also the Translation of H.T. Anderson in the 1800s also translated it "the Church of the Lord". So, what gives? Three witnesses who translated the actual manuscript, all went with "Church of the Lord."
Also, these 3 verses as well, which are not in the Eastern Peshitta, are not found in the Sinaticus: 8:37; 15:34; 28:29 if what read is correct.
You said:
Quote:You have reinforced my statement by not quoting one Greek manuscript or ancient version with the reading: "the church of the Messiah, which he purchased with his blood." for Acts 20:28.
Why in the world would you be quoting Andrew Roth, Etheridge or Lamsa to prove your case?
I am not denying the fact that the Messiah died or shed his blood; I am simply stating a fact about the reading of Acts 20:28. Why is there not one Greek manuscript (including P46-3rd century) with the Eastern Peshitta reading, if that reading is the original from which all Greek manuscripts of Acts are translated? Why does no ancient version of the New Testament-(Latin,Itala,Coptic,Slavonic,Georgian,Armenian,Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic,Arabic,or Ethiopic) have the Eastern Peshitta reading?
And why do most Peshitta mss. contain the reading,"the church of God, which he purchased with his blood", with which most Greek mss. agree, including B & Aleph (4th century)? Did the Peshitta scribes get it from the Greek? Highly unlikely, but if they did,then, where did the Greek mss. get the "God" reading?
I show their translations because they go with The Eastern Peshitta Text for that verse. Why should we make the Eastern Peshitta conform to the Greek or Latin texts, which are all later in origin than it is...and judge the Aramaic Text, against their various readings of the same verse?
Which Eastern Aramaic Text, shows "Church of God" or "Chuch of the Lord"? Are there any?
We can see from the Greek, Latin, and the qoutes of the Church Father's...that this verse has a number of variant readings... "Church of God", Church of the Lord" "Chuch of God and the Lord"...so, which is the right one?
I say, that "Church of Christ" is the right one....as preserved in the Eastern Peshitta. And this is in agreement with the rest of the New Testament, as seen in these verses, which attest to what is found in Acts 20:28 in the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta.
Acts 20:28 ?Take care therefore, of your souls, and the entire flock, who The Spirit of Holiness has established you as overseers, to shepherd The Church of M?shikah, that was acquired by His blood.?
Ephesians 1:7-8 ?In whom, we have redemption by His blood and remission of sins, according to the wealth of His goodness to those who abound in all wisdom and understanding.
1 Peter 1:18-19 ?While you know that you were not by silver, which gets old, and not with gold, saved from empty deeds, who receive from the Father, but by precious blood of The Lamb, without blemish or impurity, by M?shikah.?
Hebrews 9:14 ?Therefore, how abundantly the blood of M'shikah, by The Eternal Spirit, offered His Soul with no blemish to Alaha, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living Alaha?
1 John 1:7 ?But if we walk in The Light as He is in The Light, we have communion with each other, and the blood of Y?shua, His Son, purges us from all of our sins.?
Where are the other verses in the New Testament... that teaches it was the "blood of God" that purges, cleanses, redeems, and remits our sins? As these all have The M'shikah, The Lamb, Y'shua.
Now...something fishy is going on with this "Blood of God" and "Blood of Christ"...as is seen by the shorter and longer versions of the later to the Ephesians said to be from Bishop Ignatius of Antioch.
Shorter Greek version: "Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God,you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you."
Longer Greek Version: "Being the followers of the love of God towards man, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of Christ, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you."
Shorter Syriac Version: "..and ye are imitators of God, and are fervent in the blood of God, and have speedily completed a work congenial to you;"
This is the 1st and only time we see that "The Blood of God" is mentioned from an early 2nd Century source, in any writting of the Church Father's...and there is the variant again...and of all the Church Father's of the early 2nd Century, this is only given this way in this passage, in the Ephesian letter said to be from Ignatius...and there is the variant...so which one is the true reading?
And in all the other places that the redeeming Blood is mentioned by the Chruch Father's of the early 2nd Century...14 times...it is "The Blood of Christ", which they speak of. I could give all the qoutes...if you want to see them.
In the early 3rd Century...Tertulian also mentions "The Blood of God" once in his letter to his wife. "So far as I know, ?we are not our own, but bought with a price;? and what kind of price? The blood of God."
In all the writtings, the Chruch father's from the eary 2nd to the 5th Century...only these two places have a referance to "the blood of God"...yet the term "the blood of Christ" is refered to many, many times in the same writtings. I just checked.
I personally do not care which proves to be the correct version, as its true either way...as I believe and teach that The Messiah is GOD/The Word...incarnate in Y'shua of Nazareth. The issue for me is...is the Eastern Peshitta reading in Acts 20:28 that Original form or not...on a textual basis...and if not why not?
Blessings,
Chuck