10-12-2011, 05:28 AM
:
Dave says:
I had said:
Ok Dave "Some" is about 10% then, according to your own testimony. I hadn't used my pie chart. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
And I don't dislike your other notes on textual matters or Aramaic primacy. And my overall brief review was not all negative was it? Are you happy about the positives that I said? <!-- s:inlove: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/inlove.gif" alt=":inlove:" title="In Love" /><!-- s:inlove: -->
Dave...this is not about you or me.
Dave says:
I had said:
Dave if you would have noticed the last part of what I said there? ?Though over all they are almost the same, but for a few verses, and a few wordings of a few verses.?
And those two verses as worded in the Western Peshitto version, for Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9 are not a small matter, but changes correct doctrine as found in the rest of the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament?making not just The Messiah bleeding and dying on the Cross, who is the Lamb OF GOD?but leads to the false conclusion, which you run with in your notes, that The Trinity as a whole, The Father & The Holy Spirit along with The Son (Lamb) of God, bled and died on the Cross. You going so far as teaching that The whole Trinity died ?spiritually? before The Messiah died physically. That makes two deaths of God in your mis-interpretation?1st spiritually, then physically. And you also teach that the atonement was made, not when The Messiah died physically, but it was made before, when you say that GOD/The Trinity, died spiritually...before The Messiah died physically on the Cross?
Show me one source in the Early Church teachers, Eastern or Western, or any Apostle in the New Testament Scriptures that ever taught that. I have never heard this taught before I read it in your notes.
The rest of the New Testament witnesses that it was The Lamb of God who shed His human blood and atoned for sin, not The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit who died ?spiritually? to atone for mankind.
I won?t go into the other things that this teaching has led you to believe right now. But I see in some of the other places in your translations, where I see you coloring the verses to make them conform to the image you have of these things?as I pointed out in another post recently, where you went south of your Interlinear readings, to make a stronger case for your Theology/Christology.
You are not the 1st person to do this of course Dave? But you have joined the ranks of all those who have done so.
And as for your last statement Dave, we are not to rejoice in false doctrine, but rather reprove it, where it exists. You can?t have it both ways?there is only one truth, not two truths about this issue. But, as to those who hold to a false doctrine about this issue affecting their salvation, I think that is going too far, and have not said that. And as far as I have heard, The Church of the East has had its hands out to the other groups, but not the other way around. And the other groups have made it a salvation issue seems to me.
I have said that the ?God? reading in Acts 20:28, could work IF it is understood rightly?that The Messiah is God, The Word, as to His Divine Nature?and being that there is only ONE Son, not two Sons, but who does nave two Natures, Divine/Human?then the Son of God (The Word), shed His human nature blood to atone for sin. So, In a way, it is God?s blood?but not in the way the Monophysites, or you teach it.
In any case, I do not believe the reading is authentic as found in the Western Peshitto, nor those Greek copies that have the 4 variant readings for that one verse. The Eastern Peshitta?s ?Messiah? reading, fits much better with the other 5 or so verses that say the same thing?that it was the Lamb of God, The Messiah, Yeshua?who shed his blood on the Cross to atone for sin.
..
Dave says:
Quote:My brother Chuck gives the impression that my translation is filled with my personal doctrinal beliefs, in both the notes and the translation itself. By far most of my notes are textual in nature, and there are hundreds of them, located under the pertinent verses. I doubt that more than 10% of my notes touch on my personal beliefs, as the purpose of the notes is to demonstrate that the Greek text is not the original, but a translation of the Aramaic text, which I think I have well documented in each of the 27 books of the NT. If one wants the translation without notes, I have made that available.
I had said:
Quote:some of his notes in his translation editions are more doctrinal than textual, which I do not agree should be the place to do that.
Ok Dave "Some" is about 10% then, according to your own testimony. I hadn't used my pie chart. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->And I don't dislike your other notes on textual matters or Aramaic primacy. And my overall brief review was not all negative was it? Are you happy about the positives that I said? <!-- s:inlove: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/inlove.gif" alt=":inlove:" title="In Love" /><!-- s:inlove: -->
Dave...this is not about you or me.
Dave says:
Quote:That is simply an outrageously biased remark which is very misleading. Where the two Peshittas are compared, line for line, there is about a 0.3% significant difference! You are blowing the differences way out of proportion.
I can think of two verses which may represent doctrinal differences in Christology: Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9. Besides these two verses, each of which essentially differs in the Western versus Eastern versions by one word, where are all the doctrinal differences in Christology? And you yourself said that you could accept either reading in Acts 20:28, since you believe The Messiah is God, who died for us. That leaves one word variation in one verse-Hebrews 2:9.
I had said:
Quote:The BFBS/UBS Text is an edited text, which is said to cull its readings from about 70/80 Manuscripts, some Eastern & some Western...but the text retains all the Western (Greek) influenced readings, from the Western Aramaic speaking groups, who were doctrinally aligned with the Greeks and Latins, in their Christology, so you will see some variants and variations in its text from that which is found in the Eastern Peshitta Text, as represented by the Khabouris Manuscript, though over all they are almost the same, but for a few verses, and a few wordings of a few verses.
Dave if you would have noticed the last part of what I said there? ?Though over all they are almost the same, but for a few verses, and a few wordings of a few verses.?
And those two verses as worded in the Western Peshitto version, for Acts 20:28 & Hebrews 2:9 are not a small matter, but changes correct doctrine as found in the rest of the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament?making not just The Messiah bleeding and dying on the Cross, who is the Lamb OF GOD?but leads to the false conclusion, which you run with in your notes, that The Trinity as a whole, The Father & The Holy Spirit along with The Son (Lamb) of God, bled and died on the Cross. You going so far as teaching that The whole Trinity died ?spiritually? before The Messiah died physically. That makes two deaths of God in your mis-interpretation?1st spiritually, then physically. And you also teach that the atonement was made, not when The Messiah died physically, but it was made before, when you say that GOD/The Trinity, died spiritually...before The Messiah died physically on the Cross?
Show me one source in the Early Church teachers, Eastern or Western, or any Apostle in the New Testament Scriptures that ever taught that. I have never heard this taught before I read it in your notes.
The rest of the New Testament witnesses that it was The Lamb of God who shed His human blood and atoned for sin, not The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit who died ?spiritually? to atone for mankind.
I won?t go into the other things that this teaching has led you to believe right now. But I see in some of the other places in your translations, where I see you coloring the verses to make them conform to the image you have of these things?as I pointed out in another post recently, where you went south of your Interlinear readings, to make a stronger case for your Theology/Christology.
You are not the 1st person to do this of course Dave? But you have joined the ranks of all those who have done so.
And as for your last statement Dave, we are not to rejoice in false doctrine, but rather reprove it, where it exists. You can?t have it both ways?there is only one truth, not two truths about this issue. But, as to those who hold to a false doctrine about this issue affecting their salvation, I think that is going too far, and have not said that. And as far as I have heard, The Church of the East has had its hands out to the other groups, but not the other way around. And the other groups have made it a salvation issue seems to me.
I have said that the ?God? reading in Acts 20:28, could work IF it is understood rightly?that The Messiah is God, The Word, as to His Divine Nature?and being that there is only ONE Son, not two Sons, but who does nave two Natures, Divine/Human?then the Son of God (The Word), shed His human nature blood to atone for sin. So, In a way, it is God?s blood?but not in the way the Monophysites, or you teach it.
In any case, I do not believe the reading is authentic as found in the Western Peshitto, nor those Greek copies that have the 4 variant readings for that one verse. The Eastern Peshitta?s ?Messiah? reading, fits much better with the other 5 or so verses that say the same thing?that it was the Lamb of God, The Messiah, Yeshua?who shed his blood on the Cross to atone for sin.
..