08-13-2012, 09:21 PM
Drawcloser,
Yes it is a huge mistake.
Did you compare using Cal?
Syr: mamodita/masboita (Baptism)
Syr: Masmehuta (Illumination)
Greek: Fotizo (Illumination)
Greek: Baptiza (baptism)
As you see and could see if you compare the Hebrew letters from 1st century, a mistake easily could be made, but NOT from Greek.
To summarize the latin and the tradition is not really a huge argument. If the mistake is done in the 1st century, it would copy through the later ages.
What book would I recommend?
I have made my own list of differences from which many point to Aramaic primacy. However, it is Dutch. Sorry.
Many differences are based on those which G.D. Bauscher lists (English).
Speaking about primacy, revelation and Hebrews and Matthew is (I think) having the best qualifications for having an Aramaic origin. I simply do not have the time and energy to discuss and argument all the items. As is evident, tradition and 'huge mistakes' are already mentioned here. Yes,
But if the sample using CAL does not convince you, I would not bother to investigate since a lot of arguments are like that, they are simply misreadings from an Aramaic handwritten document. (Though other arguments include wordsplays and poetic lines)
Therefore, I would suggest you to continue your investigation. G.D. Bauscher is a good start.
There also is a an e-book from Rafa?l Lataster. (Was the new testament really written in Greek)
Yes it is a huge mistake.
Did you compare using Cal?
Syr: mamodita/masboita (Baptism)
Syr: Masmehuta (Illumination)
Greek: Fotizo (Illumination)
Greek: Baptiza (baptism)
As you see and could see if you compare the Hebrew letters from 1st century, a mistake easily could be made, but NOT from Greek.
To summarize the latin and the tradition is not really a huge argument. If the mistake is done in the 1st century, it would copy through the later ages.
What book would I recommend?
I have made my own list of differences from which many point to Aramaic primacy. However, it is Dutch. Sorry.
Many differences are based on those which G.D. Bauscher lists (English).
Speaking about primacy, revelation and Hebrews and Matthew is (I think) having the best qualifications for having an Aramaic origin. I simply do not have the time and energy to discuss and argument all the items. As is evident, tradition and 'huge mistakes' are already mentioned here. Yes,
But if the sample using CAL does not convince you, I would not bother to investigate since a lot of arguments are like that, they are simply misreadings from an Aramaic handwritten document. (Though other arguments include wordsplays and poetic lines)
Therefore, I would suggest you to continue your investigation. G.D. Bauscher is a good start.
There also is a an e-book from Rafa?l Lataster. (Was the new testament really written in Greek)