03-28-2014, 05:42 PM
At my daughter?s elementary school today a man preached to the school about 1 Peter 3:15, which speaks of honoring the Father in your heart, and sharing your faith in meekness and reverence.
The preacher distinguished between the word for ?knowledge? in Greek (referring often to knowledge by experience), and the word for ?knowledge? in Hebrew (referring often to intimate knowledge). I found it useful to understand both perspectives. I wonder if there is a part of all of us in this age that respond to Greek language perspectives; and is this a form of Greek primacy in our brains? And could not the same be said of Aramaic?
Personally, I reason the Father has put countless men before me who read ancient Greek and Aramaic texts and to whom I cannot even hold a candle, from their charitable deeds to loving hearts, upright families, natural and humble lifestyles, etc. Is that not also a kind of primacy in and of itself? Have you read Bauscher?s book yet comparing Greek & Aramaic?
Higgs B, I think the most assertive points you?ve raised so far were about Panin and Rabulla. Regarding Rabulla, you may wish to see how that point too has been explained contrary to your point: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=698">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=698</a><!-- l --> (my hope is that in reading this explanation it will increase your historical understanding and appreciation of Aramaic). As you know, Aramaic primacy is not some new study; there has yet to be a single argument ever propounded against it to which scholars have not offered multiple compelling counter-arguments. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Aramaic should be on the defensive at all, given that Yahshua and the apostles spoke this language daily. Nor should it be supposed this is some kind of fight or contest between Greek & Aramaic.
![[Image: cookie-tree-argument.jpg]](http://www.logicalhierarchy.com/Miscellaneous-Images/cookie-tree-argument.jpg)
Who can calculate what the Father does and does not like about His use of Greek to influence the saga of mankind? Same for Aramaic, another language out of Babylon. Do we even desire a one-world-language, the absence of diversity?
The translation of words, adding of words, dividing of definitions ? it reminds me of the fascinating ways that scientific theories are translated and superseded in history. Like Greek translations, sometimes the more complex scientific theories are the ones that ultimately do not survive as foundational, but they serve their purpose as practical (even essential) in their own history.
For example, look at the ongoing history of thermodynamics - it pretty much began as the study of engines, and helped assist inventors over and again (even helping to forge industrial revolutions), but ultimately how much of thermodynamics (like the caloric theory) was mired in the study of effects (like translations of a more fundamental theory)?
And just because we see (or think we see) a greater foundational science behind a theory, the question remains for us ? what can we accomplish with whatever theory we?re given. A tree is known by its fruits. If every tree is supposed to be a Greek olive, or every tree a Lebanese cedar, then why did the Father write history with such diversity in textual traditions and peoples? Do people not also have diverse needs?
And who could say the same cool inventions in thermodynamics would be found with an alternate history, a history without contemplating all those different definitions and layered effects? Sometimes the struggle to find and compare the greater foundation is just as important as the outcome ? we all know this intuitively, we all know ?the journey can be as important as the outcome?.
When it comes to the eye-witness testimonies about Yahshua?s journey through Aramaic-speaking Israel, I deduce an extraordinarily high likelihood of Aramaic primacy. I won?t speak regarding the epistles that went out into the world because I have not studied them ? the Aramaic eyewitness gospels are too rich to even afford me time to get to anyone?s letters. I am fairly young yet though.
Should a probability analysis of Aramaic primacy lead me to presume the Father gives me license to bash early Greek texts that He is using to accomplish who-knows-what purposes? No, I don?t presume that. Do you feel that Aramaic primacy threatens the Greek so much that it seeks to destroy it? I hope not.
At the end of the day, if you want to believe Ivan Panin was the man for the primacy job, go right ahead ? the Father will give you the journey that reveals you for who you are. Please don?t be offended by others or point fingers at others who have been given a different path by the Father. As you believe, so be it to you. Readers can examine your claims, but many readers have desired in their hearts to consider sources as well that call your claims into question: A Review of Panin?s Biblical Numerics, by Peter Dunn. Miracles in Edgar Allan Poe (using Panin Methodology), by Brendan McCay. Personally, I hope for a fruitful outcome here, for the Father?s will to be accomplished.
In this forum thread I feel like there is a lot of ?salesman-type? talk that has happened. For example, this statement:
But you?re into number patterns, that?s cool if it bears good fruit. I like looking for evidence in the bible of natural things on earth (like fundamental constants). Some of my interests are in QED applications of Aramaic text reading like a clock, and geometries on the earth, and wave harmonics highlighted in Aramaic.
Do you hold open the possibility that the Aramaic is meaningful, that the Father has made it so? If yes, then are you open to the possibility that the Aramaic primacy tradition and evidence may be correct, and that Greek can still be supported by the Father however He sees fit? What do you think is interesting about the fact that Yahshua spoke Aramaic? Do you like studying the Aramaic for just that fact alone?
I think that folks who try to draw hard conclusions about traditions and mathematics and scripture, and who omit the wonder of it all (from a place of meekness), may run the risk of simply trying to be salesmen for some particular ideology. So be it; I just encourage people to acknowledge when they are acting, as salesmen. And I think we all have salesmen within us at times, trying to validate ourselves, to feed our brains the chemicals we desire for whatever particular homeostasis around which we try to sustain our identities.
But we can also do better, to strive to speak from the heart and be genuine, not just in our knowledge but also admitting our lack of it. It has been written that the Lord humbles the proud. Should I cite this scripture for the group in Aramaic or Greek or Hebrew? On some level that is important (especially here at this forum given its special and successful focus), but not every level. Not at the expense of being civil. And most importantly from a hypocritical salesman perspective, not at the expense of being humble and admitting if we haven?t really examined all the evidence, because we don?t have all the evidence. We have only pieces and tradition, just like the different sects of Judaism in 30AD when they debated Hebrew and Aramaic and the messiah came and spoke of the language of the heart?
The preacher distinguished between the word for ?knowledge? in Greek (referring often to knowledge by experience), and the word for ?knowledge? in Hebrew (referring often to intimate knowledge). I found it useful to understand both perspectives. I wonder if there is a part of all of us in this age that respond to Greek language perspectives; and is this a form of Greek primacy in our brains? And could not the same be said of Aramaic?
Personally, I reason the Father has put countless men before me who read ancient Greek and Aramaic texts and to whom I cannot even hold a candle, from their charitable deeds to loving hearts, upright families, natural and humble lifestyles, etc. Is that not also a kind of primacy in and of itself? Have you read Bauscher?s book yet comparing Greek & Aramaic?
Higgs B, I think the most assertive points you?ve raised so far were about Panin and Rabulla. Regarding Rabulla, you may wish to see how that point too has been explained contrary to your point: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=698">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=698</a><!-- l --> (my hope is that in reading this explanation it will increase your historical understanding and appreciation of Aramaic). As you know, Aramaic primacy is not some new study; there has yet to be a single argument ever propounded against it to which scholars have not offered multiple compelling counter-arguments. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Aramaic should be on the defensive at all, given that Yahshua and the apostles spoke this language daily. Nor should it be supposed this is some kind of fight or contest between Greek & Aramaic.
Who can calculate what the Father does and does not like about His use of Greek to influence the saga of mankind? Same for Aramaic, another language out of Babylon. Do we even desire a one-world-language, the absence of diversity?
The translation of words, adding of words, dividing of definitions ? it reminds me of the fascinating ways that scientific theories are translated and superseded in history. Like Greek translations, sometimes the more complex scientific theories are the ones that ultimately do not survive as foundational, but they serve their purpose as practical (even essential) in their own history.
For example, look at the ongoing history of thermodynamics - it pretty much began as the study of engines, and helped assist inventors over and again (even helping to forge industrial revolutions), but ultimately how much of thermodynamics (like the caloric theory) was mired in the study of effects (like translations of a more fundamental theory)?
And just because we see (or think we see) a greater foundational science behind a theory, the question remains for us ? what can we accomplish with whatever theory we?re given. A tree is known by its fruits. If every tree is supposed to be a Greek olive, or every tree a Lebanese cedar, then why did the Father write history with such diversity in textual traditions and peoples? Do people not also have diverse needs?
And who could say the same cool inventions in thermodynamics would be found with an alternate history, a history without contemplating all those different definitions and layered effects? Sometimes the struggle to find and compare the greater foundation is just as important as the outcome ? we all know this intuitively, we all know ?the journey can be as important as the outcome?.
When it comes to the eye-witness testimonies about Yahshua?s journey through Aramaic-speaking Israel, I deduce an extraordinarily high likelihood of Aramaic primacy. I won?t speak regarding the epistles that went out into the world because I have not studied them ? the Aramaic eyewitness gospels are too rich to even afford me time to get to anyone?s letters. I am fairly young yet though.
Should a probability analysis of Aramaic primacy lead me to presume the Father gives me license to bash early Greek texts that He is using to accomplish who-knows-what purposes? No, I don?t presume that. Do you feel that Aramaic primacy threatens the Greek so much that it seeks to destroy it? I hope not.
At the end of the day, if you want to believe Ivan Panin was the man for the primacy job, go right ahead ? the Father will give you the journey that reveals you for who you are. Please don?t be offended by others or point fingers at others who have been given a different path by the Father. As you believe, so be it to you. Readers can examine your claims, but many readers have desired in their hearts to consider sources as well that call your claims into question: A Review of Panin?s Biblical Numerics, by Peter Dunn. Miracles in Edgar Allan Poe (using Panin Methodology), by Brendan McCay. Personally, I hope for a fruitful outcome here, for the Father?s will to be accomplished.
In this forum thread I feel like there is a lot of ?salesman-type? talk that has happened. For example, this statement:
godparticle Wrote:FYI the numerics in the Greek text prove orders of magnitude beyond the Aramaic in frequent occurrenceI think to make such a statement one would actually need to make spreadsheets and models and compare the numerics behind the Greek and the Aramaic. Hmmm, I think your statement above quoted is not provable by you. I make spreadsheets on Aramaic gematria and diagrams and models, so without the right software I know I couldn?t presume to make such a general and conclusory statement about numerology across two languages.
But you?re into number patterns, that?s cool if it bears good fruit. I like looking for evidence in the bible of natural things on earth (like fundamental constants). Some of my interests are in QED applications of Aramaic text reading like a clock, and geometries on the earth, and wave harmonics highlighted in Aramaic.
Do you hold open the possibility that the Aramaic is meaningful, that the Father has made it so? If yes, then are you open to the possibility that the Aramaic primacy tradition and evidence may be correct, and that Greek can still be supported by the Father however He sees fit? What do you think is interesting about the fact that Yahshua spoke Aramaic? Do you like studying the Aramaic for just that fact alone?
I think that folks who try to draw hard conclusions about traditions and mathematics and scripture, and who omit the wonder of it all (from a place of meekness), may run the risk of simply trying to be salesmen for some particular ideology. So be it; I just encourage people to acknowledge when they are acting, as salesmen. And I think we all have salesmen within us at times, trying to validate ourselves, to feed our brains the chemicals we desire for whatever particular homeostasis around which we try to sustain our identities.
But we can also do better, to strive to speak from the heart and be genuine, not just in our knowledge but also admitting our lack of it. It has been written that the Lord humbles the proud. Should I cite this scripture for the group in Aramaic or Greek or Hebrew? On some level that is important (especially here at this forum given its special and successful focus), but not every level. Not at the expense of being civil. And most importantly from a hypocritical salesman perspective, not at the expense of being humble and admitting if we haven?t really examined all the evidence, because we don?t have all the evidence. We have only pieces and tradition, just like the different sects of Judaism in 30AD when they debated Hebrew and Aramaic and the messiah came and spoke of the language of the heart?