05-28-2005, 05:48 AM
Paul, I think your placing me in a particular camp here, one with the greek primacy guys, but really that is incorrect. For me, I could care less where the truth is written down, or in what language, and I have no affiliation with them and their arguments, nor your language camp, I care for only a translation to compare. You, on the other hand, wish to maintain that it had to come down in a particular form. That we have to have had this in one language or the other. I do hold that the closeness to the original came down in the greek, since GOD has steadily used it over the ages, and continues to witness to it. That is something that I recognize, so I will give the greek preference in that regard, by His direction and example.
But no, attempting to hold some sort of primacy name over me is really futile, I don't care about such things, hence why I would make such statements to you.
Would I be careless enough to say yes to that? No. But don't run with that against me yet, because your unable to say what language they were placed in to be passed down unto us either when Luke collected them or took notes, neither am I. Your just as out there running around in left field as I am in right field when it comes to that issue, although you claim this text by culturistic inheritance or bias, whichever one may make out of it. But I will look at both the languages and get closer to the truth instead of adhering to just one. I'm not talking something new here, you've seen me do this continually.
Jesus is The original Word of GOD, believe me, I always have Him with me.
And where is your original at Paul? This syriac language evolved around the 3rd century (I'll not say late to keep you happy here), as you proved me correct. So where is your original print aramaic text manuscript? There is none is there? The answer is no.
Do you have that original first century print form aramaic text hiding from us somewhere Paul? I didn't think so. What about all those copies translated from the greek into syriac that we keep finding at various points? You know, the old syriac, Harklean, etc. Shoot what about your own witness to this you posted here:
I don't know if your paying attention to what you post at times. That is one of the oldest reports found, in syriac nontheless, and in it they are saying that they always translate from greek into syriac? Heh, that was from you even Paul.
Which camp has the oldest copies here Paul? What age is assigned to the oldest copies? Etc, etc. You know the answers to these things.
Whenever you are attempting to "debunk" someone, do you always head to idioms and theory Paul? It always seems to be your style. In this, your claiming that according to the semetic thought and idiom, that the OT has connotations of rebirth, and the syriac has the correct perspective. If you noticed I gave multiple translations, even one from the Jewish perspective to ensure that I gave the correct intention and description here, and none of them gave any notes whatsoever in this regard that you claim, nor did they change the wording or add any additional clarification to this to enhance the readers insight of any additional thought patterns in the text. Shoot, Nicodemas knew nothing of what Jesus was telling him when he said that he must be born anew.
The sense of deliverance from something is the main thought placed out there from the OT, as all of the translations adhere to. If it has a secondary thought of rebirth, as you claim and as the syriac tends to denote, than what I would do is this:
And The Lord added daily unto the assembly, those who were being saved alive.
Pretty neat how the syriac and the greek go together to help the english.
But no, no, no, this will never do here. We cannot have two languages work together, I have to choose one or the other, right Paul? Well, maybe you do, not me.
But in reality, that is not the main sense in the OT, as all of the translators will prove.
The thought pattern in the syriac is the after effect, hence your use of lived in the past tense within your translation Paul, or as murdock says, became alive. Both of these are stating it in the past tense. "Those who became alive." Or those who lived. Past tense.
The greek states it as an ongoing event, not in the past tense,..those who were being saved. It is one complete word in the greek, so again, I would say that whoever translated this into syriac enhanced an additional thought pattern in the text, or made a change on their own, and they dropped the sense of being delivered/saved, of which the OT denotes, as formerly posted. And I don't see how the greek looses the thought of being saved at all, as you said, since it goes out of it's way to say that. It may loose the thought of a rebirth if it is there, but again, as we seen, the translators did not place that out there. Even a translation of the OT peshitta from Lamsa does not say that. He used the word delivered also.
I know, I know, you keep trying to put me down by saying that I'm not educated in a semitic language, your so much better than me, my current level of language is questionable, and you call me a fool and other little childish names, blah, blah, blah,...your just hurting me so bad here Paul, heh.
But no, attempting to hold some sort of primacy name over me is really futile, I don't care about such things, hence why I would make such statements to you.
Quote:Did Shimun Keepa make this speech in front of his Jewish audience in Greek?
Would I be careless enough to say yes to that? No. But don't run with that against me yet, because your unable to say what language they were placed in to be passed down unto us either when Luke collected them or took notes, neither am I. Your just as out there running around in left field as I am in right field when it comes to that issue, although you claim this text by culturistic inheritance or bias, whichever one may make out of it. But I will look at both the languages and get closer to the truth instead of adhering to just one. I'm not talking something new here, you've seen me do this continually.
Quote:And where is this better greek or latin copy? Are you admitting that there were better "greek or latin" manuscripts around - and that you no longer have the original word of God, Dave?
Jesus is The original Word of GOD, believe me, I always have Him with me.
And where is your original at Paul? This syriac language evolved around the 3rd century (I'll not say late to keep you happy here), as you proved me correct. So where is your original print aramaic text manuscript? There is none is there? The answer is no.
Do you have that original first century print form aramaic text hiding from us somewhere Paul? I didn't think so. What about all those copies translated from the greek into syriac that we keep finding at various points? You know, the old syriac, Harklean, etc. Shoot what about your own witness to this you posted here:
Quote:"In this province [Palestine] there are some people who know both Greek and Syriac, but others know only one or the other. The bishop may know Syriac, but never uses it. He always speaks in Greek, and has a presbyter beside him who translates the Greek into Syriac, so that everyone can understand what he means. Similarly, the lessons read in church have to be read in Greek, but there is always someone in attendance to translate into Syriac so that the people can understand."
I don't know if your paying attention to what you post at times. That is one of the oldest reports found, in syriac nontheless, and in it they are saying that they always translate from greek into syriac? Heh, that was from you even Paul.
Which camp has the oldest copies here Paul? What age is assigned to the oldest copies? Etc, etc. You know the answers to these things.
Quote:you would know the idiom "to make live" is the Semitic way of saying "save." And the Peshitta reading "day by day" does, indeed, denote a continual action. But the Greek loses the idiom of "make alive" and "save", now doesn't it? That's the sense used in the OT to which you hark back.
Whenever you are attempting to "debunk" someone, do you always head to idioms and theory Paul? It always seems to be your style. In this, your claiming that according to the semetic thought and idiom, that the OT has connotations of rebirth, and the syriac has the correct perspective. If you noticed I gave multiple translations, even one from the Jewish perspective to ensure that I gave the correct intention and description here, and none of them gave any notes whatsoever in this regard that you claim, nor did they change the wording or add any additional clarification to this to enhance the readers insight of any additional thought patterns in the text. Shoot, Nicodemas knew nothing of what Jesus was telling him when he said that he must be born anew.
The sense of deliverance from something is the main thought placed out there from the OT, as all of the translations adhere to. If it has a secondary thought of rebirth, as you claim and as the syriac tends to denote, than what I would do is this:
And The Lord added daily unto the assembly, those who were being saved alive.
Pretty neat how the syriac and the greek go together to help the english.
But no, no, no, this will never do here. We cannot have two languages work together, I have to choose one or the other, right Paul? Well, maybe you do, not me.
But in reality, that is not the main sense in the OT, as all of the translators will prove.
The thought pattern in the syriac is the after effect, hence your use of lived in the past tense within your translation Paul, or as murdock says, became alive. Both of these are stating it in the past tense. "Those who became alive." Or those who lived. Past tense.
The greek states it as an ongoing event, not in the past tense,..those who were being saved. It is one complete word in the greek, so again, I would say that whoever translated this into syriac enhanced an additional thought pattern in the text, or made a change on their own, and they dropped the sense of being delivered/saved, of which the OT denotes, as formerly posted. And I don't see how the greek looses the thought of being saved at all, as you said, since it goes out of it's way to say that. It may loose the thought of a rebirth if it is there, but again, as we seen, the translators did not place that out there. Even a translation of the OT peshitta from Lamsa does not say that. He used the word delivered also.
I know, I know, you keep trying to put me down by saying that I'm not educated in a semitic language, your so much better than me, my current level of language is questionable, and you call me a fool and other little childish names, blah, blah, blah,...your just hurting me so bad here Paul, heh.