09-01-2004, 04:38 PM
Some nice teaching ooze! Thanks <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Onto the subject here,...
What is the normal born-again Christian to do with the arguments? With all the history written from before between the east and west, the language differences, the grammar, ect? How can one of GOD's children know? It's hard really. Everyday a new Christian looks up and asks GOD what particular bible HE wants this person to use.
On here, the peshitta is promoted. To fully grasp the grammatical style and rhyme, one has to learn the language. It's the only way to get a full portion of just what the peshitta offers. What about the young Christian who just received the gift of life and is now starting his/her walk and education with GOD? How does this person make a choice as to what bible they should use? Is it a pre-requisite to learn the language? Could be, could not be.
The history aspect of this seems to be flawed in both camps. Both sides state their claims as to originality but this turns into an argument quickly. So again, how does the Christian choose?
There are some things that can be looked for that will help identify originality, at least to some degree. Correct grammar is one of them. Here the aramaic shows itself to be superior in this regard. There are too many passages to list here that the aramaic proves itself to correct the greek and enhance the reading. But, is the peshitta the original aramaic text so many say that it is?
If the peshitta is the original text, as the promoters state, then nothing will show itself to be superior to it. The promoters of the peshitta claim that the whole text is superior, not just the gospels, the whole thing mind you! Interesting and bold!
Is this text foolproof? Is this really a copy handed down from the apostles to us? Is this statement really true? What do we use to test this? How does one identify the true Holy Spirit inspiration?
One of the areas of NT writings that was actually documented as being written in one of the semitic languages was Matthew. It was stated as being written in hebrew by the 1st century church fathers, but on here that is promoted as meaning the hebrew language, which could mean aramaic. This has some possible truth to it as aramaic was the normal day to day language and hebrew was saved for special items of interest, such as religious texts, etc.
Recently, James Trimm has collated all the hebrew texts of matthew available and presented them to the public. These texts had laid dormant for years, untranslated and unavailable to the general public where GOD's people could make an educated guess for themselves. Trimm's desire behind this was for a critical test in his "hebraic roots version" bible he was assembling.
The matthew texts are not that old, around 12th century or so. This very fact is used to disregard the texts as unworthy, and unoriginal by many within the aramaic camps. Certainly, the greek camps are not going to agree to this sort of boost to the semitic style and prose for a "hebraic roots version" so they denouce it also.
One of the readings that sparked my interest in this was at the end of Matthew 1:20 "for from The Holy Spirit hath she conceived." This is not in the greek and aramaic texts, nor of any that I have found yet. But, this is a sound reading. Does this portion of text disagree with the context and the surrounding text? No, it enhances. Does it "confuse" the surrounding text or is it able to be easily identified as an interpolation by a non-christian source? Again, no.
Is this a superior reading? Well, let's compare against the other translations. Here are all the most utilized greek and peshitta sources nomally available over the years to the general public:
Most of these translations are greek. Lamsa's and Murdocks translations are from the peshitto version with reference to the peshitta. What do we find? That section was removed from the manuscripts. Is this true? Let's look at this again:
And whilst he thought upon this, the angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, fear not to take thy wife Mary, for that which shall be born of her is from The Holy Spirit, for by The Holy Spirit hath she conceived."
The angel is speaking in a very clear, concise, commanding way and that particular portion finishes his sentence structure, and explains how this has happened to Mary, for Joseph.
Is this a superior reading? Well, let's not say quite yet. Things are to be established by 2 or 3 witnesses so let's see if I can find another area of question.
Let's look at Matthew 3:11:
"I am immersing you in water to repentence, and he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry, and he will immerse you with the fire of The Holy Spirit."
Ahhh, what is this? In the peshitta and greek translations, the fire and The Holy Spirit are separated as two different specific things, not something of The Holy Spirit Himself. Let's look:
Interesting huh? Every single one of them made this mistake, including the peshitta/o.
This section was particularly important here for any born-again Christian because it cleared up a doctrinal issue that GOD was teaching within HIS church. The shadow of things to come from the OT was being unveiled by GOD. The example and path was described by John, the doer of the work here would be The Holy Spirit given by the High Priest to be. The believers cleansing and final commissioning as a son and daughter of GOD was by a cleansing fire of The Holy Spirit. The other translations cause confusion in this regard since they make the action of the cleansing fire of The Holy Spirit something different than what it is. "and with fire" distinguishes this as something different "aside" from The Holy Spirits work to be.
Does the peshitta/o and greek translations confuse in this particular area of scripture? Yes they do in this particular area by not showing this is a direct act of our High Priest Jesus through the agency of The Holy Spirit for the born-again believer.
Is this a superior reading from these Hebrew manuscripts? Yes it is! There is no discernable confusion in this reading to anyone except the unregenerate. This also, was not an interpolation from an outside source that would misdirect a Christian in his/her understanding, thought and overall path in righteousness.
So there you have it. 2 witnesses of superior readings from a superior source other than the peshitta. What was the source for the peshitta in this particular manuscript? Who knows, but it agrees with the greek, or the greek agrees with it, either way they are mirror translations or copies from another source other than what the 1st century church fathers wrote about, and have been held up to everyone over the centuries by the eastern church as being originals from the apostles. This brings certain claims into question from both camps doesn't it?
At this point, for the "monolinguist" that is unschooled in the different languages associated with such things, the individual/s, IE Christian/s, are basically denounced as foolish within both camps and made out to be touching on areas that are not permitted by them. In the linguists eyes (both camps mind you), the unlearned contains no real voice in these matters, and it has been that way for years.
What could GOD teach through an unschooled, untrained, english speaking bloke that has never put in the time to rightfully understand the "original" languages, huh? It can even get into the culturalistic side of things from various hebraic roots promoters and the particular pride associated with those endeavors.
But there you go.
I ought to turn this into a book.
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->Onto the subject here,...
What is the normal born-again Christian to do with the arguments? With all the history written from before between the east and west, the language differences, the grammar, ect? How can one of GOD's children know? It's hard really. Everyday a new Christian looks up and asks GOD what particular bible HE wants this person to use.
On here, the peshitta is promoted. To fully grasp the grammatical style and rhyme, one has to learn the language. It's the only way to get a full portion of just what the peshitta offers. What about the young Christian who just received the gift of life and is now starting his/her walk and education with GOD? How does this person make a choice as to what bible they should use? Is it a pre-requisite to learn the language? Could be, could not be.
The history aspect of this seems to be flawed in both camps. Both sides state their claims as to originality but this turns into an argument quickly. So again, how does the Christian choose?
There are some things that can be looked for that will help identify originality, at least to some degree. Correct grammar is one of them. Here the aramaic shows itself to be superior in this regard. There are too many passages to list here that the aramaic proves itself to correct the greek and enhance the reading. But, is the peshitta the original aramaic text so many say that it is?
If the peshitta is the original text, as the promoters state, then nothing will show itself to be superior to it. The promoters of the peshitta claim that the whole text is superior, not just the gospels, the whole thing mind you! Interesting and bold!
Is this text foolproof? Is this really a copy handed down from the apostles to us? Is this statement really true? What do we use to test this? How does one identify the true Holy Spirit inspiration?
One of the areas of NT writings that was actually documented as being written in one of the semitic languages was Matthew. It was stated as being written in hebrew by the 1st century church fathers, but on here that is promoted as meaning the hebrew language, which could mean aramaic. This has some possible truth to it as aramaic was the normal day to day language and hebrew was saved for special items of interest, such as religious texts, etc.
Recently, James Trimm has collated all the hebrew texts of matthew available and presented them to the public. These texts had laid dormant for years, untranslated and unavailable to the general public where GOD's people could make an educated guess for themselves. Trimm's desire behind this was for a critical test in his "hebraic roots version" bible he was assembling.
The matthew texts are not that old, around 12th century or so. This very fact is used to disregard the texts as unworthy, and unoriginal by many within the aramaic camps. Certainly, the greek camps are not going to agree to this sort of boost to the semitic style and prose for a "hebraic roots version" so they denouce it also.
One of the readings that sparked my interest in this was at the end of Matthew 1:20 "for from The Holy Spirit hath she conceived." This is not in the greek and aramaic texts, nor of any that I have found yet. But, this is a sound reading. Does this portion of text disagree with the context and the surrounding text? No, it enhances. Does it "confuse" the surrounding text or is it able to be easily identified as an interpolation by a non-christian source? Again, no.
Is this a superior reading? Well, let's compare against the other translations. Here are all the most utilized greek and peshitta sources nomally available over the years to the general public:
Quote:20 (AV) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
20 (LAMSA) While he was considering this, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said to him, O, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take your wife Mary, because he that is to be born of her is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (NKJV) But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (RSV) But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;
20 (YLT) And on his thinking of these things, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, ???Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten is of the Holy Spirit,
20 (Douay) But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
20 (DBY) but while he pondered on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take to thee Mary, thy wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (BBE) But when he was giving thought to these things, an angel of the Lord came to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, have no fear of taking Mary as your wife; because that which is in her body is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (CALBIBL)
20 (ASV) But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (KJ21) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (JPS)
20 (LXXE)
20 (MURDOCH) And while he contemplated these things, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said to him: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her, is from the Holy Spirit:
20 (Philips) But while he was turning the matter over in his mind an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife! What she has conceived is conceived through the Holy Spirit,
20 (Rotherham) But, when, these things, he had pondered, lo! a messenger of the Lord, by dream, appeared to him, saying, ???Joseph, son of David! do not fear to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for, that which, in her, hath been begotten, is of the, Holy, Spirit.
20 (WEY) But while he was contemplating this step, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to bring home your wife Mary, for she is with child through the Holy Spirit.
Most of these translations are greek. Lamsa's and Murdocks translations are from the peshitto version with reference to the peshitta. What do we find? That section was removed from the manuscripts. Is this true? Let's look at this again:
And whilst he thought upon this, the angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, fear not to take thy wife Mary, for that which shall be born of her is from The Holy Spirit, for by The Holy Spirit hath she conceived."
The angel is speaking in a very clear, concise, commanding way and that particular portion finishes his sentence structure, and explains how this has happened to Mary, for Joseph.
Is this a superior reading? Well, let's not say quite yet. Things are to be established by 2 or 3 witnesses so let's see if I can find another area of question.
Let's look at Matthew 3:11:
"I am immersing you in water to repentence, and he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry, and he will immerse you with the fire of The Holy Spirit."
Ahhh, what is this? In the peshitta and greek translations, the fire and The Holy Spirit are separated as two different specific things, not something of The Holy Spirit Himself. Let's look:
Quote:11 (AV) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
11 (LAMSA) I am only baptizing you with water for repentance; but he who is coming after me is greater than I, one whose shoes I am not worthy to remove; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
11 (NKJV) "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
11 (RSV) "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
11 (YLT) ???I indeed do baptize you with water to reformation, but he who after me is coming is mightier than I, of whom I am not worthy to bear the sandals, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire,
11 (Douay) I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.
11 (DBY) *I* indeed baptise you with water to repentance, but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not fit to bear; *he* shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire;
11 (BBE) Truly, I give baptism with water to those of you whose hearts are changed; but he who comes after me is greater than I, whose shoes I am not good enough to take up: he will give you baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire:
11 (CALBIBL)
11 (ASV) I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:
11 (KJ21) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
11 (JPS)
11 (LXXE)
11 (MURDOCH) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is more powerful than I; whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
11 (Philips) It is true that I baptise you with water as a sign of your repentance, but the one who follows me is far stronger than I am???indeed, I am not fit to carry his shoes. He will baptise you with the fire of the Holy Spirit.
11 (Rotherham) I, indeed, am immersing you, in water, unto repentance, ???but, he who, after me, cometh is, mightier than I, whose, sandals, I am not worthy to bear, he, will immerse you, in Holy Spirit and fire:
11 (WEY) I indeed am baptizing you in water on a profession of repentance; but He who is coming after me is mightier than I: His sandals I am not worthy to carry for a moment; He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.
Interesting huh? Every single one of them made this mistake, including the peshitta/o.
This section was particularly important here for any born-again Christian because it cleared up a doctrinal issue that GOD was teaching within HIS church. The shadow of things to come from the OT was being unveiled by GOD. The example and path was described by John, the doer of the work here would be The Holy Spirit given by the High Priest to be. The believers cleansing and final commissioning as a son and daughter of GOD was by a cleansing fire of The Holy Spirit. The other translations cause confusion in this regard since they make the action of the cleansing fire of The Holy Spirit something different than what it is. "and with fire" distinguishes this as something different "aside" from The Holy Spirits work to be.
Does the peshitta/o and greek translations confuse in this particular area of scripture? Yes they do in this particular area by not showing this is a direct act of our High Priest Jesus through the agency of The Holy Spirit for the born-again believer.
Is this a superior reading from these Hebrew manuscripts? Yes it is! There is no discernable confusion in this reading to anyone except the unregenerate. This also, was not an interpolation from an outside source that would misdirect a Christian in his/her understanding, thought and overall path in righteousness.
So there you have it. 2 witnesses of superior readings from a superior source other than the peshitta. What was the source for the peshitta in this particular manuscript? Who knows, but it agrees with the greek, or the greek agrees with it, either way they are mirror translations or copies from another source other than what the 1st century church fathers wrote about, and have been held up to everyone over the centuries by the eastern church as being originals from the apostles. This brings certain claims into question from both camps doesn't it?
At this point, for the "monolinguist" that is unschooled in the different languages associated with such things, the individual/s, IE Christian/s, are basically denounced as foolish within both camps and made out to be touching on areas that are not permitted by them. In the linguists eyes (both camps mind you), the unlearned contains no real voice in these matters, and it has been that way for years.
What could GOD teach through an unschooled, untrained, english speaking bloke that has never put in the time to rightfully understand the "original" languages, huh? It can even get into the culturalistic side of things from various hebraic roots promoters and the particular pride associated with those endeavors.
But there you go.
I ought to turn this into a book.