Acts 2:24 Redux

[Dave]

Your words would have some merit if it were I who made that claim. I didn't - I'm simply pointing out to you that several "western scholars" demonstrated that the LXX was revised to conform to Paul's expansion in Romans 3:13-18.

The whole problem is this, why does the syriac conform to this LXX section and not correct the problem with the greek?

You would have me handing out kudos to you and everyone over the syriac if it had agreed with it's own OT text, but it doesn't. Again, inconsistancy.

That is all it amounts to. Who screwed up here? Does the greek follow this syriac text or does the syriac text follow the greek? You guys say that the greek was translated from the syriac, so why does it agree here with this text instead of the Hebrew and Peshitta OT? Was this what the apostle Paul preached or did someone add this in? It makes no sense.

You're the only one calling it illogical. I would venture to say that everyone else here would agree with me. Wanna bet?

Yes Paul, you have that following here, and I'm the judas, but what about the scholarly world and the following of God's people? Do they agree with what you and others are preaching here? You know the answer to that, need I rub it in? I've been watching for a while to see if there has been an impact with fundamental Christianity, ah,... nope.

Basically, there are the very few followers of the text who have chirped up every once and a while over the years in the scholarly world, but by and large, it has not made the inroads in that arena either that you and others would have hoped for. Lamsa tried the hardest, even conforming his text to the KJV at times and he didn't fool God's people then, nor the scholarly world.

I don't have the bias here my friend. I cut the greek down at times also because of it's standardization, same with the syriac. I approach it in a total neutral sense.

That's no explanation at all. That's your wishful thinking and last-ditch attempt to salvage your position. Do you have any evidence that a correction happened here according to the Hebrew version? Evidence as in manuscripts?

If not, then its an argument from silence....and it's YOU that is making ludicrous assumptions.

Last ditch effort, ludicrous huh? I'm not the one with the fire blazing over this in the aramaic primacy arena at the moment Paul. I noticed you doing the damage control efforts over this. If it was not an issue, you would have not proceeded to raise the dust at such a fury in an attempt to dismiss this at any cost to these folks.

Does the emperor have no clothes? Did I catch you with your pants down in this area Paul? Seems so, your actions speak.

It is a totally sound and logical approach by me to the mess of this issue. Many have looked at it over the years and seen it the same way quite a few years prior to me, many men who were of a much higher caliber than me in the scholarly arena, and they seen through it.

If the syriac text had it's merit, folks would not be trying to do everything that there is possible here to persuade, convince, and sell this to people. You and others would not need to, God would be witnessing it for you and people would be flocking to it in droves.

I will say it again, the only rational conclusion as to why the syriac text has a word that could possibly mean "cords" rather than the standard greek wording of the "travail" from the LXX, is that the greek follows the LXX wording and the syriac followed the greek NT text and corrected it according to the Hebrew version, when they translated it.

No matter if the "western" greek folks went back into the LXX and interpolated it, like you proposed, I would not be able to even say what I say here if the syriac text would have followed the Hebrew and it's own Peshitta OT text in this area.

Why did it not correct the greek OT in this area also if it was so original and inspired?

Why should I concede when your proposing that it was this conglomeration of texts the apostles used instead of an actual text of some sorts? Is that really your answer here Paul, a drash? I'm not reaching here at all costs, you are. My conclusion of it is sound.