Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The "O" argument
#16
Forget the 4^27 power . It is not worth discussing.

Quote:I have read many of your notes. Most of them are based on ELS, which has serious issues. Of the others, polysemy are the best ones.

Absolutely not! Most of the notes in the NT have nothing to do with ELS, unless you are reading the appendix of an older edition of the interlinear. The notes in the NT text are almost exclusively about variant Greek readings compared to Aramaic readings and misreadings. I don't understand how these are inconclusive to you, even if you don't accept some of them. There are too many of these to be coincidental, and you will not find equivalent Greek primacy examples in the same number or quality as these; of that I am confident.

Codex W as a 1st century ms. is not a new fad; it is unheard of.

The problem with Greek primacy is that it is all tradition with no evidence to support it, and there are very few Greek primacists who read Greek and Aramaic and have studied The Peshitta and the Peshitta primacy evidence.

I have learned Greek and Aramaic and have studied the Greek Bible and The Peshitta in Aramaic, and continue to do so, and have translated the Peshitta NT and the entire book of Peshitta Psalms, plus 60% of Proverbs through Nehemiah.

You say "we have more information today"; We have access to more information, which includes what those men discovered and published, but information is not knowledge. I think your are laboring under the modern misconception to which I referred in my previous post; it is the idea that we today can know more about
the origins of something, the farther from the event we go. You mention archeology. If we know more than Whiston, due to archeology, then we know more than Aphraates, due to archeology; and yet, that is a fallacy. Certainly Aphraates knew more about his time than we will ever know; he lived in it! He also would have known more about the 1st and 2nd centuries than we could; he would have had records from those and earlier times. He would have had grandparents who most likely were born during the end of the second century. Manuscripts did not self destruct after 100 years, or 200 years, or after 5 minutes, as in Mission Impossible. But it is as if modern scholars assume just that, and that we must come along, with our superior knowledge and rewrite the past, after digging up some bones, pottery, coins and manuscripts.

I am not buying it, especially with regard to Biblical scholarship. As I said, tradition is great if it is based on truth. The history of The Eastern church is traceable to the first century, as is their tradition of copying the Peshitta and its Massora. The history of Josephus, the Greek NT testimony, the internal readings of The Peshitta as compared to Greek, and the Peshitta text itself all bear preponderant testimony to the Aramaic text of the Peshitta as the original NT. Nothing else even comes close. Some tradition may actually be tradition, because it is true.

You may find fault with a few examples with a magnifying glass, but the big picture is pretty clear.

Sorry you can't see it!

Dave
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
Reply


Messages In This Thread
The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-25-2009, 01:58 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by enarxe - 08-26-2009, 06:59 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-27-2009, 12:44 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Nimrod Warda - 08-27-2009, 03:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by enarxe - 08-27-2009, 07:27 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-28-2009, 12:49 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Christina - 08-29-2009, 02:26 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 08-29-2009, 03:19 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-11-2009, 12:24 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-11-2009, 09:41 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-13-2009, 02:26 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-13-2009, 02:28 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-13-2009, 08:55 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-14-2009, 05:53 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by gbausc - 09-14-2009, 07:44 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-14-2009, 11:10 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Thirdwoe - 09-15-2009, 12:48 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-17-2009, 02:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-17-2009, 02:51 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Thirdwoe - 09-17-2009, 06:32 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:09 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:12 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-19-2009, 07:26 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:41 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:42 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-20-2009, 01:48 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-21-2009, 04:49 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-21-2009, 05:02 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Christina - 09-21-2009, 08:54 AM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:24 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:31 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by Dawid - 09-21-2009, 10:36 PM
Re: The "O" argument - by judge - 09-22-2009, 09:32 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)