A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof

[Burning one]

Burning one, i hear what your saying, BUT! Here we go again:

I repeat, the very thing you guys are avoiding, Paul wrote a lot of his epistles to the Epesians, Corinthians, etc correct? Well we know Aramaic wasn't their language, it was Greek. End of story, end of Aramaic primacy thesis.

Zardak, this is a HUGE assumption that fails logically. do ethnic groups exist today in the world inside a country whose offical language they do not speak? YES. do i have give more examples than the Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking inhabitants of New York City's "Chinatown?" people live all over the globe who do not speak the official language of their country. this is rudimentary knowledge; as it is today so it was 2,000 years ago. if you know anything about cultures existing inside larger cultures, you will understand that the minority HOLDS ON to their cultural aspects fiercely, even tho being somewhat integrated into the largely society. the CENTRAL factor upon which every single culture is built is LANGUAGE. period. any good college language course should inform you of this truth.
so could there be Hebrew peoples in the MIDST of a Roman Empire, the official language of which is Greek, who yet still hold onto their beloved Hebrew or Aramaic language? yes, Zardak. the answer is YES! history shows this to be true. do you think that the historian Josephus would LIE to his readers that he had a difficult time learning Greek IF the whole world spoke Greek? nobody would take him seriously if that were the case. furthermore, when you have a great understanding of how religious writings are transmitted in a faith, you see that the overwhelming majority of time, the authorities pen their writings in the language they deem holy / sacred. we see this in Roman Catholicism as LATIN; we see this Judaism as HEBREW, and we see this in ancient Eastern Christianity as ARAMAIC. you can't viably deny the history of how things are. please don't. so if Paul the apostle is writing authoritative letters to his MOSTLY Semitic audiences (true Gentiles were yet merely the minority), then the letters would fit the cultural / linguistic norm of his people. so now, what does Scripture say was the language of the land of Israel? Acts 1:19 tells you the answer, Zardak: ARAMAIC. the pronunciation of the field's name is ARAMAIC. not Hebrew. not Greek. ARAMAIC. Scripture gives us the answer we need. not numerics. not gematria. not Panin in his sincerest desire to seize the true Word for man. Scripture. so Paul, brought up in Jerusalem in the prominent Pharisaic house of the day -Hillel- at the feet of the prominent rabbi of the day -Gamaliel- would have been utterly conversant in HEBREW and ARAMAIC, and Greek would have been something he was familiar with due to the presence of the government that loosely ruled the land. it doesn't mean that he could WRITE in it, and it doesn't mean that he WOULD, given the fact that the only languages the Hebrew people deemed to be holy languages were HEBREW and ARAMAIC.

Secondly, my asnwer concerning Acts 21:27 is utterly irrefutable, end of Aramaic primacy thesis.

Mr Panin who tutored Einstein, did not spend "50 YEARS" again "50 YEARS" to simply roll dice over the texts. If he realized there was no substance to what he was doing he would have given up after 3 years at most, being seeing the proof of what he was doing clearly he took all the time required to make it absolutely perfect, and he has succeeded. All of his final formulas applied show that it was so deep to get to the end of it that it showed itself to be from God, and all of the mathematics applied was extremely sound. You telling me you don't want to believe it doesn't prove anything. No one can make mathematics say what they want it to say. Mathematics is self evident and states the facts (God ordained, and created) tells us how it is, not the other way round. All your really saying is that you do not want to be astounded by the amazing "facts of scripture" proved by God's "own" mathematics. The refined and precise formulas Mr Panin came up with to prove the text, which have since been verified and calculated insofar as the text is concerned amounting to odds of quintillion's and quadrillions to one, is hardly guess work my friend, surely you can see that? Dismissing such overwhelming evidence is merely saying you couldn't care less, you're more interested in believing something else. 50 years work from a "professor of mathematics" who gains independent specialist verification of the odds of his calculations being hundreds of billions to one cannot be dismissed. In fact nothing in the known natural universe can repudiate that. Standing there and telling me the sky isn't blue is not going to achieve anything. That the mathematically verified text is final is a lot more valid than what is essentially misplaced skewed bits of history being manipulated to fit a theory based on making bits of information say what someone "wants" it to say.

i told you what i originally thought of his work, and how i wanted it to be true, and i told you the reasons why i came to believe otherwise. you can call me a liar if you feel you need to - that's on your conscience. congratulations on judging a brother for no reason other than you can't accept what he wrote....i feel like we're nearing a parting of discussion if you can't respond with taking a person's explanations at face value, but instead insinuate that i am lying to you.... this is not productive, and if you aren't planning on changing your repsonses to reflect the Spirit that has hopefully indwelt you then i see no further communication being productive. i hope i am wrong here.

Clearly, the reason those eastern churches got the epistles delivered personally (if the elders of those churches weren't lying) is because Paul either straight away or soon after had copies done of the "GREEK EPISTLES WRITTEN TO GREEK SPEAKING GREEKS" DID I SAY GREEKS? MAYBE I FORGOT TO SAY GREEKS, maybe i better say GREEKS again in case i forgot to say GREEKS LIVING IN GREECE!!!!!!! SHEEESH!!!!!!!

Zardak, if only you had been so forthcoming in your very first post i wouldn't have wasted all my time -- wait a minute... this is an ARAMAIC PRIMACY board??? what have i been doing here all these years??? <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

ACTS 21:27 try reading my previous explanation again, and then tell me you still believe in Aramaic primacy. SHEEESH!!!!!!! And the reason acts 21: 27-34 states "When they heard him speak to them in the HEBREW language, is because Aramaic is HEBREW, its not a sister language, its a DIALECT of HEBREW. Luke wrote the word HEBREW, not Aramaic!

Zardak, i didn't say Luke wrote "Aramaic." i'm not sure why you have even suggested there was any confusion... and if you really believe Aramaic IS Hebrew, then i think we've got some MAJOR problems. i can read BOTH languages (they really are two different languages - honest) and Aramaic is NOT a dialect of Hebrew. where are you coming up with this?

Panin didn't insert any "made up words or verse" into the final text, he was experimenting early on with certain things as part of his work. The final text - I'm sure you guys must have downloaded it by now (yes there is a translated version of it at the same place), i've given the website here enough times. Read the preface and that will give you some insight. I would rather have one bit of FACT than 10,000 bits of info which can be made to substantiate a theory if someone really wants it to.
All the final text did was verify certain things in the modern new testament texts that we have known for quite a while, I am utterly familiar with the Greek texts and Mr Panins text does not add or take away anything t6hat is not already in dispute between various text families, all it does is confirm which text was more corrupted that others. Nothing dubious going on their matey.

really? okay, if this is true, would you please open up a copy of W+H text to Matthew 1.1 and compare it to Panin's Matthew 1.1? do you see COMPLETE spelling agreement? if spelling doesn't agree, then something is OFF numerically -- that's elementary, tho, and you surely know this would change the dynamics of the "proofs." that's just for starters. don't mislead anyone, please. i don't think i am asking too much here.

let's look again at a BIGGER variant in Panin's "numeric-based" NT:

the end of Mark 16:9-20 --- Panin says there are 175 words there. this number is important to him because the number is 25*7 = 175. the all-important seven, right?

so please tell me, WHERE did he get 175 words in that passage??
i ask because if you do a count of the words in W+H 1881 edition, they have 172 words; Elzevir's 1664 TR - 166 words; Nestle's 1898 - 168; British and Foreign Bible Society 1958 - 168 words; Nestle / Aland 1975 - 170 words.

no Greek text has 175 words for the end of Mark - EXCEPT Panin's Numeric New Testament. so tell me, please, Zardak -- WHERE did the words come from that are in Panin's NT? if he DIDN'T make up or insert words into the text he has published, then WHY does his have MORE than any other text?
this alone should be sufficient to lay the whole argument to rest...

God is well known for taking imperfect things and creating marvelous results with it, God takes imperfect people and turns them into gems, God takes dust and turns it into humans, it was not his fault that people corrupted the texts, no more than it is His fault if someone jumps in front of a moving train. But the fact is that we have had 95% of what he wanted us to know, and that was more than enough. It just so happens that now through Panin we have a verified "PERFECT" text. But it most certainly would have been incompetent of God to give Greek texts to the west if they were originally written in Aramaic, and as we all really know they weren't.

i am all for HIM using flawed people - that is for His glory, and our humility. i just don't see the verification of Panin's methods as sound. rather, as i've shown, they don't hold up - HE CHANGED THE GREEK. not a difficult sentence to write, but apparently difficult to believe....

Let me make your job easier for you, if you insist on believing the texts were originally written in Aramaic, then to save any confusion for yourself when you want to know what was really said when the Aramaic is ambiguous, simply look at the Greek, problem solved. Retro comparing the Greek and then making that mean that the Aramaic was written first is not sound in the least, surely you must know that???

i don't know what you mean by ambiguous Aramaic readings from the Peshitta. they make sense to me, but then again, i am not relying on an English translation. so tell me, can you READ the Aramaic itself, or are you relying on an English translation of the Aramaic for knowing what the text says? i ask because from the looks of some of your previous posts, it DOESN'T look like you actually can read the Aramaic. if that is the case, then you have no standing to refute the Aramaic that comes from a legitimate gripe. you only have your numeric faith towards the Greek. please let me and everyone know if you can read the Aramaic. it is only a fair question from those of us here who DO read both the Aramaic and the Greek, don't you think?

so PLEASE take some time with a truly open mind if you truly love the truth, and you will be surprised. The Greek primacy assertions are play-school level to some, simply because "God has taken the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. I digress. Yehawah, and Yeshua the Lord of us be praised. <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| -->

Zardak, i DO have a truly open mind. spending years trying to make the Greek "fit" in the places it didn't gave me a mind that HAD to be open, and eventually the Spirit led me to look into the claims being made about Aramaic Primacy. i've been on your side of the fence - wanting a TRULY INSPIRED Greek version to lay claim to, so i know how important the stance is to which you are holding, and i know why Panin's work is of such value to you, but in the end assessment, we have to concede that his methods are not sound. simply put. that places you back at square one in your desire to possess a VERIFIED TRUE and RELIABLE NT. and i would suggest seriously listening and seeking at this time that the Holy One has placed you on this site to people who have been where you have been, who have questioned what you question, and who DO want the truth that you want - a reliable text that tells of the accounts of our Redeemer.

and i am curious - i see that you use the Hebrew for the Father and Son's Names. are you Messianic / Hebrew-Roots etcetera? just curious...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy