01-20-2014, 04:14 AM
I don't dislike you as a person, Steve...I hope you aren't thinking that way...I like that you are here too, so we can discuss these things out in the open...but, I'm leery of your motives nonetheless.
And it seems like you have chosen to avoid answering many of my questions to you in past discussions, which get down to the real issues of the texts themselves. I would like to think that you just didn't notice them, or didn't have the time to get into the details, rather than you just ignored them...but, again...I don't know.
You said:
Yes, the kind of thing that has brought to light the terrible condition of the Greek text, to the Muslim and the Atheist apologists delight, in its many varied forms and its 400,000 or so variants among it's manuscripts.
Steve, which Greek Manuscript do you say is the one I should consider to be the faithful witness of the original Greek NT, as was given to Christians in the 1st century? Seriously, can you answer that question? I can't, as I look and see witness after witness for all the Greek families variant readings, going back to the 2nd century. So, which one do I trust?
The Eastern Peshitta text shows some of all of them in its text, and lacks those with the biggest doubt as to their being in the original Greek form of the Greek text.
I got real tried after many years trying to determine which Greek textual family (among the 3 or 4 and maybe more) were the more original, and which Greek Manuscript best preserved the original form of the 1st century Greek NT. The more I looked into it, Steve, the more tangled the web became.
Thank God I am free of it.
I think you know what I mean...and it seems to me, that even though you have now lost faith in an Aramaic original NT, you are trying to find the most original form of what you think might have existed of its text in the 1st century,...Which is more interesting to you, I'm sure, than to try to find the original Greek form, which is entirely hopeless.
But, even this work you are doing, still amounts to what the Greek textual critic does all day, which you seem to be of like mind with, while you hypothesize a more original pre-Peshitta Aramaic NT...while endlessly speculating as to what you assume may have been its original form or not, and assume it was from some Greek text, that no longer exists in the form it may or may not have been in...it's futile to the extreme, if you are trying to answer the big questions.
I want answers, not endless speculations.
Steve, based on the evidence that I have seen, it seems to me that we have the answers in The Eastern Peshitta text, and so far, I have seen no real proof/evidence from you, or any Greek primacist, that I have had discussions with over the years, that the Aramaic couldn't be the original NT, or the Eastern Peshitta couldn't be the original form of the Aramaic NT.
What I have seen though, is the many evidences which point in the direction to it being the original form.
P.S. I have something else to discuss with you, but, will send you a privet message on that subject.
Shlama,
Charley
.
And it seems like you have chosen to avoid answering many of my questions to you in past discussions, which get down to the real issues of the texts themselves. I would like to think that you just didn't notice them, or didn't have the time to get into the details, rather than you just ignored them...but, again...I don't know.
You said:
Quote:I ascribe (and contribute) to conventional scholarship
Yes, the kind of thing that has brought to light the terrible condition of the Greek text, to the Muslim and the Atheist apologists delight, in its many varied forms and its 400,000 or so variants among it's manuscripts.
Steve, which Greek Manuscript do you say is the one I should consider to be the faithful witness of the original Greek NT, as was given to Christians in the 1st century? Seriously, can you answer that question? I can't, as I look and see witness after witness for all the Greek families variant readings, going back to the 2nd century. So, which one do I trust?
The Eastern Peshitta text shows some of all of them in its text, and lacks those with the biggest doubt as to their being in the original Greek form of the Greek text.
I got real tried after many years trying to determine which Greek textual family (among the 3 or 4 and maybe more) were the more original, and which Greek Manuscript best preserved the original form of the 1st century Greek NT. The more I looked into it, Steve, the more tangled the web became.
Thank God I am free of it.
I think you know what I mean...and it seems to me, that even though you have now lost faith in an Aramaic original NT, you are trying to find the most original form of what you think might have existed of its text in the 1st century,...Which is more interesting to you, I'm sure, than to try to find the original Greek form, which is entirely hopeless.
But, even this work you are doing, still amounts to what the Greek textual critic does all day, which you seem to be of like mind with, while you hypothesize a more original pre-Peshitta Aramaic NT...while endlessly speculating as to what you assume may have been its original form or not, and assume it was from some Greek text, that no longer exists in the form it may or may not have been in...it's futile to the extreme, if you are trying to answer the big questions.
I want answers, not endless speculations.
Steve, based on the evidence that I have seen, it seems to me that we have the answers in The Eastern Peshitta text, and so far, I have seen no real proof/evidence from you, or any Greek primacist, that I have had discussions with over the years, that the Aramaic couldn't be the original NT, or the Eastern Peshitta couldn't be the original form of the Aramaic NT.
What I have seen though, is the many evidences which point in the direction to it being the original form.
P.S. I have something else to discuss with you, but, will send you a privet message on that subject.
Shlama,
Charley
.