03-25-2014, 06:45 PM
"Commending". Which verse do you want to look at?
There is no such word in Greek. That is an English word, but I think you know that. Which actual Greek word are you speaking of, which you say the Aramaic scribe mistranslated. Lets look at an exact verse of your choosing.
Also, if you think that the Eastern Peshitta New Testament originated in the 4th century, or with Rabulla's version of the original text, that he changed in various places, then you would be wrong, as the Eastern Peshitta is much older than his revision, and corruption.
The Eastern text being static for its almost 2000 year history, shows that it has not been corrupted and acts like an original source text, not like a translation, which are often revised time and time again, as we see in the Greek and Latin texts, in their varied forms...not to speak of the English translations from them.
The Quran was also revised and edited by Uthman, making a new version from various versions that preceded it.
The Quran was not given by Apostles, nor has it been unchanged in its text. The Aramaic New Testament of The Peshitta has been, and hasn't been.
You seem to be unaware of the process of translating languages. If you think that a translator would not add a helper word, which does not change the meaning, but helps the sentence or brings out the sense a bit more, then you don't know what translating means. For instance, an interlinear text, is not a translation, but a rendering of each word as close to the source words as possible...to make it a translation, one needs to tie the words together and help them make sense and bring out the meaning as best you can. This means added words here and there...as we see in the Greek, Latin, and English translations.
Guilty of what? Being a more exact and pure text of the New Testament? Not showing itself to be a translation of any source text, as all the other languages do? You really need to get familiar with the Aramaic New Testament, before you try to speak against it.
No, we don't actually know that it was originally penned in Greek. That is an assumption and an opinion only, with no proof to it being the case. You seem to think that an Aramaic speaking man, would not write in his own native language, and then have its text translated into other languages not native to him. Maybe you thought that Paul was a "Hellenist"? Not.
The only way we can prove anything along these lines, is by looking at the text itself...otherwise it is all conjecture, opinion, and assumptions...guesses.
You have given only assumptions, and have quoted the assumptions, opinions, and conjectures...guesses of others, who think like you do about the matter.
But, lets look at the actual text, and show that it is a translation and not the source text. Do the hard work yourself, and stop relying on what other people tell you they think is the case. With no proof.
Do you believe that The Messiah spoke in Greek, where He is recorded in the Gospels and by Paul? So, in the Greek version, you have a translation of every Aramaic word that The Messiah spoke. The Greek is a translation of all those words, and sometimes leaves a word or phrase here and there un-translated.
The Aramaic Text, is not a translation in all these thousands of words, it using the same words that The Messiah actually used. Just in this, it is the better text, as it is not going through a language change.
There is no evidence that the Peshitta is a translation of a Greek source text...if you know which one, or if you can prove it is so, based on the text itself, then show it here...otherwise you are just blowing smoke, with assumptions, opinions, conjectures and mere guesses. And this will not do for real convincing.
I have found no problems in the Aramaic New Testament. I love The Messiah's Word in the language He spoke in. I'm not sure why you would be so against it?
Maybe it is your devotion to Mr. Panin's 20th century constructed text and personal translation of it?
Speaking of that text, do you know which Greek text that Mr. Panin used to count up his 175 words in Mark 16:9-20?
I hope you wont say that he counted them up in the edited version of a Greek text he used, while adding some words in there to make it have 175 words. And thus have it work with his numeric scheme.
That would be doctoring the book to make a miracle seem to have happened. I'm not saying he did so...maybe he did? I'm really trying to find a Greek text, other than the edited version he made, so I can verify that there is actually a Greek text that existed prior to his version, which has all those 175 words present in that passage.
Maybe you know of one, or could find one.
Thanks,
Chuck
.
.
Quote:The Greek word 'Commending' is a very specific word.
There is no such word in Greek. That is an English word, but I think you know that. Which actual Greek word are you speaking of, which you say the Aramaic scribe mistranslated. Lets look at an exact verse of your choosing.
Also, if you think that the Eastern Peshitta New Testament originated in the 4th century, or with Rabulla's version of the original text, that he changed in various places, then you would be wrong, as the Eastern Peshitta is much older than his revision, and corruption.
The Eastern text being static for its almost 2000 year history, shows that it has not been corrupted and acts like an original source text, not like a translation, which are often revised time and time again, as we see in the Greek and Latin texts, in their varied forms...not to speak of the English translations from them.
The Quran was also revised and edited by Uthman, making a new version from various versions that preceded it.
The Quran was not given by Apostles, nor has it been unchanged in its text. The Aramaic New Testament of The Peshitta has been, and hasn't been.
You seem to be unaware of the process of translating languages. If you think that a translator would not add a helper word, which does not change the meaning, but helps the sentence or brings out the sense a bit more, then you don't know what translating means. For instance, an interlinear text, is not a translation, but a rendering of each word as close to the source words as possible...to make it a translation, one needs to tie the words together and help them make sense and bring out the meaning as best you can. This means added words here and there...as we see in the Greek, Latin, and English translations.
Quote:I used this one example just to make a point that many verses in the Peshitta are guilty of this. I'm not gonna cite all of them here?
Guilty of what? Being a more exact and pure text of the New Testament? Not showing itself to be a translation of any source text, as all the other languages do? You really need to get familiar with the Aramaic New Testament, before you try to speak against it.
Quote:And also when you say "'ALL' is redundant", you are effectively accusing Paul the apostle of being verbose, because we know that the epistle to the Philippians was originally penned in Greek.
No, we don't actually know that it was originally penned in Greek. That is an assumption and an opinion only, with no proof to it being the case. You seem to think that an Aramaic speaking man, would not write in his own native language, and then have its text translated into other languages not native to him. Maybe you thought that Paul was a "Hellenist"? Not.
The only way we can prove anything along these lines, is by looking at the text itself...otherwise it is all conjecture, opinion, and assumptions...guesses.
You have given only assumptions, and have quoted the assumptions, opinions, and conjectures...guesses of others, who think like you do about the matter.
But, lets look at the actual text, and show that it is a translation and not the source text. Do the hard work yourself, and stop relying on what other people tell you they think is the case. With no proof.
Do you believe that The Messiah spoke in Greek, where He is recorded in the Gospels and by Paul? So, in the Greek version, you have a translation of every Aramaic word that The Messiah spoke. The Greek is a translation of all those words, and sometimes leaves a word or phrase here and there un-translated.
The Aramaic Text, is not a translation in all these thousands of words, it using the same words that The Messiah actually used. Just in this, it is the better text, as it is not going through a language change.
There is no evidence that the Peshitta is a translation of a Greek source text...if you know which one, or if you can prove it is so, based on the text itself, then show it here...otherwise you are just blowing smoke, with assumptions, opinions, conjectures and mere guesses. And this will not do for real convincing.
I have found no problems in the Aramaic New Testament. I love The Messiah's Word in the language He spoke in. I'm not sure why you would be so against it?
Maybe it is your devotion to Mr. Panin's 20th century constructed text and personal translation of it?
Speaking of that text, do you know which Greek text that Mr. Panin used to count up his 175 words in Mark 16:9-20?
I hope you wont say that he counted them up in the edited version of a Greek text he used, while adding some words in there to make it have 175 words. And thus have it work with his numeric scheme.
That would be doctoring the book to make a miracle seem to have happened. I'm not saying he did so...maybe he did? I'm really trying to find a Greek text, other than the edited version he made, so I can verify that there is actually a Greek text that existed prior to his version, which has all those 175 words present in that passage.
Maybe you know of one, or could find one.
Thanks,
Chuck
.
.