Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greek primacists favoring certain anciet texts
#16
Akhi Ivan, expect you and I to be banned within the next few hours... <!-- sSleepy --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sleepy.gif" alt="Sleepy" title="Sleepy" /><!-- sSleepy --> Peshitta believers like us are not as welcome here as those who attack Peshitta believers.
Download my free book at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Reply
#17
Quote:I do not need your answers.

Well let me answer your questions since you asked anyways.

I am a born-again Christian. I was bought and paid for by Jesus's blood and accepted into His kingdom by my own repentence back around 3:30 in the morning of January of 1992. I was 27 at the time, and I was a major freaking heathen.

Since then I have been water baptized in the name of Jesus, and went on to ask for and receive the indwelling Spirit of Truth from The Almighty, which is The Holy Spirit, with the witness of the gift of tongues following. I have been granted a few of the spiritual gifts since then, some of them are the gift of wisdom, the gift to discern the one true Spirit, and a gift of prophecy at times. I have one more step to complete in this journey, and that is the Annointing, the power from on high, which I will receive when GOD is ready for me to do HIS work/will, of which HE has been preparing me since my re-birth.

It is no longer me who does this work but The Almighty through me, and that is as it should be to correctly follow Jesus. I am an instrument of His righteousness.

So far,......what I have learned from Paul's site and many, many, many others is that none of the texts are without some sort of mistake. I take a common sense approach to every side with GOD being the final answer. The greek has mistakes, the old syriac has mistakes, the latin has mistakes, the peshitta has mistakes, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I have let GOD be the last word about all of these texts, not man. Everything has been taken to HIM in prayer with the following revelations from HIM. I have asked and continued to ask what was wrong and for HIM to show me every time. I have refused to go on any mans word alone.

This has been my method and will continue to be, as it should be for any Spirit-filled Christian who truely desires to follow The Spirit, should be.

GOD was the creator of time, and HE is the absolute in truth, so HE has the final answer for me, no matter what.

Now,....what am I doing here? I was learning, but I have reached a point and see where there is no more to learn here.
Reply
#18
byrnesey Wrote:People get upset when they realise that they were wrong. Just an idea for a big weapon you can use...
And Mr. Ostapyuk, are you my twin brother or what? You had my thoughts exactly!


You know I see a lot of things like this as protecting Ivory towers. You have some professors etc, of Greek that don't want to loose their prestige, possibly even position. You have other people who have bought into a scientific empirical understanding of the Bible etc. and they like the "Exactness" of Greek. It makes them feel safe, secure, etc. Kind of like a security blanket. So they simply can't respond to any kind of a objection with any kind of rationality. Their faith is simply to tied to it.
Reply
#19
QUOTE
Another thing Ooze that can be discussed is lingua franca.
QUOTE

Yeah I've covered that before. Infact, LAmsa does a really good job laying that out in his commentary in the back of the Deluxe study Edition New Testament. I have that book along with his translation"from the Far Eastern Text", and his book on Idioms (which has some good ones, but it also seems like he throws in some of his later unitarian type bias into some of those idioms, especially stuff from Genesis.
Reply
#20
[quote=" THEN, we have James writing to the twelve tribes abroad. They all spoke one language assumably. Was it the language of Greek? Or the Semitic language of Aramaic. Well let us look at the facts. The Israelites continued to use Aramaic after the various dispersions, as Aramaic inscriptions are found even in Britain... The Talmud - Aramaic... James - full of Aramaicisms. Clearly the twelve tribes were Aramaic-speakers. Still from way back when they were in captivity by the Assyrians.

Regards,

Rich[/quote]

Thats a really good point and thing to remember! And if you study that history, it should be a reminder of that there were lots of Jews left over in Babylon and the far east up and down the Indian and Chinese silk and spice roads.
Reply
#21
[quote="byrnesey"]Don't mean to spam but you can also talk of Philemon. A letter supposedly written by a Greek speaker to a Greek speaking Greek in Greece. And the Greek copy of it is filled with Aramaic proofs. quote]


Now that I should keep in mind. And one good point on that is, as far as dating etc. that is one of the more late epistles. Well not super late, but defintely its more than half way through. Which is significant. Because some people wouldn't doubt the vary first gospel was in Aramaic first.


But the way people interpret history, there often is the idea of when did the Greeks and Latins take over. And those verses that say "neither Jew nor Greek", in GNT really muddy the waters. Anyway finding Aramaicisms in much later works I think helps the cause a lot.


I think many many people have this idea, that basically after Pentecost etc. the disciples preached the Gospel a few years in Jeriusalem, and all righteous Jews beleived, but most hardened their heart. And so, it was soon preached to the gentiles. And the gentiles went crazy for it! Soon the apostles were taking crash courses on Greek to keep up with the demand! And since they could always be there, they got to writing down the gospels and later in the epistles (In Greek of course). And within a few short years the church went from being semitic and Aramaic to beng Greek.


which of course, should be seen as being a little bit too naive. Not to mention, people with any kind of semitic background, wether Church of the East, Syrian Orthodox, or Messianic Jewish should see it as rewritting of history, basically a coup against "the people of the book".
Reply
#22
Indeed, must all Gentiles be assumed to be Greek? What of the Syrians? Are they Greek too? No, yet they are gentiles... As for "Jew then Greek", I think we had that dsicsussions before about it being "Jew then Aramaean" in the Peshitta. Aramaeans were of course, liek the Jews, Aramaic-speakers.
Download my free book at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com">http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?
Reply
#23
Ooze,

The gospel of matthew is documented as being written in the hebrew language, the church fathers did document that for us.

Why didn't they talk about the rest though? There is oodles of first century writings to gleen from but the majority points to the western text family, and that was what was used during that time frame.

For some reason, there is a space of time missing here with the peshitta though. There seems to be nothing earlier than around 4th century. Everyone that was associated with 1st century history and documeted it for us, mentions nothing about it. People here have explained it as the text was hidden from the west at that time, yet there is nothing of the peshitta text dated prior to around the 3rd or 4th century in the areas that it was supposedly prominent.

I don't think we really know just how far removed the message was gonna be taken from the Jews and given to the gentiles. Maybe GOD was so thoroughly angered over their hardheadedness to the point that it was no longer gonna be given to society in the aramaic and hebrew language anymore. Actually that is the way it is at the moment, and has been for centuries. Not to anger people, but this is undeniable.
Reply
#24
Dave Wrote:Ooze,

For some reason, there is a space of time missing here with the peshitta though. There seems to be nothing earlier than around 4th century. Everyone that was associated with 1st century history and documeted it for us, mentions nothing about it. People here have explained it as the text was hidden from the west at that time, yet there is nothing of the peshitta text dated prior to around the 3rd or 4th century in the areas that it was supposedly prominent.

Well its one of those things that just because you don't see soemthing doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


I actually think LAmsa did a really good job in talking about the difference on perserving documents between east and west.

In regards to a whole range of issues. Wether you consider people living in the Parthian emperire and beyond, suffered from pesecution from the time of Constantine till now. In which case manuscripts were destroyed and hard to perseve etc. So in this case its a apples and oranges kind of thing. Where it simplu is much harder to find those ancient manuscripts. Not to mention the affects of recent persecution. So for instance as he relates during the World war I, when the Armenian and Syrian genocides were going on. They had at least one really good ancient manuscript. The East syrians lost it while they were trying to cross one of the large rivers like Tigris or euphrates as they were attenping to evade the Turks.

Anyway while you have things in the West like Rome being sacked a few times etc. overall the west is just much more conducive to perserving antiquities. Overall a more stable place.


Not to mention he did have a good point in regards to another issue. Like how people treat original works, once a work is translated. Typically most people put aside the original,a nd it soon becomes forgotten even lost.


Anyway in the East, really the scribal tradition is what kept the Peshitta alive. Much like the scribal tradion of Judaism. Infact the scribal tradition may have been another reason for the difficulty of finding very early manuscripts. So he relates they had a tradition of burning damaged manuscripts, similar to the Way armeicans are supposed to dispose of the flag that is tattered. Anyway such a tradion would automatically make it extremely difficult to retain a really old work.


And this is kind of where the language studies come in. Because if the peshitta/peshitto really was a much more recent work it would be very difficult to have such agreement between the texts etc.


So really this isa kind of apples and organges issues. I think when you judge the peshitta you have to also do so on the basis of the people who perserved it. And they are indeed a very ancient people, with many many similarities in customs etc. to the Jews of the past. So I would tend to see the people of the east themselves as a kind of a living "archeological find". Not to mention there are other things as well. Like Aramaic grave stones and other artificats scattered acrossed asia etc.

so if you take into account that 1) Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic, 2) Aramaic speaking and wriitgn jews were scattered across asia and 3) their are indeed aramaic scriptures that seem very different that the ones in the west.


IT should be very reasonable to conclude a reasonable good probability that these infact are the origianl and the others are translations. And that is especially emphasized with all the work that people fromt his web site have done. Which shows how very ancient copies of the Greek text disagree in some very striking ways.
Reply
#25
Shlama Akhay,

This is an interesting discussion, but I must start out by saying that I am no longer a Peshitta primacist. Aramaic written primacy is at it's core unlikely. Aramaic oral primacy is another issue. I still love the language and love studying it, though.

I came to this conclusion from debating with Zorbas, and objectively weighing the argument. And I must admit, as a calvinist, I agree with this remark:

Quote:With as much technology nowadays, and all the discoveries and learned men, GOD has still not moved from the greek scriptures. Is it just a bias? Is it scholarly concenses? Or is it something more that The Holy Spirit has a purpose in?

People often argue that God can use any language, and he certainly can, but gross mistranslations do not properly convey his will, hence it is still necessary to check and crosscheck the scriptures in their original language. It's hard for me as a Calvinist to believe that the scriptures were altogether unknown by the vast majority of the church. I don't understand the theology of a "Remnant Text."

Quote:For some reason, there is a space of time missing here with the peshitta though. There seems to be nothing earlier than around 4th century. Everyone that was associated with 1st century history and documeted it for us, mentions nothing about it. People here have explained it as the text was hidden from the west at that time, yet there is nothing of the peshitta text dated prior to around the 3rd or 4th century in the areas that it was supposedly prominent.
This is true, and the Gospels themselves were very clearly written after the destruction of the Temple. Both Matthew and Luke are dependent on similar sources and Matthew very clearly embellishes the temple's destruction. None of the Gospels were in major circulation until the middle of the 2nd century; effectively after the split between the church and synagogue. Hence a Greek text would best serve the community of Hellenistic Jews and Greco-Roman Gentiles. Pauline (whom we know knew Greek) epistles were in circulation beforehand, since they were written beforehand. Since the vast majority of his letters were directed at thoroughly hellenized cultures, it would only be logical to compose the Gospel literature in the language of the rest of the canon: Greek.

Quote:I actually think LAmsa did a really good job in talking about the difference on perserving documents between east and west.
Since the East maintained a sole tradition it is only logical to assume it has less variants. The fact that it has this could just as well mean it has kept a single Greek tradition.

There are other factors which contribute to this, such as the use of the word "Rabbi" being almost an exclusively 2nd Century title, and the fact that a semitic Greek style could just as well mean that the scribes' first language was Aramaic. But I will leave that to another day.
Reply
#26
Shlama Akhi Rob,

Rob Wrote:
Quote:With as much technology nowadays, and all the discoveries and learned men, GOD has still not moved from the greek scriptures. Is it just a bias? Is it scholarly concenses? Or is it something more that The Holy Spirit has a purpose in?

What does the statement mean that "GOD has still not moved from the greek scriptures?" I don't understand - is the Holy Spirit confined to white~european churches?

Rob Wrote:People often argue that God can use any language, and he certainly can, but gross mistranslations do not properly convey his will, hence it is still necessary to check and crosscheck the scriptures in their original language. It's hard for me as a Calvinist to believe that the scriptures were altogether unknown by the vast majority of the church. I don't understand the theology of a "Remnant Text."

The vast majority of the church?

My dear brother, up until the coming of Tamerlane in the 14th century, more Christians (from Cyprus to Japan) used the Aramaic Peshitta than any other version...combined. And those are the words of a white man, John Stewart, in his books "The missionary activity of the Church of the East: the story of a Church on Fire."

If you look at the entire 2,000 year history of the Church, you will realize that for 1,300+ of those years, the *vast majority* of the Church *did* use the Aramaic New Testament.

My dear brother, it's only been in the last 700 years that Western Greek Christianity has grown to outnumber Eastern Aramaic Christianity. These are historical facts.

Rob Wrote:
Quote:For some reason, there is a space of time missing here with the peshitta though. There seems to be nothing earlier than around 4th century.

Of course there is nothing before the 4th century. Everyone who has studied history knows what happened in the 4th century in the Roman empire, and how it affected the Christians in the Eastern (Persian) empire. His name was Constantine - and ever since he established Christianity as the state religion - the Eastern Christians have been persecuted.

If you really want to become educated on the topic, read about the Great Persecution which lasted for 70 years under Shah Shapur of Persia. You will have an idea why things were wiped out the way they were.

A second factor you must consider is that Aramaic-speaking Christians had a scribal tradition similiar to that of the Jews. When a manuscript got old and battered - the Jews buried it in a proper ceremony like a human body. The Eastern Christians did the same thing, except they burned it.

Rob Wrote:Everyone that was associated with 1st century history and documeted it for us, mentions nothing about it. People here have explained it as the text was hidden from the west at that time, yet there is nothing of the peshitta text dated prior to around the 3rd or 4th century in the areas that it was supposedly prominent.
[/quote]

That's patently false. First of all, we have established very clear evidence that the earliest Patristic writers from the Persian empire (whose official language was Aramaic) all quoted directly from the Peshitta...and that includes Mar Aphrahat.

We have also proven that the earliest Arabic copy of the Diatesseron demonstrates that the Diatesseron of Tatian, composed during the 2nd century in Assyria (Tatian called himself an Assyrian) contains 100% the same readings as the Peshitta, against the Western Greek texts.

Rob Wrote:This is true, and the Gospels themselves were very clearly written after the destruction of the Temple. Both Matthew and Luke are dependent on similar sources and Matthew very clearly embellishes the temple's destruction. None of the Gospels were in major circulation until the middle of the 2nd century; effectively after the split between the church and synagogue. Hence a Greek text would best serve the community of Hellenistic Jews and Greco-Roman Gentiles. Pauline (whom we know knew Greek) epistles were in circulation beforehand, since they were written beforehand.

There are several errors in that statement.

Geography has nothing to do with the language in which an epistle is written. Epistles sent out by the Patriarch of the Church of the East today, to the church in India who are ethnically Indians and who do not understand Aramaic, are written in Aramaic.

Secondly, all those churches in Asia Minor were started in the synagogues and the Jews were the elders of those churches. Surely you don't mean to imply that Jews didn't understand Aramaic simply because they lived in Ephesus?

Does the fact that I live in Chicago (much farther west than Ephesus) mean that I don't understand Aramaic anymore? And remember - I was born and raised here in the United States.

I'm sorry - but that reasoning is very weak. The text, the comparison of the two texts, is far more accurate an indication of which one is the original and which one is the translation - for the translation sticks out like a sore thumb.

Rob Wrote:Since the vast majority of his letters were directed at thoroughly hellenized cultures, it would only be logical to compose the Gospel literature in the language of the rest of the canon: Greek.

See my explanation above. The current Patriarch, Mar Dinkha, writes all of his epistles to the Church in America, Canada, Australia, Britain, France, Italy and yes even Greece....in Aramaic. All of the church communication is in Aramaic, no matter what country the congregation resides in. The people have always spoken Aramaic.

Rob Wrote:
Quote:I actually think LAmsa did a really good job in talking about the difference on perserving documents between east and west.
Since the East maintained a sole tradition it is only logical to assume it has less variants. The fact that it has this could just as well mean it has kept a single Greek tradition.

And what single Greek tradition is that?

Rob Wrote:There are other factors which contribute to this, such as the use of the word "Rabbi" being almost an exclusively 2nd Century title, and the fact that a semitic Greek style could just as well mean that the scribes' first language was Aramaic. But I will leave that to another day.

Akhi, I'd like your opinion on something.

Would you agree that all translators make mistakes and that all translations have some mistakes in them?

If so, and if you believe the Aramaic NT to be a translation of the Greek NT, then you therefore must be able to demonstrate an error, any error, in translation from Greek to Aramaic.

Can you point me to one instance, just one, where the Peshitta contains any error which you can convincingly demonstrate came from a translators' misreading of a Greek word, a misspelling of a Greek word, etc?

Is the Peshitta the only translation around which is 100% correct and does not contain one single solitary error which can be attributed to the translation of it from Greek?

Can you find a Greek equivalent of Acts 2:24? Please point me to it.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#27
Quote:Akhi, I'd like your opinion on something.

Would you agree that all translators make mistakes and that all translations have some mistakes in them?

If so, and if you believe the Aramaic NT to be a translation of the Greek NT, then you therefore must be able to demonstrate an error, any error, in translation from Greek to Aramaic.

Can you point me to one instance, just one, where the Peshitta contains any error which you can convincingly demonstrate came from a translators' misreading of a Greek word, a misspelling of a Greek word, etc?

Is the Peshitta the only translation around which is 100% correct and does not contain one single solitary error which can be attributed to the translation of it from Greek?

Can you find a Greek equivalent of Acts 2:24? Please point me to it.


Man, I felt the shiver go up my spine there hehe. Paul is back in action and laid the gauntlet down!

Ok, how about this, if the peshitta is the text that is 100% correct, and has no translational errors, then why isn't GOD using it in HIS churches?

This is 100% correct right? Why wouldn't GOD use this instead of dealing with the greek and it's problems, if it was 100% correct?

What was GOD doing with all this? I mean, there has been at least 3 versions brought out into english from the peshitta that I know of, and all 3 of them have failed. None are utilized in the Spirit-filled churches here in the states. In fact, the "standard" that is looked up to in all this within HIS churches is the King James version. The version that people love to hate here, has the pre-eminence over all other versions within HIS church!!!

Now,.......if this peshitta is the original,.....and it is 100% correct,.......and is better than the greek,........and it is the original that the greek was copied from,........then why won't GOD promote it and use it to save souls!!!!

Now, let's not try and dispose of this by saying that these are "faith" based questions, that's a cop out from anyone here. This is the current status of affairs within GOD's churches as anyone can deduct. Is GOD mocking the aramaic by sticking to the greek?
Reply
#28
I would like to say that though I'm very hard hitting in my words here at times, I don't always mean to be. I like healthy debate at times, but it is not my focus. And that's as it should be since scripture says we are not to worry about such stuff with other Christians and worldly people.
Reply
#29
My first Bible is in Indonesian language. I have about 70 Bibles in my personal library. I have read Greek NT many times. I also have read Hebrew Tanakh, Greek Septuagint, Latin Vulgate. I also listened to audio cassette of the NT in Greek and in a Chinese dialect. What I can attest from my own experience is that even though there are minor differences in interpretation here and there, the Message of all those Bibles that I have read is basically the same.

Studying the Indonesian Bible alone can take my whole lifetime as I can gain many insights from its teachings without the need to refer to other translations. We know that God is using this Alkitab in Indonesia to win many souls. I started to believe in God when I read the sermons on the mount from Gospel of Matthew in the Indonesian Alkitab. To certain people, KJV alone is enough to satisfy his soul but to certain people like me I will not be satisfied until I am able to read God's word in the original language. Then I bought myself English Bibles and found that they are better than my Alkitab. Now, after taking the trouble to study Greek NT, I know that my Alkitab and English Bibles are not perfect or free from errors. Certain text can be interpreted differently and there are many passages where only after you refer to the original Greek that you will be satisfied.

200 years in the future, will an Indonesian Christian utter this words in a New Testament Greek forum, "Now,.......if this Greek NT is the original,.....and it is 100% correct,.......and is better than the bahasa Indonesia,........and it is the original that the bahasa Indonesia was copied from,........then why won't GOD promote it and use it to save souls!!!!

That same argument is used by some KJV-only churches in America. Don't get me wrong as I am not against those people who love KJV. But we know that KJV-only churches are foolish when they attacked the Hebrew OT & Greek NT where KJV was translated from. KJV is better than original Hebrew and Greek just because it is used by God to convert many English speaking people? That is ridiculous! Isn't it ridiculous to think that a translation is better than the original?

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that God cannot use KJV or any other Bibles in other languages to save souls. My point is God didn't ask those ignorant American folks to propagate KJV as better than the original. It was not the intention of the KJV translators either to claim that their translation is better than the original. If they are able to see what is happening in America right now, I am sure they will shake their heads in disbelief. Can God use KJV to win souls? Sure He can. Does God ask us to promote KJV as better than the original? NO! It was promoted by some ignorants people in America who are not related to the original translators of KJV at all. Don't blame the KJV translators. Blame the KJV-only American church leaders.

Now, regarding my quest for the original text of the New Testament. After I bought Nestle-Aland 26th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece a decade ago, I realized that there are some textual variants in Greek manuscripts of the NT that cannot be solved. That is also the reason why Textual Criticism is one of the areas in Biblical Studies that I am most inrerested in. I was introduced to Syriac Peshitta and Latin Vulgate through this.

Finally, I am satisfied with the Aramaic Peshitta text because it solves many problems that I encountered with the Greek NT. It helps me to determine which variant of the Greek text is correct. Not only that. It also gives me new insights like the word plays that is frequently demonstrated in this forum and the most important of all is that it preserves the ipsissima verba of Mar Yeshu'. We know that Yeshu' preached in Aramaic the language of His first disciples. We also know that when one language is translated to another language there will be a translation loss in one way or another as different language has different syntax and idioms. Just look at the famous Psalm 119 for an example. Can English Bibles give us the message of Psalm 119? Yes, they can. Can English Bibles portray the beauty of Psalm 119? To certain extent they can. But if you have read Psalm 119 in Hebrew you will be surprised by its beauty that cannot be fully portrayed in English Bibles.

Prophet Moshe preached in Hebrew and we have his Torah in Hebrew. King David sang his Mizmor in Hebrew and we have his Mizmor in Hebrew. Yesha`yahu preached in Hebrew and we have his book in Hebrew. Yirmiyahu preached in Hebrew and we have his book in Hebrew. Only an Aramaic Gospel can preserve to us the very words of its speaker. In this I rejoice and glad that I have found the ipsissima verba of Mar Yeshu'.

If you are still not able to comprehend my point of view or didn't understand what I was trying to say (which is due to English being not my mother's tounge) then let me give you an example by citing the movie The Lord Of The Rings - The Fellowship of the Rings and The Two Towers. These movies were released in two editions. The Fellowship of the Rings that was first released to theatres was 178 wonderful minutes long. But that was not what the director Peter Jackson intended it to be. There are certain scenes that need to be cut to meet movie studio executives' requirements. That is why we have a special extended edition for die hard Lord of the Rings fans which is awesome wonderful 208 minutes long.

Reading English Bibles is like watching The Lord of The Rings dubbed into other languages. You can enjoy the movie and all those actions but you can't listen to the original voices of the actors.

Reading Greek NT is like watching the shorter version of The Lord of The Rings. You can still enjoy the show but there are some scenes that were cut that you will not aware of until you watched the special extended edition.

Reading the Aramaic Peshitta is like watching the special extended edition of the Lord of The Rings. You will start to understand why this is so and so. You will gain extra insights from the Word of Alaha when you read it in the original as these extra insights and beauty cannot be found in the Greek text.

Now, if I don't know anything about English, will I enjoy The Lord of The Rings that is dubbed into my native language? Yes, I will enjoy it very much.

Now, if I understand English, will I enjoy the shorter edition of The Lord of the Rings? Yes, I will enjoy it so much and will not even realize that there are some scenes that were filmed by Peter Jackson but was cut by the movie studio.

But only after I watched the full version of The Lord of The Rings will I be able to see what Peter Jackson wanted me to see.

The moral of the story is that we don't need to ridicule and disparage translations of the Bible out there. God can use any languages out there to save souls. There is no need to ridicule the ipsissima verba of Mar Yeshu' either. Just because God didn't use Aramaic to save souls of English speakers it doesn't mean that it is not the original or that God is mocking the ipsissima verba of Mar Yeshu'.

You can argue about words daily, but that will not make you a disciple of Mar Yeshu'. You can read the NT in Greek or Aramaic or any other languages, but if you are not responding to Mar Yeshu's call to discipleship, you are not going to make it. In your zeal to promote Greek or Aramaic, let us not forget the central Message of the Gospel of Mar Yeshu' that all of us must adhere to and that we ought need to be His diciples by denying self, taking up the cross daily and be prepared to die for Him, love one another, do not give up fellowship, encourage one another daily, sharing our faith wherever we go. An African who read the Bible in his language out there who shares his faith daily and follow what Mar Yeshu' commanded is a better disciple of Mar Yeshu' than all of us here who argue about words daily but are not sharing our faith with strangers out there or bear any fruit.

Yeshua said to them "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men" (Matthew 4:19).

We should not let our zeal for Greek or Aramaic hinder us from the call to discipleship, because at the end of the days, those who responded to that call to be fishers of men that are going to be saved. If we are not responding to that call to discipleship, no matter what language of the Bible we read, we are not going to understand what it means to be disciple of Mar Yeshu'.





Peace to all.


Dan Gan
One of the first owners of the facsimile of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802837867/ref=nosim/ultimyourulti-20"><b>Codex Leningrad</b></a>
Reply
#30
Quote:That same argument is used by some KJV-only churches in America. Don't get me wrong as I am not against those people who love KJV. But we know that KJV-only churches are foolish when they attacked the Hebrew OT & Greek NT where KJV was translated from. KJV is better than original Hebrew and Greek just because it is used by God to convert many English speaking people? That is ridiculous! Isn't it ridiculous to think that a translation is better than the original?

Where did you get this from Dan?

I don't know a single Christian who backs the KJV that would ever put it above it's languages it was translated from. I think you are assuming or reading the wrong material, or misunderstanding the material out there. That is just foolish.

You think that Christians in America are just running around aimlessly backing the KJV? Yea, ok, heh.

Let me help you with something here Dan, GOD has HIS hand applied in this every step of the way. The Holy Spirit will have HIS people continue to utilize the King James until GOD has a designated Christian make a new one. It won't be a batch of scholars or learned men from multiple colleges who are not Christians, it will be a single person that changes the course of time here. Individuals have always been what GOD makes dramatic changes with. Always. If you look at the history of the KJV, there were many different individuals that placed great time into bringing this the general public. A Christian was burned at a stake in one episode prior to the King James commissioning.

In the mean time Dan, if you can find a church that is utilizing Lamsa's bible or Murdocks, to go out and win souls for GOD here and abroad, then show me, I would be completely surprised, cause I haven't found any yet. The one bible that has been the workhorse for GOD all these years has been the KJV. All the rest have become "good reading" for folks who want to stuff their minds and their libraries full of them, whilst GOD continues to perfom HIS creative miracles and win souls with the Christians who use the KJV.

I did receive an answer in prayer today about one of the reasons why GOD won't bless the peshitta text, it is missing parts and whole books that are scriptural that GOD wants in there. Someone took them out, which was a no-no for GOD. There's one answer. Everyone says that they were not around at that time, maybe there is another side to this story.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)