Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Greek primacists favoring certain anciet texts
#46
Shlama Akhi Rob,

Rob Wrote:The Calvinistic belief in God preserving his word coincides with the belief that he will intervene on large scales in order to do so. The issue then is not whether or not the Peshitta had a time of prominance, but rather that in the end the Western traditions dominated.

The issue is that the Peshitta dominated MOST of the time, and we are not at the "end" in order for us to declare victory for the Western Traditions....we don't know what the next 1,000 years hold for Christianity and it may very well be an Aramaic-dominated millenium....just like the first one and three centuries of the second one were.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#47
Shlama Akhi Rob,

Rob Wrote:Living in Gentile culture one would imagine that they spoke the local language, but likewise no early congregation was comprised of completely jews, otherwise Paul would not have been concerned with the Galatian church practicing Jewish customs while not being concerned with the Jerusalem church. Why else was he called the apostle to the Gentiles?


I, along with about 100,000 other Semites who attend the congregations of Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. speak two languages.....and in my particular congregation we have Whites, Blacks, Filipinos and Hispanics.....and we not only receive church communication (in all forms including "epistles") in Aramaic, but they are read in Aramaic first at the pulpit and then translated orally, then finally in written form.

Sorry - but this is happening even today. You can't convince me that it didn't happen in the 1st-century, when it was even more necessary considering there was less media and technology available to help with translating it.

Besides, your logic makes no sense for Paul's epistle to the Romans - unless we are to believe that your Greek version is a translation from a Latin original?

Just how many languages was Paul able to write in effectively? Based on your geographical argument, we should expect that Paul wrote the book of Romans in Latin!

And what did the churches in Corinth and Rome have in common? - you guessed it, they were all started and led by Jews whose native language was Aramaic.

As for your comment about Gentiles - yes, there were Greek-only-speaking Gentiles in the churches he addressed. You also have to keep in mind that there is such a thing as an Aramaic-speaking Gentile. You are reading his words. And he lives in the West, too. And his predecessors lived in the same cities that those Jews who Paul wrote to lived. It's not as if the Jews were the only Semites who travelled to, or lived in, Corinth. There were Aramaic-speaking non-Jewish Gentiles in Rome, too. Read up on Tatian, while we are on the topic of the Diatesseron.

Was he not an Assyrian? Oh no! An Aramaic-speaking Gentile in Rome, and Paul was called to the Gentiles!

What a mess! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#48
Akhi Rob,

Both Josephus and Tatian were citizens of Rome, and lived in Rome. And both of them wrote the works by which they are famous....the "Antiquities" by Josephus and of course the "Diatesseron" by Tatian.....in the ARAMAIC language, while LIVING in ROME.

Have you ever asked yourself why it is such an impossible idea that Paul, like both Josephus (an Aramaic-speaking and writing Jew) and Tatian (an Aramaic-speaking and writing Assyrian), wrote in Aramaic while in "western" cities?

Have you ever asked yourself exactly how is it that Tatian, while writing in Rome, compiled a Gospel Harmony in ARAMAIC? What type of Gospels was he compiling in Aramaic.....if not ARAMAIC Gospels?

Have you ever asked yourself why only Greek manuscripts of both the "Antiquities" and the "Diatesseron" survive, but no Aramaic manuscripts? Isn't that an interesting parellel to what happened to the Aramaic NT in Europe *after* it was translated into Greek....discarded just like the original Aramaic "Antiquities" and the original Aramaic "Diatesseron"?

Things that make you go hmmmm.....
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#49
by the way PAul I wanted to take the time to say this... WELCOME BACK! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Rob,

Rob Wrote:The Calvinistic belief in God preserving his word coincides with the belief that he will intervene on large scales in order to do so. The issue then is not whether or not the Peshitta had a time of prominance, but rather that in the end the Western traditions dominated.

The issue is that the Peshitta dominated MOST of the time, and we are not at the "end" in order for us to declare victory for the Western Traditions....we don't know what the next 1,000 years hold for Christianity and it may very well be an Aramaic-dominated millenium....just like the first one and three centuries of the second one were.


I would also add this. This comes more from my apologetics background in Orthodoxy. By the same notion, that the Calvinist guy talked about God's notion of soverightny etc. you can of course turn that around.


You know God promises to not leave or abandon the Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it etc. Anyway to believe that the Church of the East really got it wrong when it comes to the scriptures likewise would go against this. Needless to say, we shouldn't be looking at just the most recent centuries of history, all of history actually applies. To discount that is to discount God's promise to never leave or forsake the Church. And from what I can tell God has kept his promise, but done so in a more "round about way" that doesn't fit many folk's paradigms. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


Anyway I believe that God uses the scriptures and guides the entire world Church in general. However that is not say that their are not problems both in how the Church conducts itself, or in some of the fine points of the literal scriptures that have been passed on. As an Oriental Orthodox I believe that what we need things like Church Tradition etc. to help us with that. So the idea, that their might be a few glitches in the Greek Bible wouldn't be contray to that. Because unlike Protestants I would be loathe to read volumes into one word, or passage but would be likely to interpet things in light of how Christians interpretted passages of the Bible down through the centuries.


Anyway I come here because I do debate theology. Especially Early church theology, Holy Tradition, etc. and I really think original context is so very important. Which is why I come here and read things like LAmsa etc. Because I think in many ways Western Christianity has gotten out of touch with Semitic mindset and culture out of which the Bible spang.


You know I can tell so many stories as a former Protestant that people base major epistological decisions and ideas on the fine points of Greek syntax. Basically the exact punctuation that appears on the page. And well after you study it out, and learn more. You realize how wrong you were for thinking that way. But many people, not only believe that the Bible was first written in Greek. But they believe that the apostles were even actually speaking and thinking in Greek as well, in terms of how strict and how much they read into any apparent Greek nuance etc.


Anyway now years later I realize how foolish this is. But for many people this is the norm. Instead of the saying of St. Irenaus, "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" Many people actually act as if Jesus was born in Athens... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
Reply
#50
Hmmmmm,.... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


Some very good points!

I get some time later I'll post some thoughts on some things The Lord has been showing me. Can the monolinguist, born-again Christian have an impact? News at ten.
Reply
#51
By the way I wanted to say before I went to bed...


Somebody said that he didn't think there were any important differences between the Peshitta verses the ones in the Greek bible. I disagree. While there aren't any or many that would pertain to really all important issues like Salvation I can name a few. And show their impact. Which is what I will do before I go to bed.


1) the camel through the eye of the needle vs. the rope

You know the Greek Bible has been interpretted that salvation for the rich is impossible etc. the peshitta actually illustrates the importance of the willingness to sacrifice ones wealth (as long with other potential idols) for the good of the Gospel. Basically we need to allow our hearts to be circumcised, and cut away our earthy ties. "Not look backward", as the scripture says.


2) "My God my God why have you forsaken me" I've heard sermons preached on that which realy do preach a Nestorian message. Basically suggesting that God's divinity was split from his humanity. They suggest that Jesus was in a moment of doubt. Not only that I've heard some suggest that at that time "the sins of the world were put upon Jesus and the sight were so horrifying it caused God to look away"


3) the 4fold ministry vs. the 5 fold ministry

as a Charismatic I heard sermons about God restoring the "Five fold ministry" spoken of in Ephesians chapter 4, you know prophets, apostles, teachers, evangelists, and pastors.


And at that time we believe that God "was restoring the gift of the apostles and prophets". Anyway when I went to Fuller theological seminary one of my texts covered that passage. And it came up with a "four fold" ministry. And it taught this because in the Greek teacher and pastor were essentially run together as a kind of a conjoined word. that says basically "teacher-shepherd". Anyway this reasoning was based upon a precise handling of the text.


And believe it or not it had a great epistolgical impact. So for instance, charimatics were fond of having traveling teachers who taught the bible and maybe did a few "miracles" or other charismata but didn't want to deal with any pastoral care type issues. Anyway if you see this as being joined it should negate this attitude. Because it would insinuate that both things are meant to function together.


And so I found myself after taking Greek and reading this book endorsing this new viewpoint. And I really spoke out against the way other charismatics taught and did things on this issue.

Then low and behold, I hear about the PEshitta. And I loom this verse up, and to my dismay. I find the Aramaic seems to agree with what the Charismatic mainstream says! It is indeed a five fold ministry. But rather than teaching this "by revelation", rather the context is that this is the what the origianl Aramaic says on the issue.


So at this point I had to really recognize that the western scholastic way of relating to the Bible. the way I thought would protect me from some of the goofy things going on in the Charismatic movement was flawed. We teach people to treat the Greek in an exact way. And we teach people what a wonderful exact language it is, but really its all a myth. I like to compare it to making a recording off a CD. Like those first CD recordings where they transfered a record album to a CD, before all the noise reduction technology got started. Back at that time, you heard everything on those CDs that came from the record, Including the record, his and the pops and hiss.


Anyway there some things that don't carry over to well when the Bible went over from Aramaic into Greek. but the way we teach seminary students. Protestant ones that is. We teach them to find meaning in everything. Including those hissing and pop sounds. And many people think those sounds infact came from the original apostles, and they are asking themselves "What does the apostle PAul mean he says pop, what does jesus mean when he says crackle". And they are infact coming up with pop and crackle doctines rather than thinking in their mind "I wonder if this could be noise, maybe we should be careful how we handle this".
Reply
#52
And here's a few more taken from an Aramaic priamcy thread on another board. LAmsas quotes. It hink you can probably spot some important differences in the Aramaic translation than KJV.


And now back to the Bible discrepancies....


KJV
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"

Peshitta
"And do not let us enter into Temptation, but deliver us from evil...


Isaia 10:27 KJV "And the yoke shall be destroyed because of the annointing (a frequent verse cited by charismatics, who use it as a proof text that the "annointring", which they attributed as God's power, etc. will blast illnesses, etc. right off you, if you can just get enough of it).

Peshitta
"And the yoke shall be destroyed from your neck because of your strength..."

(Addai note - I persoanlly as a former non denominational Charismatic , can testify to the importance of the dfference in these two scriptures. Rather than blast our problems for us I find that God rather helps us to outgrow, or overcome our problems with maturity, strength coming from working through them etc. which of course is the implication of the Aramaic text of this passage.
Reply
#53
addai

on Simon Peter being "the rock". Well LAmsa is a bit wordy so I'm going to give my idiomatic rendition of Aramaic idiom of that famous passage that Rome uses to support apostolic succesion.

Kepa the word for rock was often used as slang for a dense or stupid person. We can think of English equivaelents things like "Blockhead", the German insult of Dumbkompf, etc.

The Aramaic take on Peter being the "rock that the Church is built upon", is simply this. Christ acknowedges that Peter often is densed (but well intended, and no doubt teased by his peers), but he points out that the Kingdom of God is a Kingdom of Grace, and thus someone who many would look down upon can not only see one of the foundational truths that God is Kingdom is built upon (which the hard hearted educated could not see), but actually can play a very prominent role in establishing God's Church on earth. Because God has chosen the foolosh things to confound the wise, he gives grace to the humble, etc.

The rock however that the Church is built upon is Peter's unexpected confession of faith (foundational for all the coming creeds and the Gospel message) and not him literally. I think I recall a literal rendition of the passage is sopmething like Simon you are (kepa - small stone) but upon this capstone (the profession of faith he just got done making) I will build my Church. In this case Jesus was making a bit of a pun like joke to teach a spiirtual truth.
Reply
#54
"""But I say unto you, That whoever is angry with his brother without a cuase shall be in danger of the judgement: and whoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be guilty to the council, and whosever shall say, Thou effeminate one, shall be doomed to hell fire." Mt5:22 literal (translation from Aramaic)



The term Raca, which is usually left untranslated, in a Greek or English translation Bible literally refers to "spit in one's face".

Addais take on it
It really describes not just the action, but also the attitude of contempt that goes alongside it (more importantsly). In some translations, I think KJV I've seen it translated as "fool". But that isn't such a good translation. If you look in Psalms and Proverbs their is alot of admonishment against fools, foolish actions, acting without knowedge, acting rashly etc. So trying to imply this as a rebuke to those who want to admonish or rebuke others who behave foolishly isn't really consistent with the Bible.

What is consistent is the admonisment of contempt. All people are "Created in the Divine Image of God", they were created to have communion with Him". In Orthodoxy we like to say that God created humans to be living icons to reflect or bare his glory to the World. That really is God intent for us and the rest of humanity. By reviling others however we work directlya gainst this (actually ally ourselves with Satan and his efforts to damn and pull people down). It is written, in various places that if we show contempt for the poor (and others) we show contemp for God himself who made them. It is probably also for this reason that when Jesus asked what is this Great of the commandments he answers first of all Love for God, but immediately pairs it with love for our fellow humans. Because their is a link their. We cannot truly claim to love God who we cannot see with our naked eyes (which requires more faith, and is presumably more difficult), when we mis-treat those who stand before us.
Reply
#55
Anyway I can name others as well.


There a number of passages where Jesus seems rude, or bizzare. saying things like "let the dead mbury their dead", "you must hate you father and mother etc." And you know people get some distorted views of Jesus not to mention they sometimes think their is a Biblical basis for rudeness other than what might be necessary correcting obvious error.


I also see people have other false impressions of Jesus. I remember one Charismatic preaching a sermon, actually Rick Joyner. And he was taking about preaching. And how often soemthing thats truely spiritual will not fit the ideal pattern of what they teach you in seminary. Any way he mentioned "have you looked at the sermon on the mount? That is the most disjointed group of ideas ever! Apparently somone did not tell Jesus about the rules of homilectics".


Anyway that statement really shows an asopect of the error of observation. Joiner assumes that they way the English translation reads closely mirrors what Jesus actually spoke.

Anyway as Paul Younan and other pointed out this is false. What seems disjointed prose actually is not. The Beatitudes, the Lord's prayer etc. actually are quite poetic. They have rhyme and meter, and symmetry but we cannot appreciate this unless we read them in the Aramaic. So what is actually quite beautiful in the minds of the occidental seems "disjointed" and disorganized thinking.


Anyway in listing these various scriptures and how people have interpretted, and their importance in our world view, I hope you can begin to understand the importance of the PEshitta and PEshitto in understanding both Jesus and the apostles and the early church.
Reply
#56
Some nice teaching ooze! Thanks <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Onto the subject here,...

What is the normal born-again Christian to do with the arguments? With all the history written from before between the east and west, the language differences, the grammar, ect? How can one of GOD's children know? It's hard really. Everyday a new Christian looks up and asks GOD what particular bible HE wants this person to use.

On here, the peshitta is promoted. To fully grasp the grammatical style and rhyme, one has to learn the language. It's the only way to get a full portion of just what the peshitta offers. What about the young Christian who just received the gift of life and is now starting his/her walk and education with GOD? How does this person make a choice as to what bible they should use? Is it a pre-requisite to learn the language? Could be, could not be.

The history aspect of this seems to be flawed in both camps. Both sides state their claims as to originality but this turns into an argument quickly. So again, how does the Christian choose?

There are some things that can be looked for that will help identify originality, at least to some degree. Correct grammar is one of them. Here the aramaic shows itself to be superior in this regard. There are too many passages to list here that the aramaic proves itself to correct the greek and enhance the reading. But, is the peshitta the original aramaic text so many say that it is?

If the peshitta is the original text, as the promoters state, then nothing will show itself to be superior to it. The promoters of the peshitta claim that the whole text is superior, not just the gospels, the whole thing mind you! Interesting and bold!

Is this text foolproof? Is this really a copy handed down from the apostles to us? Is this statement really true? What do we use to test this? How does one identify the true Holy Spirit inspiration?

One of the areas of NT writings that was actually documented as being written in one of the semitic languages was Matthew. It was stated as being written in hebrew by the 1st century church fathers, but on here that is promoted as meaning the hebrew language, which could mean aramaic. This has some possible truth to it as aramaic was the normal day to day language and hebrew was saved for special items of interest, such as religious texts, etc.

Recently, James Trimm has collated all the hebrew texts of matthew available and presented them to the public. These texts had laid dormant for years, untranslated and unavailable to the general public where GOD's people could make an educated guess for themselves. Trimm's desire behind this was for a critical test in his "hebraic roots version" bible he was assembling.

The matthew texts are not that old, around 12th century or so. This very fact is used to disregard the texts as unworthy, and unoriginal by many within the aramaic camps. Certainly, the greek camps are not going to agree to this sort of boost to the semitic style and prose for a "hebraic roots version" so they denouce it also.

One of the readings that sparked my interest in this was at the end of Matthew 1:20 "for from The Holy Spirit hath she conceived." This is not in the greek and aramaic texts, nor of any that I have found yet. But, this is a sound reading. Does this portion of text disagree with the context and the surrounding text? No, it enhances. Does it "confuse" the surrounding text or is it able to be easily identified as an interpolation by a non-christian source? Again, no.

Is this a superior reading? Well, let's compare against the other translations. Here are all the most utilized greek and peshitta sources nomally available over the years to the general public:

Quote:20 (AV) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
20 (LAMSA) While he was considering this, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said to him, O, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take your wife Mary, because he that is to be born of her is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (NKJV) But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (RSV) But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;
20 (YLT) And on his thinking of these things, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, ???Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten is of the Holy Spirit,
20 (Douay) But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
20 (DBY) but while he pondered on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take to thee Mary, thy wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (BBE) But when he was giving thought to these things, an angel of the Lord came to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, have no fear of taking Mary as your wife; because that which is in her body is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (CALBIBL)
20 (ASV) But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (KJ21) But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
20 (JPS)
20 (LXXE)
20 (MURDOCH) And while he contemplated these things, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said to him: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her, is from the Holy Spirit:
20 (Philips) But while he was turning the matter over in his mind an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife! What she has conceived is conceived through the Holy Spirit,
20 (Rotherham) But, when, these things, he had pondered, lo! a messenger of the Lord, by dream, appeared to him, saying, ???Joseph, son of David! do not fear to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for, that which, in her, hath been begotten, is of the, Holy, Spirit.
20 (WEY) But while he was contemplating this step, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to bring home your wife Mary, for she is with child through the Holy Spirit.

Most of these translations are greek. Lamsa's and Murdocks translations are from the peshitto version with reference to the peshitta. What do we find? That section was removed from the manuscripts. Is this true? Let's look at this again:

And whilst he thought upon this, the angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: "Joseph, son of David, fear not to take thy wife Mary, for that which shall be born of her is from The Holy Spirit, for by The Holy Spirit hath she conceived."

The angel is speaking in a very clear, concise, commanding way and that particular portion finishes his sentence structure, and explains how this has happened to Mary, for Joseph.

Is this a superior reading? Well, let's not say quite yet. Things are to be established by 2 or 3 witnesses so let's see if I can find another area of question.

Let's look at Matthew 3:11:

"I am immersing you in water to repentence, and he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry, and he will immerse you with the fire of The Holy Spirit."

Ahhh, what is this? In the peshitta and greek translations, the fire and The Holy Spirit are separated as two different specific things, not something of The Holy Spirit Himself. Let's look:

Quote:11 (AV) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
11 (LAMSA) I am only baptizing you with water for repentance; but he who is coming after me is greater than I, one whose shoes I am not worthy to remove; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
11 (NKJV) "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
11 (RSV) "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
11 (YLT) ???I indeed do baptize you with water to reformation, but he who after me is coming is mightier than I, of whom I am not worthy to bear the sandals, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire,
11 (Douay) I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.
11 (DBY) *I* indeed baptise you with water to repentance, but he that comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not fit to bear; *he* shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire;
11 (BBE) Truly, I give baptism with water to those of you whose hearts are changed; but he who comes after me is greater than I, whose shoes I am not good enough to take up: he will give you baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire:
11 (CALBIBL)
11 (ASV) I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:
11 (KJ21) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
11 (JPS)
11 (LXXE)
11 (MURDOCH) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is more powerful than I; whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
11 (Philips) It is true that I baptise you with water as a sign of your repentance, but the one who follows me is far stronger than I am???indeed, I am not fit to carry his shoes. He will baptise you with the fire of the Holy Spirit.
11 (Rotherham) I, indeed, am immersing you, in water, unto repentance, ???but, he who, after me, cometh is, mightier than I, whose, sandals, I am not worthy to bear, he, will immerse you, in Holy Spirit and fire:
11 (WEY) I indeed am baptizing you in water on a profession of repentance; but He who is coming after me is mightier than I: His sandals I am not worthy to carry for a moment; He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.

Interesting huh? Every single one of them made this mistake, including the peshitta/o.

This section was particularly important here for any born-again Christian because it cleared up a doctrinal issue that GOD was teaching within HIS church. The shadow of things to come from the OT was being unveiled by GOD. The example and path was described by John, the doer of the work here would be The Holy Spirit given by the High Priest to be. The believers cleansing and final commissioning as a son and daughter of GOD was by a cleansing fire of The Holy Spirit. The other translations cause confusion in this regard since they make the action of the cleansing fire of The Holy Spirit something different than what it is. "and with fire" distinguishes this as something different "aside" from The Holy Spirits work to be.

Does the peshitta/o and greek translations confuse in this particular area of scripture? Yes they do in this particular area by not showing this is a direct act of our High Priest Jesus through the agency of The Holy Spirit for the born-again believer.

Is this a superior reading from these Hebrew manuscripts? Yes it is! There is no discernable confusion in this reading to anyone except the unregenerate. This also, was not an interpolation from an outside source that would misdirect a Christian in his/her understanding, thought and overall path in righteousness.

So there you have it. 2 witnesses of superior readings from a superior source other than the peshitta. What was the source for the peshitta in this particular manuscript? Who knows, but it agrees with the greek, or the greek agrees with it, either way they are mirror translations or copies from another source other than what the 1st century church fathers wrote about, and have been held up to everyone over the centuries by the eastern church as being originals from the apostles. This brings certain claims into question from both camps doesn't it?

At this point, for the "monolinguist" that is unschooled in the different languages associated with such things, the individual/s, IE Christian/s, are basically denounced as foolish within both camps and made out to be touching on areas that are not permitted by them. In the linguists eyes (both camps mind you), the unlearned contains no real voice in these matters, and it has been that way for years.

What could GOD teach through an unschooled, untrained, english speaking bloke that has never put in the time to rightfully understand the "original" languages, huh? It can even get into the culturalistic side of things from various hebraic roots promoters and the particular pride associated with those endeavors.

But there you go.

I ought to turn this into a book.
Reply
#57
Shlama Akhi Dave,

The evidence you give is arbitrary and unreliable, and let me explain why:

Your approach involves two critical errors in textual study:

(1) You fail for either example to show *how* the mistranslation from Hebrew happened....I mean to give a detailed explanation behind the grammatics of how the error occured....therefore,

(2) The reasoning behind your argument is arbitrarily reflecting a reading preferred by yourself.

That is, of course, begging the question.

When I give examples, I am very careful to be very very specific about what exactly happened, grammatically speaking. I make a case about what mistake happened, exactly.

You need to do the same here if you want to show a mistranslation on the Aramaic side, from either Greek or from Hebrew.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#58
[quote="Dave"]Some nice teaching ooze! Thanks <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


Your welcome! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->


You know I think I gave up on the idea of a perfect text. As a matter of faith I beleive that the Gospels in their origianl form were perfect. But I don't think we have an absolute perfect text out there. the reasoning behind this is basically concerning the infallibility of humans. The reason is simply this, if being a Protestant you might cough at that the thought of Papal Infallibiity, then likewise you should also have a problem with scribal infallibility when it comes to copying and translating as well. As a former student, researcher I know even trying to be as accurate and professional as you can be, you still make mistakes. Not to mention you have to make some decisions, like which way to render a word, kind of based upon your set of information, and what "it looks like the author is trying to say". And if you have a restricted or limiited set of information that simply is going to skew your work a bit.


So anyway I beleive that God has pererved the basic message of the Gospel really in all of the transaltions. The problem really is in theology. Or better yet, I would put it "in hair splitting theology". Where people are going to make all kinds of interprettations based, upon just one passage, or one word, or even a punctutation mark.


that is kind of where we get into problems. I think the passage "About seeing through the Glass darkly" applies to some areas of theology. It's hard to udnerstand it. I do think things like Peshitta, East Syrian customs, Jewish traditions etc. are a helpful tool to making the Bible more clear at least in some areas.


Persoanlly one verse that gives me problems is the verse about Christ casting the demons out of Legion. You know the Greek says the demons went inside the pigs. While the Aramaic, says Legion at least according to LAmsa attacked the pigs. then in the next scene in the next verse, Legion is all better. He somehow lost the demons.


You know if you look at the verse there is some implications that they went inside the pigs, and I understand that is a minority meaning of the Aramaic word.


Anyway the story seems to be easier to understand and explain at least for me in the Greek version. I don't think the Greek is att odds with the Aramaic. But they seemed to pick a word or an interpretation that seemed to make the most sense or was the most plausable and went with it.


And of course you have some other things like the term agape. As they say here love is love in Aramaic there is no brotherly love vs. sacrifical love in Aramaic unlike greek. And people here also point the way the two loves are often used interchageabley.


But that isn't to say when the word Agape was chosen over the popular term Eros in the Greek that there wasn't any kind of a message there. I think, the early Chrisitans were making a statement that Chrisitan love should pure, sacrificial and not more paganized as far as being based around beauty, the love of pleasure etc. And I think that is a good message, and is vey true.


So anyway I don't see this as arriving at a perfect answer. But simply an attempt to try put things in a better, more accurate, context. And I think that kind of is what being a "Berean", or a disciple is all about. You don't ever exactly arrive, well at least not as you are on this Earth. But you basically are always having "to study to show yourself approved".
Reply
#59
Wowwwww, ??ber long stuff! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> I'll have to finish later.

Quote:Well I actually see that as circular reasoning.
? I don't really understand. I'm saying that my faith in God preserving his word is throughout all time in all circumstances, not just up to a certain extent.

Quote:It is useless to discuss theories and idealogies of what God should have done, or what Calvinists and the Jesus Seminar says.
Well of course the Jesus Seminar doesn't really matter, but me being a Calvinist is a theological deciding factor for myself, and I believe, a biblical one.

Quote:Why don't you address, for starters, Acts 2:24 and explain how that could NOT have come from an Aramiac written source ...

And after you addressed Acts 2:24 - why don't you bring up a similiar example in reverse? A Greek word that has two meanings, which the Peshitta translator obviously screwed up. It happens all the time in versions we know came from the Greek. Articles have been written about the errors in the Vulgate, Coptic versions, etc.
I'm looking at it in bibleworks right now side by side with the Peshitta and I am not seeing any split words. Likewise I havn't seen any substantiative split words yet. The split word could just as easily be a theological preference of the reader, and could misconstrue the essence of the point the author intended to give. The "Die for a Righteous Man" split word found in Romans 5:7, I think is speculation. Paul doesn't have the obligation to contrast opposites.

Quote:Why do we not hear about any errors in the Peshitta?
Loan words are errors, unless they have a specific cultural designation. Try the Peshitta word for "law": Namusa, which is a cognate of the Greek word Nomos. Yet the Targums use 'tyrw' for law. This is a very basic liturgical word, not something a Jew would have mistranslated unless it were written from Greek.
Reply
#60
Dan, 'Yeshu' is a devious Rabbinic acronym for "May his name be blotted out" found in the Talmud and unfortunately, in Modern Israeli vocabulary.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)