Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Errors in the Peshitta OT from the Leiden instittute.
And if people don't want to do that,...then they better start praying that GOD will give them a person that is gifted from HIM to re-write the books again as only GOD is aware of what really was written from the start.
You havn't been paying attention , Dave. Steve Caruso and Paul Younan have both pointed out that The Peshitta contains that so called "idiom" more often than The Old Syriac does. I have also found that out myself.

You can't seem to do anything but upchuck what others have already upchucked. Why is that?

. Trimm is a full blown fraud , as is his so called scholarship. I could prove that Alice in Wonderland is the original New Testament by his methods , and that Saddam Hussein is The Messiah. What is sad is that people accept his statements and are too lazy to learn and study the facts for themselves.

Your words have no weight because they're not even your words. You simply blog quotes from hither and yon, anyone who seems to differ from my viewpoint. Neither you nor they have read the gospels , from Aramaic & Greek, much less translated them, as I have. Before the year is out, I will have translated most of The NT from Aramaic to English. Babe Ruth said, "It ain't braggin if you can do it." So I ain't braggin.

You can blog all the encyclopedias you want. I have already read most of those articles. Most of what is written about The Peshitta NT is simply wrong, Dave. Same applies to The Greek NT primacy.
I have researched it for thousands of hours and written thousands of pages on the subject. I have prayed and I have listened, and God has spoken, and continues to speak.

Greek is on the way out. It became clearer when Mel Gibson's
Quote:The Passion
came out as such a blockbuster, mostly in Aramaic and a little Latin. No English was spoken, yet it outsold everything else !
It may take years for people to wake up, but wake up they will. And when they do, I will be ready to teach them the original Gospel and New Covenant from the Inspired and perfect scriptures.

You say The Peshitta is not the original and inspired text, but I challenge you to show me the original for one chapter of scripture !

Hebrew Matthew is corrupt in both versions. But even if it weren't, where is the original for the other 26 books ?
Old Syriac has two mss. each differing from the other 50% of the time; neither has more than the Gospels; neither one has even all of the Gospels !

And we're supposed to rely on the Guesstament Testament you and Paul trettep conjure up from internet bloggers who slice and dice the readings that their cult doesn't agree with ?

You apparently gave up on Hebrew also. You could have been through an Introductory Grammar by now, if you had put half your blogging energy into studying .

Yeah, I know, you have the Holy Ghost. Some people think He is a shortcut to knowledge and spiritual authority, but He is not a shortcut.
If you are mentally lazy after you claim to have Him, you never met Him in the first place.

The one sure sign that a person has met God is that he/she wants to learn more of Him and His word. I was always reading and studying my Bible
when I first met Him, and I have never stopped for thirty two years since.

Anyone who has The Holy Spirit loves The Holy Book. When I hear people tearing it apart, I know they do not have the Holy Spirit in them. And it makes me very sad, and angry, especially when it comes from one claiming to be a born again Christian.

I could never be so flippant about The Holy Spirit
and the word of God as you and Paul Trettep have been. I really am not interested in how you would edit the Bible and reshape the Godhead, etc.

Anyone who is interested in such things is an idiot
and a fool.
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
You know something Dave, I upset you because I refuse to just accept tradition. Just like Jesus, I refuse to accept those things that just are, and that eats you up more than anything I think.

Moreso, I think it threatens the very fabric you hang onto in these things.

Also, you keep saying that I'm treading upon The Holy Spirit in the process of all this, and also stating this about Paul, I really don't understand where you get that at all from.

You know, it is a total privilege to work with His word. I cherish the ability that he has given me in this regard. I work on the word weekly. It is amazing how He goes about working with someone to fix things that cannot read any language except english. But this part is not up for discussion really, HE will do as HE pleases in this regard.

Believe me, this was not my first choice to do with Him, He wanted me to do it, and He kept showing me all these mistakes in different texts and the problems with people and their assumptions throughout the years. Finally after so many years, I gave in and said that I would do it. It comes down to the heart within a person, not what you can do. His grace is more than sufficient.

Anyways, I think your overstepping yourself here Dave. GOD is going to use who HE wants, and you just have to live with that. Just like the church says, HE is more than able.

I know that you would like to believe that this translation is all that and a bag of chips but it doesn't fool the scholars, nor His church, nor me. I've listened to you guys, I've looked at it, I've payed attention throughout the process of this, and it does not compute. Honestly, it cannot be claimed as an original if at any point it cannot correct those things that are wrong, and at the end of matthew it does not.

But I'm going to far really in this response, I would just stay out of subjects that are directed between two people Dave, it would be easier for you.
Dave (from Diego Garcia, he has never graced us with his last name) wrote:
Quote:And if people don't want to do that,...then they better start praying that GOD will give them a person that is gifted from HIM to re-write the books again as only GOD is aware of what really was written from the start.

Are we to understand, Dave, that someone needs to rewrite the Bible, and that someone might just be you ?

I have heard quite a bit from you over the past three years, but even I am shocked.
Is that what you are suggesting ?

Non plussed,

Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
I know that I can have this implied speech at times, but that was not the case here. I think that you should re-read that statement again and re-evaluate your question Dave.
We have Dave having a dispute with Dave, it is all very confusing.

Here's what I think of this mess:

Blogger Dave is trying to dispute the Aramaic NT primacy with how that would collide with christian dogma. The point is that - maybe christian dogma is based on interpretations of a false text!

I ask Blogger Dave: (and please read carefully, because it is obvious that you did not read my initial post here - which was related with the Leiden institute and their website)

Is'nt it obvious that Jesus spoke Aramaic:

Mark 15:34 ???And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me???? The same account is found Matthew 27:46

And if this is true, then is it at least possible that at least some of the new testament books were penned in Aramaic?

And I ask the other Dave - the non-blogger: Is it at least possible that some of the New testament texts were penned in Greek? For example: In the Peshitta NT, in one of the passeges of Jesus's cry on the cross, the translation of the meaning is preserved. Why would you translate the meaning of something if you are writing in that language?
From Blogger Dave:

Hmmmm, you want me to take it outside of your post (which I sorry that it heated up on the other), yet you want me to answer you here?

Well,....have I ever said that none of the books could have been written in syriac/aramaic? I do give preference to the greek as it has a more solid base to stand on.

I do accept the old syriac version as a comparison as it has greek backgrounds, but I never closed the door to one of the letters possibly having a syriac background. I just haven't seen one yet that I could say with certainty, yes this one has the witness to it as being closest to the original.

Also, I'm not sure if it is that text or in another gospel, when Jesus calls out in aramaic, the people do not understand what He says, they make a comment about Him calling Elijah or someone. My question for you is why? If this particular language is as widespread as the folks on here go about saying so, then why did the crowd not understand Him?

Some food for thought there.
That's a good question.

And I will give you a good answer.

let us read the subsequent verses:

As for Mathew 27:46:

27:46 And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

27:47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elijah.

27:48 And straightway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.

27:49 The rest said, Let be. let us see wether Elijah will come to save him.

.....Jesus gives up the ghost

27:54 Now when the Centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him.

As for Mark 15:34:

15:34 And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

15:35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth Elijah.

15:36 And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.

....He gives up the ghost.

15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over againsthim, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Even if Aramaic was the linga franca in the land, the Romans were an occupying power and surely only the top offi8cials were trained in Aramaic to administer the land.

The Romans were near Jesus, and the women were afar off. Those near mistook what he was saying. Those afar off probably could not hear it - and if they could - did not comment upon it. It was clearly the Centurions commenting upon it saying - "Well let's see if Elijah comes to save him"
I agree with your asessment John, as it is witnessed within scripture at various points. With that in mind, I would never go about saying that syriac was the original and only language that the scriptures were handed down to us, nor do I with the greek. As I have said, I give preference to the greek foremost considering the body of evidence available from it.

To claim originality on one text language as the only possible language that The Lord could have used to pass His words down to us is foolish in light of such things as you have just witnessed to us.

So no, I do not rule out the possibilities of finding some of the books in syriac being closer to the original than the greek. I still look all the time. I do find the writings of the epistles of Paul to be very exact in many areas, and would give major consideration to them in that regard, but would still compare those against the greek, greek again having the preference.

I have to look in all areas and in different languages to search for originality and exactness. That would make me a text critic, and I would not be ashamed of that title one bit, as the result is to adhere to that which can be proven by/within scripture, and by/with various historical sources that give light in that regard.
And what of the other Dave,

Is'nt it at least possible that some of the NT was penned in Greek?

Why would, in one of the accounts of the Aramaic cry on the cross, the meaning be translated. If you are writing in Aramaic, why do you need to translate the meaning of the Aramaic sentence that Jesus said?
Apparently Jesus' dialect word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] Ly0 [/font] was not familiar to Mark's Aramaic speaking audience, so he elaborated on the meaning. Mark 15:34.

ograabe Wrote:Apparently Jesus' dialect word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)] Ly0 [/font] was not familiar to Mark's Aramaic speaking audience, so he elaborated on the meaning. Mark 15:34.


That could be one way of looking at it, but it would most likely be considered as conjecture. To be more specific, it does not appear to highlight something that can be determined as a language barrier between dialects of the same language, as your saying here Otto. The translations such as this appear to be to those of the wider intended reader audience, not culture audience.

But let's not derail, the other Dave has yet to answer John.
I don't think you will get much of an answer from Dave in this John.
Shlama John,

Paul Younan has already addressed this many times. Dave Of Diego Garcia would know the answer if he had been paying attention.

Mark was writing to an audience of Aramaeans who spoke a dialect similar to that of Syria and southern Israel.There were very few differences in the spoken and written forms between that and the Galilean dialect of Northern Israel, which our Lord spoke. In this verse, the only difference in the two Aramaic dialects is the word for "My God" :"Ail" in Norhern dialect and "Alahi" in the southern dialect.
All other words in the recorded Aramaic are the same in both dialects.

This Gospel would have been readable in Syria as well as Palestine, and in Asia Minor as well, for all those countries were Aramaic speaking, and the written form of different dialects had far fewer differences that the spoken forms.

Now a question for you, John, (and Dave, who hangs on my every word):

Why does the Greek NT transliterate Aramaic phrases and words into Greek letters and then translate them into Greek seven times in Mark and John and Acts ? Over two hundred times Aramaic words are transliterated into all Greek mss. without translation or comment :
"Satana" (Satan), "Gehenna", "Bar" (Son), "Mammon", "Messiah", "Rabbi", "Beelzebub","Golgotha",Maranatha, "Raca","Belial","Corban",
"Cephas", "Gabbatha".

The Peshitta does not have Greek transliterated into Aramaic, which is what one would expect if Greek were the original for any of the books.Nor does the Aramaic text translate Greek phrases with transliterations like the Greek does Aramaic.

How can these things be, if Greek is the original and Aramaic the translation?

And why in the name of Sam Hill would some books be written in Greek and others in Aramaic ?

You do realize that all books were originally written for Aramaic speaking people, don't you ?
And all the key players in the Gospels and epistles spoke native Aramaic . Asia Minor,Israel, Syria, Assyria,Babylon, Samaria,Pontus,Cappadocia,Arabia,
Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Smyrna, etc. all had Aramaic as their native tongue and or Jews of the diaspora who spoke Aramaic and formed the mother churches for so many cities in the first century.
Even Rome had a Jewish Aramaic speaking group that formed the core of the Christian church. Paul calls them Jews, Romans 1:16, 2:10 , 3:9 ("Jews & Aramaeans") See Peshitta) Romans 1-11 assumes the audience knows the Law of Moses.Greeks would not have known it, neither would Italians.
1 Cor. 1:22-24 also repeats "Jews and Aramaeans". 1 Cor. 10:1 refers to ancient Israel as "our fathers" -"Brethren, I want you to know, our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea".
The Jewish people took their language of Aramaic with them when they were persecuted, from the time of the Babylonian Empire onward.

Greek became necessary for Gentiles of the Roman Empire who did not know Aramaic.Primarily those of Greece and Italy, Spain and France, Egypt, etc. For them , translations were made from the Aramaic. No original NT church Paul wrote to needed a Greek original. "Jews and Aramaeans" knew Aramaic just fine, and would not have been able to read Greek.


Rev. Dave
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
John, I know Dave did not answer your last question, but I bet you can figure out what he thinks. I think it is a case of a similar sort of King James onlyism, but in this case, a different text.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)