Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thought that'll get your guys attention! This is a title of an online book I came across, you can fine it here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

It's primarily, as they say:

Quote:A refutation of the baseless claim made by Sacred Name Movement teachers of an original Hebrew New Testament.

Peshitta primacy is not directly attacked though it is included. The book is absolutely ridiculous <!-- sConfusedtupid: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/withstupid.gif" alt="Confusedtupid:" title="Stupid" /><!-- sConfusedtupid: --> , you'll have a good laugh <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->

Here's some examples:

Quote:...In this study, we have refused to take the word of secular writers, historians, and bible scholars for the original language. If knowing the New Testament's original language is important, we can find out about it from the book itself. If it is something God wants us to know, he will have revealed it in the scriptures.

Are we able to find out what the original language was by simply studying the Bible? Indeed we are; and we shall...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Quote:...The first example is the word "Barnabas," which of course, is an Aramaic name. This was almost certain that this was the native language spoken by Jesus, the Apostles, and most other Jews who lived in the area around Jerusalem.

In Aramaic,8 Bar indicates son and son of. Any one who understood even the rudiments of Aramaic, would have known this. Luke sees a necessity to translate Bar-nabas into Greek. In this way, he makes it obvious to us that Theophilus understood no Aramaic...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

The problem is the only source they're using on which to base their argument is the Greek NT, as demonstrated here:

Quote:...Can't the same be said of Jesus? He is honest. He is the faithful and true witness. We can believe what he says. If Jesus says it is so, it is so. Jesus said he was the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending...
I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end...
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end...

Revelation 1:8, 11 & 21:6 & 22:13

When Jesus said of himself, "I am Alpha and Omega," he was speaking Greek. Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet. Omega is the last. He uses these Greek letters to make his point. "I am the first and the last." "I am the beginning and the end." He graphically illustrates his point with this figure of speech.

If Jesus said these words, then the New Testament was written in Greek. Conversely, if the New Testament was not written in Greek, then Jesus did not say these words, he is not the Alpha and the Omega, and we cannot trust him to be exactly who he says he is. It is best if we trust Jesus. He is Alpha and Omega...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Anyone wanna send this unfortunate soul Steve Caruso's "Alap-Tau" diagram?

Haven't read it all yet, I got as far as the above quote, and could see right away that we're dealing with an amateur. Have fan...
Thanks for the chuckle, Christina, this made my morning.

I especially liked the "bar-naba" example, I guess we Aramaic primacists were too dumb to realize that "bar" means son. I guess it's totally unreasonable to assume that the Greek translator would have included the gloss that is absent, incidentally, in the Aramaic version.
June 2, 2008

Dear Paul,

There is a defining gloss in both Greek and Aramaic of Acts 4:36.

What do you mean, the gloss is absent?

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]00ywbd[/font] of comfort [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rb[/font] son [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Mgrttmd[/font] which is interpreted [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0xyl4[/font] the apostles [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nm[/font] By [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0bnrb[/font] Bar-Naba

Sorry for resurrecting such an old thread; but it's rather short anyways.

It would appear that the interpretation of the name Bar-nava is given here to clarify what is meant by [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0bn[/font], since its root may not be immediately apparent, that is [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0yb[/font] [b'ya] (derived to [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]00ywb[/font]) as opposed to [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0bn[/font] [n'va].

Clearly, if writing originating from Aramaic, he could have easily left out the "interpretation" of [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]rb[/font] [bar] as [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]0rb[/font] [b'ra] (as opposed to the given, fully-qualified reading), but perhaps it was included for simplicity, completeness, or a smoother reading.

Anyone have thoughts or insights on this one?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)