09-09-2008, 03:48 PM
Thank-you all for your replies and posts. I have spent approx. the last hour or so reading and digesting them. I would like to respond to some of them. Much of this thread deals with the W-5 and my hang up with them. I will just say I guess that a quote apparantly made by George Lamsa stamped a big impression on my mind. When you stamp something it is not easy to get it off. Well, I think George Lamsa made this statement when he came to America:" There is not one letter in the New Testament that was originally written in Greek." This is my paraphrase of Lamsa's quote and again, I am just saying that it placed an imprint on my mind. Whatever were the exact quotes by Mr. Lamsa the intent and goal of what he was saying could not be mistaken. It was that not one letter in the New Testament was penned in Greek but they were all penned in Aramaic. That was one of the launching pads and premesis I started with. To an evangelical Christian in the West that means he was saying something akin to -
" all 27 books of the New Testament were originally penned in Aramaic and, further, we have indisputable and overwhelming evidence to support this." Again, this is the "engraving" that was placed on my mind. I have to admit I did not follow through to make sure George Lamsa really said this. It was just a quote I believe that Paul attributed to Mr. Lamsa when he came to hte United States and found that all of Western Biblical scholarship used the Greek text as the original language of the New Testament. I don't know exactly where this quote is on the web-site. Just try to understand from what ground I began this journey.
The subject of "varying degrees of authority or importance of Scripture" was also brought up. I would just say, Scripture itself does not make any kind of distinction here from what I see. When we see how Scripture views itself and when Scripture talks about the Scriptures I don't see that there is any kind of "rank" (1st degree Scripture, 2nd degree Scripture, . . .) breakdown. Scripture is all treated as Scripture when we only look through what the Scripture says a bout Scripture.
Doug asked me a question a few replies back: "I believe most of the regulars here agree that the 22 books of the Peshitta represent Aramaic originals of those books. Do you agree with them?" My immediate response would be yes. But underneath this answer there are varying levels of doubt. I can not answer this with a bold "YES'' and "AMEN." I find Aramaic Primacy whether of the 27 books New Testament canon or the 22 book canon to be with some "dilemnas" or problems.
I now stand corrected of Mr. Lataster's name. From now on I will do my best to refer to him as Raphael Lataster.
Now, this thing about Revelation and it posing some problems for Aramaic Primacy. Just let me say that we, not having an underlying Aramaic copy(original), for me, is not a huge problem if there is enough circumstantial evidence to point to an Aramaic letter. Is there enough split word examples in Revelation to cause a Greek Primacist to say, "Enough is enough. I may concede my position."?? Paul consantly says that the case is weak if he does not have an "Aramaic manuscript" as the source for the Greek copy of Revelation. I am not a linguist but to me, if one is to find enough "fingerprint" marks of Aramaic in Revelation the jury could have enough evidence to find a Greek Primacist "guilty" for misinformation. That ios just my position. I plan to look at Revelation some time in the future, G-d willing.
Thank-you. Aloha loves each and everyone
Mike Karoules
" all 27 books of the New Testament were originally penned in Aramaic and, further, we have indisputable and overwhelming evidence to support this." Again, this is the "engraving" that was placed on my mind. I have to admit I did not follow through to make sure George Lamsa really said this. It was just a quote I believe that Paul attributed to Mr. Lamsa when he came to hte United States and found that all of Western Biblical scholarship used the Greek text as the original language of the New Testament. I don't know exactly where this quote is on the web-site. Just try to understand from what ground I began this journey.
The subject of "varying degrees of authority or importance of Scripture" was also brought up. I would just say, Scripture itself does not make any kind of distinction here from what I see. When we see how Scripture views itself and when Scripture talks about the Scriptures I don't see that there is any kind of "rank" (1st degree Scripture, 2nd degree Scripture, . . .) breakdown. Scripture is all treated as Scripture when we only look through what the Scripture says a bout Scripture.
Doug asked me a question a few replies back: "I believe most of the regulars here agree that the 22 books of the Peshitta represent Aramaic originals of those books. Do you agree with them?" My immediate response would be yes. But underneath this answer there are varying levels of doubt. I can not answer this with a bold "YES'' and "AMEN." I find Aramaic Primacy whether of the 27 books New Testament canon or the 22 book canon to be with some "dilemnas" or problems.
I now stand corrected of Mr. Lataster's name. From now on I will do my best to refer to him as Raphael Lataster.
Now, this thing about Revelation and it posing some problems for Aramaic Primacy. Just let me say that we, not having an underlying Aramaic copy(original), for me, is not a huge problem if there is enough circumstantial evidence to point to an Aramaic letter. Is there enough split word examples in Revelation to cause a Greek Primacist to say, "Enough is enough. I may concede my position."?? Paul consantly says that the case is weak if he does not have an "Aramaic manuscript" as the source for the Greek copy of Revelation. I am not a linguist but to me, if one is to find enough "fingerprint" marks of Aramaic in Revelation the jury could have enough evidence to find a Greek Primacist "guilty" for misinformation. That ios just my position. I plan to look at Revelation some time in the future, G-d willing.
Thank-you. Aloha loves each and everyone
Mike Karoules