Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof
Zardak Wrote:Makes no sense whatsoever to me. It simply says to me that one of the scribes translating from Greek into Aramaic was very familiar with both languages and was careful to use the most obvious Aramaic transliteration for the Aramaic speaking audience. It works in exactly the converse as to why you state it as proof for Aramaic primacy. And the scribe who made that Satana spelling in the Greek was clearly influenced by his familiarity with the Aramaic language and probably a Jew who was well versed in both languages, but for the benefit of the Greek readers who understood Aramaic he slipped in the Satana variant. Hardly a proof of Aramaic primacy...sheesh.

Acts 31:27 is what i would call an overwhelming proof of Greek primacy. So why did the commander ask Paul if he could speak Greek. Because clearly the primary language in Jerusalem even for the Jewish crowd was Greek, and thus Aramaic was their secondary language. How i say, because Paul wanting to emphasize his Jewish heritage to get his point across and win the careful attention and affections of the crowd, then spoke to them in the Hebrew language, and as such (like it says in the verse) they became all the more quiet when they heard him speak to them in the Hebrew language. And logic would conclude that the reason they became all the more quiet was that they were surprised to hear it, and why were they surprised, naturally because as evidenced by their reaction, Greek was the prominent spoken language, as evidenced by the commander assuming Paul would speak Greek to a "primarily" Greek speaking audience, despite the fact they were Jews. Quite simple when you think about it, and actually quite amazing how God made sure it was recorded so that we could know the Greek was the original for anyone who has eyes to see... In fact that point alone is indisputable, and anyone saying otherwise is basically arguing that the sky isn't blue. The info in your opening post can be easily explained away, but my point cannot. Not to mention that Paul addressed a Greek speaking crown at the Areopagus in Athens and thus spoke Greek to them, it would be ludicrous to suggest the Gentiles and Greeks in Athens at that time were speaking Aramaic.

All this backed by the fact that Dr Palin, who tutored Albert Einstein, was a linguistics professor and expert in mathematics and spent 50 years, not a few months or three years, verifying beyond "ALL" doubt the multidimensional manifold mindboggling mathmatical code behind the Hebrew and Greek text, and part of that code involved how the Greek tied in with the Hebrew text "mathematically" you can download it at unleavenedbreadministries... just type "numeric new testament" to make sure you get the right website in Google.

And on top of all that, someone mentioned earlier how the simplest things can prove the bigger thing. Well indeed, why do Greeks speak Greek today, because they have been doing it for the past 2500 years from the same place, thats why, whether Ephesus or Corinth or Colossae, all were speaking Greek as they still do today, and thus another simple proof as to what language Paul wrote to his Greek speaking Gentiles, to whom indeed God sent him.

Additionally, you don't think God was so incompetent as to see to it that all the Christian nations today got a third hand translation from and second hand text do you, the very nations of whom God fulfilled his promise to Jacob and Abraham. Surely scores of western theologians scholars and historians have got more than half a brain in relation to these matters...don't you think?

I've just finished translating the Greek new Testament after seven long hard arduous years, i'm so familiar with the text now its ridiculous, while cross comparing some of the Aramaic it simply doesn't work. And by the Spirit of God "in" me, i know without a shadow of a doubt that the Greek is God's authentic original word, many things in the Greek identify with God's Spirit in me, where the Aramaic falls over.There's a fluency and consistency and substance in the Greek pertaining to spiritual matters that falls over when one ties to translate it to from the Aramaic. Christians aren't "saints by calling" they are "saints who are called"

And how about this, the fact that there are many things alluding to the Aramaic language in the Greek texts and that better articulateness in word differentiation in the Aramaic is achieved, only shows that the writer was often speaking to the readers about Hebrew matters, and that the Greek language struggled to convey such things, and also that the Paul the writer was conveying his spiritual background and culture and language into an inferior receptor language.

All this said, there is no "genuine" proof for Aramaic primacy at all, in fact, quite the contrary.

This is not mean't to be an antagonistic disrespectful reply, i am merely being forthright and stating my case. Godspeed, the grace of yeshua be with you. <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| -->

Shlama Zardak,

i am all for disagreements, for that is how truth is learned (hopefully), but yes a couple phrases looked rather antagonistic and prideful, so just let the Spirit lead you before you type, as fruit like that is not edible for anyone.

concerning your perspective of my proof evidence...

what you're suggesting is that the scribe did something similar to the following scenario:

he wrote in one language to a group of people who supposedly spoke and read the same language (we'll call it G) he was using, but in the middle of his writing, took a word the audience was familiar with (A) and yet rendered it in another language altogether (H).

it would be like me typing this message now in English, knowing that you are familiar with a Greek term, and yet (for some reason) using a word from Hebrew instead that means the same but is pronounced differently.

is that really logical? that method really fits better in your view than what i suggested? if so, then by all means you are welcome to it.

... only, the SATAN variant is the sore thumb in the whole mess. why? because every other instance of SATANA in available Greek manuscripts of the spectrum of NT books reads SATANA - an Aramaic form of the Hebrew SATAN. do you see the implications here?

in the Septuagint, the Greek transliterated the Hebrew SATAN as SATAN. why would they do that? because they were translating from Hebrew.
so when we look at the Greek manuscripts of the NT, and we see that in EVERY instance but one the Greek reads SATANA, which is an Aramaic pronunciation of SATAN, then we must logically conclude that the Greek is doing the SAME THING for the Aramaic as the Septuagint did for the Hebrew: translating via transliterating. otherwise, WHY would Greek-speaking people need an Aramaic pronunciation of the Hebrew title of SATAN? there is no logical explanation here other than to say that the presence of the variant in the Greek texts points to the Aramaic as the source-text. since you can arrive there much easier by route of Aramaic primacy, why not go for that? since you have to squirm around and end up relegating one reading to the bin of NOT INSPIRED (you can choose which one), then why would you want to go for that?

on that subject, as a translator of the Greek NT, i am curious as to which manuscript you used as your source-material. there are so many, so when someone says they have translated the Greek NT i must ask which one. that will help in our discussions very much. in my own translating and studying i peruse the Greek textual apparatus' and as much up-to-date research as i can when comparing verse-by-verse with the Eastern Peshitta, and that is how i come at the Word, just so we're on even grounds.

concerning your "proof" from Acts --- don't you think it could arguably go the other way around from what you've suggested? example: the dominant language in America is English. would it make sense for me to ask you if you spoke English while living in America right now? do you ask people what language they speak before you talk to them? no, you probably don't. so now let's say you are dealing with an Asian man in the heart of "Chinatown" in New York -- would it be relevant to ask if he spoke English? yes, it would. since Mandarin or Cantonese are the dominant languages in those areas, the question would be entirely valid.

given that, consider that 1st century Israel was not a centre of Greek culture. the revivalist movement of the Maccabean revolt has pushed much of the Greek language influence into mainly governmental, economic, and trade areas. history confirms these realities. take note of the Jewish rabbinical perspectives of the day: better to let your child eat pork than to learn Greek.

so when Paul was asked whether he spoke Greek or not, it was because Greek was, as history has shown time and again, not a widespread language in Israel among the common man. we DO know that Aramaic was widely used, and Hebrew was more of a "holy man's" language, so that by speaking Hebrew, Paul made it clear that attention would be paid to what he had to say by the Hebrew leaders in attendance in the crowd. remember that Aramaic was so prevalent that it was read from in the synagogues alongside the Hebrew portions so the congregants could understand exactly what the Hebrew had said. where in history is the Septuagint being read from in the synagogues? see what i mean?

concerning the numerics issue: Panin does have some interesting things to share. no doubt about that. but to be fair, have you ever read any of his critics? are you aware of what text he used in order to arrive at his conclusion that he had found the perfect inspired Word? these are important matters, because this is one man claiming via mathematics that a particular text is the end-all of NT truth. mathematics. an awesome testimony to the power of the Most High, but is that all we have to go on in order to establish primacy? Zardak, there are TONS of examples given on this site, as well as others, which are textual examples that display why one text should be favored over another. mathematics is cool, and yet it cannot be taken as the sole deciding factor -- not when there are much more intricate and amazing examples at hand when the texts are compared. as a translator and student of the Word, i thank our Creator for ALL of the ancient manuscripts in the many languages. the Greek NT is a wonderful thing, and should not be spoken ill of by anybody who seriously loves His Word, but at the same time, neither should the Aramaic be spoken ill of, or the Coptic, or Armenian, etc.. each has its place and has been responsible for being the vehicle by which HIS TRUTH was conveyed to hearts in need of redemption, and for that we should be thankful. but in the midst of all the versions out there, there should be something by which we are able to deduce a source text.
comparison alone is the key.
not mathematics.
not codes.
only textual comparison.

Zardak, God IS competent. nobody here thinks otherwise, but you are IGNORING the Eastern believers whose nations have held and cherished the Aramaic text for 2000 years now. you should look into the amazing history of the Eastern believers, the largest "church" in the world at one point before persecution nearly wiped them off the face of the earth while the Western churches fought over breakdancing angels and pins... so not ALL Christian nations have been given the Greek. please take some time and educate yourself in this matter, as i think it will be a blessing to you in so many ways. modern Western scholars have little to no knowledge of the Eastern side of things. this is not to say that they are ignorant men, but that when it comes to that particular fact of the shared history of the body of Messiah, they ARE ignorant, and in need of education. how can you know your side is right if you haven't ever given the other a fair chance at portraying why they believe what they do?

as for your comment about there being "no genuine proof for Aramaic primacy," i do pray you continue to stick around and educate yourself here with the great aides that are available, with respect given so that it might be received back, as well. i would suggest taking a good long look at the polysemy topic. there are some amazing things there, as with other variant resolutions.

Chayim b'Moshiach,

Messages In This Thread
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-10-2012, 03:52 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Burning one - 01-11-2012, 04:01 AM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-11-2012, 10:42 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-12-2012, 01:29 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-13-2012, 09:55 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-14-2012, 07:31 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-15-2012, 07:23 AM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Zardak - 01-16-2012, 01:14 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)