Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof
#1
Shlama,


i've been wanting to share this for awhile, but i just got finished going through 2nd Corinthians, and so i'll share this gem from 12:7. the Peshitta texts reads:

And so that I was not exalted by the abundance of the visions there was delivered to me a thorn for my flesh, a messenger of Satana, to beat upon me, that I should not be exalted.

the word of interest is SATANA.

going to the Greek side of things, we have a curious variant here:

Greek texts like p46 Aleph* A* B D* F G 0243 1739 etc, contain the reading SATANA.
Greek texts like Ac D2 Byz, etc, contain the reading SATAN.

SATANA is the Aramaic pronunciation, and is found also in many other places in the Greek NT manuscripts, also where the ARamaic reads SATANA. this alone is an evidence for Aramaic primacy, but it gets better...

SATAN is the Hebrew form of the word.

so what the Greek texts have here is a transliteration from Aramaic in some texts, and a transliteration from Hebrew in other texts. if you're a Greek primacist, you have to decide why there is a Hebrew pronunciation variant when SATANA is otherwise common. if you're a Hebrew primacist (for the few who may still be), you have to decide why there is an Aramaic pronunciation in the Greek. both camps will be at a loss for explanation.

BUT.... if you're an Aramaic primacist, you have a really easy and logical explanation for this variant:

the Aramaic SATANA is the emphatic of SATAN, that is, instead of the Hebrew reading of HASATAN, meaning "THE SATAN," Aramaic reads SATANA, meaning "The SATAN." so SATANA is merely the Aramaic cognate of the Hebrew term.

so if a scribe were translating FROM the Aramaic TO the Greek, he comes across this word, sees SATANA, and transliterates it as is = SATANA. but say another scribe comes along, sees the Aramaic SATANA, and knows it is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew, and so transliterates it minus the emphatic = SATAN.

this would make sense for a scribe who might have been more acquainted with the Greek OT, which NEVER used SATANA, but only the transliteration of SATAN, to have transliterated the Aramaic into the Hebrew pronunciation that someone familiar with the LXX would have understood. since the LXX is a translation from the Hebrew, it would only make sense that SATANA is never used in it. thus, SATAN would be the familiar form for Greek readers, and makes sense why a scribe might conceivably choose the more well known transliteration.

the primacy proof is so simple, because BOTH variants can only be explained via Aramaic:

SATANA IS Aramaic, plain and simple
SATAN can be explained via transliterating from Aramaic, which was transliterating from Hebrew

either way, the Greek shows itself to be from the Aramaic. pretty cool how a "Hebrew" variant becomes a proof for Aramaic primacy! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> i'd like to do some checking when i get the time to see if this variant exists at other instances of SATANA in the Greek. this is the first time i've noticed it, though.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#2
Thank you for sharing.
Reply
#3
Akhan Jeremy,

Sometimes the simplest proofs are the best, and this is certainly a nice one!
Reply
#4
The Latin Vulgate also has Satanae. <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: --> Why would the Latin use Aramaic terminology?
Reply
#5
Hi Texas Rat.

The Latin texts often transliterate Graeicised form of Aramaic nouns. Kepha - Kephas - Cephas is an example.

Shamasha
Reply
#6
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:| -->
Reply
#7
Quote: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"

Being a translator of a new English translation of the Greek text (as if we need another) its no wonder you have a bias, Zardak. I understand that completley...after 7 years hard work, it would be painful for you to accept the fact that you had just translated a translation of the Orginal Aramaic Scriptures. Jerome did this with his Latin "Vulgate" translation of the Greek text he used...so don't feel so bad. And though the world does not need another English translation from the Greek text (either one), I'm sure it was rewarding for you, as it is God's Word in the Greek Language, though it be a translation from the Aramaic Text.

Concerning your quote...lets take a walk shall we?

You show me a verse in the Aramaic Text, that "falls over" for you...and I'll take a hard look at it and see if what you say is true. Show me a place in the Aramaic New Testament, that does not identify with God's Spirit.

As to your statement above: "Christians aren't "saints by calling" they are "saints who are called". To which verse are you alluding? Is it this one in 1 Corinthians 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:..." New American Standard Bible"

That is from the NASB translation of the Greek Scriptures. Does it read diferently in the Aramaic Text? We need to be careful not to take a Translation, as if it were what is exactly said in the Source Text...

Here is the Aramaic Source Text to study and see what it says.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyze_verse.php?lang=en&verse=1Corinthians+1:2&source=ubs&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/analyz ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

And here is the Greek break down of the same verse.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://biblos.com/1_corinthians/1-2.htm">http://biblos.com/1_corinthians/1-2.htm</a><!-- m -->

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#8
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,
Jeremy
Reply
#9
Akhay,
I am tired to read your long lectures.
Can you just convey it in short and logic way?

Zardak,
I agree that SATANA might be a borrowed word from Aramaic.
If Paul spoke to Jews in Jerusalem in Jewish, it means that the nation spoke
in Jewish, not in Greek.
The centurion was surprised that a Jew Paul in Jerusalem speaks Greek.
You are welcome to express your Greek primacist opinions, we are here to help you.
I just wonder, if you so hard stand for Greek NT then which of the Greek NTs you prefer since I know all of them are heavy corruptions but Peshitta (Eastern text, not Western) manuscripts all match.

Ivan.
Reply
#10
IPOstapyuk, you might want to consider this, if the centurion "already knew" that Paul spoke Hebrew (which he didn't, because the centurion had only just arrived at the scene, and asked 'who is this man, and what has he done') and if he already knew the rioting Jews spoke Hebrew, then it would be an "extremely stupid question" for him to ask "Can you speak Greek" after Paul had asked "may i speak to the people" The centurions question was in response to Paul asking that question, therefore he was basically saying, "These people speak Greek, do you have the ability to converse in that language?" Subsequently that fact shows that the Greek language was still the primary and prominent language in Jerusalem at that time, just as my Greek friend and historian has told me, the Greeks when they took over, did not allow the Jews to use Hebrew as a language in everyday affairs and public life. And as such also makes more definite the fact that the Greek language was indeed the primary language in the lands of Greece (as if it wouldn't be for Greek people) like Ephesus Galatia Corinth etc which leads again to the fact that Paul would have been writing to those groups in there native language of Greek, thus disproving Aramaic primacy, quite simple really! Paul wasn't writing to converted Hellenist's (or Grecians as the King James puts it/ basically, Jews entrenched in Greek culture and language) why would the Greek empire and their people be speaking Aramaic you have to ask yourself, not only does it make no sense, but historians know this fact, which even laymen like me can ascertain by the beautifully simple observation that the people in those lands still speak Greek today!

The reason those Peshitta texts you mention mostly match is because they never got spread as widely as the Greek texts and that there was far fewer of them, but even then the discrepancies between the two branches of the Peshitta family show what happens when texts start to spread more widely, which happened to the Greek texts. These things are all very explainable my friend.


This bit will be answer for you to IPOstapyuk in relation to your question about what texts I prefer.
Burning one, It doesn't really matter what texts Mr Palin used or what his critics said: He took a base text which they deemed close to perfect, similar to the westcott and Hort text, then took all words and verses in dispute between texts, and then applied the mathematics to the text when the verse or word was either inserted or omitted and thus where able beyond any doubt, to ascertain and subsequently compile a brand new finished 100% correct text. Simply go and download it for your self, some introductory info is also included about it in the introduction. (numeric new testament-unleavenedbreadministries) this is the text i have used to do my translation. It was only released mid last year. The joy of knowing that I have a 100% perfect text in the language originally written by Paul makes me feel so content an elated. Lord Yehawah be praised!
Reply
#11
You are right in saying that Hebrew was not spoken by the Jews, they spoke Aramaic but to say that Greek was the primary language in Palestine is a load of bananas.
Reply
#12
We know why the Western "Peshitto" text differs from the Original Peshitta Text...and Zardak, they are near exact in every place, but for a few verses where the Western Peshitto text was made to conform to the Greek text at a point in time...many years (hundreds) later than the Orginal Aramaic Scriptures (The Eastern Peshitta) was handed to the Bishops of the Church of the East.

Do you feel threatened by The Aramaic Scriptures? I don't. I am very greatful that God has preserved them these nearly 2000 years.

The Church of the East, never recieved any Greek New Testament, only The Aramaic one, from the hands of the Apostles themselves, which is documented to have in some degree, taken place as early as 78 A.D.

I have studied from the Greek Scriptures for 30 years...as well as the Latin. And now, I am very happy to have found The Aramaic Scriptures the last few years.

Notice what languges were seen in the words written above the head of Christ on the Cross. Aramaic, Greek, Latin. And those languages are what was used from the earliest times, to spread the Gospel and teaching of the Apostles to the world, East and West.

I love God's word in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. And make it my daily habit to study His Words very carefully, noting the erorrs of men that have crept into the translations, and being careful not to fall into the trap of false doctrines that can come from translations and wrong interpretations of Scriptures.

Shlama/Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#13
IPOstapyuk Wrote:Akhay,
I am tired to read your long lectures.
Can you just convey it in short and logic way?


Shlama, akhi,

was this meant for me? if so, sorry i tire you but i was merely responding to the points Zardak made. tho i am guilt of being verbose, i admit. i'll try to make it short and sweet in the future.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#14
Zardak Wrote:Burning one, It doesn't really matter what texts Mr Palin used or what his critics said: He took a base text which they deemed close to perfect, similar to the westcott and Hort text, then took all words and verses in dispute between texts, and then applied the mathematics to the text when the verse or word was either inserted or omitted and thus where able beyond any doubt, to ascertain and subsequently compile a brand new finished 100% correct text. Simply go and download it for your self, some introductory info is also included about it in the introduction. (numeric new testament-unleavenedbreadministries) this is the text i have used to do my translation. It was only released mid last year. The joy of knowing that I have a 100% perfect text in the language originally written by Paul makes me feel so content an elated. Lord Yehawah be praised!


Shlama,

thank you for replying. you do know his name was Panin not Palin, right?

i know that Panin attacked Erasmus for creating parts of The Revelation from the Vulgate into a never-before-existed Greek for the "Received Text," and rightly so. did you know that?

but Panin openly admits creating never-before-existing Greek readings ALL OVER the NT he designed via his mathematical numeric code principles.

what is the difference?

NONE

i'm certain he was sincere in his endeavors - his writings clearly show his zeal and love for the Word, and desire to have at his disposal the true words, but it doesn't mean that his method was correct. in fact, it is simply erroneous to do what he did and call it divine design. how much have you actually read of his notes and works? have you seen HOW he arrived at some of his conclusions? he uses no standardized method to arrive at his numeric codes.

at least with the ELS Hebrew codes the methods are standardized, but Panin uses all kinds of loops and tricks to arrive at his conclusions:

dismissal of words when they don't add up to a "nearby" desired number

grabbing "neighbor" numbers of a desired sum that are close to the actual count (which are not divisibles of 7, etc.) he finds in the text, and using them to show that since the textual numerics are "close" to the "neighbor" numbers, then the text must be divine.

creating his own wordings irregardless of the Greek text he used, so that his English result DOES NOT reflect the Greek reading in any literal sense

(IPOstapyuk - you can stop reading here if you are, the rest is personal anecdote) <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

so Zardak, this doesn't fly at all. i'm sorry. i'd love for it to. i wanted it to. i studying Panin and initially was overjoyed as well, but the further i looked, the more criticism i began to develop of his methods. they just aren't sound. his genuineness is sound, but his method is not. anyone with an open mind who has looked at what he really did will probably arrive at the same conclusion.

if it be otherwise, we have to conclude instead that for 2000 years the NT was corrupted in the Greek (which he says is the original), and only by his advent and discovery of numerics has the TRUE WORD come to man. so this means that even the West was not given a truly preserved Word, and thus, in your opinion, God would have been incompetent. so the logic goes... will you affirm that it was corrupted for 2000 years and the West was utilizing a corrupted form from an incompetent God? because that is what it entails, unfortunately.

listen, i've studied gematria / theomatics / numerics for YEARS. i very deeply delved into them because i too am fascinated with numbers. i still like to play around in the gematria area because there is some merit (some, please note), but the overall majority of time spent there will not edify you SPIRITUALLY, only mentally. we need HIS SPIRIT to give us SPIRITUAL LIFE, not our flesh to give us mental ecstasies.

if you're truly WANTING to find out where HIS WORD has been PRESERVED, then i beseech you to honestly, sincerely, and without guile take a very long look at the Eastern Peshitta. i pour over the Aramaic AND the Greek in my studies and translations, comparing word order, omissions, additions, variants, etc., because i WANT TO KNOW His Word. when the Greek manuscripts have a variant in a place that means two or three different meanings, you and i (and Ivan, apparently), must decide which reading is the CORRECT and INSPIRED reading. we can go Panin's route and look for numeric patterns that may or may not even work in the end, OR we can take a look at the Aramaic Peshitta and see if the single (no variant present) Aramaic term could possibly mean TWO DIFFERENT things, and if so, do those meanings match the variant Greek terms. you will find that the majority of the time when this occurs, the Aramaic term means BOTH definitions of the TWO Greek terms. what does this tell you logically? there is ONLY ONE ANSWER: the Greek readings are divergent takes on the singular Aramaic term, and thus, the Aramaic predates the Greek manuscript. there's no other way to look at the evidence that makes any sense.

so PLEASE take some time with a truly open mind if you truly love the truth, and you WILL be surprised and come across many evidences that you can't refute. the primacy proof i suggested to start out this thread is MINOR, my friend. it's playschool-level. if you want some that will truly challenge you, then ask - you will receive. there are many of us on here who have spent years with our noses in the Peshitta and in the Greek texts and have been blessed to find irrefutable answers to our sincere questions - and we'd be glad to share with you. just ask.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#15
Hi Jeremy,

How come you referred to me in that post? I am all confused now, did I say anything?

Oh and great post by the way, I knew the mathematics thing was a little far fetched. In any case we should not base our faith on numbers, nor should we base our faith on the Peshitta, our faith should be based on the Rock.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)