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


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?


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,

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 Zardak - 01-11-2012, 10:42 PM
Re: A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof - by Burning one - 01-12-2012, 03:52 AM
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)