Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Freakishly Simple Primacy Proof
#16
Alan G77 Wrote: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.


Shlama akhi,


oh no, sorry! i put your name in - i got confused. i've edited it to the intended individual. sorry again!

definitely well said, btw - faith is in HIM and HIM alone! no other hope do we have!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#17
Burning one, i hear what your saying, BUT! Here we go again:

I repeat, the very thing you guys are avoiding, Paul wrote a lot of his epistles to the Epesians, Corinthians, etc correct? Well we know Aramaic wasn't their language, it was Greek. End of story, end of Aramaic primacy thesis.
Secondly, my asnwer concerning Acts 21:27 is utterly irrefutable, end of Aramaic primacy thesis.

Mr Panin who tutored Einstein, did not spend "50 YEARS" again "50 YEARS" to simply roll dice over the texts. If he realized there was no substance to what he was doing he would have given up after 3 years at most, being seeing the proof of what he was doing clearly he took all the time required to make it absolutely perfect, and he has succeeded. All of his final formulas applied show that it was so deep to get to the end of it that it showed itself to be from God, and all of the mathematics applied was extremely sound. You telling me you don't want to believe it doesn't prove anything. No one can make mathematics say what they want it to say. Mathematics is self evident and states the facts (God ordained, and created) tells us how it is, not the other way round. All your really saying is that you do not want to be astounded by the amazing "facts of scripture" proved by God's "own" mathematics. The refined and precise formulas Mr Panin came up with to prove the text, which have since been verified and calculated insofar as the text is concerned amounting to odds of quintillion's and quadrillions to one, is hardly guess work my friend, surely you can see that? Dismissing such overwhelming evidence is merely saying you couldn't care less, you're more interested in believing something else. 50 years work from a "professor of mathematics" who gains independent specialist verification of the odds of his calculations being hundreds of billions to one cannot be dismissed. In fact nothing in the known natural universe can repudiate that. Standing there and telling me the sky isn't blue is not going to achieve anything. That the mathematically verified text is final is a lot more valid than what is essentially misplaced skewed bits of history being manipulated to fit a theory based on making bits of information say what someone "wants" it to say.


Clearly, the reason those eastern churches got the epistles delivered personally (if the elders of those churches weren't lying) is because Paul either straight away or soon after had copies done of the "GREEK EPISTLES WRITTEN TO GREEK SPEAKING GREEKS" DID I SAY GREEKS? MAYBE I FORGOT TO SAY GREEKS, maybe i better say GREEKS again in case i forgot to say GREEKS LIVING IN GREECE!!!!!!! SHEEESH!!!!!!!

ACTS 21:27 try reading my previous explanation again, and then tell me you still believe in Aramaic primacy. SHEEESH!!!!!!! And the reason acts 21: 27-34 states "When they heard him speak to them in the HEBREW language, is because Aramaic is HEBREW, its not a sister language, its a DIALECT of HEBREW. Luke wrote the word HEBREW, not Aramaic!

Panin didn't insert any "made up words or verse" into the final text, he was experimenting early on with certain things as part of his work. The final text - I'm sure you guys must have downloaded it by now (yes there is a translated version of it at the same place), i've given the website here enough times. Read the preface and that will give you some insight. I would rather have one bit of FACT than 10,000 bits of info which can be made to substantiate a theory if someone really wants it to.
All the final text did was verify certain things in the modern new testament texts that we have known for quite a while, I am utterly familiar with the Greek texts and Mr Panins text does not add or take away anything t6hat is not already in dispute between various text families, all it does is confirm which text was more corrupted that others. Nothing dubious going on their matey.

God is well known for taking imperfect things and creating marvelous results with it, God takes imperfect people and turns them into gems, God takes dust and turns it into humans, it was not his fault that people corrupted the texts, no more than it is His fault if someone jumps in front of a moving train. But the fact is that we have had 95% of what he wanted us to know, and that was more than enough. It just so happens that now through Panin we have a verified "PERFECT" text. But it most certainly would have been incompetent of God to give Greek texts to the west if they were originally written in Aramaic, and as we all really know they weren't.

Let me make your job easier for you, if you insist on believing the texts were originally written in Aramaic, then to save any confusion for yourself when you want to know what was really said when the Aramaic is ambiguous, simply look at the Greek, problem solved. Retro comparing the Greek and then making that mean that the Aramaic was written first is not sound in the least, surely you must know that???

so PLEASE take some time with a truly open mind if you truly love the truth, and you will be surprised. The Greek primacy assertions are play-school level to some, simply because "God has taken the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. I digress. Yehawah, and Yeshua the Lord of us be praised. <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| -->
Reply
#18
Zardak,

Why are you being rude? There is a way to speak in Love if you have the Truth. Please do this if you are able, if not just out of plain old respect and decent adult behaviour, but because it honors God and is a good witness to God's Power to change humanity.

As I said before, you don't seem to think that Paul had a biger picture in mind when sending his letters out. As if there wernt any people who spoke Aramaic in those Churches...You there were plenty who did so, as many of those whom Paul converted where of the Jews in diaspora, and these we often set in as the 1st leaders/Bishops. Check the lists of the 1st number of Bishops and you will see this.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that Paul wrote and Spoke in Aramaic as His native language? And then, perhpas directly after, it was translated into the other languages that the people spoke, so they too could read the words?

Study the Book of Acts more closely, and look at Chapter 14 on...and see that there were many Jews among the Gentiles, to who were converted through The Apostle Paul's ministy. Both Timothy and Lydia, were certainly Jewish people. In Thessalonica Paul goes to the Synagouge in Acts 17 "as was his custom" and made Disciples there of the Jews and the "Devout Greeks" vs 4. These devout Greeks, certainly spoke both in the Greek and Aramaic language. In Athens (can't get anymore Greek that that) we again see Paul preaching to the Jews in the Synagogue with the Jews and "Devout persons" i.e. Greeks who were Jewish converts. When Paul leaves Athens, he goes to Corinth in Chapter 18...and what does he find? A Jew named Aquila a native of Pontus, who came from Italy with his wife Priscilla. And where did they preach? In the Synagogue every Sabbath...this was in the year 49 A.D.

Later we see Apollos being mentioned...and where was he preaching? In the Synagogue to the Jews and "devout Greeks"...and was "refuting the Jews in public"...In Ephesus, Pal finds some Disciples who had been Baptised by John the Baptist...these men were clearly Jewish men...or devout Greeks, who were Jewish converts many years before, but had not come into full understanding of thisngs...and Paul taught them and laid His Apostolic hands upon them. 12 Men. And then he is said to have entered the Synagogue in Ephesus...

I think you are short sighted to think that there were no Jews and Greeks who spoke Aramaic in these places. Read the Book of Acts very carefully...and you will see then all over the place in the Greek lands.

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#19
Zardak,

There is a way to speak in Love if you have the Truth. Please do this if you are able, if not just out of plain old respect and decent adult behaviour, but because it honors God and is a good witness to God's Power to change humanity.

As I said before, you don't seem to think that Paul had a biger picture in mind when sending his letters out. As if there wernt any people who spoke Aramaic in those Churches...there were plenty who did so, as many of those whom Paul converted where of the Jews in diaspora, and these were often set in as the 1st leaders/Bishops. Check the lists of the 1st number of Bishops and you will see this.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that Paul wrote and Spoke in Aramaic as His native language? And then, perhpas directly after, it was translated into the other languages that the other peoples spoke, so they too could read the words?

Study the Book of Acts more closely, and look at Chapter 14 on...and see that there were many Jews among the Gentiles, who were converted through The Apostle Paul's ministy. Both Timothy and Lydia, were certainly Jewish people. In Thessalonica Paul goes to the Synagouge in Acts 17 "as was his custom" and made Disciples there of the Jews and the "Devout Greeks" vs 4. These devout Greeks, certainly spoke both in the Greek and Aramaic language and were Jews as to their religion, not pagans.

In Athens (can't get anymore Greek that that) we again see Paul preaching to the Jews in the Synagogue with the Jews and "Devout persons" i.e. Greeks who were Jewish converts. When Paul leaves Athens, he goes to Corinth in Chapter 18...and what does he find? A Jew named Aquila a native of Pontus, who came from Italy with his wife Priscilla. And where did they preach? In the Synagogue every Sabbath...this was in the year 49 A.D.

Later we see Apollos being mentioned...and where was he preaching? In the Synagogue to the Jews and "devout Greeks"...and was "refuting the Jews in public"...In Ephesus, Paul finds some Disciples who had been Baptised by John the Baptist...these men were clearly Jewish men...or devout Greeks, who were Jewish converts many years before, but had not come into full understanding of the Gospel...and Paul taught them and laid His Apostolic hands upon them. 12 Men. And then he is said to have entered the Synagogue in Ephesus...

I think you are short sighted to think that there were no Jews and Greeks who spoke Aramaic in these places. Read the Book of Acts very carefully...and you will see then all over the place in the Greek lands.

Peace,
Chuck
Reply
#20
Quote:Panin openly admits creating never-before-existing Greek readings ALL OVER the NT he designed via his mathematical numeric code principles.
This is one more method of NT corruption.
Only children can believe in his math guessings just like Mr. Bautscher
runs his toy (spinning machine) in guessing about words coincidences after
a period in a text.
Reply
#21
Zardak Wrote:Burning one, i hear what your saying, BUT! Here we go again:

I repeat, the very thing you guys are avoiding, Paul wrote a lot of his epistles to the Epesians, Corinthians, etc correct? Well we know Aramaic wasn't their language, it was Greek. End of story, end of Aramaic primacy thesis.

Zardak, this is a HUGE assumption that fails logically. do ethnic groups exist today in the world inside a country whose offical language they do not speak? YES. do i have give more examples than the Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking inhabitants of New York City's "Chinatown?" people live all over the globe who do not speak the official language of their country. this is rudimentary knowledge; as it is today so it was 2,000 years ago. if you know anything about cultures existing inside larger cultures, you will understand that the minority HOLDS ON to their cultural aspects fiercely, even tho being somewhat integrated into the largely society. the CENTRAL factor upon which every single culture is built is LANGUAGE. period. any good college language course should inform you of this truth.
so could there be Hebrew peoples in the MIDST of a Roman Empire, the official language of which is Greek, who yet still hold onto their beloved Hebrew or Aramaic language? yes, Zardak. the answer is YES! history shows this to be true. do you think that the historian Josephus would LIE to his readers that he had a difficult time learning Greek IF the whole world spoke Greek? nobody would take him seriously if that were the case. furthermore, when you have a great understanding of how religious writings are transmitted in a faith, you see that the overwhelming majority of time, the authorities pen their writings in the language they deem holy / sacred. we see this in Roman Catholicism as LATIN; we see this Judaism as HEBREW, and we see this in ancient Eastern Christianity as ARAMAIC. you can't viably deny the history of how things are. please don't. so if Paul the apostle is writing authoritative letters to his MOSTLY Semitic audiences (true Gentiles were yet merely the minority), then the letters would fit the cultural / linguistic norm of his people. so now, what does Scripture say was the language of the land of Israel? Acts 1:19 tells you the answer, Zardak: ARAMAIC. the pronunciation of the field's name is ARAMAIC. not Hebrew. not Greek. ARAMAIC. Scripture gives us the answer we need. not numerics. not gematria. not Panin in his sincerest desire to seize the true Word for man. Scripture. so Paul, brought up in Jerusalem in the prominent Pharisaic house of the day -Hillel- at the feet of the prominent rabbi of the day -Gamaliel- would have been utterly conversant in HEBREW and ARAMAIC, and Greek would have been something he was familiar with due to the presence of the government that loosely ruled the land. it doesn't mean that he could WRITE in it, and it doesn't mean that he WOULD, given the fact that the only languages the Hebrew people deemed to be holy languages were HEBREW and ARAMAIC.

Zardak Wrote:Secondly, my asnwer concerning Acts 21:27 is utterly irrefutable, end of Aramaic primacy thesis.

Mr Panin who tutored Einstein, did not spend "50 YEARS" again "50 YEARS" to simply roll dice over the texts. If he realized there was no substance to what he was doing he would have given up after 3 years at most, being seeing the proof of what he was doing clearly he took all the time required to make it absolutely perfect, and he has succeeded. All of his final formulas applied show that it was so deep to get to the end of it that it showed itself to be from God, and all of the mathematics applied was extremely sound. You telling me you don't want to believe it doesn't prove anything. No one can make mathematics say what they want it to say. Mathematics is self evident and states the facts (God ordained, and created) tells us how it is, not the other way round. All your really saying is that you do not want to be astounded by the amazing "facts of scripture" proved by God's "own" mathematics. The refined and precise formulas Mr Panin came up with to prove the text, which have since been verified and calculated insofar as the text is concerned amounting to odds of quintillion's and quadrillions to one, is hardly guess work my friend, surely you can see that? Dismissing such overwhelming evidence is merely saying you couldn't care less, you're more interested in believing something else. 50 years work from a "professor of mathematics" who gains independent specialist verification of the odds of his calculations being hundreds of billions to one cannot be dismissed. In fact nothing in the known natural universe can repudiate that. Standing there and telling me the sky isn't blue is not going to achieve anything. That the mathematically verified text is final is a lot more valid than what is essentially misplaced skewed bits of history being manipulated to fit a theory based on making bits of information say what someone "wants" it to say.

i told you what i originally thought of his work, and how i wanted it to be true, and i told you the reasons why i came to believe otherwise. you can call me a liar if you feel you need to - that's on your conscience. congratulations on judging a brother for no reason other than you can't accept what he wrote....i feel like we're nearing a parting of discussion if you can't respond with taking a person's explanations at face value, but instead insinuate that i am lying to you.... this is not productive, and if you aren't planning on changing your repsonses to reflect the Spirit that has hopefully indwelt you then i see no further communication being productive. i hope i am wrong here.

Zardak Wrote:Clearly, the reason those eastern churches got the epistles delivered personally (if the elders of those churches weren't lying) is because Paul either straight away or soon after had copies done of the "GREEK EPISTLES WRITTEN TO GREEK SPEAKING GREEKS" DID I SAY GREEKS? MAYBE I FORGOT TO SAY GREEKS, maybe i better say GREEKS again in case i forgot to say GREEKS LIVING IN GREECE!!!!!!! SHEEESH!!!!!!!

Zardak, if only you had been so forthcoming in your very first post i wouldn't have wasted all my time -- wait a minute... this is an ARAMAIC PRIMACY board??? what have i been doing here all these years??? <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Zardak Wrote:ACTS 21:27 try reading my previous explanation again, and then tell me you still believe in Aramaic primacy. SHEEESH!!!!!!! And the reason acts 21: 27-34 states "When they heard him speak to them in the HEBREW language, is because Aramaic is HEBREW, its not a sister language, its a DIALECT of HEBREW. Luke wrote the word HEBREW, not Aramaic!

Zardak, i didn't say Luke wrote "Aramaic." i'm not sure why you have even suggested there was any confusion... and if you really believe Aramaic IS Hebrew, then i think we've got some MAJOR problems. i can read BOTH languages (they really are two different languages - honest) and Aramaic is NOT a dialect of Hebrew. where are you coming up with this?

Zardak Wrote:Panin didn't insert any "made up words or verse" into the final text, he was experimenting early on with certain things as part of his work. The final text - I'm sure you guys must have downloaded it by now (yes there is a translated version of it at the same place), i've given the website here enough times. Read the preface and that will give you some insight. I would rather have one bit of FACT than 10,000 bits of info which can be made to substantiate a theory if someone really wants it to.
All the final text did was verify certain things in the modern new testament texts that we have known for quite a while, I am utterly familiar with the Greek texts and Mr Panins text does not add or take away anything t6hat is not already in dispute between various text families, all it does is confirm which text was more corrupted that others. Nothing dubious going on their matey.

really? okay, if this is true, would you please open up a copy of W+H text to Matthew 1.1 and compare it to Panin's Matthew 1.1? do you see COMPLETE spelling agreement? if spelling doesn't agree, then something is OFF numerically -- that's elementary, tho, and you surely know this would change the dynamics of the "proofs." that's just for starters. don't mislead anyone, please. i don't think i am asking too much here.

let's look again at a BIGGER variant in Panin's "numeric-based" NT:

the end of Mark 16:9-20 --- Panin says there are 175 words there. this number is important to him because the number is 25*7 = 175. the all-important seven, right?

so please tell me, WHERE did he get 175 words in that passage??
i ask because if you do a count of the words in W+H 1881 edition, they have 172 words; Elzevir's 1664 TR - 166 words; Nestle's 1898 - 168; British and Foreign Bible Society 1958 - 168 words; Nestle / Aland 1975 - 170 words.

no Greek text has 175 words for the end of Mark - EXCEPT Panin's Numeric New Testament. so tell me, please, Zardak -- WHERE did the words come from that are in Panin's NT? if he DIDN'T make up or insert words into the text he has published, then WHY does his have MORE than any other text?
this alone should be sufficient to lay the whole argument to rest...

Zardak Wrote:God is well known for taking imperfect things and creating marvelous results with it, God takes imperfect people and turns them into gems, God takes dust and turns it into humans, it was not his fault that people corrupted the texts, no more than it is His fault if someone jumps in front of a moving train. But the fact is that we have had 95% of what he wanted us to know, and that was more than enough. It just so happens that now through Panin we have a verified "PERFECT" text. But it most certainly would have been incompetent of God to give Greek texts to the west if they were originally written in Aramaic, and as we all really know they weren't.

i am all for HIM using flawed people - that is for His glory, and our humility. i just don't see the verification of Panin's methods as sound. rather, as i've shown, they don't hold up - HE CHANGED THE GREEK. not a difficult sentence to write, but apparently difficult to believe....

Zardak Wrote:Let me make your job easier for you, if you insist on believing the texts were originally written in Aramaic, then to save any confusion for yourself when you want to know what was really said when the Aramaic is ambiguous, simply look at the Greek, problem solved. Retro comparing the Greek and then making that mean that the Aramaic was written first is not sound in the least, surely you must know that???

i don't know what you mean by ambiguous Aramaic readings from the Peshitta. they make sense to me, but then again, i am not relying on an English translation. so tell me, can you READ the Aramaic itself, or are you relying on an English translation of the Aramaic for knowing what the text says? i ask because from the looks of some of your previous posts, it DOESN'T look like you actually can read the Aramaic. if that is the case, then you have no standing to refute the Aramaic that comes from a legitimate gripe. you only have your numeric faith towards the Greek. please let me and everyone know if you can read the Aramaic. it is only a fair question from those of us here who DO read both the Aramaic and the Greek, don't you think?

Zardak Wrote:so PLEASE take some time with a truly open mind if you truly love the truth, and you will be surprised. The Greek primacy assertions are play-school level to some, simply because "God has taken the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. I digress. Yehawah, and Yeshua the Lord of us be praised. <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| -->

Zardak, i DO have a truly open mind. spending years trying to make the Greek "fit" in the places it didn't gave me a mind that HAD to be open, and eventually the Spirit led me to look into the claims being made about Aramaic Primacy. i've been on your side of the fence - wanting a TRULY INSPIRED Greek version to lay claim to, so i know how important the stance is to which you are holding, and i know why Panin's work is of such value to you, but in the end assessment, we have to concede that his methods are not sound. simply put. that places you back at square one in your desire to possess a VERIFIED TRUE and RELIABLE NT. and i would suggest seriously listening and seeking at this time that the Holy One has placed you on this site to people who have been where you have been, who have questioned what you question, and who DO want the truth that you want - a reliable text that tells of the accounts of our Redeemer.

and i am curious - i see that you use the Hebrew for the Father and Son's Names. are you Messianic / Hebrew-Roots etcetera? just curious...


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#22
Jeremy,

God bless you, what a post, all.Glory to God.
Reply
#23
Shlama akhi Alan,

ALL glory to God, yes! <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->
Reply
#24
Burning one, So that you don't accuse me of not responding in love, please remember that the scripture tells us to CONVINCE, REBUKE, EXHORT with ALL LONG-SUFFERING and DOCTRINE>

By the way, if your other friend thought your posts are verbose, he better buckle in, because this ones gonna make him faint, since this matter needs to be dealt with once and for all. <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->

My first question is: "What world are you living in?" None of your answers make any sense "at all" to me, they are merely trying to side-step my very pertinent, and weighty factual answers. Either that, or your sincerity is misplaced, because i don't see ANY substance behind "ANY" of your answers.

I'll get started shall IBig Grinitto THE FIRST NINE WORDS of your response, please go back and read it before you continuing reading this, and listen carefully this time, it looks like i'm gonna have to spell this out the long way.

For starters your comparing apples with oranges. That example you use of Asians in new York or WHEREVER, is not the same situation as ancient Greece. Those Asians you speak of are "mostly" relatively recent arrivals that have not learned English yet. I live in Melbourne Australia, which is riddled with Asians, and 90 out of 100 of them can speak either fluent English or enough to get by, the rest are recent arrivals that haven't learn't English properly yet. Also we have 220 different nationalities here, Polynesians, Dutch, Greeks, Arabs, Sudanese, Italians, Macedonians, Taiwanese, Koreans, Japanese, Irish, Scottish, Russians, Lebanese, Iranians, Egyptians, Indians, Turkish, Maltese, Africans etc etc etc you name it, there here, this city is more of a melting pot than Greece ever was, believe me. But despite all these different races living here, after any reasonable amount of time they converse in English, they have their native language for the few of their own clan that understand it, but even then they speak to each other in English. When i go to any shop owned by those foreigners they all converse in English, as they do also in the streets. Their native language is very rarely used. They conform to the national language which is English, it doesn't take them very long after arriving here to learn English. And even then there are the ones who are born here that speak English, just like the Jews who were born in Greece, and the other Jews who chose to migrate there for all practical purposes would have spoken in Greek. The national language in Greece, was Greek, yeah, so just like here in my city, same goes in ancient Greece, all nationalities conformed to the national language. Just like here in Melbourne the national language is English, so they all conform, quite normal don't you think?
Now, we have many Muslim mosques here, many more Mosques per head of capita than there was Synagogues in Greece. All these Muslims here speak ENGLISH, although having Arabic as a native language which they speak only in there inner circles, otherwise its English all the way. Now if i had been sent into Melbourne to convert Melburnians to the faith, mainly I'm not going to come here and preach in Dutch or Arab or Indian to suit each person, it makes sense to preach in the national or dominant language of that area, right? Remember, "large multitudes" were converted to the faith in Greece, 99% of which spoke Greek. It would not make sense for me to go into a Mosque in an English land and start preaching in Arabic would it, simply because half of them were born here and are fluent in English, plus non-Arab English speaking Muslims are there also, plus the ones who do speak Arabic speak perfect English anyway, correct? So common sense dictates that I would speak in the universal national language for the sake of the majority, much more practical, correct?

Paul was sent to the Gentiles, correct? God did not say i'm sending you to the Jews sojourning in foreign lands did he? Some Jews happened to live there, yes, but that was not who God sent him to was it? They just happened to be there as well, so Paul took the opportunity to go into synagogues while he was there and hopefully let them know the good news too, but any Jews that did convert would have only made up a minority of the overall number of Gentiles and Greeks who were converted, who all spoke the national language GREEK, do i need to type that again for you GREEK. So when addressing the GENTILE, GREEK churches, in Paul's epistles, you would write it in the dominant language that everyone understood including the FEW Jews who were converted, clearly it makes sense to use the language that they all understand, why would you write one in Aramaic and then one in Greek when they ALL understood Greek perfectly well, Greek convert majority wins, so that the end of Aramaic primacy!
The way you and other Aramaic primacists speak, anyone would have thought Greek was populated by 90% Jews, or that Greece's national language was Aramaic, which you know it was not, you know it, I know it, my Greek friends know it, historians know it, and everyone else on this planet knows it, and the ALL THE GREEKS LIVING IN GREECE KNOW IT, take a flight over there and ask them for yourself, Burning one, so drop it will ya, its getting a bit long in the tooth all these "up in the air" non-substantiated claims of yours.


Now how say you that Paul was writing to mostly Semitic groups, are you trying to suggest that Greece was dominated by Arabic speaking Arabs and Jews, and that Arabic was the national dominant language of Greece? <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> LOL I think you better wake up mate, your asserting some very strange things to my ears, i want to know therefore what these things mean, because show me in Greece today where the Aramaic language is <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> , SHEEESH! Since when were Galatians Semitic??????? <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> Remember! Greece took over the land and imposed everything GREEK and everything GREEK culture and everything GREEK language, not the Jews!!! <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue --> Are you telling me that Corinth was 90% or even 50% Jewish dominated??? Are you suggesting that Ephesus was Jewish dominated, come on matey, snap out of it and get real, these suggestions and denials of yours are getting very tedious and boring. Acts 1:19 doesn't give any answer at all, it says "so that in the 'own' language," right, which means that their spoken language was Greek, but they named that field in their "own" native language Khakal-Dema. Why would Luke have to make special mention of naming that field in their "OWN" language, if they were all speaking it already, their would be no point it making the point of saying it, would there. What sort of logic are you using here??? Paul may have been utterly conversant in Aramaic, but thats because he had to go and specially learn it under Gamaliel, why, because it wasn't the national spoken language, thats why. If i already speak English in an English society, do i need to go and be taught English, NO!

No! Greek wasn't something he was familiar with, he was utterly conversant in it. It was a GREEK RULED LAND AND HEBREWS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK ARAMAIC IN PUBLIC, they could only use it in private. Out in society ONLY GREEK WAS ALLOWED TO BE SPOKEN, so Paul was like ALL JEWS, FLUENT IN GREEK!!! SHEEESH!!! You are making some HUGE misplaced assumptions that fail logically, do ethnic groups exist today in the world inside a country whose offical language they do not speak? YES. Do i have to give more examples than here in Melbourne, people live all over the globe who do not speak the official language of their country, exactly, thats because they are "minorities" this is rudimentary knowledge burning one.

Listen, and listen good Burning one, if you think independently verified odds of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 for the numeric text are to be dismissed about Dr Panin, then i don't know were you get your logic from. You balk at a difference of 3 words in one chapter, and thats the basis for your rejection, go look at you Aramaic versions, they have more problems than that between texts. Not that it is a problem, because its mathematically perfect. <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| --> You can't give any other example except some obscure meaningless excuse about 3 ennie pennie words??? That points to nothing significant, and then you discount a "Professor" of Mathematics that tutored Einstein, and spent 50, i better say that again, 50 years of his life to verify such a thing, and you come in here and stick your nose up at him, come ooooon Burning one!
I know the Greek texts Burning one, believe me, Mr Panin has nailed it, he didn't spend 50 YEARS of his life to change 3 words matey, surely you can understand that. I can assure you his text is "PERFECT" No one scrutinizes the Greek texts more than me, ive done it for 25 years, believe me, he has done it. It is utterly flawless. You simply don't appear to grasp the importance of what he has done, you come up with some silly defamation against him, and some other rumour, so that you can keep believing in your corrupted Aramaic second hand text, well that's up to you.

Many Aramaic words were able to be understood from people who spoke Hebrew, just like a Lebanese Arab can understand sufficiently a Turkish Arab, you say you can speak both Aramaic and Hebrew but you say they are different, thats because you are talking about "MODERN" Hebrew, not "ANCIENT" Hebrew. Just like my Greek friend today can't understand ancient Greek, you see!!! You say Paul was a fluent Aramaic speaker, well my example in Acts says Paul spoke to them in the "HEBREW" language, correct? <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> ACTS 22:2, again- the "HEBREW" language is what "LUKE" wrote, AND HE KNOWS BETTER THAN YOU MR Burning one!!! <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh --> What you are calling Aramaic, is actually a dialect of Hebrew my friend, just as all Arab languages are filtered down derivatives of Aramaic, it might have changed a bit from place to place, but technically, and essentially, they are Hebrew dialects, if you want to get technical about it. I'm the only one who seems to have my facts straight here.

Remember Burning one, there is just as many discrepancies in the different Aramaic families of texts, as there are in the Greek, so you people don't have any foot to stand on for a claim of superiority. Just as in the Byzantine Greek majority texts all agree 99%, and Textus Receptus texts agree 98%, so what! That doesn't establish anything does it, and especially not as an argument for saying the Aramaic is superior because they have agreement between one line of texts.
Where in Greece today do you find any Aramaic texts, Burning one, tell me! <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> Where exactly, there are none, all the churches have Greek texts, if they had been given Aramaic texts back then they would have at least preserved some of them for future generations, but they wouldn't have been able to read it at the time, because they spoke GREEK, and 99% of people in GREECE, spoke GREEK, GET IT! <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> All the Aramaic texts are in the eastern provinces where thy did speak Aramaic, thats why they have Aramaic texts. But Paul didn't write to Armenia did he! No! He wrote to Ephesus, Galatia, Corinth, Colossae etc, do you get it??????? Paul didn't write to converted Jews who spoke the National language of Greece (which was GREEK by the way in case you haven't caught on yet), he wrote to converted GENTILE GREEKS, WHO SPOKE GREEK, among whom a few of them were Jews whose main language was...you guessed it...GREEEEEEEK! Have you caught on yet. Hip Hip Horraaah, has it registered in your synapses yet??? WHOA!!! <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->


You claim Mr Panins work is not sound, oh ok, and where exactly did you get you professors degree in mathematics sir. I have said it once and i'll say it again, for your benefit, just in case the you might get it this time. The FINAL presented text of Mr Panin has been independently verified through showing the formulas in the text as being in the odds of trillions to one! Which means it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> that man put the Panin text together, GOD DID!!! Seeing as you appear to need it spelled out for you, do i need to repeat that for you, not only that, but i know the Greek texts better than i know my own nose, Mr Panin has confirmed "through" his brilliant mathematical formulas of 50 years, i better say that again there's some dull of hearing around here, 50 YEARS research, exactly what i knew about the texts for decades, and it is most definitely perfect: "come home Burning one" God has now finally given us the Perfect Greek text, its there for you, so you don't have to deal with all the misconstrued translations and double triple meanings in the second hand Aramaic anymore. <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: -->

Did Paul not say at the end of some of his letters, "written by the hand of, ME, Paul" Well Paul didn't write to Armenians or Eastern Orthodox did he? He wrote to GREEK GENTILES, AND ANY FEW OF THE CONVERTED JEWS AMONG THEM WHO ALSO SPOKE GREEK, in addition to that, not all Jews necessarily spoke Aramaic you know Burning one. You've brainwashed yourself with rhetoric from Aramaic primacy theorists. Don't you think i already extensively investigated the claims of Aramaic primacy before i committed to translating the Greek New Testament for the last 7 years. Its a fallacy mate, come home, Gods calling you back to his beloved text written by Paul's very own hand. Your prayers have been answered brother, just download the text if you haven't already. The perfect original word of the Lord is waiting for you when your ready to come home.

One last thing Burning one, are you not aware that the Jews were using the Greek Septuagint in their synagogues? Do i have to explain to you why? <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

I am fluent in modern Greek, an "expert" in ancient Greek, fluent in Egyptian, Iranian, and Lebanese Arabic. In addition to that In fact, i'm more fluent in "ANCIENT ARAMAIC" than i am in English.

My natural male parent (My real Father Yehawah is in Heaven) Is an ultra orthodox Jewish historian and Rabbi, and my mother is Danish-Maori. I was born in Denmark and we moved to New Zealand when i was 3 years old, and i have been in Australia since i was 16, i am now 40.

Father Yehawah and Yeshua be praised unto the ages of the eons. <!-- sConfusedigh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sigh.gif" alt="Confusedigh:" title="Sigh" /><!-- sConfusedigh: -->
Reply
#25
Wow, Zardak...

I'll say this one correction that you got wrong concerning me personally: I DO NOT speak modern Hebrew - Biblical Hebrew is my forte.

As for the rest, you've shown me the spirit under which you operate, so I'll graciously leave you to it.

BUT I would ask every Aramaic primacist here to PLEASE read his assertions and hysteria carefully as this is the kind of showcased fervor that stands in opposition to the honest historical and textual verifications we are engaged in who do love the truth above our golden calfs. Read and remember and know when no further word will be efficacious.

Jeremy
Reply
#26
Mate,

Try not being rude and full of pride please. Speak in a manner worthy of the term Christian, remember that we are members of one body and how you speak to us is how you speak to Yeshua.

If you believe the Greek was the primary language used in scripture, then Praise God! It is not the language we worship brother, it is our King, our God Jesus the Christ whom we worship and we should reflect His attitude, love and humility to one another.
Reply
#27
Hi Zardak, we can correct and rebuke in love as well, without coming in a proud manner, which is not of The Holy Spirit.

I don't say, nor do I think the others would say, that the Greek version is not God's Holy Word...for me it is, sent unto the Greeks. The Latin version is the Word of God in Latin, for those who speak that language...and the English versions, are The Word of God to the English speaking peoples, when they are translated correctly of course.

And I also believe that the Aramaic Scriptures are the Word of God in Aramaic. You may not think that is true, but why would that be so? Do you believe that only one Greek version text is the Word of God? Not the English, not the Latin, not the Aramaic?

God sent out His Holy Word/Message, unto the Hebrew and Aramaic speakers, then the Greek and Latin speakers...and then the other languages followed these main four.

And if you can show a major differance in the Greek text (of your choice), from the Eastern Aramaic Scriptures...then I would like to see it. Then we can see which one lines up best with the rest of God's Holy Words.

Take your pick...

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#28
Excuse me Thirdwoe: You state that - "God sent His holy word/message unto the Hebrew/Aramaic speakers." I would like to ask where exactly in ALL of scripture ANYWHERE does it say that??? It doesn't, and since when were GREEKS in Ephesus and Corinth Aramaic speakers??? You're guys reasoning is faulty. Not only was Greek the dominant language throughout biblical lands at that time, but Greek was most definitely the dominant language. Who are Pauls epistles addressed to? HUH,to the Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians , Colossians, Philippians, and to Timothy, who was living in Greece and his father was a Greek! Luke wrote his Chronicle to Theophilus, correct? Well that is a GREEK NAME, that is not an Aramaic name, do you get it? ACTS: 22:1 Jesus said to Paul/Saul I will send you far from here to the GENTILES, and who did Paul write most of his epistles to, look in your Bible. Those people were not Aramaic speakers mate. In fact, any Aramaic speaking Jews were such a minority that it was Jews from Jerusalem that were having to chase Paul down in other lands to stir up persecution, why - 1 THESS 2:16 Paul states - "Forbidding us from speaking to the GENTILES that they might be saved. Paul was in places like Athens and Galatia etc in GREECE, those are the gentiles that the JEWS were trying to stop him from speaking to! Not Armenians! <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

Theres only ONE main language the New Testament was ORIGINALLY written in mate - GREEK. Then in got translated into Aramaic, Latin, Arabic, and so on. Why do you think Paul had to explain so many things in his epistle to the Hebrews, because they were Hebrews living in foreign lands outside Israel, mainly Greece, who spoke Greek, Paul would not have written to them in Hebrew, because too many of them would have had Greek as their primary language including their Jewish teenage children who would be conversant in Greek primarily, but also that Hebrew letter would have been for the benefit of all the Gentile Greek believers as well, so write the thing in GREEK. Like a lot of Jews in Israel TODAY, ninety percent of them don't even read the Bible, they are atheists, as such Paul was reaching out to Hebrew sojourners who would most likely have not been intimately acquainted with Hebrew spiritual heritage and details, hence all his detailed explanations in the letter of Hebrews to put them in remembrance.

The word of God in the New Testament was only written in one language mate, except Matthew which was originally dome in Aramaic.

Do you see how so many things in the AENT English translation are basically identical to the King James English translation.

You haven't answered why the Jews were reading from the GREEK Septuagint in their own Synagogues mate. If you're going to argue that the Aramaic was written first based on your dubious reasoning's, by your same reasoning's i could argue that it was originally written in Egyptian Arabic.

Our English translations from the Greek are second hand. Your English translations from the Aramaic are third hand. Which would you prefer. And even if it was Paul himself who wrote the Aramaic versions soon after, the Aramaic is so ambiguous because many words have up to 5 distinct meanings and makes it hard to achieve a coherent precise accurate English translation, but with the Greek language it is more conducive to achieving a one-to-one translation. Thus why so many verses translated from the Aramaic are just plain "WRONG."

There's no point for all the Aramaic primacy "theorists" to sit on their high-horse and look down on us, we are the ones with the original scriptures matey, not you lot. A lot of Aramaic primacy advocates stick there nose up at us lot, because pride has blinded them to the TRUTH that the Greek as evidenced by all my PROOF is the original writings of Paul. End of Aramaic primacy! <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
Reply
#29
Zardak:
Enough is enough. Let others agree to disagree with you. You make long, posts of little substance. Those whom have been gracious with you have done their best to explain with a great deal of restraint, the proofs of Aramaic Primacy. Have you actually read some of the former posts to at least see the other side of this argument, or are you just stonewalling. You simply blow them off in rude gestures and have added no substance to support Greek Primacy. Nip it in the bud now and cease and desist your rude banter, before I begin deleting your posted responses. Again, agree to disagree. It's honourable to do so. He that holds his peace is counted as a wise man. If you want to continue to post on these forums you must bring historical substance, not probabilities, cooked up mathematics and rude personal attacks against other members, who have been here much longer than you and have been gracious to you when they view your multitude of errors.

Stephen Silver
Forum Moderator
Reply
#30
Quote:Excuse me Thirdwoe: You state that - "God sent His holy word/message unto the Hebrew/Aramaic speakers." I would like to ask where exactly in ALL of scripture ANYWHERE does it say that???

Zardak,

Tell me that Jesus preached the Gospel in Greek to the Hebrew and Aramaic speakers...and that The Apostles preached the Gospel in Greek to the Hebrew and Aramaic speakers...

This fact that it 1st went out to these People groups can be shown to be the case in Scripture and is not disputed by any person I have ever heard from.

God's Holy Message was 1st given orally, as you must know...then written down to Aramaic, Greek, and Latin peoples who spoke those ancient languages. And I believe that God's Holy Words, went out in those languages by the Apostles authority. They were still living when they were produced and sent out.

Again...Show me a verse, where the Eastern Aramaic Scripture is not in accord with God's Holy Word/Message. These Aramaic Scriptures were sent by The Apostles to the Christians of the Eastern lands, Zardak.

You want "proof from Scripture", yet you tell me that Matthew wrote in Aramaic. Please show me where it says this in Scripture. And if you can accept this from only tradition as passed down from earliest times...then why is that you seem to be unable to accept other traditions passed down from earliest times, that The Church of the East, recieved The NT Scriptures, in Aramaic, from the hands of the Apostles...never once having the Greek form.

Are you going to tell me that the Aramaic Scriptures are not the Word/Message of God to the Aramaic speaking peoples? That it is defective and should be discarded? How so, where is it defective...show me.

Quote:And even if it was Paul himself who wrote the Aramaic versions soon after, the Aramaic is so ambiguous because many words have up to 5 distinct meanings and makes it hard to achieve a coherent precise accurate English translation, but with the Greek language it is more conducive to achieving a one-to-one translation. Thus why so many verses translated from the Aramaic are just plain "WRONG."

Instead of just making general critical statements, why not show some proof here? Lets look at it. Show me where the Eastern Aramaic Text is faulty. Any verse. Not the English translations of it...but IT. Show me where it is faulty against a Greek text of your choice...there are many out there, so you can pick which one to go with. You seem to like the Panin version right? Use that one then...

Quote:There's no point for all the Aramaic primacy "theorists" to sit on their high-horse and look down on us, we are the ones with the original scriptures matey, not you lot. A lot of Aramaic primacy advocates stick there nose up at us lot, because pride has blinded them to the TRUTH that the Greek as evidenced by all my PROOF is the original writings of Paul.

Zardak, this is how you are acting to us here. Can you see it? And so far I have seen zero "proof" from you, only your best assumptions as to how things were, as you say they were. That is not any proof at all...just assumptions.

But, you seem to be threatened by the belief that God had His Apostles send out His Holy Word in Aramaic as well as the Greek, to those in the Churches who spoke and read these languages...The Apostles themselves sent the Gospel Message to these people groups...both of them...East & West.

I believe that both the Aramaic and Greek, were written by the Hands of the Apostles, Period either by their own hands, or by their helpers who were dictated to. How exactly this went about, we do not know....

I am in no way threatend if it were proven that the Greek form was the only one written by the Apostles...But which text was? I have a number of them here, and they vary significantly in places. Which one do you approve of? Get it out...and compare it with The Eastern Aramaic Text at the best place to do that on the internet...here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/">http://www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/</a><!-- m --> then get back to us when you find something wrong with the Eastern Aramaic Scriptures.

We have heard all you said now a few times, Zardak...but I for one, would like to see some evidence from Scripture please...not just your assumptions. Show me a verse in the Eastern Aramaic Text, which you don't believe is The Word of God. Just one place...and I will consider it against what has been handed down and taught in the other languages and Church doctrines as maintained from Apostolic times.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)