Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aramaic/Greek manuscripts
#1
In our primacy discussions we take many corrupted versions of Greek Manuscripts and even English averaged translations of these versions for comparison base as to show and prove Aramaic primacy.
These versions are contradictory among themselves and therefore are corruptions and lies.
I do not think it is a good idea to keep digging in these lies and show them as proofs.

On the other side we have different versions of Aramaic NT: Diatessaron, Curetonian, Sinaic, Philoxenian, Peshitto, Peshitta. So, we decided to keep to the official text of the Church: Peshitta (22 books). It is right.

Next, I saw on the Internet explanation that Greek speaking heretics (I like to add probability
that many on purpose corruptions) did corruptions to the Greek NT to suit their beliefs but Greek Church preserved one official text as we have today. Sounds good and logical.

OK, here we go. Easy proof of Aramaic primacy.
Luke 1:75
Peshitta "..all our days..."
Official Greek Orthodox Church NT
"...all days of our life."

Here Greek text looks like amplified translation with better explanation.
On the other side, if original was "...all days of our life." then
Peshitta would have "...all days of our life."
Reply
#2
IPOstapyuk Wrote:These versions are contradictory among themselves and therefore are corruptions and lies.
I do not think it is a good idea to keep digging in these lies and show them as proofs.
Most textual corruptions are not lies they are just the result of human error when a text is translated and very broadly distributed and copied over many centuries, without any central control mechanism.
Reply
#3
I always thought that textual corruptions are human errors .. but .. the more you read .. the more you discover !
After reading dozens of studies about the real origin of the NT .. is it Greek .. or is it some other language ?
I realised that what's called "Textual Corruptions" are not "Human Errors" .. but .. "Deliberate Acts"
This is one link out of too many to mention !

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.v-a.com/bible/confession.html">http://www.v-a.com/bible/confession.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#4
IPOstapyuk Wrote:On the other side we have different versions of Aramaic NT: Diatessaron, Curetonian, Sinaic, Philoxenian, Peshitto, Peshitta. So, we decided to keep to the official text of the Church: Peshitta (22 books). It is right.

Hi IPO,
Do not forget the Harklean, which is a translation of Greek.
And the Diatessaron is in Greek as well. The original does not exist anymore.
It's funny how you point out that there are different aramaic versions, which one to take seriously? So you take the one of the Church (CoE?). But which Church then is to be taken seriously? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#5
samdav7 Wrote:I always thought that textual corruptions are human errors .. but .. the more you read .. the more you discover !
After reading dozens of studies about the real origin of the NT .. is it Greek .. or is it some other language ?
I realised that what's called "Textual Corruptions" are not "Human Errors" .. but .. "Deliberate Acts"
This is one link out of too many to mention !

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.v-a.com/bible/confession.html">http://www.v-a.com/bible/confession.html</a><!-- m -->

This is vic Alexander. The Aramaic ancient text he used is also readable at Dukhrana.com
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)