Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Refutation to Aramaic primacists
"Commending". Which verse do you want to look at?

Quote:The Greek word 'Commending' is a very specific word.

There is no such word in Greek. That is an English word, but I think you know that. Which actual Greek word are you speaking of, which you say the Aramaic scribe mistranslated. Lets look at an exact verse of your choosing.

Also, if you think that the Eastern Peshitta New Testament originated in the 4th century, or with Rabulla's version of the original text, that he changed in various places, then you would be wrong, as the Eastern Peshitta is much older than his revision, and corruption.

The Eastern text being static for its almost 2000 year history, shows that it has not been corrupted and acts like an original source text, not like a translation, which are often revised time and time again, as we see in the Greek and Latin texts, in their varied forms...not to speak of the English translations from them.

The Quran was also revised and edited by Uthman, making a new version from various versions that preceded it.

The Quran was not given by Apostles, nor has it been unchanged in its text. The Aramaic New Testament of The Peshitta has been, and hasn't been.

You seem to be unaware of the process of translating languages. If you think that a translator would not add a helper word, which does not change the meaning, but helps the sentence or brings out the sense a bit more, then you don't know what translating means. For instance, an interlinear text, is not a translation, but a rendering of each word as close to the source words as make it a translation, one needs to tie the words together and help them make sense and bring out the meaning as best you can. This means added words here and we see in the Greek, Latin, and English translations.

Quote:I used this one example just to make a point that many verses in the Peshitta are guilty of this. I'm not gonna cite all of them here?

Guilty of what? Being a more exact and pure text of the New Testament? Not showing itself to be a translation of any source text, as all the other languages do? You really need to get familiar with the Aramaic New Testament, before you try to speak against it.

Quote:And also when you say "'ALL' is redundant", you are effectively accusing Paul the apostle of being verbose, because we know that the epistle to the Philippians was originally penned in Greek.

No, we don't actually know that it was originally penned in Greek. That is an assumption and an opinion only, with no proof to it being the case. You seem to think that an Aramaic speaking man, would not write in his own native language, and then have its text translated into other languages not native to him. Maybe you thought that Paul was a "Hellenist"? Not.

The only way we can prove anything along these lines, is by looking at the text itself...otherwise it is all conjecture, opinion, and assumptions...guesses.

You have given only assumptions, and have quoted the assumptions, opinions, and conjectures...guesses of others, who think like you do about the matter.

But, lets look at the actual text, and show that it is a translation and not the source text. Do the hard work yourself, and stop relying on what other people tell you they think is the case. With no proof.

Do you believe that The Messiah spoke in Greek, where He is recorded in the Gospels and by Paul? So, in the Greek version, you have a translation of every Aramaic word that The Messiah spoke. The Greek is a translation of all those words, and sometimes leaves a word or phrase here and there un-translated.

The Aramaic Text, is not a translation in all these thousands of words, it using the same words that The Messiah actually used. Just in this, it is the better text, as it is not going through a language change.

There is no evidence that the Peshitta is a translation of a Greek source text...if you know which one, or if you can prove it is so, based on the text itself, then show it here...otherwise you are just blowing smoke, with assumptions, opinions, conjectures and mere guesses. And this will not do for real convincing.

I have found no problems in the Aramaic New Testament. I love The Messiah's Word in the language He spoke in. I'm not sure why you would be so against it?

Maybe it is your devotion to Mr. Panin's 20th century constructed text and personal translation of it?

Speaking of that text, do you know which Greek text that Mr. Panin used to count up his 175 words in Mark 16:9-20?

I hope you wont say that he counted them up in the edited version of a Greek text he used, while adding some words in there to make it have 175 words. And thus have it work with his numeric scheme.

That would be doctoring the book to make a miracle seem to have happened. I'm not saying he did so...maybe he did? I'm really trying to find a Greek text, other than the edited version he made, so I can verify that there is actually a Greek text that existed prior to his version, which has all those 175 words present in that passage.

Maybe you know of one, or could find one.



You are a cut and paste guy it seems, and I wonder how many words are actually coming from your own mind in your posts.

You broke US Copyright law again in your latest post. Unless you are Mr. Benjamin Shaw of If not, you are putting his words into your mouth, so to speak, perhaps trying to look more educated on the subject than you actually are? One starts to wonder.

Copyright Statement
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2014? Benjamin Shaw. 'Aramaic Thoughts' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each story, along with a link to <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- w --> 2) 'Aramaic Thoughts' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.

Word of advice...if you are going to continue to cut and paste other people's work, then you should in the least put those words, which are not yours, into quotation marks, and if there is a Copyright notice for the article, then you need to comply with it.

Lets look at what this person is doing with his cut and paste jobs.

Here is an example:

Here is the Original article peice at, which this one took from and made it his own...unless he is the same person.

Quote:The significance of this for the New Testament is as follows: the Greek of the New Testament was written by men whose native language was Aramaic, a Semitic language. They wrote the New Testament material in Greek, an Indo-European language. There are significant structural differences between Semitic and Indo-European languages, specifically between Aramaic (and Hebrew) and Greek. One significant difference is that the usual word order in Aramaic sentences is verb-subject-object. In Greek, the word order is usually subject-verb-object, as it is in English. In addition, word order is more significant in Aramaic than it is in Greek. In Greek, nouns (and adjectives) have case endings: nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative. The nominative case is the "subject" case. The accusative is the "direct object" case. The dative is the "indirect object" case. The genitive is the "possessive" case. (For any grammarians among my readers, I apologize for the preceding gross over-simplification, but this is not a grammar column.) Thus in Greek the function of a word in a sentence is indicated by its case ending. As a result, word order is less significant than in Aramaic or English. For example, in Greek the sentence "the boy entered the building" could be stated by putting "the building" before "entered" and "the boy" after "entered." The case endings on "boy" and "building" would indicate which was the subject and which was the object. English is dependent on word order, as is Aramaic to a lesser extent.

Note: The above is statements are Copyright 2014? Benjamin Shaw. 'Aramaic Thoughts' @ <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Now here is this person's, (who wants to hide his real name) edited version, being presented as if it were his own (if it isn't). Showing (underlined) where he changes it around to make it look like those are his words (If they aren't).

The significance of this debate about the New Testament is the fact that the Greek of the New Testament was written by men whose native language was Aramaic, a Semitic language. They wrote the New Testament material in Greek, an Indo-European language. There are significant structural differences between Semitic and Indo-European languages, specifically between Aramaic (and Hebrew) and Greek. One significant difference is that the usual word order in Aramaic sentences is verb-subject-object. In Greek, the word order is usually subject-verb-object, as it is in English. In addition, word order is more significant in Aramaic than it is in Greek. In Greek, nouns (and adjectives) have case endings: nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative. The nominative case is the "subject" case. The accusative is the "direct object" case. The dative is the "indirect object" case. The genitive is the "possessive" case. (For any grammarians among you, I apologize for the preceding gross over-simplification, but this is not a grammar column.) Thus in Greek the function of a word in a sentence is indicated by its case ending. As a result, word order is less significant than in Aramaic or English.

If you are Benjamin Shaw, then you have nothing to be ashamed of by trying to pass his words off as yours, and have not again broken US Copyright laws...Let's hope you are, and can be honest about it.



I see at the end of your post, you again lifted some of the article at StudyLight and tried to make it your own...(if it isn't yours to begin with), even changing one of it's words around at the end there, "his native language" to "his native tongue" Again, if you are not Mr. Benjamin Shaw, (I hope you are) you have no right to use his words as if they were yours, so as to appear more educated than you really are. Is this a common practice of yours on the internet perhaps?

I wonder if you even know anything about the Aramaic language really, like you seem to know little of the Greek language as well. We'll see.

Lets take a look at your example: You said...

Quote:The Greek word 'Sunistwntes' (commending) in 2 Cor 4:2: "commending ourselves to every conscience of men before God by the manifestation of the truth." While the beginning of the verse describes two things Paul is not doing, this third phrase indicates something he is doing. He does not use any craftiness to accomplish the results of his ministry. He does not adulterate or deceitfully use the word of God, but in contrast is 'COMMENDING' himself by manifestation of the truth.

This Greek word 'Sunistwntes' means literally "Together-Standing", in pure functional meaning it specifically denotes 'Commending', as not only i know, but even my native Greek-speaking friend knows. So, the word in the Aramaic IS INDEED A MISTRANSLATION.

Now...This will take some real work for you, and I hope you take the time to do the exercise, for your own good. And I hope this helps others who may read this thread as well.

If you know how to read and understand the Aramaic word (vocalized) "mHaweynan" in 2 Cor 4:2, or at least know how to look it up in the lexicons and dictionaries, to check its meaning, and also know the various meanings of the Greek word in the same verse, being "synistanontes", and as well know the various English meanings of the English word "commending"....then, after that work, which will take you about 10 mins or so max, if you know how to study using easy English language/Original language study will see that there is absolutely no mistranslation in the Aramaic verse in question. Which you thought (wrongly) was so.

In fact, the Aramaic text gives the more accurate word for the context of the verse! the word means in English translation "showing" or "displaying" or "Exhibiting" or "demonstrating" themselves (the Apostles) to everyone, openly, not hiding anything or holding anything back from them in the sight of God. i.e. They were an "open book" so to speak....that is the meaning in context. The word in the Aramaic works perfectly in the context of the verse and so does the Greek translation of it, and so does the English translation of the Greek word. If you know a bit about the words in question. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

As for the Greek word, which would be the translation of the Aramaic word: To see that this word in the Greek, can also mean what it means in the Aramaic text, you can consult Thayer's Greek Lexicon and check the entry for Strong's #4921..and also look up the English word "commending", and see that it too carries this meaning, as given in the Aramaic text.

Here is an online dictionary, which "shows" that the word "Commend", carries this meaning that the Aramaic text has, and which the Greek text also has as a meaning of its word, as seen in Thayer's and Strong's lexicons.

English word:

2.commend - present as worthy of regard, kindness, or confidence; "His paintings commend him to the artistic world"
portray, present - represent abstractly, for example in a painting, drawing, or sculpture; "The father is portrayed as a good-looking man in this painting"

"Portraying" "presenting"... or showing, or demonstrating, or exhibiting....this is the meaning, of commending, in the context of the verse, where the Apostles were baring their souls among the people in the sight of God, being open and honest before the people, not hiding anything or trying to be someone they were not.

2Corinthians 4:2 - "But we have renounced the concealments of dishonor, and we walk not in craftiness, nor do we treat the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth, we exhibit ourselves to all the consciences of men before God." -Murdoch

This should be a great learning experience. I know I have learned something very important.

Glory to God.


You may continue on if you so desire, in your speculations, assumptions, conjectures, and guesses, and willing denial that the Aramaic is indeed the original form of the New Testament.

I told you in the beginning, that I am only interested in discussing the text itself, because that is the only way to come to real truth on the matter, as all else is speculation.

And have shown you that the word translated "commending" in the English versions, in the verse you chose, which you assumed was mistranslated in the Aramaic text, is certainly not, which I proved to you from the lectionaries and the dictionaries.

You like your own opinions much better than the truth of the matter, so I'll let you keep them if you like.

If you want to discuss another verse, where you think the Aramaic mistranslated a Greek word, then I am happy to look at it.

Also, I hold no ill will against you, nor harbor any spite in my heart for you, and forgive you for being rude and mocking in your tone, as it seems you can't help it. I ask God's mercy for your soul.

It don't bother me in the slightest if you want to keep thinking that the Greek text of Ivan Panin is the original autograph in printed form, and that his translation is the best ever in English.

I'll ask you though, if you think his translation of Acts 16:4 is good.

I have nothing against the Greek versions, I just don't find them to be that accurate. I have found the Aramaic to be so. I am not of "Eastern heritage", I'm of Western heritage.

I'm busy at the moment, but I'll respond to your last post later today. In the mean time, can you show me which Greek word you saw in Mr. panin's Greek version, for the word you translated as "believers". I want to check that out a bit. Also have you found a Greek text of Mark 16:9-20 which has a word count of 175? other than Mr. panin's version of course, as I want to check it out as well, to see if the count is correct.
Also, it seems like the supposed numeric codes can be found in almost every book. Anti-Missionary Jews have used alleged codes in the Hebrew Tanach to disprove Christianity. If these "codes" can be found in almost every book, do they prove anything?
Quote:Going by your photo there is nothing Western in your bloodline genetics.

Really. That is called an assumption and an opinion, mere conjecture...a guess, based on not a shred of real evidence, but still you seem sure of it? Sounds familiar. Would you believe it if I tell you that you are mistaken, or will you need a sample of my DNA. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Seriously. I must ask you though, since you seem to know a persons genetics simply by looking at a picture of them, which Eastern bloodline would you say I was from, based on the picture of me there?

Why would he be lying about his heritage, Godparticle? You seem unable to partake in a discussion with people bearing differing opinions without getting an attitude. I don't see the love of Christ and the fruits of His Spirit coming forth in your manner of speech. You come across as an arrogant soul that views us Aramaic primacists as idiots. Please learn to debate in a civil and polite manner and maybe we'll take you more seriously.
If he ever comes to the realization that in all his false judgments against us, he was really just telling on himself, he would be ashamed of it, and perhaps would be granted repentance by God, if he sought it.

I personally have taken no offense in his words or attitude towards me, and forgive him for his behavior. I do hope though that one day he will be able to see the way he treats others who don't agree with him. I also wonder why, if he considers us his "brothers" as he said above, he would act in such ways towards us, and why he would want to hide who he really is too. Maybe he has been here before?

Yea, well "taking liberties" in your version, may be fine with you when translating God's words, but not for me. If this is your method of "translating", then I would want nothing to do with your version of God's all.

This type of careless and senseless adding words here and subtracting words there, are exactly how the textual mess got made, where you have one version saying this thing this way, and the other version saying that thing that way, and many times having varying meanings given and they each having more or less content than the other.

This we see in the old Latin versions, where it got so bad, that Jerome was begged to try to fix the problems made by men, and we see the same thing in the Greek versions, thus W&H thought that they would try to fix the problem...problem is...they just made it worse...way worse. Then Panin comes along and takes their corrupted text, and puts his spin on it, and claims it to be perfected and the inspired autograph in printed form.

This is not to mention the multitude of English versions all claiming to be "the best" yet, while each of them has more or less than the other, as to content. So which one is the true New Testament? Why, your new version of course! Please.

This is why I love The Eastern Aramaic New Testament, as found in all the Eastern Manuscripts. Always the same content, for its entire existence, since the time the Apostles gave it to the Christians of the Aramaic speaking Church of the East. Pure, simple, unadulterated, no variation as to it's content and the words are the same words too.

So, you admit here that Mr. Ivan Panin had to construct a new edited version of the Westcot and Hort corruption of a text, and carefully craft the words together so that they would make his "bible numeric's" work right. So, what he did is create his own "miracle" and call it God's work instead, rather than his own crafty handiwork.

He couldn't find an actual Greek text that would do the trick, so, he made one up that would work...then tell people that his new version was the autograph restored by him, and all others that exist and have existed are the corruptions, his version being perfect, since he made the numeric's work right as he stitched the text together the way it would work right.

And now you seem to have the same method of dealing with your English version of his newly invented text, where you think you can just add a word here or there, when you think it makes more sense or gives the right meaning, and also as you said, to keep your version unique from the rest of the bunch. Too much. for my genetics, what do you consider "Eastern"?

1st off, that picture has been doctored up by me using a photo program I used, as I am a bit artistic in nature, so, it is not an exact copy of what I really look like...sort of what folks do with the The New Testament. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

But, maybe you think you see my 1/4 American Indian (Choctaw) bloodline on my Dad's side peaking through the lines, but, if you do, you would be the 1st person ever to make that observation, as I look like a typical "white" guy in all respects, being 3/4 English/Welsh/Irish/ on my Moms side...with a tiny little Cherokee from her mother's side too, as I recall. So, if we can say that the American Indians 1st originated in the East, before coming over to "the West" (actually they would have been traveling East) <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> ...then yea, I guess you could say I have some "Eastern" in my make up. lol

But, really...we are all of Eastern extraction, being that we all come from "the middle East", through the three sons of Noah, who's descendants all spread out from the Mesopotamia area some few hundred years after the Flood. Speaking of which, I'm going to watch that movie this weekend.

in closing this post out...I really hope you are not a racist type of person, at all...cause that would even be worse for you.

GP. You state:

"Was Jesus talking about himself in all his judgments against the Jews??"

Don't. Go. There.

I've backed off quite a bit in regards to your Posts. Not here. You are making a particular type of generalization and it is VERY UGLY. It is tragically wrong!
You want to talk Pharisees? OK, I'll go back to Hyrcanus 1 with you. Scribes? I know the "whys" of that one as well.

John 2:20 (RSV):

[20] The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"

Many hate "The Jews" for verses such as this - "Challenging Jesus! How dare they!" Hatred, however, clouds what "The Jews" are stating. They are correct in what they are asserting. It is what Jesus is asserting here as well. It's just that you don't get it. It is what Jesus is asserting as well! That's one of the points here!

Consider Tacitus, Histories, Book 3 for a moment:

"The slaughter that followed was made particularly memorable through the murder of a father by his son. I will record the incident with the names, on the authority of Vipstanus Messalla. Julius Mansuetus, a Spaniard, enlisting in the legion Rapax, had left at home a son of tender age. The lad grew up to manhood, and was enrolled by Galba in the 7th legion. Now chancing to meet his father, he brought him to the ground with a wound, and, as he rifled his dying foe, recognized him, and was himself recognized. Clasping the expiring man in his arms, in piteous accents he implored the spirit of his father to be propitious to him, and not to turn from him with loathing as from a parricide. "This guilt," he said, "is shared by all; how small a part of a civil war is a single soldier!" With these words he raised the body, opened a grave, and discharged the last duties for his father. This was noticed by those who were on the spot, then by many others; astonishment and indignation ran through the whole army, and they cursed this most horrible war. Yet as eagerly as ever they stripped the bodies of slaughtered kinsfolk, connexions, and brothers. They talk of an impious act having been done, and they do it themselves."

"This guilt is shared by all..." Heard that one before?

Matthew 27: 25 (RSV):

[25] And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"

I don't think that there is any mention of "Jews" in the Tacitus report. I don't recall ever hearing that hatred of the Romans should carry over to killing Italians today but that is the equivalent.
Your Zeal and emotionality have let you down in this case. You have tipped your hand to show your true feelings and it is to be repudiated.
Hatred of the Jews?


I did not intend to offend you, but you seem to be trying your best to stir us up (and you have succeeded with me), therefore I am having a difficult time not responding to you in an offended manner. Forgive me please if I have offended you, but I would appreciate if you would start treating us with respect as well. None of what you said has really proven anything, as a matter of fact, many of these things you've posted have been on this website before. Bible numerics and Bible codes seem like nothing more than desperate attempts believers to prove the Bible to be true. Paul Younan, Andrew Gabriel Roth, Dr. George M. Lamsa, William Norton, and Reverend Glenn David Bauscher have contributed a whole lot of the cause of Aramaic primacy. If you read their work, you'll find that there is more to the theory of Aramaic primacy than Greek primacists scholars will lead you to believe. If you're interested in the "Bible code" type stuff (I know Bible numerics is different from Bible codes, by the way), David Bauscher has done a lot of work in this area and believes he has found many Bible codes that are completely lost in the Greek text and are only found in the Aramaic text of the New Covenant. I personally don't buy into these things, but I encourage you to look at them if you think there is value to them.
I'll only respond to what was a response to my posts...and let the others respond to theirs, or mine too if they like.

Quote:Where did i add a word? Tell me.

In your "translation" of Acts 16:4, which is the only verse I have seen from your version to date, you put the word "believers", where the word for "believers" does not exist in Mr. Panin's edited Greek text.

Then you claim that your "translation" is the best ever, from the best ever Greek text version. Better than his, where he uses the actual word for "them" in his text. And looks like you are still changing your version what was "the best", last night, must be even better than the best, today. lol

You try to justify taking the word for "them" away, and adding the word for "believers" into your English version of Mr. Panin's edited Greek text of W&H, but, anyone with any sense, can see that you didn't stick to the text, but, added your own word in. It may seem "harmless" to your mind, but, this type of thing is one of the reasons things have got as messed up as they are. I think we can be pretty sure that this is not the only, or worse, example your version has in it...but, I sure hope so.

Quote:If the preceding verses to Acts 16:4 give no indication of who Paul was going to, then the word 'Them' is quite ambiguous, right? And a bit confusing, right?

Not at all. Verse two speaks of "the Disciples", whom they were ministering among in the region where they were ministering in, and verse 5 speaks of The Assemblies of these Disciples, which were being established in the Faith by the Apostles and their helpers. If you look back a few chapters in Acts, you will see that these Disciples were the ones who needed to know about what was decided at The Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, and whom they were to deliver the judgment and instruction to.

Also, notice that the Apostles in Jerusalem sent two others to help deliver this message to these Disciples, Silas being one of them. There was a good reason for this. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:So, i have replaced an 'Object Noun' (Them) with a 'Plural Noun' (Believers) purely to clarify. And you call that adding words even though anyone would agree that it is merely 'clarifying' the text.

And where does that type thing end? Have you ever read The Message, by Mr. Eugene H. Peterson? He seems to think it good as well to do such things and think it's the New Testament too.

Have you attended a Bible study group recently?

What you will find most often, especially those which are inter-faith type, is that one will have a NKJV, one will have an NIV, the other an NASB, and one gal might have an Amplified Bible, and one guy a copy of The Message Bible...and they sit down to study a certain passage...and you have this type of response..."wow!!, that reads totally different than my version does. Or..."that isn't at all what my version says, and it gives a different meaning altogether! Or....hey!!! my version doesn't have that verse, or passage in it!!!???

It is a real mess...I know, I have been in these type of bible study groups before...and even led a few...and a lot of the time I have to explain why these things are, and tell how all the variants and missing verses and passages that are in the more modern English versions got there or got taken out.

The skeptics and atheists love this mess, by the way...I've had to deal with them as well over the years and try to explain the mess.

I say...if you have must make a new version, just translate what it there already, and stop trying to make up a new Bible with new words that were not originally penned and translated by the Apostles and their helpers in the 1st century.

Quote:Do i need to explain that the job of translating the text cannot possibly be literal word for word because different grammar and phrases and syntax demand customization to make it intelligible in the receptor language? Geeez you say some stupid things! No language can possibly be translated litera word for word into another language, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!

Of course, and I didn't say it could be...but, the translator, if he loves God's words high above his own words will do his utmost to render the closest words that matches the source text...and if there is an idiom that can't be clearly related in the receptor language, you can get as close to the meaning as possible, and hopefully make a note giving the literal rendering, or the other way around...I have found it edifying and helpful to read what the idom actually says, literally, even if it might sound odd to our modern western culture ears.

We don't need new Bibles...what we need is the original Bible, as it was written, as close to how it was 1st given. I believe that Mr. Panin's text is the most original Greek version ever, the autograph in print even!!!...if so...then why not translate it as it is given by Mr' Panin then, without adding your own words like "believers" for "them".

I know it may seem a small thing to you in this instance...but, it is the principal of the thing that matters. And that is what I am talking about here.

Quote:Put his spin on it? Well, if you call mathematically validated trillions to one odds 'his spin on it' then yeah, i would have to agree. 50 years of intensive studious study to extract God's hand finger and guidance on the text, and yet you scoff at it? <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> The type of mathematical odds that NO MAN ON THIS PLANET has been able to dispute. God sends Dr Panin to give you confirmation of the perfect text and this is how you react to it? I question your motives sir!

Ummm...."trillions to one odds" ONLY if that was what was found in the actual text...but, in this case, Mr. Panin decided it needed some adjustments so he could get the result he wanted.

In this case, he created the miracle himself, which simply was not there to begin with!

If you look at the passage in question...Mark 16:9-20, in Mr. Panin's edited text of the W&H and the TR...what do you see there?

How did he get the word count to reach 175 so he would have the numbers multiply the way he wanted them to? I'll give you a hint: He split three words and made them into six words..., and then went with the TR reading for vs 20, which is about half as short as he found in W&H's version. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> ...and amazing!!! you have the miracle now!

How long did it take him to figure out how to do that? It took me about 15 mins to figure out how he did it.

So, he takes what is always and always has been three single Greek words, and cuts them in half, making two new Greek words out of them.

Newly coined Greek words.... Cool beans..The Greek vocab is growing.

And yea, we don't need that last part of Mark's Gospel at all in the Greek text, cause it would run to long for the count anyway.

You don't think this is being at all dishonest? Please.

I think if we looked over his whole job, we would see a lot more of this type massaging of the text to get his end result...I mean 12 hours a day for 50 years? Maybe....but yea, it could take a long time to stitch a new Greek New Testament text together and make sure all the numbers added up they way you thought they should be.

The three single words that he splits up into brand new Greek words in his text are also just single words in the Aramaic text, and always just one word each in the manuscripts, like the Greek version. When translating these words into English, yes, they need to become two words...But, not in the Greek or the Aramaic text, as you count them as one word each, so, this is a cleaver trick that Mr. Panin came up with to work his miracle and try to prove that his brand new Greek text was somehow the very autograph itself as 1st written down... word for word, letter for letter, by the Apostles.

And you have actually believed this is legit? And it seems this is part of the reason that you must reject the Aramaic New Testament text as being original? I don't matter what you are shown here, if you are going to believe what Mr. Panin says about anyway, against all other real evidence to the contrary...what are we talking to you about it for then?

Quote:Inserting 2 or 3 words from an 'actual' text does not mean he is embellishing the text does it? Why do you say such stupid things man?? He confirmed it via the math, 50 years of math. Are you on cocaine or heroin man? I want some. LOL You call this 'constructing a text?

No, I don't use drugs, thank God.

As I have seen in this case, this is not at all what Mr. Panin did though, here in this instance of the passage in Mark 16:9-20. Perhaps I should look at 1 Cor 13:3 now?

I think I'll give this discussion about one more day, unless moved to do otherwise, so I can get back to more productive things.

And you still haven't been good enough to give us your real name yet...unless I missed it somewhere. Please do, if you really consider us your Brothers.



Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)