Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Refutation to Aramaic primacists
Brother's, as you read this person's statement below, if he actually means it, know and understand that he is desperately delusional and spiritually sick. I knew he had big problems, but, after just reading what he says here, I know now that he is truly very ill. I hope he is kidding, but, it sure don't seem so to me. And I think that if I continue to engage him, it will do more harm than good for him, as he tries to puff himself up even bigger to try to stay on what he believes to be the top.

He stated:

Quote:I guarantee you God will approve my version. Obviously He approved the KJV during 400 years, so now the time is for the baton to be passed on to my version. God ordained me to do my version, to fix this mess, and to bring His perfect Greek text into English to usurp the mediocre modern versions and also to take-over from the legacy of the King James version, and also to bring the proper and mathematically verified text to the English people. Who are you to speak against God???????

If this is a true belief of his, he believes that God has appointed him to translate a "perfect" English New Testament from Panin's "perfect" Greek text, and that if you speak against it or question it, and maybe even him too, in whatever he might believe, you speak against God Himself.

We have seen the fruit he walks in here, so we know who is really driving his car.


I don't think God ever put His stamp of approval on any translation, especially the King James Version which is plagued by mistranslations and a flawed base text. I'm not speaking against God or you, but against your flawed reasoning. If you believe that you can flawlessly translate Greek and Hebrew into English then you yourself obviously know nothing about these ancient languages (making you a bad choice for a translator, no offense intended). The only divinely inspired and perfect Bible text is the autographs, written in Hebrew and Aramaic (or Greek if you will).
There are no Greek manuscripts, lesser known or not, which have the Greek words that Ivan split into separate words...they don't exist in the Greek text that way. They always have been and always will be one single word each. He had to do it, to make his count of words work. And I am sure if we look over his whole edited text, this wont be the only time he has done such a thing.

If you don't think changing God's words around and switching out "them" for "believers" is wrong to do, that is your bad idea. And like I said, with the licence you give yourself, I would not want to bother reading your bible, since it isn't the same as God's Bible.

Go now, and try to make your version eclipse all others in the English language and be the new King James if you can... Most people have never heard of Ivan Panin's Numeric version, and it has been around for about 100 years, I think you will have the same impact, if not much less.

And I have given my real name from the start.

At my daughter?s elementary school today a man preached to the school about 1 Peter 3:15, which speaks of honoring the Father in your heart, and sharing your faith in meekness and reverence.

The preacher distinguished between the word for ?knowledge? in Greek (referring often to knowledge by experience), and the word for ?knowledge? in Hebrew (referring often to intimate knowledge). I found it useful to understand both perspectives. I wonder if there is a part of all of us in this age that respond to Greek language perspectives; and is this a form of Greek primacy in our brains? And could not the same be said of Aramaic?

Personally, I reason the Father has put countless men before me who read ancient Greek and Aramaic texts and to whom I cannot even hold a candle, from their charitable deeds to loving hearts, upright families, natural and humble lifestyles, etc. Is that not also a kind of primacy in and of itself? Have you read Bauscher?s book yet comparing Greek & Aramaic?

Higgs B, I think the most assertive points you?ve raised so far were about Panin and Rabulla. Regarding Rabulla, you may wish to see how that point too has been explained contrary to your point: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="">viewtopic.php?f=23&t=698</a><!-- l --> (my hope is that in reading this explanation it will increase your historical understanding and appreciation of Aramaic). As you know, Aramaic primacy is not some new study; there has yet to be a single argument ever propounded against it to which scholars have not offered multiple compelling counter-arguments. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Aramaic should be on the defensive at all, given that Yahshua and the apostles spoke this language daily. Nor should it be supposed this is some kind of fight or contest between Greek & Aramaic.

[Image: cookie-tree-argument.jpg]

Who can calculate what the Father does and does not like about His use of Greek to influence the saga of mankind? Same for Aramaic, another language out of Babylon. Do we even desire a one-world-language, the absence of diversity?

The translation of words, adding of words, dividing of definitions ? it reminds me of the fascinating ways that scientific theories are translated and superseded in history. Like Greek translations, sometimes the more complex scientific theories are the ones that ultimately do not survive as foundational, but they serve their purpose as practical (even essential) in their own history.

For example, look at the ongoing history of thermodynamics - it pretty much began as the study of engines, and helped assist inventors over and again (even helping to forge industrial revolutions), but ultimately how much of thermodynamics (like the caloric theory) was mired in the study of effects (like translations of a more fundamental theory)?

And just because we see (or think we see) a greater foundational science behind a theory, the question remains for us ? what can we accomplish with whatever theory we?re given. A tree is known by its fruits. If every tree is supposed to be a Greek olive, or every tree a Lebanese cedar, then why did the Father write history with such diversity in textual traditions and peoples? Do people not also have diverse needs?

And who could say the same cool inventions in thermodynamics would be found with an alternate history, a history without contemplating all those different definitions and layered effects? Sometimes the struggle to find and compare the greater foundation is just as important as the outcome ? we all know this intuitively, we all know ?the journey can be as important as the outcome?.

When it comes to the eye-witness testimonies about Yahshua?s journey through Aramaic-speaking Israel, I deduce an extraordinarily high likelihood of Aramaic primacy. I won?t speak regarding the epistles that went out into the world because I have not studied them ? the Aramaic eyewitness gospels are too rich to even afford me time to get to anyone?s letters. I am fairly young yet though.

Should a probability analysis of Aramaic primacy lead me to presume the Father gives me license to bash early Greek texts that He is using to accomplish who-knows-what purposes? No, I don?t presume that. Do you feel that Aramaic primacy threatens the Greek so much that it seeks to destroy it? I hope not.

At the end of the day, if you want to believe Ivan Panin was the man for the primacy job, go right ahead ? the Father will give you the journey that reveals you for who you are. Please don?t be offended by others or point fingers at others who have been given a different path by the Father. As you believe, so be it to you. Readers can examine your claims, but many readers have desired in their hearts to consider sources as well that call your claims into question: A Review of Panin?s Biblical Numerics, by Peter Dunn. Miracles in Edgar Allan Poe (using Panin Methodology), by Brendan McCay. Personally, I hope for a fruitful outcome here, for the Father?s will to be accomplished.

In this forum thread I feel like there is a lot of ?salesman-type? talk that has happened. For example, this statement:
godparticle Wrote:FYI the numerics in the Greek text prove orders of magnitude beyond the Aramaic in frequent occurrence
I think to make such a statement one would actually need to make spreadsheets and models and compare the numerics behind the Greek and the Aramaic. Hmmm, I think your statement above quoted is not provable by you. I make spreadsheets on Aramaic gematria and diagrams and models, so without the right software I know I couldn?t presume to make such a general and conclusory statement about numerology across two languages.

But you?re into number patterns, that?s cool if it bears good fruit. I like looking for evidence in the bible of natural things on earth (like fundamental constants). Some of my interests are in QED applications of Aramaic text reading like a clock, and geometries on the earth, and wave harmonics highlighted in Aramaic.

Do you hold open the possibility that the Aramaic is meaningful, that the Father has made it so? If yes, then are you open to the possibility that the Aramaic primacy tradition and evidence may be correct, and that Greek can still be supported by the Father however He sees fit? What do you think is interesting about the fact that Yahshua spoke Aramaic? Do you like studying the Aramaic for just that fact alone?

I think that folks who try to draw hard conclusions about traditions and mathematics and scripture, and who omit the wonder of it all (from a place of meekness), may run the risk of simply trying to be salesmen for some particular ideology. So be it; I just encourage people to acknowledge when they are acting, as salesmen. And I think we all have salesmen within us at times, trying to validate ourselves, to feed our brains the chemicals we desire for whatever particular homeostasis around which we try to sustain our identities.

But we can also do better, to strive to speak from the heart and be genuine, not just in our knowledge but also admitting our lack of it. It has been written that the Lord humbles the proud. Should I cite this scripture for the group in Aramaic or Greek or Hebrew? On some level that is important (especially here at this forum given its special and successful focus), but not every level. Not at the expense of being civil. And most importantly from a hypocritical salesman perspective, not at the expense of being humble and admitting if we haven?t really examined all the evidence, because we don?t have all the evidence. We have only pieces and tradition, just like the different sects of Judaism in 30AD when they debated Hebrew and Aramaic and the messiah came and spoke of the language of the heart?

Don't be fooled by this guy who won't say who he really is...

His latest post there is just another cut an paste job, by the king of cut and paste.

If he didn't know how to do that trick, he would have to type his own words out. But, why do that, when he can just use other peoples words and math and act like he did it himself. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

As I said, Ivan Panin's version of the Greek NT, and his translation from his own edited version, has been available to the public for some 100 years now, and very few have paid it any attention.

I would gather that not even close to 1% of the population of the world has ever heard of him, or if they had, has actually bothered to read his translation or check out what he has said he sees in the numbers in the Greek text (which he himself constructed over what is claimed to be 12 hours a day for 50 years)...I say that is horse apples, and even if it were might take that long to stitch a whole NT together the way you wanted it to work, with the numbers just right.

But, in any case....I have shown just one example here, of his handiwork, were he fudges the text...cooked the book so to speak, so that he could arrive at his desired number 175 to make his multiples of 7 "miracle" work out in Mark 16:9-20.

GP (Greek Primacist)....Let's test something out. "Test all things"

Look in Panin's Greek text of Mark 16: vs 11, vs 13, and vs 18...and then tell me which words he split in two there. Then tell me if the split parts to the right, is an actual Greek word or not. And then tell me in which manuscript he found it like that in...if you say he didn't split them in two himself. said this:

Quote:1/3rd of the Peshitta doesn't even make sense;

Have you, or can you even read the Aramaic text? Or do you just go off a translation, in these cases which are lacking in many respects, and are not even the actual Peshitta many's amazement.

And which 1/3rd of the text do you say makes no sense? Any real proof? Or just your false and lying statement...or maybe your misguided assumptions? Either way...=a lie... i.e. a false witness.

I take it that you have never read or studied the actual Aramaic New Testament, then?

What you gave as to his supposed source for Mark 16:9-20, if you knew better, you would know that neither the Codex Sinaiticus or Vaticanus has Mark 16:9-20 in its text.

Alexandrinus has it, but, do you say it has the same text as Ivan's text has there, where he split the words up?

Here at the link below is the Alexandrinus Codex for you to look, if you can show me which page Ivan saw the text as he constructed it, that would be good.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... e=0#viewer</a><!-- m -->

I don't think you have taken any actual time to verify Ivan's claims...only read other peoples opinions and believed them.

You said:
Quote:The text Mr Panin used to derive mark 16:9-20... Codex Alexandrinus: a 5th century manuscript containing the entire New Testament, brought to England about 1630.
Codex Siniaticus, discovered in St. Catherine's Monastery at (the traditional) Mt. Sinai, has been dated around 350 A.D:
Codex Vaticanus, dated about 325 A.D. had been in the Vatican Library since at least 1481, but was not made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th century. <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: -->

Ok...but two of those DO NOT have the passage, and so it must be in the other one, if that is where he got his text, with the split words in which page at the online source there of Codex Alexandrinus shows this feature unique to Mr. Panin's text?

Quote:The recipients of Paul's epistles were 90% Greeks, and 10% Hellenists (only spoke Greek), and maybe some bilingual Jews. So, i say again, WHAT LANGUAGE WOULD YOU WRITE THE EPISTLES IN TO THESE RECIPIENTS? I think the answer is obvious.

I would write it in my own language, the one I used all the time, the one I was most knowledgeable in, and then have it translated by the help of other more knowledgeable people in that language.

Here, I'll even help you find the pages...the passage is on the last two pages of the 2nd row at the link below. What do you see there for vs 11, 13, and 18?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... e=2#viewer</a><!-- m -->

I figured as much. This was to show the others that you are a pretender, and just want to promote Ivan's text, and your own version of it in English. And you seem to think that people should just accept that they are "the best" and "the God sanctioned" versions of the New Testament.

You see...There are no split words in the Greek text of Codex Alexandrinus, where you claim Ivan used to get his readings...and Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus doesn't even have the passage, so, he didn't get them there either.

The fact is, he made it up himself, so he could count 175 words, rather than the actual 172 words that his W&H text had there....which didn't do the, he did a trick himself to make it fly.

This is just one example of I'm sure other places, such as in 1 Cor 13:3...where I see he did a similar thing, and split words up to make it work.

And with this post....I'm done talking about it. If you have something else to talk about, say about the actual text of the Aramaic New Testament, which this site is all about...then I am happy to discuss.


The idea that the wide readership of a translation verifies that God has essentially stamped it with his seal is ridiculous. So, because McDonald's is one of the biggest fast food chains, does that mean that God has put His seal of approval on it? Sorry, I just don't buy a word of what you are saying. Many people have thought that the Spirit of God has spoken to them about various things when all they have heard is their own voice within their minds. I love Bible translations, so when you finish I would still be glad to read it.

As for your statement that the Peshitta doesn't make sense, you obviously have never read the Peshitta itself or a translation of it. The Peshitta is called what it is because of its fluidity and clarity, which is the definition of the Aramaic word peshitta. Don't bash things you know nothing about. The Peshitta has been called "the Queen of the Versions" for it's beauty. Scholar Johann D. Michaelis says of the Peshitta:
Quote: "The Peschito is the very best translation of the Greek Testament that I have ever read; that of Luther .... holding the second rank. Of all the Syriac authors with which I am acquainted, not excepting Ephraim and Bar-Hebraeus, its language is the most elegant and pure; not loaded with foreign words, like the Philoxenian version and other later writings, and discovers the hand of a master in rendering those passages where the two idioms deviate from each other. It has no marks of the stiffness of a translation, but is written with the ease and fluency of an original: and this excellence of its style must be ascribed to its antiquity, and to its being written in a city that was the residence of Syrian kings.... It is true that the Syriac version, like all human productions, is not destitute of faults, and (what is not to be regarded as a blemish) differs frequently from the modern mode of explanation. But I know of none that is so free from error, and none that I consult with so much confidence, in case of difficulty and doubt. I have never met with a single instance where the Greek is so interpreted, as to betray any weakness or ignorance in the translator and though in many other translations, the original is rendered in so extraordinary a manner as almost to excite a smile, the Syriac version must ever be read with profound veneration...The affinity of the Syriac to the dialect of Palestine, is so great as to justify, in some respects, the assertion that the Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ in the very language in which he spoke.... The difference between the dialect which was spoken by Christ, and that of the Syriac translator, consisted almost wholly in the mode of pronouncing; and if a proper use had been made of this advantage, the Syriac version would be the most valuable commentary on the New Testament. Many obscure passages would be made clear, if the words were still on record which Jesus spoke with his disciples in the Aramaean language. But the translator appears not to have been fortunate in rendering passages of this nature.... This circumstance alone affords sufficient evidence that the Syriac version was not written by one of Christ's immediate disciples."

While I disagree with his assertion that the Peshitta was not written by disciples of the Messiah and has faults, I still find that this quote shows the importance of the Aramaic Peshitta and the fact that it fits its name very well. It is simple, straight, true. Is the Greek of the New Testament impeccable? No, in fact, it is said to read more like a Semitic language document (like the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew into Greek by Alexandrian Jews). The Peshitta clears up many difficult passages of Scripture, like the differences between the genealogies of Jesus recorded in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 and Romans 5:7. Textual variations seen among the Greek manuscripts can also be explained by the Aramaic text.
I'm happy to talk about the Aramaic text of the Eastern Peshitta.

Concerning 1 Cor 13:3, and the variant you say is the true reading, the 1st thing I would want you to show, is what Aramaic text has the variant reading of "if I give my body so that I may glory."

You said:
Quote:There is actually an Aramaic text/s with this mathematically verified reading in it

Which one?

Clement of Alexandria in his book The Stromata (195 A.D.) shows that the reading is "to be burned" not "so that I may glory". He wrote this just about 100 years after the last Apostle died. And this reading is attested to be the reading in the Greek text, long before we see it in the oldest Greek manuscripts that are extant today, and which reading agrees with the Aramaic text.

To make a claim is one thing, to verify it with actual proof is quite another. I deal with real evidence. If you can bring some to the table, I will be happy to examine it.



There is no variant in the Aramaic text... or do you know of one?

That is what I wanted you to show, since you said "There is actually an Aramaic text/s with this mathematically verified reading in it"

If there is a variant Aramaic word in 1 cor 13:3, then I haven't seen it. They all have the same word there, but, we do have a variant in the Greek texts, sure enough, which renders the one Aramaic word in two different ways.

This should tell you something...

Whether the right rendering in Greek or in English should be "burn" or "boast", is up for discussion.


Actually, "I give my body that I may be burned/boast" is an example. The Greek words for "to be burned" and "to boast" look nothing alike. The Aramaic words look almost exactly alike. "Wisdom is justified by her sons/works" is another variant that can be explained by examining the Peshitta. The words for "works" and "sons" look the same in Aramaic but not in Greek.

Nothing was read wrong, by me there, but, it looks pretty obvious the Greek scribes read the Aramaic word wrong there...and which way it should read in the Greek and the English translations of it, is up for debate, as it could work out in the context either way... though I see that in 1 Cor 3:15 it is "burn", not "boast", "burn" being the prevailing meaning of the same Aramaic word as found in 1 Cor 13:3 penned by the same God inspired Apostles, who was an Aramaic speaking man, not a Hellenist in any sense of the word...but rather...a "Hebrew of the Hebrews".

And I see that the Greek scribes got it right that time, unless we can find a variant of "boast" in that verse as well in the Greek MSS. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Let's discuss some more...for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

You said:
Quote:So, we have two alternative words in the Greek text, and the Aramaic only has one word with both meanings in it according to Mr Younan. What does this prove? You will argue that this means the Greek translator had to pick one of the two meanings from the Aramaic word,

Not just two words in the Greek texts, Phil....but four! The truth is staring you right in the face and you can't see it?

Lets walk this out a bit...

In the Aramaic texts, all of them, as far as I know... as I have checked various Aramaic NT manuscripts from the 5th-16th century... and they all have the very same word variants, and no variations of the word either.

And this would be the case if it was the source text, rather than a translation...if we had 2 variants and 4 variations of the two words shown in this place in the Aramaic text, and the Greek word could be rendered one way or the other...then it would be easy to say it was the translation, not the source text.

We don't have that in the Aramaic NT...

But, what do we find in the Greek texts here?

We find at least two variants and a total of 4 variations there.

This is indicative of translations...just read any number of the various literal English NTs from the Aramaic, Greek, or Latin texts, and you will see that some have this word or that word, and some say it this way or that way, with shades of meaning coming out in various words from the one source word, and sometimes they may even bring a whole different meaning to the verse. You know you are reading translations, when you see this going on.

Lets look a bit closer then at the Greek texts.

Quote:The reading kauchvswmai (kauchswmai, "I might boast") is in manuscripts like ??46 ?? A B 048 33 1739* .

The competing reading, kauqhvsomai (kauqhsomai, "I will burn"), is found in C D F G L 81 1175 1881* and a host of patristic writers.

A few other Byzantine Greek readings include: kauqhvswmai (kauqhswmai) ("I might burn") and kauqh' ("it might be burned") read by 1505.

Why all the confusion from the Greek scribes here? Two different words, two different tenses...This is easily shown to be a translation problem going on here, rendering the Aramaic text different ways and in different tenses, and coming up with two different meanings from one source word....whereas the Aramaic text is steady eddy all the way around.


On a personal note... I say this to try to help you.

I know you have spent over 10 years or so being fascinated with Ivan Panin's claims. You bought all his books, and have become his advocate and text evangelist of sorts, going from chat board to chat board trying to tell everyone there that Ivan found the Autograph, and all others are corruptions...but, you have time and time again not been taken seriously....and have been banned repeatedly over the years, as you get frustrated and begin to be very rude and insulting to those who didn't accept, hook, line, and sinker, what you wanted them to swallow.

Not so? But, it is so, just ask these guys below, all who don't like to say who they really are but have the very same personality and have the very same agenda.



imago dei




And now, you have invested a number of years working on your own English version, which you believe will out sell all other versions of the Bible...and will be the new "Authorized Version" being blessed by God Himself...where you seem to think that your renderings are inspired by the Holy Spirit...and thus perfect and divine in nature...the world's 1st ever such translation. Not.

You hope to show them all that you were right all along...and they will have to admit you were not just some Ivan Panin fanatic.

So, because of all this....of course the Aramaic New Testament HAS TO BE the translation, in your mind....I mean, what would it mean to you if you were wrong about all this for so long, after all you have said....and after you have put all your eggs in Ivan's Numeric basket? are in quite a pickle, I see.

Speaking of Idioms...have you ever read the Aramaic text and seen all the Semitic idioms given there, and then checked the Greek text out in those same places? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Phil, you came here to prove us wrong and to prove Ivan Panin and your "translation" of his text, right...but, as you can see, we won't buy what you are selling either.

So, you can insult us more if you like...insinuate that we must be demon possessed...Pharisees...half wits, or even "Brothers"... Whatever you need to do, Phil...

But, the truth will remain the same, no matter what you believe, or how you treat us, your Brothers in Messiah...and we will show you the real evidence from the text's too, and not just mere assumptions, opinions, and or guesses, which is all you have been bringing to the table, with no real proof to speak of thus far. Please stop, and show us something solid.

Do you hate the Aramaic New Testament? I hope not. Do you say it should be destroyed? I hope not. I don't hate the Greek or Latin NT, at all...or the honest English versions of its text...and I understand the nature of translations are such that none of them can be said to be perfect in all respects...yours included.


Quote:The competing reading, kauqhvsomai (kauqhsomai, "I will burn"), is found in C D F G L 81 1175 1881* and a host of patristic writers. A few other Byzantine Greek readings include: kauqhvswmai (kauqhswmai) ("I might burn") and kauqh' ("it might be burned") read by 1505.

Can we lean towards the early Byzantine text-line having been translated from Aramaic but say a variation in the Greek only suggest at least one of the Greek text-lines is a result of translation, whereof I would suspect the Byzantine? Have any studies been made comparing biblical books in case different books have different primacy?
M P Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament

There are commentaries and other summaries on the 'Net.
"We haven't heard the last of this idea..."


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)