Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Refutation to Aramaic primacists
#3
godparticle Wrote:It is very plausible that the Apostles done a translation of the original Greek so that Aramaic speaking Christians could also have access to the writings.

1. What makes you think that the Greek was first ("the original") and that the Aramaic version was the translation, and not the other way around ?

2. Why did you write your first message on the forum ?

What stands out from it for me is this:
"Spurious assertions purporting Aramaic primacy do not and will not sway me at all, and simply do not hold weight, because the evidence doesn't support it"
which is an absolutely closing statement for any sensible conversation and discussion.

From Forum Rules "The focus of the Peshitta.org Forum is to demonstrate the primacy of the Aramaic New Testament."

If you have your opinion solidified and are saying "I will not listen to you, but your are wrong" why bother coming here? I do not understand the logic of your motives. There are many other places where you can say "Aramaic Primicists are stupid" (how about some Biblical forums or even better peer reviewed scholarly articles and books?). Do you think you can learn anything here at all? Do you know ANY Aramaic ? Have you done any research? What kind, where can I read about it? What are your credentials? Can you read a sentence from Peshitta?

I can address and discuss your statements one by one, they are full of superficial misconceptions, generalizations and lack properly quoting facts and the evidence (exactly that). But I'm not sure yet if I want to. If someone comes to a place where I'm enjoying a good conversation with friends and starts talking to me in a hostile manner I call the police or the owner of the establishment, and do not enter the discussion.

Just take this ...

> As for Aramaic, did you know that it was the language of the Babylonians, acquired by the Jews during their captivity, and this is why we have the Targums (portions of the OT in Aramaic, not Hebrew)?

If you have read even 1% of posts on this forum before writing your own you would know if your audience (I mean current forum members) know that. Your language, the tone and the form of your message is offensive (despite the opening "greetings brothers"). At least to me. If you want to have a discussion (at least with me, others may disagree) you need to be nicer, and not take the position of the one "who knows it all". And I'm even not sure yet if you want to have a discussion (or demonstrate anything) with anyone or just wanted to write what you believe ? Tell me something new that has NOT yet been discussed on this forum in any of the historical threads, and give new facts? How about that? Practically all your arguments are covered already, with many good discussions. Start with read and search ?


Messages In This Thread
Re: Refutation to Aramaic primacists - by enarxe - 03-19-2014, 11:27 PM
Re: Refutation to Aramaic primacists - by enarxe - 03-20-2014, 10:36 PM
Re: Refutation to Aramaic primacists - by Aramaic - 03-21-2014, 03:29 AM
Re: Refutation to Aramaic primacists - by sestir - 04-03-2014, 06:13 PM
Re: Refutation to Aramaic primacists - by Matthew - 04-07-2014, 11:47 PM
Re: Refutation to Aramaic primacists - by Aramaic - 04-22-2014, 04:01 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)