Peshitta Forum
1 Corinthians 8:6 - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: 1 Corinthians 8:6 (/showthread.php?tid=724)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5


interesting - MGer - 02-05-2004

drmlanc,

Thanks for your insight on these verses. It appears to me, at least in my copy of the Peshitta, that the word "MarYah" is in these verses the exact same way as in other places when it refers to YHVH, except there is a vowel added in these verses. I think it is called the patach in hebrew, if I remember right. So, this makes this word read "MaraYah" instead of "MarYah" even though it has the exact same letters. The aramaic lexicon I found online doesn't make a distinction but just has both as meaning "lord."

Is "MaraYah" the plural of "MarYah" ???

Maybe I'm missing something.

MGer


. - drmlanc - 02-05-2004

Okay firstly, even if MarYah was disqualified as a name of God (which would go against the Bible and Aramean history <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> ) we still have the Alaha reference hehe

""It appears to me, at least in my copy of the Peshitta, that the word "MarYah" is in these verses the exact same way as in other places when it refers to YHVH, except there is a vowel added in these verses. I think it is called the patach in hebrew, if I remember right. So, this makes this word read "MaraYah" instead of "MarYah" even though it has the exact same letters. The aramaic lexicon I found online doesn't make a distinction but just has both as meaning "lord."
""

I'm impressed. Yes, Maraya has the vowel markings so you see that it are indeed different words, spelt using the same basic letters. The derivations are different also. It is the context which lets us know whetehr it is Maraya or MarYah. I believe that the original PNT and POT had no vowel markings so we really must rely on context. And with tham, we find that no one "person" is ever called by 0yrm, except for God. Alaha Jesus is called 0yrm <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

""Is "MaraYah" the plural of "MarYah" ???

Maybe I'm missing something.
""

There is no MaraYah, it is Marayah. The plural for lords in this form has nothing to do with the name YHWH, it is just an irregular plural form of Mara. And MarYah has no plural. It is completely singular. Don't think you're missing anything now <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->


Re: . - MGer - 02-05-2004

[quote="drmlanc"]Okay firstly, even if MarYah was disqualified as a name of God (which would go against the Bible and Aramean history <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> ) we still have the Alaha reference hehe

What "Alaha" reference ? I'm just curious about what you are referring to.

Thanks again for your help.

MGer


. - drmlanc - 02-05-2004

no shweat:

Romans 9:5

0hl0 Yhwty0d rsbb 0xy4m Yzxt0 Jwhnmw

"And from among them (the Israelites) is seen/revealed the Messiah in the flesh, who is Alaha"

Of course, Alaha = Elaha = God. Elaha is the singular of Elohim.


- gbausc - 02-05-2004

Chris,

How is it that you can spew forth your oneness doctrine whereever you think appropriate and chastise Dave for preaching doctrine when he asserts two persons are discussed in 1 Cor. 8:6 ? What doctrine is he preaching by asserting two divine persons are named in this verse-(and they are)?

Your hypocrisy is nauseating.

Your translation is not only very poor and crude, it is badly skewed by your oneness doctrine , as if your doctrine compensates enough for your ignorance of Aramaic to make your translation superior to Murdock and Lamsa.

I will point out for Dave and MGer that Paul here and elsewhere distinguishes between God The Father and The LORD Jesus Christ.
Here he says there is one of each: One God The Father and One Jehovah Jesus The Messiah.
He further distinguishes their divine roles in creation by using different prepositions for each in defining creation's relation to each Divine being.
All things are "from God the Father"- [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nm[/font],Aramaic; all things are "by Jehovah Jesus Messiah"- [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]dy0b[/font]

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hdy0b Nnx P0w hdy0b lkd 0xy$m 9w$y 0yrm dxw hb Nnxw hnm lkd 0b0 0hl0 wh dx Nlyd Nl 0l0 [/font]1Co 8:6


All things are from The Father , Who created all things by Christ The Son (See also Hebrews 1:2)
Here's Chris's translation that he posted:

Quote:
But to us there is one, God the Father, where all (and we) are from by Lord YHWH Jesus Messiah where all (and we) are from.

Notice that his translation attempts to fuse the Father and Jesus into the same person and says all (and we) are from both. It also omits the second "khad" -"one" before LORD Jesus with the waw consecutive and does not distinguish between the different prepositions "men" and "bayd" used before each of the two names.
Thus he restates "we are from him", which is redundant.

Then the 2 Dave posted:

Quote:
6 (MUR) yet to us, on our part, there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus the Messiah, by whom are all things, and we also by him.
6 (LAMSA) To us there is one God, the Father, from whom comes every thing and by whom we live; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

There are seven such pairings of the Father and Christ in a NT verse which designate each as separate beings and Divine , united in nature ,glory, grace and power.

The Murdock translation seems the better of the two.I am disappointed that neither translates [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0yrm[/font] Marya as LORD , Jehovah , or YAHWEH.

Notice also this text does not affirm that there is one Jehovah; It affirms one "Jehovah Jesus The Messiah". The Old Testament does not affirm that there is one Jehovah. It affirms that Yahweh Elohinu , Yahweh is One-"ekhad". Deut. 6:4
Three questions:
1.How many times is the Divine Name or Title written in this verse ?
2. What is the number of Hebrew word "Elohim" , singular or plural ?
3. Which of the nine meanings for "one" - "ekhad" , is employed in verse 4?

I count three divine words in verse 4. I see that they are one. I understand that Triunity(three as one) is declared in the very verse that unitarians use to proclaim their doctrine.



I am not done. The Bible does not anywhere proclaim that there is a single God . It proclaims that God "Elohim" is one. There are translations that teach a single person God, such as the T.R. Greek of Mark 12:32.

Mr 12:32 (TR) kai eipen autw o grammateuv kalwv didaskale ep alhyeiav eipav oti eiv estin yeov kai ouk estin allov plhn autou
The Peshitta says:

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hnm rbl Nyrx0 tylw wh dxd trm0 0rr$b ybr ryps 0rps wh hl rm0[/font]

There is a major difference between these two versions. The TR text has the Jewish scribe say: "eiv estin yeov", which could mean,
"There is one God" or "God is one". The Aramaic however is unequivocal. It says "He is One". It cannot mean "There is one", for that would be ambiguous; one what ?
"He is one", is unambiguous. The Greek scribe of the Textus Receptus manuscript supplied -Yeon -"Theos" to rename the subject "God".

The Aramaic reveals that this Jewish scribe had God's unity in mind,
not number.
"One" can be a quantity or a quality. The revelation of the Shema, which is the text Jesus here quoted, is a revelation of a Divine quality within an already revealed plural "Elohim"-"Mighty Ones".

Oneness seeks to obliterate all distinctions between The Father as the source of all , including the Son ,(that's why the term "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ") and the Son as the agent and mediator of all things ("through Him are all things")who came forth from His Father (that's why He is called the Son).


Too much doctrine ? Sorry if anyone thinks so. I try to be civil and stick to the original texts. I do believe The Peshitta sheds a lot of light on doctrine and has been twisted to espouse individual agendas which have nothing to do with it.

Grace and Peace,


Dave B


- Dan Gan - 02-05-2004

Dear Dave B,

Thanks for your great insight akhi.

Very interesting. I don't think you are giving us too much doctrine because it is necessary. I have nothing against posters giving their opinions about doctrines but I don't like posters making provocative or controversial statements.

To other posters out there,

I think we should refrain from making wild speculations or statements like ridiculing the scribes of the Greek NT (as though that our Aramaic are better than them) and unnecessary criticism towards the Massoretic text of the Hebrew Tanakh, Greek NT, LXX etc. Do not be proud and do not talk about things that you do not know.

Please show great respect to the word of Elaha.

Thank you for your cooperation.


. - drmlanc - 02-05-2004

Okay to both - GNT, HOT, POT, and LXX are none of the originals so they are open to criticism, why can't people just see the truth? If OHOT and PNT are original, than nothing else is. That is not a difficult concept.

Dave - I was pointing out to Dave that you cannot say for sure from that verse that it talks of two people. You cannot refute that it could refer to two manifestations. That is nopt a far out concept, seeing what Miltha is and all the verses that support Jesus is teh Father. Your echad theory is okay in that it is true, echad can be a compound unity. But it doesn't have to be. I have echad dollar in my pocket <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> Then there is Isaish 6:6 about the Fathership also. Do not just promote your doctrine here, unspupported by the Bible. Nowhere is there a verse that says that God is made of 3 persons. The one that did, the Comma was a fake and you know it. And "Elohim" has many explanations, one big one is that POT doesn't say Elohim! I mean, the NT calls Him Alaha!!! There is ONE (that very verse says it), He is Alaha Abba. That means Jesus is Alaha Abba, despite your "one" theory. So Jesus is the Father if He's God.

If you want to debate with me the trinity, you may do so, but not here. By email.


- Dave - 02-05-2004

Rev Dave.
That was an amazing explanation and a correct usage of scripture! Thank you! I'm very interested in correctness in titles associated to our Lord and also to The Almighty, thanks again!

I've been fired up here lately over people and their usage of scripture on this issue, but I'm now at rest. The Lord calmed my soul over these things, as I have done what I could to draw attention to key points of the theology issues. As of now, I'm not worried about what others believe here and wish to let them keep on believing the way they do. The truth was presented several times by several people and I am no longer responsible for their welfare.

That's why you see me oblivious to how Chris asserts his oneness agenda, him and I have no other problems over this now. Yes, I notice it, but it is of no concern to me. I would rather learn here from Paul, Rev Dave, Larry and others who are actively involved in the translation efforts here at this site. The people who actually give any merit to these claims are, as I have stated, in the minority, and not about to stop anything that GOD does, or shall do. And they shall remain in the minority. Things of The Lord are stickly by experience and witness within.

It is enough for me, I'm at rest with it fellas. I have better things to do than concern myself anymore with it.


next topic - MGer - 02-06-2004

Well, it seems we've come to the end of the discussion on the verses. Thanks to all who shared. I hope people can love each other, even if they disagree.

Personally, I tend to sway more to the traditional Jewish view of "One" and would be a Biblical Unitarian, if they believed in Torah observance, and if there weren't certain verses that won't let me go that way. I tend to think Andrew G. Roth has the right ideas, or is at least close, on the word "Echad", the "Godhead" (for lack of a better term) etc. If you guys haven't read Ruach Qadim yet, I highly recommend it. May YHVH help us all as we strive to learn and understand the truth.

may you all have a good Shabbat,

MGer


. - drmlanc - 02-06-2004

Yes Akhi MGer, Andy and I are practically 100% agreement on this topic. Never lose your oneness view of God. That is the view from the Bible. Only by "Church tradition" can you learn of the trinity.


. - drmlanc - 02-06-2004

Well since noone is willing to discuss this with me in private I politely ask that neither of you two Dave's argue with me on the trinity. One must be able to defend and backup what he says, and that cannot be done here by the nature of this forum. So one must speak privately. Since I am the only one who is willing to do that, let's stop all discussion about the trinity on this forum.


1 CORINTIANS 8:6 and the TRINITY - george - 02-07-2004

It is my plan to discuss this subject in private with you some time in this near future.
Upon following all the related discussions I had the desire to joint myself into this very interesting topic during the sessions, but in the end I changed my intention to choose to discuss with you in private.

Discussions on Trinity/Triune God/TriUnity should always be left open since we are dealing with the Mystery of the Misteries. What should be avoided is discussion that leads to confusion.

Enjoy your Shabbat the Lord Yeshu' the Nazarene since He is your Real Rest! And with His Eternal Rest do your Shabbat adherence.


. - drmlanc - 02-07-2004

Well said Akhi George <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin --> I look forward to sharing my findings with you.


- Dave - 02-07-2004

Chris,
Really you have nothing to worry about on this from me. I'm more interested in how Paul does and the translation process then argueing with you.

I think most of the reason I'm at rest over this is the fact of you admitting to not being born again recently to me. From there I understood more of where your understanding is in the scriptures. Without this renewel of the spirit, your understanding will be one place while mine will be on another.

I'm not condeming you at all Chris in this, please don't take this as some elitist attitude from me. Quite the contrary, I would hope that Father gives you a desire to seek this "experience" and you learn how to approach this with an open heart and some faith to receive from His sacrifice. Then I would be sure that your understanding and mine would be the same in all things, and we would be in agreement.

I could never say that the oneness doctrinal thing you promote here does not anger me, yes it does, but I do know where this comes from now and why. And in that knowledge, I'm more at rest over it.


. - drmlanc - 02-07-2004

Well I'm glad that you are at rest, but I'm not glad you are lying <!-- s:angry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif" alt=":angry:" title="Angry" /><!-- s:angry: -->

""I think most of the reason I'm at rest over this is the fact of you admitting to not being born again recently to me.""

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! When did I ever say such a thing?