Some questions

[Thirdwoe]

You say that "God has preserved His MESSAGE"; on what do you base that statement?
A message can be easily changed by dropping or changing one word, or even one letter. Do you think it is too difficult for God to preserve the words and letters of scripture? But how can he preserve the message without preserving the words and all the letters of those words? Simply because men made mistakes does not make it impossible to discern the original, especially when we have many manuscripts to compare.

To clarify what I mean, so you don't come to a wrong conclusion.

The Message...meaning what GOD wants to be read/preached, has been preserved...and even though no single text is without its transmisson mistakes. we can check all the others that have survived through the ages. I agree with what you say there.

The Aramaic text of my interlinear is exactly the 1905 Peshitta edition, with no intentional changes whatsoever by me. I have made a few corrections of errors in the
interlinear in a few places, usually omissions of a line, phrase or word. I think I have caught them all in the NT portion.
I never claimed my translation to be infallible; no translation can be infallible, so i don't know where that idea came from. I do believe the Peshitta and the Western five books are preserved word for word as they were originally written in Aramaic.

I asked you the question to see what you believed about the text you used to translate from. I have talked with some who seem to believe that a particular translation or manuscript is the "inerrant" Word of God...as if it contains zero errors of mans hand or interpretation in translation. I had read a statement you had made, where it seemed like you said that the text you used to translate from and which you used in the code finder program had to be without error in order to get the codes. But I thought you said that the text you ran at first, and got the long codes from, had mistakes in it, and when you corrected them, the long codes did not appear again. So, were the long codes a message from God, in a text with mans mistakes in it? And when you corrected the mistakes in the text and ran it again, and got the shorter codes, minus the longer ones, was that text you ran without errors?

And what are these few corrections of errors in the interlinear which you speak of, of "lines", "phrases", and "words"? I'd like to see which. And if there is a Manuscript that is perfect in every word and letter...I would like to have a perfect copy of it please. Do you believe that the text you have translated from is inerrant in every word and letter?

Again...I believe that GOD has preserved His Words...everyone of them, and every letter...which make up His Message to Mankind. But as far as I know, we don't have them all in one single Manuscript Text or translation, in a 100% perfect form. If there is one in the world...please point me to it, as it would be needless to keep comparing all the texts, to see which version is correct.

Are you saying that Peter wrote 1st Peter in Aramaic and 2nd Peter in Greek? We know that 2nd Peter was written to the same people as was 1st Peter (see 2 Peter 3:1). Did John write 1st John in Aramaic and 2nd & 3rd John in Greek, and also Revelation in Greek? Did Jude, the brother of Yeshua, write his epistle in Greek? It is fairly easy to demonstrate that these epistles and Revelation in Greek are translations of the 1905 edition's Aramaic text.

I am saying that as far as I know, these 5 books never made it to the Aramaic Church of the East in Aramaic form. And that the 22 books, were given to them in Aramaic, which seems to have taken place in the year 78 A.D. for at least the Gospels...and If true, then its possible that the other 5 books were not written at that time..and were not given to the Chruch of the East in Aramaic form, by the hands of the Apostles.

If they were written Originally in Aramaic, they seem to have stayed West....I don't think anyone can be 100% certain if 2nd Peter was written by the Apostle Peter, nor 2nd & 3rd John, by The Apostle John... It is believed that Jude and Revelation were penned by Jude the brother of James, the Lord's Brother, and Apostle John respectivley...but there has always been dispute about it...

I don't have a problem with the Books myself Dave...I read them as I read the rest of the Scriptures, but these 5 books have been disputed as to their true human authors since the early days, by the Church. And as far as I have learned, they were not given to the Aramaic Church of the East in Aramaic form, as were the 22 other books of the New Testament.

And just to be clear as to what you believe....Are you saying that the 1905 Text, you translated from, contains the Original Aramaic Text, penned by The Apostles, of all 27 Books of the New Testament, and preserves the Text as a whole, as close to perfect as any other Manuscript text that is known to have survived to this generation?

Do you believe that the 1905 Text has any Greek readings in it, which are not found in the Eastern Aramaic Text, that were not in the Original 22 Books, as given to the Aramaic Church of the East? And which is represented in such Manuscripts as the Khabouris....I notice that your translation contains the story of the woman caught in adultary for instance, which the Khabouris does not.

Also, I had read some month's back, when you and Andrew Gabriel Roth were contending about translations, He stated that you had left some Eastern Peshitta readings on the cutting floor. Such as found in Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9, where you retain the "Western readings", which he says are not Original to the Aramaic Text but are from Greek texts.

So...who has translated from the correct Text of the Original Aramaic Scriptures? You name your translation "The Original Aramaic New Testament" and yet it has some readings not found in the oldest Aramaic Eastern Manuscripts, such as the Kahbouris Codex. Is the Kahbouris in error for not having all the words that the 1905 Text has in it? Or is the 1905 Critical Composite Text, in error for not retaining all the Eastern readings of the Khabouris Text... and having readings in it, which do not appear in the Ancient Aramaic Manuscripts? Did the Jacobites move these readings into their version, to make it conform to the accepted Greek Text?

I am not against you Dave...in any personal way....BUT I want to know, if I am reading the Word of God, or the word of men, in every place, in Text or Translation. And yours, Janet's, and Andrew's are not allways the same as to content and words. You would say that yours represents the most accurate, I am sure...but is it?

So I have some translations of some Text's here...one from you (Dave), one from Andrew, one from Janet, one from George, One from Etheridge, One from Murdoch...etc, etc...

Which one English translation and ancient Aramaic Text is the closest in every word, to the Original Form of the Text, which God Originally sent into the World? Is it your English translation and the 1905 Text? If not, which one is it.

Seems we have the same thing going here as they do in the Greek Text...two main forms...and which one is the Correct Text. Can we know for certain...?