Errors in the Paul Younan Interlinear?

[Thirdwoe]

You said

You can't comprehend the incarnation with a human mentality.

That's very true. And is why we must have revelation from The Holy Spirit to understand better, or at all. The Father did'nt become His Son, He brought forth/begot, His Son, from His own substance and Being. The Word/Wisdom of God is the Offspring of The Fathers own Being, "God from God, Light from Light", as the Nicean Creed teaches, and which agrees with The Holy Scriptures...through whom, in His Son's pre-incarnate state, The Father created all things, in/through and for His Son.

You seem to believe that The Father became The Son, rather than truly begat His Son from His own substance and Being, and that The Son of God did not exist at all before He became incarnate in the Person of Yeshua. That is a huge differance, and one that divides Truth from error on the matter. This idea was delt with centuries ago, when the heresy of "modalism" was exposed and condemned as error, and rightly so. Look that term up, and see if it's what you think is true about this subject.

I know I wont convince you through debate of this fact, as is clearly taught in The Peshitta, that's The Holy Spirit's work...and am not trying to change your mind either, just proclaiming it to be so, and showing you that it's indeed taught in The Holy Scriptures, and always has been by The Holy Church, from the start, till now, in hopes that you will at least examine it closer as you seek God's revelation, and alow Him to change your mind, with His understanding.

You said

I believe the Peshitta is a very valuable and beautiful resource that Christians should study and have knowledge of, but I believe the Scriptures were mostly written in Greek, with Matthew and possibly Hebrews being composed in Aramaic.

The research on this site, proves that all the books of the New Testament were originally given/composed in Aramaic, and then directly or soon after translated into Greek and perhaps Latin, under the Apostles direction, for those who spoke those languages in that day, who were being added to the Body of Christ. Have you taken the time to read all the proof's shown here? Do you have any proof that shows it to be otherwise? Lets see it! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Jeremy (burning one), showed me a good proof last night, with Colossians 3:6, where "the deeds of disobediance" is the correct reading, rather than "the sons of disobediance". I'll show what he said to me here...

Jeremy said:

"the translation REALLY should be "the deeds / works" and not "the sons." the reasons for this are kind of lengthy, but i think you will probably agree why it is so after some explantion. to start off, read the context surrounding it, like verses 5 and 7-8. the thought in these verses really centers around what is DONE, ie, "deeds."

that's the simplest way to look at it, but the textual aspect is a bit more involved.

an Aramaic word for "deed / work" is B'NA (spelled BET-NUN-ALAPH). the 3rd person feminine of this is B'NEH (spelled BET-NUN-YUDH-HEH)

the Aramaic word for "sons / children" is B'NAI (spelled BET-NUN-YUDH). the 3rd person feminine possessive is B'NEH (spelled BET-NUN-YUDH-HEH)

so as you can see, the two terms are from different roots (although one could arguably say a "son" is something that is a "deed / work / built"), but if inflected in specific ways, are spelled and pronounced EXACTLY the same way.

for comparison, take a look at the Greek of this passage: "sons" is the reading there, and it is in the masculine. but check out "disobedience" - it is in the feminine! however, in the Peshitta, BOTH respective terms are in the feminine so long as the term B'NEH is understood to be "deeds." only IF the term was mistaken as "sons" could the Greek have arrived at a masculine gender for "sons" (but still would have ignored the feminine suffix!) and a feminine gender for "disobedience." see what i mean? whereas no grammatical issue exists in the Aramaic if the term is understood correctly, if it were understood incorrectly, and then translated into Greek as such, then we end up with EXACTLY the situation we see in Greek - an improper relationship between masculine and feminine genders between the two respective words.

there is one other instance in the Peshitta that i am aware of that can be looked at to see that this type of mistake could be the case, which i think might help you some more:

Luke 7:35 the term B'NEH could be translated as either "sons" OR "deeds." i opt for "deeds" here too because wisdom doesn't really have "sons," and the idea of "sons" wouldn't fit the context.

okay, now check out the parallel passage in Matthew 11:19 - the term AWADEH can ONLY mean "deeds" there - the word cannot mean "sons" at all. so it is the same setting, the same event, the same words, yet Matthew and Luke record two different terms that ultimately mean the same thing. obviously one person was present and one wasn't, so that explains the presence of synonyms. but at least you can see that the word B'NEH DOES mean both, and "deeds" is the preferred reading, based off the reading of Matthew and the context.

all that i bring out to show you that the Greek translators were capable of mistranslating the Aramaic term B'NEH if they didn't pay close attention to the context.

look at any Greek Received Text version of the NT in Matt and Luke in these passages. you find that they will read "children / sons."
then look at any Greek Criticial text version of the NT in Matt and Luke in these passages. you will find that they will read "deeds / children."

so you can see that a variant reading exists in the Greek that can be explained via the Aramaic. if the term B'NEH can mean EITHER "sons" or "deeds," and needs careful context clues to determine correct translation, then it would be expected to possibly find a mistake in the Greek, and that is exactly what we find!

i have to give props to Paul Younan for originally bringing out this variant and mistake on the Greek side of things that stems from misreading the Aramaic. you can find his original post on Peshitta.org forum with some digging. it has been some years.

i must say that i don't know about Paul's position on how THIS passage from Colossians should read, though. to my knowledge he only ever brought up the ones from the Gospels. but as i read the passage myself from Colossians in context, i felt the reading really should be "deeds" here."

..