Greek primacists favoring certain anciet texts

[Rob]

Wowwwww, ??ber long stuff! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> I'll have to finish later.

Well I actually see that as circular reasoning.

? I don't really understand. I'm saying that my faith in God preserving his word is throughout all time in all circumstances, not just up to a certain extent.

It is useless to discuss theories and idealogies of what God should have done, or what Calvinists and the Jesus Seminar says.

Well of course the Jesus Seminar doesn't really matter, but me being a Calvinist is a theological deciding factor for myself, and I believe, a biblical one.

Why don't you address, for starters, Acts 2:24 and explain how that could NOT have come from an Aramiac written source ...

And after you addressed Acts 2:24 - why don't you bring up a similiar example in reverse? A Greek word that has two meanings, which the Peshitta translator obviously screwed up. It happens all the time in versions we know came from the Greek. Articles have been written about the errors in the Vulgate, Coptic versions, etc.

I'm looking at it in bibleworks right now side by side with the Peshitta and I am not seeing any split words. Likewise I havn't seen any substantiative split words yet. The split word could just as easily be a theological preference of the reader, and could misconstrue the essence of the point the author intended to give. The "Die for a Righteous Man" split word found in Romans 5:7, I think is speculation. Paul doesn't have the obligation to contrast opposites.

Why do we not hear about any errors in the Peshitta?

Loan words are errors, unless they have a specific cultural designation. Try the Peshitta word for "law": Namusa, which is a cognate of the Greek word Nomos. Yet the Targums use 'tyrw' for law. This is a very basic liturgical word, not something a Jew would have mistranslated unless it were written from Greek.