03-18-2008, 04:56 PM
Shlama all--
Just a word if I may...
I think David is correct. This is his forum and his topic of expertise. He has the total right to present things as he sees fit without fear of embarassment or recriminations from others. However things may look to the wider communities of faith that view Peshitta primacy and make an association with his codes research, the value of what Reverend David has done in general remains undiminished.
Now I know I got in a bit of trouble on this some time back so I will try to word things more carefully this time out. Obviously Reverend David's faith in Christianity comes from a deep place that is not confined to Peshitta studies alone. Having said that, his drive to affirm Peshitta primacy seems very tied to his codes research, and I for one don't want to attack any mechanism that helps a person believe in the Peshitta as the original NT. There are codes in all Scripture. I have seen them. The question remains as to what forms they take and how they should best be represented.
On the other hand, what I see here is simply that those who disagree with David just continue to express well-established positions over and over again. Calling his work "silly" is surely NOT HELPFUL. I know I would not like it if my life's work was termed as such although it would hardly prevent me one jot from carrying out my objectives. I think David probably feels the same way about his work, but he can speak for himself.
I make a request, not a command in any way, that those who oppose the NT codes come up with new threads other than going back and forth on the same data interpretation. Are there no other issues in the full volume of David's extensive treatises that others can explore with him? Also is there ever a middle ground on these matters, somewhere between absolute certainty and absolute condemnation of the total premise? Is it just possible that there may be areas of exploration open to interpretation that need further dialgue to properly determine? I ask because it seems that all I have seen thus far are people 100% convinced of their iron clad positions without any room for discussion. If there is no room for discussion than what are we doing except posturing?
Just wondering...
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Just a word if I may...
I think David is correct. This is his forum and his topic of expertise. He has the total right to present things as he sees fit without fear of embarassment or recriminations from others. However things may look to the wider communities of faith that view Peshitta primacy and make an association with his codes research, the value of what Reverend David has done in general remains undiminished.
Now I know I got in a bit of trouble on this some time back so I will try to word things more carefully this time out. Obviously Reverend David's faith in Christianity comes from a deep place that is not confined to Peshitta studies alone. Having said that, his drive to affirm Peshitta primacy seems very tied to his codes research, and I for one don't want to attack any mechanism that helps a person believe in the Peshitta as the original NT. There are codes in all Scripture. I have seen them. The question remains as to what forms they take and how they should best be represented.
On the other hand, what I see here is simply that those who disagree with David just continue to express well-established positions over and over again. Calling his work "silly" is surely NOT HELPFUL. I know I would not like it if my life's work was termed as such although it would hardly prevent me one jot from carrying out my objectives. I think David probably feels the same way about his work, but he can speak for himself.
I make a request, not a command in any way, that those who oppose the NT codes come up with new threads other than going back and forth on the same data interpretation. Are there no other issues in the full volume of David's extensive treatises that others can explore with him? Also is there ever a middle ground on these matters, somewhere between absolute certainty and absolute condemnation of the total premise? Is it just possible that there may be areas of exploration open to interpretation that need further dialgue to properly determine? I ask because it seems that all I have seen thus far are people 100% convinced of their iron clad positions without any room for discussion. If there is no room for discussion than what are we doing except posturing?
Just wondering...
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth