12-14-2004, 11:42 PM
Hi Steve,
We are arguing from different premises.
You assume the western five are from Greek in all Aramaic mss. I make no such assumption. I believe little research has been done to demonstrate this; most of it has been merely preliminary.
I find a considerable number of differences
in the Harklean and Gwynn's Aramaic edition of 2 John thru Jude & Revelation.
The Crawford ms. is quite different in its readings, as I have delineated, from the other Aramaic versions. It does have many readings not traceable to Greek mss.
On top of this, I find lots of data in word pair comparisons that support the hypothesis that the 1905 edition of these 5 books are not translated from the Greek text, but the converse seems to be true. This data has nothing to do with codes and
conforms to The Hebrew OT-LXX model, for which I have also compiled 6000 supporting data.
Why does "Antichristos" make 2 John suspect when "Christiana" and "Petros" do not implicate Acts or 1 Peter ?
These are all transliterations of Greek.
You ask me why John would use this word when he used [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]fgd 0xy4m [/font] 3 times in 1 John. I don't know.
Why did Luke use [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nw9m$[/font] 31 times in his gospel and then write [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]swr+p[/font] in Acts 1:13, the first reference to Simon Kheepa ?
Does that not prove that Acts is translated from Greek ? Luke's gospel never uses [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]swr+p[/font], yet is written by the same man.
If you compare the texts of Aramaic Scripture Research Society in 2-3 John and
the 1905 Syriac edition, you will find they are not the same text. Neither does 1905 agree with any one type Greek text, and not a few times it agrees with no Greek text.
I have made myself an authority by researching this probably more and in a different way than anyone else I am aware of.
If we disagree, so what? Just don't pretend you are inquiring when you say you know my results are invalid. You must produce proof to do that, not questions. Questions don't prove anything.
You have not clarified your position. Do you believe Aramaic scripture has been lost
, or do you believe 5 books were Greek originally ?
Shalom,
Dave
We are arguing from different premises.
You assume the western five are from Greek in all Aramaic mss. I make no such assumption. I believe little research has been done to demonstrate this; most of it has been merely preliminary.
I find a considerable number of differences
in the Harklean and Gwynn's Aramaic edition of 2 John thru Jude & Revelation.
The Crawford ms. is quite different in its readings, as I have delineated, from the other Aramaic versions. It does have many readings not traceable to Greek mss.
On top of this, I find lots of data in word pair comparisons that support the hypothesis that the 1905 edition of these 5 books are not translated from the Greek text, but the converse seems to be true. This data has nothing to do with codes and
conforms to The Hebrew OT-LXX model, for which I have also compiled 6000 supporting data.
Why does "Antichristos" make 2 John suspect when "Christiana" and "Petros" do not implicate Acts or 1 Peter ?
These are all transliterations of Greek.
You ask me why John would use this word when he used [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]fgd 0xy4m [/font] 3 times in 1 John. I don't know.
Why did Luke use [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nw9m$[/font] 31 times in his gospel and then write [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]swr+p[/font] in Acts 1:13, the first reference to Simon Kheepa ?
Does that not prove that Acts is translated from Greek ? Luke's gospel never uses [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]swr+p[/font], yet is written by the same man.
If you compare the texts of Aramaic Scripture Research Society in 2-3 John and
the 1905 Syriac edition, you will find they are not the same text. Neither does 1905 agree with any one type Greek text, and not a few times it agrees with no Greek text.
I have made myself an authority by researching this probably more and in a different way than anyone else I am aware of.
If we disagree, so what? Just don't pretend you are inquiring when you say you know my results are invalid. You must produce proof to do that, not questions. Questions don't prove anything.
You have not clarified your position. Do you believe Aramaic scripture has been lost
, or do you believe 5 books were Greek originally ?
Shalom,
Dave
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com