06-24-2005, 06:29 PM
Poor Dave.
He's invested ungodly amounts of time towards this code theory/peshitta primacy hypothesis of his only to have it scoffed at by Christians and made out to be nothing. Everything in this code theory of his hinges completely on the new testament book arrangement, take one book out of order and all the codes disapear, imagine that?!
It's not real hard for anyone to figure out that the Acts of The Apostles follows the gospel that Luke wrote first,...it's a no brainer to arrange the new testament chronologically like that, as it should have been.
I shouldn't tell people about such things like that, Dave would look like a fool with all that peshitta primacy and code theory stuff he's already wrote and posted on the web, heh.
In reality, I think Dave has dug quite the hole for himself in all of those theories. You attempt to show him a questionable area in this syriac text and he'll find a way to justify it, no matter what. That is what he just did with the trinity ending of matthew. He did not argue the fact of what you said Paul, he just wanted to derail the topic since it hits home too hard.
If he was to question the syriac text, then all he has wrote about in his personal articles would be at stake. Sad position to be in for anyone.
By the way, one of the texts of the old syriac gospels happened to arrange the books correctly,... Matthew, Mark, John, Luke,...and Luke's second account would have followed in that arrangement. Someone was thinking. Even if it was arranged with John following Lukes acts, it would be more correct than the way that it currently is.
Really, I'm not sure why Dave jumped in the post anyways other than to stick up for his text somehow.
He's invested ungodly amounts of time towards this code theory/peshitta primacy hypothesis of his only to have it scoffed at by Christians and made out to be nothing. Everything in this code theory of his hinges completely on the new testament book arrangement, take one book out of order and all the codes disapear, imagine that?!
It's not real hard for anyone to figure out that the Acts of The Apostles follows the gospel that Luke wrote first,...it's a no brainer to arrange the new testament chronologically like that, as it should have been.
I shouldn't tell people about such things like that, Dave would look like a fool with all that peshitta primacy and code theory stuff he's already wrote and posted on the web, heh.
In reality, I think Dave has dug quite the hole for himself in all of those theories. You attempt to show him a questionable area in this syriac text and he'll find a way to justify it, no matter what. That is what he just did with the trinity ending of matthew. He did not argue the fact of what you said Paul, he just wanted to derail the topic since it hits home too hard.
If he was to question the syriac text, then all he has wrote about in his personal articles would be at stake. Sad position to be in for anyone.
By the way, one of the texts of the old syriac gospels happened to arrange the books correctly,... Matthew, Mark, John, Luke,...and Luke's second account would have followed in that arrangement. Someone was thinking. Even if it was arranged with John following Lukes acts, it would be more correct than the way that it currently is.
Really, I'm not sure why Dave jumped in the post anyways other than to stick up for his text somehow.