Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How does the AENT 4th edition compare to the others?
#61
Jerry Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:I don't translate from the CAL site: I translate from the text itself. Find a manuscript with the hard breaks you and CAL propose and we'll discuss it.
The CAL site has the text and the parsing. You said I fabricated the parsing to suit my purposes.

So tell me, did the CAL site fabricate its parsing to suit my purpose as well?

I don't know the origin of their parsing, nor do I care about the parsing itself. It matters not one iota to the translation. You are the one who mentioned it in support of your position. It's as irrelevant to me as the other wild goose chase you sent us on.

With both, you have managed to sidetrack the argument from the original point you were called out on.

Someone can say to you "Look at the cloud in the blue sky", with emphasis on the cloud, and somehow you manage to point out the sky is bluish-green today. What's the point in arguing like this?

The original question remains, how did you get "that-of" out of a simple Daleth Proclitic in Acts 2:36, unless it's reflecting your denial of orthodox Christology?

+Shamasha
#62
Jerry Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:How did you get all that out of a simple Daleth Proclitic ? Can you see how it appears to everyone else here that your translation of this verse was tainted by your theological bias?

+Shamasha
I can see that you have an unfounded bias against me, and are slanting your posts accordingly. Unlike you, I have never translated (d:mor:yo-) without translating the "d" prefix as "of". So the premise of your post is wrong from the get-go; wrongly portrayed, wrongly assessed.

Regarding my translations of (mor:yo-) itself, I have worked in a range of what I think is acceptable, sometimes using an internal construct; but unlike you, never professing to have the definitive answer for (mor:yo-). Yet, I have a pretty good idea of what it can't be, based upon contextual conflict.

And how is that you pretend to know what my beliefs or theology are? If your culture permits you to belittle others over something you know nothing of, in the name of "truth"; then you have neither a proper culture or the truth.

It is very correctly portrayed, and very correctly assessed. And I'm not the only one who portrayed and assessed it as such. I wasn't even the first one. Re-read the thread to verify.

You seem to have a very elementary understanding of the Daleth Proclitic (which can in its simplest usage mean "of"), but also depending on context can serve as a relative pronoun (who, that) and even "as". The relative sections from Thackston's Grammar is included below for your reference and education.

The Daleth Proclitic used as "who":

[Image: daleth1.jpg]

[Image: daleth3.jpg]

The Daleth Proclitic used as "as":

[Image: daleth4.jpg]

[Image: daleth5.jpg]

The Daleth Proclitic used as "that":

[Image: daleth6.jpg]

[Image: daleth7.jpg]

One more culture comment from you and you'll be banned for life. The one thing my "culture" permits in this case is to call out BS when I see it. And I'm looking right at it with your "translation" and your pretension of knowledge. I know exactly what your theological bias is because of your previous posts on the topic of MarYah. It's not a mystery to anyone on this forum.

Before I even joined the thread, you had already called Chuck "inept", "ungrateful", "self adulating", "froward" and many other unkind terms. Perhaps before you claim I hurt your feelings and belittled you, you should re-read how you treated others.

One more time before I lock this thread as your side-stepping antics are getting out of hand, and my patience with you is running out....I'll ask once again:

How did you get 'of-that' out of a simple Daleth Proclitic? I didn't ask you how you got "of", I asked you how you got "of-that"...your original post is below in case you forgot what you wrote.

[Image: bs.jpg]

With one little alteration of the text, you've completely changed the entire meaning of the verse to suit your bias. You don't understand the nature of the "of", as you mentioned in your post. It's not an "of" at all. It's "that."

And here is a link to Thackston's Grammar, so you could get a bit of an understanding for future debates. At least if you try to apply the lessons, there's only 20 of them, we could have a more meaningful discussion on this topic in the future. Right now it's futile with you.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49288019/Intro...-Trackston

The method of your response to this question will determine whether you are allowed to continue to post on this forum. I want an explanation, with evidence as I have given you. Not another wild good chase.

+Shamasha
#63
Paul Younan Wrote:The method of your response to this question will determine whether you are allowed to continue to post on this forum. I want an explanation, with evidence as I have given you. Not another wild good chase.

+Shamasha
The method of your posts have proven you unworthy of even asking the question, let alone determining the answer.
#64
Jeremy (The Burning One) wrote this sometime back on the "MayYah Deception" thread.

"in the case of the writer at Natzraya, i personally think that it is more "doctrinally motivated," but i'm open for correction. he has a stance wherein he says it is WRONG to promote Yeshu'a as Deity, and this comes out in his translation of the Peshitta (on-going). an acquaintance on another site referred me to him, and i spent some time looking over what he has translated so far. specifically, i noticed his bias in Colossians, where a simple term in the Aramaic was twisted horribly out of context with resort to Jastrow's Dictionary of the Targumim as "proof," and used to attempt to disprove the Deity of Messiah. i personally corresponded with him against the misuse of the term, but he resisted the correct usage and maintained that his choice was viable, unfortunately. this makes me think that his reason for writing what he has concerning MARYA is more doctrinally-motivated than anything else - if he is staunch concerning the non-Deity position of Messiah, then his position on MARYA is a necessity for him."

It seems that Jerry and this guy is the same person: ---> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/yeremyah">http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/yeremyah</a><!-- m -->

And is the writter of "The MarYah Deception" article which is posted on the site which he runs...

If so, that expression there certainly fits his attitude thus far...and if he is the same person that Jeremy spoke with and examined his "translations"...then it makes perfect sense.

Here is another bit of info on this guy: ---> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://profiles.google.com/Yeremyah">https://profiles.google.com/Yeremyah</a><!-- m -->

One more: ---> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mashiyach.com/SighandCry/natzraya.htm">http://www.mashiyach.com/SighandCry/natzraya.htm</a><!-- m -->


Blessings,
Chuck
#65
Jerry Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:The method of your response to this question will determine whether you are allowed to continue to post on this forum. I want an explanation, with evidence as I have given you. Not another wild good chase.

+Shamasha
The method of your posts have proven you unworthy of even asking the question, let alone determining the answer.

With that response, you are now respectfully asked to voluntarily leave this forum.

+Shamasha
#66
Thirdwoe Wrote:Jeremy (The Burning One) wrote this sometime back on the "MayYah Deception" thread.

"in the case of the writer at Natzraya, i personally think that it is more "doctrinally motivated," but i'm open for correction. he has a stance wherein he says it is WRONG to promote Yeshu'a as Deity, and this comes out in his translation of the Peshitta (on-going). an acquaintance on another site referred me to him, and i spent some time looking over what he has translated so far. specifically, i noticed his bias in Colossians, where a simple term in the Aramaic was twisted horribly out of context with resort to Jastrow's Dictionary of the Targumim as "proof," and used to attempt to disprove the Deity of Messiah. i personally corresponded with him against the misuse of the term, but he resisted the correct usage and maintained that his choice was viable, unfortunately. this makes me think that his reason for writing what he has concerning MARYA is more doctrinally-motivated than anything else - if he is staunch concerning the non-Deity position of Messiah, then his position on MARYA is a necessity for him."

It seems that Jerry and this guy is the same person: ---> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/yeremyah">http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/yeremyah</a><!-- m -->

And is the writter of "The MarYah Deception" article which is posted on the site which he runs...

If so, that expression there certainly fits his attitude thus far...and if he is the same person that Jeremy spoke with and examined his "translations"...then it makes perfect sense.

Here is another bit of info on this guy: ---> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://profiles.google.com/Yeremyah">https://profiles.google.com/Yeremyah</a><!-- m -->

One more: ---> <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.mashiyach.com/SighandCry/natzraya.htm">http://www.mashiyach.com/SighandCry/natzraya.htm</a><!-- m -->


Blessings,
Chuck

Shlama Akhi Chuck,

I got the sense very early on that it was the same person, the same one who created the blasphemous image of the holy name of God with the Frankenstein monster. And it is us, of all people, who have offended him.

+Shamasha


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)