AENT Hebrews 3:18-19: Obey vs. belief

[Thirdwoe]

There is nothing wrong with Paul saying "Of whom swore He that they should not enter His rest because they were not persuaded; so we see that they could not enter His rest because [i]they were not persuaded[i].[/i][/i]

However, it seems like both the AENT and the other Greek-based English translations seem to be choosing the words BELIEVE and OBEY at will, according to my first post at the top. But if I understood your reply above then most Aramaic (Peshitta / Peshitto) renditions use BELIEVE in both vs. 18-19?? Perhaps Andrew was applying a less-than-literal application of "OBEY" according to his understanding. Is this what you are saying? Certainly, if John 3:36 is rendered precisely in the AENT then these two verses are complementary to each other, and make a nice fit together...

Thomas, John Wesley Etheridge, Glenn David Bauscher, and Janet Magiera all have it correct in their translations and which agree with the straight text itself.

Here is a very literal rendering I just made of the verse from the Aramaic Texts, which both the Eastern & Western is almost identical.

Eastern Text: Hebrews 3:18-19 From The Khabouris Manuscript Text "Concerning who, {He} swore {they would} not enter rest, but concerning those {who were} not persuaded/convinced, behold, they {were} not able {to} enter, because [they did} not believe/trust."

Western Text: Hebrews 3:18-19 From The BFBS/UBS Text "Concerning who, {He} swore {they would} not enter rest, but concerning those {who were} not persuaded/convinced, behold, {they were} not able {to} enter, because {they did} not believe/trust."

But if I understood your reply above then most Aramaic (Peshitta / Peshitto) renditions use BELIEVE in both vs. 18-19??

No...but two that I have seen have...James Murdoch's 1800s translation, and Andrew Gabriel Roth's 2008 translation, which is a revision of that former translation...which he chose to leave that verse as he found it, in the 1st edition (which is the one I have) of his (Andrew's) translation.

Perhaps Andrew was applying a less-than-literal application of "OBEY" according to his understanding. Is this what you are saying?

Perhaps, yes?here is a note from a Brother who is working on a literal translation of the Khabouris Manuscript, part of which I'll show here.
"The term for ?convicted? is ETH?TPEEYS?W, carrying the idea of ?convincing? or ?persuading,? It can also have the nuances of ?obedience,? ?intercession,? and ?supplication,? which also shed light upon the intended meaning of the text. There was no obedience in these people, no supplication going up, and thus no intercession for sins. Despite the miracles witnessed and the faithfulness of Alaha which carried them daily, they could not be persuaded in their hearts to follow after Him."

Certainly, if John 3:36 is rendered precisely in the AENT then these two verses are complementary to each other, and make a nice fit together...

The underlying word is not exactly the same, but carries the same meaning, which basically means that they had no conviction?and thus were not persuaded to obey God?s instructions. If you look the words up and see which verse use each word?you can see that it can mean disobedience, from lack of conviction, being not persuaded or un-convinced to follow God?s way.