Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Errors in the Paul Younan Interlinear?
#16
Only thing I'm going to say is that the Word didn't dwell in flesh...the Word became flesh. Jesus is not God just walking around in the body of a man. When God became flesh, He emptied Himself of His divine prerogatives (not His deity) and took on the limitations of man (except sin). These limitations included limited knowledge, position, relying upon the Spirit of YHWH, getting hungry and thirsty, and even having to pray to God. I'm not sure about the "avatar" terminology, because Jesus is not merely God looking through the eyes of a man. Jesus is YHWH existing as a Man through human consciousness.
Reply
#17
:

Ok, since were on the subject for a min...so which part of God died on the Cross then, just 1/3rd of God? Dave Bauscher claims the Peshitta teaches that ALL of God died on the Cross.

And which part of God departed from Yeshua on the Cross? 1/3rd? When He cried out "My God, My God, why have you left me?"

And was Yeshua at that point, just a Man when He died, or a Man and 1/3rd God? Because, before He died, the Father departed from Him, and Yeshua gave up His Spirit also before He died. So, we have the Son of God, dying on the Cross. Not the Father and not the Holy Spirit too.

I don't see the Peshitta teaching such a thing as The Father and the Holy Spirit, dying on the Cross, or that just 1/3rd of God died, unless I've missed something. Is God three parts, or just one part? And if He is not three parts, then how is it that only one part of God died?

I say...The Son of God died on the Cross, in His humanity, not in His Divinity, He being both God, The Word, and Yeshua, the Man/Messiah/Anointed one at the same time.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#18
Hi, other questions on Paul Younan interlinear....

1.) Mark 1:2 reads "as it is written BY Eshaya the prophet" -- but the Greek text reads IN Isaiah the prophet. Does the Aramaic allow "IN" to be translated or does the Peshitta text only read "BY"???

2.) Mark 13:30 reads "tribe" -- are there other words that seem more fitting to translate? Could "nation" be used??

3.) Is Paul's translation good enough to be used for the church setting? (Is it profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness -- 2 Tim. 3:16)

For #3, akh Paul, your input would be appreciated.

~DC
Reply
#19
DrawCloser Wrote:Hi, other questions on Paul Younan interlinear....

1.) Mark 1:2 reads "as it is written BY Eshaya the prophet" -- but the Greek text reads IN Isaiah the prophet. Does the Aramaic allow "IN" to be translated or does the Peshitta text only read "BY"???

IN is ok because of the prefix b'

2.) Mark 13:30 reads "tribe" -- are there other words that seem more fitting to translate? Could "nation" be used??

generation is most used. However, because of interpretation (preterist/futurist & hybrids of it) some prefer 'tribe'. But in say 95% of the ocurrances in the NT, it is translated with generation.

3.) Is Paul's translation good enough to be used for the church setting? (Is it profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness -- 2 Tim. 3:16)

Paul announced an official translation, not made by him but by a comitee of the CoE. However, Pauls translation is very good to be used in studies or churches.
For #3, akh Paul, your input would be appreciated.

~DC
Reply
#20
I don't think it is right for to say that God experienced death, but I do believe it is fine to say that He did in the manifestation of the Son. Death is not a cessation of existence, but the spirit leaving the physical body. This happened to Jesus, who is God in the flesh with the Spirit of the Father being Jesus' very life force. The body was still God's body, even after the Spirit of Christ withdrew from it. Jesus' flesh is God's flesh. This is one reason why I believe the Peshitto is correct in saying that God bought the church with His own holy blood (Acts 20:28). Jesus Christ is one Person, not with the divine and human natures dwelling merely side-by-side (or separately) inside of Him, but with the humanity and deity completely united. Jesus can forgive sins because of His deity, He prays to God because of His humanity. Jesus does not operate with a "divine side" and a "human side" that operate independently. When Jesus said, "Before Abraham was I AM", it was not His divine nature speaking, it was His whole Person. Natures don't speak, persons do. Jesus is one Person and operates as such.
Reply
#21
SS2,

And who taught you that? It's not right, cause it's not true.

The Son of God died...Just like the Scriptures teach. The Son of God The Father died, not The Father of Yeshua. This is the problem with this teaching that tries to negate or ignor the distiction between God the Father, and His Son Yeshua. This idea that The Father is just pretending to be His own Son...is bogus.

The Church of the East, and it's Holy Aramaic New Testament Scriptures, teach it correctly...that God is really the Father of His own Son, and His own Son is really distinct from His Father, yet united with Him in close union, but not to the point where no distinction exists. The Human body of Yeshua died on the Cross, and He shed His Holy Human blood for the redeemption of mankind from the curse of sin and death.

Yeshua suffered "apart from God" The Father, just is it reads in The Holy Aramaic New Testament Scriptures. Which is attested to by Origen about the year 230 A.D....long before (Two hundred years) there was a dispute about it in 430 A.D. And the reading is correct for "the Church of M'Shikha". We can see that the Greek versions have a variant in their Mss copies, with some having the reading "the Church of the Lord", and others reading "The Church of God". We know that it was The Lord M'shikha, who shed His Holy Human blood, which blood He got from His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, not from God, His Father.

If you think the Western Peshitto version is the true form of The Holy Aramaic New Testament Scriptures...then explain to me how The Church of the East never used it, since the 1st century, when The Apostles handed them The New Testament books, which remains unchanged in it's readings to this day?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#22
distazo Wrote:generation is most used. However, because of interpretation (preterist/futurist & hybrids of it) some prefer 'tribe'. But in say 95% of the ocurrances in the NT, it is translated with generation.

Hi, referring to 95% occurences, in the GNT or PNT?

distazo Wrote:Paul announced an official translation, not made by him but by a comitee of the CoE. However, Pauls translation is very good to be used in studies or churches.

Paul Younan Wrote:Translations, on the other hand. Translations are a different beast altogether. Even today, I'll go back and regret the way I worded something in the Interlinear, or see a mistake that I made. I can't tell you how many times that has happened. I could go back a thousand times and still find a good reason to revise it. We can see this in action with the multiple revisions that are made to versions that we know to be translations, such as the NIV or King James.

Hi Paul, may you please elaborate more on this? I like your interlinear, but I doubt its quality.

~DC
Reply
#23
:

DC,

We will never find a perfect translation in every respect...or interlinear for that matter. Thank God for Dukhrana.com and Biblos.com, where we can check things out as near as we can tell.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#24
distazo Wrote:
DrawCloser Wrote:Hi, other questions on Paul Younan interlinear....

1.) Mark 1:2 reads "as it is written BY Eshaya the prophet" -- but the Greek text reads IN Isaiah the prophet. Does the Aramaic allow "IN" to be translated or does the Peshitta text only read "BY"???

IN is ok because of the prefix b'

2.) Mark 13:30 reads "tribe" -- are there other words that seem more fitting to translate? Could "nation" be used??

generation is most used. However, because of interpretation (preterist/futurist & hybrids of it) some prefer 'tribe'. But in say 95% of the ocurrances in the NT, it is translated with generation.

3.) Is Paul's translation good enough to be used for the church setting? (Is it profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness -- 2 Tim. 3:16)

Paul announced an official translation, not made by him but by a comitee of the CoE. However, Pauls translation is very good to be used in studies or churches.
For #3, akh Paul, your input would be appreciated.

~DC

I love Paul's interlinear but I wouldn't say it's suitable for church use, at least not liturgically, it also isn't complete.

I'm glad that the CoE is going to do an official translation, something like the Orthodox Study Bible but for the CoE would be cool. Yes it would be another sectarian translation but I would gladly welcome that as I'm interested in learning how they interpret Scripture. The University of Leiden in the Netherlands has been working on a new annotated translation of the entire Peshitta (OT & NT) for years now, so if they ever complete it that would serve the needs of those who want an academic translation, much like the New English Translation of the Septuagint by Oxford University Press.
Reply
#25
I do not even believe that the Peshitta is the original form of Scripture. I believe the original form of the New Testament Scripture is found mostly and Greek, with some Aramaic. To end the theological debate: God did not pretend to be the Son, God became the Son. The Son of God is God's existence in flesh. There is a distinction between the Father (existence as the Spirit) and the Son (existence as the Man Christ Jesus). All I said was that God, through His existence as the Son, experienced death. The idea that God did not experience death through His existence as the Spirit (the Father), but as the Son (the Man).
Reply
#26
Quote:I do not even believe that the Peshitta is the original form of Scripture

Believing something does not make it so... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Quote:God did not pretend to be the Son, God became the Son. The Son of God is God's existence in flesh. There is a distinction between the Father (existence as the Spirit) and the Son (existence as the Man Christ Jesus). All I said was that God, through His existence as the Son, experienced death. The idea that God did not experience death through His existence as the Spirit (the Father), but as the Son (the Man).

The Father and His Son are distinct, the Son of God is the Offspring of His Father...they have an actual and real relationship with each other. It's not a "mode" of existance. "that is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world unto Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us The Message of Reconciliation." 2 Cor 5:19 "For in Him, the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily," Col 2:9

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#27
You can't comprehend the incarnation with a human mentality. I believe the Peshitta is a very valuable and beautiful resource that Christians should study and have knowledge of, but I believe the Scriptures were mostly written in Greek, with Matthew and possibly Hebrews being composed in Aramaic.
Reply
#28
You said
Quote:You can't comprehend the incarnation with a human mentality.

That's very true. And is why we must have revelation from The Holy Spirit to understand better, or at all. The Father did'nt become His Son, He brought forth/begot, His Son, from His own substance and Being. The Word/Wisdom of God is the Offspring of The Fathers own Being, "God from God, Light from Light", as the Nicean Creed teaches, and which agrees with The Holy Scriptures...through whom, in His Son's pre-incarnate state, The Father created all things, in/through and for His Son.

You seem to believe that The Father became The Son, rather than truly begat His Son from His own substance and Being, and that The Son of God did not exist at all before He became incarnate in the Person of Yeshua. That is a huge differance, and one that divides Truth from error on the matter. This idea was delt with centuries ago, when the heresy of "modalism" was exposed and condemned as error, and rightly so. Look that term up, and see if it's what you think is true about this subject.

I know I wont convince you through debate of this fact, as is clearly taught in The Peshitta, that's The Holy Spirit's work...and am not trying to change your mind either, just proclaiming it to be so, and showing you that it's indeed taught in The Holy Scriptures, and always has been by The Holy Church, from the start, till now, in hopes that you will at least examine it closer as you seek God's revelation, and alow Him to change your mind, with His understanding.

You said
Quote:I believe the Peshitta is a very valuable and beautiful resource that Christians should study and have knowledge of, but I believe the Scriptures were mostly written in Greek, with Matthew and possibly Hebrews being composed in Aramaic.

The research on this site, proves that all the books of the New Testament were originally given/composed in Aramaic, and then directly or soon after translated into Greek and perhaps Latin, under the Apostles direction, for those who spoke those languages in that day, who were being added to the Body of Christ. Have you taken the time to read all the proof's shown here? Do you have any proof that shows it to be otherwise? Lets see it! <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Jeremy (burning one), showed me a good proof last night, with Colossians 3:6, where "the deeds of disobediance" is the correct reading, rather than "the sons of disobediance". I'll show what he said to me here...

Jeremy said:
Quote:"the translation REALLY should be "the deeds / works" and not "the sons." the reasons for this are kind of lengthy, but i think you will probably agree why it is so after some explantion. to start off, read the context surrounding it, like verses 5 and 7-8. the thought in these verses really centers around what is DONE, ie, "deeds."

that's the simplest way to look at it, but the textual aspect is a bit more involved.

an Aramaic word for "deed / work" is B'NA (spelled BET-NUN-ALAPH). the 3rd person feminine of this is B'NEH (spelled BET-NUN-YUDH-HEH)

the Aramaic word for "sons / children" is B'NAI (spelled BET-NUN-YUDH). the 3rd person feminine possessive is B'NEH (spelled BET-NUN-YUDH-HEH)

so as you can see, the two terms are from different roots (although one could arguably say a "son" is something that is a "deed / work / built"), but if inflected in specific ways, are spelled and pronounced EXACTLY the same way.

for comparison, take a look at the Greek of this passage: "sons" is the reading there, and it is in the masculine. but check out "disobedience" - it is in the feminine! however, in the Peshitta, BOTH respective terms are in the feminine so long as the term B'NEH is understood to be "deeds." only IF the term was mistaken as "sons" could the Greek have arrived at a masculine gender for "sons" (but still would have ignored the feminine suffix!) and a feminine gender for "disobedience." see what i mean? whereas no grammatical issue exists in the Aramaic if the term is understood correctly, if it were understood incorrectly, and then translated into Greek as such, then we end up with EXACTLY the situation we see in Greek - an improper relationship between masculine and feminine genders between the two respective words.

there is one other instance in the Peshitta that i am aware of that can be looked at to see that this type of mistake could be the case, which i think might help you some more:

Luke 7:35 the term B'NEH could be translated as either "sons" OR "deeds." i opt for "deeds" here too because wisdom doesn't really have "sons," and the idea of "sons" wouldn't fit the context.

okay, now check out the parallel passage in Matthew 11:19 - the term AWADEH can ONLY mean "deeds" there - the word cannot mean "sons" at all. so it is the same setting, the same event, the same words, yet Matthew and Luke record two different terms that ultimately mean the same thing. obviously one person was present and one wasn't, so that explains the presence of synonyms. but at least you can see that the word B'NEH DOES mean both, and "deeds" is the preferred reading, based off the reading of Matthew and the context.

all that i bring out to show you that the Greek translators were capable of mistranslating the Aramaic term B'NEH if they didn't pay close attention to the context.

look at any Greek Received Text version of the NT in Matt and Luke in these passages. you find that they will read "children / sons."
then look at any Greek Criticial text version of the NT in Matt and Luke in these passages. you will find that they will read "deeds / children."

so you can see that a variant reading exists in the Greek that can be explained via the Aramaic. if the term B'NEH can mean EITHER "sons" or "deeds," and needs careful context clues to determine correct translation, then it would be expected to possibly find a mistake in the Greek, and that is exactly what we find!

i have to give props to Paul Younan for originally bringing out this variant and mistake on the Greek side of things that stems from misreading the Aramaic. you can find his original post on Peshitta.org forum with some digging. it has been some years.

i must say that i don't know about Paul's position on how THIS passage from Colossians should read, though. to my knowledge he only ever brought up the ones from the Gospels. but as i read the passage myself from Colossians in context, i felt the reading really should be "deeds" here."



..
Reply
#29
Re: Colossians 3:6

Quote:so you can see that a variant reading exists in the Greek that can be explained via the Aramaic. if the term B'NEH can mean EITHER "sons" or "deeds," and needs careful context clues to determine correct translation, then it would be expected to possibly find a mistake in the Greek, and that is exactly what we find!

i have to give props to Paul Younan for originally bringing out this variant and mistake on the Greek side of things that stems from misreading the Aramaic. you can find his original post on Peshitta.org forum with some digging. it has been some years.

i must say that i don't know about Paul's position on how THIS passage from Colossians should read, though. to my knowledge he only ever brought up the ones from the Gospels. but as i read the passage myself from Colossians in context, i felt the reading really should be "deeds" here."

There's no doubt, I would definitely agree with the "deeds" reading here in the Aramaic as well. Not only does "deeds" make more sense in the context (see v.5), but also, how can one "live in the sons?" (v6)

Absolutely brilliant find Jeremy, thanks for sharing ThirdWoe! (in Colossians, nonetheless!)

+Shamasha
Reply
#30
Brother Paul, are you continuing personal work on the Interlinear and will more portions be posted?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)