Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dave B's Peshitta Bible Codes and Peshitta Primacy
#1
Brothers,


I am posting several links to web pages on the Peshitta codes I have found. Some are articles I have written for Bible Codes Digest web site; some are excel files from my original experiment which is a search for 84 Divine names in Hebrew and Aramaic as ELS codes by skipping letters in the Peshitta New Testament. I have written somewhat on this in my original post on this forum.

Please follow the links in my articles posted by Bible Code Digest; they will take you to other articles I have written. No one else has done this kind of study that I know of. The results are very impressive and have led to other studies of word comparisons in Greek and Aramaic ,which confirm my conclusions from the experiment.

I conclude from the experiment of hundreds of searches that my hypothesis is supported by the results overwhelmingly , namely , that
"If God has coded the Bible text, He would certainly encode His Names and Titles in the text at many skip levels in highly significant numbers which could not be duplicated in other uninspired texts, thus leaving His Divine signature and watermark, showing that it is the original and Divine scripture."

This experiment shows
1.very powerful statistical evidence that The Peshitto text (27 book canon) is inspired ;
2. That it is not a translation, but the original text behind the Greek NT.


I have links here for exhaustive word comparisons in the Greek and Peshitto texts which verify these results, involving a total of over 10,000 words in Aramaic and Greek combined.

I hope to improve and increase the contents of these in the near future. Please ply me with your questions on this information.

These four are articles I have published on BibleCodesDigest.com

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/108

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/135

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/192

http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/130


The rest are tables and explanations of my experiments that demonstrate the Divine inspiration of The Peshitta New Testament
by searching for 84 Divine Names and Titles hidden in the text as codes by skipping letters (ELS's) Equidistant Letter Sequences and comparing results with a control text for each word search.

The results are phenomenal !



http://dave.ultimasurf.com

I hope more will check this out and comment. If you don't understand it, let me know and I'll try to simplify and explain it.


I believe the link :
http://dave.ultimasurf.com
reveals a method which conclusively proves that The Peshitta is the original and The Greek NT is a translation of it. It uses the Hebrew Old Testament- LXX model of original-translation by which to compare The Peshitta-Greek NT.
The ratios consistently support the same above conclusion !

These are not codes; they are merely word-pair studies done with
MS Word and Online Bible with Hebrew OT, Peshitta NT, LXX, Greek NT (Byzantine and Westcott & Hort), as well as Latin Vulgate.

Online Bible can search phrases or word combinations in any of the above versions and list all the verses along with as many parallel versions as I like.
I paste these search lists of verses into MS Word; MS Word can give statistics for each word I want totals for. I did a search for all occurrences of Ihsous in Greek, for example,listing all the verses in Greek and Aramaic parallel to each other;obtained total for the Greek word in MS Word and corresponding total for Aramaic "Yeshua" . I divide the latter into the former.The result is 96%.

Then I did the same in reverse; Searching all occurrences of "Yeshua" and listing all verses along with the Greek parallels at the same time. Word finds the total for the number of "Yeshua"; I then find the number of Greek Ihsous in the same list of verses which correspond to Yeshua and match up in those verses to the Aramaic. I divide the latter (Greek) into the former (Aramaic);
The result is 63%.

This is the pattern for an Aramaic original. It matches consistently with the Hebrew OT-LXX model. Since the Greek words are derived from the Aramaic text, it makes sense that a higher percentage of these will be matched to the Aramaic equivalent than the reverse.

The Aramaic does not derive from the Greek, therefore when I do a search of all occurrences of an Aramaic word and list all the parallel and corresponding Greek words, the ratio of corresponding Greek to the total Aramaic occurrences is lower.

This pattern holds consistently for large numbers of words- usually over 100 in a search. All forms of a word must be included, so it is important to know the language roots, proclitics, enclitics, Greek declensions,conjugations and irregular forms well.

I have communicated with Dean Dana so I can publish this monumental discovery, along with the codes .
All I need are the funds to publish.
,
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0hl0l 0txwb$t[/font]



Dave B
Reply
#2
Hey guys,

Just want you to know I've updated the forum main page and have new links to info. you've never seen before.Please check them out on Peshitta Primacy tests and the Bible codes.

I have written Dean Dana in hopes that he will publish my material
proving The Peshitta is authored by God and is the original New Testament.

I would appreciate your prayers and welcome any comments and questions.


Many blessings,



Dave B
Reply
#3
""proving The Peshitta is authored by God and is the original New Testament""

That is very exciting stuff. I hope you will have some sort of counter arguments also for those Greek primacists that show "miracles in the Greek" with the numerology, 7's around God, 8's around Jesus, 9's around the Church, 13's around Satan etc
Reply
#4
And if your first experimant on this link: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/108">http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/108</a><!-- m -->

On the NT version, what did you use as control? If you used the Greek, that is very convincing of Aramaic primacy...


As for OT, we know the HOT is not the original, so how reliable are the results in prediciting what is original and what isn't? If even corrupted versions have the codes, then how can we say, "here are codes, this is the original"?
Reply
#5
Akhi Chris,

The control was a scrambled Peshitta text, as it had the same number of letters , the same alphabet and exactly the same letter frequencies for each letter. I have done separate tests on the Greek NT for Divine names in Greek and have come up empty handed. The results there are insignificant.

As far as the originality of the text itself, my method still works for a slightly altered text; for instance, The BHS text yields codes in significant numbers, but not as significant as The Koren edition, which is used in most synagogues. The BHS edition differs by 130 letters in the Torah from The Koren edition. I used The Koren edition which came with CodeFinder software.

If the text were to be altered by more than 0.5%, the codes would probably disappear. That would be 6000 letters in the Tanakh. Most orthodox scholars believe that The Koren edition is much closer to the original than that; some say that it is a few hundred letters off; some only 6.
It cannot be off by much. I think that if we were to reinsert the 134 missing Yahweh's which the Massoretes altered to Adonai and the few other deliberate alterations they recorded in their Massorahs, (though the # letters would remain the same for Adonai) , we would see even more codes and a purer text.
The massoretes altered these places as a hedge to guard their Bible from enemies. They thought that if non believers stole their Bibles, they would be sure not to give them the absolutely pure
text (casting pearls before swine). Only the Massoretes would know the original, who memorized the changes and preserved the original for the Jewish people. This is not any one piece I have read; it is the conclusion I have reached, having read rabbi Akiba who wrote AD 114 , along with other info. on the Massorah.

Blessings,

Dave B
Reply
#6
Hi David:
One question concerning your 2 part statement.

This experiment shows
1.very powerful statistical evidence that The Peshitto text (27 book canon) is inspired ;
2. That it is not a translation, but the original text behind the Greek NT.


I have links here for exhaustive word comparisons in the Greek and Peshitto texts which verify these results, involving a total of over 10,000 words in Aramaic and Greek combined.


Could you please clarify your statement, in light of the established fact that the Western Five, namely, II Peter, II and III John, Jude and Revelation do not have a known extant Aramaic manuscript.

How can you prove divine authorship from the Aramaic as opposed to the Greek of these five books, without an original Aramaic "autograph"?

Kind Regards,
Stephen Silver
Reply
#7
Shlama akhi Steven,

Why are you so dogmatic when you are wrong ?

There are Aramaic mss. for the five. There is the Palestinian Syriac text which has them (5th century) as well as the Crawford manuscript of Revelation, published by John Gwynn, along with his edition of the Catholic epistles, which is incorporated into
the 1905 edition of the Syriac Bible we will be using as the base for transcription of the Khabouris.

The Eastern Church does not include these books, not because they do not exist in Aramaic , but because they do not exist in their mss. Some argue that the mss. containing them were translated from Greek. What difference would that make to anyone outside The COE ? Almost all believe that all Peshitta mss. were all translated from Greek. Nevertheless, the Harclean version and its predecessor , were translated from Greek and revised in the 6th & 7th centuries.

The mss. used in the 1905 edition are different in nature from the Harclean version, and do not look like a translation from Greek. I have tested word pairs (not codes) from Greek NT and Aramaic NT in the Catholic Epistles and Revelation in the article you referred to. The Greek text came from the Aramaic text, based on the 1000+ data I describe of Aramaic to Greek numbers. The Aramaic text of Revelation's Crawford manuscript is the original behind the sloppy Greek texts of Revelation.

Even Lamsa includes all 27 books in his translation and indicates that "later Aramaic mss. include them". Do you really
think these editions (1905 Syriac & Lamsa) would have five books without any Aramaic mss. behind them ?

Ask Paul to verify this if you don't believe me.

Blessings,

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
Reply
#8
gbausc Wrote:Shlama akhi Steven,

Why are you so dogmatic when you are wrong ?

There are Aramaic mss. for the five. There is the Palestinian Syriac text which has them (5th century) as well as the Crawford manuscript of Revelation, published by John Gwynn, along with his edition of the Catholic epistles, which is incorporated into
the 1905 edition of the Syriac Bible we will be using as the base for transcription of the Khabouris.

The Eastern Church does not include these books, not because they do not exist in Aramaic , but because they do not exist in their mss. Some argue that the mss. containing them were translated from Greek. What difference would that make to anyone outside The COE ? Almost all believe that all Peshitta mss. were all translated from Greek. Nevertheless, the Harclean version and its predecessor , were translated from Greek and revised in the 6th & 7th centuries.

The mss. used in the 1905 edition are different in nature from the Harclean version, and do not look like a translation from Greek. I have tested word pairs (not codes) from Greek NT and Aramaic NT in the Catholic Epistles and Revelation in the article you referred to. The Greek text came from the Aramaic text, based on the 1000+ data I describe of Aramaic to Greek numbers. The Aramaic text of Revelation's Crawford manuscript is the original behind the sloppy Greek texts of Revelation.

Even Lamsa includes all 27 books in his translation and indicates that "later Aramaic mss. include them". Do you really
think these editions (1905 Syriac & Lamsa) would have five books without any Aramaic mss. behind them ?

Ask Paul to verify this if you don't believe me.

Blessings,

Dave

Hi Dave:
I don't think I'm being dogmatic at all. The Crawford Manuscript-Book of Revelation is translated from the Greek. To my knowledge, John Gwynn has only transcribed, the Book of Revelation, not the other four of the Western Five.

The Harklean 616 CE (Aramaic) version of The Western Five, II Peter, II and III John, Jude and Revelation is a translation from an unknown Greek text.

"The Apocalypse of St. John, in a Syriac version hitherto unknown (1897)."

The Crawford is the oldest complete Western New Testament we have for now, but in it's entirety it's a copy of a 7th century Western text of the New Testament (27 books). The Mosul text 1891 (Western Five) and the Crawford Western Five are virtually the same, and this proves that they are both translations from the Greek.

note:
virtually: slight differences appear in a comparison between the Crawford Revelation and the Mosul 1891 version, but in most places they are word for word and letter for letter the same.

Personally, I accept the Greek witness of the Western Five, because we just simply do not have an original Aramaic autograph. The 22 book Peshitta was closed before the Western Five were written, to the best of my knowledge. The Peshitta has had continual custodianship since the First Century in the Eastern Church.

The 1905 Eastern Aramaic text is without question the best Peshitta text to date, till the Khabouris Codex was found around the mid sixties, and brought to America.

Therefore, your published statistical research on "the names of God Experiment" using the Peshitta + the Western Five, my dear brother Dave, is not valid in proving Aramaic primacy.

If your research shows a higher incidence of "the names of God" in the Aramaic translation than in the Greek text, your experimental data is flawed, and so is your hypothesis. Also, if there is no significantly measurable difference in your statistical data between that of the Peshitta and that of the Western Five, this also reveals a serious flaw in your experimental apparatus. I'm simply stating the facts, Dave.

There are a number of Aramaic scholars that will affirm that the Western Five are translated from the Greek. I could name a few, Paul Younan, Andrew Gabriel Roth and Dean Dana.

Love in Christ,
Stephen Silver
Reply
#9
No, Steve, you are not simply stating the facts. You are stating your opinions and opinions of others and calling them facts.

You wrote:
Quote:I don't think I'm being dogmatic at all. The Crawford Manuscript-Book of Revelation is translated from the Greek. To my knowledge, John Gwynn has only transcribed, the Book of Revelation, not the other four of the Western Five
.

The 1979 Syriac Bible UBS edition (& 1905 edition is identical) is "based on the critical edition of Gwynn's Catholic Epistles and Revelation, as well as Gwilliams' critical edition of the rest of the NT ."
The above comes from David Taylor of Hugoye Journal of Aramaic Studies.

There are lots of claims that these mss. are translations of Greek, but then, most scholars claim the entire Peshitta is translated from Greek, so it is really a moot point.

Crawford and Palestinian Syriac are not The Harklean Version; let's not confuse them.The Harklean version is not all the Aramaic we have with the books in question.
There are many differences between Gwynn's critical text and the Red book edition of "the five".
I have done a detailed comparison in Jude and Revelation between the two texts. The Crawford has readings not found in any Greek ms. listed in any Greek edition:
The "Ephod" [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0dwp0 [/font] in Rev. 1:13, ; Rev. 3:7 follows OT Peshitta (Is. 22:22) in Crawford, where the other editions follow Greek NT.
Rev. 7:9 alone has 15 differences from the Red book text, indicating an entirely different character for the Crawford, which is decidedly much more Semitic in nature.
Rev. 9:11 has a reading which should be very telling:
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0r$ ty0 hl 0mS ty0mr0w wdb9 ty0rb9 hm$d 0mwhtd hk0lm 0klm Nwhyl9 ty0w [/font]Re 9:11

Instead of this:And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
It has this:And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Aramaic tongue hath his name Apollyon.
No Greek ms. has this.

20:12 in Crawford has "the book of judgment" instead of "the book of life". No Greek ms. has this.
The text of the Red Book has the word "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]swnwrt[/font]" (Throne) seven times in chapter 7, which is very Greek sounding; much more so than the seven occurrences of "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0ysrwk[/font]" in Crawford.

20:4 has "korsotha" ("thrones") in Red Book; "mothba" ("a session,congress") in Crawford. This is not from Greek.

My Divine Names experiment and my word pairs experiment (not codes) both demonstrate that the Aramaic of these books is not a translation of the Greek texts.
You may disagree, but you have not proven
me wrong. You certainly cannot charge me with heresy for my position. I believe the entire NT was written in Aramaic and preserved for us as such. You do not believe that. Which is more consistent with Christ's promise in Mat. 24:35 ?

Do you believe the Greek of the western 5 is the original ? There are demonstrable errors in Revelation with its grammar. It would seem confusing that 22 books should be written in Aramaic and 5 more written in Greek by the same men that wrote their other works in Aramaic, their native tongue and the language of their audience and recipients of their first epistles (Peter & John). Or do you believe they were written in Aramaic and lost ?
Either position would seem inconsistent with reason and faith.

I have produced considerable evidence to the contrary. I challenge anyone to refute it with facts. Opinions will not do. Large numbers of opinions will not do. A whole world of scholars' opinions mean nothing.

Only the truth will avail; clear demonstrable facts.

I believe I have 1100 data in my word pair comparisons of the catholics and revelation
that support my conclusion. These are not codes, and they fit the Hebrew OT-LXX model , with the Greek being a translation in both cases. Perhaps you have not had a good look at it, but the rest of the Peshitta
produces the same results as the five- as the Hebrew OT.
What a coincidence !

Where is the heresy in this ?

You may disagree, but you cannot say I am wrong and you are right, because this is a difference of opinion on your part.

I am the one appealing to facts. You have got your "facts" wrong, as I have shown above concerning Gwynn's edition; concerning the "few differences" you claim between Crawford and Mosul 1891.
I have discovered and produced quite a few facts by research.
You are quoting other men who have not done what I have done. I have , in my opinion, discovered something not before done in the modern era, at least. I have discovered substantial evidence that demonstrates the originality and Divine inspiration of the Aramaic NT in its entire 27 book canon.

Hey, if I am wrong, you must grant me a valiant effort in the attempt.

If I am right, I will have slain a Goliath and changed the course of history, and that is what I believe our purpose here should be.

Regardless the outcome, I can honestly say that I do what I do for the the greater glory of God and his Blessed Son and Christ, Our God and Savior of the world, Who came to destroy him that had the power of death, that is, The Devil.

He knows my heart; he knows the outcome.
He loves me the same , either way, and I, Him.
I have considered the possibility that I am wrong, Steve. I may yet turn out to be wrong. If so, I will apologize profusely to the world for it.

Have you considered the possibility that I am right ?

Blessings,

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
Reply
#10
Dave and Forum:
I've done a preliminary study on the word(s) Anti Christ. It's a comparison between I John 2:18, 2:22, 4:3 and II John Verse 7.

I John 2:18[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]fgd 0xy4m[/font]
I John 2:22[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]fgd 0xy4m[/font]
I John 4:3[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]fgd yh 0xy4m[/font]

The 1905 Syriac text, the 1891 Mosul text (Red Book), and the Crawford Manuscript all contain the Western Five, and all agree with the Peshitta in the spelling of I John 4:3.

However, in II John Verse 7, it is transliterated like the Greek pronunciation, antikhristos.
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]sw=syrky=n0w[/font]

If the book of II John is the autograph, why would [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]sw=syrky=n0w[/font] be used instead of [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]fgd 0xy4m[/font] the Semitic spelling of the phrase? I think it's because the text of II John is an Aramaic translation from the Greek.

Therefore, any "names of God" data based upon an Aramaic version of the Western Five, containing II Peter, II and III John, Jude and Revelation is flawed. Indeed, I firmly believe that the Western Five do have an original Aramaic autograph that has been lost after it was translated into Greek.

Kind Regards,
Stephen Silver
Reply
#11
Steve and forum,

Do you think I was unaware of this unusual
occurrence in 2 John ?

Are you aware that the book of Acts uses the word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0ny+srk[/font] "Khristiana"
(Christian) twice and 1 Peter has it once ?

That is a Greek word, not Aramaic. It is a transliteration of the Greek word.
Why does Acts and 1 Peter also use "Petrus" for Peter instead of "Simeon", as most places have it. "Petrus" is Greek.
Were Acts and 1 Peter translated from Greek, or just those names in those places
from the Greek language , not the Greek NT ?

Yet you assume that this obviates everything I have done in the Bible codes and in the word comparisons. I have already researched this, Steve. I have done much more than this. I have purchased the software, obtained The Peshitta NT in digitized format for the Codefinder program (I know of only one or two others who have it) and I have been searching the text for The Divine Names for 4 years.

You have not done this.

I have compiled thousands of data comparing Greek and Aramaic word cognates in the Peshitta and Greek NT, using the Hebrew OT and LXX (Septuagint OT) as a standard model for an original text and its translation.
You have not done this, Steve.

Until you do, you have no authority to make dogmatic assertions as to the validity
or invalidity of my conclusions.

Sincerely,

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
Reply
#12
[quote="gbausc"]Steve and forum,

Do you think I was unaware of this unusual
occurrence in 2 John ?


Is it an unusual occurrence? How so?

Are you aware that the book of Acts uses the word [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0ny+srk[/font] "Khristiana"
(Christian) twice and 1 Peter has it once ?


I was aware of this Greek loan word. :o)

That is a Greek word, not Aramaic. It is a transliteration of the Greek word.
Why does Acts and 1 Peter also use "Petrus" for Peter instead of "Simeon", as most places have it. "Petrus" is Greek.
Were Acts and 1 Peter translated from Greek, or just those names in those places
from the Greek language , not the Greek NT ?


Shimon Kepha or Petros was born and raised in Galilee of the Gentiles. He had a Jewish name, which was used when he was called to read the Torah in the synagogue and he had a Greek name of which he was not ashamed. The Peshitta contains both Acts (author-Luke), and (I Peter author Petros/Shimon Kepha).

It's the same thing as Luke using eucharistos or Christianos. I haven't got any problem with Greek loan words in the Peshitta.

Mashikha d'gala was in I John 2:18, I John 2:22, I John 4:3 , yet a Greek loan word antikhristos was used in II John verse 7. Same author, successive books. Why the difference?

Yet you assume that this obviates everything I have done in the Bible codes and in the word comparisons. I have already researched this, Steve. I have done much more than this. I have purchased the software, obtained The Peshitta NT in digitized format for the Codefinder program (I know of only one or two others who have it) and I have been searching the text for The Divine Names for 4 years.

Don't take this personally, Dave but it's better to adjust the parameters of your research accordingly if you are wrong, than to continue with what may very well be a false premise.

You have not done this.

That's correct. I do not have the software to search the Peshitta and I have no desire to do so. What I'm trying to do here is get a more complete discernment of Peshitta Codes Research. Isn't that what you have posted it for?

I have compiled thousands of data comparing Greek and Aramaic word cognates in the Peshitta and Greek NT, using the Hebrew OT and LXX (Septuagint OT) as a standard model for an original text and its translation.
You have not done this, Steve.

Until you do, you have no authority to make dogmatic assertions as to the validity
or invalidity of my conclusions.


David, I don't need authority to humbly state my opinion or ask questions on this forum. The different posts, debates, arguments and research on the origin of the Western Five are in the archives of peshitta.org, along with many other topics. That's the destination of this present debate. It's for the record. That's why I'm making enquiries in this area, so that we may have a well documented archive, from which to draw from. Neat huh!

Please don't misunderstand my intention in saying this. I respect the fact that you have done an incredible amount of research, but you seem unwilling to accept even the remote possibility that the Western Five does not have an Aramaic autograph available at this time. I wish there was one. I have received the Greek witness of the Western Five. It's the most logical choice, in my humble opinion.

Again, nothing personal intended Dave, but if your research data is based in any pertinent way upon the Western Five being the autograph, when they are a translation from Greek into Aramaic, then your data is not reliable. It's as simple as that.

Kind Regards,
Stephen Silver
Reply
#13
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
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
Reply
#14
Hi Dave, I've clicked on your links above but 'draw a blank' each time, could you possibly email the site links to me by PM ? <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
Reply
#15
The Bible code digest links were apparently changed. Here is where most of my articles can be found on that web site:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php?PageID=363">http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php?PageID=363</a><!-- m -->

I have removed my articles from Ultima surf, so those links are useless now. The web host had forbidden Muslims access to his Bible forum several years ago, so I withdrew my support in protest.

My book Divine Contact has my experiments and primacy tests data, as does my web site- aramaicnt.com in my research articles.

Thanks for your interest and inquiries.

Dave Bauscher
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)