|
#25, RE: small wonders
Posted by jdrywood on Mar-19-2002 at 05:28 PM
In response to message #24
To all who can still stand the Canadian cold and Assyrian heat, YES 0mwnq a word that can not be translated in any language, so why bother any body with mysterious words that can not be understood. Sounds like ‘speaking in unknown tongues’ and if that is the case it probably was never used in the first place by the apostles but was added by Assyrians into the text so that they could understand ‘hupostaseus (substance)’. And when he asked his disciples in Luke 9:18 ‘Who do the crowds say that I AM?’ One of the prophets, but when he asked his disciples, ‘Who do you say that I AM?’ Peter answered, 0hl0d hyky4m not alaha. So, the messiah of God has not the same force as very God though God is certainly called redeemer. Now we come to the real problem facing us in verse 26 as to who this man really is. All the known Papyri read the same as the Byzantine here and Iakov can check this out for us in P-4,-45,-75. Even Jeromes Latin agrees with the Greek. So set your eyes on this ‘gdee katanim sheli’. ‘when he comes in the glory of himself, and of the Father, and of the holy messengers (angels)’ This trinity of glory disappears in the Peshitta and Tatian’s harmony which reads, ‘when he comes in the glory of his Father with his holy angels’. Now, there are no qnomas, kyanas or parsopas to translate here so a one for one literal translation into other languages should not have been a problem yet there is at this verse. Why? Were the translators bias in their opinions? Luke’s gospel is dated to 56 C rather early don’t you think and probably though not for certain in Greek at Phillippi. The difference is too pronounced to dismiss which means the text was not then standardized. So what standard should we set for the ages: Peshitta or Byzantine? But, not so fast, the identical verse is found at Matthew 16:27 dated some 16 years prior to Luke and not only this but we know that Matthew wrote in his native Aramaic which was then translated into Greek and Latin. And look at this, Iakov, we don’t need you after all, the KING JAMES Cambridge Edition and Byzantine text translates it perfectly as in the Peshitta. Wonders of wonders, miracles of miracles, God has made this happen just for you. Now we really have a problem, the Aramaic could be translated one for one after all, so why the change in Luke? He must have had an apographa and how did that Syrian Tatian get it right when all his enemies got it wrong? jdrywood osyqdw Nnxwy Nm aml4
|