Keith
   Member: Member Feedback |
Jan-19-2002 at 08:16 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
Akhi Andrew, I vaguely recall you stating your opinion as to the original language of the five disputed books of the NT (2P, 2J, 3J, Jude, and Revelation). As you know I hold to the thought that the NT has 27 books but I have stumbled upon something that is quite disturbing, at least to me. I have no problem with a Semitic primacy theory. I hold to it myself. Whether Matthew and Hebrews were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic doesn't matter a great deal to me. At this point I believe both originals were Aramaic. I also believe in an Aramaic original of the Revelation (the Crawford manuscript). Therefore I believe that 23 of the NT books were originally in Aramaic. The exceptions being 2P, 2J, 3J, and Jude. As I understand it after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD the Semitic tongue was shunned and the people were, more or less, required to speak Greek in public. I also believe that 1 John and Revelation were penned prior to 70AD, accounting for their Aramaic original. That being said since 2 John, 3 John, and Jude have no Aramaic original and are universally believed to be written after 70 AD, only a Greek orginal should be expected. You may recall from a previous post that I alluded to the idea that I believe some other person named John was responsible for 2 and 3 John. This is supported by the difference in writing style of these books from the Gospel of John, 1 John, and Revelation. Hence my belief in another disciple named John who was Greek speaking, at least at the time he wrote his two letters. Now for the enormous puzzle. Peter was martyred in 67-68AD. 1 Peter was written prior to this and we have an Aramaic original to support his epistle. We do not have an Aramaic original to support 2 Peter though. If this is true and 1.) Peter was killed in 67-68AD. 2.) Greek was the common language after 70AD, Aramaic prior to this. 3.)1 Peter has an Aramaic original, 2 Peter only a Greek original. 4.) There is some evidence that 2 Peter was written after 70AD. Then--- someone other than the Apostle Peter wrote this book. If that is true and the first verse in 2Peter says that the writer is Peter can we trust this book to be inspired? I vaguely remember you having an opinion as to a, heretofore, unknown Aramaic orginal of this epistle, but I don't recall your reasoning behind your opinion.. What is your opinion? Wow that's a loaded question isn't it? By the way I grew up in Los Angeles and have been a Ram fan since 1968. I look forward to your Eagles coming to St. Louis next week (if the Rams beat the Pack tomorrow). Andrew your team humiliated my buddy Paul's team today. That was not a Christ-like thing to do to such a fine Christian as Paul. I want to make it up for him by drilling the Eagles next week. In Christ's Love, Keith
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Andrew Gabriel Roth
    Member: Sep-6-2000 Posts: 384 Member Feedback |
Jan-20-2002 at 10:08 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Last edited by Andrew Gabriel Roth on Jan-20-2002 at 10:13 AM (CT) >Akhi Andrew, > >I vaguely recall you stating your >opinion as to the original >language of the five disputed >books of the NT (2P, >2J, 3J, Jude, and Revelation). > As you know I >hold to the thought that >the NT has 27 books >but I have stumbled upon >something that is quite disturbing, >at least to me. HI AKHI KEITH! I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. I SUPPORT A 27 BOOK CANON TOO, AND THE STUFF YOU ARE ABOUT TO GET INTO IS HARD. > >I have no problem with a >Semitic primacy theory. I >hold to it myself. >Whether Matthew and Hebrews were >originally written in Hebrew or >Aramaic doesn't matter a great >deal to me. At >this point I believe both >originals were Aramaic. I >also believe in an Aramaic >original of the Revelation (the >Crawford manuscript). Therefore I >believe that 23 of the >NT books were originally in >Aramaic. The exceptions being 2P, >2J, 3J, and Jude. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE 22 BOOKS IN PESHITTA NT ARE ARAMAIC NT ORIGINALS IN MY VIEW. AS FOR CRAWFORD, I HAVE SAID THIS MANY TIMES-- I NEED TO SEE THE MANUSCRIPT! I HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW HOW OLD IT IS OR IF IT IS TRANSLATIONAL OR COMPSOSITIONAL ARAMAIC, AND I WON'T EVEN GUESS UNTIL I HAVE A COPY. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO GET ONE? REVELATION GIVES ME FITS BECAUSE ON ONE HAND THE "CHAIN OF TRADITION" APPEARS TO BE THAT GREEK MSS WERE ORIGINALS. ON THE OTHER HAND STATEMENTS LIKE 22:1-2 ARE DEEPLY ENSHIRINED IN JEWISH MYSTICAL TRADITION-- AS ARE SO MANY OF ITS SYMBOLISM AND ALLUSIONS. IT FEELS VERY, VERY SEMITIC. THE CRAWFORD IN ENGLISH EVEN READS MORE JEWISH THAN THE GREEK REV DOES AND MORE THAN THE TRANSLATED VERSION INTO ARAMAIC IN PESHITTO. I DON'T KNOW IF ITS ORIGINAL OR A MODERN COPY OF AN ORIGINAL. SO IT'S IN A MIDDLE CATEGORY FOR ME. > >As I understand it after the >destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD >the Semitic tongue was shunned >and the people were, more >or less, required to speak >Greek in public. I >also believe that >1 John and Revelation were penned >prior to 70AD, accounting for >their Aramaic original. I HAVE SUSPECTED THAT IF YOCHANAN BAR ZAWDEE DID WRITE REV, THAT IT WAS AT LEAST 20 YEARS BEFORE PATMOS, BUT I DID NOT CONSIDER IT THAT EARLY--THINKING MAYBE AROUND 75. HOWEVER, YOUR VERSION MAKES MORE SENSE IN THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND SURVIVED AS AN ORAL MEMORY THAT WAS CAREFULLY COMPOSED INTO GREEK. THEN, WHEN THE COE HEARS OF THIS TEXT SO MANY DECADES/CENTURIES LATER, THEY WANT TO SEE LINGUISTIC AND APOSTOLIC ACCREDITATION--FROM PEOPLE LIKE MARI AND ADDAI, AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. > >That being said since 2 John, >3 John, and Jude have >no Aramaic original and are >universally believed to be written >after 70 AD, only a >Greek orginal should be expected. PRETTY SURE YOU ARE RIGHT ON THESE THREE. POSSIBLY BOTH VERSIONS CIRCULATED AROUND THE SAME TIME-- ONE TO THE EAST IN ARAMAIC AND ONE TO THE WEST IN GREEK, AND THESE WERE INDEPENDENT AND ONLY THE GREEK SURVIVED. OR IT MAY BE THEY WERE NEVER IN ARAMAIC. I WISH I COULD PROVE OTHERWISE, BUT I CAN'T. > You may recall from >a previous post that I >alluded to the idea that >I believe some other person >named John was responsible for >2 and 3 John. This >is supported by the difference >in writing style of these >books from the Gospel of >John, 1 John, and Revelation. >Hence my belief in another >disciple named John who was >Greek speaking, at least at >the time he wrote his >two letters. SOME WOULD GO FURTHER AND SAY THE "JOHN THE ELDER" WROTE REV, AND THIS WAS NOT THE APOSTLE. REMEMBER HE IS ONLY IDENTIFIED AS JOHN IN REV AND NOT, AS HE LIKED TO DO ELSEWHERE, AS AN APOSTLE. MY FAITH IS THAT IT IS THE APOSTLE JOHN, BUT THE EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT IS KIND OF SKETCHY. > >Now for the enormous puzzle. ONE AT A TIME WE GO! >Peter was martyred in 67-68AD. AGREED, PROBABLY EVEN EARLIER, WHICH STRENGTHENS YOUR POINT. I HAVE SEEN ARGUMENTS FOR HIM IN 64 AND PAUL IN 67. > >1 Peter was written prior to >this and we have an >Aramaic original to support his >epistle. We do not have >an Aramaic original to support TRUE. >2 Peter though. If >this is true and >1.) Peter was killed in 67-68AD. > >2.) Greek was the common language >after 70AD, Aramaic prior to >this.
I WANT TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL HERE. IT IS TRUE THAT MANY WOULD NOT SPEAK ARAMAIC IN PUBLIC WITHOUT FEAR IN THE AFTERMATH OF JERUSALEM'S DESTRUCTION. MY POSITION ON GREEK BEING SPOKEN BEFORE IN ISRAEL IS THAT IT WAS TO A DEGREE, BUT WHO CARES? WHAT DOES COMMMERCIAL NECESSITY HAVE TO DO WITH SACRED CHOICE OF WHAT LANGUAGE SCRIPTURE IS IN WHEN WE BOW OUR HEADS? HOWEVER, BASICALLY, IN GENERAL TRERMS AND TRENDS, YES I AGREE. >3.)1 Peter has an Aramaic original, >2 Peter only a Greek >original. THAT WE KNOW OF. YES. >4.) There is some evidence that >2 Peter was written after >70AD. Then--- WHICH EVIDENCE? THIS IS KEY. I QUOTE FROM CHARLES RYRIE ON THIS: "MANY HAVE SUGGESTED THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN PETER WROTE THIS LETTER AFTER 80 AD BECAUSE OF 1) DIFFERENCES IN STYLE, 2) ITS SUPPOSED DEPENDENCE ON JUDE AND 3) AND THE MENTION OF PAUL'S LETTERS HAVING BEEN COLLECTED (3:16). HOWEVER, USING A DIFFERENT SCRIBE WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN STYLISTIC CHANGES; THERE IS NO REASON WHY PETER SHOULD NOT HAVE BORROWED FROM JUDE, THOUGH IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT JUDE WAS WRITTEN LATER THAN 2 PETER; AND 3:16 DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFER TO ALL OF PAUL'S LETTERS, BUT ONLY THOSE WRITTEN UP TO THAT TIME. FURTHERMORE. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN 1 AND 2 PETER POINT TO THE SAME AUTHOR, AND ITS ACCEPTANCE IN THE CANON DEMANDS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY BEHIND IT..." THE RYRIE STUDY BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT, P. 434 TO THIS I WOULD ADD THAT IT IS ALSO COMPLETELY POSSIBLE THE JUDE BORROWED FROM PETER! > >someone other than the Apostle Peter >wrote this book. If >that is true and the >first verse in 2Peter says >that the writer is Peter >can we trust this book >to be inspired? I DO TRUST IT TO BE INSPIRED. HOWEVER, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOMETHING SIMIILAR TO WHAT HAPPENED IN MARK'S GOSPEL GOING ON. I BELIEVE, IN THAT CASE, THAT PETER FINISHED IT, BECAUSE MARK LEFT COPIES LITERALLY DANGLING IN MID SENTENCE ABOUT THE RESURRECTION WHICH HE HAD INTENDED TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE HE PREDICTS IT FOUR TIMES. EARLY CHURCH TRADITION SUPPORTS THE IDEA THAT MARK DIED IN ALEXANDRIA WITH THE GOSPEL UNFINISHED, BUT THAT LATER PETER "APPROVED ITS USE" MEANING THAT HE PROBABLY EDITED IT WITH THE LONGER ENDING. SINCE TRADITION TELLS US MARK IS WRITING THE GOSPEL UNDER PETER'S DIRECTION AS WELL, THIS IS VERY LOGICAL. ANOTHER CASE...LOOK AT THE THE END OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. "THIS IS THE DISCIPLE WHO TESTIFIES TO THESE THINGS AND WHO WROTE THEM DOWN... WE KNOW HIS TESTIMONY IS TRUE." WHO IS THE "WE" IF NOT OTHER ELDERS AND APOSTOLIC BROTHERS WHOA RE AT LEAST LOOKING AT IT? SO, PETER STARTS HIS SECOND EPISTLE IN ARAMAIC IN ROME, BUT HE IS KILLED RIGHT AT THAT TIME. THEN, THAT "ROUGH DRAFT" IS SMUGGLED OUT OF ROME, PROBABLY BACK TO JERUSALEM WHERE THE BEIT DIN IS. THEN THE TEMPLE GETS DESTROYED, AND PERHAPS THE ARAMAIC MSS IS LOST THEN. BUT IT WAS TRANSLATED INTO GREEK SHORTLY THEREAFTER BY ANOTHER PERSON, AND SO COPIES IN GREEK CIRICULATE. NOW, AROUND THIS SAME TIME WE KNOW JUDE IS PROBABLY WRITTEN AND PAUL'S LETTERS ARE BEING COLLECTED. IT WOULD BE NATURAL THEN FOR WHOEVER DOES THE GREEK TRANSLATION TO BE "INFLUENCED" IN SUBTLE STYLISTIC WAYS WHILE DOING HIS WORK, THUS ACCOUNTING FOR ANY DISCREPANCIES. I >vaguely remember you having an >opinion as to a, heretofore, >unknown Aramaic orginal of this >epistle, but I don't recall >your reasoning behind your opinion.. > What is your opinion? > Wow that's a loaded >question isn't it? OKAY, LINGUISTICALLY SPEAKING 2 PETER LOOKS VERY GREEK IN ITS CURRENT FORM. HOWEVER, SOME YEARS BACK I REMEMBER A SCHOLAR POINTING OUT THAT SPEECH PATTERNS IN GREEK 1 AND 2 PETER, AND PETER'S SPEECHES IN GREEK ACTS SEEM VERY DISTINCTIVE AND CONSISTENT. I LOOKED INTO IT AND FOUND HE WAS RIGHT. WHEN I LOOKED INTO IT ON THE ARAMAIC SIDE, IT SEEMED TO BE THE SAME THING, BUT I MUST STRESS THIS IS FAR FROM DEFINITIVE PROOF. HOWEVER, WHAT I TOLD YOU BEFORE WAS THAT BECAUSE OF THIS AND ECCENTRCITIES WITH CRAWFORD REV, THOSE TWO BOOKS MIGHT BE IN AN ODD CATEGORY. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ARAMAIC ORIGINALS THAT WERE LOST AND SURVIVE AS A MEMORY IN COMPOSITIONAL GREEK. HOWEVER, AGAIN WITHOUT AN APOSTLE SAYING "THIS IS IT" WHEN KNOCKING ON THE COE'S DOOR, IT SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE KOSHER BY THEM. > >By the way I grew up >in Los Angeles and have >been a Ram fan since >1968. I look forward to >your Eagles coming to St. >Louis next week (if the >Rams beat the Pack tomorrow). > Andrew your team humiliated >my buddy Paul's team today. FIRST OFF, I'M YOUR BUDDY TOO! SHOULD MY TEAM HAVE LAYED DOWN AND DIED? > That was not a >Christ-like thing to do to >such a fine Christian as >Paul. AND WHAT ABOUT A NICE JEWISH NAZARENE BOY LIKE ME? I want to make >it up for him by >drilling the Eagles next week. I CONFESS I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE EAGLES FACE GREEN BAY. ST. LOUIS IS VERY, VERY STRONG, AND IF THE EAGLES LOSE, I AM PERSONALLY ROOTING FOR A RAMS-STEELERS SUPER BOWL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE RAM IS A SACRIFICAL ANIMAL AND I REALLY KNOW HOW TO PRAY ABOUT SACFRICIES. > > >In Christ's Love, >Keith TALK TO YOU SOON AKHI! SHLAMA W'BURKATE ANDREW GABRIEL ROTH
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Keith
   Member: Member Feedback |
Jan-20-2002 at 03:25 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Hi "Buddy" (Alabamian Aramaic for "Akhi"), Andrew you're my buddy as long as my team beats yours, if the Eagles beat the Rams, then Paul's my buddy again. Thanks for your response. I'd like to follow up with a couple comments and more questions. I do believe 2 Peter to be inspired. I also believe Jude borrowed from Pete rather than Peter borrowing from Jude. You quote Ryrie about the authorship of 2 Peter. That's funny I also use a Ryrie NASB Study Bible as my primary Bible and have read that quote myself. There aren't many evangelicals who hold to a later date of 2 Peter, most are somewhat liberal (which I am not). Assuming a later date (after 70AD) then the Apostle Peter could NOT have written this epistle. That was my hang-up. I believe it is inspired but was stuck here. It sounds like you have thought through this dilemma about the original language of 2 Peter. I am very interested in your reasoning behind your belief in the linguistic similarities of BOTH 1 and 2 Peter when juxtaposed with his discourses in Acts. It sounds like you're on to something that, though not iron clad, would be convincing enough to prove an Aramaic original of his 2nd epistle. I'd also like your comment as to the similarities between 1 Peter and 2 Peter. I like your possible scenario, that Peter began this in Aramaic and either never finished it or only had a rough draft which was further edited and translated into Greek. That's makes sense to me. You also bring up an interesting point about the ending of Mark's gospel. Are you saying that Mark actually ended his word at Mark 16:8 and Peter then came in and cleaned it up (so to speak) and added the longer ending of Mark 16? That's pretty good, if true. Can you prove any similarities of the longer ending of Mark with 1 or 2 Peter, or even with his speeches in Acts? I hope you can. It's always good to talk with you brother. You actually are a very good teacher which leads me to believe you're probably also a very good student. In Christ's Love, Keith
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Andrew Gabriel Roth
    Member: Sep-6-2000 Posts: 384 Member Feedback |
Jan-20-2002 at 08:45 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
>Hi "Buddy" (Alabamian Aramaic for "Akhi"), > > >Andrew you're my buddy as long >as my team beats yours, >if the Eagles beat the >Rams, then Paul's my buddy >again. Thanks for your response. > I'd like to follow >up with a couple comments >and more questions. > >I do believe 2 Peter to >be inspired. I also >believe Jude borrowed from Pete >rather than Peter borrowing from >Jude. EITHER WAY IS FINE WITH ME AKHI KEITH. > >You quote Ryrie about the authorship >of 2 Peter. That's >funny I also use a >Ryrie NASB Study Bible as >my primary Bible and have >read that quote myself. RYRIE IS A GREEK PRIMACIST, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DISCUSSING GREEK TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION PRINCIPLES I KIND OF LIKE THE DUDE. HE IS CONSISTENT IN THE WAY HE TREATS TENSES ON BOTH SIDE OF THE TRANSLATION DIVIDE, AND THAT'S A GOOD THING. HE IS ALSO CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DATES, WHICH HELPS MY CAUSE ALSO, BECAUSE THERE IS NO GREEK TEXT HE CAN PUT IN THE FIRST CENTURY THAT I CAN'T SHOW AN ARAMIAC PRECEDENT FOR IN THE EASTERN PESHITTA CANON. NASB IS PRETTY GOOD-- IT'S JUST THAT IT'S SOURCE IS FLAWED OF COURSE. >There aren't many evangelicals who >hold to a later date >of 2 Peter, most are >somewhat liberal (which I am >not). Assuming a later >date (after 70AD) then the >Apostle Peter could NOT have >written this epistle. That >was my hang-up. I >believe it is inspired but >was stuck here. > >It sounds like you have thought >through this dilemma about the >original language of 2 Peter. > I am very interested >in your reasoning behind your >belief in the linguistic similarities >of BOTH 1 and 2 >Peter when juxtaposed with his >discourses in Acts. It >sounds like you're on to >something that, though not iron >clad, would be convincing enough >to prove an Aramaic original >of his 2nd epistle. I'd >also like your comment as >to the similarities between 1 >Peter and 2 Peter. THAT WILL TAKE A WHILE TO PUT TOGETHER AS IT IS HAS BEEN ABOUT 5 YEARS SINCE I LOOKED AT THAT ISSUE AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OVERLY FORMAL ON IT, BUT I WILL TRY. > >I like your possible scenario, that >Peter began this in Aramaic >and either never finished it >or only had a rough >draft which was further edited >and translated into Greek. >That's makes sense to me. > You also bring up >an interesting point about the >ending of Mark's gospel. > >Are you saying that Mark actually >ended his word at Mark >16:8 and Peter then came >in and cleaned it up >(so to speak) and added >the longer ending of Mark >16? That's pretty good, >if true. YES THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING, AND I MAKE THIS CASE FAIRLY EXTENSIVELY IN MY BOOK. THE PESHITTA MSS ALL HAVE THE LONGER ENDING BTW. I CAN SEE THAT MARK MIGHT HAVE LEFT ONE SHORT VERSION IN ROME, AND ANOTHER VERSION IN ALEXANDRIA, WHERE HE WAS MURDERED. CLEMENT INDICATES AT LEAST TWO VERSIONS OF MARK'S GOSPEL IN HIS MONASTERY IN ONE OF HIS LETTERS FROM THE SECOND CENTURY. THERE WAS AN OFFICIAL AND A SECRET MARK. I DON'T GET INTO THE LATTER, BUT IT DOES SHOW MARK WROTE IN HIS CITY BEFORE HE DIDED. THERE ARE MANY EARLY CHURCH FATHER QUOTES ON THIS, AND THEY ARE IN SOTC. Can you >prove any similarities of the >longer ending of Mark with >1 or 2 Peter, or >even with his speeches in >Acts? I hope you >can. AGAIN, I WILL TRY. TO MYSELF HOWEVER, IT IS NOT A TASK REQUIRED TO SHORE UP MY BELIEF IN 2 PETER'S CANONICITY. I AM GOING TO COMPARE THE GREEK AGAIN AND THEN FOR 1 PETER AND ACTS REACH BACK TO PESHITTA TO SEE WHAT IS BENEATH. I WILL ALSO LOOK AT PESHITTO 2 PETER, BECAUSE AT LEAST THAT IS AN EARLY TRANSLATION INTO ARAMAIC MADE IN THE FIFTH CENTURY AND MAY REVEAL THE ORAL LAYER THAT PETER ADMITTEDLY SPOKE IN ARAMAIC, EVEN IF IT WAS NOT COMPOSED IN THAT LANGUAGE IN THE MSS. FINALLY, THERE ARE MYSTERIES THAT WE MUST GRAPPLE WITH UNTIL MESSIAH RETURNS, WITH A SEALED BOOK IN DANIEL AND OTHER SEALS IN HEAVEN TO BE OPENED IN REVELATION. SINCE CANON IS CLOSED, I MUST BELIEVE THAT HAS MORE TO DO WITH IMPROVING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF ALL THE BOOKS IN THE CANON NOW. AS PAUL SAID, ONE DAY WE SHALL SEE 'FACE TO FACE'. > >It's always good to talk with >you brother. You actually >are a very good teacher >which leads me to believe >you're probably also a very >good student. > >In Christ's Love, >Keith THANKS, AND I WILL TRY TO JUSTFY YOUR FAITH IN MY LIMITED ABILITIES. SHLAMA W'BURKATE ANDREW GABRIEL ROTH
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Jan-21-2002 at 11:10 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
God bless you Akhi Keith! I might add - if the Eagles had not played dirty the Chicago Bears would be the ones that would get wiped out by the Rams this upcoming weekend. 
Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Keith
   Member: Member Feedback |
Jan-21-2002 at 07:05 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #4
Hi Paul and Andrew, Paul, the first NFL game I ever went to was in Los Angeles on December 8, 1968. We saw the Bears play the Rams in which Roman Gabriel (starting QB) was knocked out and a running back named Brian Piccolo tore the Rams up and we lost 17-16. I'll never forget the game, I was 9 years old. Oh, by the way, I went to a college in Lewisburg, West Virginia about 14 years ago. Is your wife from near there? Andrew, I look forward to your explanation of Peter's Aramaic. That's going to be pretty interesting to me. I would like to clarify one point I made. It appears, upon further review, that I may be mistaken about the dual authorship of 1 John compared to 2+3John. I just did a more comprehensive study of the these 2 tiny letters and it appears they do display many of the same characteristics that John used elsewhere (his Gospel, 1 John, and the Revelation). I stand corrected on that one. In Christ's Love, Keith
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Jan-22-2002 at 12:02 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #5
Shlama beloved Akha Keith, Wow - that game was 3 years before I was born. I miss having the 85 Bears around (remember the 'Super Bowl Shuffle?' ) I can't see anyone beating the Rams this year - that offense is incredible. My wife's family came to Chicago from Welch, West Virginia, which I think is near Ieager and about 1 hour away from Princeton. I remember going through Lewisburg when we took the train down there to visit. Beautiful area. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|