Last edited by Dean on Feb-14-2002 at 08:47 AM (GMT3) Shlama Akhay, Michael (judge) brought up the question in another post 朩hat difference does the Aramaic New Testament make? There is a rather important reason why the existence and survival of the Aramaic New Testament is crucial and foundational to the message of Christianity as a whole and the difference it makes. Now, this difference (as akhi Paul rightly stated) is not so much an issue of salvation or even understanding the basic message of the bible. Rather it抯 about the credibility of the claims of Christianity and a much-needed correction in the understanding of the context and connection under which Christianity (or more correctly stated, 揗essianity) was first proclaimed! Firstly, lets remember some of the last words of the last OT prophet. Malakhi 4:4-5 揜emember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Khoreb for all Israel. 揃ehold, I am going to send you Eliyah the prophet before the coming of the great day of YHWH There was virtual silence for about 400 years between the last prophet of the OT era and the words of Mattai 1:1 which begins to proclaim THE most important event in world history -the coming of Meshikha and the beginning of the fulfillment of all that GOD promised throughout Tanakh times. From Bereshit to Malakhi (or Bereshit to Chronicles-however you reckon it) GOD unfolded, among other things, specific information about WHO HE IS and WHO HE IS NOT. GOD used very specific names, titles and descriptive names about HIMSELF so as to not create confusion as it is written, 揻or God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints (1 Corinthians 14:33) Now imagine this, the last voice from Tanakh times (Malakhi) encourages the readers to basically remember who GOD is (YHWH) and what He did (reveal himself through Moses). But according to Greek Primacist and the GNT and the majority position of Christianity the world over, this same GOD in Malakhi enters the scene in the so-called original, divinely-inspired Greek Gospels calling himself Theos, Kurios, Iezeus Xristos, Pnuma Theon and Pnumotos Hagion. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE ?!? Are these not well-documented pagan titles? What are these names doing in this book and why would the OT GOD (well now we must draw distinctions due the confusions introduced in the GNT) transgress His own commandment as it is written 揘ow concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth (Exodus 23:13). By doing so, GOD also forces every NT writer to transgress and every person reading, translating and studying the GNT transgress as well! At least with the Septuagint we all know it抯 a translation, the translators knew it was a translation 杗o one tried to dupe the world into believing that it was divinely inspired, that would have been laughable. So these titles & names were included (for better or for worse) as a means to accurately TRANSLATE the text into a foreign tongue, so the inclusion of foreign deities was to be expected. Much like it is in English. No one claims that 揕ORD GOD is what YHWH Elohim called himself. SO WHY DO GNT PRIMACIST INSIST THAT GOD TOOK UPON HIMSELF THE NAMES OF PAGAN DEITIES? I suppose it would have been possible, if the GNT was inspired, for the all names and titles of GOD to have been transliterated into Greek to have avoided this fundamental problem. THIS IS WHAT A DIVINELY-INSPIRED GNT WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE. I could flip through any book, chapter and verse of the Peshitta and NEVER have this problem 朓 know who Eloha is, I know who Yeshua is, I know who mar-YAH is, I know who Rukha d扙loha is, I know who Meshikha is and I know who Rukha d抭udsha is. Did theos speak the universe into existence? Did kurios speak to Moses at the burning bush? Did pnuma theon hover over the waters in Gen1:2? I don抰 think so, and If GOD went by these names during all the years of Tanakh times, we would have known it. Remember, the NT covers a short time span, it is inconceivable that there would be such a sudden shift in Deity identity during the few years of NT times against the backdrop of thousands of years during Tanakh times. So this is what I see as a huge and fundamental difference that the PNT brings to the table -credibility and connection to the same GOD, the Creator revealed in the Old to the same GOD, the Savior revealed in the New! After all, only the Peshitta boldly declares, 揻or today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is YHWH the Messiah (Luqa 2:11). All other versions keep you guessing as to who the 慙ord is? b扢eshikha, Akhi Dean
|