Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-22-2002 at 10:47 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
Shlama Akhay, In the Greek versions of John 21:15-17, we read the following: "...lovest (AGAPAO) thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love (PHILEO) thee
...He saith to him again the second time . . . lovest (AGAPAO) thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thoughtless that I love (PHILEO) thee. . . He saith unto him the THIRD time .... lovest (PHILEO) thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the THIRD time, Lovest (PHILEO) thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love (PHILEO) thee.
Traditionally, John 21:15-17 has been a rich source of what Bible scholars call "eisegesis"reading into the text something the text itself does NOT contain. Self-styled "Greek scholars" go bonkers with this passage, seeking to get something out of the passage that is not there. Their idea is that Meshikha was asking Keepa, with the higher Greek word (AGAPAO), if he loved Him deeply and intimately. Supposing that Meshikha thought Keepa fudged by using the lower Greek love word (PHILEO), Meshikha repeated the question three times to Keepa. But Bible correctors have missed something. . . It says that Meshikha said to Keepa the "THIRD TIME, Lovest (PHILEO) thou me?" Either the Greek matching words are in error or it doesn't make a hill of beans worth a difference which Greek words, "AGAPAO" or "PHILEO", are used in either place - because Meshikha and Keepa were not speaking in Greek anyway! Besides, there is absolutely no difference between the Greek words "AGAPAO" and "PHILEO" ! Just look at the Greek versions of John 3:35 and John 5:20! The Father loves the Son and both verbs are used interchangeably! Also, Keepa could hardly answer "Yes, Lord, I love you" if in fact he meant "No, Lord, I like you as a friend." It is very clear that Keepa got upset, not because Meshikha changed his verb in the third question, but because Meshikha asked him the same question three times an obvious allusion to Peters threefold denial of Jesus. Finally, the "Greek Scholars" totally miss another linguistic feature in the original Aramaic words - that Keepa was asked this question three times because Meshikha used a different Aramaic word for "sheep" each time He asked Keepa this question! This, of course, is absent in the Greek which has only 2 different words for "sheep." Selah! Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
- RE: Greek Love,
Iakov, Feb-22-2002 at 00:04 AM, (1)
- RE: Greek Love,
Paul Younan
, Feb-23-2002 at 01:03 AM, (2)
- RE: Greek Love,
Iakov, Feb-23-2002 at 02:23 AM, (3)
- Love,
judge, Feb-23-2002 at 04:44 PM, (4)
- I LOVE IT!,
Paul Younan
, Feb-23-2002 at 09:15 PM, (7)
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-22-2002 at 00:04 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
Akhi Paul, >Finally, the "Greek Scholars" totally miss >another linguistic feature in the >original Aramaic words - that >Keepa was asked this question >three times because Meshikha used >a different Aramaic word for >"sheep" each time He asked >Keepa this question! This, >of course, is absent in >the Greek which has only >2 different words for "sheep." It appears there are three words, akhi Paul, for sheep. rm0=Lamb
0qn=Ewe
0br9=Sheep
This seems to be more along the lines of Eshhos meaning doesn't it? Tend my young ones, my men, and my women. However please do not be too quick to dismiss the importance of 'agapao' here. The switch to agapao in the midst of phileo has some significance. Agapao is a word nearly ignored in secular Greek.
bwq9y 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-23-2002 at 01:03 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Shlama Akhi Yaqub, >However please do not be too >quick to dismiss the importance >of 'agapao' here. The switch >to agapao in the midst >of phileo has some significance. >Agapao is a word nearly >ignored in secular Greek. But it appears these words are merely synonyms. Check out the Greek versions of John 3:35 and 5:20. Same phrase, both words used interchangeably. I don't think there's any significance to this whatsoever - even if we did assume that Meshikha and Keepa decided to speak Greek here. Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-23-2002 at 02:23 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Shlama Akhi Paul, >But it appears these words are >merely synonyms. Check out >the Greek versions of John >3:35 and 5:20. Same >phrase, both words used interchangeably.
The difference is the context where one was used to bring out the other. That is to say in John 21 the translator is showing the two shades as they are in the same context. You will notice the effort of the translator to point to the nuance. Such as in the first question the comparitive statement 'more than these' points to the shading. The are 4 words translated 'love' in Gr. and Phileo is the closest to our English word 'like'. >I don't think there's any significance >to this whatsoever - even >if we did assume that >Meshikha and Keepa decided to >speak Greek here. Certainly that is a possibility but does not seem to be likely as the translator (of the conversation) selected the words in an orderly format. Of course the setting in life where the conversation occurred was in Aramaic and the lesson seems to point toward tending the whole flock. Ken? bwq9y 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-23-2002 at 07:17 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
Akhay, One last thought. Although most commentators have abandoned the interpretation I put forth saying that Kepha's restoration to the head of the 'flock' was the only intention here, I have researched it extensively. It appears, to me anyway, GNT in effect has Eshoo asking Kepha if his heart was with Eshoo(agapao) and the work he called him to or was it with his fishing buddies.(phileo).Phileo is the verb for love from which the noun-Philos,a(friend)originates. After Eshoo makes the restoration clear that Kepha is to tend the whole flock in the third and final question, which by the way counters the third denial, Eshoo is in effect saying; Yes we are friends, compare John 15, and I accept you as you are Kepha. There are about 15 pages in TDNT just on the use of agapao and its noun agape. I realize the Gr. is moot to most everyone on the forum and am aware the conversation was in Aramaic. I also realize the writer of GNT John varied usage of words. Not just for love but also for know and other words. However there is a favorable point here to PNT I believe. LXX uses agapao to translate Heb Ahav and agape to translate ahava. What is the PT translator of Ahav & ahava? Shlama Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Rob
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-23-2002 at 09:45 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #5
Shlama, Yaqub Akhi. I just did a few quick checks regarding your last question. Since I like to compare Hebrew, Peshitta, and Targum Onkelos, thats what I did here. It seems the Hebrew 'ahav' is most frequently translated into Aramaic as Mxr . I haven't looked up EVERY instance though! Interesting observation: Comparing Peshitta Mat. 22:37-39 with Mar. 12:30-31, both use Mxr for loving God, but in regards to loving your fellow, Mat. uses Mxr and Mrq. uses Bbx. But in the scribe's repetition of the two great commandments, he uses Mxr both times. (See below) Yeshua quotes Torah: Matt. 22:37 AND Marq. 12:30 Khl0 0yrml Mxrtd Matt. 22:39 K4pn Ky0 Kbyrql Mxrtd but notice Marq. 12:31 K4pn Ky0 Kbyrql Bxtd In the Marqus account, the scribe repeats Yeshua with variation, using Mxr both times: 12:33(a) Yhwymxrndw . "And that he shall love Him (God)". 12:33(b) h4pn Ky0 hbyrq Mxrndw Gotta LOVE it! Rob
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-23-2002 at 08:46 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
Last edited by Paul Younan on Feb-23-2002 at 08:47 PM (GMT3) Shlama Akhi Yaqub, Yes, I do believe the entire lesson pointed towards Christ commanding Peter to shepherd the entire flock. Look - all I'm saying is that the conversation makes no sense in the Greek translation. The Peshitta has Christ asking the exact same question three times - whereas the Greek has him asking the first 2 questions the same and then alternating the third verb to be the one that Peter used all along. This does not make sense then, because Peter got upset that he was asked the same question THREE times. But the Greek translation doesn't have Him asking the SAME question three times. Why would Peter get upset here? Also, I don't buy the argument that says there's a difference between Apapoa and Phileo. They seem to be merely synonyms! John 3:35 and 5:20 (same author\translator, by the way) makes this very clear! John 3:35 - the Father loves (Agapao) the Son John 5:20 - the Father loves (Phileo) the Son Is John 5:20 in the Greek telling us that the Father merely likes the Son as a "friend?" How can "Phileo" simply be a "friend-ly" type of love when you consider the following verses in the GNT: ?
- Matt.10:37 He that loveth father or mother
- John 12:25 He that loveth his life
- Matt.23:6 love the uppermost rooms
- John 5:20 the Father loveth the Son
- John 16:27 the Father Himself loveth you
- John 20:2 the other disciple, whom Jesus loved
- Titus 2:4 women to be sober, to love their husbands
Conversely, how can "Agapao" be a "God-ly type of love" in light of the following verses in the GNT: ?
- John 12:43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise from God
- John 3:19 but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
- 2 Pet 2:15 who loved the wages of wickedness.
- 2 Tim 4:10 Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me...
Me thinkest these two Greek words are merely synonyms - and for the final example which should remove all doubt from everyone's mind regarding whether or not "Agape" and "Phileo" are merely synonyms and are used interchangeably, consider these following examples: Concerning John the beloved disciple:John 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved (agapeo)... John 20:2 She came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved (phileo)... Concerning the important seats in the synagogues:Luke 11:43 "...love (agapeo) the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the market-places." Luke 20:46 "...love (phileo) to be greeted in the market-places and have the most important seats in the synagogues."
Akhi - there's no difference in these 2 Greek words and many people have been fooled by the "Agape vs. Phileo" argument of the Greek primacists. Only the conversation in Aramaic makes sense - and Yukhanan cannot be credited with writing something that doesn't make sense. I smell translation.  Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-23-2002 at 11:51 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #6
Akhi Paul, I meant what I said about the Aramaic tools. Perhaps a copy of Compendious in Estangelo? >Look - all I'm saying is >that the conversation makes no >sense in the Greek translation. >The Peshitta has Christ asking the >exact same question three times >- whereas the Greek has >him asking the first 2 >questions the same and then >alternating the third verb to >be the one that Peter >used all along. I realize that current Gr. scholarship sees little significance in the different words as it was 'John's' style. I am saying the error with that view is incosistency. That is 'John' would have not altered the third question if the terms were synonymous. >This does not make sense then, >because Peter got upset that >he was asked the same >question THREE times. But >the Greek translation doesn't have >Him asking the SAME question >three times. >Why would Peter get upset here?
If I understand you correctly, the issue is, the SAME EXACT question was not being asked a third time? In my mind the reason for Kepha's grief is not only that Eshoo asked a third time but that he condescended to what Kepha could offer. Eshoo was drawing out a no-holds barred commitment and Kepha, feeling his failure, is saying Lord I might blow it again. >Also, I don't buy the argument >that says there's a difference >between Apapoa and Phileo. >They seem to be merely >synonyms! John 3:35 and >5:20 (same author\translator, by the >way) makes this very clear! If this is so why does agape only appear once in secular Greek and finds its origin in LXX? TDNT.Agapao article is my reference here. >How can "Phileo" simply be a >"friend-ly" type of love when >you consider the following verses >in the GNT: ? Because Phileo is the general term for affection. Agapao is sometimes used synoymously with phileo but points more towarda a commital. In fact the research on phileo indicates it is a more endearing term, as a love between friends is voluntary. >Conversely, how can "Agapao" be a >"God-ly type of love" in >light of the following verses >in the GNT: ? Others have said this is a 'God-type of love'. Not I. My research in TDNT indicates this is a commited love. There are 4 Gr words for love, in verbal form and noun cognates. Phileo-warm affection- Storgao-deep affection- Erao-Passion- Agapao-Devotion- > John 3:19 but men loved >(agapeo) darkness instead of light >because their deeds were evil. Yes. This shows to whom they were devoted. > > 2 Pet 2:15 who loved >(agapeo) the wages of wickedness. Devotion >2 Tim 4:10 Demas, because >he loved (agapeo) this world, >has deserted me... He was commited to this world.'
Gr. Primacist scholarship agrees with you akhi Paul, refer to Leon Morris commentator on New International Commentary onthe New Testament. >Only the conversation in Aramaic makes >sense - and Yukhanan cannot >be credited with writing something >that doesn't make sense. This only makes sense as the original conversation was in Aramaic. >I smell translation. Interestingly enough that brings to mind a thought. A translation would follow the text closely. They might make errors but would not take liberties to shade the meaning.
bwq9y 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2002 at 05:25 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #9
Shlama Akhi Yaqub, The Compendious would be awesome in Estrangelo - but we have something even better coming from the Hebrew Union College in Tennessee. Have you heard of their project - the "Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon?" This thing, when complete, will be THE dictionary and lectionary of Aramaic. Believe me, we will all throw away whatever we had before. Interestingly, it's being funded by the National Endownment for the Arts (I think.) Anyway, I can't wait for its completion. It will be in Hebrew script, I believe, which will have a much wider readership than Estrangelo. You know - I'd love to make an Estrangelo version of the Compendious - but we'd all be old men by the time I finished it. Just look at how long my current projects take.  > >In my mind the reason for >Kepha's grief is not only >that Eshoo asked a third >time but that he condescended >to what Kepha could offer. > But what would those Aramaic words have been that conveyed the two different shades of meaning? This whole theory makes sense only if 2 conditions were both satisfied:
- They spoke in Greek
- AND, "Agapao" and "Phileo" actually had different shades of meaning
I think both are very unlikely given the evidence. > >Eshoo was drawing out a no-holds >barred commitment and Kepha, feeling >his failure, is saying Lord >I might blow it again. > So then Meshikha finally got tired of asking and gave in saying "phileo?" >>Also, I don't buy the argument >>that says there's a difference >>between Apapoa and Phileo. >>They seem to be merely >>synonyms! John 3:35 and >>5:20 (same author\translator, by the >>way) makes this very clear! > >If this is so why does >agape only appear once in >secular Greek and finds its >origin in LXX? >TDNT.Agapao article is my reference here.
I don't know - but John 3:35 and 5:20 happens to be from the same book we are talking about! If they (Agapao and Phileo) are used interchangeably in 3:35 and 5:20 - why should we assume they have different shades of meaning in chapter 21 ? That's a very crucial question. >Gr. Primacist scholarship agrees with you >akhi Paul, refer to Leon >Morris commentator on New International >Commentary on the New Testament. I will check it out - thanks for the reference. > >>Only the conversation in Aramaic makes >>sense - and Yukhanan cannot >>be credited with writing something >>that doesn't make sense. > >This only makes sense as the >original conversation was in Aramaic. > So then when somebody like Laco asks me about why the Peshitta has only 1 verb whereas the Greek has two verbs for "love" - would it be acceptable for me to say that since the conversation took place in Aramaic - it doesn't make a difference at all what the Greek says? You do bring up an excellent point. No matter how we look at it - even if John wrote in Greek - the work is still a translation - it would just be that John would be the translator. I guess we are no longer arguing about whether or not the Greek Gospels are translations - only who did the translating? The Apostle or someone after him? > >>I smell translation. > >Interestingly enough that brings to mind >a thought. A translation would >follow the text closely. They >might make errors but would >not take liberties to shade >the meaning. > Very good point - but we ARE talking about the same tradition that fabricated an entire story (the woman caught in adultery) and inserted it into an existing account. I do think they would have felt quite comfortable inventing shades of meanings that didn't originally exist in the text - and, in general, taking many "translator's liberties." Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
discipledaniel
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2002 at 07:37 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #10
Greetings Paul, >Very good point - but we >ARE talking about the same >tradition that fabricated an entire >story (the woman caught in >adultery) and inserted it into >an existing account. Is that the current thought about that story? I thought the deal was that it was from a lesser gospel and it became popular, so it was borrowed. Isn't it in Luke in one greek manuscript? Just curious... God Bless, Daniel
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-25-2002 at 05:50 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #10
Shlama Akhi Paul, Have you heard of their project - the "Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon?" This thing, when complete, will be THE dictionary and lectionary of Aramaic. Believe me, we will all throw away whatever we had before. Anyway, I can't wait for its completion. It will be in Hebrew script, I believe, which will have a much wider readership than Estrangelo. Yes I have it saved as a favorite place. https://cal1.cn.huc.edu/info.html It is incomplete. Any idea when it will be completed? This whole theory makes sense only if 2 conditions were both satisfied: 1. They spoke in Greek 2. AND, "Agapao" and "Phileo" actually had different shades of meaning It is certain they did not speak Greek however the translator did carefully select the terms. mxr is the most frequent PT translator of Tanaks bha. As I noted before the LXX uses Agapao. I have been stuying the relationship between the three. The best way to determine shading is to consider parallel usage in the synoptics. The pericope of the Greatest Commandment (Matt 22:34-40 Mk 12:28-34 Luke 10:25-28} All 3 use agapao. Not too insignificant when we consider PNT varies in Mark. Notice Marqa opts for bx over mxrin the case of the neighbor. Agapao makes more sense here than phileo as we may not have warm affection to our neighbors but we are to help them when in need. This also brings to mind the Love your enemies pericope. Matt. 5:43-48 and Luqa 6:27-28 , 32-36. Agapao of course is the term again as one can hardly feel warm affection for his enemy, yet one can still help one in need.
God and Mammon of course is another Agapao pericope where all agree. This makes perfect sense since youre either commited to God or to your own pursuits. One example of a phileo pericope is Matt 23:6 and Luke 20:46 where the Phairees love to be noticed for their piety. Also in PNT agapao is the chief translator of mxr. >Eshoo was drawing out a no-holds >barred commitment and Kepha, feeling >his failure, is saying Lord >I might blow it again. > So then Meshikha finally got tired of asking and gave in saying "phileo?" No. He saw Kephas level of commitment and accepted it for now. As I have been saying Eshoo met him where he was but would not leave him there fishing for fish. I don't know - but John 3:35 and 5:20 happens to be from the same book we are talking about! If they (Agapao and Phileo) are used interchangeably in 3:35 and 5:20 - why should we assume they have different shades of meaning in chapter 21 ? That's a very crucial question. If you consider the context of the two different verses it make complete sense.
John 3:35 35 "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. 36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Context appears to support the idea of commitment. After all the Father placed all things into his hand. Is the idea then simply that God feels love for the Son here of that he is going to support the son completely and those who do not support the Son will not have life. John 5 18 For this reason therefore (1) the Jews (2) were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, (3) making Himself equal with God. 19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, (4) the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 "(5) For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him (6) greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and (7) gives them life, even so (8) the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 "For not even the Father judges anyone, but (9) He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. (10) He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. 24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and (11) believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and (12) does not come into judgment, but has (13) passed out of death into life. At first glance this appears to be a very similar circumstance but keep in mind the John 3 incident was with John the Baptizer talking to HIS disciples and some Jews. John 5 is with Eshoo himself and Jews who had it in for him. It is all the more bold then of the translator to write the opposite of hate in Greek, which is Phileo. Where as hate a is a feeling so also is phileo. Not so with Agapao. Agapao does not involve feelings it involves commitment and its fruit-action. So you see it is fitting that agapao is the chief translator of mxr So then when somebody like Laco asks me about why the Peshitta has only 1 verb whereas the Greek has two verbs for "love" - would it be acceptable for me to say that since the conversation took place in Aramaic - it doesn't make a difference at all what the Greek says? As an Aramaic primacist why not? However consider the comparative rty in the first question.
You do bring up an excellent point. No matter how we look at it - even if John wrote in Greek - the work is still a translation - it would just be that John would be the translator. Exactly I guess we are no longer arguing about whether or not the Greek Gospels are translations - only who did the translating? The Apostle or someone after him? You understand me!!! I am not always clear am I. Sorry. bwq9y 0ml4
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
judge
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-23-2002 at 04:44 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
>Shlama Akhi Yaqub, > >>However please do not be too >>quick to dismiss the importance >>of 'agapao' here. The switch >>to agapao in the midst >>of phileo has some significance. >>Agapao is a word nearly >>ignored in secular Greek. > >But it appears these words are >merely synonyms. Check out >the Greek versions of John >3:35 and 5:20. Same >phrase, both words used interchangeably. Paul, are you saying that different Greek manuscripts translate the aramaic word differently in the same verse? > > ........Michael
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Feb-23-2002 at 09:15 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #4
Shlama Akhi Michael, >Paul, are you saying that different >Greek manuscripts translate the aramaic >word differently in the same >verse? You're a genius and just helped me attack this from another angle! :k Absolutely. It doesn't happen all the time, but for instance check out the following 2 examples: Concerning John the Beloved Disciple:
The Aramaic: John 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved (Rakhma)... John 20:2 She came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved (Rakhma)...The Greek: John 21:20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved (Agapeo)... John 20:2 She came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved (Phileo)...Concerning the important seats in the synagogues:
The Aramaic: Luke 11:43 "...love (Rakhma) the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the market-places." Luke 20:46 "...love (Rakhma) to be greeted in the market-places and have the most important seats in the synagogues."The Greek: Luke 11:43 "...love (agapeo) the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the market-places." Luke 20:46 "...love (phileo) to be greeted in the market-places and have the most important seats in the synagogues."
Conclusion.Both examples above are from the SAME book and talking about the SAME thing !! Tell me, is the PNT a translation or is the GNT a translation? Fk^rwbw 0ml4
Peshitta.org
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
judge
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2002 at 07:37 AM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #7
Yes...er...um...I am a genius!....but I was actually wondering something slightly different. Are there perhapos examples of where Greek text X transaltes the same word one way and greek text Y translates it another?...kind of like the singular/plural examples?
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Iakov
   Member: Member Feedback |
Feb-24-2002 at 07:35 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #12
Akhi Michael, >Are there perhapos examples of where >Greek text X transaltes the >same word one way and >greek text Y translates it >another?...kind of like the singular/plural >examples? Good point. In fact there are no variants per the Nestle-Aland UBS 27. Shlama, Yaqub
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|