- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,21:10) “In 7,000 Aramaic Tanakh references there is not one instance of MarYah (in its singular
form) applying to anyone other than YHWH! Furthermore, the Peshitta New Testament
always renders Tanakh passages that it quotes from YHWH to MarYah.”
Okay Kathi,Let me mess with the words of your quote for a minute:
“In 7,000 Aramaic Tanakh references there is not one instance of Adonay (in its singular
form) applying to anyone other than YHWH! Furthermore, the Peshitta New Testament
always renders Tanakh passages that it quotes from YHWH to Adonay.”Now, does that mean the word “adonay” all of a sudden MEANS “Jehovah”? YES or NO please.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,18:22) Since you do not accept any translation………
Is there a particular translation with which you agree on every single word and verse interpretation? Which one?Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,18:22) I do think that finding out if the Eastern Peshitta is the original is a worthwhile pursuit. I also think that comparing it to the other translations are a good idea and then if there is a notable difference, ask God to direct your thoughts to what is His intent.
I agree. I DON'T, however, agree with people (like jammin) using a doctored translation because it agrees with their doctrine. And so far, you have mostly used the Aramaic NT only to bolster support of your belief that Jesus IS Jehovah. Well, it has become apparent from dictionaries and interlinears that this isn't going to work out for you. So if you're going to use it for things other than claiming Jesus is called Jehovah, I'm all for it.I was interested to see their understanding of “the god of this age” in 2 Cor 4:4.
And I would be interested in seeing more things like that. I think it was the Aramaic translation that has a different meaning for Exodus 6:3 – reading, “Did they not know me by that name?” instead of “They did not know me by that name”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,18:22) We both know that the Greek texts are not clearing up things very well.
I'm just fine with the Greek texts, and have gained a very good understanding from them. I think you mean to say that you can't possibly prove Jesus is God Almighty, or named “Jehovah”, from the Greek texts, and so you will continue to search elsewhere.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 09 2012,19:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,21:10) “In 7,000 Aramaic Tanakh references there is not one instance of MarYah (in its singular
form) applying to anyone other than YHWH! Furthermore, the Peshitta New Testament
always renders Tanakh passages that it quotes from YHWH to MarYah.”
Okay Kathi,Let me mess with the words of your quote for a minute:
“In 7,000 Aramaic Tanakh references there is not one instance of Adonay (in its singular
form) applying to anyone other than YHWH! Furthermore, the Peshitta New Testament
always renders Tanakh passages that it quotes from YHWH to Adonay.”Now, does that mean the word “adonay” all of a sudden MEANS “Jehovah”? YES or NO please.
Mike,
Yes, within the context of the Holy Scriptures! If Adonai was the word that was used to substitute for YHWH in every case within the scriptures, then when you read 'Adonai' you must understand 'YHWH' to get the proper understanding.Mike,
Quote Is there a particular translation with which you agree on every single word and verse interpretation? Which one? The Aramaic Bible in Plain English looks pretty good so far.
Quote And so far, you have mostly used the Aramaic NT only to bolster support of your belief that Jesus IS Jehovah. Well, it has become apparent from dictionaries and interlinears that this isn't going to work out for you. So if you're going to use it for things other than claiming Jesus is called Jehovah, I'm all for it. That is great that you will use the Aramaic NT to cross reference the Greek translations. I did show you that Paul Younan's interlinear as well as David Bauscher's interlinear both either write LORD or Lord Jehovah for the same Aramaic word, and as for the others that write Lord, they also write 'Lord' for what is YHWH in the OT. So, you need to drop that argument. As for the dictionaries, they are Aramaic to English dictionaries and YHWH is not an English word. Can you find any word in the Aramaic dictionaries that have YHWH for their definition. If not, then your argument about the dictionaries is also a moot argument! It certainly wouldn't prove that YHWH did not exist, would it?? Sorry to burst your bubble
Quote I was interested to see their understanding of “the god of this age” in 2 Cor 4:4. Me too!
Quote And I would be interested in seeing more things like that. I think it was the Aramaic translation that has a different meaning for Exodus 6:3 – reading, “Did they not know me by that name?” instead of “They did not know me by that name”. Exodus was inspired in Hebrew and not Aramaic, there must be a way to tell if something is a question or a statement but I don't know. If Aramaic primacy is correct, then the Aramaic original text was inspired and not the Greek. Although the Greek can be helpful but the Aramaic would be the most accurate.
Quote I think you mean to say that you can't possibly prove Jesus is God Almighty, or named “Jehovah”, from the Greek texts, and so you will continue to search elsewhere. Actually you can prove it from the Greek and I have been doing that. The uncanny thing is that God has blinded the intellect of men who do not want to believe…He wants you to come to Him as a response of faith to Him calling you. If we came to Him by our intellect, then we could take the credit. I can tell pretty sure when God reveals something to me. When God reveals something to me, the thought or 'insight' comes from sorta 'out of the blue,' something that I can say that I would have never thought of. Recently the example of Mitosis came like that. Of course we have to test the spirit of the thought to make sure it is from God.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,22:10) Mike,
This actually seems the most explanative about the MarYah name in the Aramaic. You should read this one.http://ebookbrowse.com/underst….5667985
On page 9, the author says:
“In 7,000 Aramaic Tanakh references there is not one instance of MarYah (in its singular
form) applying to anyone other than YHWH! Furthermore, the Peshitta New Testament
always renders Tanakh passages that it quotes from YHWH to MarYah.”I encourage you to read the details of MarYah as to why it means YHWH in this article, Mike.
Mike,
You obviously did not read that link. Read it!Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2012,11:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 09 2012,19:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,21:10) “In 7,000 Aramaic Tanakh references there is not one instance of MarYah (in its singular
form) applying to anyone other than YHWH! Furthermore, the Peshitta New Testament
always renders Tanakh passages that it quotes from YHWH to MarYah.”
Okay Kathi,Let me mess with the words of your quote for a minute:
“In 7,000 Aramaic Tanakh references there is not one instance of Adonay (in its singular
form) applying to anyone other than YHWH! Furthermore, the Peshitta New Testament
always renders Tanakh passages that it quotes from YHWH to Adonay.”Now, does that mean the word “adonay” all of a sudden MEANS “Jehovah”? YES or NO please.
Mike,
Yes, within the context of the Holy Scriptures! If Adonai was the word that was used to substitute for YHWH in every case within the scriptures, then when you read 'Adonai' you must understand 'YHWH' to get the proper understanding.
Kathi,I can't put my finger on the translation right now, but I know there is a NT that is translated from the Greek which caps “LORD” when the word “kurios” is used of Jesus.
So, let's say that translation does like many English translations, and caps “LORD” in the OT ever time the Hebrew “YHWH” is written.
And then, they decide amongst themselves the Jesus is also God Almighty, and so cap “LORD” any time the Greek “kurios” is referring to Jesus.
Does that make the word “kurios” all of a sudden MEAN “YHWH”? YES or NO?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2012,11:33) I did show you that Paul Younan's interlinear as well as David Bauscher's interlinear both either write LORD or Lord Jehovah for the same Aramaic word, and as for the others that write Lord, they also write 'Lord' for what is YHWH in the OT.
So? Read my post above this one. Kathi, if the Hebrews decided to substitute “YHWH” with “Adonay” so they didn't have to use the divine name, and some Hebrews later translated the NT into Hebrew, and used the word “Adonay” ever time “kurios” referred to Jesus, it still would not make the word “Adonay” MEAN “Jehovah”, nor would it mean the translators were calling Jesus “Jehovah”. The word “Adonay” would continue to be the emphatic form of “lord”, which the translators just happened to use for Jesus AND his God, Jehovah.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2012,11:33) As for the dictionaries, they are Aramaic to English dictionaries and YHWH is not an English word.
But “Jehovah” IS an English word. And if the Aramaic word “marya” truly means “the Lord Jehovah” in English, like the Aramaic Bible in Plain English translates it, then the dictionaries and interlinears would also translate it that way.Unfortunately for you, the word “marya” simply means “lord” – nothing else.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2012,11:33) Actually you can prove it from the Greek and I have been doing that.
Okay.Kathi, this discussion has taken a bad turn. It has now come down to you insisting upon things that you can't possibly prove because they're untrue.
IF you finally find a legitimate Aramaic to English dictionary, or a legitimate Aramaic to English interlinear that defines “marya” as “the Lord Jehovah”, bring it to my attention, okay?
Or if you ever uncover any undeniable proof that the Aramaic was the original NT, contrary to what the vast majority of experts believe, bring that to my attention, okay?
Until that time, this discussion is useless.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2012,18:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2012,11:09) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 09 2012,19:13) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,21:10) “In 7,000 Aramaic Tanakh references there is not one instance of MarYah (in its singular
form) applying to anyone other than YHWH! Furthermore, the Peshitta New Testament
always renders Tanakh passages that it quotes from YHWH to MarYah.”
Okay Kathi,Let me mess with the words of your quote for a minute:
“In 7,000 Aramaic Tanakh references there is not one instance of Adonay (in its singular
form) applying to anyone other than YHWH! Furthermore, the Peshitta New Testament
always renders Tanakh passages that it quotes from YHWH to Adonay.”Now, does that mean the word “adonay” all of a sudden MEANS “Jehovah”? YES or NO please.
Mike,
Yes, within the context of the Holy Scriptures! If Adonai was the word that was used to substitute for YHWH in every case within the scriptures, then when you read 'Adonai' you must understand 'YHWH' to get the proper understanding.
Kathi,I can't put my finger on the translation right now, but I know there is a NT that is translated from the Greek which caps “LORD” when the word “kurios” is used of Jesus.
So, let's say that translation does like many English translations, and caps “LORD” in the OT ever time the Hebrew “YHWH” is written.
And then, they decide amongst themselves the Jesus is also God Almighty, and so cap “LORD” any time the Greek “kurios” is referring to Jesus.
Does that make the word “kurios” all of a sudden MEAN “YHWH”? YES or NO?
Yes, if kurios was only used as YHWH in the OT and NT and not for mere humans or anyone other than the Father or Son.I don't recall a Bible translation of the Greek that caps the whole word LORD for Jesus. Let me know if you come across that.
Mike,
you said:Quote So? Read my post above this one. Kathi, if the Hebrews decided to substitute “YHWH” with “Adonay” so they didn't have to use the divine name, and some Hebrews later translated the NT into Hebrew, and used the word “Adonay” ever time “kurios” referred to Jesus, it still would not make the word “Adonay” MEAN “Jehovah”, nor would it mean the translators were calling Jesus “Jehovah”. The word “Adonay” would continue to be the emphatic form of “lord”, which the translators just happened to use for Jesus AND his God, Jehovah. Mike, if the NT was not originally written in Aramaic but Greek you might have a point. However, there is a great deal of evidence that the Aramaic was the inspired original language. We both agree that the original manuscript is inerrant, right? We know that some of the OT was originally inspired in Aramaic and from what the Aramaic Primacists are saying, MarYah is the equivalent to YHWH. If the Aramaic writers of the OT used the word MarYah exclusively for YHWH, then we know that they wrote it that way by inspiration and not by substitution. Now, if you can show us that MarYah was used for a single lord that was a mere human in the OT for the originally penned Aramaic OT books, you would have an argument that MarYah is not always used for YHWH.
Quote But “Jehovah” IS an English word. And if the Aramaic word “marya” truly means “the Lord Jehovah” in English, like the Aramaic Bible in Plain English translates it, then the dictionaries and interlinears would also translate it that way. Mike, why don't you tell me what word in the Aramaic means Jehovah then.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2012,23:00) Yes, if kurios was only used as YHWH in the OT and NT and not for mere humans or anyone other than the Father or Son.
Wrong. The word “kurios” would continue to mean “lord”, even if that particular word was ONLY used of our Lord Jesus Christ and his God, Jehovah.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2012,01:07) Mike, if the NT was not originally written in Aramaic but Greek you might have a point. However, there is a great deal of evidence that the Aramaic was the inspired original language.
Let me know when you find concrete proof of this. When you do, then all you'll have left to do is show that “marya” means “the Lord Jehovah”.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2012,01:07) Mike, why don't you tell me what word in the Aramaic means Jehovah then.
Exodus 3:14 JERUSALEM TARGUM.
And the Word of the Lord said to Mosheh, He who spake to the world, Be, and it was; and who will speak to it, Be, and it will be. And he said, Thus shalt thou speak to the sons of Israel, EHEYEH hath sent me unto you.So Mike show me the definition of EHEYEH in the four dictionaries you have been mentioning and also show me the interlinears that show Exodus 3:14 with EHEYEH as YHWH. When you can show me this, then you will be showing me in a way that you insist that I show you.
Also, don't bother replying till you have also read this evidence for MarYah found here:
Okay Kathi,
This is from the site you linked:
Plural2 ayrm (meem-resh-yodh-alap)–maryaWe now know that “marya”is the plural form of “mar”, which in cultures who use the plural of majesty, would make it the EMPHATIC form of the word “lord” when only one is refered to. Just like the plural word “elohim” is the plural and emphatic form of “el”. It could be a plural, referring to more than one el, or it could be emphatic, referring to one very majestic el. Are we in agreement so far?
William Jennings Syriac Lexicon (Oxford University Press, 1926), p. 130-131
ayrm (meem-resh-yodh-alap), the emphatic form used for the sacred
Here we learn that “marya” is the emphatic form used for the sacred – not just for Jehovah.
Hebrew hwhy, plus yrml ayrm rma (Amar MarYah l'mari)
The LORD said to my Lord, Matthew 22:44, also for Christ as Lord of all, Acts 10:36, and the one Lord, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:11.Do you notice those words, “Hebrew hwhy, PLUS”? That tells me that the name YHWH was a strictly Hebrew word, and perhaps they didn't even have an Aramaic word for YHWH, but applied the Hebrew word to “marya” when they wanted to say “the Lord Jehovah”. This corresponds to some of the research I did yesterday:
At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak.
Another view is that the intent was to keep non-Jewish peoples from knowing the name and possibly misusing it.
Your source goes on to say:
As a result, it is my personal belief that Mara, as opposed to MarYah, would have been the closest Aramaic word equivalent to the Greek Kurios……………Now we're dealing with the “personal beliefs” of a man who admittedly set out on this venture because, in his mind, “Many in the Nazarene Messianic community refuse to accept the divine aspects of Messiah that are clearly contained in the Peshitta text.”
It seems this info was put together by a man, who like you, isn't happy with Jesus being divine, but wants Jesus to be the very God he is the Son of.
I saw nothing in the rest of his work that amounts to anything more than wishful thinking on his part.
Kathi, do you really suppose that in a world where battles were being fought over the “Godship” of Jesus (with the “Jesus is God Almighty” people actually winning the battle of numbers), not one of these “Jesus is God Almighty” people would have, in almost 2000 years, stumbled upon the fact that the Peshitta called Jesus “the Lord Jehovah the Messiah”?
Virtually all of the “experts” on the subject are Trinitarians, who would dearly love for Jesus to have been called “the Lord Jehovah” in the NT. I mean, these are the people who ALTERED the text in 1 Tim 3:16 to say “God came in the flesh” when the original words were “who came in the flesh”. Surely they would have all jumped at a mss that actually called Jesus “Jehovah”, right?
So why didn't they? Simple: Because the Aramaic word “marya” simply doesn't mean “the Lord Jehovah”. It is simply the emphatic word for “lord”.
I am trying to copy something from this link, Mike. Were you able to copy and paste to quote part of this?
Mike,
You said:Quote It seems this info was put together by a man, who like you, isn't happy with Jesus being divine, but wants Jesus to be the very God he is the Son of.
That is your consistent error that is contributing to keeping your intellect blinded. Think of the mitosis single cell example. There is a parent cell with all that makes up its offspring within it. The offspring happens to end up exactly like the parent cell with the exception that one is the parent cell and the other is the offspring. The offspring cell is not the parent cell that it was from although they are identical and every bit of both of them existed as long as the parent cell was a parent cell. This is true even with your puzzle example. All the pieces of the 'puzzle' were present within the parent cell for as long as the parent cell existed. The cell containing ALL the 'puzzle pieces' would be the parent and the offspring within it would be the offspring. The whole entire 'puzzle' was within the parent cell for as long as the parent cell was a parent cell. Furthermore, the puzzle pieces were always also the puzzle albeit in different phases of completion. When completing the phases within, it was 'brought forth/ begotten.'Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2012,14:44) Yes. That is where the green quotes came from.
Yes I realize that, Mike. I am having trouble copying and pasting from it, though but it seems that you were able to. I will try again.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,13:54) The cell containing ALL the 'puzzle pieces' would be the parent and the offspring within it would be the offspring.
So then Jesus was also “divided” from God with the puzzle pieces for a THIRD God already inside him?Kathi, this is the wrong thread. Let's keep this about the Peshitta and not make it a general “Jesus is God” thread.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,13:59) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2012,14:44) Yes. That is where the green quotes came from.
Yes I realize that, Mike. I am having trouble copying and pasting from it, though but it seems that you were able to. I will try again.
My computer is cooler than yours. Ha ha!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
