Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How Many Jews Know Your Sabbath Has Been Screwed With

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09



What "Aramaic version"? The New Testament was written entirely in Koine Greek.

Some scholars - the minority opinion, no doubt - believe that the Greek was translated from an Aramaic original.


So how does one translate a theoretical version of the text? Do you mean that he translated an Aramaic text that had been translated into Aramaic from Greek? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

FWIW, I believe that there was a original Hebrew version of Matthew (not the medieval version, translated in order to allow Jews to argue against Christians,) which is now lost to us, but the remainder is known to have been written in the common language of that part of the Mediterranean at the time, Koine Greek -- why would letters to Greek churches be written in Aramaic?




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Thanks a lot. Aramaic has always interested me.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   


So how does one translate a theoretical version of the text? Do you mean that he translated an Aramaic text that had been translated into Aramaic from Greek? That doesn't make a lick of sense.


Roth translated from the Aramaic New Testament to English. The Aramaic is not theoretical. It's found in what is known as the Peshi-tta Bible which is considered the official Bible in the Church of the East.

The position of the Assyrian Church of the East is that the Syriac Peshi-tta (which is written in a cursive form of Aramaic), used in that church, is the original of the New Testament.
edit on 13-11-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
The position of the Assyrian Church of the East is that the Syriac Peshi-tta (which is written in a cursive form of Aramaic), used in that church, is the original of the New Testament.


Ah, okay. How do they reconcile the fact that everything other than Matthew, Mark and Hebrews was directed at mostly Greek Gentile audiences who wouldn't know Aramaic? Why would Paul write a letter in a language that the recipients couldn't read?

That one church's claims notwithstanding, the universal conclusion of scholars is that all texts (with the possible exception of an early version of Matthew) were written in Koine Greek, so your guy there is presenting a translation of a translation.
edit on 14-11-2012 by adjensen because: oopsies



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   


That one church's claims notwithstanding, the universal conclusion of scholars is that all texts (with the possible exception of an early version of Matthew) were written in Koine Greek, so your guy there is presenting a translation of a translation.

No, it's a translation of the Peshi-tta text, which is in Aramaic.

The Peshi-tta, according to the Assyrian Church of the East, is the original New Testament coming from the Apostles themselves. And it's in Aramaic, not Greek:

"With reference to... the originality of the Peshi-tta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshi-tta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision." Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII, by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East. April 5, 1957

Aramaic was the primary language of Yeshua and His Apostles. The very first converts to "Christianity" were Aramaic-speaking Jews, not Greeks.
edit on 14-11-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
The Peshi-tta, according to the Assyrian Church of the East, is the original New Testament coming from the Apostles themselves.


Sorry, but given that all scholars that I can find dispute that, you're going to need to cite a source that is not the Assyrian Church of the East, who obviously has a horse in this race, as well as explain why Paul would have written to Greek Gentile churches in Aramaic, a language they didn't understand. Ditto Luke and John.

That's the third time I've asked you that question, an answer would be appreciated.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   


Sorry, but given that all scholars that I can find dispute that, you're going to need to cite a source that is not the Assyrian Church of the East, who obviously has a horse in this race, as well as explain why Paul would have written to Greek Gentile churches in Aramaic, a language they didn't understand. Ditto Luke and John.


How much time do you have? Seriously, this is too complex of a subject to cover in a few paragraphs. But, here's a start. How about a quote from St. Jerome?:

St. Jerome: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collector came to be an emissary first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Messiah in Judea in the Hebrew (i.e., Aramaic) language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilius so diligently collected, I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which it is remarked that, wherever the evangelist...makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the translators (a.k.a. the Septuagint) but that of the Hebrew." (On Famous Men, 3; 5)

Few Western scholars are familiar with the Peshi-tta text. In the East, however, Aramaic is much more familiar. In fact, Aramaic is used even today in the liturgy of the Church of the East, the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, and the Syriac Orthodox Church!!

So, yes, it does not surprise me that Western scholars are unfamiliar with the Aramaic origins of the New Testament!

Historically, Jews used Aramaic in a sacred context. Christ was Jewish, as were all of the original Apostles. St. Paul was a Jewish Pharisee, learned in the Mosaic Law, and would naturally have been inclined to writing any sacred words in his native tongue. Greek would be a foreign tongue, and hardly a tongue that a religious Jew would want to write in their most sacred writings.

But the real concrete evidence is in the Peshi-tta text itself. Roth gives hundreds of examples of mistranslations that were botched by the Greek translators.

Here's a good link from Roth - quite long and extensive - but gives his vantage point, with numerous citations and evidence. It's nothing short of fascinating once you delve into the subject:

aramaicnttruth.org...

For me personally, it goes back to what I said earlier. There are far, far too many passages that I would read in the Old and New Testament that were clearly botched translations and the text was completely nonsensical. It wasn't until I started reading primary source translations that I fully began to better understand and grasp Holy Writ much more effectively. Even a single botched translated word can throw off a single sentence.

Pick up a copy of Roth's Aramaic New Testament, and read it alongside a King James version, or any other version you choose. Then make your own judgment as to who has the best translation yourself.

edit on 15-11-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09


Sorry, but given that all scholars that I can find dispute that, you're going to need to cite a source that is not the Assyrian Church of the East, who obviously has a horse in this race, as well as explain why Paul would have written to Greek Gentile churches in Aramaic, a language they didn't understand. Ditto Luke and John.


How much time do you have? Seriously, this is too complex of a subject to cover in a few paragraphs. But, here's a start. How about a quote from St. Jerome?:


... and how about reading the several places in this thread where I said I believed that Matthew had originally been written in Hebrew? St. Jerome simply supports that statement, he doesn't say anything about the whole of the text being written in Aramaic.

I think that we're at a loggerhead here -- I concur with the vast majority of New Testament scholars, who say that the whole of the New Testament (barring, perhaps, Matthew,) was written in Koine Greek. That is both the historical and logical conclusion of the available evidence that we have. I've seen no useful evidence, apart from the word of your church, which, as I said, has a horse in the race, so isn't a credible source, and this Roth fellow, whose credentials I can't seem to track down. You believe that I'm wrong, so we'll have to let it go at that.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   


St. Jerome simply supports that statement, he doesn't say anything about the whole of the text being written in Aramaic.


Good grief. Biblical Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew as both are in the Northwest Semitic language family.



I concur with the vast majority of New Testament scholars, who say that the whole of the New Testament (barring, perhaps, Matthew,) was written in Koine Greek.


Western scholars in the Western world. You are taking an exceptionally Euro-centric point of view.

The Peshi-tta is the standard version of the Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition. So, basically, you are casting aspersions and discounting several mammoth religious organizations: the Maronite Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, and the Syriac Orthodox Church -- all of which use the Peshi-tta as their primary Bible, and use Aramaic in their liturgies.

Christ spoke Aramaic, as did all of his Apostles. The churches in the East are simply carrying forth the same Aramaic tradition.

All Roth does is give you the Aramaic Peshi-tta text alongside a English translation. If there is dispute about a specific Aramaic translation, you have the Aramaic right in front of you and you are welcome to translate it yourself or choose another translator.

And Roth is not the issue here -- The text in question and under discussion is the Peshi-tta text, which Roth did not write, as it is an ancient text. You can choose any translator you choose to interpret it, or even interpret it yourself.



I've seen no useful evidence, apart from the word of your church, which, as I said, has a horse in the race, so isn't a credible source, and this Roth fellow, whose credentials I can't seem to track down


My church? First, I said the tradition of the churches, as in plural. I don't even belong to the Church of the East, the Maronite Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, nor the Syriac Catholic Church. Good grief.

The Peshi-tta text is not some obscure, unknown text. It is well known in the East, just not in the Western world.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09



St. Jerome simply supports that statement, he doesn't say anything about the whole of the text being written in Aramaic.


Good grief. Biblical Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew as both are in the Northwest Semitic language family.


Did you even read the quote from St. Jerome that you posted? He says The Gospel of Matthew had a Hebrew version, and he doesn't say anything about any other New Testament book, which is exactly what I said.

I've asked you for scholarly sources for your claim, and all you've come back with is this Roth guy, the word of the church that promotes the alternate text, and claims of "western bias". Now, I'm pretty sure that the east also has scholars, even New Testament scholars, so why not cite some of them to shut me up?



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   


Did you even read the quote from St. Jerome that you posted? He says The Gospel of Matthew had a Hebrew version, and he doesn't say anything about any other New Testament book, which is exactly what I said.


"....I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Borea to copy it. In which it is remarked that, wherever the evangelist...makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the translators (a.k.a. the Septuagint) but that of the Hebrew."

Let's define terms: Nazarenes. The Nazarenes were Jews from Nazareth, who also believed in Christ, who was from Nazareth (hence the term, "Jesus of Nazareth").

The Nazarenes were some of the earliest converts to Christ, and would have also spoken Aramaic as their primary language, Aramaic being very similar to Hebrew. After the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, these Nazarenes fled to Syria.

Not Greece. Not Rome. Syria.

What Jerome is stating here is that the Nazarenes showed him Matthew's text, and allowed him to copy it. The Nazarenes showed Jerome this text in the Syrian city of Borea. The Nazarenes remarked to Jerome, at the time, that when Matthew made use of Holy Writ, he never followed the authority of the Greek Septuagint, but rather the Hebrew. Greek was considered inferior.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Jerome is quite clearly and simply stating that for sacred text, for holy writings, Greek was never considered primary. Greek was considered a foreign and alien tongue.

Remember, all of these earliest converts were Aramaic-speaking Jews. Christ was an Aramaic-speaking Jew, as were all of the Apostles, and the earliest converts. St. Paul was not Greek - He was a Jewish Pharisee, and well learned in Mosaic Law, and kept the annual Jewish feasts.

So, yes, here you have the Aramaic-speaking Nazarenes originally from Nazareth, a Jewish sect and follower of Christ who is also from Nazareth, now living in Syria. Naturally, when these Nazarenes are writing their "Bible", they are using their native tongue. And their native tongue is not Greek.

This is what we are referring to as the Syriac tradition. It is what was passed down to the Church of the East, the Maronite Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, etc. Today, we call this Aramaic version of the Bible the Peshi-tta. It's not Greek. It's not Latin. It's Aramaic.



I've asked you for scholarly sources for your claim, and all you've come back with is this Roth guy, the word of the church that promotes the alternate text, and claims of "western bias". Now, I'm pretty sure that the east also has scholars, even New Testament scholars, so why not cite some of them to shut me up?


You're not listening. Let's try again.

The issue is not about scholars or translators regardless of their affiliation or theological leanings.

The issue is the Peshi-tta Bible text itself, which is written in Aramaic. The general public, including yourself, is welcome to read the Peshi-tta Bible itself, and interpret the text in any fashion you so choose.

My whole point was that there is an alternative viewpoint that Greek is the primary language of the New Testament, and the evidence for this viewpoint is the Peshi-tta Bible itself, written in Aramaic, and available for anyone to read, translate, and decipher for themselves, or through any translator of their choosing.

The Peshi-tta Bible is the standard text for churches in the Syriac tradition, who trace their tradition back to the time of the Apostles. Even today, the liturgical services in this tradition use ancient Syriac, a dialect of Middle Aramaic that is of direct relation to the Aramaic of Yeshua (Jesus).

So, the issue is not the translator. The issue is not the interpreter, whether he be of Western or Eastern background. We have direct access to the Aramaic Bible itself -- the Peshi-tta -- which can be read today.

Interpret the Peshi-tta as you deem fit, but your translation will most definitively have marked differences from the Greek translations of the New Testament available in the Western world, such that meaning, context, and idiomatic expressions have been lost in the Greek translations.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
And, funny enough, you'll like what Wikipedia says about your beloved Western "scholarship":

"Mainstream and modern scholars have generally had a strong agreement that the New Testament was written in Greek and that an Aramaic source text was used for portions of the New Testament, especially the gospels. They acknowledge that many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are translations from an Aramaic source normally referred to as Q, but hold that the Gospels' text in its current form was composed in Greek, and so were the other New Testament writings. Scholars of all stripes have had to acknowledge the presence of scattered, Aramaic expressions, transliterated and then translated."

Read that again: Aramaic source text.

One more thing: You talk about who has a "dog in this fight" - The Roman Church was quite at odds with the Syriac tradition. It is not surprising that they would push to discredit the Aramaic original New Testament espoused by the Church of the East.
edit on 17-11-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
This is what we are referring to as the Syriac tradition. It is what was passed down to the Church of the East, the Maronite Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, etc. Today, we call this Aramaic version of the Bible the Peshi-tta. It's not Greek. It's not Latin. It's Aramaic.


So your Bible is The Gospel of Matthew, the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and nothing else? Because, for at least the third time, that's all that St. Jerome says was written in Hebrew.




I've asked you for scholarly sources for your claim, and all you've come back with is this Roth guy, the word of the church that promotes the alternate text, and claims of "western bias". Now, I'm pretty sure that the east also has scholars, even New Testament scholars, so why not cite some of them to shut me up?


You're not listening. Let's try again.

The issue is not about scholars or translators regardless of their affiliation or theological leanings.

The issue is the Peshi-tta Bible text itself, which is written in Aramaic. The general public, including yourself, is welcome to read the Peshi-tta Bible itself, and interpret the text in any fashion you so choose.


No, the issue is your claiming that your version of the New Testament is the original one. It has nothing to do with translation, interpretation or anything other than the historical record. As a result, I'm not interested in any testimony by you, your church or anyone who is not an historian, who says that this text is the original version, and has historical evidence to back that claim up.


Read that again: Aramaic source text.


Read that again: "many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are translations from an Aramaic source normally referred to as Q". "Q" is a theoretical document, and what you posted there says nothing about the Gospels themselves having been written in Aramaic -- quite the contrary, it specifically says that they were written in Greek.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   


So your Bible is The Gospel of Matthew, the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and nothing else?


No. The Peshi-tta Bible contains the Old and New Testament, with some minor variations. Don't try to put words in my mouth. Nice try.



Because, for at least the third time, that's all that St. Jerome says was written in Hebrew.

No, you are completely ignoring the quote from Jerome in its entirety. You cannot pick and choose based on your bias.



No, the issue is your claiming that your version of the New Testament is the original one. It has nothing to do with translation, interpretation or anything other than the historical record. As a result, I'm not interested in any testimony by you, your church or anyone who is not an historian, who says that this text is the original version, and has historical evidence to back that claim up.


I never made that claim. I simply stated there is a dispute, solid written evidence to the contrary. The evidence is in the Peshi-tta text itself, if you would ever care to read it, or a translation of it.

As Roth and others show, there are literally hundreds of instances where the Greek New Testament contradicts the Torah, and is mistranslated. Key words are misstated. Roth gives example after example of these misstated words in the Greek New Testament.

The Greek is simply a horrendous rendition of the New Testament, and Roth proves it over and over again, giving you the Aramaic to read yourself if you so choose. Metaphors are lost in the Greek translation, as are key idiomatic expressions, poetical phraseology, and more. The Greek New Testament completely misses the mark.

Even modern scholars acknowledge that the Greek New Testament came from an original Aramaic source! The Eastern tradition is that this Aramaic text is the Peshi-tta.

You tend to ignore and discount whomever you choose whether I quote scholars, historians, or even whole religious bodies that have existed since the earliest beginnings of the Church.

It's up to you to prove that Greek was the main language spoken by Christ and the Apostles. It wasn't. They spoke Aramaic. Say what you will, it doesn't change the facts.



"Q" is a theoretical document, and what you posted there says nothing about the Gospels themselves having been written in Aramaic -- quite the contrary, it specifically says that they were written in Greek.


No, the tradition in the East is that the Peshi-tta is the original Aramaic Bible handed down from the time of the Apostles, as I have stated repeatedly.

Modern scholars agree that the Aramaic was primary, and the Greek was secondary. I have no idea why you are so attached to thinking that Greek is what Christ would have spoken, or that Greek was the primary language of the Apostles or the early Church.

Christ was Jewish. He spoke Aramaic. Anyone at the time that wrote down His words, wrote them in Aramaic, not Greek.

Christ lived in Israel, not Greece. Christ was a Jewish rabbi, not a Greek theologian.

His Apostles, including St. Paul, were all Jewish and spoke Aramaic as their primary language. These are indisputable facts.
edit on 17-11-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-11-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09



So your Bible is The Gospel of Matthew, the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and nothing else?


No. The Peshi-tta Bible contains the Old and New Testament, with some minor variations. Don't try to put words in my mouth. Nice try.



Because, for at least the third time, that's all that St. Jerome says was written in Hebrew.

No, you are completely ignoring the quote from Jerome in its entirety. You cannot pick and choose based on your bias.


Fine. Show me where, in that quote, it says anything about any other book in the New Testament, apart from Matthew, having been written in Aramaic.


Modern scholars agree that the Aramaic was primary, and the Greek was secondary. I have no idea why you are so attached to thinking that Greek is what Christ would have spoken


And, while you're at it, show me where I have ever said that Christ spoke Greek.

Frankly, your argument gets weaker with every post, as you try to move away from my claim -- that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek -- and make bizarre statements such as this one. I never said that Christ spoke Greek. I said that the New Testament was written in Greek.

That's what you need to prove wrong.

And I'm still waiting to hear why Paul would have written to the church in Rome or Corinth in Aramaic, a language that they did not speak. Been waiting for that answer for a couple of days, in fact.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   


Fine. Show me where, in that quote, it says anything about any other book in the New Testament, apart from Matthew, having been written in Aramaic.


Read the second portion of Jerome's quote. He says quite clearly that Matthew did not consider the Greek to be authoritative.




the New Testament was written in Koine Greek


As I have said endlessly, and you choose to ignore, while the New Testament was written in Greek, it was originally in Aramaic, then translated into Greek. The original Aramaic according to the Eastern tradition is the Peshi-tta. The evidence is in the hundreds of mistranslated words and phrases found in your beloved Greek New Testament.



And I'm still waiting to hear why Paul would have written to the church in Rome or Corinth in Aramaic, a language that they did not speak. Been waiting for that answer for a couple of days, in fact.


A very plausible explanation is that Paul was a Pharisaic Jew, not a Greek, writing to other Jews placed in charge of the church in those countries, who then would have translated the text into the language of their Gentile converts.

The main leaders of the Church, including Peter, Paul, and James, were all Jews, not Greeks. Correspondence amongst each other on sacred matters would have been in their native tongue.
edit on 17-11-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09



Fine. Show me where, in that quote, it says anything about any other book in the New Testament, apart from Matthew, having been written in Aramaic.


Read the second portion of Jerome's quote. He says quite clearly that Matthew did not consider the Greek to be authoritative.


The Greek translation of the Old Testament! That's what he's talking about, it has nothing to do with the New Testament!



while the New Testament was written in Greek


There, that's what I was waiting for.

Regardless of what Jesus or the Apostles spoke, the New Testament was written in Greek. Glad that you finally admit it.




And I'm still waiting to hear why Paul would have written to the church in Rome or Corinth in Aramaic, a language that they did not speak. Been waiting for that answer for a couple of days, in fact.


A very plausible explanation is that Paul was a Pharisaic Jew, not a Greek, writing to other Jews placed in charge of the church in those countries, who then would have translated the text into the language of their Gentile converts.


No, that is not a plausible explanation. Christian Jews were clearly not "placed in charge" of the churches that Paul founded. Go read Galatians, for Pete's sakes. These were Gentile churches, not Jewish ones, and Paul fully intended to keep it that way.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   


The Greek translation of the Old Testament! That's what he's talking about, it has nothing to do with the New Testament!


The issue is what language was considered authoritative at the time for sacred purposes. Greek was not considered authoritative for Holy Writ. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with which Testament, Old or New.



Regardless of what Jesus or the Apostles spoke, the New Testament was written in Greek. Glad that you finally admit it.


Good grief. Written in Greek, from an ARAMAIC PRIMARY SOURCE. Of which, by tradition in the East, is the Peshi-tta Bible, which is in Aramaic, and long considered to be the original New Testament according to the Church of the East. And fully available today to be read by anyone who so chooses to examine the evidence themselves.



No, that is not a plausible explanation. Christian Jews were clearly not "placed in charge" of the churches that Paul founded. Go read Galatians, for Pete's sakes. These were Gentile churches, not Jewish ones, and Paul fully intended to keep it that way.


No, Paul dictated his letters to a secretary in Aramaic, and the secretary would paraphrase the dictated letters, as was the common practice among 1st century scribes. Some of Paul's letters are forgeries, and were not even written by him.

Paul was a Pharisaic Jew, not a Greek.



posted on Nov, 19 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Paul was actually a roman citizen who was put in at the time of Jesus by Herod, who helped rebuild the temple. When he did, the people put in charge were not full jews or even full levites. This is why Jesus called them hypocrites. It means one who acts upon a stage without any emotional investment.

Wiki historical info
en.wikipedia.org...

knowing historical settings will allow you a better understanding of the motivations of people in that period.

www.thechronicleproject.org...



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09


Regardless of what Jesus or the Apostles spoke, the New Testament was written in Greek. Glad that you finally admit it.


Good grief. Written in Greek, from an ARAMAIC PRIMARY SOURCE.


For the last time, there is no evidence of this, apart from that given by your church, which is obviously biased, and plenty of evidence that this was not the case, from sources which are not the western church.

If you want to claim that there was a "sayings Gospel", along the lines of The Gospel of Thomas, that was referenced by the authors of the New Testament when they wrote their books in Koine Greek, that is possible, but irrelevant, but if you want to say that the Greek New Testament is a translation of a full Aramaic New Testament, you're demonstrably wrong.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join