Here are the e-mail exchanges with Chris Lancaster:
[Editor's note: debaters' words are in black. Darrell Conder's words are in blue throughout.]
----- Original Message -----
From: c l
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:37 PM
Subject: Invite to debate!
Hi Mr. Conder,
I recently just sent you an email, inviting you to read the original Bible, with no errors.
Now I extend to you an invitation to a debate. Not with me, but with Paul Younan, a renowned Aramaic expert and Christian.
He is eager to debate you, as am I, but as you are both very educated, I would just like to play the specatator so that I can learn off you both.
If you are interested, let me know, so I can arrange—it is likely a messageboard debate, with only you two allowed to post in that thread. And PLEASE do post the whole debate on your website also, as you did with the Rabbi.
Regards,
Chris
Hello! Your two e-mails were forwarded to me this morning, which I have read with interest. First of all, I would appreciate a formal introduction to you. I mean no disrespect, but I do have a problem with people who will not come out into the open with their beliefs, and have learned some bitter experiences when dealing with nameless Christians.
Second, do I understand that you are you saying that the Peshitta is God's word, and error-free?
As to the proposed debate, all I can say is that I will consider it. The last few experiences have been rather disappointing. Frankly, I don't want to waste time with people who argue emotional relationships with God, or their feelings. I want to base my stand on what the bible says, and the use of logic.
Thank you for your interest,
Regards,
Darrell Conder
----- Original Message -----
From: c l
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: Invite to debate!
Hi Mr. Conder, how rude of me!
My name is Chris and I firstly believe in the Peshitta as the true Word of God. There is much historical and linguistic evidence for the superiority of the Peshitta over the Greek. I believe that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, that the trinity is pagan and unScriptural, that the Sabbath is still for us as in Heb 4:9.
As for the fellow you may be debating, he (as a studyer of the Pehsitta—It is clear that Jesus is both "Maryah"—Lord YHWH and "Elaha"—God) believes that Jesus is God and is less strict about the Sabbath. As for trinity, he does not believe in 3 persons, but in 3 "qnome" (natures)—manifestations, as I do. In fact the manifestations are not just limited to 3, God is omnipresent. Mr. Paul Younan is an Aramaic expert, a devout Christian, and currently translates teh Peshitta into English to give to the world for free, unlike the other translators. Plus, he works in a group, with people all over, who point out errors and better readings—resulting in a very accurate translation.
He is eager to debate you as am I. But like I said, I may as well let him do it, and learn from you both. I guarantee you, you will not win this debate. So I do not know if you will accept or not.
And yes, we are al about Bible and logic :)
Regards, Chris
Good morning Chris,
Reading through this leaves me with several questions. First is what translation of the Peshitta will be used? Is it the Lamsa, or does your Mr. Younan intend to use his own translation? Also, I want to know more about Mr. Younan and yourself. I still don't know who you are, except that your name is "Chris." As to the debate, my associate, Mr. Sedeq ben Avrahim, has offered to do the actual debating to save me time. I will edit the debate on this side, and offer suggestions and occasional comments, but the time factor is not in favor of my full participation at the present.
I will also comment on your declaration that you want to "learn from you both", but state that I will not win the debate. This is a contradiction. Only people with open minds can learn—I know, because for 40 years I had a closed mind to anything but my own religious "truth" and was therefore caught up in a sea of lies and deceptions.
Regards,
DWC
----- Original Message -----
From: c l
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: Invite to debate!
Hi Mr. Conder,
"Reading through this leaves me with several questions. First is what >translation of the Peshitta will be used? Is it the Lamsa, or does your Mr. Younan intend to use his own translation?"
Younan will use the Peshitta. He needs no translation. I understand if you are hesitant to accept. After all, the original does not have the errors of teh Greek copies.
"Also, I want to know more about Mr. Younan and yourself. I still don't know who you are, except that your name is 'Chris."'
Well, I will not debating you but I digress. I am studying to become a heart surgeon and have no quals in Biblical study whatsoever. I'm basically a nobody, but have a website that is not afraid to tell the truth about false Christian doctrines and such. Paul Younan is a 'bigwig' in the Peshitta primacy business. He is an Assyrian and speaks writes etc Aramaic frequently. He translates teh Peshitta for people, for free. And He is a member of teh Church of the East, an Eastern Church that holds to the Peshitta. That's all really. We are not that well known.
"As to the debate, my associate, Mr. Sedeq ben Avrahim, has offered to do the actual debating to save me time. I will edit the debate on this side, and offer suggestions and occasional comments, but the time factor is not in favor of my full participation at the present."
That is fine. Is that teh rabbi you "won over"?
"I will also comment on your declaration that you want to "learn from you both", but state that I will not win the debate. This is a contradiction. Only people with open minds can learn—I know, because for 40 years I had a closed mind to anything but my own religious "truth" and was therefore caught up in a sea of lies and deceptions."
We will see if you accept ;) I can learn of both of you even if both ar wrong.
Regards, Chris
Chris,
If I understand, Mr. Younan will make his own translation from the Aramaic, which means that I would have to accept his word that he is making a correct translation into English. If we are to debate, then we would need to agree upon an English translation, such as the Lamsa edition, or we can have no basis of discussion.
DWC
----- Original Message -----
From: c l
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: Invite to debate!
This complicates things. You see, the Lamsa is full of errors, the Eteheridge, the Murdock etc are also full of errors. From all the translators I have seen, he has been doing the best job, as his work is immediately checked over by a team of experts and when errors have been found, he has been quick to correct them.
But if it will make you feel easier, then he may use the translation on his site for the Gospels and Acts.
Do you accept or not? He would be a great victory for you. Such a big player in the "Original Bible" community, would be a very high profile victory. But you will lose. Perhaps he can turn you back to the faith.
Regards,
Chris
Chris,
Your friend has my blessing to contact me personally and make his challenge. As stated on my site, I, or a staff member, will answer all responsible questions. You are right about one thing. If your friend can show me the error of my ways, I will publically repent and return to Jesus.
Regards,
DWC
----- Original Message -----
From: c l
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: Invite to debate!
That is wonderful news! If you would turn your heart to Jesus, man what a great event that would be. Remember the story of the prodigal son?
He wants you to start anytime. We have our forum at www.peshitta.org click on the forum link on the lift and there is the forum. Then just register and we're all set. The thread of course will only allow you and your friends, verses Paul Younan, none of his friends may interfere. And of course, there, you can discuss with him the finer conditions, if any, of the debate. Hope to see you there soon!
I'll already make a thread in teh general forum called "Darrell Conder vs. Paul Younan—debate" and let them know only he and you/your friends can post there.
Regards,
Chris
Chris,
I would like Mr. Younan to make a formal introduction before I agree to any exchange. That's only proper. I would also like it understood that he has challenged my beliefs. In other words, it is not Conder vs Younan, but Younan vs Conder. As for the proposed forum format, I want our exchanges to be via e-mail. Mr. Younan can then post replies on his forum, and I will do likewise on our site. As to which of our staff will undertake to answer Mr. Younan, that has yet to be determined because of our varying schedules. If it is Lawrence or Sedeq, I will promise to look over their replies and ad my own comments. Be assured if you or Mr. Younan can prove what I've posted to be in error, I will admit the error, as I've been stating for the past ten years.
Regards,
DWC
At this point, I want to the reader to notice that Chris and Darrell were talking of debating the contents of the Peshitta, which Chris claimed in his original e-mail is error-free. This is the debate to which Darrell had agreed. As we shall see, this was later changed by Paul Younan to debating only the history of the Peshitta, with the contents declared off-limits.
----- Original Message -----
From: c l
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Invite to debate!
Hi Mr. Conder,
very well, it shall be done by email. I shall forward your email address to him and you guys can start at will. And I think all 3 of us plan on putting this massive debate on our websites and forums :)
Regards,
Chris
Later in the day Darrell received the following email from Mr. Younan:
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:06 PM
Subject: Hi Darrel
My name is Paul Younan. Christopher Lancaster asked me to email you privately per your request.
I would like to extend you a cordial invite to my website's forum, www.peshitta.org A little background information about me:
I am an Assyrian, a Christian from the Church of the East—a community which established itself independently in the Parthian and Sassanid Persian empires, before the Islamic invasion of Iraq and the Mongol-Turkic conquests devastated the community and reduced us to only a few hundred thousand people by the turn of the 20th century. During its height in the 12th century, the Church of the East was the single largest "denomination" of Christianity on the face of the planet, outnumbering both the Greek and Latin churches combined. Today, the Church has been reduced to a mere shadow of its former glory.
In a nutshell, the adherents of the Church have traditionally upheld and used an Aramaic New Testament called the Peshitta, which they (including myself) contend is the original New Testament, penned in the language of Jesus and his disciples....Aramaic.
Being a native speaker of a dialect of Assyrian neo-Aramaic from my youth, the purpose of my hobby, if you will, has been to create an Aramaic/English interlinear version of this New Testament, as well as to demonstrate how the various textual families of the Greek tradition are merely translations, in many cases poor translations, of the original Aramaic New Testament as preserved today in the Peshitta.
Obviously, our hypothesis is not shared by academia, but we have collectively found dozens of examples in several different categories which we believe demonstrates our position. I think you might be interested in many of them.
I have heard of your past involvement in the Christian fold and your subsequent departure from the faith, partly I presume because of inconsistencies and contradictions you found the Greek NT to contain. In this point, I find common ground with you.
If you would like to debate the merit of the Aramaic New Testament, and how it may or may not clear up some or all of the objections you have formulated based on your experience with the various Greek translations, I would love to have you participate in a discussion about it on my forum. I have created a sub-category where only yourself and I may participate, so it will be civil and manageable.
Thank you for your attention,
Paul Younan
Good evening Paul. I will answer your e-mail later, but wanted to send a note to acknowledge receipt and to send my regards.
Darrell Conder
This was the only communication with Mr. Younan, until Darrell received an e-mail from Steve Duff the following morning, informing him that Mr. Younan had set rules on the debate, which included banning the Old Testament. Notice this statement in the above Younan e-mail: "If you would like to debate the merit of the Aramaic New Testament, and how it may or may not clear up some or all of the objections you have formulated based on your experience with the various Greek translations, I would love to have you participate in a discussion about it on my forum." This is important, because Younan and Lancaster would later claim that Paul had never agreed to debate anything other than Aramaic primacy. Darrell's reply follows:
-----Original Message-----
Hello Steve, I wasn't aware that the OT was banned. If this is the case, then the whole thing starts as a farce by setting the stage in Mr. Younan's favor. Is the "Akhan Paul" Paul Younan?
From: Darrell Conder
Sent: 10/18/2003 1:18:51 PM
To: beachmaster@mail2Beach.com
Subject: Re: fwd debate
----- Original Message -----
From: steve d
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: fwd debate
Yes, one and the same. I just made another post... here it is: I was just reviewing this paragraph again and it really caused me to wonder just what you guys are really after:
Quote: I have no desire to debate anything else with you except the authenticity of the Aramaic New Testament called the Peshitta. This means I have no desire to rehash all the debates you've had over the years that are out there on the internet, for anyone interested in that type of thing. No O.T. stuff, no Evolution vs. Creation, no Krishna, nothing like that.
Paul wants only to validate the authenticity of the Aramaic New Testament. Ok, fine. But much of what he doesn't want to discuss are some of the very things that conclusively invalidate this work known as the Peshitta. What is wrong with comparing the Peshitta with the O.T. and with earlier religious myths which appear as plagiarisms in the New Testament (such as Chrishna for example)?
Also something that is VERY telling is that Paul does not want to rehash all of the debates. Well that would be just hunky dory except one thing... Darrell's prior debates, and all of the information available in his books and on his website have not been refuted. His numerous points just stand there staring you in the face and require explanation. But nobody is able to give adequate explanation. So the tact I see here is that you will simply ignore all that has been proffered by him. I know this is really your only choice, because all of those problems just simply have no answer except one... these religious writings and the faiths that use them are all constructs of mere mortal men.
I would think that if the faith were based on reality, it shoud be no difficult task to explain the many contradictions, absurdities, faulty logic, injustice and cruelty, immorality (such as slavery and genocide), etc. that one can clearly see on the surface of these "holy scriptures" but apparently it is not only a difficult task, it is an impossible task. Unless one concedes that these things were only from the mind of men, at which point it becomes very easy to explain.
Here is Darrell's e-mail to Mr. Younan, which was sent after Steve Duff's e-mail:
Good morning Mr. Younan. I awoke to this email in my box:----- Original Message -----
From: steve d
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 11:33
AM Subject:
Re: fwd debateI just signed up to the Peshitta.org forum... here is my first post: [quote]Akhan Paul started very well by limiting Conder's arsenal [/quote] You might want to demand that Darrell also tie both hands behind his back while typing. It wouldn't help your side though. Blindfold him, do whatever you think you can do, but he has the truth on his side and nothing will change the truth.
I noticed that Akhan Paul did indeed attempt to limit Darrell's arsenal... [quote]No O.T. stuff, no Evolution vs. Creation, no Krishna, nothing like that.[/quote]
No O.T. stuff?? Now that's quite a hoot since everything in the whole New Testament (in any language) totally depends upon the O.T. being true since the O.T. is the very foundation of any version of the New Testament.
However, I am very curious about how this will be enforced. If a verse in the Peshitta references the O.T., then is that particular Peshitta verse now out of play? That would eliminate quite a lot of the Peshitta from even being challenged wouldn't it? How convenient!
---------- This post can be seen at:
http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=286[Mr. Younan] When your friend Chris approached us about a debate, there was nothing mentioned about rules. As you and I have not formally communicated on this, I find the above rather disturbing. It is my rule in debating never to impose rules except against personal insults (that is, name calling, or unprofessional behavior). Would you please clarify the above for me?
Regards,
Darrell Conder
Here is the letter Darrell sent to Steve Duff, which he has posted on Mr. Younan's forum:
"Hello Steve. Thanks for sending the posts from Mr. Younan's forum. I am rather disappointed by what I've read. First of all, Mr. Younan and I have not communicated about this proposed debate. I was challenged on his behalf by Chris, and received my first e-mail from Mr. Younan just last night, which I've yet to answer.To Chris I proposed that the debate be called Younan vs Conder, since it was Mr. Younan who is challenging my teachings, which are posted on www.darrellwconder.com. In other words, I did not come to Mr. Younan, he came to me. To title a debate with my name in the lead gives the wrong impression. As to the rules noted in your post, this is news to me. Frankly, I will not be fettered by such things. Indeed, to even suggest such clearly demonstrates that the opposition knows from the start that they have certain indefensible positions, and need to keep this well hidden from their readers. The OT is the very foundation of Jesus Christ, as the NT writers make abundantly clear. If Mr. Younan and company promotes their NT translation as the word of God, then they should not stifle God himself by declaring that his OT is off limits!
I challenge Mr. Younan and company to put on the whole armor of God, and prepare to do battle, or be quiet and go away.
Darrell Conder"
Here we have a typical Christian tactic. Challenge someone to a public debate, after they accept, demand a set of rules to conceal your weaknesses and therefore gives you the advantage, and then sit back and wait. It's a no-win situation for your opponent. Paul Younan specifically stated in his challenge that he would answer some of Darrell's objections about the New Testament.
Darrell's challenge to Paul Younan and Chris Lancaster stands. Darrell writes:
"Paul, Chris, can you defend your bible from history, the wording of the entire bible and simple logic, or must you hide behind impossible limits? If you cannot defend your bible against these precepts, then you are asking your followers to have faith in you. I've long since learned not to place my faith in men, and refuse to do so in this case. You both say you have the truth of God. Prove it, or, as I noted to Steve Duff, go away and be quiet."Darrell W. Conder
During the time Paul Younan and Darrell were communicating, he and his supporters were attacking Darrell on www.Peshitta.org forum. Here are a few excerpts from those exchanges:
drmlanc Posts: 393 Joined: 06 Sep 2003 Location: Queensland, Australia Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:27 pmPaul, please debate him across the board. For Christians all over, and for me... You saw how easily beachmaster deceived me with his Chrishna garbage—a very clever deception. It would be good for wannabe apologists like me to see you in action against a very capable anti-Christian.
Come on Paul... Regards, Chris
Paul Younan Site Admin Posts: 323 Joined: 05 Sep 2003 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:38 pm
drmlanc wrote: Paul, please debate him across the board. For Christians all over, and for me... You saw how easily beachmaster deceived me with his Chrishna garbage—a very clever deception. It would be good for wannabe apologists like me to see you in action against a very capable anti-Christian. Come on Paul...
Akhi, I have before. Went through several months of debate with an eminent Atheist from www.infidels.org whose name was Rich. Did no good to either him or me.
Akhan Keith's advice here is golden, and I've learned from 1st-hand experience that Keith is absolutely correct. Read his post about it and you will know what I mean.
The debate, if there is to be one, will be centered around the concept of Aramaic primacy and how that takes away some, if not most, of the steam in their arguments.
I will not get drawn into a debate in which the sky is the limit and everything from Darwinism to Slavery is brought up......it's simply a waste of my time since there are thousands of people more capable than I who are already doing that, and have done that.
Bottom line is that Mr. Conner knows that I will absolutely shatter his pre-conceived notions about the NT, especially since he uses the Greek version in his apologetics.
And since he has absolutely no profiency in Aramaic, he is scared....do you blame him? I don't.
So let's just let it go...let him go and argue his Krishna theory about 1000 more times and see if it gets him anywhere.... Paul Younan
drmlanc Posts: 393 Joined: 06 Sep 2003 Location: Queensland, Australia Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:48 pm
"So let's just let it go...let him go and argue his Krishna theory about 1000 more times and see if it gets him anywhere...."" It does. It gets him admiration and praise, while costing teh faith of our brothers. I want to debate him then. It sounds like suicide, me being so naive and all... But is it not us who knows what is meant by "do not be afraid of how your breath departs?"
Regards, Chris
Paul Younan Site Admin Posts: 323 Joined: 05 Sep 2003 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:25 pm
drmlanc wrote: ""So let's just let it go...let him go and argue his Krishna theory about 1000 more times and see if it gets him anywhere....""
It does. It gets him admiration and praise, while costing teh faith of our brothers. I want to debate him then. It sounds like suicide, me being so naive and all... But is it not us who knows what is meant by "do not be afraid of how your breath departs?"
Yes, but it's not necessarily our place to do all things at once. There are believers out there who have been given the gift of debating and apologetics.....I'm not one of them, although you may be.
Everyone has something that he does well, and I'd much rather concentrate on the gift I have......that doesn't mean I'm suited to go be a missionary, there are people who have that gift and they should be the ones to do that type of work if that is what they are called to do.
I'm just afraid of loosing our focus here is we spread ourselves out too thin. In other words, there are thousands of people already doing what you want to do with these people...
Is he costing thousands of people their faith? I'd say they didn't have any to begin with if they are swayed by these types of things...
Must we defend our faith at all times? Of course, and we are doing that everyday here....in our own limited scope.
Paul Younan
Chris
beachmaster Posts: 74 Joined: 18 Oct 2003 Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2003 9:50 pm
drmlanc wrote: I am disappointed with Conder. The fresh challenge was to challenge Conder on what he says about Peshitta primacy. Yet, he now sends an email to everyone implying that Paul is the one who doesn't want to debate. Conder, you have lost my respect.
Chris, this paragraph is from the Peshitta.org Preface page at:
http://www.peshitta.org/initial/preface.html
Disclaimer: This translation is not sanctioned by the Church of the East. This is a personal translation only, and all readers are encouraged to verify the work on their own. This translation has not been edited nor verified by anyone other than the author (who does not have official sanction for this work) and is likely to have numerous errors.
So unless you speak Aramaic, you have to trust the Lamsa translation (which both you and Mr. Younan say can't be trusted due to it's numerous errors), or you trust Mr. Younan's translation, which his very own disclaimer says can't be trusted. Do you propose that the entire Christian world learn to read Aramaic? If not, then what is the purpose of debating whether or not the NT was originally penned in Aramaic? It still wouldn't be available to the Christian public at large in an uncorrupted format would it?
I don't speak for Mr. Conder, but I would bet that he simply finds no benefit in debating this one singular issue, what language the entire NT was penned in, especially since the question "Was the Aramaic version God breathed" is off the table per Mr. Younan's very tight limitations.
Why do you think Mr. Younan desires to keep this question of the utmost importance in the "off limits" box? What could possibly be the purpose of proving whether or not the Aramaic was the original if it can't be shown that it is God's word? I think a more interesting debate would be "Did William Shakespeare really write the works attributed to him?"
I would for the sake of argument GRANT you that the Aramaic was the original. And with that being granted, I would gladly debate Mr. Younan on the question, "Is the Aramaic NT the Word of God". But he won't take that challenge will he? Of course not. He'd be a fool to do so.
Regards,
Steve Duff
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:05 PM
Subject:
Re: Hi Darrel
Mr. Conder, Do you stand by the following statements you made? If so, this is precisely what I would like to debate you about.
Have a wonderful evening, Paul Younan
----- Original Message -----
Good morning! Yes, I stand by this. However, the central issue (for which this excerpt was written), is if the NT is God's word. I will gladly accept your challenge on the below issue, but if you demonstrate the superiority of the Peshitta, then are you willing to debate its divine inspiration, considering this question goes directly to the core reason for human existence?
To begin, I need to be instructed about using your forum. I also need a statement from you giving permission to copy the debate for use on my web page.
Regards,
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:52 AM
Subject:
Re: Hi Darrel
DWC
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Cc: paul@peshitta.org
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 10:49 AM
Subject:
Re: Hi Darrel
Dear Mr. Conder, Good morning to you!
I understand that your central focus is not on which language the NT was originally penned in, nor subsequently whether or not the Greek NT is a translation of the Aramaic NT known today as the Peshitta. As you probably know by now, our website and mission is limited in scope to this topic, for very good reasons too lengthy to list right now. Having said that, I do not wish to continue in debating other topics with you. There are many who are infinitely more capable than I who are already doing that type of thing. In fact, it may be beneficial for you to consider me an agnostic for the purposes of this debate. I am only interested in debating the primacy of the Aramaic New Testament, and not whether it is inspired—nor do I wish to debate the core reasons for human existence. In fact, during the debate I will use no theology whatsoever. It will be purely scientific linguistics and I will only use sound logic and reasoning.
I will be happy to instruct you on the use of the forum, if the above is acceptable to you. You may copy the debate for use in any way you wish, as long as the content is available in its entirety. If not—that at least a link is made back to the original debate where the entire thing will be available to anyone who wishes to reference it.
I thank you for your attention.
Have a great day!
Paul Younanc
----- Original Message -----
Hello Paul. I have always insisted that I be allowed to make comments or ask questions in any debate in which I was a participant. Because you insist that this not be allowed, and that I may only ask questions which you deem appropriate, then there can be nothing for us to debate. Perhaps my thoughts on this tactic are better expressed by the e-mail I sent to some of my supporters, and your friend Chris, this morning. I reproduce it here as a courtesy to you.
Regards,
----------------------- Good morning Laurel, Steve, Sharon, Lawrence, Sedeq and you too Chris. Here's a new one: A Christian teacher who's not interested in the contents of his "holy book" (what Jesus allegedly said, or didn't say), but only in the original language—which, he admits on his page, he doesn't completely understand, and is subject to translation error! Speaking of his followers, this gives a new meaning to the Christian expression, "sheep."
If he had agreed to debate, I would have liked Paul Younan to have explained why Jesus, who supposedly is God, gave the world the wrong translation for the past 2,000 years, and then sat up in heaven on the right hand of his father watching all the wars, death and destruction in his name because of that wrong translation, and why he has just now raised up Paul Younan and company to bring the "truth" to a hand full of Internet faithful?
Paul, think of the billions of sincere Christians who've lived, trusted and died (read tortured on the rack, fed to the lions, etc.) in the wrong faith because Jesus waited until 2003 to raise up you and your supporters! But even now Jesus still seems to be confused. I say this Paul because he inspired you to write this: Disclaimer: This translation is not sanctioned by the Church of the East. This is a personal translation only, and all readers are encouraged to verify the work on their own. This translation has not been edited nor verified by anyone other than the author (who does not have official sanction for this work) and is likely to have numerous errors. http://www.peshitta.org/initial/preface.html
Gee Paul, if we can't trust you, and, at least according to Chris Lancaster, we can't trust the other versions of the Peshitta (read Lamsa), then what are you asking of your followers? To whom do we turn? We can't turn to Jesus because he's still blessing those nasty Greek-inspired NT believers and their work, judging by their unfathomable wealth, worldwide publicity, and the nearly half billion converts.
I'll prepare a statement about Paul's refusal and send it to the group, along with a link to his page. As a personal comment, I will add that this is typical of what I've faced for the past 10 years: Christians who talk the talk, but who always find some excuse to walk away when it comes to defending the corruption found in the text of their "holy" bible—and that includes Paul's "holy" Peshitta. I would be pleased to take his translation, or Lamsa's or any other, and debate the issues thereof. But of course Paul says he's not interested in what it says, only in how it was written.
dwc
PS: Paul, the next time you are working on your new inspired translation, how about giving this verse some consideration: I Thes 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
From: Darrell Conder
To: pyounan@comcast.net
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:22 PM
Subject: Debate
Darrell Conder
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 9:45 PM
Subject:
Re: Debate
Dear Darrell, I do respect your wishes, but I am of course disappointed.
Not so much so with your lack of interest in debate Aramaic primacy of the NT, but with your mischaracterization of what my intent is in limiting the scope of the debate. The scope was limited to certain comments you make about Aramaic primacy in general, and the Peshitta in particular, for very good reasons. I believe that once you made these statements publicly, then you should be able to defend them without resorting to any other topic.
That's the bottom line as I see it. Of couse I respect your wishes not to debate, as this may not be your cup of tea. Please realize that Christian Apologetics is not mine.
You made certain statements which you should defend when confronted with conflicting evidence, or challenged to a debate. I did not challenge you to debate the Old Testament, or anything else. I challenged you to a very specific debate about your own claims regarding the Peshitta. And that's fair game in any sincere person's mind.
I'm sorry you feel this way. I will notify the forum participants that the debate will not be taking place per your refusal of the conditions, and that I will instead refute the comments you made in your book, one by one, on my forum.
Regards,
Paul Younan
----- Original Message -----
Paul, Chris came to me with a challenge, which he said was a no-win situation for me. Here's part of that original challenge:
You will notice that the above certainly does not limit the discussion to the primacy of the Peshitta. Chris boasts that the Peshitta is error-free, which, I assume, is a boast that you wouldn't dare make. I will stand by my eariler question to you, which is that if the NT is not God's word, then what matters the difference between the Greek or Aramaic?
As to my statements about the Peshitta, which are historical in nature, I quote from some respected authorities on the matter. As I've not dug around in the sands of the Middle East, nor have I a degree in ancient linguistics, I must leave it to the experts at the Encyclopedia Britannica, et. al. Personally, I have more faith in their research than in yours, meaning no disrespect.
Keep the faith if you must; as me and my house we shall trust in the lord of logic.
Regards,
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 9:22 AM
Subject:
Re: Debate
Mr. Conder, it struck me hard to see that you started your great crusade against Christianity because of the infallible Greek Bible. You are correct. It is a joke. It is full of errors and contradictions. AND variants! That is because it is NOT the original. The Aramaic Peshitta precedes it and lacks the errors and contradictions and is filled with beautiful poetry and word plays.
DWC
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 8:35 PM
Subject:
Re: Debate
Dear Darrell,
You publicly portray yourself as a free-thinker, therefore I would imagine that you wouldn't take the word of anyone as infallible, and would much rather examine the evidence for yourself and make up your own mind. The statements you made are your own words and not taken from an encyclopedia. Therefore the honorable thing for you to do would be to defend yourself when challenged.
Well, what will it be? If you want to debate the view you have of the Peshitta, then I am happy to do so...in a spirit in which I think I may help you learn something. I'm not out to "win" or to publicly expose your lack of knowledge in that area. It is obviously a mis-match—because I am a speaker of the language, and you are not. My intentions are only to prove Aramaic primacy and hope that you revise your view, not to "win".....let alone to convert you to Christianity.
It's up to you, of course. But in the end I hope you do the noble thing and defend your statements—if you stand by them and are confident enough in them, with an open mind to refine your position if shown evidence to the contrary.
Note: I'm not asking you to revise your view of the inspiration of the bible.
Peace, Paul
----- Original Message -----
Good morning Paul. I'm surprised that you write, considering all the things being tossed out against me on your forum. I thought I had become the villain of the hour on Peshitt.org?
Why don't you present the portion of my writings you find objectionable, and send me your corrections. I will seriously consider your presentation and send an answer. You may then post these exchanges on your site, as will I. Is this fair enough?
Regards,
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject:
Re: Debate
Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:33 PM
Subject:
Re: Debate
Good evening Conder. That sounds great, I will send you one topic from your own writing at a time, present evidence to you of the contrary—and then wait for your answer. You may, obviously, do as you wish with the exchanges as I will also post them on my website in an article format, as well as in the forum in real-time as the dialogue progresses.
Thank you for your re-consideration, and I'm sorry that there was any unintentional confusion on both of our parts about what the debate terms are. I am glad that you are willing to defend your position, and for your apparent willingness to seriously consider the alternate view with a willingness to refine your position on this matter.
Peace, Paul
----- Original Message -----
Hello Paul, I'm wondering why I can't access your web site? I registered yesterday, but still receive a message that I have an inactive user name, etc. If you are still wanting an exchange on the Peshitta, I will have need to access your site.
Regards,
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 5:35 PM
Subject: Your site
Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject:
Re: Your site
Hello Darrell, I have just gotten back to town myself from a fishing trip, and see that you have registered. Although I have no problem turning your account on, and will do so if you desire it—I would strongly suggest that you do not post on the forum for your own sanity's sake. The events which transpired with a couple of your associates left a bad taste in many people's mouth.
Likewise, since the forum is heavily moderated to screen out anything not relating to Aramaic primacy in general, and the Peshitta in particular, you may dislike it. Especially since there are many moderators, and any one of them will delete posts that are off-topic. Having said that—I rather like your suggestion of email exchanges that we can both post to our web sites. You suggested this in the last email, and I personally feel that it would work best. But again, if you wish to post to the forum—please let me know and I will turn on your user account. But don't say I didn't warn you. =)
Peace, Paul
----- Original Message -----
Hello Paul. My intention is not to post on your forum, but to read your articles and research to help answer your points. Hopefully this is not a problem.
Regards,
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:18 AM
Subject:
Re: Your site
Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 6:07 PM
Subject:
Re: Your site
Hi Darrell, But giving away my ammunition before you even answer the first email I sent to you seems kind of self-destructive to me, don't you think? I would be very interested in receiving a reply to the email in which I believe that I scientifically and logically demonstrated that you used dated material in your attempt to portray the Peshitta as a post-Nicene version.
Besides, I supplied ample references to distinguished peer-reviewed journals and books from leading authors in the field. These should suffice as reference for you to either contest my position or to accept it and revise yours.
If you are a reasonable person, and I have every reason to believe that you are, then you should publicly retract your original statement for the sake of the truth you so often speak of. Regards, Paul
----- Original Message -----
Paul, my research, to which you have unlimited access, is there for the world to see. But you are saying that your research, which you proudly boast is "the truth", is off limits except to your faithful sheep. What I suspect is that you don't want me to see the anti-Conder posts now littering your forum.
I will answer you e-mail stating your objections to my writings, but if I can't have access to your web site, then it will be the last exchange. I have no time for Christian games, whether they are conducted in Aramaic or Greek.
Regards,
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:21 AM
Subject:
Re: Your site
Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 5:59 AM
Subject:
Re: Your site
Hi Darrell, I don't really care if you see the anti-Conder posts, as you call them, on my forum. They are non-existent, actually—since I cleaned up everything I could find after that bad exchange with Beach and Lamb—and I do not allow any personal attacks on anybody. Posts which are uselessly attacking somebody get deleted immediately. But if you want access.....here you go........all the access you want.
Now please answer my last email! I don't want to stray off course here! The objections to your statements regarding the Peshitta is the only qualm I have with you. Like I said, I don't want this thing to blow up into a full-fledged anything-goes debate....I could care less about that stuff, as I've stated previously. You should care about presenting the most factual information you possibly can if you want to speak of truth!
Now please answer! Have a great day, Paul
The Questions Submitted by Paul Younan:
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:38 PM
Subject: Burkitt and the Rabbula Hypothesis
Dear Darrell, In your writing you cited the Encyclopedia Britannica, in which you quote: Encylopedia Brittanica wrote: Rabbula's revision is now used by both the great divisions of the Syriac-speaking Church: to distinguish it from the elaborate later revision of the (Jacobite) Old and New Testament it is usually called Peshitta, i.e. the simple version . . .
First thing I would like to point out to you is that the Encyclopedia Britannica is very dated in regards to Syriac~Aramaic studies. I would like to give you a little historical background on the historic division of the Syriac~Aramaic speaking churches, which is a topic I am well-versed in since I belong to one of those two major traditions.
In 431 A.D., the coucil of Ephesus was held in the Roman empire to address a theological dispute which arose concerning the title given to Mary, "Mother of God." This coucile condemned a man by the name of Nestorius, who was a Greek and the Patriarch of Constantinople, for refusing to us that title and referring to Mary as the "Mother of Christ" instead. ( for a detailed treatment, see the minutes from Pro Oriente at http://www.pro-oriente.at/ ) The decisions of this council reached the Church in the Persian Empire (a.k.a, the "Church of the East") shortly thereafter and they categorically rejected the decrees this council made. This isolated the Church of the Persian empire theologically from it's sister Aramaic-speaking churches in the Roman empire for the first time in history. The Aramaic church within the boundaries of the Romans came was later nicknamed "Monophysite", and the Church of the East in Persian was later nicknamed "Nestorian", even though they had nothing to do with Nestorius.
This caused a major break in relations and the churches from that point. Rabbula, who was bishop in Edessa during 411-435, sided with the Monophysites. In and around Edessa the theological strife raged hotly. He was hated by the "Nestorians" because he persecuted them relentlessly, so much so that he earned the nickname "The Tyrant of Edessa." (c.f., Han J. W. Drijvers in Journal of Early Christian Studies 4.2 (1996) pp 235-248 , Johns Hopkins University Press.) Needless to say, even till today these two communities (the "Syriac Orthodox Church, Monophysite" and the "Church of the East, Nestorian") are hostile to one another.
At the turn of the 20th century, a textual scholar by the name of F. C. Burkitt , a Professor Of Divinity at Cambridge, revised the early date of the Peshitta and theorized that it was the work of Rabbula. (see Journal of Theological Studies 36(1935), 225-254, 337-346.) This soon became the standard position adopted by most textual scholars. It is, in fact, Burkitt's very own hypothesis that the Encyclopedia Britannica is citing in the quote you provided. Since then, the hypothesis of Burkitt has been thoroughly answered and disproved by Arthur Voobus of the Lutheran School of Theology and the University of Chicago.
In a series of special studies (1947-54), Voobus argued not only that Rabbula was not the author of the Peshitta but that he did not even use it. (c.f., lnvestigations into the Text of the New Testament used by Rabbula of Edessa, Pinneberg, 1947. Researches on the Circulation of the Peshitto in the Middle of the Fifth Century, Pinneberg, 1948. Neue Angeben Ueber, die Textgeschicht-Zustande in Edessa in den Jahren ca. 326-340, Stockholm, 1951. Early Versions of the New Testament. Stockholm, 1954.) Concerning Burkitt's hypothesis, Voobus writes: Arthur Voobus wrote: "This kind of reconstruction of textual history is pure fiction without a shred of evidence to support it" (Early Versions of the New Testament, Estonian Theological Society, 1954, see pp. 90-97)
To this reseach by Voobus, Dr. Bruce Metzger adds: Bruce Metzger wrote: The question who it was that produced the Peshitta version of the New Testament will perhaps never be answered. That it was not Rubbula has been proved by Voobus's researches. . .In any case, however, in view of the adoption of the same version of the Scriptures by both the Eastern (Nestorian) and Western (Jacobite) branches of Syrian Christendom, we must conclude that it had attained a considerable degree of status before the division of the Syrian Church in AD 431. (Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (New York: Claredon, 1977), p. 36).
Both sides claim the Peshitta as Holy Scripture and their official version, even till today. Such unanimous acceptance is unthinkable if the leader of one side (the Monophysite "Tyrant of Edessa") had created it. Since this division took place in Rabbula's time and since Rabbula was the leader of one of these two sects, how could his opponents (the "Church of the East") have adopted his creation? Regarding the universal adoption of the Peshitta as the official version of both branches of Aramaic Christendom, Edward Hills writes: Edward Hills wrote: It is impossible to suppose that the Peshitta was his (Rabbula's) handiwork, for if it had been produced under his auspices, his opponents would never have adopted it as their received New Testament text. (The King James Version Defended, 1956; Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 172-174p.174).
It must have been that the Peshitta was a very ancient version and that because it was so old the common people within the Aramaic Church continued to be loyal to it—regardless of the factions into which they came to be bitterly divided after 431 A.D.—precisely during the episcopate of Rabbula. I therefore respectfully submit that you do not quote the dated material in question from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. The Peshitta was not the creation of Rabbula. I eagerly await your answer.
Peace,
Paul Younan
----- Original Message -----
Darrell Conder Answers Paul Younan
Paul, let me begin by complimenting you for living down to my expectations. Whether a Greek-New Testament believer, or one who extolls the supremacy of the Aramaic, you've proved that Christians are all cut from the same cloth. I refer to your friend Chris challenging me to a debate on your behalf, followed by the non-stop anti-Conder mud slinging on your forum, the rules you demanded that effectively stacked this exchange in your favor, and you booting my supporters from your forum and locking me out, even though I had never posted anything there. As you will soon see, none of this will matter. Greek or Aramaic, mud-slinging and underhanded tactics, the truth about your dead, diapered god on a stick and his corrupt book is easily found, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
From my history of the New Testament, you take exception to this quotation from the 14th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Rabbula's revision is now used by both the great divisions of the Syriac-speaking Church: to distinguish it from the elaborate later revision of the (Jacobite) Old and New Testament it is usually called Peshitta, i.e. the simple version . . ."
You failed to cite the whole quotation from the Encyclopedia Britannica, which I will correct: "The mss. differ considerably in reading, and each has certainly been influenced by the Diatessaron [of Tatian], so that in Syriac-speaking lands about A.D. 400 the Gospel was extant as a Harmony and as 'separated Gospels,'. . . the single copies having many discordant readings, just as had been the case in Latin before Jerome. To remedy this, Rabbula, bishop of Edessa from 411 to 435, prepared a revised edition of the 'Separated Gospels,' freely correcting the text from Greek mss. such as were then current at Antioch: this edition he established by authority and suppressed the Diatessaron with such success that no Syriac copy of the Diatessaron survives, and of the unrevised version only Syr. S and C. Rabbula's revision is now used by both the great divisions of the Syriac-speaking Church: to distinguish it from the elaborate later revision of the (Jacobite) Old and New Testament it is usually called Peshitta, i.e. the simple version . . . The Peshitta has only the value of a post-Nicene revision." (14th ed., vol. 3, p. 517.)
Paul, neither of us are scholars. For our arguments, we have to rely on the work of men and women with a lifetime's experience in their respective fields. You criticize my sources as outdated, and false. You back this with a quotation from Dr. Bruce Metzger, who, I conceded, is a respected scholar in most Christian circles. The problem with your source is that Dr. Metzger is commenting on a subject for which there is no conclusive evidence, which means that he is offering his opinion based on the circumstantial arguments of others. This aside, you surely know that for every scholarly opinion there's another scholar waiting in the wings willing and ready to dispute. This is especially so in Christian studies.
Your dogmatic claim that Rabbula was not the translator of the present-day Peshitta is by no means certain, as we may ascertain from The Encyclopedia of Religions (edited by Mircea Eliade, New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995, vol 2, pp. 170-171), and other current religious references. But let's cut through this. I don't give a hoot who translated your "holy" book of mythology. Whether it was Rabbula or Donald Duck the results are the same! The Peshitta's history as outlined in The Encyclopedia of Religions, The Oxford Companion to the Bible (which is edited by your noted scholar, Dr. Bruce Metzger, p. 753), The Encyclopedia Americana, International Edition (Danbury, Conn.: 2002, vol. 5, pl 696), The Dictionary of the New Testament Background, editors Craig A. Evans, Stanley E. Porter (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2000, pp. 1154, 55), does not disprove Rabbula's authorship, nor prove it, which makes the origin of your "blessed" Peshitta an enigma shrouded in mystery, all of which makes a shambles for your claim for Aramaic primacy for the NT. But, I suspect you know this because by pointing out the minor point about Rabbula, you cloud the real issue.
Notice this from The Dictionary of the New Testament Background: "Diatessaron of Tatian. This harmony of the Gospels produced by Tatian about A.D. 170 became the Gospels of the Syriac-speaking church from the late second century until the mid-fifth century, when it was finally suppressed through the efforts of Rabbula, the bishop of Edessa . . . Besides the four Greek Gospels, Tatian apparently used a West Aramaic Gospel, as evidenced by the use of West Aramaic vocabulary . . . Old Syriac Gospels. Sometime in the third century, a Syriac scholar with a mediocre knowledge of Greek made an attempt to render the Greek Gospels into Syriac. He preserved much of the Diatessaron and followed it in using the OT Peshitta for OT quotations. It is represented by two manuscripts, the Curetonian and the Sinaitic. . . . New Testament Peshitta. Probably in the fourth century, another, more successful, attempt at rendering the Greek Gospels into Syriac was made. The translator used the four Greek Gospels and a revised text of the Diatessaron. He too followed Tatian in using the OT Peshitta for his OT quotations. . . . The NT Peshitta lacks 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Early manuscripts omit Luke 22:17-18." (op. cit.)
Here's another quotation: "In due course, the rather free translation of the Old Syriac was revised on the basis of an early form of the Koine, or Byzantine, Greek text; this revision, eventually called the Peshitta (to distinguish it from the Harclean), emerged ca. 400 to become the standard New Testament text of the Syriac churches. The Peshitta covers the whole New Testament, apart from 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation (none of which formed part of the early Syriac canon)." Paul, this information is from Dr. Bruce Metzger, whom you quote (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, op. cit.), and reveals something of importance to a Jesus-loving, bible believing Christian, which you seem to be: Someone left out significant portions of "God's holy word" when they produced your Peshitta—an act that is condemned in your Peshitta: "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his portion from the tree of life and from the holy city and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev. 22:19, Lamsa edition.) In other words, the missing books from your bible, combined with Revelation 22:19 proves that whoever translated your "holy book" could not have been inspired by Jesus Christ, or whatever you call this dead god in your Aramaic tongue.
Paul, the issue is not Rabbula, and you know it. He is a minor point. The issue is the language behind the Peshitta, which is Greek, and that leads us to the admitted fact that those MSS are a cesspool of contradictions! This is the consensus of current scholarship, as of 2002, and 2000. By the way, Paul, you will notice that history tells us, prior to the translation of the Peshitta, that the Eastern Christian churches were only using the Gospels, which makes a mockery of Jesus' command that Christians are to live by every word of God!
The entire history of the Peshitta, as outlined in any thorough, authoritative work, reveals the origins of the Peshitta to be anything but "holy." However, there is one thing of which we can be sure, and that is the petty bickering among your church's "holy" men over this "divine" book. I refer to the great schism in your church back in the fifth century which produced the Nestorians and the Jacobites, both groups coming out with their own version of Peshitta, which, by that time, was already a Greek-into-Aramaic mess. Paul, how do you explain this in light of the following promise: "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, and he is in all churches of the saints." (I Cor 14:33, Lamsa edition)? If you believe that the bible is inspired, then you need only look at history to prove that your god of peace and harmony does not dwell in the world's thousands of conflicting Christian churches, which certainly includes your Church of the East!
Of course, I'm using George Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, which I understand you denounce as corrupt (according to your compatriot, Chris Lancaster). You know what this means Paul? God must not have been with George Lamsa. Or, God is not with you, since you disagree with Lamsa (and, as we shall see in your disclaimer, your own church) and I Cor 14:33 condemns this! None of this bodes well for you and your fellow Aramaic enthusiasts considering the following command: "Now I beseech you, my brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be of one accord, and let there be no divisions among you but be perfectly united in one mind and in one thought." (I Cor 1:10, Lamsa's Peshitta translation). The King James Version reads: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."
Even if we concede that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, history tells us that the oldest Aramaic MSS were endlessly revised by unknown hands over the course of centuries, and when someone, or a group of your "holy" men, decided that the jumble had to be cleaned up, he or they produced the later MSS from which you now work your own brand of translating magic. More to the point, where did they get the MSS from which they worked? Again, history tells us it was from the jumble of fourth-fifth century New Testament Greek MSS, which is still the scholarly consensus, including Dr. Bruce Metzger.
Actually Paul, I must confess to wondering why you don't accept Lamsa's translation work, since in the preface he and his work are lauded by Mar Eshia Shimun, "by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East in 1957"—who also takes the occasion to make the absurd statement that the Peshitta had come from the hand of the "blessed Apostles themselves" and handed down to him "without any change or revision"? I say "absurd" because the MSS used for Lamsa's translation work were produced 300-600 years after the time of the "blessed Apostles themselves", which means that old Mar Eshia Shimun was blowing hot ecclesiastical air since he had no evidence to back his statement! (I use the past-tense when speaking of the grand poobah of the East in 1957, since I assume that he has long departed to be with his dead god.)
Paul, I assume can you appreciate the confusion of those long-dead translators, since you posted the following disclaimer when offering up your own translation of the Peshitta:
Bleedin' Jesus, Paul! Out of your own mouth comes the truth about the Peshitta! What we see here is a mirror of what you "holy" men have been doing for the past 5,000 years—purporting to speak for God. "Everyone else is wrong; follow me; I've got the truth; I've got the word of God!" How many billions of Chris Lancasters have followed such "holy" rhetoric to their doom? To put it simply Paul, I Corinthians 1:10 and 14:33 condemns you and your work, and the work of all those Peshitta charlatans who've gone before!
Let me ask you this: Why didn't your god simply make one perfect book for his creation? Why didn't he make it so simple that a babe could understand it? Why didn't he use some of his omnipotent magic to ensure its transmittal in the original language, and then make sure that language survived so that we wouldn't need you "expert" translators to tell us what the hell it says? I'll tell you why: Your god is no god, but a first-century A.D. man who is as dead as a door nail.
You write this to me: "It must have been that the Peshitta was a very ancient version and that because it was so old the common people within the Aramaic Church continued to be loyal to it—regardless of the factions into which they came to be bitterly divided after 431 A.D.—precisely during the episcopate of Rabbula."
What do you mean "It must have been that the Peshitta was a very ancient version"? Am I to accept your word for this—you, who are undertaking your own error-laden translation of an obscure, corrupt Aramaic translation of obscure, corrupt Greek MSS? Sorry Charlie, that won't do! The oldest MSS of the Peshitta dates from A.D. 463-464, which can't compare to the surviving Greek MSS of the New Testament (as corrupt as they are), and the scholarly consensus is that your "holy" book originated from translated Greek MSS. If I am wrong, then point me to the 30-40 A.D. Aramaic prototype. If you can't, then you are blowing hot air.
Speaking of "holy," let me ask you something here: In one of your posts to Laurel Browning you claim that God opened the womb of your barren wife after the grand poobah of the East prayed over her, and how that inspired you to go out and preach the superiority of the Peshitta over the Greek New Testament. I take it from this that you are a believer in Jesus Christ. I take it you believe he sits up in heaven directing human affairs, and especially directing the affairs of his church. Paul, why has your god failed so miserably to keep his holy word from corruption, especially since he supposedly commanded his faithful to live by "every word of God"? (Mat 4:4, Luke 4:4, etc.) Indeed, why has he allowed the Greek MSS to dominate the Christian Church for the past two thousand years, and, as a result, sent billions down the wrong road to salvation? If he is a fair, just god, and he is the same god who designed and created all things (John 1:1-3), then isn't he powerful enough to keep his holy word pure from the likes of the Roman/Greek church fathers, or from Rabbula, or indeed, from you, Paul Younan, and your own corrupt Aramaic translation? Or could it be that Jesus, who is the god of the Old Testament, sent his lying-spirit-servants to "inspire" his NT writers and translators? After all, he did this in the Old Testament so that he could torture and murder the confused recipients of his lies—a situation that certainly sums up the history of the Christian Church in both the East and the West! Oh, forgive me Paul, you had ruled that the Old Testament was off limits in this exchange, which means "every word of God" is not in your debating vocabulary.
To end this, I challenge you, Paul Younan, to quit hiding behind your translation smoke screen, and debate me on the real issue: Is the Peshitta the word of God, or is it from the pens of nameless, faceless Greek-inspired, Aramaic-speaking 1,500-year-old translator-corpses? How about it? Do you dare open the pages of your Peshitta to expose the truth?
P.S. I will add the following footnote to my New Testament history: It has been pointed out by an amateur Aramaic student (Paul Younan of www.Peshitta.org) that since the 14th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was published, some current New Testament scholars doubt Rabbula's work on the Peshitta. He is, in fact, correct. Although there is no solid evidence, circumstantial evidence has led many to suppose other, obscure hands produced the current edition of the Peshitta, while other scholars still hold that Rabbula was the translator. This author's opinion is thus: History shows that Rabbula was the driving force behind the thorough suppression of the Diatessaron of Tatian, which, if viewed logically, means he must have had another version ready to promote in its place, whether or not he was its translator. Nevertheless, I thank Paul for pointing out this minor update in the on-going Christian soap opera.
Darrell W. Conder for www.darrellwconder.com
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 9:22 PM
Subject: Debate
"This translation is not sanctioned by the Church of the East. This is a personal translation only, and all readers are encouraged to verify the work on their own. This translation has not been edited nor verified by anyone other than the author (who does not have official sanction for this work) and is likely to have numerous errors."
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: Debate
Dear Darrell, Thank you for your reply. As much of it had nothing to do with the original point about Rabbula, it will suffice for me to say that I appreciate your footnote which states that the material in question was dated and inaccurate, according to the position of most pre-eminent linguistic scholars today.
I would like to continue on with this debate, if you will. I will not be sidetracked with your amatuerish attempts to draw me into a larger debate that I did not intend. I can understand your reasoning for attempting to do so, but realize that it will not work. Even if you publicly insult my wife. Your words speak volumes about your character, and I will let the readers decide for themselves what your intent was in even bringing that up in this debate which was supposed to be limited to your false claims regarding the Peshitta. You're not going to pull me into a wider debate, no matter how hard you try—so please, give it up!
Now that I have demonstrated that Rabbula did not produce the Peshitta, and even have you admitting that its production and transmission is clouded in mystery—I believe we can move on to another common misconception. As for Tatian's Aramaic Diatesseron being completely wiped out by Rabbula (who lived in the 5th century), are you willing to stand by that statement?
Regards,
Paul Younan
----- Original Message -----
Hello Paul.
First let me comment that nothing I said in my reply was directed to your wife. I am happy that you and she were finally able to have children. Any off-color words in my statement were directed to your church's leader. I have no respect for him, or any other purported man of God. You lecture me about character? I would have been much more polite in my response had you conducted yourself likewise prior to this exchange. After the anti-Conder messages I read on your forum, I concluded that the gloves had come off.
Yes, the material from the EB was somewhat dated. However, you have failed to prove that Rabbula did not have a hand in producing the Peshitta. In fact, logic would support the contention that he did. Of course, I know why you are so opposed to Rabbula's authorship of your Peshitta. If he was involved, it shoots a hole in the head of your primacy argument, and leaves it dead in the water.
You want to continue. I agree. But I insist that you answer my questions; after all, I answered your question about Rabbula. To use your own words: I will not be sidetracked with your amateurish attempts to draw me into a larger debate that I did not intend. My reason for accepting your initial challenge was to prove the bible as the word of God, or no. Later, you set forth rules banning any questions other than Greek versus Aramaic. What I'd like to know is why you are bothering to promote the Peshitta if you are not willing to prove it to be the word of God? Again I will make this offer: Prove to me that the bible is the word of God, and I will recant my stand and join with you in promoting the Peshitta. I will spend the rest of my life and all my resources undoing the damage I have done. I've made this offer countless time, and good Christian ministers and priests have boasted that my question are easily answered. To date, they've not done so. Of course, I give you credit for one thing: You run top speed from the real issue every time I confront you with it. That is the mark of a wise man.
To be blunt, I don't give a damned about your church's petty disagreements over the Peshitta's authorship, or language. Whoever wrote it, and whatever language they used, they were liars and cheats, and the damage they caused to humanity is beyond calculation. To hell with them, to hell with it, and anyone who promotes it as God's word. Here is the impetus for the work I do. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. If you don't have the nerve to take me on, then say so, and continue your worthless venture squabbling with Greek-bible-promoting Christians about language. In reality, you or they can't even prove that someone named Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke or John ever lived, let alone wrote a bible!
What's it to be Paul? Will you show me the error of my ways, or will you continue to hide behind your petty argument? If you continue your refusal to answer me, then I must content myself with Chris Lancaster, who has boasted that he will set me straight.
Regards,
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject:
Re: Debate
Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:08 PM
Subject:
Re: Debate
Hello Darrell, I'm not going to address the comments about my wife anymore after this reply, as it is readily apparent to anyone interested what your intentions were in making the comments to begin with. What on this earth has my wife have to do with your statements regarding Rabbula? Why even bring something like that up? When did I ever tell you or anyone else who was barren, whether it was myself or my wife? And what business was it of yours to even bring it up in a debate about Rabbula?
Paul, if your wife is no one's business, then why did you make the details of her barren state known to Laurel and Steve (complete with photos), who are my supporters? I used the example to illustrate that you are a supposed Christian who apparently doesn't believe in the bible, Peshitta or otherwise, because of your refusal to answer its contents. I've said nothing insulting about you wife, and if you don't want anyone to mention her, then leave her out of your public pro-Peshitta arguments.
You have constantly used any means necessary and at your disposal to mock, insult, stray off-topic and elicit a negative response from me. I have not insulted your person, the person of your family members or anyone else you care about. And you can be sure of my word that I will not ever do such a thing.
Once again Paul: I've not insulted your wife, so get off your soap box. The only insult I've thrown is to the leader of your "holy" faith, and your faith itself, which you have consistently refused to defend. And what do you mean you've never insulted my person? I have saved your forum posts, before you locked us all out, and I can cite some several choice examples, if you'd like specifics. This is one of the reasons I decided to take off the gloves when answering your challenge to me. (Have you ever heard that old Americanism, "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander"?)
I was earnestly looking forward to a professional, courteous and scholarly debate with you regarding Aramaic vs. Greek primacy of the New Testament. I was hoping to have a higher opinion of your intellect after the debate began than I did before it began. I have so far been presented with a cut-and-paste hodge-podge of encyclopedia articles and material from the internet. I have yet to recognize a single original thought of your own.
Another soap box speech, Paul? (Are you licensed to preach?) From the beginning of this challenge, you and your supporters have bashed me and my beliefs on your forum, from which I've once again been banned. In fact, let me illustrate my point here by including an e-mail from Laurel in response to my note to our group that you had locked me out of your forum:
This statement of Younan's is actually laughable referring to the "anti-Conder" posts on Mr. Younan's forum: "They are non-existent, actually—since I cleaned up everything I could find after that bad exchange with Beach and Lamb—and I do not allow any personal attacks on anybody. Posts which are uselessly attacking somebody get deleted immediately."
He doesn't allow any personal attacks on anybody? HA! Only if he thinks that the ones against whom the personal attacks are being made can't read what is being said about them! OR as long as the attacks are not against his "sheeple!" When we were members of the forum, I can assure you that the personal attacks were NOT deleted immediately!
The "bad" exchange to which Younan is referring is when his forum was engaging in slanderous speech before any proposed debate even got off the ground. Steve Duff was in there giving them heck for being dishonest, indiscreet and very unprofessional in misrepresenting the facts as to how the debate was initiated (THEY issuing a challenge to Conder instead of the other way around). I got my two cents' worth in one night when I was online at the same time two of Younan's supporters were continuing to call Darrell Conder a "chicken", a godless atheist, and other debasing names when they hadn't even had the courage to step up to the plate like men to deal with the issues at hand! I challenged them via the forum to come out from behind their "safe" environment and to disprove point-by-point the research which has been posted on darrellwconder.com. Of course, they then instead chose to turn on me, engaging in further debasing and belittling.
And all this time, Paul Younan won't even stand behind his Peshitta version of the NT as being the inspired "word of God!" Doesn't that speak volumes in and of itself?! Laurel So, cut the poor persecuted Christian rhetoric Paul. You don't know the first thing about being professional, courteous or scholarly. Moreover, you have repeatedly run from my questions, which were the basis of my accepting your original challenge. Again, in case you are having trouble comprehending this: I don't care if the Peshitta or the Greek is the "original" New Testament, or if Rabbula or Donald Duck wrote it. Is it, or is it not, the word of God? If it is, and you can prove it to be so, then I will repent and join your efforts to preach its primacy.A few things which Paul Younan forgot to clean up, however, when he was doing the "purging" on his forum, were the exchanges between he and his followers with name-calling and further mud-slinging when Younan THOUGHT I was locked out of his forum, but wasn't. He actually had titled one of the threads during that time, "The clowns have totally been locked out." On this thread, they continued to make slanderous remarks thinking that we weren't able to access the forum. In fact, they engaged in belittling and demeaning name-calling and most importantly, misrepresenting the facts of how the debate was approached and proposed before Darrell ever set foot on the forum and continued to do so when they thought they had locked all of us out. However, there was a space of about 4 hours one afternoon where I was able to regain access to posts which were going back and forth between them at which time the name-calling and base behavior continued unabated. (I don't think you ever even did post on that forum directly, did you, Darrell?)
You constantly portray yourself as someone who is willing to listen to the argument of someone of faith and, if convinced (whatever that means), you will become a "Christian" again and "undo" all the "damage" that you've "caused." I have said this before, and I say it again: Just as you're not going to convince me to renounce my faith, I'm not going to convince you to receive it. I have no intention to do any such thing. That's just not how it works.
That's real convenient for you Paul. What you are saying (for those of us who know the truth of the bible), is that you cannot answer my arguments, so you toss out little statements like this so that the Chris's of the world will continue their blind-faith adherence to the works of man.
How it works is this: if you make public statements, then you'd better be willing to defend them when challenged.
I agree Paul! So why in the hell won't you do it? I challenge you to prove your faith in Jesus Christ!
And since you have demonstrated yourself to be a somewhat reasonable person by admitting that the material you used was dated, I am convinced I can clear up some other misconceptions you apparently have picked up over the years from dated sources.
One more time here: If the Peshitta cannot be proved to be the word of God, its only value is that of historical curiosity. It has no relationship to human existence, except to demonstrate the folly of man and his superstitions. If it is the word of God, then here is an ex-Christian asking someone who has boasted its primacy, to show me the error of my ways ---- not some tail-chasing exercise boasting that your scholar is not as good as my scholar.
At the worst, you will have lost a little pride. At the best, you will have refined whatever arguments you wish to present.
Lost pride? Bleedin' Jesus, Paul! You're talking to an ex-minister of the Lord who has had to stand up in public and admit that he believed in and taught frauds and lies for 40-plus years!
I answered your questions in my post. Now, why not do the honest thing and answer my questions? It's really not hard to do --- if you have truth and God on your side.
Regards,
Darrell
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:30 PM
Subject:
Re: Debate
Hello Darrell, As I said in my previous post, I will no longer speak about any other issues. Do you care to continue the debate about Aramaic vs. Greek Primacy in a courteous and scholarly fashion, or not? A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. And to answer your question (as I have numerous times already): No. I do not wish to debate the inspiration of the N.T. with you.
Regards, Paul Younan
----- Original Message -----
Good evening Paul. I want you to reread an excerpt from Chris' original e-mail, followed by your own e-mail. Here is Chris' initial e-mail to me, boasting that he and you could prove the Peshitta to be error-free:
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:08 PM
Subject:
Re: Debate
----- Original Message -----
From: c l
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:37 PM
Subject: Invite to debate!
Hi Mr. Conder, I recently just sent you an email, inviting you to read the original Bible, with no errors. Now I extend to you an invitation to a debate. Not with me, but with Paul Younan, a renowned Aramaic expert and Christian.
He is eager to debate you, as am I, but as you are both very educated, I would just like to play the specatator so that I can learn off you both.
If you are interested, let me know, so I can arrange—it is likely a messageboard debate, with only you two allowed to post in that thread. And PLEASE do post the whole debate on your website also, as you did with the Rabbi.
Regards,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:06 PM
Subject: Hi Darrel
. . . . If you would like to debate the merit of the Aramaic New Testament, and how it may or may not clear up some or all of the objections you have formulated based on your experience with the various Greek translations, I would love to have you participate in a discussion about it on my forum. I have created a sub-category where only yourself and I may participate, so it will be civil and manageable.
Do you not see why I thought our exchange would be about the contents of the Peshitta? Later, you changed the rules, and then both you and Chris shifted the blame to me for rejecting this move.
Paul, I will continue the exchange, if you will stand by your and Chris' original challenge. A simple yes or no will suffice.
Regards,
DWC
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:33 PM
Subject:
Re: Debate
Good evening Darrell, There is no doubt that we started off on the wrong foot. I never intended to, nor did I ever, challenge you to debate the contents of the New Testament. If you read my words carefully, I said that I would like to show you how the Aramaic clears up many contradictions in the Greek NT. I cannot speak for what Christopher thought the debate would be about. However, I read nothing in his original email to you that makes me think that he meant an all-out debate on theological topics. Having said that, I can see how you easily misunderstood the terms of the debate.
How about we start out fresh?
If you believe that the NT was originally penned in Greek—I challenge you to a very specific scholarly, courteous and professional debate in which I believe I can demonstrate to you that the Aramaic text of the Peshitta is the ancestor to all the various families and texts of the Greek NT. Nothing more, nothing less.
If this interests you—great. If it doesn't, that's fine too. All I need is the word "no" from you, and I will delete all content on my website about you and our previous debate and it will be as if it never happened. That is my promise to you. You have my word on it.
I do hope you say "yes", though. Not because I want to "beat" you or "win" a debate. It's because I really think that you, as a free-thinker, will be able to see past all of the lies that traditional NT scholarship has shoved down our throats here in the West for the last 2,000 years.
NOTE: I do not want to debate the inspiration of the NT with you. How about it?
Regards,
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:19 PM
Subject:
Re: Debate
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:33 PM
Subject:
Re: DebateGood evening Darrell, There is no doubt that we started off on the wrong foot. I never intended to, nor did I ever, challenge you to debate the contents of the New Testament.
Yes, we did. This is the problem with go-betweens speaking on one's behalf.
If you read my words carefully, I said that I would like to show you how the Aramaic clears up many contradictions in the Greek NT.
I don't understand how the Aramaic can show me that, if the contents are off limits. Even if you can prove that the Aramaic is the original language of the NT, my questions over its contents remain.
I cannot speak for what Christopher thought the debate would be about. However, I read nothing in his original email to you that makes me think that he meant an all-out debate on theological topics.
Chris said that he invited me "to read the original Bible, with no errors", followed by an invitation to debate you. I think it reasonable on my part to assume that you were going to address my objections to the NT. Obviously my assumption was wrong.
Having said that, I can see how you easily misunderstood the terms of the debate. How about we start out fresh? If you believe that the NT was originally penned in Greek—I challenge you to a very specific scholarly, courteous and professional debate in which I believe I can demonstrate to you that the Aramaic text of the Peshitta is the ancestor to all the various families and texts of the Greek NT. Nothing more, nothing less.
Paul, as I stated, neither of us are scholars. I have to rely on the research of experts who have dedicated their lives to the New Testament. The bulk of these men and women have concluded that the NT was originally penned in Greek. If the NT was indeed written by the apostles of Jesus, then I could believe it, or part of it, was written in Aramaic. However, there is no evidence that the apostles mentioned in the Gospels ever lived, let alone wrote anything in the fourth decade of the first century. This is why I want to discuss specifics of the Gospel stories.
If this interests you—great. If it doesn't, that's fine too. All I need is the word "no" from you, and I will delete all content on my website about you and our previous debate and it will be as if it never happened. That is my promise to you. You have my word on it.
In my response to your questions, I raised a number of question other than those you deemed outside your rules. You brushed those off as "hodge-podge" quotations, or words to that effect. Why not go back and address those questions and observations, point by point? However, my focus is trying to get someone, anyone, to prove to me that my stand on the NT is in error by answering the massive contradictions I have found there. I understand that this doesn't interest you, so I will leave the point alone.
I do hope you say "yes", though. Not because I want to "beat" you or "win" a debate. It's because I really think that you, as a free-thinker, will be able to see past all of the lies that traditional NT scholarship has shoved down our throats here in the West for the last 2,000 years.
I can agree with that last observation. But don't you think that it is barely possible that your Eastern scholars have also failed, or have falsified research?
NOTE: I do not want to debate the inspiration of the NT with you. How about it? Okay. Please start by answering the questions in my last reply that do not deal with theology, but the Peshitta's history.Regards,
Paul
Likewise,
----- Original Message -----
DWC
From: Darrell Conder
To: Paul Younan
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: Paul Younan Answer
Hello Darrell,In your email, you asked me to take notice of this quotation from the Dictionary of the New Testament Background: Dictionary of the New Testament Background wrote: "Diatessaron of Tatian. This harmony of the Gospels produced by Tatian about A.D. 170 became the Gospels of the Syriac-speaking church from the late second century until the mid-fifth century, when it was finally suppressed through the efforts of Rabbula, the bishop of Edessa . . . Besides the four Greek Gospels, Tatian apparently used a West Aramaic Gospel, as evidenced by the use of West Aramaic vocabulary . . . "
There are numerous errors in this short quote, but I want to focus on just one of them right now (for simplicity's sake.)
Once again I want to state that neither of us are scholars. You and I use the work of others, who are supposed experts in their fields, as evidenced by the quotes you've offered in defense of your position.
This article states that Tatian (the Assyrian) used a "West Aramaic Gospel" as is evidenced by his use of "West Aramaic" vocabulary. My question to you is this: How exactly is it possible that we know what his Aramaic vocabulary was like....if no copies of his Aramaic Diatesseron are extant today? Remember, this very article states that Rabbula "suppressed" it. (That was a long time ago.)
You make a good point, Paul. How indeed? With that question in mind, how is it possible for you, or anyone else, to know what happened in those years? More to the point, how is it possible to trace your Peshitta back any further than this brick wall of history? Scholars have made their conclusions based on circumstantial evidence, legend and speculation, which (you and I both know) forms the bulk of Christian history from the fourth-fifth century back. This is an ominous revelation for those who have based their lives on, and have faith in the contents of the Peshitta or the jumbled Greek MSS.
Thank you for your time.
Now, let me ask you a question: What is the oldest existing manuscripts of the Peshitta?
Regards,
Paul
Likewise,
DWC
Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 7:43 PM
Subject: The Diatesseron's Peshitta Pedigree.
Good evening Conder. Almost every citation you have given me from dated Encyclopedias, commentaries on the New Testament and the like have unanimously and decisively declared that Rabbula, the Monophysite Tyrant of Edessa, "suppressed" the Diatesseron.
These "dated" encyclopedias, as you call them, are no more than 1-7 years old, and all seem to agree on the basics of the Peshitta. As I stated in previous exchanges, you and I must rely on the scholarship of others, most of whom, quite frankly, have spent their entire adult lives working on biblical Greek and Aramaic idioms and corresponding history. They publish involved, lengthy hypotheses about these insignificant things, which are immediately attacked and disputed by others who have themselves likewise published lengthy dissertations. Circles and tail-chasing while the bigger picture is ignored!
Paul, I have relied on the research of such people because they agree on the historical basics of both Greek and Aramaic New Testaments, even if each have their diverse pet theories. Certainly, your questions about the Greek New Testament are warranted, but of themselves only expose the tangle of New Testament history. All of this goes back to my original question: what difference does it all make if the contents are in dispute, by which I mean the question of divine inspiration?
If that is the case, can you please explain the following subscription to an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made in the 11th century by the Church of the East? Quote: Here endeth the Gospel which Tatianus compiled and named Diatessaron, i.e., The Fourfold, a compilation from the four Gospels of the holy Apostles, the excellent Evangelists (peace be upon them). It was translated by the excellent and learned priest, Abu'l Faáraáj ÔAbdulla ibn-at-Tayyib (may God grant him favour), from Syriac into Arabic from an exemplar written by Isa ibn-Ali' al-Motatabbib, pupil of Honain ibn-Ishaq (God have mercy on them both). Amen.
You offer me something from the eleventh century AD, over a thousand years from the time your bible was supposedly composed, and imply this is proof? Where is the evidence that the "gospel" in question can be traced to an Aramaic prototype? Abu'l Faaraaj OAbdulla ibn-at-Tayyib? Certainly we can expect someone from your faith to extol the history of their holy book. This statement is worthless, unless you and I are prepared to accept the assurances of popes and other "excellent and learned priest[s]" of Western Christianity as"proof" of Greek MSS primacy.
A little history is in order here. This is from an Arabic translation of the Diatesseron made by Ibn-at-Tayyib (died 1043). He is a well known man, a Church of the East monk and scholar who was secretary to Eliyah I, Patriarch of the Church of the East (c.f., Ciasca's Introduction, p. xi. f. and Steinschneider's Polemische and apologetische Lit. in Arabische Sprache, pp. 52-55). Honain ibn-Ishaq (also mentioned in the subscription) was a famous physician, a member of the Church of the East who is well known for his contributions to modern medicine.
Of this Arabic translation today we have 7 manuscripts which survive. Four of them happen to contain the subscription above. The most well-known manuscript is called the Borgian and it currently resides in the Vatican Library (and is listed in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.)
So here we have a translator living in the 11th century (a full 600 years after Rabbula died) who plainly states that he translated the Syriac (Aramaic) Diatesseron into Arabic. Paul, have you ever heard of someone lying to further their cause? And, need I remind you that throughout the history of the Christian Church, lies, murder and every other vices known to man had a permanent home? (Judging by what one hears on the news today, it still does!) Sorry, I will not accept the word of someone, with plenty of motivation to lie, as anything more than a historical curiosity—no more than I have accepted the assurances of the Western Christian Church's so-called holy men about their history.
Notice, also, that this is the only manuscript of the Diatesseron which explicitly states that it was translated from the Syriac (Aramaic) of the Diatesseron. No other manuscript makes this claim to translation from the Aramaic (not the Latin nor the Armenian.) I refer you to my previous statement.
Also, notice that the Arabic harmony begins with John 1:1, which we know to be the trademark of Tatian's harmony (c.f., bar-Salibi (12th century in Bib. Or., ii., Volume I pp. 59) who states "Its commencement was, `In the beginning was the Word."')
I thought Rabbula "suppressed" the Diatesseron? At least the dated materials you quoted from declare that he did. In fact, these are the words of Rabbula verbatim: Paul, the Dictionary of New Testament Background, and other quoted sources, are not "dated". Indeed, if what you've quoted is so authoritative, then why isn't it considered, or at least mentioned, in most contemporary New Testament dictionaries, encyclopedias and other source materials? Rabbula wrote: "Let the presbyters and deacons give heed that in all the churches there be provided and read a copy of the Distinct Gospel," i.e., not the harmonized or mixed gospel.
While it's possible that Rabbula had the power to suppress the Diatesseron in his little corner of the world called Edessa (in Byzantine territory), that hardly gives him the power to extend into Persia and destroy their copies of the Diatesseron, wouldn't you agree? So far, I've found nothing to support your statements. You offer me legend from the eleventh century. If I were ready to believe in legend and mythology, then I would have remained a Christian and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
In fact, you don't have to agree. The subscription to a 600-year later translation of the Aramaic Diatesseron proves your sources wrong. Rabbula did not suppress the Diatesseron—at least not in Persia where the Church of the East reigned independent of him and his rantings. No! What it proves in fact is that someone produced a Aramaic New Testament six hundred years after the fact, and penned a statement giving himself and it authority, you believe it, and I demand proof, which seems to be in short supply.
This Arabic translation so exactly matches the Peshitta AGAINST the Old Syriac, that your friend F.C. Burkitt (remember him?) found it necessary to make the unfounded charge that the text of the Arabic translation must have been tampered with to make it read like the Peshitta. You see, in his worldview the Peshitta couldn't have existed before Rabbula's time—so the Diatesseron (created ~175 A.D.) couldn't read like it against the so-called "Old Syriac." All this accusation, by the way, without a shred of evidence to support his theory (like his Rabbula theory which has already been disproved.) Again Paul, where's the proof for any of this? If what you claim so far could withstand scholarly scrutiny, then it would be readily available in the contemporary sources I cited. Legends, hypotheses and wars. Here is the stuff on which your church is founded.
It makes perfect sense that a harmony of the Gospels would necessarily require that the distinct 4 Gospels actually existed prior to the harmony. This is common sense. It makes ever more sense that an Aramaic harmony of the Gospels, which Tatian's Diatesseron was, was woven together from the 4 distinct Aramaic Gospels.
I agree. Logically, the Gospels would have to come first, if someone was trying to "harmonize" them. What it doesn't prove is whether these Gospels were written in Greek or Aramaic, which is a question raised in most contemporary New Testament dictionaries and encyclopedias. To be blunt Paul, what doesn't make sense here is your refusal to discuss contents. We could dispose of your arguments in short order if you would agree to discuss the gospel stories and their claims, instead of playing tag by quoting some "holy" man a thousand years after these stories were supposedly penned.
Of the 3 translation of the Aramaic Diatesseron (Latin, Armenian and Arabic) the Arabic is the only one which was made in a sister Semitic tongue. The relationship of Latin to Aramaic (or even Armenian to Aramaic) is like the relationship of Chinese to English. The relationship of Aramaic and Arabic is well documented, and one is the daughter of the other. Okay. I will accept this. Now, show me the original first century AD Aramaic manuscripts of the New Testament, and you will have a potential convert to your theories, although I will then want proof of the NT's divine origins.
And since the Arabic translation by Ibn-at-Tayyib is the only one we know for sure was made directly from the Aramaic, and since it reads like the Peshitta (so much so that it worried Burkitt), and since we know that a harmony necessitates a base of 4 distinct Gospels from which it must be drawn—I submit that Tatian's Aramaic Diatesseron was a harmony of the distinct Gospels in Aramaic we currently find today in the canon of scripture we know as the Peshitta.
We know nothing of the sort. You make this statement based on the word of some "holy" man whose life was dedicated to promoting the Christian myth. You augment this by offering your own hypothesis. Even if I could verify Ibn-at-Tayyib's history, which is likely impossible, I would still have to have faith in his words. Sorry, before I worship any of the ancient world's crucified savior-gods, I need more than the word of a priest, which is why I am no longer a Christian.
Occam's Razor is a logical principle which states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the best.
I believe I have explained the relationship of the Peshitta Gospels to the Diatesseron harmony in the simplest of terms. And "simple" happens to be one definition of the Aramaic word "Peshitta."
No. You have only raised more questions.
Regards,
DWC
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Paul Younan
Likewise,
DWC
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject:
Re: Debate
Hello Darrell,
You are correct, neither of us are scholars. I would be more than willing to stop quoting from scholarly resources if you are not impressed by that type of thing. I would be very happy to begin demonstrating to you that the Aramaic text as is it preserved in the Peshitta canon is the basis for the various Greek textual families and manuscripts. We must, however, get past these false and dated claims from various sources that Rabbula is the author of the Peshitta. If you would be willing to concede that the origin of the Peshitta is shrouded in mystery (I believe you had previously made a substantially similiar statement)—I can move on. Is that acceptable to you?
To answer your question—the oldest extant manuscript of the Peshitta dates from the early fifth century. There are a total of 350 manuscripts which read identically. Several of them date from the 5-6th centuries, and the oldest dates to around the 9th century. This is apart from the modern printed copies made by the Church of the East and other middle-eastern Christian communities.
In formulating your opinion of the age of the oldest extant manuscripts, please keep a couple of things in mind. In Semitic tradition, a biblical manuscript is not allowed to decay to the extent that it begins to fall apart. If a manuscript reaches that point, it is immediately buried or burned. This is done out of respect for the material contained therein. The Greek-based Christian community has no such tradition, hence the multitudes of fragments which are older than the oldest extant (and complete) manuscript of the Peshitta.
The second thing I would like for you to keep in mind is that, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls roughly 80 years ago—the oldest extant Hebrew copy of the Old Testament was the Aleppo Codex (also known as the "Leningrad Codex".) The age of that manuscript was circa 1000 A.D. Before the discovery of the DSS—the oldest copy of an OT was a Greek one. But nobody dared to claim that there was anything but a Hebrew original to the OT. I would like to remind you of the general tradition stated above—the reason why the Leningrad Codex was at one time the oldest extant Hebrew copy of the OT is because Semites do not allow their religious texts to decay. The same thing happened in the tradition of the Church of the East (who are also Semites), and this is a well-known fact. I would like to summarize by saying that a manuscript's age is not at all important. The material contained therein is the most important thing.
With your permission, I would like to begin to demonstrate the dependence of the Greek manuscripts on the original Aramaic text as preserved in the Peshitta. I will lay the two texts for you side-by-side, and the translation will stick out like a sore thumb. This will directly deal with your other question about how it is possible that I can go back farther in history with this text. No more scholarly quotes, I promise. From this point on you will be directly presented with evidence directly from the text itself, so you can judge for yourself.
Thank you for your time. Regards, Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Younan
To: Darrell Conder
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: The Diatesseron's Peshitta Pedigree.
Good evening Darrell,
You asked me for proof that Burkitt was worried about how the Arabic translation of Tatian's Diatesseron read exactly like the Peshitta, and how he charged without any basis that the text must have been tampered with. To this, I refer you to his own work entitled Evangelion de-Mepharreshe (2 Vols; Cambridge; University Press, 1904, 1.200) (you can pick up a copy here: http://www.gorgiaspress.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=GPB&Product_Code=1-59333-061-8&Category_Code=Series-JSC or at your local university library)
The point I'm trying to make here is that there is a false belief, based on ONE man's hypothesis (Burkitt, who else?), that Rabbula "suppressed" the Diatesseron around 430 A.D. But then 7 manuscripts are discovered—four of which have a subscription stating that it is an Arabic translation of Tatian's Aramaic Diatesseron. Most importantly, that it was made by someone who we know for a fact died in 1043 A.D. Not a no-name guy, either—Ibn-Tayyib was famous in his day. That's more than 600 years after Rabbula supposedly "suppressed" the Diatesseron.
You are a reasonable person. I think if you give a second look at this evidence, you will come to the logical conclusion that Rabbula suppressed the Diatesseron only where he could within his jurisdiction in Byzantium, but not in Persia where all evidence points to the Diatesseron's survival until at least 1043 A.D. I will be happy to supply you with any reference material you deem necessary about this translator and the Patriarch who commissioned his translation work.
I admire your ability to not be easily convinced—that's to your credit. But please be reasonable here. Why would somebody making an Arabic translation in the 11th century lie about the base text he was working with?
Regards,
Paul
[As noted, Chris Lancaster offered to debate Darrell Conder on the question of Peshitta infallibility. Darrell accepted this offer, and sent Chris the following e-mail, which is followed by Chris' reply.]
Good evening Chris. To start our debate, and to avoid any misunderstandings, I would like to ask three questions.
1) Do you believe that God is infallible?
2) Do you believe that the bible is the word of God?
3) Do you believe that his word (Aramaic, of course) is infallible?
Regards,
Darrell Conder
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Lancaster
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:41 PM
Subject:
RE: Hello
Good afternoon Mr. Conder, I am glad we are finally able to start.
1) Yes I believe that God is infallible.
2) Yes I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
3) Generally I believe so.
Chris, this is your answer in response to my question if you believe the bible is the infallible word of God? How can the bible "generally" be infallible? Either it is infallible, or it's fallible. If it is even partly fallible, then it cannot be the word of an infallible god, but is proven to be the word of men. (Deuteronomy 32:4: "For his works are perfect; and all his ways are just; he is a faithful God and without iniquity, just and upright is he." Num 23:19: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?")
However, there are a number of factors involved in my opinion on this matter. For instance, the issue of infallibility of "the Bible" is fairly recent. Many early "Jews" did not teach the Bible to be infallible. Furthermore, it is not always easy to determine which books belong in the Bible and which do not. It is perhaps easier with the New Testament, as two great opposing Churches, the Church of the East and the Roman Catholic Church, share 22 of the many disputed NT books. All these 22 (universally accepted as part of NT Scripture) are part of the Peshitta NT. Perhaps some books in "the Bible" were not intended to be part of "the Bible" and are not infallible. After all, many, many works have been written by Christians since Christianity began, and only a fragment have been "canonized". Complicating my opinion on this matter is how Paul the Apostle is seen in the New Testament to directly give Commandments of God, and at other times, giving advice from himself. And of course, the people who wrote the Bible were not infallible, nor the ones who translated and copied the Bible, giving us the versions we have now. But generally, I believe that the "main issues" of the Bible are never contradicted and especially Jesus' and God's words should be infallible. Ultimately, I believe that the true Word of God, as originally written, is infallible.
Chris, how are you able to make the above statements, and then claim infallibility for the bible? Furthermore, the infallibility argument is not "fairly recent". A simple examination of history will show that the Christian Church imprisoned, tortured and murdered untold thousands over the course of its disgusting, bloody history for daring to question even the smallest scriptural inconsistency. This point aside, I will ask you what I've asked so many others: You claim to believe in a supreme creator—the one who designed this awesome universe down to the last amoeba, brought it into existence and set it into motion with unimaginable power and splendor; you claim that he is to be worshiped as the supreme god, and that the instruction for that worship is contained in the book you call the Peshitta; and yet (you say) he allowed this word, by which humanity may obtain eternal life (and by no other means), to be corrupted by men—even though this flies in the face of the above quoted scriptures? You admit that you don't even know which writings belong in this "holy" book, and that the ones who wrote the bible were prone to error. I ask you this: Did not Jesus himself say that the word of God was given by God to his servants, and that this scripture cannot be broken? (John 10:34-35) Did not Jesus proclaim that both heaven and earth would pass before one "yoth or a dash" would be deleted from the word of God? In 2 Samuel 22:31 we read that God is perfect and his word is tried and true. Indeed, in 2 Peter 1:21 we read that this word was not of men, but given by the Holy Ghost—God's spirit, which means it must be infallible, or God's Holy Spirit is corrupt! But I say that if Jesus spoke the truth, and the bible came by means of God's Holy Spirit, then no translator or copyist monk could mistranslate or insert an error, which is a fact upheld by Hebrews 6:18 and Deuteronomy 32:4. It's that simple Chris. After all, if anyone of a thousand book printers in our day and age can produce an infallible text book, don't you think the one who designed and created the universe could do likewise and keep it error-free so that we humans may obtain eternal life from its pages?
For the purpose of this debate Chris, I will hold you to your original position that the Peshitta is the word of God—unless you want to opt out now by admitting that it is error-laden. If that is the case, then hopefully you will admit that no sane man or woman is under any obligation to seriously consider the bible as anything more than a man-made historical curiosity.
Assuming you will opt to continue the debate, my first question about this infallible book is this: Who wrote the book of Genesis?
Regards,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Darrell Conder
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:06 PM
Subject: Reply to Chris Lancaster
Hello Mr. Conder,I think you misunderstood me. I do believe that the true Word of God is infallible. I do not believe that the Greek is infallible, the Latin is infallible, the KJV is infallible etc. Copies and translations cannot be expected to be infallible.
There is no misunderstanding. I allowed that you accepted the Peshitta as infallible, while denouncing all the others. However, I disagree with your last statement. If we are discussing an infallible, almighty (read, omnipotent) God, then all copies of his word should be infallible, which is in keeping with this verse: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Num 23:19) Chris, this infallible "word" of which you glibly speak, is your hope of eternal life in the Kingdom of God: Titus 1:2: "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." If almighty God has allowed men to mistranslate it, then the hope of mankind is void.
As for "some books being infallible", I never meant to give that impression. My point was that there MAY be some books that do not belong in the canon, and perhaps these books are fallible.
So, you're saying that the bible is fallible after all, and that whole portions thereof should be dumped? You are doing quite a tap-dance around this subject!
This is still a topic I am studying. However, for the purposes of this debate, and to make your job easier in "finding me out", I will tell you the books of the OT and NT which I consider the true Word of God. Note that this is not an admission that other books are fallible, I just want to show you which books I am very sure about. In the OT: The Torah, Isaiah, Daniel, Jeremiah. In the NT: The entire 27-book canon as used in the KJV and later editions of the Peshitta.
Let me get this straight, Chris: you will decide for yourself which books are "inspired" and which are of man? Which are "fallible" and which are "infallible?" I'll let you in on a secret: What you are admitting is the first step on the road to throwing out the whole damned mess. I know, because I (and millions of other former Christians) have gone the same route. (You can see the beginnings of my journey in my second book, where I accept most of the OT, while denouncing some parts as spurious.) But, I'm getting ahead of myself. The point is this: In Luke 4:4 Jesus said that man shall live by every word of God! This is the formula for eternal life (i.e., salvation). How can this be accomplished if we don't what that word is, or where it is to be found?
As for infallibility of the whole OT, I believe it is a fairly recent idea, considering the thousands of years of Jewish history and the tradition of many Jews that the Torah alone is the true Word of God, and that the rest of the Tanakh is not necessarily perfect. But if I am mistaken, so be it and thanks for pointing this out.Christianity is a journey with many hurdles and trials-by-fire. The truth is there to be heard for those who will hear it. One cannot expect an anti-Christian as yourself to understand why God does or allows the things he does/allows.
As you well know Chris, I wasn't always an "anti-Christian". I used to preach the above double-talk, until my "journey" opened my eyes to the truth about "God's word!" But, let's leave this alone for now and concentrate on the task at hand.
And frankly, that is irrelevant. Many, such as yourself, make the great mistake of using God's actions to demonstrate that He cannot be real. This is of course foolishness. Even if God were more like Satan (perish the thought) enjoying seeing us in our struggles, would He still not be God? That is a very extreme example, to demonstrate the point that just because you disagree with the things that God does, it does not therefore mean that the God of the Christian Bible is not real.
Who says that the God of the bible is real? The bible? Before you can use the bible as proof of God's reality, the bible must be proven to be his word, which is the purpose of this exchange. Already you have dismissed whole portions of this "holy word" as fallible, or uninspired. In other words Chris, you've already shot one foot out from under your salvation!
I am not claiming that His Scripture was broken. The fact that I may not have the true Scripture, if that is true, does not mean that the true Scripture does not exist.
You're saying that if the scripture is proven false, then that won't matter?
There is no sense discussing this. To you, the Word is physical, to a Christian, the Word is both spiritual and physical. It is quite a thought to imagine that the true spiritual Word could change.
Let me get this straight: you claim that there is "true spiritual word" of God, yet it has been corrupted through mistranslations, uninspired languages, and that spurious books have been added, although you're not quite sure which books fall into that category.
"Of course, the books inspired by the Holy Spirit should be infallible."I am disappointed that an educated man such as yourself would stoop to that.
I don't understand this remark! Are you saying that God's "Holy Spirit" is not trustworthy?
Many people who call themselves Christians are guilty of the same crime. They say something, give references and not the Scripture. No wonder, when the references do not align with the author's ideas. In this case, the verses you referenced do not state that people will not produce false copies of the true Word.
I'll say it again, Chris: If God's spirit inspired his "holy word," then that "holy word" should be infallible.
In fact, the Bible does tell us that the non-believers will be sent delusion, so that they may believe the lie: 2Th 2:11 For this reason God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie
Chris, have you truly read this verse and contemplated its meaning? Here we find God sending lies to his sheep and purposely misleading them, when he knows full well that the penalty for their sins will be eternity in hell (or eternal death, depending on the theology of some churches). What a god you worship Chris! But then, if we are to believe the bible, 2 Thessalonians is only fulfilling a pattern of such "godly" deviousness. Notice in 1 Kings 22:22-23 "And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee." (See also 2 Chr 18:21-22.) We find the same thing in Judges 9:23 "Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech." And what about this statement in Isaiah 45:7?: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Keep in mind that this lying "Lord" is the same god who became Jesus Christ in the New Testament, which is seen in Matthew 13:13: "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." So much for the "salvation" of the Lord!
Chris, may I recommend that you contemplate these verses and then reconsider the question you posed above: "Even if God were more like Satan (perish the thought)". Actually, reading through God's "holy word," I can honestly say that I don't see much difference between God and Satan. (I've not even scratched the surface of God's deviousness!) In fact, if you would like more insight into this perspective, then I suggest you read my study about Satan, which is posted on my web site.
The true Christian will be able to avoid the pitfalls of "false Bible truth" and will be given "true Bible truth" by the Lord.
Are you sure of this Chris, in light of the above revealing scriptures? I don't know about you, but I would not trust any man, woman or god who sent lying agents to deceive me into eternal death, or, alternately, roasting in an eternal fire pit!
Again, as you are a non-believer, I cannot expect you to understand this, nor anyone who expects that God should just hand everything to us on a silver platter.
You're damned right I'm a "non-believer"! Who could believe, or would want to believe, in a lying, murderous god such as the Jehovah and/or Jesus of your "holy" bible? But enough of that. What you are saying in the above is, if one is lucky enough to find you or another "true" Christian to teach them, they can avoid God's lying traps and, by a slender thread, attain eternal life in his "glorious" kingdom? Of course, I don't know how in the hell you can teach them anything, as you don't even know which books God's lying spirit inspired to be written. As for God handing "everything" to us on a "silver platter", forget the silver! I'd be happy to find it in a cardboard box, or inside a rusty tin can—if it were the truth!
I have already explained above that I believe the 27 books that make up the KJV and the later editions of the Peshitta are the true Word of God, and thus, infallible. I believe that Genesis was written by figures such as God, Adam, Noah, Enoch, Joseph, Moses etc. And that it was written down / translated etc by Moses, with the direct help of God, in the form of the Book of Genesis.
Good. Let's start. Please show me your evidence that Moses "translated" ancient writings into Genesis, and that he had God's help.
DWC
Regards,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Lancaster
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:17 PM
Subject: Round 3 reply
Hi Mr. Conder,
This is your personal opinion and in no way constitutes fact. It is ridiculous to assume that there would never be corrupted versions of the Word in physical format, especially as we are warned by God to watch out for deceivers. Once again, the Bible nowhere says that it is impossible for people to produce corrupted versions of the Word, and it's even demonstrated that this is very possible. "Adding to the Word" is even one of the 'themes' of the Bible, being discussed from the Pentateuch, all the way to the book of Revelation.
Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the commandment which I command you, neither shall you take from it, but you must keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words; lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar. Revelation 22:18 I testify to every man who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
No I am not saying that at all. I believe the Bible is infallible.
I have not stated that I believe some books are fallible. At present I believe all are infallible. I have as yet seen no valid reason why any of the books are in error. I was speaking of the uncertainty that you know of, when you read about an event in one book, and it is "contradicted" in another. This can lead to the easy solution that the book in question is fallible. But there is always a solution. I have not yet been shown one valid contradiction in the Bible. As for living by every Word of God, yes that is difficult. Especially with all the corrupted versions floating about. It is also difficult to be perfect, something that we are commanded, while also taught that we can never be.
I know that part of your "awakening" was the discovery that your Bible was full of errors. That saddens me, as I often wore those shoes. However, I was led to the Peshitta and all that changed for me. The original Aramaic New Testament eliminates so many Greek errors and clarifies many "confusing passages".
Who says that He isn't? Who says that the Bible isn't real? Admittedly, I, as a believer am at advantage over this. For a believer such as myself can say "God tells me that He and His word are real", and that is that. Non-believers such as yourself though have much stricter standards when it comes to belief. That involves what you may call "hard proof". Where is the "hard proof" that the Christian God is not real and where is the "hard proof" that the Bible is fallible? I cannot prove to you that the Bible is true. All I can do is refute each and every "error" you find within it, so that you can never say it isn't true. You are most probably uninterested in hearing about fulfilled prophecies and Biblical wisdom, so it has no sense to try and demonstrate to you that the Bible is true. And of course, it again comes down to belief. With the knowledge that nobody can prove the Bible to be fallible, it is easier for us believers to believe. As I said before, it are the believers who are to study the Bible. Did Ancient Israel, in the days of Elijah, turn back to God by simply reading the Bible? No. It took a miracle.
Please do not put words into my mouth. I have not dismissed "whole