- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Just some information for anyone who's interested.
Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic.
The original Aramaic translation is what is known as the Peshitta.
This translation can be read here (If it's a correct one):
http://www.lamsabible.com/index.html
And heres some more information on the Peshitta.:
Please note that this is NOT the 'Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)' which is now in the list of translations on sites such as 'bible.cc'
This is a DIFFERENT translation – the origial Peshitta Syriac translation.
Assyrian and Syrian Christians have always maintained that they hold the original New Testament, preserved in the Peshitta NT, as they call it, carefully copied since the days of the disciples. They claim that the Greek manuscripts were translated from the Peshitta NT. The Western Churches claim however, that it is the Aramaic not the Greek which is the translation.
http://sor.cua.edu/Bible/index.html
The Syrian Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Bible, which comprises of the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the divine word of God. Its Fathers labored in translating the Holy Scriptures into Syriac since the very dawn of Christianity. These Syriac translations of the Bible are the oldest and most ancient in any language. Further, the Syriac New Testament is quite unique for it presents the teachings of our Lord in an Aramaic dialect (Syriac) which is akin and would have been mutually comprehensible with the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic in which Christ taught. Since the translation of the Bible into Syriac started as early as the first century, the Syriac version preserves the very ancient renditions of the original texts. In fact, the Syriac Church Fathers produced a number of translations of the Bible and revisions of these translations from the original languages of the Bible.
The words of Christ were first transmitted in his native language, the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic, either orally or in a written form. It is from this Aramaic tradition that the Greek Gospels were derived. The Syriac New Testament as we know it today is an early translation of the Greek text back into Syriac, the Aramaic dialect of Edessa (Modern Urfa in Southeast Turkey). The Syriac Old Testament is a translation from the original Hebrew and Aramaic (a different Aramaic dialect from Syriac which is known by the name 'Biblical Aramaic').
The close similarities between the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic spoken by Christ and Syriac offer us a unique understanding of some of the Biblical readings.
Quote:
Chick Publications call the Lamsa Bible “perverted” and “occult”, part of a conspiracy to subvert Christianity. This reflects the view of many Christians out there. But what if the opposite is true – that the Bible was mistranslated and even changed, some by accident but some with manipulative intent. Looking into this only peripherally, I was surprised to find such huge discrepancies amongst translations.
What follows are a few side by side comparisons.
Mathew 24:7
King James Bible : Jesus says: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?“
Lamsa Bible: Jesus says: “My God, My God, for this I was spared!“
Ephesians 6:12
Bible, New International Version: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”.
Lamsa: “For your conflict is not only with flesh and blood, but also with the angels, and with powers, with the rulers of this world of darkness, and with the evil spirits under the heaven”.
Lamsa:
Mathew 19:24
KJ: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle…”
Lamsa: “It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle”
Luke 14:25
NIV: “If any one comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he can not be My disciple”.
Lamsa: “He who comes to Me and does not put aside his father and his mother and his brothers and his sisters and his wife and his children and even his own life can not be a disciple to me”.
Matthew 6:12
KJ: “and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”
Lamsa: “and forgive us our offences, as we have forgiven our offenders.”
About Lamsa's translation:
“Lamsa's Translation:
Lamsa's translation of the entire Peshitta (OT and NT) in English is the only such
translation to date. Lamsa's work is not carefully done and contains far too many
accommodations to the King James Version and to the Massoretic Hebrew Old
Testament text to be accepted as an accurate representation of the Peshitta
Bible. Lamsa also allowed some of his heterodox beliefs to override acceptable
translation of Aramaic words and therefore translated “Shada” (“demons”) as
“lunatics” in some places, since he believed demon possession was a
superstition to be explained as mental illness.
I have not done a systematic study of Lamsa's beliefs, though I have seen
enough to see that he is not a safe guide in his translation, as he allows his
personal beliefs to taint and abort legitimate translation principles. By far, most of
his work is reliably done, but the layman generally will not know where he goes
wrong, so I cannot recommend Lamsa's work to the general public.”Quote from this article:
Reasons for this Translation (PDF) Pastor Dave Bauscher explains the reasons why he embarked on this translation and gives a summary of the other existing translations of the Peshitta NT.
Linked to from here: http://aramaicnt.com/articles.htm
I like David Bauscher's translation because he doesn't translate Jehovah as merely Lord or LORD but makes it clear what the original text says.
David Bauscher's translation is readily found at Biblos.com
This is what he says about it there:BIBLOS.COM has my interlinear up for display and searching, and plans to put up my Plain English translation and parallel editions.
Third flag (red & gold) at the top left of the home page takes you to the Aramaic NT with three selections: The Peshitta NT itself, My Interlinear NT and Paul Younan’s Interlinear Gospels & Acts.
Biblos.com is probably the most frequented of all Bible sites, with 164 Bibles, an equal number of church father resources, Hebrew and Greek language resources, ancient histories, hymns, classic Christian books, Theologies, etc. Incredible! Biblos now have our Plain English edition of the Peshitta available for online reading.Click here to start reading it: http://aramaic-plain-english.scripturetext.com/matthew/1.htm
David Bauscher's translation is not the original Lamsa translation but obviously a Trinitarian one.
So which one then is true? Lamsa's or David Baucher's?
I will stick with Lamsa's NOT Biblos.com's Aramaic.
More notes:
Translations of the Peshitta (From Wikipedia):
“Both John Wesley Etheridge (1846–1849) and James Murdock (1852) produced translations of the New Testament Peshitta in the 19th century. George Lamsa produced a translation of the whole Peshitta in 1933 which remains a standard reference point.
Lamsa is also notable as the best known advocate of the tradition of the Nestorian Church that the Aramaic New Testament is the original New Testament.
More recently various versions of the New Testament only have appeared arguing this view in the notes. These include: Andrew Gabriel Roth Aramaic English New Testament (AENT), Glenn David Bauscher The Aramaic-English Interlinear New Testament (1st edition 2006), Psalms, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes (4th edition 2011) the basis for The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English (2007, 6th edition 2011).”
These original translations of Wesley and Murdock are available for download here:
Etheridge:
http://sourceforge.net/project….ownload
Murdock:
http://sourceforge.net/project….ownloadHi, all.
Well, ultimately, the 'best translation' is the one which you will actually read. Taking in the Word of God is what really matters.
I usually use the RSV, just because it was the first one I had ever read, and is old and falling apart but means a lot to me.
Anyway, Lamsa's translation which is the one mostly spoken about can be downloaded here:
http://www.4shared.com/office….ro.html
Take care.
Both the Lamsa translation and the RSV teach the deity of Christ. In all the passages that refer to Him as God, the G is capitalized.
David et al,
Here is some information of the Hebrew Roots Bible and Hebrew Roots Version:
Go to this website and scroll down to the “Hebrew Roots Bible” and click on the link to read it online. Also, the Hebrew Roots Version below it has a very informative intro as to how it was translated. Go to page 54 of the intro and you can read about how they knew where the YHWH went in the NT.Lamsa Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts
The Bible in English
Old English (pre-1066)
Middle English (1066–1500)
Early Modern English (1500–1800)
Modern Christian (1800–)
Modern Jewish (1853–)
Miscellaneous
vte
The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (commonly called the Lamsa Bible) was published by George M. Lamsa in 1933. It was derived, both Old and New Testaments, from the Syriac Peshitta, the Bible used by the Assyrian Church of the East and other Syriac Christian traditions.
Lamsa, following the tradition of his church, claimed the originality of the Aramaic New Testament, against the academic mainstream opinion that the language of the New Testament was Greek, and thus claimed his translation was superior to texts based on later Greek manuscripts. Consequently, Lamsa claimed that the New Testament of his translation, was based on older sources than other English Bibles, translated from Greek. The New Testament translators of the King James Version, for example, used an edition of Erasmus' Greek Textus Receptus. The Aramaic primacy of the New Testament text is considered by its proponents to be more accurate than the text used for the KJV of the Holy Bible.
Contents [hide]
1 Textual differences in Lamsa's version
1.1 Matthew 27:46
1.2 Matthew 19:24
2 Criticism
3 References
4 External links
[edit]Textual differences in Lamsa's versionSome places in Lamsa's translation, differ from the Greek texts used as the basis of other English-language Bibles.
[edit]Matthew 27:46
An example is found in Matthew Matthew 27:46 where Lamsa has “My God, my God, for this I was spared!” where the Greek text has “My God, my God why have you forsaken me.”
And about the ninth hour
Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying,
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?
that is to say,
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
This is rendered in Lamsa's translation:
And about the ninth hour,
Jesus cried out with a loud voice and said,
Eli, Eli lemana shabakthan!
My God, my God, for this I was spared!
Though in fact the Peshitta does not have four lines in this verse. The 1905 United Bible Societies edition by George Gwilliam of the Peshitta in Syriac[1] contains only three lines, the Aramaic “Eli, Eli,.. ” (ܐܝܠ ܐܝܠ) etc. not being given twice:
ܘܠܐܦ̈ܝ ܬܫܥ ܫܥ̈ܝܢ
ܩܥܐ ܝܫܘܥ ܒܩܠܐ ܪܡܐ ܘܐܡܪ
ܐܝܠ ܐܝܠ ܠܡܢܐ ܫܒܩܬܢܝ
This verse in Greek manuscripts states that from the Cross, Jesus (quoting Psalm 22:1) cried out, 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' (See Matthew 27:46) proponents of the priority of the Aramaic New Testament such as the Nestorian Church claim this verse is a mistranslation into Greek.
[edit]Matthew 19:24
Some proponents of the Peshitta over the Greek New Testament also claim that in Matthew 19:24 as the Aramaic word for 'camel' is written identically to the word for 'rope.' an error occurred due to the translator's limitations when the original scrolls were being transferred into Greek. This would mean Matthew 19:24 commonly translated as, 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.' Would insteed read 'rope' instead of 'camel'. To support this they claim that rope, is much more in keeping with the imagery of a needle, and that it is probably what Jesus said, and what was originally recorded. However, Saint Cyril in his commentary on the Holy Gospel according to Luke (Luke 18:25) says that camel is the term used by those versed in navigation for a thick rope, thereby both stating that the term camel is the right one, but that it meaning is that of a rope and not the animal.
[edit]CriticismLamsa's view has been widely refuted by scholars of both the New Testament and the Peshitta. Another concern is that the 1905 United Bible Societies Aramaic New Testament, based on the editions of Philip E. Pusey, George Gwilliam and John Gwyn, with which Lamsa's sources are largely common, are a late form of the Aramaic text which reveals nothing of the early stages of the Peshitta's development.[2]
[edit]ReferencesLamsa, George. The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts. ISBN 0-06-064923-2.
^ ܟܬܒܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܗ ܟܬܒܐ ܕܕܝܬܩܐ ܥܬܝܩܬܐ ܘܢܝܕܬܐ. United Bible Societies. 1979. p. 41 (NT).
^ The text of the New Testament: an introduction to the critical … Page 194 Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland – 1995 “The text printed in the London edition prepared by Philip Edward Pusey and George Henry Gwilliam is obviously a late form ie, the text which achieved common acceptance. It reveals nothing of the early stages of the Peshitta's development which is a matter of controversy.”
[edit]External linksTHIS IS NOT TO RELIABLE IS IT
how is it that those changes in this version works in the whole bible Pierre,
You really need to be a more thorough Berean before you come to final judgements of this type of thing. Read the evidence and dig deeper when something seems not right to you.Read that intro of the HRV from that link that I put up on this page. It is very informative.
Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2012,16:37) Pierre,
You really need to be a more thorough Berean before you come to final judgements of this type of thing. Read the evidence and dig deeper when something seems not right to you.Read that intro of the HRV from that link that I put up on this page. It is very informative.
kathiyou going to pin point the things make it short ,two verses is enough ,if not I stand behind what I have said ,and you will have nothing of proven truth
Pierre,
I am not interested in spoon feeding you. You are either a serious student or you are not. I gave you a page number to look at. Put your big boy pants on and go look at it.Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2012,17:44) Pierre,
I am not interested in spoon feeding you. You are either a serious student or you are not. I gave you a page number to look at. Put your big boy pants on and go look at it.
kathiyou are not working for me ,if you do not want to be true in your words that fine with me ,
do as you which ,I have seen enough of your comment to make my own decision
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
