- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike,
I don't know Aramaic or Hebrew or how to read the dictionary that you refer to. I can't even figure out how to search a word there. What I do know is that there are these Bibles that are translated by people who claim that MarYah is the Aramaic word that replaces the name YHWH in the OT and NT. History also tells us that Aramaic became the common language of the Jews during the Babylonian captivity and remained their common language afterwards. Also, the Bible shows that Jesus spoke this language. This endeavor of proving this whole thing is beyond the scope of my ability.This is a pretty good article about the matter:
Yeshua as YHWH in the New Testament
The Divine Name of YHWH is used almost 7,000 times in the Tanakh (Old Testament). So if the New Testament is a continuation of The Divine Revelation to man, we should expect it to appear in the Gospels/letters as well?
We know that the original New Testament contained the Divine Name of “YHWH”, but none of the various existing Greek versions of the New Testament preserve that Name. Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds (t.Shab 13:5, b.Shab 116a, j.Shab 15c) contain a debate among Rabbinical Jewish leaders on whether New Testament writings could be destroyed, because they contained the Divine Name of YHWH, and Jewish tradition did not allow for the destruction of writings that contained the Name of YHWH in them. They concluded that the New Testament could not be destroyed, because it contained the Divine Name. Otherwise, they would have ruled that it could be destroyed.
The Name of “YHWH” is found in the Hebrew versions of Matthew and Hebrews, as well as being preserved by a special designation in the Aramaic version of the New Testament as well.
Now this presents a serious problem for those who propose that the Aramaic and Hebrew versions of the New Testament are a translation from the Greek. Jews were not in the habit of ADDING the Divine Name to a text. In fact, they were in the habit of removing it and replacing it with a euphemism (replacing “YHWH” with “YY” or “God”/”Elohim” or “Lord”/”Adonai”). But adding it where it wasn't, was virtually unthinkable to Jewish tradition. It is understandable why the Greek text would NOT have it if it was in the original Hebrew/Aramaic versions, because Jews were in the habit of replacing “YHWH” with a euphemism, but marking it such that one could reconstruct where the Divine Name belonged. This allowed them to destroy manuscripts, but still retain knowledge of where the Divine Name belonged in that text.
In the Aramaic mss, “YHWH” was often replaced by “MarYaH” or “Lord YaH”. “Yah” is the short form of “YHWH” and was considered an acceptable substitute. “MarYaH” was used to let the reader know the original text did not say “YaH”, but “YHWH”. We know this from Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Tanakh.
Aramaic/Hebrew New Testament of “YHWH”Acts 9:27 in the Peshitta (Aramaic version) calls Yeshua “YHWH”, saying Paul/Shaul met YHWH on the road to Damascus. On the road to Damascus, it says Shaul saw “Yeshua, whom you persecute” and then in Acts 9:27 it says… “on the road he had seen YHWH…” (Acts 9:27, HRV).
The HRV translates from the Peshitta here, from the Aramaic “Maryah”, which is understood to represent “YHWH”.
James 3:9 says… “With it we bless YHWH and the Father” (Ya'acov/James 3:9, HRV) Here, Ya'acov gives us a list of two people whom we bless, one being “YHWH” and the other being the “Father”. This is a very literal translation of what it says. James 5:7 “Be patient until the coming of YHWH” James 5:7, HRV) and Jude, verse 14 “YHWH comes with ten thousands of his set-apart-ones” Jude, verse 14, HRV, quoting the book of Enoch) Now who is “coming” to earth? Yeshua is. But there's nothing suggesting the Father will “come” to earth, except in the form of His Son.
Of course, this agrees with Tanakh which teaches…. “YHWH will go out…On that day, His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives” (Zechariah 14:3..4)
So here, we're told YHWH's feet will touch the mount of Olives. In Acts 1, we're told the disciples watched Yeshua ascend to heaven from the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:12) and they were told… “This Yeshua who was taken up from you into heaven will come in the same manner.” (Acts 1:11, HRV)
So Acts 1 tells us that Yeshua ascended from the Mount of Olives, and will return the same way, so we conclude He will return on the Mount of Olives.
1 Peter 3:15 “Sanctify YHWH, the Messiah, in your hearts” (1 Kefah 3:15, HRV)
Isa 45:23 says “As surely as I live, says YHWH, every knee shall bow and tongue confess me.” But Paul/Shaul quotes this verse to say that “every tongue will confess that Yeshua the Messiah is YHWH…” (Phil 2:11, HRV)
Now even in the Greek, where the “YHWH”/”MarYaH” does not come through, the fact that Paul/Shaul quotes Isa/Yesh and applies it to Yeshua is enough to equate Yeshua to YHWH.
1 Corinthians 8:6 “…to ourselves [there] is one Eloah, the Father, from whom [are] all [things] and by whom we are, and one YHWH” (1 Corinthians 8:6, HRV)
So here we get another list of two beings, one called “Eloah” and “Father” and the other called “YHWH”.
1 Cor.11:29, HRV “…he is indebted to the blood of YHWH…” – This could only refer to the Son.
Colossians 3:22 “…in fear of YHWH “
Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alef and the Tau, says Adon YHWH” (Yeshua speaking in Rev 1:8, HRV) [Compare this to the KJV which reads “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord” (Rev 1:8, KJV, translated from Greek version of Revelation)]
Romans 10:10 “If you will confess with your mouth Adon Yeshua….for all who call upon the Name of YHWH will be saved.” (Romans 10, as it appears in the Peshitta)So here he equates calling upon the Name of Yeshua/Yehoshua (which means “YHWH Saves”) with calling upon the Name of YHWH.
The New Testament call Yeshua “YHWH” over, and over again. In fact, reading the Aramaic New Testament (which the HRV was translated from), one might wonder if it's improper to call the Father “YHWH” because we see several places where the Name “YHWH” is contrasted with the Father (Ya'acov/James 3:9, 1 Cor 8:6). But since the writings of the Tanakh give us several places where the Name of “YHWH” is indeed applied to the Father as well as to the Father & Son collectively, then clearly, it is proper to call the Father “YHWH”, and it is proper to call the Son “YHWH”, and it is proper to call the Father and Son collectively as “YHWH”, since “YHWH Elohaynu, YHWH is one”
Yeshua once said, “before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58) Since YHWH is understood to mean “He who is”, or more correctly, “he who was, is, and is to come”, this too, could be considered a verse that associates Him with the Divine Name.
Reconstructing from the Greek NTThere's even a few places where the association of Yeshua with the Name “YHWH” even comes through in the Greek. Among these are:
Phil 2:11 – The fact that the letter of Paul/Shaul replaced the Name of “YHWH” with “Yeshua” or “Jesus” (IhsouV) is enough to associate Him with the Name of YHWH.
Acts 1 combined with Zechariah 14, Identifying Yeshua as the one who will descend on the Mount of Olives whereas Zechariah 14 identifies this as “YHWH” descending on the Mount of Olives.
The quote from Jude/Yehudah verse 14 is taken from the Book of Enoch, which was originally written in Hebrew, and also associates “YHWH” with Yeshua.
Romans 10, where calling upon the Name of “Adon Yeshua” is equated with calling upon the Name of “YHWH”.
John/Yochanan 8:58So while the Aramaic Peshitta offers us a substantial amount of evidence concerning where the Name “YHWH” belongs in the New Testament, and linking that Name to Yeshua personally, it is not the only source for linking the Name to Him. Without the Peshitta, we still have a few Greek sources linking Yeshua to the Name of YHWH. We also have independent Aramaic witnesses from the Old Syriac on parts and from the Crawford Revelation.
The Divine Name also appears in the various Hebrew versions of Matthew, as well as the Hebrew version of Hebrews. So no single source links Yeshua to the Name YHWH in the New Testament, and in numerous places in the Tanak the Name of “YHWH” is linked to the Son before His incarnation.
Further evidenceFurther evidence that YHWH was in the original manuscripts is how some Greek versions disagree on whether to say “Theos” or “Kurios” where the Aramaic or Hebrew
suggests “YHWH” belongs. For example, we already saw:“Sanctify YHWH, the Messiah, in your hearts” (1 Kefah 3:15, HRV)
The Greek texts disagree here, saying 1 Kefah 3:15, Alexandrian manuscripts, as recorded in WH .. “but sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts” 1 Kefah 3:15, Byzantine mss of TR, Greek Orthodox version.
” ..but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts”
Why do they disagree? Probably because two different translators chose two different euphemisms for “YHWH”.
Col 3:22 is another place we see “YHWH” or “MarYah” in the Aramaic, but disagreement in the Greek text. Let's compare:
Col 3:22, Alexandrian WH “fear of the Lord” Col 3:22, Byzantine Majority, TR, Greek Orthodox “fear of God”
Again, why do the Greek texts disagree? Probably because their source was “YHWH”/”Maryah”, and two different translators interpreted this differently.
Or let's examine Rev 1:8 in the various texts:
Crawford Rev 1:8 I AM the Alef and the Tau, says YHWH (or Adon Yah) G-d
Alexandrian mss, in WH and Byzantine Majority I am the Alfa and the Omega, says the Lord God.
Textus Receptus – I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, says the Lord (LORD)
Greek Orthodox version – I am the Alpha and the Omega says the Lord God.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2012,12:45) Mike,
On that site, LORD (all caps), appears where YHWH would go.
Okay. So the ENGLISH translator decided to translate the word “lord” with all capital letters?Tell me how that means “Jehovah”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2012,12:52) What I do know is that there are these Bibles that are translated by people who claim that MarYah is the Aramaic word that replaces the name YHWH in the OT and NT.
Yes, and the name “Jehovah” was replaced with “Adonai” in the Hebrew text.But does the word “adonai” MEAN “Jehovah”? Does it mean that any time ANYONE is called “adonai” in the Hebrew scriptures, they are talking about Jehovah?
Is “adonai” the name Jehovah gave to Moses in Exodus 3?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2012,13:29) This is a pretty good article about the matter: Yeshua as YHWH in the New Testament………………..
Kathi,You call it “pretty good” because it speaks what your ears are itching to hear.
But all I read is the same tired “Jesus is God proofs” that I've solidly refuted using the scriptures for almost three years here on HN.
The only difference is the CLAIM that the Aramaic word “marya” actually has as its DEFINITION: “the Lord Jehovah”.
THAT is the part you need to PROVE. I have shown you two Aramaic dictionaries, and one interlinear translation of the Aramaic NT that teach us the word “marya” means “lord”, not “the Lord Jehovah”.
I don't know what site you had problems with, but I will try to help you:
From this site, type in the word “lord”, and scroll down until you come to the “marya” version. You will see the word still means “lord”.
Then, from the same site, hit the blue “Pershitta” link that is at the bottom of the search box. That will take you to another page, where you can click on “Interlinear NT”. From that interlinear, you can cross reference all the scriptures you've posted from the Aramaic Bible in English and see that the word “marya” is translated as “LORD”, not “JEHOVAH”, nor “LORD JEHOVAH”. (You'll notice that the epistles are not included in this NT, because they weren't even a part of the original TRANSLATION into Aramaic.)
As for the third site from which I quoted, here it is. First, choose “Search the CAL textual databases” option on the left of the main screen.
Then, select “New! Complete CAL lemma search”.
Then, in the box where you are supposed to enter a “lemma”, type “mry”.
This will take you to “mare”, and “marya”, and show you the definitions I posted for you earlier.
(See all this work I'VE had to do to prove a negative, when YOU should have been able to show proof of your positive claim before you even made it.
)peace,
mikeMike,
Thanks for the directionsThe reason you only find part of the NT Interlinear is because that is as far as Paul Younan has gotten in his translating efforts. Here is a quote from him:
“Indeed, this project is on-going and will take several years to complete. My purpose in creating an Interlinear version of the Peshitta New Testament is to:Preserve and further the knowledge of Aramaic
Supply an on-line Concordance to the Peshitta
Provide the English-speaking world a tool to study the Scriptures in the Language of our Lord and his Apostles
Correct errors in the several translations of the Peshitta which have preceded this work
Restore access to the Semitic and Jewish background of the New Testament, lost in its translation to Greek and other non-Semitic languages
Have the work published upon completion”From the preface found here: http://www.peshitta.org/
And read this:
For this diglot, I am using the Church of the East text of the Peshitta, in which I will be following the oriental sequence of the books, which places the General Epistles (Yaqub, Keepa and Yukhanan) immediately after the Acts of the Apostles, and before the Epistles of Sha'ul (Paul). The Peshitta does not contain four of the General Epistles (2 Keepa, 2 Yukhanan, 3 Yukhanan and Yehuda), the book of Revelation, nor the story of the woman taken in adultery (Yukhanan 8.) These writings are not considered canonical by the Church of the East, and have never been included in the the Canon of the Peshitta. The script used will be the original Estrangela, without vowel markings that were introduced during the 5th century.found here: http://www.peshitta.org/
Please note that the Peshitta contained the writings of Paul.
I believe that Paul Younan has footnotes that I have read on MarYah in his Interlinear. If I find that, I will show you.
Now, I had told you that Paul Younan uses LORD in all caps when translating YHWH. Do you not believe me? Jesus is referred to as LORD in this interlinear.
Quote
(See all this work I'VE had to do to prove a negative, when YOU should have been able to show proof of your positive claim before you even made it.That a boy! You da man!
I do appreciate that you have looked into it seriously. I think that I have given you enough evidence to show you that you have come to some wrong conclusions and that you need to have more thorough study. We both do. For starters, go read more on that site that you linked to, it is full of info.Kathi,
I've got a better idea: When YOU can show undeniable, scholarly PROOF that the Aramaic word “marya” actually has AS ITS DEFINTION, “the Lord Jehovah”, I might use even more of my time to delve into this matter.
As for now, I have shown what I consider to be conclusive proof (from actual Aramaic to English dictionaries) that “marya” is simply the emphatic form of “lord”.
When and if you find something to upset that conclusion, I will be interested in hearing it. Until then, don't bother using the Aramaic Bible in English in your posts to me, because it will prove nothing more than when jammin uses his doctored translations that don't accurately represent what was taught in the original languages.
(Btw, the fact that some translator caps the word “lord” when in reference to Jehovah and to Jesus isn't “proof” of any sort.)
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,17:54) And read this:
For this diglot, I am using the Church of the East text of the Peshitta, in which I will be following the oriental sequence of the books, which places the General Epistles (Yaqub, Keepa and Yukhanan) immediately after the Acts of the Apostles, and before the Epistles of Sha'ul (Paul). The Peshitta does not contain four of the General Epistles (2 Keepa, 2 Yukhanan, 3 Yukhanan and Yehuda), the book of Revelation, nor the story of the woman taken in adultery (Yukhanan 8.) These writings are not considered canonical by the Church of the East, and have never been included in the the Canon of the Peshitta. The script used will be the original Estrangela, without vowel markings that were introduced during the 5th century.
Is this man translating from the ORIGINAL Aramaic text? Or one that is dated 275 AD or later?The Wiki info Asana and I have posted says that the original Aramaic NT did not contain any epistles. In fact, the words used were “one thing is CERTAIN…………”. No one has claimed that the epistles were not later translated into Aramaic.
I don't know if the Wiki info is accurate, but I have no reason to doubt it. If you find reason to doubt it, let me know.
Mike,
He is using the Peshitta which he says was completed during the apostolic times.The Aramaic in which the Bible called “Assakhta Peshitta” is written, known as the Peshitta Text, is in the dialect of northwest Mesopotamia as it evolved and was highly perfected in Orhai, once a city-kingdom, later called Edessa by the Greeks, and now called Urfa in Turkey. Harran, the city of Abraham's brother Nahor, lies 38 kilometers southeast of Orhai. The large colony of Orhai Jews, and the Jewish colonies in Assyria in the kingdom of Adiabene whose royal house had converted to Judaism, possessed most of the Bible in this dialect, the Peshitta Tenakh. This version was taken over by all the Churches in the East, which used, and still use Aramaic, as far as India, and formerly in Turkestan and China. The Peshitta Tenakh was completed during Apostolic times with the writings of the New Testament.
Mike,
you said:Quote
(Btw, the fact that some translator caps the word “lord” when in reference to Jehovah and to Jesus isn't “proof” of any sort.)When the word 'lord' is in all caps in this verse, Deut 10:17, do you believe that it is showing that it refers to YHWH by capping all the letters? Is that the way that the NIV translators let you know that YHWH is the original language?
NIV Deut 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.
Mike,
Quote Until then, don't bother using the Aramaic Bible in English in your posts to me, because it will prove nothing more than when jammin uses his doctored translations that don't accurately represent what was taught in the original languages. Mike do you accept ANY Bible translation? I can't recall any that you haven't had trouble with. What Bible translation do you agree with, Mike?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,22:23) The Peshitta Tenakh was completed during Apostolic times with the writings of the New Testament.
Well someone is wrong then. I assume you read where the EARLIEST known Peshitta was from 160-180 AD?If you find PROOF of an earlier one, please post that proof for the rest of us, okay?
If you find PROOF to refute the Wiki info, which said, “One thing is certain, that the earliest New Testament of the Syriac church lacked not only the Antilegomena – 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse – but the whole of the Catholic Epistles.”, then please post it for us.
Here is a part of the article I didn't post the first time:
“Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Peshitta gospels are translations of the Greek originals. A minority viewpoint (see Aramaic primacy) is that the Peshitta represent the original New Testament and the Greek is a translation of it.”
But do you realize that NONE OF THIS really matters if you can't prove the word “marya” means “the Lord Jehovah”?
Here is another site you can check out. They have a couple different dictionary/concordances you can click on – all of which say “marya” means “lord”.
But they also have four different English translations of the Peshitta (Younan, Lamsa, Murdock, and Etheridge). I checked Acts 5:14 in each translation, and they all translated it as “Lord”. None of them even cap all the letters in “lord”, let alone translate it as “the Lord Jehovah”.
Kathi, I fear you have been taken in by like-minded people, who are also trying to grasp on to ANYTHING that will help them prove that Jesus is the Most High God. You should either show proof that “marya” actually MEANS “the Lord Jehovah”, or drop this whole thing, IMO.
Mike,
Younan capitalizes all the letters as 'LORD.' I don't know why you think differently. The others write it the same as each other…'Lord' even when they referred to the Angel of the Lord, it was written the same.From what I can tell, when the word translated is written in the singular emphatic form it refers to YHWH but refers to lords when in the plural emphatic form. I'm not sure.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2012,12:59) Mike, Quote Until then, don't bother using the Aramaic Bible in English in your posts to me, because it will prove nothing more than when jammin uses his doctored translations that don't accurately represent what was taught in the original languages. Mike do you accept ANY Bible translation? I can't recall any that you haven't had trouble with. What Bible translation do you agree with, Mike?
Mike please answer this question, thanks!Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 07 2012,22:07) From what I can tell, when the word translated is written in the singular emphatic form it refers to YHWH…………..
And this is what I've been saying all along – that “marya” is simply the EMPHATIC form of “lord”. Just like “adonay” is the emphatic form of “lord” in Hebrew. But, even though many people claim this form is ONLY used of Jehovah, you and I have already done the research and found that not to be the case. And even if “adonay” was ONLY used of Jehovah and Jesus, it wouldn't mean that Jesus IS Jehovah – only that the emphatic form of the word “lord” was used of both of them, and no one else in scripture.So basically, the Aramaic NT uses the emphatic form of “lord” when the word is referencing Jesus. So what? Perhaps if the Greek language had an emphatic form of “lord”, they would have also used that form in reference to Jesus.
That surely wouldn't mean that Jesus is NAMED “Jehovah”, nor would it equate him with his own God, Jehovah.
He is, after all, the second most powerful being in existence, Kathi. I use the English emphatic form of “lord” when I reference Jesus too. I call him “Lord” with a captial “L”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 07 2012,22:50) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2012,12:59)
Mike do you accept ANY Bible translation? I can't recall any that you haven't had trouble with. What Bible translation do you agree with, Mike?
Mike please answer this question, thanks!
That is a difficult question to answer. I guess “NO”, I don't accept any one translation as being correct on each and every verse of the Bible.All of the ones I've read have it right MOST of the time, but have a few verses I would swap with a different translation.
For example, I love the NIV, but would swap their John 1:18 with just about any other translation.
I love the NWT, but don't like the fact they added their own interpretation into Genesis 1:2, rendering it as “God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the water”. So I would swap their translation of that verse for one that said “the Spirit of God”, or “the breath of God”, or “the wind of God”. (Personally, I like the “wind” translation the best.)
Mike,
More info:Jesus is MarYah
This word is ‘MARYAH’. MarYah literally means Mar (Lord) Yah (name of God in the singular). YHWH,
arguably Yahweh, is one of the names of God. 0yrm (MarYah) is a compound name made from rm
(“Lord”) and 0y (“Yah”, the accepted Aramaic shortened form of YHWH). YHWH is plural, while Yah is
singular. Different groups of Judeans and other Semites in the time of Jesus, called God by different
names/titles, and one of those was ‘MarYah’.
In the Gospels of the original Aramaic Scriptures, ‘MarYah’ is often used to describe God. We know it refers to
God, as historically that is one of the names He was called by, and in the Gospels, before Jesus’ birth, we see
often that God is referred to as ‘MarYah’. Later on in the New Testament, ‘MarYah’ is used to describe God
also.
Here’s the crucial key omitted in the Greek: So is Jesus! In many verses of the New Testament, Jesus is called
‘MarYah’, a name ONLY used for God. These many verses are spread throughout the Scriptures too, not just
centralised and caused by misunderstanding or some such. All the writers of the New Testament KNEW that
Jesus is God, so it is not surprising to find Him being called ‘MarYah’ in many different books.
The Peshitta leaves NO DOUBT that Jesus was God Himself, manifest in the flesh. Now that you have had
time to understand that ‘the LORD’ and ‘the Lord’ are the same ‘person’, the same God, let us examine some of
the verses that call Jesus, ‘MarYah’, a name undisputedly used ONLY for God.
Luke2:11 of the Peshitta boldly declares that Jesus is Lord-Yah or LORD.
“For today in the city of David there has been born for you a Saviour, who is Lord-Yah the Messiah”
Other versions keep you guessing as to who the 'Lord' is. Even the Lamsa Bible which I find tremendously
helpful and superior to the Greek-based Bibles, is not free from corruption. As stated above, when describing
‘God the Father’, Lamsa consistently translates the Aramaic word for LORD, 0yrm (MarYah), as 'LORD'.
However, when the word refers to Jesus, he translates it as 'Lord', trying to show that they are two separate
entities. The original Peshitta however states that Jesus is 0yrm, the LORD.
Lamsa: “For this day is born to you in the city of David, a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.”
KJV: “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.”
Peshitta (translated): “For today in the city of David there has been born for you a Saviour, who is Lord-Yah
the Messiah.”from: http://aramaicnttruth.org/page.php?page=home
From that link, scroll down and click on the article “Original Aramaic leaves no doubt that Yahshua is Elohim.”Kathi,
I have no idea who wrote that article, or what his/her credentials are. This is not the first time you've posted the CLAIM that “marya” is a contraction of “lord and yah”. But it seems to me that if that was the truth, the FOUR Aramaic dictionaries and FOUR Aramaic NT interlinears I've linked for you would have “the Lord Jehovah” as a definition or translation of “marya”.
Why then don't they?
As for your link, if all the Aramaic NT has for “proof” is the “marya” thing, then I suppose you ought to prove “marya” even MEANS “the Lord Jehovah” first. I stand with the vast majority of scholars, who consider the NT to have been written in Greek. And until you can prove the “marya” thing, I have no reason to read any more about the Aramaic NT, because according to the interlinears I've checked out, they simply call Jesus “lord” like the Greek does.
So what's the difference and who even cares – if not for this “marya” thing?
Mike,
Since you do not accept any translation and we don't agree on which language the original NT was written it, it is hard to see an end to this. I do think that finding out if the Eastern Peshitta is the original is a worthwhile pursuit. I also think that comparing it to the other translations are a good idea and then if there is a notable difference, ask God to direct your thoughts to what is His intent. Personally, the more I look into this Aramaic text, the clearer things become. We both know that the Greek texts are not clearing up things very well.Mike,
This actually seems the most explanative about the MarYah name in the Aramaic. You should read this one.http://ebookbrowse.com/underst….5667985
On page 9, the author says:
“In 7,000 Aramaic Tanakh references there is not one instance of MarYah (in its singular
form) applying to anyone other than YHWH! Furthermore, the Peshitta New Testament
always renders Tanakh passages that it quotes from YHWH to MarYah.”I encourage you to read the details of MarYah as to why it means YHWH in this article, Mike.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
