bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Need Account Help?  Email bibletruths.forum@gmail.com   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Which Version  (Read 4858 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Craig

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Which Version
« on: July 24, 2006, 03:55:31 PM »

 I  have been engrossed  for nearly two days reading your voluminous amount of writings, intrigued and challenged by each one.  My search for truth takes me into many minds, I read a lot and have learned that I cannot only not trust what I have been “taught” for many  years, but I cannot even trust what is written in the many versions of the Holy Bible after finding gross  mis translations and omissions  of words and sentences.  Recently I have been studying much from an English translation of the Eastern text known as the Peshetta.  George Lamsa (deceased) had done quite a good job, yet I still find bias in some of his translations and foot notes to the meanings that just don’t “sound” right to me.  I am now going to try out another Aramaic version (work in progress by a guy named Vic) to see if it gets me closer to the “truth” in translations.

My reason for bringing this up  to you, is that much of your discourse centers around the word studies of the Greek words used in the scriptures and later Mis-translated into English.  My thought is “If the original writings were in Hebrew/Aramaic OT, which you seem to address, and most of the NT was in Aramaic and not Greek as the Western church claims, why do you not use this “original” rendition of the Bible?”  I have not seen you refer to this in any of your writings I have read over the past few days.

By the way I think your understanding of the scriptures is profound, yet have not had enough time to really study them myself to see if I can accept all that you propose to be the truth.  Yes I let the scriptures do the speaking, yet I find that many Godly men can see the same words and think differently of them.  My single most greatest pet peeve is when man takes the Lord’s Word and uses it out of context, contorts it’s true  meaning into something that benefits their views on things.  Purposely misrepresenting the truth, I want to just run them out of town.  I truly enjoyed the reading of your  letters to Hagee and Kennedy.

May God Bless your continued work and truly give you  the “correct” insight into  His Word.

ch


Dear ch:

If Dr. Lamsa is a scholar, then I am a brain surgeon.

First, of all, the Peshitta is more modern than the King James Bible. You assumed that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. Where is there proof of this?  And even if it was, there are NO ARAMAIC copies of any such Aramaic New Testament signatures.

The Pehsitta is a translation FROM GREEK into Syriac which was not a known language until 300 AD.  Of what value is a Version that was translated from Greek, to Syriac, to English, over an English Version translated directly from the best and oldest known Greek manuscripts?

God be with you,

Ray
« Last Edit: July 27, 2006, 10:03:30 AM by parsonssc »
Logged

Craig

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Re: Which Version
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2006, 09:50:57 AM »

 http://www.v-a.com/bible/project-report0.html

Besides the abundance of historical info provided in the preface and introduction of the translated version of the Peshitta text that Dr. Lamsa provides, the above listed web site is yet another project to translate the Aramaic into English.  Both groups claim access to Aramaic volumes of the Bible going back to the 5th Century AD, long before the KJ came into being in 17th century, so I am not sure about your comment.  As to the language, well it goes back to Abraham and perhaps to Adam, again no one knows for sure, but certainly long before 300AD, so again I do not understand your comment.

It is not my purpose to engage you in argument, but for insight. Your work is both intriguing in thought as well as scholarly well supported, so I will continue to study and compare as I continue  to seek Truth in the scriptures.  However, it seems to me after reading all of the above that there is ample evidence to support that the earliest versions of the NT were indeed written in the original language of Our Lord and Apostles of the time.  It also makes common sense that they would write down as they heard it.  Greek was not even allowed to be spoken in the Synagogues of that time.  When the Septugiat of the OT came out in the 4th Century, there was much outcry among the Jews against “putting” their Holy scriptures into this language.

After reading many KJ verses and then reading them from the Aramaic to English version I am convinced there is ample reason to consider this to be a truth, that the Greek versions came from the original tongue of the people of that era.  The problem is that there are no “surviving” or dated versions predating the 5th Century to prove this unconditionally, although there are quite a few verified versions that go back to that time.

Just a  thought for you to consider.

ch


Dear ch:

Syriac is not Hebrew. People do this to me all day long. They insist or insinuate that I am sinning, not being faithful to God's word, or just plain stupid (on this and dozens of others subjects), and yet, when I ask them for the proof of their criticism of what I write, I get much the same treatment as from you:  Read this dozen web sites, and read this bunch of books over here and these over there, etc. If you KNOW the answer to these matters to the degree that you criticise me for apparently not believing as you, why is it that YOU can't show me the proof of which you speak?

I have already read a great deal on the subject, and I can't find ANY proof that the Aramaic or the Peshitta were written and copied from prior oritinal Hebrew and Aramaic signatures. Do you have proof of this that I and dozens of other scholars and researchers are not privy to?

God be with you,

Ray

 
Logged

Craig

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Re: Which Version
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2006, 10:01:00 AM »

Dear Chuck:
I am not being "confrontational."  I am merely showing you that you asked me why I don't spend time going into the Aramaic scriptures.  First of all, I don't read Aramaic. I will make a few comments in your email............


    Dear Ray,

    Why so confrontational?  I am not inferring that you are wrong, stupid, sinning or for not being faithful to God’s Word.  In fact no one who took the time to read dozens of your narratives and responses to emails, as I have done the past few days could ever come to any of those conclusions.  I like you am simply seeking the Truth in the scriptures and this all started out as an inquiry to whether or not you have ever engaged in reading any of the Biblical versions (NT) that emanate from the Aramaic language.


    COMMENT:  No, that is not quite what you said to me in your original emal. You did not "inquire whether or not I was ever engaged in reading these Aramaic versions," but rather here is your original statement:  "My thought is “If the original writings were in Hebrew/Aramaic OT, which you seem to address, and most of the NT was in Aramaic and not Greek as the Western church claims, why do you not use this “original” rendition of the Bible?”  I have not seen you refer to this in any of your writings I have read over the past few days."
   

    You asked: "WHY DO YOU NOT USE THIS ORIGINAL RENDITION OF THE BIBLE?"  Can you see the difference in this and your new presentation?  My question to you was how do we know that these "renditions" to be the original copies of the New Testament signatures? To which you suggested that I read a lot of material, to which I suggested you just tell me, as you apparently already read all of this material and must have some kind of proof.


      As to the proof you ask for, there does not exist ANY ORIGINAL manuscripts written in the first century AD when it is commonly agreed to that the NT letters and Gospels were written, that have survived.  So in fact no one knows for sure what language they were ORIGINALLY written in, and that goes for the Greek versions.

     

    COMMENT:  Well, there you have it. You have not proof and there is no proof. So how was my reply to you "confrontational?"

     

      What we have is some very old Greek versions that can be documented to date back to some time during the 4th Century and we have some of the Eastern Texts that date back to the 5th Century, which definitely predates the KJV of the Bible.  All that this proves is that both versions were in circulation in the East and the West within 300 years after the ORIGINALS from which all of these “copies and translations” come from.  As you know the church split during this time frame into the Western Church (which removed anything that was Jewish from the church) and the Eastern Church which kept much of the original church system.  Thus it would make sense that they each stuck to their own “versions” of the Bible, the East in Aramaic and the West in Greek/Latin.

     

    COMMENT:  That may be true, but it sill proves NOTHING as to which might have been the original signature language.

    ___________________________

     

    What is fact is that the Shemitic family of languages is very very old and eventually evolved into four parts 1.) The southern Group, Arabic, Ethiopic, etc. 2. The Aramaic Group- Syirac, Chaldee, etc. 3. The Hebrew group – the Phoenician, Hebrew, etc. 4. The Assyrian and the Babylonian.  These are ANCIENT languages and the common languages for the middle east area of the world for the Media-Persian Empire, Assyrian and Babylonian empires, long before the Greek and Roman empires controlled  the area.  Abraham from the area of UR spoke Hebrew.  All of these languages evolved from the area south of Babylonia.  The Aramaic language goes back in its history to the most pri mitive times and is the farthest developed of the Shemitic family of languages.  Aramaic was THE language of commerce and business for hundreds of years prior to the time  of Jesus, thus spoken by many cultures and peoples all over the middle east.  Eventually it was supplanted in the middle east by the Greek, but not during the time of Jesus (30AD), and certainly was not spoken among the peoples of Israel during this time.

     

    COMMENT:  Greek was most assuredly spoken in Palestine during the first century A.D.  Remember that that Alexander conquered Egypt centuries before Christ, and Greek was spoken from Egypt to India!

     

      Could some of Paul’s letters which were written to Greek/gentile peoples have originally been written in Greek? Certainly, but he certainly would not have written to the Hebrews in Greek, and the Gospels were written down by Jews (except for Luke) who wrote down the eye witness accounts (except for John the Apostle) of the local Jewish witnesses to our Lord’s work and words.

    In reading another scholarly work entitled “the languages of the Bible” written in 1877, it was commonly understood that much of our Lord’s mannerisms and dialogues (such as the Sermon of the Mount and the Parables) were very “semitic/aramaic” in both structure and delivery, that it is widely accepted that our Lord most certainly spoke to the common people of the area in their native tongue, which was Aramaic.  So it makes sense to me that when these words were spoken, that they were recorded/written down in the same language in which they were spoken
     
     As the author of this work states “The office of Aramaic language was still further to mediate between the old world and the new – the Hebrew and the Greek; for the Greek language was the chosen one to set forth the divine revelation in its completion.”  I have no doubt it was God’s purpose that the Holy Scriptures were to be transcribed into the Greek language in order for it to be carried world wide and the message of the Gospel taken to the West/Gentile world in their own language.

    No I have no PROOF, neither do you that the NT texts were ORIGINALLY written in Greek, but history and common sense would lead me to believe that the ORIGINALS  were written in the same tongue in which the words were spoken and heard, to be transcribed later into a language that will carry the message to the whole world.


    COMMENT:  Don't you reckon we had better find these original Aramaic Scriptures that were not translated from Greek, pretty soon, of this world will have passed away and the Aramaic "language that will carry the message to the whole world," will never happen.

    ___________________________

     

    Now back to my original intent in writing to you, which was mainly to commend you and thank you for your years of scholarly work that has greatly impressed me and enlightened me, and secondarily to inquire if you had ever compared some of the scriptures in the NT that come from the Aramaic to English (from Eastern Bibles, granted some were translated from Greek into Syriac, but not all)

     

    COMMENT:  "Now back to MY original intent in answering you email...."  You state, "granted some were translated from Greek into Syriac, but NOT ALL."  Okay, WHICH ONES?  Which one were NOT translated from Greek into Syriac?

    _____________________________________

     to compare some of the idioms and words to further clarify meanings as you did with a Greek word study.  I think I know the answer, and this does not mean that I am inferring any of the negative things you seem to have conjured up in your previous response.

    Peace brother, keep up the good work, and I look forward to studying more of your work.  Seeing some of the hateful responses that you have had in the past I see why you are somewhat sensitive and combative.
   

    COMMENT:  I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, but your are way, way out of line to suggest that my responses are "HATEFUL responses."

    Sincerely,

    Ray

     

    PS   I am constantly getting emails like yours that suck me in and take up my time, and end up being totally useless.  I get a holier-than-thou sacred name cult emailing me almost weekly demanding why I still call  YEHOWSHUWA, Jesus?  I guess I just have found that original "Aramaic/Syriac" bible yet.

    _________________________

     

      But I am not deriding you nor am I challenging you, just an honest discussion on a matter of importance to  me (seeking the truth) and the reason I believed you would be of some assistance to me on the matter.

     

    FYI, my mantra in all of my teachings is a saying I picked up from a Jewish Scholar who wrote a most challenging book entitled “Decoding Isaiah”, Only a Right Belief, will lead you to the TRUTH.  Very profound as you have found out for yourself.

     

    Chuck
Logged

Craig

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4282
  • There are two kinds of cops.The quick and the dead
Re: Which Version
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2006, 10:03:04 AM »

Never said HATEFUL, just confrontational, please do not put words into my mouth.  You have been the victim of some real hate so I can understand to a point your sensitivities.  I am simply seeking the Truth of the Lord’s Words and have found it very discomforting to find that in many of the modern renditions of the Bible there is passages omitted completely, mis translated completely and some of the commentary that accompanies some of the “study Bibles” is appalling to their misleading direction of what is being said.  Your web site had some real nuggets of Truth contained within and I was simply trying to see if you had done any study from the Aramaic to English without the transfer into Greek and then into English.  Time does not allow me to write all of the KJ stuff that is a total misunderstanding when compared to the “OLD” original Peshetta, not the later versions that went from Greek to Syriac, which reads much simpler and clearer to me on many passages, even if Lamsa is not the best at doing it.  And I have given you “some” of my reasons why I believe that it makes “sense” to me that the words spoken in Aramaic at their creation would have been written down as they were written and then transcribed into a language that would take the messages to the whole world, and certainly Greek was the language to do this.  Just like if you study the history of mankind, it was the “best” time in the whole world for the messiah to come into the world, around 30AD when Rome controlled the modern world of the time which allowed the Gospel message to be spread rapidly through out the then known world.  All roads lead to Rome and the peace that was in place due to Roman control that allowed for safe movement of persons through out the region.

Sorry to have taken up your time, but sincerely appreciate your responses.  Sometimes communication with electronic only channels can get cumbersome and misleading.  Will continue to follow your thought processes, believe you are on to a line of thought that is both unique and possibly even on target for the most part.  Don’t take offense, but unless God Himself has come to you on the Road to Damascus, or there in Alabama, and said that “Ray, to you I am going to impart all of the truth of my scriptures”, I have to assume you are human and prone to a mistake in thought from time to time, like so many other Godly and well intentioned men of the past.  Yet at the same time I am totally intrigued with your thought process and still have much reading to do on your material.

Keep up the task of getting to the truth of the scriptures.  I am a firm believer that Daniels writings and much of Revelation, were certainly sealed up till the end of times, or as you say the end of this age, and that much NEW insight will come into play as God determines that it is time for mankind to both understand and discern, and more importantly ACT upon the Truth.

I have been studying Prophecy since 1973 and have gone back and forth on many of the issues relating to the end of the age, and have gone from one thought process to another, even taught a series of classes and then seminars on end times.  Now I am simply sitting on the sidelines, reading, praying and seeking TRUE insight and discernment for these times.  I feel called by my Lord to be a teacher, and am not yet sure that I am knowledgeable enough of the Truth to do so as it relates to Prophecy, so I am sticking to the simple Gospel and continue to do my scholarship training by reading (sites like yours) and praying.

No need to respond, I have apparently taken up enough of your time already, may God truly bless both you and your mission.

ch

 

Dear ch:

My mistake and my apology!  I had to read your statement twice before I realized even now, that I had misunderstood your statement. As I read it: "Seeing some of the hateful responses that you have had in the past I see why you are somewhat sensitive and combative," it took a second read to understand that you were referring to "hateful responses" TO ME rather than "hateful responses" FROM ME. I hope that you will accept my apology.

I can appreciate your honesty in stating that you have set aside some of the prophecy issues. I have done the same for some years. I can almost instantly see the many flaws in others as they attempt to explain Daniel/Matt. 24/Revelation, but there are still several major problems in my own mind. Things that most do not even consider, let alone see as a problem of chronology. Most have no idea of what the problems are, so it only stands to reason that they will never find the solutions.  I must admit, however, that I do have an inner confidence that God will show me these deeper secrets. He has already done this time and again in other areas of History, Prophecy, and Doctrine.

And I assure you that I have no aversion to checking more into Syriac or Aramaic or Hebrew for new and/or better manuscripts.  Who's to say that God doesn't even at this moment have tucked away in some cave or temple basement covered with millennia of debris, a perfect copy of an original first century Signature.  Wouldn't that be hoot? Maybe it would be Greek; maybe Aramaic; or even Hebrew.  Or then again, maybe we are to be content with what we now have.  I don't see too many problems with the overall plan of God and our part in it.  And certainly there is nothing missing when it comes to instructions as to how to live a godly life of overcoming and producing spiritual fruit.

You have not wasted or taken too much of my time. I perceive you to be a man of considerable wisdom.

God be with you,

Ray

 

And so I write about the things that God shows me as I go. I never know where my writing is going to lead when I start a new article or even a new Installment of my "Lake of Fire" series.  I am often just as surprised at the journey as those who take it with me.  I understand a basic Truth in my spirit. From there I just begin to type, and never know from sentence to sentence where I am headed or what will be the final destination of the paper.

 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 26 queries.