+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Colossians Misunderstood - As Usual! (/showthread.php?tid=2289)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Colossians Misunderstood - As Usual! - Knuckles - 06-10-2010
Aaron S Wrote:If you want to talk about the Torah, I suggest you post a new thread in the 'Nazarene/Messianic Judaism Forum' as this forum relates to the Peshitta.
Yet, I'm not saying someone can't put in a few more words about di'ythahein. But as far as I can tell (as I know little of Aramaic) with respect to other verses using di'ythahein, it is best rendered is/are.
Murdock translates di'ythahein as follows:
- that are: Luke 19:42, Hebrews 11:1, Revelation 1:19, Revelation 5:6
- that be: 2Peter 1:3
- which are: Revelation 5:8
- which were: Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 9:10
- {anomalous translation}: Colossians 2:22
But it's interesting that the verses Murdock opted to translate di'ythahein as 'which were' are both referring to Torah: we can see that his bias is creeping into the translation here.
On a similar note, can anyone tell me definitively what the last four Aramaic words of Colossians 2:17 actually translate to? My guess would be Etheridge does well in representing the Aramaic here: "which are shadows of those to come, but the body is the Meshiha." Yet what does it mean when it says but the body is the Meshiha?
Hope you guys don't mind me bringing this up again, I'm still trying to dig at something though.
If as you say the 'which were' can be translated as 'that are', then the AENT COULD read like this...
Original...
AENT: ...17. Which were shadows of the things then future; but the body of Mashiyach.
Possible New...
AENT: ...17. Which ARE shadows of the things then future; but the body of Mashiyach.
(1) Is this possible new reading valid?
IF that indeed is a valid as I am guessing is considering what you have said, then what about the word 'then'
If somebody could shed light on the use of that word in this instance that would be a great help, I sadly know 0 Aramaic or Hebrew so I have to rely on pestering. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="" title="Huh" /><!-- s --> (2) Is the use of that word then actually translated? If so from which possible words?
(3) Also, was it a suggested word ONLY to make the sentence flow?
Could anybody answer 1, 2 & 3 ? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->
Re: Colossians Misunderstood - As Usual! - Aaron S - 06-10-2010
As far as (2) goes, the word then may be also due to translator bias judging from how he translates this word in other places.
Murdock translates [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d[/font] as follows:
- things that are to take place ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d Nylh[/font]): Luke 21:36
- were to take place ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Nywhnd Jdyt9d[/font]): Acts 26:22
- things to come ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d[/font]): Romans 8:38, 1Corinthians 3:22, Hebrews 10:1
- things then future ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d[/font]): Colossians 2:17
- things that were to be ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Ywh Jdyt9d[/font]): Hebrews 3:5
The notable translations here are #2 and #4. But surely the best translation for [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d Nylh[/font] without modifiers (as is found in Colossians 2:17 would be best rendered things to come.
As for (3), as can be ascertained from my previous post, I would think that Murdock explicitly chose to render the verse this way due to his bias.
Now that I've said all I can on this, I'll let the experts in Aramaic say a word or 2 <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Re: Colossians Misunderstood - As Usual! - Knuckles - 06-11-2010
Thanks for your input! <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->I feel like a pestering kid in all honesty, getting in the way all the time not knowing etc, but I have questions!
Thing is, I'm not trying to twist anything to say something it isn't, but I want to see if the Peshitta text in this passage CAN say and give the same message as the KJV, and indeed know if this is a more accurate rendering. SOOOoooooooooo many different renderings of this passage have been understood in different translations meaning different things.
So if your right, going by two suggestions of yours....
Original...
AENT: ...17. Which were shadows of the things then future; but the body of Mashiyach.
Possible New...
AENT: ...17. Which ARE shadows of the things TO come; but the body of Mashiyach.
The KJV as I understand it with a 'Pro Feast' mindset is saying...
KJV - "Therefore let no one judge you...in these things... which ARE a shadow of things TO come, but the body of christ."
AENT suggestion: "Therefore let no one judge you...in these things...Which ARE shadows of the things TO come; but the body of Mashiyach.
SAME
OR
AENT suggestion 2: "Therefore let no one judge you...in these things...Which ARE shadows of the things that are TO take place; but the body of Mashiyach.
with suggestion 3, replace 'then' with 'are' and ignore the 'then' if it is a suggestive interpolation for English flow, is it?
AENT suggestion 3: "Therefore let no one judge you...in these things...Which ARE shadows of the things future; but the body of Mashiyach
As you can see, by your suggestions it seems the same meaning can be achieved in the AENT, I would like clarification though as I don't want to be stretching or twisting things.
I am not sure which rendering is the most accurate but I would like to know if my suggestion is a valid take on it. it's extreemely important I get a grasp on this. I'm a Christian who has realised not all the Torah (or non?) has been done away with and is on a careful transition, so naturally I'm in process of reconciling it all trying to get a consistent NT message.
Also for kicks, does this help the Aramaic Primacy argument any? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- s -->
Re: Colossians Misunderstood - As Usual! - Knuckles - 06-11-2010
If anyone could give their input on the above that'd be great. <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> However, Aaron has kindly sent me a message and thus, it seems we have these variations that are possible....
-----summary-----
standard AENT begore suggestions: ... "Therefore let no one judge you...in these
things...Which were shadows of the things then future; but the body of Mashiyach.
KJV - "Therefore let no one judge you...in these things... which ARE a shadow of things TO
come, but the body of christ."
AENT suggestion: "Therefore let no one judge you...in these things...Which ARE shadows of the things TO come; but the body of Mashiyach.
AENT suggestion 2: "Therefore let no one judge you...in these things...Which ARE shadows of the things that are TO take place; but the body of Mashiyach.
AENT suggestion 3: "Therefore let no one judge you...in these things...Which ARE shadows of the things future; but the body of Mashiyach
AENT suggestion 4: "Therefore let no one judge you...in these things...Which ARE shadows of the things-that-are-being-prepared; but the body of Mashiyach.
AENT suggestion 5: "Therefore let no one judge you...in these things...Which ARE shadows of the future-events; but the body of Mashiyach.
The 5 suggestions retain the KJV type meaning based on all the above posts. What you think? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->Just want to get a collective on this regarding legitimacy. I think I'm / we're getting somewhere.
Re: Colossians Misunderstood - As Usual! - distazo - 06-12-2010
You're doing great work <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->Proably the KJV is most inspired? <!-- s
--><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> <!-- s:listen: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/listen.gif" alt=":listen:" title="Listen" /><!-- s:listen: -->