I don't get the sense of Romans 14:6

[ograabe]

DAVE WROTE: ???Lamsa was a brilliant man, no doubt. I do not deny it. That is not the point we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that in his translation of "Akel" in verse 6, he ignored the context of chapter 14 , which is about "eating" or "not eating" different foods, especially meat as opposed to vegetables. (see Romans 14: 2) It is certainly not about "embezzlement", as he translates it, or as you seem to interpret it. The verb "Akel" is used 14 times in this chapter, Otto. It is not about "embezzlement. You are ignoring the context altogether; so was Lamsa.???

Eating choices are clearly the subject of Romans 14: 1-3, versus 4-13 are about other aspects of not judging others. The idea that Paul devoted a whole chapter to eating different foods strikes me as bizarre.

DAVE WROTE: ???He had a theological agenda to push, apparently, as he did in other places, where he seemed to relegate demon possession to some type of mental disorder in several places in the Gospels and took the word "demon" out of the text altogether. You are as aware of this as I and others on this forum. Don't act like Lamsa was some babe in the woods who simply slipped up in a few places; he knew better than this, as you also are aware.???

It is true and well documented that in a few incidents in the New Testament, Lamsa believed that certain specific references to certain persons described as having demons were idiomatic in his native Aramaic language in reference to their insanity. There were insane men who Jesus encountered. That is a statement of fact, and has nothing at all to do with the cause of that insanity. Do you believe that all insane people are possessed by demons? In some Bible examples it is clear that demons were implicated, and Lamsa???s translation does not misrepresent them. In those few cases of this idiomatic interpretation Lamsa put careful footnotes in his translation of the Peshitta, and further documented and explained these linguistic meanings in his commentaries. He was not intending to hide anything and he did nothing secretive or improper. His commentaries explain his choices. Dave, if you believe that the literal meaning of every word conveys the true meaning, then how do you handle the many Biblical idioms and metaphors.

To claim that Lamsa did not believe in demons or satan or devils or purposely misrepresented them is just plain wrong! To imply that Lamsa tried to hide the existence of demons or devils or satan is just plain ridiculous.

I started counting the number of times that ???demon??? or ???demons??? are mentioned in Lamsa???s New Testament translation, and a found over 2,000 cases in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I found over 1,000 cases of ???devil??? or ???devils??? and over 1,000 cases of ???satan??? and for those I looked only the first half Lamsa???a New Testament translation. I was too tired to go any further, but it is clear that Lamsa did not hide or avoid the clear Biblical references to demons, the devil, or satan as found in the Peshitta. Dave, how can you claim that he did?

When the Bible says that Yeshua faced off with the devil in the desert, you can find that well described in Lamsa???s translation. When Yeshua cast demons out of people, Lamsa???s translation clearly describes these cases because Lamsa was a precise and accurate traslator

DAVE WROTE: ???You really should ask Paul Younan again why The Church of The East would never use Lamsa's translation in their churches. You seem to have forgotten some rather recent posts on the Lamsa translation.???

My understanding is that the Church of the East only accepts the Peshitta in its original Aramaic words. It does not promote any translations and it does not believe that the Western Five and the Western changes in the other 22 books are truly inspired scripture. Dave, I think you translated a Peshitto version that the Church of East rejects in whole or in part. Hence, your translation will probably be rejected by the Church of the East as well.

DAVE WROTE: ???You also seem willing to overlook the fact that Lamsa added the words "duty of" to "day"- "Yoma" in verse 6. He has no idiomatic usage to support this translation, Otto, as you may think. He was circumventing the obvious point of the verse, which instructs us that the "day keeping" and "dietary regulations" of Judaism are unnecessary for New Testament believers.???

That may be your view, but I doubt that you are an expert on First Century Aramaic idioms. I believe that Lamsa was. It is important to remember that Lamsa was a native Assyrian who thought in Aramaic. He did not translate the Peshitta, per se. Rather he created an English version of the Peshitta based on his native understanding of the Aramaic text using his beloved KJV as a template. I know of no one on this forum who has Lamsa???s credentials. I talked with Lamsa about his view of his work, and I learned that he firmly believed that God lead him and that God was responsible for making it possible. He hid nothing and was very sincere. In him was no guile. He explained it all in his commentary volumes and he wrote a nice little book about First Century Aramaic. See Gospel Light (408 pages, 1935), New Testament Commentary (630 pages, 1945), More Light on the Gospel (377 pages, 1968), Old Testament Light (976 pages, 1964), Idiom of the Bible Explained (86 pages, 1971), and others.

Lamsa was the pioneer who angered the U.S. Christian establishment in 1947 when he published his little book, New Testament Origin, in which Chapter One began with this strong statement: ???Not a word of either the Old or New Testaments was originally written in Greek or any other European language.??? Those were fighting words!

We are all blessed to have the Peshitta.

Otto