AENT Errors

[The Texas RAT]

We really don't need to revisit this whole supposed "plagiarism".

How many times are you going to say this and still chime in time after time. Let you actions speak louder than words. If you do not want to speak on the subject of Roth lying about using Younan's and Murdock's translations as an underlying text for his version then simply set the example you wish for others to follow. So far you've always chimed in and say quit a bit. Anyway I already told you just because you do not think it should be brought up here and there does not mean I agree with you and anytime I see someone bringing up the subject I will not shy away. Anyway I would not have took the time to say all of the following if it where not for you replying on this subject, when you say we should not mention this subject any further that just prolongs it. But hey its all good if you want to join in on the subject about how Roth Lied/Lies about using Younan's and Murdock's translations as base texts, but if you are I suggest that you stop saying that we should not do so. Or if you become convicted to never say another word on the subject that good as well. May you have shalom either way.

When I read the AENT introduction I get the impression that he used them as base texts and cross checked the Aramaic to make any updates he saw fit.

I have read the stuff on his website and have watched videos where Roth is being interviewed and he said that he did not do as you are impressed but he claimed that he only used it to consult with as well as other English translations of the Aramaic renewed Covenant along with the Aramaic PeshittA. So out of Roth's own mouth I heard him say that he did not use any translation as a base text. But as anyone can see in three of the documents I posted Roth clearly did use Younan's and Murdock'd translations as base text.

When I look at the actual text I can see where he missed cross checking the Aramaic,

Durrr. that is one of the points I have been trying to make all along that he did not do a word for word translation as he claims.

and I also see evidence of how he actually did not use a simple word processor replacement as is typical of Sacred Name Bibles (otherwise some words would not be as they were).

I never said that Roth did not actually make a point to change things here and there, so yes after he ran the word processor he also in certain places changed stuff, and probably caught some stuff upon proof reading. But not every mistake the word processor made as evidence shows in his version.

Of course, you would need to own an AENT and have read the entire thing to find all of these instances,

Like I said before The documents that I made up on Roth's plagerism I used the sample texts of the AENT provided by Roth. Of course it is not the lastest edition but it is a copy of the AENT and it clearly shows that Roth used these other translations as a base text all the while he said he didn't. This means he lied. This is the problem that I was pointing out. The fact that he used them as a base text does not bother me at all, but the fact that he is going around lying about it does. But have no fear I will live through it and I am sure Roth will too. And although I do not own a whole editions nor have any sample from the latest edition did not not stop me from browsing through a friend's 4th Edition at the Feast of Tabernacles this year. And yes there are still error in it! I also have two other people I email back and forth about Roth's version in which I proof the references in the document which you questioned.

and also to see that some of your copying and pasting without referencing from this forum to form this document is actually now incorrect in subsequent editions.

If you read the document closely you would see where it speaks of mistranslations in the fourth, third, and first editions. So your point here is mute. Just because he fixed some stuff in later editions does not mean that they are wrong in the earlier editions, and people with the older ones should know this information.

But this thread is about AENT errors. Not the use of other people's public domain texts, nor of theology. Let's stick to discussing the Aramaic and it's translation as presented in this volume's current printing.

ScorpioSniper2 started this thread and he mentioned the subject people having a problem with Roth having used Younan's and Murdock's translations as a base text and I felt that he should know as well as any new comers that it is not the fact that he used these translations as a base text but the fact that he lied about doing so. I did not bring up the subject but the one whom started this thread did, so if you want to dog somebody for doing so you need to redirect your comments toward him. But remember it is his thread. As for sticking with the current translation the document "Roth Mistranslations" has stuff in it that applies to the fourth edition as well as stuff in some of the earlier ones. Again it is all relevant to those whom have those editions.


By the way the more people sending Roth the mistakes he and the word processor made perhaps the sooner Roth will be able to get an accurate version put forth.