Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aramaic Old Testament verses KJV/Hebrew O.T.
#1
Greetings and salutations to all.

I would like a some to give me a clearer perspective on the Aramaic Old Testament as it relates or is compared to my KJV Old Testament (translated from Hebrew). My present understanding is that for most of the the Aramaic Primacy view also believe (from what I have read on this site) that the most ancient manuscripts/copies of our current Old Testament are not in Hebrew but in Aramaic and thus, you all believe that most reliable translations of the Old Testament are from Aramaic sources. Hence, I premise that you believe that our/my KJV Old Testament is corrupt (to some degree).

(1) Please tell me to what measure that the Hebrew behind the KjV Old Testament is a poor selection. I mean, when I read and study my KJV Old Testament am I reading a "watered down" version or deficient translation based upon not so good sources??

(2) I would like to know what how you all view the Lamsa Old Testament translation, ( there are several on line sites where one can go and read his(Lamsa's) translation which is FROM THE ARAMAIC.) His OT translation is from Aramaic, right?? Is his translation reliable enough to give a good reflection of the Old Testament Aramaic??

(3) To my limited knowledge there is very little difference between the Hebrew and the Aramaic when it comes to the Old Testament Books. Would the effort really be worth it to go out of my way and find english translations of the OT FROM THE ARAMAIC??

Thanks for any input or backround knowledge you can give me. I just desire a more accurate perspective of the KJV Old Testament books from an Aramaicist point of view and if there is much difference in the significance of the Hebrew OlD Testament verses the Aramaic Old Testament. Backround of how each view developed their canon would be helpful also.

Tks alot.

Mike Karoules[/i][/i]
Reply
#2
Mike Kar Wrote:Greetings and salutations to all.

I would like a some to give me a clearer perspective on the Aramaic Old Testament as it relates or is compared to my KJV Old Testament (translated from Hebrew). My present understanding is that for most of the the Aramaic Primacy view also believe (from what I have read on this site) that the most ancient manuscripts/copies of our current Old Testament are not in Hebrew but in Aramaic and thus, you all believe that most reliable translations of the Old Testament are from Aramaic sources. Hence, I premise that you believe that our/my KJV Old Testament is corrupt (to some degree).

snip...

Dear Mike,

I did not now 'we' believed this? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Do you have references where aramaic primacists say this?

To my best knowledge, the OT just was written in Hebrew. Some parts in Aramaic, which is a well known fact.

However, there are three witnesses from the -original- hebrew. Citations from the NT to the OT, also show, that in Jeshua's time, there were more 'bible-standards' (except the septuagint/MT)

The Hebrew (MT) itself (which is not a translation, but endured thousands of years of copying)
Septuagint (translation)
Peshitta OT (translation).

It looks like the septuagint often agree where the Hebrew disagrees.
However, I've not seen an Aramaic primacist say: "THe POT is the best!"
all three of them are OK

In some situations, just like when the dead see scrolls were found, by going back to 1 of the 3 sources, todays scribes, could 'fix' or explain scribal errors.

I would like to see a new OT bible translation, where 3 sources are used and the 'best' (if that is possible?) choice will be made if a line seems corrupt or spurious.
Reply
#3
Distazo,

Maybe I did not have all my facts in order. But I was under the impression that the Old Testament(Peshitta version) was the oldest and best. I received this understanding from a web-site ( See: Was The New Testament Really Written in Greek, by Raphael Lataster). You can see this at AramaicPeshitta.com and click to the web page that takes you to Lamsa's translation of the Old Testament. Here, Raphael Lataster states,

" The Peshitta Old Testament is the Aramaic version of a Hebrew OT version(older and superior to the current accepted MT[Mazoretic Text} version). The Lamsa Bible utilizes this."

So, here is a comment (an accepted fact I assume by Aramaic Primacists) that the Peshitta version of the OT is older [i][/i] than the MT Hebrew version.

Do you adhere to this and believe this is true??

But, and a big "but", I assume that the Peshitta OT(Aramaic translation) is a translation of a much older Mazoretic Text Hebrew source , and that is what Raphael may be talking about.

How does all this piece together??

Mike

Reply
#4
Rafa,

Okay, thank-you. I did read some information from this web-site and even under the heading you mentioned(Ancient Bible Versions or something similar) and yes, he does state that some books of the OT Tanakh were written in Aramaic; for sure Ezra and Nehemiah and a good chance possibly others also.

But I am still wanting to know if the Lamsa OT Translation online(2 or 3 web-sites have this Lamsa OT Tanakh in English) is a pretty accurate or in the "ballpark" translation of the OT Tanakh in English - maybe not with the"wooden" or word for word translation that Yaaqab would give but -

Is Lamsa's OT translation into English reflect a pretty close (reasonably speaking) translation from the Aramaicist point of view?? Someone here should be able to know this to a close range of accuracy. Tks.

Rafa, Thank you for your time and for your response. I plan to read a good amount from that web-site. Take care.

Cordially,

Mike Karoules
Reply
#5
Hi, where did you get these intrepretations from, I have the lamsa bible and gen 1-3 is "let there be light' and my lamsa bible does not have these intrepretations. So one can still read the lamsa bible freely, its the best english old testament that I have. Although I can not read aramaic.
Reply
#6
Yes, of course we don't agree with those intrepretations. I wonder if andrew is going to do a translation of the old testament.
Reply
#7
Distazo,

Your 1st response in saying, "I did not know 'we believe' this," has been on my mind for awhile. I did not mean to (you and I) or those who adhere to Aramaic Primacy against myself put you or you guys against myself. What I mean is that I am not against you guys as if this is some kind of competition. I do not need any enemies here. I am with Aramaic Primacists in a good many ways. Let me just say that I do not think that Aramaic Primacy is a "slam dunk" Vs. Greek Primacy. I don't want to get stuck on the wrong side here, for if Aramaic primacy is true, I can not stick to Greek Primacy, for then I will lose out on many blessings. Just to sum up: I am not "against" anyone here, if you know what I mean. I want the truth because the truth sets free. It almost sounded like I set myself up against you/you all. If understood as such then I wish to repent and retract.

Tks.

Cordially,

Mike Karoules
Reply
#8
Rafa Wrote:Mike...well, Otto might disagree with me, but I find that Lamsa translated using some rather strange principles. Some examples of this (I obtained this from an anti-aramiac Greek primacist website and don't know if this can be trusted but if true it shows a very strong anti-supernaturalism in Lamsa's translation, something he has been much criticized here and elsewhere for, please check):

Genesis 1:3 "Let there be light"

Lamsa's interpretation:

"Let there be enlightenment "

Genesis 3:24 "wrestling with the angel of the Lord"

Lamsa's interpretation :

"Being suspicious of a pious person"

Genesis 5:24 "God took Enoch"

Lamsa's interpretation :

He died painlessly

Exodus3:5 "Take off your shoes for you are on Holy ground."

Lamsa's interpretation :

Disregard pagan teachings.

John 10:36" I and my father are one"

Lamsa's interpretation :

the father and I agree.



Just to name a few. I prefer Yaaqub's (unfortunately unfinished) translation since it is literal, formal, and does not take these liberties.

hmm.. That list is TOTALLY wrong. I have Lamsa's trnslation and NONE of it is like that. Here is what Lamsa has on ALL those:

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.

Gen 3:24 So the LORD God drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the path to the tree of life. ( not sure if this was the right reference that tat guy at the site was talking about, being that there is NOTHING about wrestling an angel AT ALL).

Exo 3:5 And he said, Do not draw near; take your shoes from off your feet, for the place whereon you are standing is holy ground.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one in accord.
Reply
#9
Shalama Aki Mike. As an answer to your question about Lamsa's translation, It's an okay translation of the Peshitta TaNaKH as far as I have seen. The problem I have though is that he takes too much liberty in "targumming" what the Aramaic says.
Reply
#10
Mike Kar Wrote:Greetings and salutations to all.

I would like a some to give me a clearer perspective on the Aramaic Old Testament as it relates or is compared to my KJV Old Testament (translated from Hebrew). My present understanding is that for most of the the Aramaic Primacy view also believe (from what I have read on this site) that the most ancient manuscripts/copies of our current Old Testament are not in Hebrew but in Aramaic and thus, you all believe that most reliable translations of the Old Testament are from Aramaic sources. Hence, I premise that you believe that our/my KJV Old Testament is corrupt (to some degree).

I believe that the Massoretic text is as accurate as one can find. Yes, there are variants (as are shown in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If someone can demonstrate a significant flaw I would like to see it.

(1) Please tell me to what measure that the Hebrew behind the KjV Old Testament is a poor selection. I mean, when I read and study my KJV Old Testament am I reading a "watered down" version or deficient translation based upon not so good sources??

Yes, you are reading a watered down translation, and it is deeply flawed, interpretations have changed and no longer are appropriate to carry some modern English meanings.

(2) I would like to know what how you all view the Lamsa Old Testament translation, ( there are several on line sites where one can go and read his(Lamsa's) translation which is FROM THE ARAMAIC.) His OT translation is from Aramaic, right?? Is his translation reliable enough to give a good reflection of the Old Testament Aramaic??

I haven't read Lamsa's translation of the Old Testament. However, as you have said,"it's a translation from Aramaic to English. I put more trust in Hebrew to English if it accurately translates the Hebrew into legible English.

(3) To my limited knowledge there is very little difference between the Hebrew and the Aramaic when it comes to the Old Testament Books. Would the effort really be worth it to go out of my way and find english translations of the OT FROM THE ARAMAIC??

Mike, you would do better to learn to read Hebrew and Aramaic so you can see for yourself. Many on this site are at all places of learning and you are not alone, however to sit in a position of knowledge you have to possess knowledge. Otherwise you are always dependent on a translator and there are many translations from Hebrew and Greek as well as Lamsa's from Aramaic.

Thanks for any input or backround knowledge you can give me. I just desire a more accurate perspective of the KJV Old Testament books from an Aramaicist point of view and if there is much difference in the significance of the Hebrew OlD Testament verses the Aramaic Old Testament. Backround of how each view developed their canon would be helpful also.

Tks alot.

Mike Karoules[/i][/i]
Reply
#11
Mike Kar Wrote:Distazo,

Your 1st response in saying, "I did not know 'we believe' this," has been on my mind for awhile. almost sounded like I set myself up against you/you all. If understood as such then I wish to repent and retract.

Tks.

Cordially,

Mike Karoules

Hi Mike,
Sorry if my tone was incorrect.
I wrote like that, because (of course) I am not spokesman for the primacists <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> so, I should have added a smiley.

Regards
Reply
#12
:

Just read this thread tonight and thought I would correct something. It's not the Lamsa English translation that has those readings...

His Bible translation though tainted in areas is for the most part agreeable with other translations. But where Lamsa actually interprets the Scripture is found in his Idioms in the Bible explained and the key to the original gospels written by Lamsa in 1971 published by Harper Collins. He has a allegorical interpretation ignoring the plain literal translation. The back cover states that this book goes far in correcting such error that have crept into biblical scholarship. In this book he explains his interpretation of the scripture of his Bible --he believes these are figures of speech and not literal. Here are just a few examples.

Bible= Gen.1:3 "Let there be light"

Lamsa's interpretation ="Let there be enlightenment

Bible=Gen.2:9 "Tree of life in the midst of the Garden"

Lamsa interpretation = Sex , posterity

Bible= Gen.5:24 God took Enoch (Heb.11:5 States expressly he did not see death)

Lamsa interpretation= He died painlessly, he had a heart attack

Bible=Gen.3:24 wrestling with the angel of the Lord

Lamsa interpretation = Being suspicious of a pious person

Bible=Ex.3:2 the burning bush not consumed

Lamsa interpretation = difficulties ahead difficulties will be overcome

Bible= Ex.3:5 Take off your shoes for you are on Holy ground.

Lamsa interpretation =Disregard pagan teachings, cleanse your heart

Bible= John 1 the word was God

Lamsa interpretation = the word is - a utterance, a command

Bible= John 1:18 the only begotten son

Lamsa interpretation= The first one who recognized the fatherhood of God. The only God-like man; hence, a spiritual son of God.

Bible= John 3:3 Born again

Lamsa interpretation= to become like a child, to start all over.

Bible=Jn.10:36 I and my father are one
Lamsa interpretation = the father and I agree.

Bible= 1 Thess. 4:17 to meet him in the air

Lamsa interpretation = to hasten to greet him

Bible= Rev.1:18 was dead and behold I am Alive forevermore.

Lamsa interpretation= I was unknown and now I am well and successful
Reply
#13
Hi there I have just read a copy of the New Testament translated from Aramaic to English and I am knocked over by the differences between each,I have a NKJV and the Aramaic has given deeper insights to what Y"shua was really saying in no doubt the Old Testament would bring also new meanings to the Faithful and on how we are to live our lives according to the Torah,its amazing when we are faced with real truth and not some interpretation of what it could mean or say.On many matters of faith in Elohim and His ways are not our ways at all except those that still practise the old ways of the torah to the letter.Y"shua said obey my Fathers commandments and observe all of which I give you then you will be children of The Living Elohim...so in respect of this I will try to get a copy of the Old Testament in Aramaic or Hebrew to see the difference between both copies..It has foresure increased my Faith in The Almighty Elohim and His ways... <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)