Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Um....are we sure Maryah always = LORD?
#16
Burning one Wrote:
rungold315 Wrote:Matthew 13:27 is a PARABLE, so how in the world is it meant to be YHWH instead of "lord/sir"?

I was so confident before noticing this, and now I am a bit grieved.


Shlama,


are you referring to the English reading of the AENT, which reads "Master YHWH" ?

if so, please note that this is just an error, as the Peshitta text uses D'MARE' BAYTA, and not MARYA. does anyone know if this is corrected in the other printings?


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy


And there you go-it was a mistranslation after all. Which gets me irritated, because its also in the 3rd edition? I paid 65 bucks for a book full of typos in which the grammar structure of almost every other sentence is irregular and confusing. There are also many many many incomplete sentences.

For instance, "So, the man, having been healed, and seeing the marvelous works of Jesus." (This isnt a bible quote, just an example cause I am bible-less now)

And now I hear this mistake is also in the 3rd edition? C'mon Andrew Roth-your website doesnt answer emails, youve disappeared from this forum (coincidentally as soon as money started coming in for the AENT), and youve made it to 3 editions with still many typos? What was the point of the 2nd edition, if not money then?

I remember a guy under the name of Albion who was furious when receiving his first edition of the AENT, and I rebuked him for attacking Andrew, but Im sorry if I dont feel the same anymore.

In spite of all the typos, I thought the AENT was still a treasure because it showed me the lords from the LORDs, but now even this may not be correct all the time? I know Bible translating is not easy, but you cant help but be a little suspicious and disapproving of somebody when they make edition after edition without first making sure the first editions are 100% reviewed/edited.
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear Elohim, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc.12:13
Reply
#17
Shlama,

rungold, i concur with Rafa, here. proofreading is a large task, i know personally, and even careful proofers can still miss things. errors are unfortunate, to be sure, and definitely to be sought out and corrected when it comes to Scripture, but we should also take care not to allow our frustrations with a version's typos to color our views, but rather see the situation as it is, and work towards a better, cleaner version. i can personally attest to doing this, and even then, finding things that i missed beforehand.

the problem is that when money is involved, people expect certain quality, and if it doesn't meet their standard, feelings get hurt, instead of seeking to understand what might have happened to make it such, or working to avail the work of such existing problems.

just some further thoughts here.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#18
Burning one Wrote:
rungold315 Wrote:Matthew 13:27 is a PARABLE, so how in the world is it meant to be YHWH instead of "lord/sir"?

I was so confident before noticing this, and now I am a bit grieved.


Shlama,


are you referring to the English reading of the AENT, which reads "Master YHWH" ?

if so, please note that this is just an error, as the Peshitta text uses D'MARE' BAYTA, and not MARYA. does anyone know if this is corrected in the other printings?


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

Aaron S Wrote:It reads that way in the third edition also. Pardon my brevity. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Sadly I can testify that it is still that way in my 4th Edition.

And it is been faithfully testified to the FACT that it is also messed-up in the 5th Edition as well.
See: AENT 5th Editions Errors and Suggestions @ <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://netzari.angelfire.com/aent_errors.pdf">http://netzari.angelfire.com/aent_errors.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Many of the 1st Edition's ERRORS have been carried right on through to the latest (but most likely not last) Edition, oy.

In the introduction Roth emphatically states that -
"All Renewed Covenant texts, in the same manner as Torah, should be perfectly and lovingly copied by an expert scribe ... ..."

Well then by Roth's own words one would think that by his[Roth's] 5th Edition/Attempt that he could have some how lovingly perfected at least the Aramaic side of the AENT. Much less the many English translational errors which have carried right on through each rendition he has made.
Reply
#19
While I love the AENT, Roth has not delivered the best translation possible, as these errors Lux listed could easily be corrected. Roth needs to focus less on the footnotes an more on the translation itself.
Reply
#20
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:While I love the AENT, Roth has not delivered the best translation possible, as these errors Lux listed could easily be corrected. Roth needs to focus less on the footnotes an more on the translation itself.
Yeah while Luc and Burning One, as well as others, have shown many issues with Roth's version and testified that each time they picked it up they found more things wrong with it, as I can personally attest to as well, but suffice to say too much to make a list on, as the world could not retain the pages thereof.

I personall recommend one of Janet Mageira's Translation over Roth's version any day.
Reply
#21
Her and Paul's translations are probably the most reliable that have been produced in the modern day.
Reply
#22
ScorpioSniper2 wrote
Quote:While I love the AENT, Roth has not delivered the best translation possible, as these errors Lux listed could easily be corrected. Roth needs to focus less on the footnotes an more on the translation itself.
Roth has to remove his footnotes completely as it is
doctrinally very biased.
He made a very beautiful work but I cannot get it because of the footnotes.
Reply
#23
There is at least one place where his doctrine effects his translation and it is Colossians 2:16.

"Let no (pagan) therefore judge you about food and drink, or about the distinctions of festivals and new moons and Shabbats."- AENT

"Let no one therefore disquiet you about food and drink, or about the distinctions of festivals, and new moons, and sabbaths..."- Murdock

Any theological footnotes in a translation are going to be biased because footnotes of that nature are almost always representing the opinions of the writer. The footnotes, which I mostly disagree with strongly, can be forgiven, as they do not overpower the translation.
Reply
#24
To the best of my knowledge I noticed
that 'Mara' means lord, owner and is applied to man.
So far I cannot translate 'Marya' sinced I noticed as it is applied to deities like Jesus, Angel and YHWH.
I did not see 'Marya' applied to man.
Although Greek text applies kyrios to both deity and man.
Looks like in old times there was uncertainty among Greeks too.
Reply
#25
"Kurios" (Lord) was used by the Greeks in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew text, which had "Adoni" (Lord) in place of YHWH. This was long before the Aramaic Peshitta OT was translated. When the Aramaic OT was translated from the Hebrew, they chose to use the form "Marya" (a contraction word) Mar-Ya, not "Mari" or "Maran", which are not contractions, and both mean (Lord). They could have easily used "Mari" or "Maran"...but didn't. What do you think was the reason?

Also, can you please give all the verses which calls an Angel, Marya? I want to study it a bit. And there is only ONE Deity, and He has manifested Himself in/through Eshu' M'shikha (Jesus Christ).

Blessings,
Chuck
Reply
#26
Thirdwoe Wrote:"Kurios" (Lord) was used by the Greeks in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew text, which had "Adoni" (Lord) in place of YHWH. This was long before the Aramaic Peshitta OT was translated. When the Aramaic OT was translated from the Hebrew, they chose to use the form "Marya" (a contraction word) Mar-Ya, not "Mari" or "Maran", which are not contractions, and both mean (Lord). They could have easily used "Mari" or "Maran"...but didn't. What do you think was the reason?

Also, can you please give all the verses which calls an Angel, Marya? I want to study it a bit. And there is only ONE Deity, and He has manifested Himself in/through Eshu' M'shikha (Jesus Christ).

Blessings,
Chuck

I agree that marya clearly is a distinction between mari/mar/maran etc. What about 2 Cor 3:18 where we have 'marya ruwha'.
If it is a contraction, it would say: "YHWH spirit" or "YHWH the spirit". What does Roth have there? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#27
Roth's 1st edition has "...as by Master YHWH the Spirit."
Reply
#28
Quote:Also, can you please give all the verses which calls an Angel, Marya?
I have to look to it.
Since so much debates who is Marya, if I was translator I would just transliterated this word and let the reader decide.
Reply
#29
IPOstapyuk Wrote:
Quote:Also, can you please give all the verses which calls an Angel, Marya?
I have to look to it.
Since so much debates who is Marya, if I was translator I would just transliterated this word and let the reader decide.

Why did the Greeks and others not transliterate it? Because marya, is a girls name and is like Maria. It would not contribute to the holiness of God at all.
Reply
#30
IPOstapyuk Wrote:
Quote:Also, can you please give all the verses which calls an Angel, Marya?
I have to look to it.
Since so much debates who is Marya, if I was translator I would just transliterated this word and let the reader decide.

distazo Wrote:Why did the Greeks and others not transliterate it? Because marya, is a girls name and is like Maria. It would not contribute to the holiness of God at all.
Oy, if Ha Sawtawn can not uphold one lie he comes with another.

But before haSawtawn,s last ridiculous spew, meant to distract us from the truth, can IPOstapyuk please answer ThirdWoe's question!

ThirdWoe quot Wrote:Also, can you please give all the verses which calls an Angel, Marya?


And If anyone wants to use the Eastern (or even the Western Peshitta) please do, but, by all means never quote Roth's version as it is known to be a literary piece of trash. That is right it does not by any means hold true as it claims to have done! So again I ask that any questions pertaining to the Eastern (much less the Western) Peshitta should never be based upon Roth's literary piece of trash [i./e.- his 2008-2010 rendition of the Western Peshitta!!!].

(OK, Younan's and Mageira's versions are good English bases but Roth'as rendition can not by any means be trusted, period!!!) So please show where a Messenger [a.k.a. - a Messenger was called Marya?].
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)