Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How does the AENT 4th edition compare to the others?
#46
Jerry Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Not when used in "beth Israel" and other constructs, which refers to the nation of Israel.
+Shamasha
I don't think so. Consider this example:

and-the-many the-lepers being they-were among Yisroyel, in-the-days-of Elisha the-prophet - Luke 4:27

I know others often translate it as "the-house-of", but I think it is a misread of the word. The probability is that "among" is the default word, and the construct "the-house-of" a rare exception, when it actually refers to a house or building. I have yet to see it used next to "Israel" when it could not be translated as "among".

Beyath (among) and Beyth (house) are two different words, they are pronounced differently although they contain the same consonants. The difference is the "Kulah" (singular "all" which points to the "beyth") in Acts 2:36, in that context "all the House of Israel" is the more appropriate translation, not "among". It is the singular "Kulah" that's the key.

If the translation were as you propose, "all among Israel", then the singular "Kulah" would be the plural "Kulhon"....as in "Kulhon beyath Israel" (all those among Israel). The suffix of "Kulah" would be the 3rd p. plural -hon.

This is why I say it's painfully obvious to me you do not understand the very basics of the language.

Jerry, you cannot use dictionaries and lexicons as your sole basis for translation. You have to understand the grammar, to look beyond a word itself at the surrounding context at times. Things like suffixes, number and gender of surrounding words are important...very important. Take that as constructive criticism, not as an insult. Aramaic does not behave like English.

+Shamasha
#47
Jerry Wrote:You have no place insulting me the way you do, and I have as much place in translating the Peshitta as any other.

Take it as an insult if you must, it certainly isn't intended to be an insult. It's the truth - you do not understand the language at all, and I can demonstrate it. And it's not an insult to say God help your readers - I truly mean it. You are purposely misleading them by allowing your theological bias to interfere with your translation effort.

You certainly are free to do as you please, I don't intend to interfere in any way with your effort: you have only to God to answer, not me. I am also free to give my opinion and warn as many people as possible that your "translation" is that of a non-speaker, an amateur with no proper training, and that it contains errors based on your theological bias. That you are translating from lexicons and dictionaries, which is just about the most dangerous mix that I know of.

Yours is certainly not the first translation I've critiqued: If I do not spare myself (nor others like Lamsa, Trimm, and others), why would I hesitate to give my honest opinion of what you are doing?

A speaker of this language I know you aren't, do you have any sort of other qualification to be giving these opinions? I'm curious as to whether or not you've taken any secondary-level instruction in this or any other related language? I'll bet anything that you don't. The sort of mistakes you are making are either those of a complete amateur, or the purposeful ones of a deceiver. Which is it?

+Shamasha
#48
Paul Younan Wrote:Beyath (among) and Beyth (house) are two different words, they are pronounced differently although they contain the same consonants. The difference is the "Kulah" (fem. "all" which points to the feminine "beyth") in Acts 2:36, in that context "all the House of Israel" is the more appropriate translation, not "among". It is the gender suffix of "Kulah" that's the key.
The construct form "the-house-of" and the particle "among" are both written as (`beyth). There is no (`beyath) unless you are referring to (`bay`t), which is always written in the emphatic form, (`bay`to-) "the-house"; (`bay) being the absolute.

In addition, it is not (kulah) "all-her" in Acts 2:36, it is (kuleh) "all-him". Depending upon the context (kul) can be "each" in the singular or "all" in the plural. One method out of the "each"/"all" quandry is to translate both (kulah) and (kuleh) as a generic "all-that". Which would be "all-that among Yisroyel" in Acts 2:36.

For someone professing to have the "truth", you seem to get a lot of things wrong. Is that why my translations are rattling your cage?
#49
Jerry Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:For someone professing to have the "truth", you seem to get a lot of things wrong.

See my post above, the initial version was written in haste as I was at work. The proper explanation is above after I edited it. And no, your translation is still wrong on both fronts for the reasons explained above.

Number one: "Kul-h" (singular) indicates the translation is "All the House of Israel", otherwise it would be "Kul-hon" (plural) for "All Among Israel"

Secondly: for your translation of "of-that-of-the-Lord", which started all this, you are missing a Daleth Proclitic. You still haven't explained how you got the extra "of" there.

You still haven't answered my other question, have you taken any proper instruction in this language, or are you self-taught?

+Shamasha
#50
Paul Younan Wrote:See my post above, the initial version was written in haste as I was at work. The proper explanation is above after I edited it. And no, your translation is still wrong on both fronts for the reasons explained above.

+Shamasha
You read my post above yours, and you with have the proper explanation. (kul) is "each" or "all" depending upon context.

You still want us to believe that "and-the-many the-lepers being they-were among Yisroyel" should be translated as "and-the-many the-lepers being they-were the-house-of Yisroyel"?

You make many bold claims, but they don't stand up to the truth.
#51
Jerry Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:See my post above, the initial version was written in haste as I was at work. The proper explanation is above after I edited it. And no, your translation is still wrong on both fronts for the reasons explained above.

+Shamasha
You read my post above yours, and you with have the proper explanation. (kul) is "each" or "all" depending upon context.

You still want us to believe that "and-the-many the-lepers being they-were among Yisroyel" should be translated as "and-the-many the-lepers being they-were the-house-of Yisroyel"?

You make many bold claims, but they don't stand up to the truth.

Jerry, you are not understanding the post. I never said anything about the lepers reading. There the proper pronunciation is "beyath", "among." It's a different word pronounced differently.

Kul (all) has a suffix in each case. -h in Acts 2:36 is singular. If the translation were "among", indicating plurality, then the suffix for Kul would need to be -hon (masc. pl.), not -h (masc. sing.). It is the singular suffix that points to "house" (singular), and not "among" (plural).

See Matthew 10:23 - "kul-hyn" (fem. pl. suffix -hyn) for "All (fem. pl) the cities (fem. pl) of the House of Israel." Likewise, the "Kul" in Acts 2:36 would need the plural suffix "-hon" to read "among."

+Shamasha
#52
Paul Younan Wrote:Jerry, you are not understanding the post. I never said anything about the lepers reading.
+Shamasha
You said this:
Paul Younan Wrote:Not when used in "beth Israel" and other constructs, which refers to the nation of Israel.
+Shamasha
And I showed you how you were wrong. The "lepers" verse was simply the vehicle for doing so. The same applies to the other (`beyth Yisroyel) verses.
#53
Jerry Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Jerry, you are not understanding the post. I never said anything about the lepers reading.
+Shamasha
You said this:
Paul Younan Wrote:Not when used in "beth Israel" and other constructs, which refers to the nation of Israel.
+Shamasha
And I showed you how you were wrong. The "lepers" verse was simply the vehicle for doing so. The same applies to the other (`beyth Yisroyel) verses.

Jerry, I am well aware of the "beyath" reading (see my translation of Acts 1:8) - "...Among the Samaritans...."

The problem with using "among" in Acts 2:36, is the singular suffix -h for "kul". "Kul-h Beth Israel" in Acts 2:36 means "All the House of Israel."

+Shamasha
#54
As I said earlier, the easiest way, and likely the best way to translate (kuleh) is the generic "all-that", which would make in Acts 2:36 read as "all-that among Yisroyel".

But that doesn't mean that "all-him among Yisroyel" or "each-him among Yisroyel" is outside the boundary of the text. Or that "all-that the-house-of Yisroyel" makes more sense.

Look at the many (`beyth Yisroyel) combos, and you will see that "among" fits them all naturally, where as "the-house-of" does not.
#55
Jerry Wrote:As I said earlier, the easiest way, and likely the best way to translate (kuleh) is the generic "all-that", which would make in Acts 2:36 read as "all-that among Yisroyel".

"Kul" without a suffix yes (c.f., Matthew 3:10), but not with the -h (singular masc.) suffix. The masc. singular suffix for "all" would indicate the proper translation in Acts 2:36 is "House".

Jerry Wrote:But that doesn't mean that "all-him among Yisroyel" or "each-him among Yisroyel" is outside the boundary of the text. Or that "all-that the-house-of Yisroyel" makes more sense.

Look at the many (`beyth Yisroyel) combos, and you will see that "among" fits them all naturally, where as "the-house-of" does not.

Yes, but in none of those cases (including Acts 1:8, 8:1, etc.) is there a particle with a preceding singular suffix. That's the indicator for how to translate Acts 2:36.

"Kul-h Beth Israel" is best translated "All the House of Israel" (red color meant to stand out there!)

+Shamasha
#56
Paul Younan Wrote:"Kul-h Beth Israel" is best translated "All the House of Israel" (red color meant to stand out there!)

+Shamasha
Well, the color that is meant to stand out, you seem to have dropped completely from your translation.

I concede that when I used "each-him", it was not as appropriate as it could have been. But "all-that" is appropriate; and "all-that among Yisroyel" is an appropriate translation. Additionally, I don't know how "all the house of Israel" would be any more appropriate. Consider this in the aggregate:

kul:eh - "all-that" - sing masc
kul:ah - "all-that" - sing fem
kul:huwn - "all-them" - plural masc
kul:heyn - "all-them" - plural fem

I doubt there can be found a verse in the NT, where those translations do not fit the text; and where there is never a need to drop the suffix from the translation.
#57
Akhi Jerry,

Just out of curiosity, since you are familiar with CAL - how would you translate Ezekiel 36:10 ? (note the exact same phrase, with same suffix, gender and number)

"Kul-h Beth Israel".

Please translate that the same way you translated Acts 2:36 - does it make sense?

If it does, what is the original Hebrew reading that it translates? Does Beth in Hebrew also translate "among?"

+Shamasha
#58
Jerry Wrote:Additionally, I don't know how "all the house of Israel" would be any more appropriate.

In English, it isn't any more, or less, appropriate. We are arguing over semantics here. Both translations mean the same thing. Which is why I don't understand why you brought it up? My contention with your translation of Acts 2:36 had nothing to do with this phrase. We've totally strayed off path here. I don't care if you translate this phrase "All Israel", "All the people", or "All of them." Who cares?

I want to know how you defend the original point of contention - if I were your professor and you were defending a thesis. What is your justification for including the extra "of" in d-MRYA ?

Let's go with your, and CAL's, division of the phrases:

"Shareerayeeth hakhel neda kuleh beyth Israel" -> "Truly, therefore, let it be known to all the house of Israel"

"d-MRYA w-MESHIKHA awdeh Alaha" -> "that the-LORD and the-Messiah made Him God" (my translation)
"d-MRYA w-MESHIKHA awdeh Alaha" -> "that-of-the-LORD, and the-Messiah, made Him God" (your translation, as I read it)

"l-hana Yeshua d-anton zqapton" -> "this Yeshua, whom you crucified."

How did you get all that out of a simple Daleth Proclitic ? Can you see how it appears to everyone else here that your translation of this verse was tainted by your theological bias?

+Shamasha
#59
Paul Younan Wrote:How did you get all that out of a simple Daleth Proclitic ? Can you see how it appears to everyone else here that your translation of this verse was tainted by your theological bias?

+Shamasha
I can see that you have an unfounded bias against me, and are slanting your posts accordingly. Unlike you, I have never translated (d:mor:yo-) without translating the "d" prefix as "of". So the premise of your post is wrong from the get-go; wrongly portrayed, wrongly assessed.

Regarding my translations of (mor:yo-) itself, I have worked in a range of what I think is acceptable, sometimes using an internal construct; but unlike you, never professing to have the definitive answer for (mor:yo-). Yet, I have a pretty good idea of what it can't be, based upon contextual conflict.

And how is that you pretend to know what my beliefs or theology are? If your culture permits you to belittle others over something you know nothing of, in the name of "truth"; then you have neither a proper culture or the truth.
#60
Paul Younan Wrote:I don't translate from the CAL site: I translate from the text itself. Find a manuscript with the hard breaks you and CAL propose and we'll discuss it.
The CAL site has the text and the parsing. You said I fabricated the parsing to suit my purposes.

So tell me, did the CAL site fabricate its parsing to suit my purpose as well?


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)