Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Translations Compared: Eastern or Western?

Mic, there is no proof of what they are saying. This is why their position could certainly be wrong. We do not possess the autographs of any of the books of The New, we have no proof if the Apostles and their helpers 1st wrote in Aramaic, Greek, or even Latin, as it is claimed by some that Mark's Gospel was 1st written in Latin.

This website is here to discuss the matter to see if there is indications textually that the NT Books were 1st written down in Aramaic, then soon after translated into Greek and Latin. We know by testimony of the Church fathers, that NT Books in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin were all known to exist in the mid-2nd century. And there is testimony of an Aramaic NT dated as early as 78 A.D. I believe all three versions were circulating by the mid-1st century, among those Christians who spoke in those languages.

But, there is a lot of internal indications in the NT that points to the Greek being a translation of the Aramaic text, not the other way around.

I ask you...which of the Greek families of NT texts (5) do you say is the Original form? And how do you know which form is the most true to the original, if Greek were the original?



Messages In This Thread
Re: Translations Compared: Eastern or Western? - by Thirdwoe - 02-01-2013, 03:17 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)