Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AENT Errors
#91
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:That stinks. Hopefully you get it sometime soon. The AENT really wouldn't be that expensive in paperback or hardcover if you have Amazon Prime. My uncle has me on his Prime subscription, so I can just do that when I order stuff LOL.
Finally got it today! Just compiling my list now, although it may take a bit of time to finish since I work like a mad man. But anyway, from the feedback I gave, some things were updated, but most wasn't. Although, I gave a my feedback a log time ago and have a better working knowledge of the language and texts, so I should be able to make a better list this time and include stuff I've noticed even since the last time.
Reply
#92
Get it up soon! I'm anxious! <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->
Reply
#93
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:Finally got it today! Just compiling my list now, although it may take a bit of time to finish since I work like a mad man. But anyway, from the feedback I gave, some things were updated, but most wasn't. Although, I gave a my feedback a log time ago and have a better working knowledge of the language and texts, so I should be able to make a better list this time and include stuff I've noticed even since the last time.

Luc, you might think to post it in a new POST and call it something like "AENT's 5th Edition errors", so as to have a clean slate with your review on the first posting (instead of being buried 7 pages behind some off topic stuff). Just a though.
Reply
#94
Good idea, Tex!
Reply
#95
Sure, when I'm all done my list I can do that. In the meantime, here's some quick updates,

Mark 14:53 (second unneeded "were" taken out)
Luke 11:32 (Yonan name correction)
John 9:21 (removed "he")
Acts 8:5 - (Meshikha updated to Mashiyach)
2 Corinthians 7:11, 15, and 2 Thessalonians 2:14 - (older English updated)
Revelation 11:4 (Master YHWH corrected to Master; corrected in an older edition but posted here for Chuck)

And... I wanted to get your guys' take on an updated, amplified passage. 2 Corinthians 13:5 - "Don't you acknowledge that Y'shua the Mashiyach is in you? And if he is not, you are despised and against Torah."

There is a very lengthy footnote explaining that this is a double simultaneous exploitation of the singular word and root maslaya, a competent synonym for being against namusa/auryata. Elsewhere this same word remains as lawbreakers (i.e. verse 7). I found this to be an interesting and bold statement, although looking into it myself I can see how this translation has come about. Also interesting to note is that in this verse "he is" is taken out of brackets, even though it is added for clarity by Murdock. Hmm...

Anyway, just an update, but my list is at about 50-60 errors (I have 61 points, and although most of them are errors, a few of them are merely suggestions or pointing out something like transliteration inconsistency).
Reply
#96
Based on Murdock's translation, it seems like Roth is going into interpretation a little here. Here's his translation of the passage:

"Examine yourselves, whether ye stand in the faith: prove yourselves. Do ye not acknowledge that Jesus the Messiah is in you ? And if [he is] not, ye are reprobates."- II Corinthians 13:5
Reply
#97
:

How about these two in the 5th, Luc?

In Rev 14:10, Roth has "...the wine of the wrath of Elohim..." Where the text actually reads "...the wine of the wrath of Marya (Master Yah)..." both Baucsher and Magiera has the right reading, though they use the form of Marya that they like..."The Lord Jehovah" (B) and The LORD (M).

In Rev 14:13, Roth has "...that die in Master YHWH from now on." Where the text actually reads d'Maran = The Master, so it should read thus. "...that die (or depart) in The Master from now on." Which both Baucsher and Magiera have in their translations of the same text that Roth says he uses. No note in Roth's edition that I have.

Quote:And... I wanted to get your guys' take on an updated, amplified passage. 2 Corinthians 13:5 - "Don't you acknowledge that Y'shua the Mashiyach is in you? And if he is not, you are despised and against Torah."

There is a very lengthy footnote explaining that this is a double simultaneous exploitation of the singular word and root maslaya, a competent synonym for being against namusa/auryata. Elsewhere this same word remains as lawbreakers (i.e. verse 7). I found this to be an interesting and bold statement, although looking into it myself I can see how this translation has come about. Also interesting to note is that in this verse "he is" is taken out of brackets, even though it is added for clarity by Murdock. Hmm...

Do you see his doctrinal bias there, Luc? I do. Here is even a bolder statement. Andrew is doing everything he can to try to make the text read the way he wants it to, even to the point of adding to God's word, to make it seem as if it supports his pet doctrines.

Here are two literal examples of what the text actually has there...

2 Corinthians 13:5 ?Examine your soul, if in The Faith you stand. Repair your soul; or else, you are not understanding of Eshu M?shikha, that you are in Him, and if not, you are rejected ones.? Literal Khabouris rendering.

2 Corinthians 13:5 ?Examine your souls ? if you stand in the trust ? you ? test your own souls. Or know you not that Yah Shua the Meshiah is within you, and if not, that you be rejected?? - Aramaic New Covenant - Herb Jhan

..
Reply
#98
Thirdwoe Wrote:Do you see his doctrinal bias there, Luc?
LOl, I'd be worried if I couldn't <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue --> Of course, the bias is obvious. But the issue at hand for me is not bias because bias is everywhere and impossible to escape no matter which translation. Rather, it's the amplification of the word maslaya that I'm focused on. Maslaya means "despised, rejected, reprobate, contemptible" etc. And from just a basic standpoint could be interpreted/paraphrased to mean rejecting Torah (reprobate = unprincipled person. Principles = Gods instructions/principles = Torah). But then if it is a competent synonym for being against namusa/auryata, the issue is even clearer (although I don't have an exact expanded lexical reference for the latter, it is merely what the lengthy footnote goes on to explain. But it would not be unlikely if we understand what reprobate means anyway).

I will try and get as much done on my list as I can tonight. I have everything jotted down, I just need to make it pretty and sound nice.

So Scorpio, interesting that you should mention a few pages back about the binding being tighter on AENT. This time around my hardcover seems to be tighter and stiffer than my 3rd edition hardback.

Here's another updated translation with accompanying footnote - 2 Corinthians 7:1 - "and let us bring about (that which is) Set-Apart". Roth is choosing to render kadishota in the more literal sense, with the footnote emphasizing sanctification.
Reply
#99
:

We can make things say all kinds of things, Luc...and even have it be linguistically possible, but still wrong and misleading...But if God wanted to say it that way, He would have said it that way to begin with.

I say, that verse should deffinatly be on the fix list for the 6th edition...

As you might know, I'm in no way against keeping God's laws, moral or otherwise, or others keeping as many of them as they might believe applies to them today...and just like you and Andrew, I keep all those parts of God's Torah that I believe applies to me...where neither of us keeps them all, nor can we.

What do you think Andrew is trying to teach there in his "paraphrase". I have an idea, but would like to hear yours 1st.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:And... I wanted to get your guys' take on an updated, amplified passage. 2 Corinthians 13:5 - "Don't you acknowledge that Y'shua the Mashiyach is in you? And if he is not, you are despised and against Torah."

There is a very lengthy footnote explaining that this is a double simultaneous exploitation of the singular word and root maslaya, a competent synonym for being against namusa/auryata. Elsewhere this same word remains as lawbreakers (i.e. verse 7). I found this to be an interesting and bold statement, although looking into it myself I can see how this translation has come about. Also interesting to note is that in this verse "he is" is taken out of brackets, even though it is added for clarity by Murdock. Hmm...


Shlama,

this is a very unfortunate reading. tho i haven't read the reasons why, i would say going merely on the word-meanings and context that it isn't viable at all. the word means "reject," and needs to be translated in some way that reflects the actual definition. any translation WILL have some degree of bias, even if it is unintended, and hopefully cross-checking by others and editing teams can help to erase as much as possible that might get through. but this is clearly more than bias, in my opinion. this is agenda. translators of the Spirit's Words must actively restrain their desire to exposit within the translation itself, and only render as faithfully as possible what the text actually says. this would have been best left for a footnote, if he really feels it means this -- but it isn't what the translation says.

i share many of Andrew's beliefs about mindfully applying the Torah through the grace offered by M'sheekha, but even still, a translator must operate by this maxim: the text demands our integrity. otherwise, the reader cannot trust the translator to render a faithful translation.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote::
What do you think Andrew is trying to teach there in his "paraphrase". I have an idea, but would like to hear yours 1st.
Oh I don't have to do any guesswork there, he teaches it directly in his notes saying,

"Belief in the Mashiyach brings an open heart towards Torah, not a rejection of Torah"

He then goes on to talk about the contrast between the morally (specifically sexually) illicit behaviour and culture of the Corinthians in comparison to the new way of living righteously according to faith in Mashiyach. In this regard, the more I think about it, the more I agree with him on this point theologically. However, from a translation standpoint I would have kept the amplification of this word and it's commentary to the footnotes (or at the very least added them in the brackets). In this regard I agree 100% with Jeremy on how we approach the text. But if you think Andrew was trying to make a point about superficial things like worshipping on Sunday instead of Saturday, he's not. Remember his appendix of "How much Torah do christians already keep?" - I think this is much more along the lines of that. If you are a Believer then this will always be evidenced in your walk by an adherence to at least some of Torah (I'd say most of what's applicable). This has held true for every genuine Christian I've met.
Reply
:

For me, from all that I've read and heard from Andrew over the years, he seems to think that the heretic Marcion is the one who started all non-Netzari type groups...He and others with him, like Baruch, terms those who believe in Christ, who are not of the Netzari group, "christo-pagans", and which they seem to teach are outside of The Truth Faith. Those who are in The True Faith, will be "observing Torah" as their group does and believe as they do about things. This is the impression one gets from hearing him teach and reading his notes in the AENT.

For instance, he says in one teaching, that a belief in The Trinity doctrine, is "believing in one God too many"...and yet he becomes Baptised by a Trinitarian Church, not too many years ago...The Church of the East. I'm not sure what to think about Andrew. What does he really believe? So, when I see these type things in his version of The Scriptures, it seems to me, he is trying to make "Torah observance" the litmus test, on whether of person is really in The True Faith, or not.

But, I could be reading and hearing him all wrong? I'll keep listening.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
Thirdwoe Wrote:For me, from all that I've read and heard from Andrew over the years, he seems to think that the heretic Marcion is the one who started all non-Netzari type groups...He and others with him, like Baruch, terms those who believe in Christ, who are not of the Netzari group, "christo-pagans", and which they seem to teach are outside of The Truth Faith. Those who are in The True Faith, will be observing Torah as their group does and believe as they do about things. This is the impression one gets from hearing him teach and reading his notes in the AENT.
I know what you mean. But then in some radio interviews and in some of Andrew's other books, both him and Baruch make statements to the contrary. It can sometimes get very confusing.

You should try reading Andrew's first book where he talks about the Triune God and proves it theologically from Jewish sources without making any terminology and such a point of contention.
Reply
I find it odd when people are like that...just hard to figure out.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)