Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
bibles
#1
hi just got a bible called the testimony of yeshua by lonnie martin . he has compared murdock , etheridge, weymouth and kj. i dont agree with all his beliefs but i am interested in bibles. he does believe in peshitta primacy.
Reply
#2
I've never used it, but I plan to buy it at some point. If he used Etheridge and Murdock and didn't change them to fit his beliefs too much, I'm sure it's reliable. I have both the Murdock and Etheridge New Testament translations and I love them. They are some of the most reliable translations of the Peshitto that you can get.
Reply
#3
You can look it over online at:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.everlastingkingdom.info/article/194/">http://www.everlastingkingdom.info/article/194/</a><!-- m -->

This version has been out since 2009 now yet I notice that it is never mentioned on this site, so I have been wondering if it was a joke or if it was just not well known of.

Can any one who has already read through this version give a quick opinion of it?

I notice, out of 18 variations between the Eastern PeshittA and the Western PeshittO, it has 12 Eastern reading, 5 Western readings, and 1 hybrid rendering ( <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3224">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3224</a><!-- l --> ).
Reply
#4
The Texas RAT Wrote:Can any one who has already read through this version give a quick opinion of it?
Well first of all, he seems to translate Alaha as YHVH every single time. His reason seems to be explained here, but we can't use our own logic and theological ideas to write something that we have no textual proof of. But it's his translation so you're going to be reading his vision and commentary, just like when you read AENT you're reading Andrew's vision and commentary.
Reply
#5
Thanks Brother Luc for the insight much appreciated.
Reply
#6
hi in his own words.yhvh replaces 'lord' in every place where the tetragrammaton was likely inserted in paleo hebrew form into the oldest aramaic , greek and latin texts. yhvh generally distinguishes lord the father frm lord yeshua. from gabriel introduction, gabriel stands for greek and aramaic books rewritten in the english language. the bible was well priced not like some other bibles. you can also obtain free downloads of it from lulu.com, lonnie is good like and justs wants the word of god to be freely available. master replaces lord when referring to yeshua.
Reply
#7
hi also aloha replaces god. yeshua replaces jesus.
Reply
#8
As Luc pointed out he has placed the Divine Name in more places than the Eastern PeshittA has MarYah. MattithYahu 3:16 and 4:4 are just two places, and there are more. So yes he has put the Divine Name into his translation but if the Eastern PeshittA has the correct places for the Divine Name in the ReNewed Covenant then Lonnie definitely has over done it. He would have to be thinking that the Greek translations came before the Aramaic PeshittA and therefore gives him the right to use his own discretion as the authors of the Western PeshittO translated the Western Five Books did. But I nor most people on this site believe that the Greek came first so we will differ with him about placing the Divine Name in more places than where the Eastern PeshittA has it. But as for the Western Five Books it really does not matter that Lonnie did not stick with the places that the Western PeshittO has MarYah because they where just guessing themselves anyway, as they where but just revising Greek translations which replaced the Divine Name with lord.

I also noticed he some-times renders MarYah as "Alaha" when it is referring to YHWH, and always (as Luc stated) as "the Master" or "Master" when it refers to The Anointed One.

But personally I was wondering more along theological basis in Lonnie's translation.

I got the free download from Lulu years ago but can not find it now. Sean if you know of the link where Lulu still has it for free please share the link.
Reply
#9
:

Here is what Lonnie says about his version.

"It is not a translation. It is a version based on the Murdock and the Etheridge translations?from the original Aramaic, but with extremely updated English."

Also, I notice that when Lonnie feels that a Greek NT reading should be in his version, he puts it in there, and says in his notes, that "The Aramaic is missing" this or that verse or part of the verse...so he picks and chooses which verse should say what.

Also, he decides how often to insert YHVH into the text, where The Aramaic Text has Marya, or Alaha...which he believes were substitutes for the Tetragramaton both in the 1st Aramaic Manuscripts, and in the 1st Greek Manuscripts. So, he chooses which places this should be reversed.

So, really this is another NT, created in the image of the one who is doing the editing work...But not really what The Text actually says.

I can't recommend this revision of Etheridge's and Murdoch's translation. Too much Lonnie at work here and not enough of The Aramaic Scriptures speaking what they really say.

If you are looking for The Eastern Aramaic Peshitta, or even The Western Aramaic Peshitto NT...it's not here Brothers and Sisters. But, if you desire a GreekaHebraShitta...this is it, looks like.

Here is another statement by Lonnie...

"On average, 20 hours of research and editing went into each chapter. Should anyone want to sponsor any particular book of the Testimony of Yeshua, and receive a simple honorable mention at the end of the book (i.e. Matthew), the cost would be 20 hours times the Federal minimum wage of $7.25, times the number of chapters in the book. Funds would be directed toward hiring very qualified help to do a substantial first editing of the Gabriel Version of the Tanak (Old Testament), at considerably more per hour."

Hmmmm, so, Lonnie...if I wanted a "simple honorable mention" at the end of your version of The Gospel of Matthew...it would cost me $145.00 per Chapter... $145.00 x 28 Chapters = $4,060.00


Shlama,
Chuck

.
Reply
#10
Thirdwoe Wrote:Also, I notice that when Lonnie feels that a Greek NT reading should be in his version, he puts it in there, and says in his notes, that "The Aramaic is missing" this or that verse or part of the verse...so he picks and chooses which verse should say what.
It seems Lonnie is one whom believes that the Eastern Aramaic PeshittA is nothing more than a revision of the Western PeshittO and that even it was a translation of the Greek texts.

Thirdwoe Wrote:Also, he decides how often to insert YHVH into the text, where The Aramaic Text has Marya, or Alaha...which he believes were substitutes for the Tetragramaton both in the 1st Aramaic Manuscripts, and in the 1st Greek Manuscripts. So, he chooses which places this should be reversed.
Again if the Greek texts where superior to the Aramaic then this could be a justified Hebraic Roots restoration of the text. But all evidence is to the contrary.

Thirdwoe Wrote:I can't recommend this revision of Etheridge's and Murdoch's translation. Too much Lonnie at work here and not enough of The Aramaic Scriptures speaking what they really say.

Anther so-called Aramaic version muddying the waters. Oh for the day unto a pure English translation of the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta.

Thirdwoe Wrote:if you desire a GreekaHebraShitta...this is it, looks like.
HEBEGEBEES,
GIBBERISH GOBBLEDYGOOK you say? OY VEY!!!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)