Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
free online POT
#1
Is there anywhere you can get an online interlinear or at least translation of the POT? I have the Lamsa, but just don't trust him anymore...

Is the Lamsa OT better than KJV OT?
Reply
#2
If anyone knows of this it would be brilliant. An interlinear Peshitta OT would be great for my personal studies. Unfortunately not many people here seem to be interested in the Peshitta OT even though Yishoo quotes from it many times. I think the importance of the Peshitta Tanakh is underrated, seeing as it is most likely a translation from an earlier version in the Hebrew [cross-over] dialect and not just merely from the fairly recent Masoretic Text.

The KJV uses the Masoretic text as far as I know. Hence it absurdly uses 'elohim' which, whether anyone likes or not, means 'gods'. Hence 'In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth' is what it really reads. Masoretic defenders explain this away by saying 'this is a plural of respect' and these other unacceptable explanations. Fact is, the Peshitta Tanakh uses Alha in the singular which is the sensible word to use. Even the Septuagint uses the singular. That being said I think it is interesting to study the Masoretic text alongside the Peshitta Tanakh and make comparisons between them.
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#3
Wow! I had no idea what a scam that "Elohim" business was. Could it be done by people trying to promote the trinity?

Anyhow, I have also seen how the Masoretic has contradictions that the POT does not have, so yes, it seems LXX and POT would come from earlier Hebrew version. I wonder where it is and where we can get it!

Only prob now is why PNT disagrees sometimes with POT. Maybe its just a case of paraphrasing (I think you boys call it targumming) which is evident even between Gospels of the same NT.
Reply
#4
Hi Chris, it good to find someone here also interested in the Peshitta OT!

I honestly don't know why 'elohim' is used but clearly the earlier and overall I would say more authentic OTs which are the Peshitta Tanakh and the LXX give no indication of a pluralised god. Even this is inconsistent sometimes - in Iyyob [Job] the singular 'eloah' I think is used a lot whereas throughout the rest of the Masoretic text elohim is used a lot more. Whenever I look for explanations of this the same old answer comes up - 'well elohim is a plural of respect' they say.

But when I follow up an ask "why then is eloah used at all? Why is el used at all? Do these signify less respect or something?" the answer is not at all convincing!

I think we can accord harmony between the PNT and POT. Its a case of 'constructive interpretation' I would say. The Greek NT does accord well with the LXX but whether you follow this obviously depends on which camp you are in - peshitta primacy or greek primacy. The trouble of course with Greek is that, not being a Semetic language, the vast range of meanings and interpretations are not allowable, and hence the original Semetic text from which it was translated may have had another meaning entirely, but the Greek took only one of these -e.g.- gml meaning 'camel' and 'thick rope' - in which case 'kamelos' was inferred when really I think 'a thick rope to pass through the eye of a needle' sounds a lot more sensible as a metaphor.

So Chris, can I take it thus that you are a Unitarian or are you Trinitarian in your outlook?
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#5
I believe that YHWH is God, that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God. So I believe in one God, not three. It is evident that the one God appears in many manifestations.

Part of this belief is that there needs to be a verse that says how many God is, if we are to be sure that He is 2 or 3 instead of 4, 5, 6 etc.

All the verses that tell me how many He is say that He is one <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Anyway, I better stop, lest I incur the wrath of Paul and the COE <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue --> If you find an online POT (whether Aramaic or English translation) please let me know!

Maybe a little hint. It may sound silly, but I wonder if POT is the best OT. Lamsa said that as Hebrew and Aramaic are so similar, that it wasn't really a translation...
Reply
#6
Gentile Wrote:The KJV uses the Masoretic text as far as I know. Hence it absurdly uses 'elohim' which, whether anyone likes or not, means 'gods'. Hence 'In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth' is what it really reads. Masoretic defenders explain this away by saying 'this is a plural of respect' and these other unacceptable explanations. Fact is, the Peshitta Tanakh uses Alha in the singular which is the sensible word to use. Even the Septuagint uses the singular. That being said I think it is interesting to study the Masoretic text alongside the Peshitta Tanakh and make comparisons between them.

Elohim does NOT mean "gods" :-) It's root is "El" which means "might." Hence "Eloah" means "might" in noun form ("Mighty One") and "Elohim" means ("Mighty Ones"). It's a descriptor, a title, not a name.

Additionally, by the time that the Peshitta Tanakh were to have vowel markings, it would have been around for a long time without them. Keep this in mind, since the Aramaic singular and plural of Aloho are spelled identically.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o
Reply
#7
drmlanc Wrote:Is there anywhere you can get an online interlinear or at least translation of the POT? I have the Lamsa, but just don't trust him anymore...

Is the Lamsa OT better than KJV OT?

Victor Alexander is posting one at
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.v-a.com">http://www.v-a.com</a><!-- w -->

I think he is still on genesis though (no he has started exodus...added in edit)
Reply
#8
Good point Steve. And thanks dude for the tip.

But is there anywhere with an untranslated POT? It's good for comparison purposes. Preferably in same format as Peshitta.org...
Reply
#9
drmlanc Wrote:Good point Steve. And thanks dude for the tip.

But is there anywhere with an untranslated POT? It's good for comparison purposes. Preferably in same format as Peshitta.org...

Shlama Akhi Chris,

You may want to consider the online POT at the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon website.

First go to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/">http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/</a><!-- m --> -- then left-click on "Search the CAL Database" -- then left-click on "Text Browse" -- then left-click the circle beside "Syriac" and then left-click on "Submit" -- you will see the words "For Leiden Peshitta texts, please click here". Read the short message, type in your email address, dot the circle beside "Yes" showing that you accept these conditions, then left-click on "Confirm". Hope you enjoy!

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey
Reply
#10
Thanks!

Now we have free tranlated and untranslated POT's... All we need now is an interlinear. Know of any?
Reply
#11
btw does anyone here know what the original OT is? It is so easy with NT, but what of OT?
Reply
#12
Steve-o

I know that 'el' is usually understood as 'mighty' or 'strong' but from what I have read 'el' was an ancient Semitic reference used to refer to a supernatural being or deity - hence 'a god'.

In any case this doesn't provide any explanation AT ALL as to why the Masoretes used the plural anyway. So are we now to believe that 'mighties' created the heavens and earth? It is STILL plural anyway, and I don't buy this 'plural of majesty' explanation to understand it. The Peshitta Tanakh and Septuagint both use singular forms which makes more sense.
This post is sponsored by Thadmania! Inc
All rights reserved
Reply
#13
Gentile Wrote:Steve-o

I know that 'el' is usually understood as 'mighty' or 'strong' but from what I have read 'el' was an ancient Semitic reference used to refer to a supernatural being or deity - hence 'a god'.

In any case this doesn't provide any explanation AT ALL as to why the Masoretes used the plural anyway. So are we now to believe that 'mighties' created the heavens and earth? It is STILL plural anyway, and I don't buy this 'plural of majesty' explanation to understand it. The Peshitta Tanakh and Septuagint both use singular forms which makes more sense.

Many men are refered to as "El" in the Massoretic text. It was an adjective :-)

~Shrugs~ It does not make sense to me very much, as "El" "Eloah" "Elohim" and others are used in an interchangeable fashion with eachother. I don't think this "plural of majesty" schtick holds water either. :-)

The Aramaic, using A-L-H-A could be either "AaLoHoA" (s) or "AaLoHeA" (p). Singular OR plural.

We know that Greek translators are fond of glossing things over, so sometimes the Seventy is making things up. I'd say some heavy textual criticism is way overdue :-)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o
Reply
#14
So basically we don't know if God was really called Elohim or not...

Makes apologetics of the OT a bit tougher when he don't have the original, doesn't it?

Does POT and LXX use plural in the other sense, like "let US go down, make man in OUR image" etc?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)