Peshitta Forum
Alexanders translations - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Alexanders translations (/showthread.php?tid=2672)



Alexanders translations - CreationTruth - 07-30-2011

I've had great interest in this site and It appears that the Peshitta is the straight word and I appreciate you guys doing what you do.
It is a real blessing.


I have recently found Victor Alexanders site on the Aramaic of the OT.
I have a few questions about Alexanders translation for you Aramaic speakers.
Do you agree with much of what he says on the OT?

Are you aware that his interpretations are very different than what Strong's English concordance claims the original Hebrew or Aramaic words were?

He claims that the word Adam in 1:27 did not mean anything more than a mere man or what he describes as a Aboriginal man.
Strongs claims Adam comes from the Hebrew word meaning "Ruddy" and not all men can be considered ruddy even at birth.
King David and Esau were ruddy and even others.

~notes form Alexander~
*1:27.1 Lit. Aramaic word: "Adam."
*1:27.2 Lit. Ar. idiomatic construction: "And there created God to Adam with His visage, in the visage of God He created him, male and female He created them.
*1:28 Lit. Ar. id.: God created the aboriginal man first.


He claims the word Adam-that was used in Gen 2nd chapter and these were the real sons of God a special being over the others that God had breathed life or the spirit into.
~notes form Alexander~
*2:7.1 Lit. Ar. word: "Adam-tha," or portrait.


Is there anyone familiar with this and can agree with his claims of the lesser humans vs Adamtha?



Strong reveals the word ISH(iysh) was a lying and unrepentant type of man whereas Adam were the repented me.

Eve said when Cain was born that the Lord hath given her a man(Iysh)
How did she know he was an Iysh man at birth?


Alexander didn't note a difference in the word used for Eves man(Iysh) but just wrote it as man.



No other descendant of Adam as called an Iysh that I found and I had found a verse where Moses declared he was not a Iysh-man but a repented man(Adam).
Enosh and Enoch were used to describe types of men also form what I've read.


Most Christians have never heard of such a distinction.


Num 23:19 God is not a man(Iysh), that he should lie; neither the son of man(Adam), that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Most read this in English translations as "God is not the son of man that he would lie; nor the son of man that he should repent", from the English translation it seems to be lacking.


the strongs definition of "Son of man" reads literally son of Adam
the phrase is found 193 times in KJV.
Does this not seem to imply that there are others that are not "sons of Adam"?

Many Christians believe that Christ was the only "son of man" falsely since many others were also called "sons of man(Adam).


If everyone were sons of Adam then why use that phrase 193 times and only to certain people?




Alexanders translation
Romans 5:18 18. In similar manner thus, because of the foolishness of one person, all humanity was under obligation, likewise because of the righteousness of one person, there will be victory with respect to eternal life for all humanity.

very similar to the KJV, Ylt, Murdock and others but seems clearer to me

.


Re: Alexanders translations - Aaron S - 07-31-2011

'Adamtha' is simply the Aramaic cognate of 'Adamah,' which means land/ground.
The name 'Adam' being related to ruddy has to do with its derivation from the land [which can be red].
In Aramaic, Yeshua refers to himself as 'bareh danasha,' in which 'anasha' is related to 'ish' and not 'adam.'
The Aramaic 'dame' has some derivatives which cause have an alef prefix (e.g. in Luke 7:31) and this word means 'liken' (likely that this is whence is suggested portrait for 'adamtha,' though it is impossible).
You are definitely on to something in claiming there's more to it than both meaning man... especially in verses like Numbers 23:19 when they're used in this fashion.


Re: Alexanders translations - CreationTruth - 08-05-2011

thanks Aaron.

Can you explain why there are huge differences in what strong concordance uses as the origins of the translated words vs what Alexander is translating?


Re: Alexanders translations - Aaron S - 08-07-2011

This translator seems to be taking too much artistic license in how words are understood.
It's evident off the bat in how he renders Genesis 1:1. This rendering of 2:7 is just as unlikely and has no support from Greek, Latin, or Hebrew.
Rather than assume consistency, the translator assumed that adamtha varied from the 'ground' of other witnesses, and grasped at straws to render it otherwise.
Consistency should be the assumption whenever possible... only suggest an alternate rendering if the ancient scribes appear to be doing so.


Re: Alexanders translations - CreationTruth - 08-12-2011

thanks