Has anyone read or heard of ?

[Tom]

I understand what you're both saying, and I agree it's good to be able to try to perceive things in the sense of the native language. I depend on a literal concordant translation into English from Greek and a concordance because I only know English. When I was younger, I learned Spanish and Latin easily, but my mind can't concentrate or remember well enough anymore to learn Greek or Aramaic. So I just try to use what seems to be the most accurate English translation which is not the most popular one, but at least it doesn't contain "hell" or "eternal." It's strange that, even English as it's spoken in various parts of the USA not mention the difference from that spoken in England, is different to hear and even understand because of different cultural influences. I think, if we diligently seek the truth, we will find it in scripture despite the differences in language. Even the many textual variances in the many Greek manuscripts of the so called New Testament don't hide the truth, and that's all the same language. I think folks who are paranoid of those who look, speak and live differently are keeping themselves from fully experiencing the wonderful diversity of life on this planet. I think the more we get to know those who appear different than ourselves, the more we realize we're all really the same inside. I think it's interesting to hear the different interpretations of scripture from different languages and even different people of the same language. I think we all have something to offer to the discussion. We all just see things from our own perspective. That doesn't mean we're right or wrong. It's just the way we see things. I think there is a difference between the relative and the absolute. I believe there is absolute truth, and that is the word of God. And we all have relative perspectives of that absolute truth.

[rosered]

I think there is a difference between the relative and the absolute. I believe there is absolute truth, and that is the word of God. And we all have relative perspectives of that absolute truth

I agree Tom  :iagree:   
  and know that is why Paul    said I would you all  could prophesy   ,        Jesus Christ testimony is the SPIRIT  OF PROPHECY  !At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
  and without     this SPIRIT   teaching us we would most likely labor in vain   and worship one another instead of GOD     WHOM IS THE POWER OVER ALL THINGS

WE worship God in SPIRIT and In truth , the true worshippers       :HeartThrob:

[Shev]

I agree. I'm aware that some folks say their Aramaic translation of the New Testament was the original, but I think Greek was used because it was a universal language at the time like English is now. That would have made it better for evangelizing the nations. I think Aramaic was spoken by Jesus and his people, but I think Jesus was probably bilingual or maybe even trilingual being able to read the Hebrew scriptures. But I've read that the Septuagint was used at the time anyway. I've also read that language experts say the dialect used in the Aramaic New Testament is one of many Aramaic dialects, and it is a relatively young dialect that is spoken in an area of Turkey not Palestine. The New Testament has been translated into many languages. We know there's often something lost in translation, but, despite that and the textual variances in the Greek that especially atheists like to mention, doctrinal issues are not jeopardized. I've read, regarding the Aramaic claim of rope vs. camel (Luke 18:25), that Christ most likely intended to use the same sort of hyperbole he did regarding the gnat vs. camel (Matthew 23:24). I don't think much is to be gained by an ongoing debate about the Aramaic primacy vs. the Greek. I've read that the majority of scholars think the Greek was the original language of the New Testament. There are many Greek manuscripts available for study some which I've read date back to a much earlier time than the Aramaic ones available. I audited a couple of courses on the New Testament online, one at Princeton and one at Harvard. The majority of modern textual critics seem to think that the majority of Greek manuscripts are not written by who most folks assume they are, and they point out contradictions in the text. I think their assumptions about why they think most manuscripts were not written by who they're claimed to be are weak. They say things like the different styles of writing which I think could have varied due to whoever was writing for somebody else. In other words poor fishermen in Galilee could have used scribes to compose their writings. The textual critics also say different writings seem to have different doctrine, but I think that simply means somebody's doctrine could have developed over time. Even Paul, who seems to have been well educated, probably used scribes, and the story of him in Acts and then his various epistles seems to show that things changed over time from the Pentecostal era to his prison epistles. Some folks think all of scripture is just a collection of fairy tales used to control the masses by irrational fear of an imaginable deity in the sky. I think the ancient manuscripts, despite the fact that they're imperfect copies with human errors, are a real blessing to us because they tell the story of the whole universe which some modern scientists are discovering is ahead of science not contrary to it. I'm aware that there are many evangelical Christians who think their version of the New Testament is inerrant, and for many that means the King James Version. I think the Greek manuscripts we have, which are all copies not the originals, are documents produced by humans containing human errors even though the originals were inspired by God. The point is I think it's somewhat counterproductive to debate about which translation came first or why believers claim scripture is inspired by God if there are copying errors and contradictions in the manuscripts. I heard, relatively speaking, there really aren't many errors in the Greek manuscripts considering how many letters of text there are in all the manuscripts, but I think the important thing is, by comparing all the manuscripts, there seems to be a good idea of what was in the originals. It's the best news ever to be published in the history of the world. Despite the fact that we're all subjected to the experience of evil in our lives, we all have an expectation that one day there will be no more evil, and we will even be free from death. Thank God. The sad thing is that the church has distorted the story and convinced many people that only a few will be saved while the majority of mankind will be tortured in fire forever. We're ambassadors of Christ who need to share the truth of scripture that God's ultimate plan is to reconcile all on earth and in the heavens and be all in all. Church folks are just as hard to get this message across to as the atheists. Both are deceived. But I believe love is the most powerful force in the universe that will eventually overcome evil. God is love. I think we just have to try to remember to share the truth in love and not get hung up arguing about which translation came first. I don't mean to offend folks who prefer the Aramaic. I'm just sharing what I've read about it. Most folks don't use the Concordant Version that I prefer, but that doesn't offend me. I prefer it because it translates aion, aionios, and Gehenna correctly.   

Great comment Tom! This is a very good summary of the situation.  :thumbsup:

[Shev]

I think God intended to record, distribute and relay the New Testament in Greek...because He did! I have no doubt one or two of the four Gospels (especially Matthew) may have possibly been written in Hebrew or Aramaic before being translated, but most of the epistles were to Greek speaking churches, and written in Greek to begin with.

It is a very interesting subject. My take on it is this: we all know that whatever God does, He designs and plans in advance, and I am convinced that both the Hebrew and Greek languages were conceived before the foundation of the world for the exact purpose He had in mind, a large part of which is recording the Old and New Testaments.

I believe the reason God designed Greek for the gospel is at least twofold. Firstly, because Greek has a precision that is very much suited to laying out doctrine and also to narrative. The verbal system is very detailed and more nuanced than say English. Secondly, there was a symbolism to the good news being to all men, and as the lingua franca of the time He had appointed, it would also show Christ as the savior of all, rather than a Hebrew speaking elite. It is almost a parallel to "what God has cleansed, let man not call unclean".

I think Greek often gets a bad rap, as the Hebrew language is venerated and practically worshipped at times (sacred names, etc), whereas Greek can be seen as the unfortunate red headed step child that lucked into the most precious scriptures known to man. I personally don't think chronology matters to God, as He designed both for their perfect purposes. Greek is a beautiful language, and the real point at which the church seemed to turn away was when the prevailing church language became Latin instead.

[WhiteWings]

It just 'hides' things. It makes certain connections between the OT and NT harder to find. It's not that Greek is a bad language. If the OT was written in Greek and the NT in Hebrew the same problem would surface.

God managed to put a lot of word plays in the Hebrew text. That gives extra depth to the Scriptures.
I'm sure He could have done so in any language, but He chose Hebrew.
When translating between two languages those word plays and depths are gone.
That means that the the 'hidden meanings' taught in the OT are lost in the NT.
The most simple example of that are idioms. They often don't make any sense when translated. In fact they often don't make any sense in the original language when taken literally.

It gets even worse when it's translated to English. Another veil of imperfection added. Hebrew --> Greek --> English
Nevertheless, having the original language obviously benefits those who can read it and to a lesser extent those who use lexicons.

I think God intended to record, distribute and relay the New Testament in Greek...because He did! I have no doubt one or two of the four Gospels (especially Matthew) may have possibly been written in Hebrew or Aramaic before being translated, but most of the epistles were to Greek speaking churches, and written in Greek to begin with.

That means at least one or two (or most according to  growing number of scholars) are not the original inspired language. Not good. Not good at all. Was it God's intend the originals are lost/destroyed? I think nobody can say for sure. But just saying "yes, because He did!" isn't a view I can't accept as a fact. It's just like saying God wanted His people be exiled to Egypt, He wanted them to wander around for 40 years. because He did! That's a view, but keep in mind those events were a response to rebellion/sin. Did Father also inspire sin/rebellion?

See Shev, small assumptions, maybe even facts, often act as an oil spill. They never stay isolated. They affect many other things. Likewise with translations.


Besides of all the technicalities of translations, a major factor to consider is the mind of the one writing/dictating the language. Just a incorrect example. Sheol is the Jewish kingdom of death. Hades is the Greek kingdom of death. So translating sheol to hades is a good translation. But the thought behind it is totally different. For the Jews sheol is 'the dead know nothing', but for the Greeks Hades is a very active place full of misery.

Father said to a person who hears Him: "Scripture is Hellenized".
It wasn't a compliment....

:2c:  :soap:

[gregoryfl]

I do understand that there are those who practically worship the language, to the point of having a superiority complex, yet they are generally those who are not of this culture, yet are fascinated by it.

Although I live in America, my heart and culture reside in the eastern ancient ways, not as having anything to do with superiority, but simply what I count as important to me. One of these concerns the hospitality of strangers. My use of the Eastern P. text is of course part of that tradition.

As anyone here who has read my posts knows, I try from time to time to share things from that perspective, because there are nuances and connections in the 1st century writings (as Whitewings brought out) that can only be seen by reading from the Aramaic...not a translation, but the Aramaic text itself.

As Shev brought out, Greek is a very precise language. I would add that both Greek and Hebrew along with Aramaic share a precision, although from different perspectives. Greek is precise in the choice of different exacting words to describe subtle nuances of descriptions of words. Hebrew and Aramaic, on the other hand, are precise in the choice of base roots to describe subtle nuances of actions of words. This is of course, why Hebrew uses less words than Greek.

For anyone interested, I started a series a while ago on another website in which I am reading through the Greek New Testament (the one with all the variants) and showing how the reason for the variants can be explained by an Aramaic source. Far from discrediting the Greek, it actually helps us understand why some of these variants exist, since translating from one language into another isn't an exact science, and choices at times have to be made between what one person thinks a word means, verses someone else.

http://www.originsofhebrew.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18

Ronen

[rosered]

 
  Well Thanks guys
    I have enjoyed read this morning ,
  Tom  says he like the concordant   , because  of the hell /anion /age translation 

  I  have personally found you can benefit greatly by using   them all   ! 
yes   searching them out and comparing   
so many folks , want to  be  ''FAITHFUL''   to the Word  of God and   therefore  limit themselves    so very  much , its actually sad  :sigh:

For   those  who stick to one  version   only are just as bad as the one who accuses the    hell fire and brimstone preachers  stuck in the KJV  bible

Crazy what you observe   in    human nature  , none are any different  but think they are better off


I totally agree    with  Shev , the Greek language is very descriptive  and has many ''symbolic ''   meanings     a Spiritual     help  every bit as much   understanding the factual        message

  Tony  you are correct in expressing   that God himself     made sure when the tower of Babel    began      it was the Lord Himself    whom  ''confounded the  ''pure  language ''  in Gen 11

  making sure     no man  could glory in his discoveries  on his own merit


I compare    the  garden of Eden    FLAMING SWORD    turning every which way to protect the tree of Life
  no different     than God confounding the  pure   ONE  /Language     of all of mankind     in Gen 11    adding to the ''confusion '' and chaos   

GOD makes sure there is ONLY one way   to enter   HIS   KINGDOM    and that is HIS WAY   ,  JESUS CHRIST   THE TRUTH ,THE  WAY AND LIFE  '' ONLY  ''  ALL THINGS COME OUT OF HIM AND WILL GO BACK INTO HIM     , they were made  for Him and though Him   everything belongs to God   and the way is  protected  ,  though His only one of a kind SON ...

any way  other than GODS way is the same as a robber and thief   and  we  are not to steal or kill etc     but Love God  first and  one another as ourselves etc.....


  we see this with the   two criminals    two   benefactors  /thieves     with JESUS ON THE CROSS

IF you can see Jesus as the FLAMING SWORD /WORD   on the Cross   , you can see  a lot ! 
  the Whole book is about Jesus Christ       and when you keep    JESUS  CHRIST a center  , and keep it simple

   the possibilities are endless    and NOT confusing at all       
To me there is a beautiful  ''spiritual language '' that is heavenly and   and one of a kind  and believe it or not comes at  night  and instructs   us  while the  old natural  physical man is ''resting ''  sleeping  ,       I have    personally  been awakened     to some     heavenly blessings      and beautiful   things    that   the crude and stiff  and very ridged    English language  cannot touch with a ten foot pole ..
studies are good and help      , but there is nothing comparable      to actually      being humbled    and thankful   tears of gratitude    for    ''receiving  from Jesus  some   thing    not of this world '''       

   the core of your being  becomes ''centered ''    as well and its  glorious   /brilliant        and uncomparable to anything you have ever known before as real

  there is nothing fake about it , you cannot pretend  this

Its a connection and  lives and breathes   as to something of its own      , we do communicate though the Spirit ,,    the Living Spirit of God    , there really  exist a refreshing  that comes in the morning    ,  these are literal  ,  every bit as much as spiritual     in nature
and some really do know what I am talking about 

and you do not want or need anyone else to teach you   ,  its a truth,  the sheep really   do, '' Hear His voice''   and will not follow another    and there is a  beauty  of being owned by the Master   and you can hear it  in others as well [same voice ]  , we are all connected though Him  and it  really is  a  '' one of a kind ''   

   From lost , to found, and  the journey between,  the two extremes .



       

 

[rosered]

I do understand that there are those who practically worship the language, to the point of having a superiority complex, yet they are generally those who are not of this culture, yet are fascinated by it.

Although I live in America, my heart and culture reside in the eastern ancient ways, not as having anything to do with superiority, but simply what I count as important to me. One of these concerns the hospitality of strangers. My use of the Eastern P. text is of course part of that tradition.

As anyone here who has read my posts knows, I try from time to time to share things from that perspective, because there are nuances and connections in the 1st century writings (as Whitewings brought out) that can only be seen by reading from the Aramaic...not a translation, but the Aramaic text itself.

As Shev brought out, Greek is a very precise language. I would add that both Greek and Hebrew along with Aramaic share a precision, although from different perspectives. Greek is precise in the choice of different exacting words to describe subtle nuances of descriptions of words. Hebrew and Aramaic, on the other hand, are precise in the choice of base roots to describe subtle nuances of actions of words. This is of course, why Hebrew uses less words than Greek.

For anyone interested, I started a series a while ago on another website in which I am reading through the Greek New Testament (the one with all the variants) and showing how the reason for the variants can be explained by an Aramaic source. Far from discrediting the Greek, it actually helps us understand why some of these variants exist, since translating from one language into another isn't an exact science, and choices at times have to be made between what one person thinks a word means, verses someone else.

http://www.originsofhebrew.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18

Ronen

  Hi Ronen
   You posted this  before I was done
  and as usual your always so helpful    !
  I agree   with your describing     something that is almost describable !! 
I believe this is why   Peter put the    verses  That    that scriptures is of no private interpretation  !!

  Because we are all   in different places,     in the ''WORD ''  and in the  journey /pilgrimage     to being  ''complete ''   in HIM 

understanding is just one of the many    , I will call ''facets''  one side of something many-sided        of the true treasures     in Gods Word       

many levels of understanding the same thing         , growing in Truth and Grace   is  basically what we are all  doing
and the new creature  is the only one who '  gets it ''     the only one set to inherit all things     though Christ / anointing     , this seed is truly one of a kind     and   purposed in God for a whole lot more than this world offers   it 

A journey that can only be described as  Glorious  and the word  itself does not even begin to explain   the reality   of it !     

[Tom]

I can only read English, but I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer to compare the Concordant Version, the King James Version, Young's Literal Translation, an ultra-literal translation, and the ancient text. I'm aware of the ongoing debate about Aramaic vs. Greek with the so called New Testament, but I think Greek was used to reach the most people in the nations. That is the language in which we have over five thousand manuscripts said to be copies of the originals. I understand why some folks like to read the Aramaic or even Hebrew, but, as I said, I have to rely on the English translation. I've read information about those who prefer the idea of Aramaic primacy, and what I've read indicates that the dialect used is a relatively young dialect found in a part of Turkey not the area where Christ lived. I don't read either Greek or Aramaic. So it doesn't really matter to me, but it seems Greek was a universal language at the time of Christ and was probably used because the Lord wanted people from all nations to hear the evangel. So I'm all right with studying a version of scripture translated into English from Greek, and I don't really have much choice anyway. I think the important thing is to have a version of scripture that accurately translates "aion," "aionion," and "geenna" as "Gehenna" instead of "hell." I've read a couple of Aramaic translations that don't. No translation is perfect because something is always lost in translation, and no version of scripture is perfect because it is always interpreted through humans even though some folks seem to think their King James Version is the original manuscript. There was a time when I thought Aramaic might have been the original language of the New Testament because it seems Christ and his people spoke it at the time, but I think God chose Greek to evangelize the nations even though I think Christ probably spoke Aramaic and Greek and maybe even read Hebrew. I think I'm too burned out to learn Greek. So I rely on what I think is the best translation of it. I don't idolize the translation, but I try to learn as much as I can about scripture by using what seems to be the most accurate translation of the words in the ancient language.

[WhiteWings]

I can only read English, but I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer
....
So I'm all right with studying a version of scripture translated into English from Greek, and I don't really have much choice anyway.

Tom, of course I don't know how exactly you study, but it's my guess that ones in a while you let your software search for all occurrences of a certain Strong word because it can be handy to know how a certain Hebrew word is used in other verses. So you search for H123 and find verses in the OT only. It's up to you to figure out H123 in the OT is G321 in the NT. And then the lexicons don't align perfectly.

Another things I don't like translated names.
Let's be honest, Jesus is just a meaningless name. Using "YahHeals" as an English translation puts more love and understanding in the Bible. And still very readable.
Nothing big, but it adds up.

http://www.bible-codes.org/Names-Bible-Prophecy-Code.htm
http://www.bible-codes.org/acrostic_prophecy.htm
http://www.behindthename.com/nmc/bibl.php
http://www.biblical-baby-names.com/names.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/judaism/a/hebrewnames.htm
http://www.christianityoasis.com/Keyword/BibleNames.htm
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en&q=meaning%20of%20biblical%20names&num=100

[gregoryfl]

As far as English translations go, I also have and enjoy reading from my copy of the Concordant Literal Version. I think we all can agree that Father is not limited by language when it comes to his leading us into his truth. Similar to what Rose said, while I do generally have as my main source the P. text I read and study from, I also have over 60 other English translations, mostly from Greek sources of course, with a few from Aramaic, to help open my eyes to how others see the same words I am looking at.

Yeshua and 11 of his taught ones (excluding Yehudah) were from Galilee, and in that region a form of northern dialect of Aramaic was used. Paul, on the other hand, was born in Tarsus, where a western Aramaic dialect was used. Then, when he went to Yerushalayim, he would have learned and been taught from the Aramaic in that area, which was and eastern dialect. While Greek definitely took over the known world at that time, Aramaic was still the language of trade, and mainly the language of the common Semite, until Arabic took over centuries later.

My hope is not that anyone would give up looking at whatever their favorite translation is, or to the Greek witnesses. I simply hope that more would add the Aramaic witness to their studies, alongside whatever they currently are using, as yet another important witness. So far, my experience has been, when I quote from the Aramaic, that people respond in a way that communicates to me that it is something that cannot be trusted, likely because they have never looked at it for themselves.

Ronen

[rosered]

As far as English translations go, I also have and enjoy reading from my copy of the Concordant Literal Version. I think we all can agree that Father is not limited by language when it comes to his leading us into his truth. Similar to what Rose said, while I do generally have as my main source the P. text I read and study from, I also have over 60 other English translations, mostly from Greek sources of course, with a few from Aramaic, to help open my eyes to how others see the same words I am looking at.

Yeshua and 11 of his taught ones (excluding Yehudah) were from Galilee, and in that region a form of northern dialect of Aramaic was used. Paul, on the other hand, was born in Tarsus, where a western Aramaic dialect was used. Then, when he went to Yerushalayim, he would have learned and been taught from the Aramaic in that area, which was and eastern dialect. While Greek definitely took over the known world at that time, Aramaic was still the language of trade, and mainly the language of the common Semite, until Arabic took over centuries later.

My hope is not that anyone would give up looking at whatever their favorite translation is, or to the Greek witnesses. I simply hope that more would add the Aramaic witness to their studies, alongside whatever they currently are using, as yet another important witness. So far, my experience has been, when I quote from the Aramaic, that people respond in a way that communicates to me that it is something that cannot be trusted, likely because they have never looked at it for themselves.

Ronen

Whitewings       you know!!   

  Exactly  it  is like mining     for treasure    , if your not willing to  dig in    and look for yourself       and unearth all the shining beauty    of Gods Word     
  you are  not going to be    filled with        truth 
this can be applied as
food   for the hungry  inner man
  treasure in the heart   
  pearl of  Wisdom  etc , the  green pastures     , its endless      really it is  and years of looking    for many of us here

and still its considered a short time    in human   terms  ,  a  whole lifetime ,   in the parameters     of Gods endless    Source of Wisdom  of the ages
  Right  guys ?     

[WhiteWings]

Whitewings       you know!!       

I don't know much, but I do know you quoted Ronen, not me   :punish:
:friendstu:

[eaglesway]

As far as English translations go, I also have and enjoy reading from my copy of the Concordant Literal Version. I think we all can agree that Father is not limited by language when it comes to his leading us into his truth. Similar to what Rose said, while I do generally have as my main source the P. text I read and study from, I also have over 60 other English translations, mostly from Greek sources of course, with a few from Aramaic, to help open my eyes to how others see the same words I am looking at.

Yeshua and 11 of his taught ones (excluding Yehudah) were from Galilee, and in that region a form of northern dialect of Aramaic was used. Paul, on the other hand, was born in Tarsus, where a western Aramaic dialect was used. Then, when he went to Yerushalayim, he would have learned and been taught from the Aramaic in that area, which was and eastern dialect. While Greek definitely took over the known world at that time, Aramaic was still the language of trade, and mainly the language of the common Semite, until Arabic took over centuries later.

My hope is not that anyone would give up looking at whatever their favorite translation is, or to the Greek witnesses. I simply hope that more would add the Aramaic witness to their studies, alongside whatever they currently are using, as yet another important witness. So far, my experience has been, when I quote from the Aramaic, that people respond in a way that communicates to me that it is something that cannot be trusted, likely because they have never looked at it for themselves.

Ronen

Excellent post.

Most people dont want to kno about the Hellenization of the gospel. Their faith is based on a comfortable simplicity that fears shaking. As shakers, they hate to see us coming, mostly, and think when we shake, we are threatening their faith.

I came to UR before I investigated translation issues, by the simple irrefutable testimony of Eph 1, Col 1, Romans, 8 1 Cor 15, 1 John 2 etc. Those irrefutable witnesses(available in all translations) led me to begin to look into translation issues as a resolution for the seeming conflicts about "hell", and of course I was quickly rewarded because there is an abundance of material, easily accessible, for anyone with the will to know the truth. The more witnesses we have, the clearer the view, the wider the horizon.

[Tom]

I can only read English, but I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer
....
So I'm all right with studying a version of scripture translated into English from Greek, and I don't really have much choice anyway.

Tom, of course I don't know how exactly you study, but it's my guess that ones in a while you let your software search for all occurrences of a certain Strong word because it can be handy to know how a certain Hebrew word is used in other verses. So you search for H123 and find verses in the OT only. It's up to you to figure out H123 in the OT is G321 in the NT. And then the lexicons don't align perfectly.

Another things I don't like translated names.
Let's be honest, Jesus is just a meaningless name. Using "YahHeals" as an English translation puts more love and understanding in the Bible. And still very readable.
Nothing big, but it adds up.

http://www.bible-codes.org/Names-Bible-Prophecy-Code.htm
http://www.bible-codes.org/acrostic_prophecy.htm
http://www.behindthename.com/nmc/bibl.php
http://www.biblical-baby-names.com/names.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/judaism/a/hebrewnames.htm
http://www.christianityoasis.com/Keyword/BibleNames.htm
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en&q=meaning%20of%20biblical%20names&num=100

Dealing with foreign languages is crazy, but at least we have several ways to compare what we're reading. I think it's also important to remember every translation is relative. Nobody has the original manuscripts, but I've heard that none of the variants in the Greek manuscripts affect doctrine. I like "Yeshua," bro, but I use "Jesus" most of the time because it is more commonly known at least I think to English speaking folks even though I know it's a distorted translation of his name. Even the word "Lord" is not really cool because it had a pagan meaning before it was used for him, but it's just a title not his name just like "Christ" is a title which Paul starting putting in front of his name for that reason.

[WhiteWings]

remember every translation is relative. Nobody has the original manuscripts

Of course that's true, but all manuscripts agree Eve's name doesn't even remotely looks like Eve. Same story for about every name in the Bible.
It's no big deal almost nobody knows the meaning of your name is twin. But with Bible names  have feeling the meaning does matter and they aren't chosen randomly.

Gen 17:5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.

Why did God bother changing the name? If  you look up the names you know.

I'm repeating myself....  :winkgrin:

[Tom]

As far as English translations go, I also have and enjoy reading from my copy of the Concordant Literal Version. I think we all can agree that Father is not limited by language when it comes to his leading us into his truth. Similar to what Rose said, while I do generally have as my main source the P. text I read and study from, I also have over 60 other English translations, mostly from Greek sources of course, with a few from Aramaic, to help open my eyes to how others see the same words I am looking at.

Yeshua and 11 of his taught ones (excluding Yehudah) were from Galilee, and in that region a form of northern dialect of Aramaic was used. Paul, on the other hand, was born in Tarsus, where a western Aramaic dialect was used. Then, when he went to Yerushalayim, he would have learned and been taught from the Aramaic in that area, which was and eastern dialect. While Greek definitely took over the known world at that time, Aramaic was still the language of trade, and mainly the language of the common Semite, until Arabic took over centuries later.

My hope is not that anyone would give up looking at whatever their favorite translation is, or to the Greek witnesses. I simply hope that more would add the Aramaic witness to their studies, alongside whatever they currently are using, as yet another important witness. So far, my experience has been, when I quote from the Aramaic, that people respond in a way that communicates to me that it is something that cannot be trusted, likely because they have never looked at it for themselves.

Ronen

I started getting into the English translations of Aramaic until I saw how "eonian" is translated as "eternal," "everlasting," and "for ever and ever," and "Gehenna" is even translated as "hell" in a couple of the versions. I understand the benefit of studying a language similar to what was spoken by Christ where and when he lived, but, if it's translated in a way similar to popular English versions with those words, I'm not going to use it as my main version to read. I've heard a few things that were interesting like the camel vs. rope thing, but I've also heard arguments that the word "camel" was intended as an exaggeration. I try not to let dealing with foreign languages make me too crazy. I do as much comparison as I can to try to get the best idea of what is being meant by scripture. Then I just go with that unless somebody comes up with something very convincing to change my mind. I believe in keeping an open mind though about language and interpretation, and I always think it's interesting to hear what somebody else has to say about something even if I might disagree with it. So don't think I'm putting down your Aramaic translation, bro. I just think I get a better idea of what is meant in the scripture with the version I'm using. As I've said before, I think all versions are imperfect, but I think we all have to use what works for us.

[Tom]

remember every translation is relative. Nobody has the original manuscripts

Of course that's true, but all manuscripts agree Eve's name doesn't even remotely looks like Eve. Same story for about every name in the Bible.
It's no big deal almost nobody knows the meaning of your name is twin. But with Bible names  have feeling the meaning does matter and they aren't chosen randomly.

Gen 17:5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.

Why did God bother changing the name? If  you look up the names you know.

I'm repeating myself....  :winkgrin:

I'm hip to the meaning of "Thomas" and "Michael," my middle name, and I realize all scriptural names have meanings including "Paul," which I've read means "pause" supposedly signifying the pause in the fulfillment of the coming kingdom in Israel ruled by Messiah until all those who have been chosen will be called out of the nations. You're much more into the details of the Hebrew scriptures than I am, bro. 

[WhiteWings]

I've read, regarding the Aramaic claim of rope vs. camel (Luke 18:25), that Christ most likely intended to use the same sort of hyperbole he did regarding the gnat vs. camel (Matthew 23:24).

But the rope version has an actual meaning/teaching the camel version doesn't have. It's directly related to verse 21.
A heavy rope equals lots of money. Giving money equals removing threads or strands from the rope. Eventually the rope is thin enough to pass through the eye of the needle (narrow gate). Basically it says: Stingy people won't enter heaven.

I don't think much is to be gained by an ongoing debate about the Aramaic primacy vs. the Greek. I've read that the majority of scholars think the Greek was the original language of the New Testament.

For every view an opposite view :-)

Much scholary views are based on previous research. (there is no other way) So they are often just repeating views. I also fear many don't even have guts to admit rope is the correct translation because it shatters their dream of perfect manuscripts and flawless inspired translations. Changing the whole language would be even more problematic for the very same reason. It's also of doctrinal importance as the DDS show. In some cases so important that cave 4 is still isn't made public.

Sceptic mode off.
Good night.
:grave:

[Tom]

Well, I've heard the "rope" is better than the "camel" for a few reasons, and I'm definitely not too impressed by so called scholars. But, like I just said in a reply to Ronen, what really keeps me from using the Aramaic versions is the translation of "eonian" and "Gehenna" just like the King James Version. 

[rosered]

lol  whitewings 


  Definition of SCEPTIC

chiefly British variant of skeptic, skeptical, skepticism         I  believe that rope    though the eye of a needle is a good  comparison       

  we can only use   things we know   to help us understand  better   to things we don't know  what to compare them too , right ?   




 

Well, I've heard the "rope" is better than the "camel" for a few reasons, and I'm definitely not too impressed by so called scholars. But, like I just said in a reply to Ronen, what really keeps me from using the Aramaic versions is the translation of "eonian" and "Gehenna" just like the King James Version.

   Now Tom you know,,,,,,,, if you know better   and what    they mean already  ,,,,,,,,,,than whatever you read will not effect   what you ''already know  ''    as eonian    and Gehenna

    the word hell does not phase your thinking  one bit    right ? :flowerred:
and the   way things are worded can benefit you greatly

[Tom]

Well I'm willing to sacrifice the "camel" but not "eonian" and especially not "Gehenna." So I'll rely on you other folks to keep me informed about the Aramaic perspective. I agree that "the way things are worded can benefit you greatly," as you say, which is why I prefer to read a word that I think is supposed to be there instead of another one especially when doctrine can change drastically on a word like in the case of "hell fire" instead of "Gehenna fire." It changes the whole story, right? The same goes for "eternal," "everlasting," and "for ever and ever" instead of "eonian" because I think that changes the whole story too. So what's the "benefit" or translating them wrong? It seems to me that, even though the Aramaic translations are supposed to more accurate, they just followed the errors of the King James Version. So what's the point of reading those versions? I'm interested in accuracy, which the Aramaic is supposed to have, but the translations I've seen aren't any better than the King James Version that I read for many years but gladly gave up for the sake of accuracy when I became aware of the problems it had. I'm not attached to any version for sentimental value. I read Young's Literal Translation when I gave up the King James Version. Then I gave up Young's Literal Translation when I became aware of the Concordant Version. If one comes along that looks better than the Concordant Version, I'll switch again, but I haven't seen that happen yet. If science ever figures out how to come up with a time machine, I'll go back and learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek so I won't have to deal with any translations,  but, until then, I'll let you and the brothers can keep me up to speed with the Aramaic, sis.

[Shev]

It just 'hides' things. It makes certain connections between the OT and NT harder to find. It's not that Greek is a bad language. If the OT was written in Greek and the NT in Hebrew the same problem would surface.

God managed to put a lot of word plays in the Hebrew text. That gives extra depth to the Scriptures.
I'm sure He could have done so in any language, but He chose Hebrew.
When translating between two languages those word plays and depths are gone.
That means that the the 'hidden meanings' taught in the OT are lost in the NT.
The most simple example of that are idioms. They often don't make any sense when translated. In fact they often don't make any sense in the original language when taken literally.

It gets even worse when it's translated to English. Another veil of imperfection added. Hebrew --> Greek --> English
Nevertheless, having the original language obviously benefits those who can read it and to a lesser extent those who use lexicons.

I think God intended to record, distribute and relay the New Testament in Greek...because He did! I have no doubt one or two of the four Gospels (especially Matthew) may have possibly been written in Hebrew or Aramaic before being translated, but most of the epistles were to Greek speaking churches, and written in Greek to begin with.

That means at least one or two (or most according to  growing number of scholars) are not the original inspired language. Not good. Not good at all. Was it God's intend the originals are lost/destroyed? I think nobody can say for sure. But just saying "yes, because He did!" isn't a view I can't accept as a fact. It's just like saying God wanted His people be exiled to Egypt, He wanted them to wander around for 40 years. because He did! That's a view, but keep in mind those events were a response to rebellion/sin. Did Father also inspire sin/rebellion?

See Shev, small assumptions, maybe even facts, often act as an oil spill. They never stay isolated. They affect many other things. Likewise with translations.


Besides of all the technicalities of translations, a major factor to consider is the mind of the one writing/dictating the language. Just a incorrect example. Sheol is the Jewish kingdom of death. Hades is the Greek kingdom of death. So translating sheol to hades is a good translation. But the thought behind it is totally different. For the Jews sheol is 'the dead know nothing', but for the Greeks Hades is a very active place full of misery.

Father said to a person who hears Him: "Scripture is Hellenized".
It wasn't a compliment....

:2c:  :soap:

Thank you for the comments WW. You make some good arguments. As far as word play, there are actually word plays in the NT Greek too, though this don't get much publicity (καθαίρει/καθαροί) in John 15:2-3 etc). I think the Sheol/Hades point is very well put.

Looking at your response to my "because He did!" statement, it does make me think I was a little flippant in trying to express a point, so I appreciate the correction. I guess a better way of saying it would be that the amazing preservation and agreement between over five thousand Greek manuscripts is compelling evidence (to me) that this is the language in which the gospel was designed to be preserved. Of course it is just my opinion, as with anything dealing with events of two thousand years ago, none of us are eye witnesses!

As far as the wandering for 40 years, I do believe it was always intended to happen, just like the fall, Abraham conceiving Ishmael, etc etc, but of course I know there are differing views on whether God truly orders these things or not. I don't think sin or rebellion are ever inspired, but I think they were planned to happen, yes.

"Father said to a person who hears Him: "Scripture is Hellenized".
It wasn't a compliment...."

I am not sure what to make of the above quote. Is this a "thus saith the Lord?" Or is it a quote from a well known scholar?

[Shev]

I liked RoseReds comment best, about Spirit being the language God ultimately conveys everything in, and our main focus.

That being said, I think these discussions are really good, as it important to get other views. There are scholars who have labored in all of these linguistic fields, and their work has blessed all of us to some degree. I believe God leads people into different areas, and some never have the desire to learn the original languages, some learn one, or more, but we are blessed to have the tools available to delve either way.

My personal belief is that there was immense symbolism to "The King of the Jews" inscription being written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. These languages symbolize (for me), the Law and the Prophets, the Gospel, and the Apostasy, being the dominant ekklesia languages over a period of thousands of years, and to me this is a prophetic statement showing Jesus is proclaimed King of the Jews throughout all ages.

[Shev]

I can only read English, but I use the Interlinear Scripture Analyzer
....
So I'm all right with studying a version of scripture translated into English from Greek, and I don't really have much choice anyway.

Tom, of course I don't know how exactly you study, but it's my guess that ones in a while you let your software search for all occurrences of a certain Strong word because it can be handy to know how a certain Hebrew word is used in other verses. So you search for H123 and find verses in the OT only. It's up to you to figure out H123 in the OT is G321 in the NT. And then the lexicons don't align perfectly.

Another things I don't like translated names.
Let's be honest, Jesus is just a meaningless name. Using "YahHeals" as an English translation puts more love and understanding in the Bible. And still very readable.
Nothing big, but it adds up.

http://www.bible-codes.org/Names-Bible-Prophecy-Code.htm
http://www.bible-codes.org/acrostic_prophecy.htm
http://www.behindthename.com/nmc/bibl.php
http://www.biblical-baby-names.com/names.html
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/judaism/a/hebrewnames.htm
http://www.christianityoasis.com/Keyword/BibleNames.htm
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en&q=meaning%20of%20biblical%20names&num=100

Dealing with foreign languages is crazy, but at least we have several ways to compare what we're reading. I think it's also important to remember every translation is relative. Nobody has the original manuscripts, but I've heard that none of the variants in the Greek manuscripts affect doctrine. I like "Yeshua," bro, but I use "Jesus" most of the time because it is more commonly known at least I think to English speaking folks even though I know it's a distorted translation of his name. Even the word "Lord" is not really cool because it had a pagan meaning before it was used for him, but it's just a title not his name just like "Christ" is a title which Paul starting putting in front of his name for that reason.

Great post Tom! I like Jesus too. I find it interesting that the Septuagint translators, long before Christ, did not mind using the same word for the Joshua of the Old Testament. It is also interesting that neither Jesus, nor any of the NT translators, insisted on any use of sacred names.