I just happen to think such translations are on average better than western church influenced translations.
Does someone know such a translation?
:cloud9: When I go to Crosswalk.com they have a couple of Jewish bibles on there for comparison, I think. I'd google it and see what most of the Messianics or even the Orthodox for the Tanakh only, are reading. If you find one, let me know. Blessings....
Cardinal,
I'll Google and list what I found.
It's just that I have no clue what's good and what's not. I was, and still am, hoping someone can give me a hint.
Jabcat got me a perfect NT only Bible. Now I'm looking for the perfect OT Bible.
Perfect is as good as reasonbly possible.
http://www.jewishpub.org/product.php?id=243
Also availble as a free e-Sword module
Gen 1:5 is the first verse that's different from the 'norma;' translations.
OK- lets explain the terminology first:
Torah= Five Boks of Moses
Nevi'im= Prophets
Ketuvin= Writings
The three combined together are known by the acronym- Tanakh.
Is the Tanakh identical to the "Old testament". Nope. It is in Hebrew and the chapter breaks, verse numberings and sometimes even book splits differ from what you find in the OT- changing emphasis and meaning. On top of that, the language used carries mulitiple meanings and translators very often make errors by utilising the wrong meaning due to not being familiar with the layered meanings or the legal meaning of a word vs a popular usage vs the mystical meaning etc.
Can you get it in translation? Yep- probably the best English translation (with a summary of a few Rabbinical commentaries), is the Tanach produced by Artscroll/Metsorah publications. It can be ordered directly from their website http://www.artscroll.com or from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, a local Judaica or bookstore etc.
Source(s):
Orthodox Jew
http://www.artscroll.com/Categories/bsv.html
http://www.amazon.com/Chumash-Commentary-Bereicraph-Shemoth-Bemidbar/dp/0873060199
PC/Online versions. Free
http://www.davka.com/cgi-bin/product.cgi?product=46
http://www.davening.net/jpstanach.html
http://www.jewishsoftware.com/products/Soncino_English_Tanach__Talmud_1215.asp?bhcd2=1256627971
http://www.karaite-korner.org/tanach/index.html
http://www.judaicapress.com/product_info.php?ref=1339&products_id=221
http://www.hebrewworld.com/Rashi.html
To be continued. Hopefully...
I own a very old German translation from Jewish scholars, under the leading of Leopold Zunz; the German "Buber-Rosenzweig" translation is a very literal translation, almost concordant as far as I know, but I don't own it.
I would say Jewish translations are also biased, not regarding the subject of hell/everlasting punishment but regarding prophecies to Christ; and Jewish translators might follow Talmudic tradition, I'm thinking about buying a Septuagint translation.
But this may be interesting for you:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm
:cloud9: WW and Sven......of course the Jews changed some of it. Jesus basically said they did. But I think this is one reason why God took them in their own craftiness by having them build the Tabernacle to His exact specifications, to be used as a pattern for the heavenly things as Heb. 10 says.
IMO, they didn't realize IT was going to bear witness against them if they changed the written, so they probably thought nothing of preserving it's pertinent scriptures. After all, they were all about the "outer show" on everything. Blessings.....
Quote from: Cardinal on October 26, 2009, 08:42:44 PM
:cloud9: WW and Sven......of course the Jews changed some of it. Jesus basically said they did.
Did they make changes in the actual book or in their commentaries and oral traditions?
I think all. But hope to a lesser extent the written actual "OT".
A Jewish scholar translating to English just translates the bias that's already in the Hebrew.
A, say, protestant scholar translates the biased Hebrew and adds his own bias on top of that.
Plus the Jewish scholar is likely more aware of ancient Jewish tradition/society.
Some of my personal finding from 'other angles' favor Jewish translations too.
All that combined I think gives a good possibily the translations done by Jewish scholars has a good
chance to be superior to western translations. I'm not planning to buy every translation on the market so I try shift the odds into my favor a little bit. That's all.
:cloud9: I think the Torah portion is perfect in it's entirety if no other reason, the Bible codes have been going on for some time, and the first 5 books are the only ones the codes consistently work on, which means, letter perfect.
Some of the hits I've seen, the statistics on probability are in a million to one or more, and they are quite detailed. Chance doesn't have a "chance", LOL. But, I do think some of the other writings in SMALL ways may have been altered a letter here or there to try to hide the Messiah AFTER He came. Remember these are people who know what the very letters themselves mean, not just the words and sentences those letters make. So literally changing a letter here or there, could make a difference to Jewish scribes.
And of course they altered interpretations with their writings and oral traditions. Blessings....
So Card, you think some very minor tinkering here and there, but nothing that would drastically change large portions of meaning in the OT? I've read where the manuscripts harmonized with each other like 98%, with by far, much of any discepancies being a letter left out here or there, perhaps punctuation, etc. No scholar here, I just believe what God originally said is exactly what He meant, and the closer we can get to that the better. :thumbsup:
All agreed. The main question is who has the least imperfect translation?
Anyway I'm still looking. It's not as easy as I hoped for. A zillion of useless hits on Google.
http://www.artscroll.com/Products/STGM.html is my favorite sofar. Translation plus little extra's like drawings and commentaries.
There seems to be a multi-volume version of the same translation with more commentary. But I can't find it.
I'll look some more. WW, what do you think of the Young's OT? Also, isn't there a Concordant Version out or coming out soon?
Quote from: jabcat on October 27, 2009, 12:05:01 AM
I'll look some more. WW, what do you think of the Young's OT? Also, isn't there a Concordant Version out or coming out soon?
You should ask that to Tony N.
Currently they sell the OT per book. Not all books are done yet.
As for Youngs. Certainly not bad. It's just as I wrote above, I somehow put more value in Jewish translations.
Just a feeling.
Read the 144 raving reviews on Amazon on the artscroll.com Stone translation. The only critique is that soem people want more commentaries.
But lets search a bit more. Surely there must be more than 2 translations...
I dont know :dontknow:
Paul was big on preaching a new and simpler way to serve God
seem the old testament was messed with pretty badly
why would Paul point this out to us if it were not valuable info ?
this old wine is
what they get drunk on ''violent '' in other words
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Tts 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Tts 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Tts 1:10 ¶ For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Tts 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
Tts 1:12 One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Tts 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Tts 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Tts 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
makes me wonder alot if the new wine is all we should really be drinking now ?
what say you all ? :icon_flower:
:HeartThrob:
i cannot find a post about the wine and us being wineskins ?
it was good ,
seems the old is better to those who are used to it :icon_king:
So WW, moving back to your OP and what I understand to be the intent of your thread, it sounds like you've found 2 possible really good OT translations. I didn't know if you had seen this, but it's a clip of the Stone Chamush - http://www.artscroll.com/images/insides/s/stohl-1.jpg.
Thanks, James.
Quote from: jabcat on October 26, 2009, 11:58:25 PM
So Card, you think some very minor tinkering here and there, but nothing that would drastically change large portions of meaning in the OT? I've read where the manuscripts harmonized with each other like 98%, with by far, much of any discepancies being a letter left out here or there, perhaps punctuation, etc. No scholar here, I just believe what God originally said is exactly what He meant, and the closer we can get to that the better. :thumbsup:
:cloud9: Yes, I don't think there's any major tinkering done, and what was done was to try to hide the Messiah AFTER He came, so they could remain in control. The Bible code research and the Dead Sea scrolls research so far bear this witness. Blessings....
:thumbsup: Thanks.
Thanks Guys
I guess WW found two different types of writtings of the OT
I was wondering what Jewish fables are anyways, the aprocrypha maybe ?
I am not sure here ........... :mblush:
anyone got any ideas what they are ? :HeartThrob:
I wondered the same thing. I did a little looking, and from what I can tell, I would describe it as not necessarily anything that's written in scripture, but how they interpreted it, pulled it out of context, added their own beliefs to it out of their own blindness. This clip I found may be helpful;
"The New Testament church's mind set was full of examples of Jewish fables. These fables hindered the early church in carrying out the great commission. For example, in Acts 11:2-3, And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem , they that were of the circumcision contended with him. Saying Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them.
Eating with a Gentile was considered a sin by all the Jewish population. This fable seems very silly to us gentiles, but to the Jews it was a sin. How did this fable come to be established in the Jewish community? Lets look at Deuteronomy 7:2-6, " make no covenant with them; nor shew mercy unto them: 3) Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, or his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4) For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you and destroy thee suddenly.
The biggest Jewish fable is this " Only Jews or the descendants of Abraham will be saved." in Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto his self above all people that are upon the face of the earth. Did the Jews take this verse totally out of context? Yes. See Acts 11:18.
It is unlawful for a Jew to keep company with a gentile. See Acts 10:28
It is impossible for a gentile to receive the Holy Ghost. See Acts 10:45
It is not proper to preach the gospel to a gentile. See Acts 11:19
Jesus addresses Jewish Fables starting with Matthew 5:17- 48 including chapters 6 and 7."
So yeah, maybe more what WW said...translations can be good or poor quality, but the oldest manuscripts very highly bear witness to each other. It's perhaps more so their interpretations of those scriptures, their commentaries and teachings, their understandings, belief systems, myths from their distortions of truth that they held/hold to. Could it have something as well to do with holding to the old letter of the law(s) rather than moving into the age and Spirit of grace - post-Calvary? :dontknow: There's a scripture that states to this very day a veil remains on their eyes when they read the law and prophets. Jesus also said it wasn't given them to understand. Peter had the vision of all things now being clean, and that went against his Jewish, Old Covenant understanding. He hadn't yet moved past the Law (in that particular portion of understanding) and into the freedom of Christ. Anyway, that's my :2c:.
God's blessing, James.
:cloud9: Not going in to eat with gentiles was NOT a Jewish fable. The gentiles ate meat that was sacrificed to pagan gods, AND that meat was not prepared "kosher", ie. it still had the blood in it, which it still does today in OUR own culture, and they were told in the law not to eat blood.
God somehow penetrated me with this last one, because as long as I've cooked, I've cooked my meats first in salt water (it removes the blood, but I didn't realize that was what it was doing) before doing anything else with them. I had NO IDEA why I was doing this, it just seemed to me that I was "killing" any impurities with the salt. Blessings....
Thanks Guys , very helpful.... :icon_flower:
sorry WW , when you read this tomorrow ,if i got off topic ..
:HeartThrob:
rosie, I found this too, as an example of actual Jewish fables/stories that apparently really existed. Looks like stories apart from scripture, that it appears were things they told to teach lessons, morals, etc.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7069-Philadelphia-Judaism-Examiner~y2009m5d17-A-Jewish-fable-or-midrash-on-the-value-of-humility-from-Genesis-Rabbah-163
Quote - "A Jewish fable (or midrash) on the value of humility from Genesis Rabbah 16:3, told by Rabbi Kogan
In this delightful, pocket-sized book, Rabbi Kogan translated midrashim (Jewish fables) found in such traditional rabbinic texts as the Talmud Bavli, Tanchuma and Midrash Rabbah, among others. These texts span the rabbinic era of 300 – 700 CE.
As is true for all stories in the "fable" genre, these midrashic tales often reflect motifs found in the stories of other societies, such as Greece, Spain and Germany. In my next posting, I will share some of Rabbi Kogan's insights into the evolution and influences of Jewish fables."
Excuse me, WW, we got a little side-tracked.
Quote from: jabcat on October 27, 2009, 01:54:39 AM
So WW, moving back to your OP and what I understand to be the intent of your thread, it sounds like you've found 2 possible really good OT translations. I didn't know if you had seen this, but it's a clip of the Stone Chamush - http://www.artscroll.com/images/insides/s/stohl-1.jpg.
Thanks, James.
Found that James.
One oddity, for none Hebrew speakers, the book reads from what I call, back to front.
Quote from: Cardinal on October 27, 2009, 01:59:23 AM
Quote from: jabcat on October 26, 2009, 11:58:25 PM
So Card, you think some very minor tinkering here and there, but nothing that would drastically change large portions of meaning in the OT? I've read where the manuscripts harmonized with each other like 98%, with by far, much of any discepancies being a letter left out here or there, perhaps punctuation, etc. No scholar here, I just believe what God originally said is exactly what He meant, and the closer we can get to that the better. :thumbsup:
:cloud9: Yes, I don't think there's any major tinkering done, and what was done was to try to hide the Messiah AFTER He came, so they could remain in control. The Bible code research and the Dead Sea scrolls research so far bear this witness. Blessings....
Then 'our' OT has been tinkered. Depends on who you ask....
If your read the reviews on Amazon you find one of a 'western woman' She's happy with the translation that has a beautiful flow and insightful commentaries and yet marginally diffrent from 'our' translations.
As a reply she gets: This proves how hard it is to bring subtilities across; because this translation is exceedingly different.
Quote from: rosered on October 27, 2009, 12:25:46 AM
I dont know :dontknow:
Paul was big on preaching a new and simpler way to serve God
seem the old testament was messed with pretty badly
So you suggest no OT at all?
That's a view I can accept (not agree with). But then you never are 'allowed' to use the OT as proof to backup a NT claim. If you do so then the OT translation should be as good as possible.
Good is very subjective.
Jesus quoted from the LXX IIRC. So that's a good translation. But it's in Greek. Brenton translated it to English. I don't know how many bias was added then. But LXX-Greek may be a good source to work from.
Quote from: rosered on October 27, 2009, 02:17:33 AM
Thanks Guys
I guess WW found two different types of writtings of the OT
I was wondering what Jewish fables are anyways, the aprocrypha maybe ?
I am not sure here ........... :mblush:
anyone got any ideas what they are ? :HeartThrob:
The Jewish works are in several 'parts'
Literal words of God. Interpretation/commentary. The teaching they where past on generation on generation in the form of unwritten wisdom.
Quote from: jabcat on October 27, 2009, 02:38:20 AM
I wondered the same thing. I did a little looking, and from what I can tell, I would describe it as not necessarily anything that's written in scripture, but how they interpreted it, pulled it out of context, added their own beliefs to it out of their own blindness. This clip I found may be helpful;
"The New Testament church's mind set was full of examples of Jewish fables. These fables hindered the early church in carrying out the great commission.
Then it depends how many fables there are in the books I found.
You basicly can do 3 things:
a] Stick to western translation. Not very pure either.
b] Find a Jewish translation without commentary or just never read it.
c] Find a Jewish translation with good commentary.
One reviewer was very happy with the whole Stone Tanach.
But he suggested the multi volume version because that has much more commentaries. I can't find it.
Anyone?
Quote from: rosered on October 27, 2009, 03:30:16 AM
Thanks Guys , very helpful.... :icon_flower:
sorry WW , when you read this tomorrow ,if i got off topic ..
:HeartThrob:
Your commentary is your view. No problem with that. It's just that I in all my arrogance decided I want a good OT. That's all.
Quote from: jabcat on October 27, 2009, 06:20:22 AM
Excuse me, WW, we got a little side-tracked.
As long as you/everyone
also give book suggestion it's helping this thread.
It's good to know what to avoid.
Just an article: http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/unique-translation-of-the-paleohebrew-tanach-558436.html#
Pitty they don't mention what translation they are writing about...
(list in reply #3 is updated)
Quote from: Cardinal on October 26, 2009, 10:33:59 PM
:cloud9: I think the Torah portion is perfect in it's entirety if no other reason, the Bible codes have been going on for some time, and the first 5 books are the only ones the codes consistently work on, which means, letter perfect.
That's the Hebrew. But how about translation. Bias can slip in. Plus depth can be lost. And possible the whole meaning of a verse gets lost if the 'added hints' of the Hebrew letters isn't there anymore in the English translation.
Searched another hour and it seems more and more there are only 2 translations.
Stone edition seems a safe bet. JPS-1917 translation seems a bit sloppy but the more recent translation is better.
You're the searching king, so maybe those are the 2 main (only) ones :dontknow:. What would be the alternative? Being able to read Hebrew?
Quote from: jabcat on October 27, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
You're the searching king, so maybe those are the 2 main (only) ones :dontknow:. What would be the alternative? Being able to read Hebrew?
Yes, or Greek. I think the LXX is a solid translation too.
But just being able to read Greek and Hebrew isn't enough.
You should be able to think and dream in those languages.
Otherwise you are missing so much depth you are better of with a bad English translation.
That said I think it's impossible to translate Hebrew to any language. It's not just the meaning of words but also the meaning of letters. Lets call in entry level Bible codes a Hebrew speaker notices with ease. Or every verse should have a commentary to explain the codes.
My list of prefs:
1] Hebrew
2] LXX
3] English by Jewish scholars.
For all commentaries are a very welcome bonus.
I ranked LXX above English translations only because Jesus quoted from the LXX. That's just that little extra to prove quality.
IIRC the Stone translation is done from a Orthodox Jewish view.
/EDIT
With codes I'm not meaning things like "Obama is the beast" type of codes.
http://www.amazon.com/Tanach-Twenty-Four-Translated-Statistics-Probability/dp/0899062717/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1256635762&sr=8-1
Tanach: The Stone Edition/White : The Torah/Prophets/Writings : The Twenty-Four Books of the Bible Newly Translated and Annotated (ASA-SIAM Series on Statistics and Applied Probability) (Hardcover)
Is that an extra bundled bonus book? Or of the main book?
I emailed the publisher about the multi volume Stone edition.
QuoteThere is no such thing as a multi-volume Stone Tanach.
What we do have in multi-volumes is the Rubin Tanach.
You can find that on our website at www.artscroll.com
If you have a problem finding it, just let me know.
Shmuel Blitz
http://www.artscroll.com/Categories/rpr.html
I'm wondering a bit if it's good or bad to have use commenaries.
It's easy to get lost in lengthy commentaries and miss teh point that's clear from conceise commenty like that in the Stone edition.
Quote from: jabcat on October 27, 2009, 10:51:24 AM
You're the searching king, so maybe those are the 2 main (only) ones :dontknow:. What would be the alternative? Being able to read Hebrew?
http://www.artscroll.com/Categories/ra1.html
http://www.artscroll.com/Categories/rpr.html
QuoteYou ought to read Spinoza's little book translated as "Theology and Politics" and availabe on the www. He discusses the inaccuracies of the Hebrew used in his day: He says that 15% or so of the words no longer have known meaning; and pronounciation used is guesswork, as the language vowels, and differing ungiven vowles would give different meanings.
The Hebrew and KJV text both say that 'he (meaning God) burried Moses" while the Greek text says "they (the people) burried
Moses. The Dead Sea text agrees with the more logical Greek, not the currently used Hebrew.
So even Hebrew translations suffer from their language being modernized.
But that can also be said about the Greek...
QuoteAlthough the Stone addition is highly respected, and used among many modern Judaism sects, I find this translation sometimes wondering from true biblical definition. In Genesis, the term, "seventh generation" is used in reference to anyone who kills Cain, and "seventieth generation" refering to Lamech. Even though these terms are consistent within this Bible, the Hebrew language does not render "generation" rather, "fold--or times over. Therefore, it should read, "seven times," the punishment degree of Cain, and "seventy-times" Lamech. This may seem trivial, however, an act of punishment that is done to any "person" seven-times more so then Cain's, does not necessarily mean to the subsequent "generations."
QuoteI purchased this book (JPS)because my Rabbi told me this was the most accurate of versions. I do enjoy the tone of the narrator and the way the writtings flow.
QuoteAccording to an Artscroll representative I contacted via email, the text is based on the Leningrad codex (L19), which is not as reliable as the Keter Aram Tzova or Aleppo codex.
The translation is not to my liking: it twists the text. Makes you doubt things you believed before.
QuoteJewish English Bible translations - Artscroll Tanach series
Mesorah Publications is an Orthodox Jewish publisher of Bible translations, rabbinic literature and Jewish prayerbooks. Their Stone Edition of the Chumash (Torah) and Stone Edition of the Tanach (also called the Artscroll Tanakh) have become very popular in the Orthodox Jewish community, and are in use by some non-Orthodox Jews as well. It is considered by many Orthodox Jews to be the best of the English translations.
Their translations has been criticised by a few Modern Orthodox scholars, e.g. B. Barry Levy, and by non-Orthodox scholars for mis-translating the text. The dispute comes about because the editors at Mesorah Publications consciously attempted not to present a straight translation of the text, but rather to smooth out differences between the plain meaning of the text and later interpretations of the text by medieval bibical commentators such as Rashi. More severe, however, is that the lack of scholarship by the editors is accused not only of misrepresenting the plain meaning of the text, but even its rabbinic interpretation.
So the whole translation is a Rashi commentary in disguise. The Orthodox Jew like it because they are a fan of Rashi. Something like that....?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090705041559AA6ZXvc
Quote from: Cardinal on October 26, 2009, 08:42:44 PM
:cloud9: WW and Sven......of course the Jews changed some of it. Jesus basically said they did. But I think this is one reason why God took them in their own craftiness by having them build the Tabernacle to His exact specifications, to be used as a pattern for the heavenly things as Heb. 10 says.
IMO, they didn't realize IT was going to bear witness against them if they changed the written, so they probably thought nothing of preserving it's pertinent scriptures. After all, they were all about the "outer show" on everything. Blessings.....
On that note, it's interesting that the Jewish scribes wrote the name of G_d with no vowels, forever forgetting the sound of His name and the ability to truly know how to pronounce it.
But we,
NOW, have the name above all names and the ability to proclaim the name,
JESUS!
And you think Jesus is how you truly pronounce the name of the Son?
I'm getting that KJV feeling again. KJV is either junk or inspired. Same for the Stone edition if you read user reviews/comments.
According to the publisher the text is based on "Petersburg".
Can anyone tell something about teh quality of that text?
Quote from: WhiteWings on October 27, 2009, 07:57:31 AM
Quote from: rosered on October 27, 2009, 03:30:16 AM
Thanks Guys , very helpful.... :icon_flower:
sorry WW , when you read this tomorrow ,if i got off topic ..
:HeartThrob:
Your commentary is your view. No problem with that. It's just that I in all my arrogance decided I want a good OT. That's all.
Bro , you are doing good , no arrogance lol joking or otherwise :winkgrin:
for me I have all but , tuckered out ... thanks for understanding though WW
All of you on this thread , thanks for your help .. much appreciated
:HeartThrob: rose
QuoteThere are a number of excellent Hebrew-English editions of the Torah but until now I had been unable to find a suitable and concise Hebrew-English edition of the entire Tanakh. This new JPS edition is excellent. The others I have seen either use archaic translation (the old Jerusalem Bible) or are colored by the particular ideologies of their translators and sponsors (the Stone Edition Tanach, which is quite beautiful but whose value as a study bible is limited by its nonliteral translations -- see especially the Shir HaShirim --and because it includes only commentary from a traditional viewpoint). Unfortunately, there's no room for new commentary or annotations (other than technical translation notes, plus the traditional Masoretic notes), but you probably can't expect that in a single volume edition. At some point it would be nice to see, maybe, a 3-volume edition that leaves some room for commentaries from a variety of viewpoints, but for now the 1-volume edition is essential. It will make a good family bible or a convenient resource for study.
QuoteThe Old Testament of the King James Version is based upon the Masoretic text, just like this JPS Tanakh.
Galations 6:
14 Now may it
not be mine to be boasting, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything,
but a new creation.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on October 28, 2009, 10:35:30 PM
Galations 6:
14 Now may it not be mine to be boasting, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation.
So? What's your point?
Heaven knows I don't want to start a sidetrack of "$18!! Are you kidding me???!!!! :talkangry:" I'd suggest if anyone doesn't want it, then just let it pass on by. :duck: :bigGrin:
But, WW, I found this on the Concordant website, but I'm having trouble finding anything in e-format. It may be something to explore though.
http://www.concordant.org/catalog/index.html
CONCORDANT VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
The ideal way to read the Old Testament is in its original languages, Hebrew and Chaldee (Aramaic). But as this is not ordinarily possible, the next best way is to use the CONCORDANT VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. The same concordant principle is used in this translation as was used for the New Testament. Eight volumes are now available, each with an introduction explaining the features employed by this version, as well as the method of translation used to produce it. Boldface type, symbols and superior letters are used to indicate the words actually found in the Original. Lightface type indicates words added for clarity. Textual emendations are noted. In paperback.
James,
It's not an option for me. Not complete. Paperback. Multi-volume. All things I don't like.
About e-format. If never seen a Concordant in e-format besides some half baked stuff. Always missing the little symbols found in the paper versions. No concordance with hotlinks to the text. I think that's one of the (many) reasons KJV is still so popular. It has all those things working.
From all the quotes I've seen on this forum the Concordant certainly is a nice translation but I never have been able to really use it because of the lack of the explanation of little symbols. I really like to see sample pages of any Bible I buy. There is so many useless stuff around. Not talking about the contents but things like:
- Print is so small (especially the sidenotes) that a magnifying glass is needed.
- Paper so thin the other side of the page shines trough.
- Very bad print quality. -> Bullinger Bible.
- Etc
I started this thread asking for Jewish versions. It turns out, as far as I can tell, that the Stone edition is very biased book like KJV. Not literal either. JPS seems a better deal.
Another good deal seems Youngs+Concordance. I know that's not Jewish; my initial goal was and still is a solid translation.
I hear ya. Maybe we need to get Tony going on encouraging the Concordant Publishing Concern to get busy on their online OT...the NT is there...If the OT was "up to date", it could be a really nice option. Sounds like they're not there yet.
I saw what you were saying about Stone's, that it sounds KJV'ish. If so, I personally wouldn't be interested. The search continues.
QuoteI saw what you were saying about Stone's, that it sounds KJV'ish. If so, I personally wouldn't be interested. The search continues.
All I write here is just second hand info I gathred from countless reviews.
According to the publishers and people that speak Hebrew the OT books are poetic language. Stone is poetic too at the cost of literalness (spelling?). Besides that according to some it's biased that poetic language is makes it unusable for word studies. Even according those who love the translation. Often Hebrew speakers that check the Hebrew for literal meanings. Someone called the translation a commentary in disguise.
The Aramaic word for 'camel' is written identically to the word for 'rope.' When the original scrolls were being transferred into Greek, an error occurred due to the translator's limitations. Matthew 19:24 is commonly translated as, 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.' This is an obvious 'non sequitur', whereas the Aramaic manuscripts read 'rope' instead of 'camel'. Rope, of course, is much more in keeping with the imagery of a needle, and is probably what Jesus said, and what was originally recorded.
Similarly, Matthew 7:3 says, 'Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?' And yet, in Lamsa's version the word 'splinter' appears in place of 'speck.' The organic relationship between a splinter and a plank (or beam) is obvious while speck is more nebulous. Again, Lamsa's translation remains true to the imagery being conveyed.
The ninth chapter of Daniel contains the amazing Old Testament prophecy concerning the surprisingly sudden death of the long-awaited Messiah and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. A portion of verse 26 in other Biblical translations states, 'The end of it shall be with a flood.' The most well written and spiritually mature approach to 'The Tribulation' and the events of 'The Revelation' that I am aware of is David Haggith's, END-TIME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE. But even the ordinarily clear-minded Mr. Haggith had trouble correlating this passage with known history. 'Blood covered the land like a flood', he overreaches. It comes as no surprise then that the Aramaic manuscripts do not make mention of any unknown flood. Lamsa's translation accurately reads, 'And the end thereof shall be a mass exile.'
===> WW: That seesm at least historically correct because many Jews left the country befor the war (that ended when the Temple was burned down)
Finally, I'd like to elaborate on the comment of brother Ram Munjal from his good 2004, Jan. 21 review: All Bibles tell us that from the Cross, Jesus (quoting Psalm 22:1) cried out, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' (See Matthew 27:46) This verse has undoubtedly disturbed people for centuries, and no wonder - it is extremely unlikely that Jesus ever felt utterly abandoned by God while He was hanging on the Cross. The Messiah had been promised His Father's abiding Presence! Nothing happened to Jesus that He was not mentally prepared for. He told His disciples in advance what to expect : He would be mocked, spat upon, beaten, and killed, but that three days later He would rise again. (Mark 10:34) He also said to them, 'you will be scattered...and will leave Me alone. And yet I am not alone, because The Father is with Me.' (John 16:32) Was Jesus mistaken? Or is the translation inaccurate?
'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' (My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?) correctly appears in the Aramaic manuscripts as, 'Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani' (My God, My God, for this I was spared [this was my destiny.]) Indeed! At different times mobs had attempted to kill Jesus, but He was always SPARED because it was His Will and His DESTINY to take mankind's sins to the Cross to be washed clean in His Blood. The Aramaic phrases are so similar that it is easy to understand how the mistake was made, but the meanings are worlds apart, and Lamsa's version is much more consistent with the Mission of The Christ. Trying to correlate the mistranslation, Christian theologians have been forced to create a flimsy dogma (Jesus being separated from God while descending into hell) in order to cover for this improbable utterance from our Lord while He was suffering on the Cross. Lamsa resolves this dilemma in a far more satisfactory manner. Furthermore, according to the Aramaic Scriptures, Psalm 22:1 doesn't read, 'Why have You forsaken Me?' in the first place, but rather, 'Why has thou let Me to live?'
[1] GENESIS 2:20
Lamsa's translation:
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to all fowls of the air, and to all wild beasts; but for Adam there was not found a helper who was equal to him.
NIV translation:
So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found
Note the word "EQUAL" in lamsa's translation. Woman is equal to man.
[2] 1 CHRONICLES 16:42
Lamsa's translation:
And these righteous men gave thanks not with the instruments of singing, neither with the tambourines nor with timbrels nor with the curved trumpets nor with the straight trumpets nor with the cymbals, but with a pleasant mouth and with pure and perfect prayer and with righteousness and with purity to the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel.
NIV translation:
Heman and Jeduthan were responsible for the sounding of the trumpets and cymbals and for the playing of the other instruments for sacred song. The sons of Jeduthan were stationed at the gate.
Note that in NIV the verse has been chopped off.
[3] PSALM 22:1
Lamsa's translation:
My God, my God, why hast Thou let me to live?.....
NIV translation:
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.
It needs to be noted that the NIV translation borders on blasphemy. When Lord Eshoo was on the cross, He quoted this Psalm(Matthew 27:46). God was with Him on the cross otherwise He would not have been able to endure the torture of the cross from the hands of cruel and wicked Romans. Lord Eshoo before going to the cross had told his disciples that " For behold the hour is coming, and it has now come, when you will be dispersed, every man to his own country, and you will leave me alone; and yet I am never alone because the Father is with me (JOHN 16:32)." He would never contradict Himself little later.
[4] MALACHI 3:6
Lamsa's translation:
For I am the LORD, I change not; but you sons of Jacob have not departed from your iniquities.
NIV translation:
I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.
Note: Once again NIV translation is messed up. This verse 6 in Lamsa's translation links perfectly well with the previous verse 5 and the verse 7 that follows. NIV does not make any sense.
[5] MATTHEW 6:13
Lamsa's translation:
And do not let us enter into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen
NIV translation:
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Note NIV chops off the verse. Furthermore NIV translation is pathetic. James writes: "God does not tempt any man. But every man is tempted by his own lust(James 1:13,14).
[6] LUKE 14:26
Lamsa's translation:
He who comes to Me and does not put aside his father and his mother and his brothers and his sisters and his wife and his children and even his own life can not be a disciple to me.
NIV translation:
If any one comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he can not be My disciple.
Note the word "hate" in NIV translation. In the sermon on the mount LORD ESHOO MESHIHA said:"Do not suppose that I have come to weaken the law or the prophets; I have not come to weaken, but to fulfil.(Matthew 5:17)". Law says honor your mother and father. Use of the word "hate" in NIV translation is unfortunate and borders on trashing the Ten Commandments.
[7] ROMANS 9:13
Lamsa's translation:
As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I set aside.
NIV translation:
Just as it is written: " Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Note again the improper use of the word "hate".
EPHESIANS 6:12
Lamsa's translation:
For your conflict is not only with flesh and blood, but also with the angels, and with powers, with the rulers of this world of darkness, and with the evil spirits under the heaven.
NIV translation:
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Note the word "Only" and the word "also" in Lamsa's translation is missing from NIV.
NIV translators have shown total ignorance of the spiritual warfare that I am engaged in. The book of Revelation correctly identifies the enemies of the Gospel of the Kingdom of LORD ESHOO MESHIHA. They are Satan and his three allies. The three allies are: Beast out of the sea (Ruling powers), Beast out the earth (False religion), and Babylon (Gaudy Prostitute). Lamsa's translation of the verse is right on the mark.
I can keep on reciting. But I have proved my point. NIV translation can not be trusted. King James version is no better.
Sincerely and Cordially
Dr. Ram Munjal, Ph.D.; S.S.
The Lamsa Bible is then a step forward, but still, Lamsa was apparently afraid of offending too many people with his groundbreaking version, so he relied upon the King James translation in large part for style and form, making thousands of corrections to the Bible from the Aramaic texts and applying it to the more accepted form.
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Ancient-Translation-Pecrapta/dp/0060649232/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Free online OT version (http://www.aramaicpecrapta.com/OTtools/LamsaOT.htm)
Free online NT version (http://www.aramaicpecrapta.com/AramaicNTtools/dr_george_lamsa_bible.htm)
An free offline version si possible too. Ask... :winkgrin:
Incomple interlinear NT: http://www.aramaicpecrapta.com/AramaicNTtools/pecrapta_interlinear.htm
NT only: http://www.aramaicpecrapta.com/AramaicNTtools/Murdock/murdock.htm
NT only: http://www.aramaicpecrapta.com/AramaicNTtools/Etheridge/etheridge.htm
NT only including pictures of the original pages: http://www.aramaicpecrapta.com/AramaicNTtools/khabouris.htm
Note that all translations use the word eternal
:cloud9: Amazing isn't it? :thumbsup:
Quote from: Cardinal on December 23, 2010, 04:21:14 PM
:cloud9: Amazing isn't it? :thumbsup:
??? Even more ET translations is amazing?
:cloud9: I was referring to Lamsa's "finds" in there.....lol