Has anyone read or heard of ?

[rosered]

  The   Aramaic Bible in Plain English

I just wondered has anyone heard of this   and do you like it

I have found it on the Biblehub      Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages


biblehub.com/


  Just wanting   some input   
  I like   it   Its only in the New testament    found in   the Parallel Verses   so far  press the blue high light for the whole chapter

Thanks             

[gregoryfl]

Shalom Rosered,

Yes, this is based on David Bauscher's interlinear. I picked up his first edition years ago (the interlinear) when he first came out with it in print and found it helpful. He also has his interlinear on this site as well (click the Interlinear NT tab above the translation)

Ronen

[rosered]

  Why Thank you Ronen , I will try this interlinear      as well I have not done that  yet !
But found this  very  helpful      :gimmefive:

[marie glen]

I get lost on those sites! I tried this one.. totally lost.. I wonder where I could buy an Aramaic New Testament? and Young's Literal Translation is going to be on my christmas list this year! Even though I can read it online..
                :Peace2:

[rosered]

I get lost on those sites! I tried this one.. totally lost.. I wonder where I could buy an Aramaic New Testament? and Young's Literal Translation is going to be on my christmas list this year! Even though I can read it online..
                :Peace2:

I sure like amazon for about everything   Marie       :thumbsup:

   http://www.amazon.com/The-Aramaic-English-Interlinear-New-Testament/dp/1435734629

[marie glen]

Thanks! and there's a paperback version too!  :dsunny: :banana:

[eaglesway]

What I think is needed in an Aramaic to English interlinear, or Lexicon. A translation from Aramaic to English is great, but still leaves the reader at the mercy of translators without the means to check the original words in a lexicon.

Anybody know of one?

[rosered]

What I think is needed in an Aramaic to English interlinear, or Lexicon. A translation from Aramaic to English is great, but still leaves the reader at the mercy of translators without the means to check the original words in a lexicon.

Anybody know of one?

Hi John the Lexicon is there to use   with the linear http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/1-1.htm

I just know its a lot of opening  and closing  but a  lot of  great study tools on here   , Just as the Blueletterbible     but  a lot more  open  to me  :thumbsup:     

http://biblehub.com/aramaic-english-gospels/matthew/1.htm

[eaglesway]

Cool. It is an Aramaic lexicon and an Aramaic interlinear? Will check that out.

[micah7:9]

Whew! :HeartThrob:

[Searching_For_The_Truth]

Does the Aremeic Bible version discuss the horrors of eternal torture?

[gregoryfl]

What I think is needed in an Aramaic to English interlinear, or Lexicon. A translation from Aramaic to English is great, but still leaves the reader at the mercy of translators without the means to check the original words in a lexicon.

Anybody know of one?

Hi John the Lexicon is there to use   with the linear http://biblehub.com/lexicon/genesis/1-1.htm

I just know its a lot of opening  and closing  but a  lot of  great study tools on here   , Just as the Blueletterbible     but  a lot more  open  to me  :thumbsup:     

http://biblehub.com/aramaic-english-gospels/matthew/1.htm

Shalom Rose,

Unfortunately, that lexicon is not for the Aramaic Pecrapta, it is for the Hebrew text. Maybe someday they will make one for it, but for now...

the best source for what you are looking for so far can be found here:

http://www.dukhrana.com/pecrapta/

(or as Rose pointed out, www.dukhrana.com and click on the peshiyta tool link.)

To use it, choose the book and chapter from the drop down menu...
Check the use BFBS/UBS Peshiyta box and the Hebrew box to the right of it...
Check whichever of the boxes you want to show a couple of English translations, or the greek text. I would recommend checking the Ethridge translation, as it is more accurate than the other two English options.
Click 'Show me the verses'.

You will notice each verse layed out in a row.

Pick a verse and click 'analyze', which will bring up a separate window with each word broken down and given a basic grammatical analysis, and meanings.
You can see what verses that particular form of the word is found in, and there are a number of lexicons to choose from for further defining of meaning. The one I would recommend choosing is the last one on the right, MJ, (Marcus Jastrow) as his is the only one that uses Hebrew characters for the words and not the estrangela script, which would be very unfamiliar to most. This makes it easiest to find the word you are looking for, as you can compare the word in the text (since you chose to also use Hebrew characters there) with the MJ page.

If you have any other questions about the site, let me know.  :declare:

Ronen

[gregoryfl]

Does the Aremeic Bible version discuss the horrors of eternal torture?

Sadly, just as with other translations, they also use words that will convey the wrong idea to the reader. David uses the terms eternal and eternity for the Aramaic word עלמ, so the reader will get the idea of a torment or torture that never ends, instead of what the text is truly communicating in the Aramaic, just as in the Greek.

[rosered]

       Shalom  and thank you   so much Ronen   for the help and link ,

  This link did not work for me though .
But thank you for showing us how to use it  :friendstu:

[Searching_For_The_Truth]

Does the Aremeic Bible version discuss the horrors of eternal torture?

Sadly, just as with other translations, they also use words that will convey the wrong idea to the reader. David uses the terms eternal and eternity for the Aramaic word עלמ, so the reader will get the idea of a torment or torture that never ends, instead of what the text is truly communicating in the Aramaic, just as in the Greek.

If that's the case, how can we be sure it isn't true?

[gregoryfl]

       Shalom  and thank you   so much Ronen   for the help and link ,

  This link did not work for me though .
But thank you for showing us how to use it  :friendstu:

I should have known, this message boards trusty language censor strikes again. The link has a word in it that got changed and so when you click on the link, change the pecrapta word to pes hitta, and it should work fine. :)

[gregoryfl]

Does the Aremeic Bible version discuss the horrors of eternal torture?

Sadly, just as with other translations, they also use words that will convey the wrong idea to the reader. David uses the terms eternal and eternity for the Aramaic word עלמ, so the reader will get the idea of a torment or torture that never ends, instead of what the text is truly communicating in the Aramaic, just as in the Greek.

If that's the case, how can we be sure it isn't true?

The same way I can be sure that, to use an example, the word conversation did not have anything to do with speaking back in the time of the King James Version being written, even though it means that now, two or more speaking together. We have the historical usage of the word back then, as well as the self defining meaning of the word in Hebrew, based on the letters making up עלמ.

[rosered]

       Shalom  and thank you   so much Ronen   for the help and link ,

  This link did not work for me though .
But thank you for showing us how to use it  :friendstu:

I should have known, this message boards trusty language censor strikes again. The link has a word in it that got changed and so when you click on the link, change the pecrapta word to pes hitta, and it should work fine. :)

Thanks Bro Ronen        :friendstu:

  I did  just use the name of the       site and than   just click on manually       that  P word  tool  lol 
http://www.dukhrana.com/

[gregoryfl]

       Shalom  and thank you   so much Ronen   for the help and link ,

  This link did not work for me though .
But thank you for showing us how to use it  :friendstu:

I should have known, this message boards trusty language censor strikes again. The link has a word in it that got changed and so when you click on the link, change the pecrapta word to pes hitta, and it should work fine. :)

Thanks Bro Ronen        :friendstu:

  I did  just use the name of the       site and than   just click on manually       that  P word  tool  lol 
http://www.dukhrana.com/

That works too  :friendstu: I hope you are able to find it a blessing, not as an Aramaic vs. Greek contest, but rather to see the richness of our Eastern tradition, and how it can help us understand some of the differences in the Greek manuscript translations.

[rosered]

       Shalom  and thank you   so much Ronen   for the help and link ,

  This link did not work for me though .
But thank you for showing us how to use it  :friendstu:

I should have known, this message boards trusty language censor strikes again. The link has a word in it that got changed and so when you click on the link, change the pecrapta word to pes hitta, and it should work fine. :)

Thanks Bro Ronen        :friendstu:

  I did  just use the name of the       site and than   just click on manually       that  P word  tool  lol 
http://www.dukhrana.com/

That works too  :friendstu: I hope you are able to find it a blessing, not as an Aramaic vs. Greek contest, but rather to see the richness of our Eastern tradition, and how it can help us understand some of the differences in the Greek manuscript translations.

  Thanks so much, I did press the Eastern  check mark  and a few other ones  :friendstu:

[eaglesway]

Does the Aremeic Bible version discuss the horrors of eternal torture?

Sadly, just as with other translations, they also use words that will convey the wrong idea to the reader. David uses the terms eternal and eternity for the Aramaic word עלמ, so the reader will get the idea of a torment or torture that never ends, instead of what the text is truly communicating in the Aramaic, just as in the Greek.

If that's the case, how can we be sure it isn't true?

because as workmen worthy of our hire, we study the meanings of the ancient texts and rightly divide the word of truth :o)

[joeteekay]

I have found the Aramaic version with problems in translating certain words, often mentioning "eternal" instead of eon. Some claim that the original New Testament was in the Aramaic language. I doubt that .  :2c:

[Tom]

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.     

[eaglesway]

The importance of Aramaic is that is comes out of the Hebrew mind-set. As soon as the word was translated into greek, greek became the source language- a mistake, imo, because so much Greek philosophy was translated into the bible. Then cam the Latin translation, which even further hyhybridized the word to English, as the KJV translators used greek and latin source material. The benefit of an Aramaic interlinear or lexicon is huge because it is a more direct line to the speakers min-set, IF it is taken from original Aramaic /Hebrew source material. An English translation from Aramaic texts is of little value if the translators mixed the same philosophies of western religion(greek/roman models of thought) into it, but the inbterlinear and lexicon can be used to "proof text" for ourselves what the words meant in the time they were spoken. :2c:

[gregoryfl]

Although the text I use is the Eastern Aramaic text, I do not subscribe to a superior/inferior mentality when I refer to the Pecrapta. I refer to it simply because it is what I use. I often hesitate to do so because, as has even been shown on this board, when I have done so there usually is at least one response that promotes the Greek over the Aramaic, as though that should totally discredit the Aramaic witness. Even though I also read from the Aleppo Codex Hebrew text, I also love reading from the Greek septuagint, because, in my opinion, BOTH are vital for gaining insight. I know of those who promote what is commonly called 'Aramaic Primacy', a term which I despise because it sets up the Aramaic as superior to the Greek, which ends up in endless arguments and fights over words.

I agree with John that it is very beneficial to read and become familiar with the Aramaic witness, for in reading it you will see some interesting differences from the Greek, just as you do when reading the Masoretic Hebrew text alongside the Greek Septuagint. For most who do not read Aramaic and need to use a translation, yes, there will be problems just as with other translations from the Greek witnesses. Joe pointed out one, which is not the fault of the Aramaic, but of the translator. He or she chose to use the word 'eternal' in their translation, which is neither what the Greek or Aramaic witnesses say.

Ronen