![]() |
|
Help with translation of 1 cor 15:29 - Printable Version +- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for) +-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: Mistranslations (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=9) +--- Thread: Help with translation of 1 cor 15:29 (/showthread.php?tid=1172) |
Help with translation of 1 cor 15:29 - Jing - 01-13-2005 Dear All: Shalm. I am new here and I am new to believe that all Bible was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. If anyone has the burden to help me translate 1cor 15:29 from Peshitta aramaic into English, I would be very grateful. I believe all translations of the same verse from Greek carry an error there. The following is something that I just worked for your convenience: Fym Plx Nydm9 0nm Nymyq f Fym J0 Fym Plx Nydm9d Jwnh Jwdb9n 0nm f0w 15:29 f0w: but; but rather; 0nm: what; why; number; reckon; hair; Jwdb9n: act; do; make; subdue; subject; celebrate; Jwnh: he; it; who; those; that; Nydm9d: sink; baptized; baptize; Plx: change (Verb: masculine, third; singular; Feminine, third, plural; ); alter (verb: masculine, third; singular; Feminine, third, plural; ) ; transmute(Masculine, third; singular; Feminine, third, plural; ); for; instead; Fym: death; dead; die; come; bring; J0: if; Fym: death; dead; die; come; bring; f: no; not; Nymyq: rise; stand; establish; lasting; remaining; abiding; valid; 0nm: what; why; number; reckon; hair; Nydm9: sink; baptized; baptize; Plx: change (Verb: masculine, third; singular; Feminine, third, plural; ); alter (verb: masculine, third; singular; Feminine, third, plural; ) ; transmute(Masculine, third; singular; Feminine, third, plural; ); for; instead; Fym: death; dead; die; come; bring; Many blessings to you all! Jing 1 Cor. 15:29 - gbausc - 01-18-2005 Shlama Jing, [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fym Plx Nydm9 0nm Nymyq f Fym J0 Fym Plx Nydm9d Jwnh Jwdb9n 0nm f0w [/font] "But what should they be doing who are being baptized in the place of the dead (for the sake of the dead) , if the dead are not raised up; Why are they baptized in the place of the dead ?" Burkhtha w'shlama, Dave - Jing - 01-18-2005 Thank you very much, Dave! I was almost disappointed about the slow traffic here as I checked it many times every day. As I am a Chinese myself, I need some clearing up about the meaning of "in the place of the dead (for the sake of the dead)". Does it mean that some one was/is baptized for some dead person (e.g. his friend or relative) who had/has no chance to be baptized? Thanks! Jing Baptized for the dead ? - gbausc - 01-18-2005 Shlama Jing, That is the plain meaning of the text; however, there is considerable controversy over this text. Mormons accept this as the plain sense and apparently practice vicarious baptism as effectual in cleansing sin and regenerating the souls of those for whom they are baptized. Others, such as Baptists, explain it this way:"Baptism (immersion in water)is a symbol of death, burial and resurrection.If there is no resurrection, then baptism has no meaning." That explanation is plausible, as far as it goes.Baptism is symbolic of death, burial and resurrection, in my opinion. This explanation does not explain why Paul wrote this with these words: "baptized for the dead". He did not say, "baptized as a symbol of death, burial and resurrection". [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Fym Plx [/font] means "baptized in place of the dead" , or "baptized because of the dead (those who have died)". Personally, I believe Paul is expounding a form of universalism in 1 Corinthians 15. I am a convinced universalist myself, not because I was trained in this doctrine; quite the contrary; I was trained to be a Pharisee - a militant , firebreathing fundamentalist at a notorious Christian university called Bob Jones University. I have been an ordained Protestant minister since 1976 , and have studied the Bible earnestly since 1973 in Greek and Hebrew. The Peshitta NT as well as The Greek NT and Hebrew OT promises the salvation of the world in many places, as a result of the atoning work of Jehovah Messiah on the cross. I hope I have not said too much; I do believe this text indicates that Paul referenced some Christians practiced substitutionary baptism for the dead, and that he referred to it as an orthodox practice, as authority supporting the doctrine of resurrection (whether spiritual or physical). If he considered it heretical, he has fooled us all; he never said anything against this practice or doctrine when he had the chance ! Blessings, Dave - Jing - 01-19-2005 Bro Dave, Shalom. Thanks for your clarification and sharing your points. Then, the Greek text, KJV, and my Chinese Bible say the same thing. I had thought that was a mistranslation that was the reason why I posted in this thread. LOL. Anyhow, I respect your honest translation of the original text. I would not take practising vicarious baptism as heretic but I still believe that there is a problem in the orginal text if the plane sense is taken. I began to believe God about 6 years ago and was baptized in the Name of LORD Jesus Christ according to the pattern of Acts 3:28. Apparently, I am associated with a group of Christians that do not believe in the Trinity of God in three persons. I have spent a lot of time online to testify a Message for this hour we received to my Chinese fellows. Of course, my church mainly uses KJV, and I use KJV, Chinese, and occasionally Hebrew and Greek (though I dont know Hebrew nor Greek) for word studies. I noticed the original languages of NT problem when I surfed for information of Jewish Wedding traditions so that I could better understand the NT of Jesus Christ with His Church. A brother of mine mentioned the Bible of the Eastern Text had Bride in Mat 25:1 while in the most Bible versions, the Ten Virgins only wait for the Bridegroom. A lot of people believe that the Ten Virgins are the Bride while I believe the Ten Virgins could not be the Brides nor the Bride as the natural setting of the parable does not make sense to me. Therefore, I believe the Ten Virgins are bridesmaids. So...the Aramaic Bible surprised me a lot. I spent about 10 days in a full time basis to make serious searching about Aramaic Bible and historical facts, not just claiming. NOW, it convinces me that at least the Peshitta and Peshitto aramaic NT are not less original than the Greek mss. As I know neither aramaic nor Greek, I will reply heavily on the honest English translations so that I am able to make a comparative Bible study if neccessary. My accepting Aramaic Bible cannot change my previous faith, but it will lead me to better understand the Word of God. What makes me happy is, I know both sides of the story...Greek and Aramaic, so that my choice is not based on biased information and pure opinions without true faith. The sadness would be, it would make the thing harder for me to have Bible studies with those who wont accept the originality of the Peshitta NT. Of course, I am associated with those Christians who believe the West 5 are also inspired. Our current faith is closely related to the fullfillment of the Revelations. We believe it is the end time NOW. Heh..Hope I did not speak too much. God bless you! Jing PS. I saw the picture of your wonderful family. - gbausc - 01-19-2005 Shlama Jing, Thank you for your kind words. You seem to be on the right track, spiritually. Keep seeking; you will find answers and grow in the knowledge of the truth. Have you seen Paul Younan's Interlinear translation of the Peshitta on this web site ? He has finished the gospels. We hope to finish the rest of The NT this year. It is the only one of its kind, translated by one who has spoken Aramaic from childhood. The important thing to remember about Aramaic is that it was the language Jesus and his countrymen spoke and that they did not know Greek. Josephus, who lived at that time and was a Pharisee and Jewish priest, wrote that the Jews did not understand Greek and did not encourage others to learn it. Josephus wrote the history of the Jewish people in several volumes in AD 73 to AD 90. He wrote everything in Aramaic; He said he did not know Greek sufficiently to speak it. This should educate those who claim The NT was written in Greek. It was originally written to the Jews of Israel. They would not have been able to read Greek. God would not have done that to them. Besides, the original language of the scriptures had always generally reflected the language of the characters involved in its accounts. Why would God give us Jesus' words in Greek if Jesus spoke Aramaic ? And the His people spoke Aramaic. So much for that. Peshitta.org also has two English translations of The Peshitto NT. Check it out. Many blessings in our Lord, Dave - Jing - 01-25-2005 Dear Dave, That is really kind of you for your encouraging words and useful information about the Aramaic Bible. I believe I have got the most important links. I have brethren who do believe the originality of the Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts of the NT. In fact, I have forwarded some articles in another forum I visit frequently to advise the Aramaic primacy of the NT. Though it is annoying to many traditional minds, it is indeed welcomed by some brethren of mine. At least it is not an offense to all when I do 'word' studies using the Peshitta Aramaic NT, likening to many using the Greek mss with concordance. For this purpose, the interlinear translation with a lexicon link will be very important and helpful. Thank you again, Dave! God bless you! Jing PS. As a further encouragent to me, would you please give an sample literal translation of Col. 1:12-20? In fact, I have a doctrinical issue relevant to those verses. With a doctrinical belief, the following is my rendering without any consideration of the actual translation. Quote: 01 : 12 T'aOD'uON 8568 LaALoHoA 932 AaB,oA 6 D'aAWOa;N 20797 LaMNoT,oA 12226 D';oRT'uOT,oA 9559 D'XaD'i;WeA 18149 B'NuOHRoA 12771 |