12-26-2004, 09:40 AM
Quote:and they admit that Matthew had an Aramaic original
Ahh that is wrong Chris.
The latest "Kingdom Interlinear" uses the same sources that James Trimm utilized, the 4 different sources of Hebrew Matthew. They make no mention of the aramaic source of Matthew as original, nor did they rely on it for their most recent translation. Of course they allowed their translation to uphold doctrinal issues instead of word-for-word exactness, so they allowed this to be a corrupt version by their choice.
Here is a site on some of the particulars:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.tetragrammaton.org/nwtandhvs.htm">http://www.tetragrammaton.org/nwtandhvs.htm</a><!-- m -->