07-02-2008, 03:12 PM
Shlama AKhi Otto,
Lamsa was a brilliant man, no doubt. I do not deny it. That is not the point we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that in his translation of "Akel" in verse 6, he ignored the context of chapter 14 , which is about "eating" or "not eating" different foods, especially meat as opposed to vegetables. (see Romans 14: 2) It is certainly not about "embezzlement", as he translates it, or as you seem to interpret it. The verb "Akel" is used 14 times in this chapter, Otto. It is not about "embezzlement. You are ignoring the context altogether; so was Lamsa. He had a theological agenda to push, apparently, as he did in other places, where he seemed to relegate demon possession to some type of mental disorder in several places in the Gospels and took the word "demon" out of the text altogether. You are as aware of this as I and others on this forum. Don't act like Lamsa was some babe in the woods who simply slipped up in a few places; he knew better than this, as you also are aware.
He was deliberately wrong in his translation and thought his expertise as a native Aramaean would give him a free pass as he pulled the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting sheep. Well, I am not buying it. Neither is anyone who looks into the Peshitta text and learns the Aramaic language. I have explained what I think he was doing in Romans 14 in my previous post, which I need not repeat here. I have also given my interlinear and my Plain English translation, which I think is quite clear. Paul was talking about a controversy in the church over whether it was proper to eat "all things" or "vegetables only". His instruction was that the motive was all important. If one who allows himself the liberty to eat "all things", which liberty is granted in the NT elsewhere, and does so for the sake of His Lord, then he is not to be judged.
If one is a vegetarian for His Lord's sake, as He believes that is His will, he is not to be judged, but respected and accepted as a servant of The Messiah. And yes, if we serve The Messiah, we may also give thanks to God The Father at the same time!
You really should ask Paul Younan again why The Church of The East would never use Lamsa's translation in their churches. You seem to have forgotten some rather recent posts on the Lamsa translation.
You also seem willing to overlook the fact that Lamsa added the words "duty of" to "day"- "Yoma" in verse 6. He has no idiomatic usage to support this translation, Otto, as you may think. He was circumventing the obvious point of the verse, which instructs us that the "day keeping" and "dietary regulations" of Judaism are unnecessary for New Testament believers.
Peace,
Dave
Lamsa was a brilliant man, no doubt. I do not deny it. That is not the point we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that in his translation of "Akel" in verse 6, he ignored the context of chapter 14 , which is about "eating" or "not eating" different foods, especially meat as opposed to vegetables. (see Romans 14: 2) It is certainly not about "embezzlement", as he translates it, or as you seem to interpret it. The verb "Akel" is used 14 times in this chapter, Otto. It is not about "embezzlement. You are ignoring the context altogether; so was Lamsa. He had a theological agenda to push, apparently, as he did in other places, where he seemed to relegate demon possession to some type of mental disorder in several places in the Gospels and took the word "demon" out of the text altogether. You are as aware of this as I and others on this forum. Don't act like Lamsa was some babe in the woods who simply slipped up in a few places; he knew better than this, as you also are aware.
He was deliberately wrong in his translation and thought his expertise as a native Aramaean would give him a free pass as he pulled the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting sheep. Well, I am not buying it. Neither is anyone who looks into the Peshitta text and learns the Aramaic language. I have explained what I think he was doing in Romans 14 in my previous post, which I need not repeat here. I have also given my interlinear and my Plain English translation, which I think is quite clear. Paul was talking about a controversy in the church over whether it was proper to eat "all things" or "vegetables only". His instruction was that the motive was all important. If one who allows himself the liberty to eat "all things", which liberty is granted in the NT elsewhere, and does so for the sake of His Lord, then he is not to be judged.
If one is a vegetarian for His Lord's sake, as He believes that is His will, he is not to be judged, but respected and accepted as a servant of The Messiah. And yes, if we serve The Messiah, we may also give thanks to God The Father at the same time!
You really should ask Paul Younan again why The Church of The East would never use Lamsa's translation in their churches. You seem to have forgotten some rather recent posts on the Lamsa translation.
You also seem willing to overlook the fact that Lamsa added the words "duty of" to "day"- "Yoma" in verse 6. He has no idiomatic usage to support this translation, Otto, as you may think. He was circumventing the obvious point of the verse, which instructs us that the "day keeping" and "dietary regulations" of Judaism are unnecessary for New Testament believers.
Peace,
Dave