Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Setting the record straight
#1
Shlama all---

As some of you may know, three former members of this forum have tried to smear my hard work on the AENT. For those who may be interested in my response, please follow the link. Todah!

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.therefinersfire.org/aent_critics.htm">http://www.therefinersfire.org/aent_critics.htm</a><!-- m -->
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#2
Shlama akhi,

Yes I came across their unsubstanciated and unjustified rantings on amazon.com, these 3 back-stabbers <!-- sConfusedneaky: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sneaky1.gif" alt="Confusedneaky:" title="Sneaky" /><!-- sConfusedneaky: --> obviously don't know the meaning of the phrase "public domain" and akhan Paul makes himself clear that his work is NOT a translation in the first place.

Your response to their false allegations reveals a lot, especially when one checks out the forum posts you quote.

Keep smiling akhi, as I told you - you have nothing to feel guilty about and this will eventually blow over. The only negetive reviews on amazon (or anywhere elso for that matter) are coming from them, so it seems that most people do not believe their bull, they'll eventually give up.

I also own a copy of the AENT, and I know that you have given both Paul & Murdock the credit due to them, and not once did you claim their work as your own. Of course I can quote your footnotes which clearly state this but I won't because I, unlike those 3 hypocrites actually respect the COPYRIGHT NOTICE!!! <!-- sConfusedtern: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/stern.gif" alt="Confusedtern:" title="Stern" /><!-- sConfusedtern: -->
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
#3
Christina Wrote:...akhan Paul makes himself clear that his work is NOT a translation in the first place.

Just to chime in here, not only is the Interlinear here on public domain, and not only is it NOT a translation....but I have never, ever made any English-only translation at all. Whoever this Lawrence Sheets is, God bless him, I have no idea. I have not seen, read, authorized, collaborated with nor reviewed anything Mr. Sheets has done.

For these individuals to claim that somehow I've been plagiarized, using my (!) English translation of all things, seems to be a rather absurd idea to me since I've never been involved in any English translation whatsoever.

I'm flattered that someone is looking out for my interests, ahem, but even if I were to make an English translation (and no, I never would)....it would hold the same "Copyright" as all the rest of my work does.....which is the same Copyright that any other CoE scribe claimed in the past 2,000 years.

Honest, the whole concept is so foreign to me....copyrights, intellectual property, etc. Could you imagine scribes in the Dead Sea, Babylon, the Vatican, or Mount Athos being told they couldn't copy any work from another scribe?

What a joke! And what a totally western concept.

Stephen King, I could understand. But the scriptures?

Dave, what if the CoE turned around and sued you for using "their" scripture? Just whose is it, anyway....if it does not belong to all of humanity?

Copyright on scripture? Have you no shame whatsoever? Have you lost the concept, the meaning of Qurban~Korban...or however you'd like to spell it?

What's wrong with you people?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#4
Exactly Shamasha this is all so ridiculous, and I can identify with what akhan Andrew says in his defense, lemme tell y'all about the latest project I'm involved in:

The Eastern Orthodox Bible is a new English translation of the Greek Bible - both the official Greek OT & NT of the Orthodox Church. The base English text for the NT is the World English Bible and for the OT, Brenton's LXX translation - both of which are in the public domain, the English text of the EOB must conform to the official Patriarchal OT & NT of the Orthodox Church. I have signed up as a voluntary editor for the EOB OT (the NT has been completed), my job as an editor is to do the following:

1) update & modernize Brenton's archaic 19th century English, so that it is both accurate & suitable for public reading
2) compare the Greek text published by the Church of Greece (Apostoliki Diakonia) with Alfred Rahlf's critical LXX edition published by the United Bible Society, choose the Church text readings and document all significant variants in the footnotes
3) compare Brenton's translation with the latest English translation of the LXX - New English Translation of the Septuagint, published by Oxford University Press, and document significant variants in the footnotes
4) compare the LXX readings with the Masoretic Hebrew Tanakh, using the most well known modern English translations (NAB, NIV, NJB, NKJV, NRSV), and document all significant variants in the footnotes

I'm happy to contribute to such a project because I love nothing more than to help make as many Bible resources available to the general public as possible, but I can vouch for akhan Andrew that this is very hard work, and I'm terrified of making errors as I know that this Bible will be read publicly in parishes and studied in seminaries & monasteries in the USA and elsewhere in the world.

Just like I have to continuously consult the Greek Orthodox OT & Ralhf's LXX and compare with English translations of both the LXX & MHT, likewise akhan Andrew had to consult the Khabouris Codex, UBS critical text, Greek NT texts & English translations of the Peshitta NT - this IS translation work, NOT "light revision" as Dave Bauscher claims!

No one can rightly accuse Andrew of plagiarism, not only because it's impossible to plagiarize public domain works but also because the concept of the AENT is unique - there is no other English translation of the Eastern Peshitta for the Netzarim. The AENT IS an original work!
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
#5
Shlama Khati Christina and Akhi Paul,

Thank you both for your correspondences of support. It helps a lot. I have forwarded these to my publisher and editor. The whole thing is quite shocking, as I stated, because these works are public domain and besides which, it takes genuine Aramaic understanding to produce the expanded footnotes, essays (350 pages+) and my own readings. As I say in the rebuttal, why would I do all this extra work for the unique features of AENT if I were just copying and pasting? It doesn't make sense. It would be one thing if I didn't put PY for Paul Younan's notes and JM for James Murdock but the proof is there. I proofed these resources, added my own and did so openly and universally.

I have always told folks what I was doing. Albion had AENT Matthew for 3 months and was on this forum for 4 years prior, so he knew how both my version and Paul's read.

I was particularly happy with Akhan Paul's explanation about how the Peshitta belongs to everybody. Also, in these attacks no one has really challenged what I wrote directly from a linguistics view but they are using the plagiarism charge as cover for what they cannot do in the light of day. If Bauscher could prove his skills in Aramaic superior to mine, I think he would have done so. As for Albion and Ryan, these people praised my linguistic skills to the sky well before AENT came out and I don't think I have forgotten what I knew back then.

Let's call a spade a spade here--Bauscher's attacks must be viewed as theologically and perhaps racially motivated. He has made no secret of those feelings while he was here and his current behavior proves this remains true.

Khati Christina, I wish you well in your Scripture project. I have Brenton's work and use it a lot. And folks, you can count on me doing this type of thing with MATARA and with the second edition of AENT. I say that clearly here so there is no chance for misunderstanding.

2nd edition of AENT will have the expected corrections, but I am also trying to see how much of Gwynn, Etheridge, CC Torrey and William Norton I can put into it, with proper attribution of course. If it doesn't all get done in the 2nd ed, I will try to do it later.

Why do I do this? Because I am trying to serve my readers. Sure Albion may lament that he has Murdock or this or that, but I am trying to put the best of Peshitta scholarship IN ONE VOLUME, FOR THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR THE FUNDS OR THE PATIENCE TO TOGGLE BETWEEN 6 BOOKS ON TRANSLATION AND DOZENS OF OTHERS ON NAZARENE HISTORY AND HALACHA. That has been the point all along. It was not to save work. If that were the case I could have produced AENT much sooner. It was to sift through Murdock, Younan, Lamsa, Etheridge and relate it to my own research.

MATARA will do the same thing. The Torah-Targums are adapted from Etheridge--PUBLIC DOMAIN. Other Targums, including those here, are also public domain. I will translate also and I use 1901 American Standard as base text, with hundreds of footnotes that ALL MINE and derived from MY HEBREW KNOWLEDGE which cannot be faked.

And for the record, the same is true of my previous 3 books. Just look at when I quote Lamsa and say "cross-referenced by AGR" in RQ 1 and 2. Cross-referencing means I looked at their readings, looked at the Aramaic, and either agreed or disagreed with what they said and discuss my reasoning either way. Again, this is THREE TIMES the work of regular translating, and done for the benefit of the reader.

That has been the situation all along. I have never wavered, never said anything differently. Let this be the LAST TIME I need to explain this.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#6
...

This scribe stuff doesn???t apply to this situation really at all. I mean a Scribe is someone who copies the same language text like Aramaic to Aramaic to preserve the text, so he tries to make it exact as possible.

What we have here is English translations or interpretations of the Aramaic NT.

And Andrew has said he has been forthcoming all along that he was using the Younan and Murdock English renderings of the Aramaic as his base, being more like an editor in honing the English down to as close as it could be done in his estimation.

If this was his intention and he made it clear upfront publicly that this was the case, then I see no problem. Maybe it wasn???t so clear to everyone??

But Mr. Bauscher seems to think that it was all a deception, since as he says that Andrew didn???t make this clear in the introduction of the AENT and that folks were left to suppose that the work is the translation/interpretation of Mr. Roth.

I want to take Andrews word on it that he never tried to pass this whole work off as his own, even though as he says, that in some places he provides his own translation/interpretation of the Aramaic....

I say, who cares anyway, as long as God's Words are faithfully rendered into English!!!

I mean, whose Words are these anyway? Mr. Roth's...Mr. Bauscher's, Mr. Younan's or Mr. Murdock's?? NO! They belong to God. It is His revelations to us. And some folks think it belongs to them...come on.

...
#7
Thirdwoe Wrote:This scribe stuff doesn???t apply to this situation really at all. I mean a Scribe is someone who copies the same language text like Aramaic to Aramaic to preserve the text, so he tries to make it exact as possible..

My point about the scribes was that for thousands of years copies have been faithfully made of the literary treasures of mankind...from the Scriptures to the Epic of Gilgamesh. And civilization is better off because of it.

Neither Moses nor Ashurbanipal knew anything of copyrights, nor did they care about intellectual property. But the world is a better place because of the two of them. No one worried about waiting until 70 years after Tatian died to make copies of his Diatesseron....so it would be in the "public domain." How utterly ridiculous these laws we now have are.

As if we all live in a bubble apart from one another, never borrowing from one another and those who came before us.

The bottom line is that, at least here in the West, money is the driving force behind pretty much everything. So "Rev" Bauscher thinks in terms of "'plagiarism" ... as if MY income~livelihood would be negatively affected by any supposed misrepresentation by Andrew.

That's why I said: Stephen King, I could understand. That's how the man makes his living. Don't go making a 1,000 copies of his books and giving them away for free. And don't copy his latest horror novel and call it your own....that's wrong.

But the Scripture? I don't care if you make a translation or not: I don't care if you spent 10 years of your life sweating it out....the very idea of any sort of "copyright" on anything you derive from scripture is just plain repulsive to me.

What is the objective? To make money off of the Word of God....or to gain the praise of men? Either way, your "copyrighted" translation was made for the wrong reason.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#8
Why was my post removed? surely it can do no harm, if it is all lies and is easily refuted.
But we know why it was removed.

Plagiarism has nothing to do with whether a source is public domain, or not.

Here is pagiarism:
pla??gia??rize (pl?????j???-r??z???) v. pla??gia??rized, pla??gia??riz??ing, pla??gia??riz??es. --tr. 1. To use and pass off as one's own (the ideas or writings of another). 2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another). --intr. To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another. --pla???gia??riz???er n.

Andrew,please quote your introduction where you say Murdock and Younan (or Lawrence Sheets) were your base translation text, and that you merely revised them here and there.I will mark the words in my copy of your book.

Your text is certainly copied from them; I can show it again, if you like. But you take credit
for their translation work by your silence and refusal to attribute the translation to the proper
sources.

You can talk about your footnotes until the cows come home (is that mooing I hear?); I am referring to the translation itself.
I suppose that if I had simply copied Lamsa's translation, or Etheridge's, and published it with my name on it, that would have been just fine too?

I can't believe much of what I am reading here in the several responses to my post.
Paul wrote:
Quote:"not only is the Interlinear here on public domain, and not only is it NOT a translation"....
That's news to me; probably is news to most of you.
And Paul, again:
Quote:"Copyright on scripture? Have you no shame whatsoever?"
I have nothing to be ashamed of; Andrew does, as do all who condone what he has done.

Christine writes:
Quote:I also own a copy of the AENT, and I know that you have given both Paul & Murdock the credit due to them, and not once did you claim their work as your own. Of course I can quote your footnotes which clearly state this but I won't because I, unlike those 3 hypocrites actually respect the COPYRIGHT NOTICE!!!

Footnotes are not the place to give proper attribution; the introduction or preface is the place for that. Andrew has not done that. Are we supposed to believe you cannot reproduce the quote due to copyright notice? Talk about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

And:
Quote:I say, who cares anyway, as long as God's Words are faithfully rendered into English!!!

Well, I care! Am I the only one? Perhaps. This is very sad.

And Andrew :
Quote:Let's call a spade a spade here--Bauscher's attacks must be viewed as theologically and perhaps racially motivated.

Wouldn't that be convenient,Andrew? Just take one's own plagiarism and turn it into someone else's racism?

I reproduce here the definition and description of plagiarism from writecheck.turnitin.com (a plagiarism checking program):

What is Plagiarism?
Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means:
1. To steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2. To use (another's production) without crediting the source
3. To commit literary theft
4. To present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.
But can words and ideas really be stolen?
According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. In the United States and many other countries, the expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions.
Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some media such as a book or a computer file.
All of the following are considered plagiarism:
??? Turning in someone else's work as your own
??? Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
??? Failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
??? Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
??? Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
??? Copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)

Attention! Changing the words of an original source is not sufficient to prevent plagiarism. If you have retained the essential idea of an original source, and have not cited it, then no matter how drastically you may have altered its context or presentation, you have still plagiarized.
Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism.

Actually, Andrew, I am the best friend you have right now. Most others here are complicit in your theft and fraud by their express approval of what you have done.

Ryan and Albion are also much better friends to you than your cheerleaders here. I know they
are very hurt, shocked and discouraged by what you have done. Where is your soul? Have you sold it and the truth for a mess of pottage?

Quote:Pr 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
-KJV

Ga 4:16
Quote:Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
-KJV

Why don't you just humble yourself, confess and repent before God and us all?


Dave Bauscher
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
#9
gbausc Wrote:Why was my post removed? surely it can do no harm, if it is all lies and is easily refuted.
But we know why it was removed.

Shlama Akhi David:
One of the moderators may have decided that your post was too inflammatory. As you may have noticed we don't tolerate any inflammatory banter. The moderators are not interested in censuring informative posts with scholarly content, as much as we are of preventing the uncivilized and inflammatory manner in which a post is presented. You can present your case, without being censured, but do it in a civilized manner or your post will be deleted.

Personally, I have allowed your latest post to remain, however, any of the other moderators have the right to remove it if they want.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
(forum moderator)
#10
Dave,

gbausc Wrote:Paul wrote:
Quote:"not only is the Interlinear here on public domain, and not only is it NOT a translation"....
That's news to me; probably is news to most of you.

I have never been involved in any English translation in any capacity. I provide a (near) English equivalent word in the Interlinear chapters. It really is inferior to a dictionary, let alone a proper translation. So please do not refer to my work as a translation...you should know better. You are a translator, I am not.

Lawrence Sheets apparently based his English translation on the English cognates I have included in my Interlinear, and he also apparently constructed the translation using proper English grammar and word-order (which in many cases will differ greatly from the Interlinear found here.)

I don't know why that is news to you. This work has been ongoing for over a decade, and nothing has changed. I've never claimed to have made a translation. In fact, I have advised against it and have often criticized the idea of a translation into English by stating that I am against it....as the CoE has historically been against it.

So, there really is very little of my work in MARI....despite the fact that Andrew has stated multiple times that the "I" stands for the Yudh of my last name. I am grateful and flattered, but that was not necessary.

Secondly, the very first letter stands for Murdoch...as I understand it.

I have never been under the assumption that Andrew made his own translation from scratch. I don't know why you were, or are.

I can assure you over the last decade and more than Andrew and I have collaborated over the phone and in person on many occasions with translation work. Andrew was also instrumental at times with helping me to compare against known manuscripts....and this goes for Stephen Silver and others as well.

What you call the "Younan translation" really isn't, on multiple levels....so quit it, ok?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
#11
gbausc Wrote:Andrew,please quote your introduction where you say Murdock and Younan (or Lawrence Sheets) were your base translation text, and that you merely revised them here and there.I will mark the words in my copy of your book.

Your text is certainly copied from them; I can show it again, if you like.

No need, we'll just go to your review & comments on amazon if we're really that interested. To save you the hassel of again violating the AENT Copyright notice, I'll just post the link: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-English-Testament-Andrew-Gabriel/dp/1934916269/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241223106&sr=8-1">http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-English-T ... 106&sr=8-1</a><!-- m --> <!-- sConfusedarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="Confusedarcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sConfusedarcasm: -->

gbausc Wrote:But you take credit
for their translation work by your silence and refusal to attribute the translation to the proper
sources.

Rubbish, Andrew most certainly attributes his sources to the original authors, what do you think PY and JM stand for? <!-- sConfusedtern: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/stern.gif" alt="Confusedtern:" title="Stern" /><!-- sConfusedtern: -->

gbausc Wrote:I can't believe much of what I am reading here in the several responses to my post.
Paul wrote:
Quote:"not only is the Interlinear here on public domain, and not only is it NOT a translation"....
That's news to me; probably is news to most of you.

Not at all, Paul has been saying this for years, example:

Paul Younan Wrote:Khati Christina,

...However you may or may not be aware that the CoE has always been very resistant to translating the Peshitta into any other language, we haven't even made one in the vernacular (neo-Aramaic) that's spoken today, let alone English.

...I hate to say it, but when it comes to this issue the church is even stricter than Islam or Judaism, both of whom have sects that have sanctioned English translations for the benefit of the faithful.

That's why I'm kind of sticking with the Interlinear concept.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1341">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1341</a><!-- l -->

and here:

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Kara,

I'm at work at the moment so I can't answer everything you posted, but here are a couple of things I wanted to address:

Quote:What exactly qualifies you to translate the Peshitta (without Church approval)

What makes you think I am translating the Peshitta? I have stated many times in the past that I share the opinion, historically, that the Peshitta should not be translated. An Interlinear text is quite a different beast.

Lamsa, Bauscher and Andrew have provided translations. I have not, nor will I.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1961&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1961&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15</a><!-- l -->

C'mon you've been posting on this forum longer than I have, how did you miss it or were you too distracted by your Peshitta ELS codes? <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: -->

gbausc Wrote:Christine writes:
Quote:I also own a copy of the AENT, and I know that you have given both Paul & Murdock the credit due to them, and not once did you claim their work as your own. Of course I can quote your footnotes which clearly state this but I won't because I, unlike those 3 hypocrites actually respect the COPYRIGHT NOTICE!!!

Footnotes are not the place to give proper attribution; the introduction or preface is the place for that. Andrew has not done that.

Yes he has, from the way I understand it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

gbausc Wrote:Are we supposed to believe you cannot reproduce the quote due to copyright notice? Talk about straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

Dave, the AENT is under copyright, it contains a copyright notice which states they no one may quote more than 70 verses without written permission from the publisher, Netzari Press, did you notice that??? You, Albion & Ryan have quoted hundreds of verses from the AENT on amazon.com - you 3 are breaching copyright yet you have the audacity to accuse Andrew of plagiarism!? <!-- s:angry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif" alt=":angry:" title="Angry" /><!-- s:angry: -->

gbausc Wrote:And:
Quote:I say, who cares anyway, as long as God's Words are faithfully rendered into English!!!

Well, I care! Am I the only one? Perhaps. This is very sad.

Yip, seems you're the only one.

gbausc Wrote:And Andrew :
Quote:Let's call a spade a spade here--Bauscher's attacks must be viewed as theologically and perhaps racially motivated.

Wouldn't that be convenient,Andrew? Just take one's own plagiarism and turn it into someone else's racism?

Actually when one goes through all the posts you've made on this forum, Andrew's statement certainly rings true. Example:

gbausc Wrote:Akha Paul & Andrew,

Nice try, but I'm not biting on this.

First of all, you both beg the question by assuming that a reference to our Lord's humanity indicates its own qnoma , and then his Deity indicates its own separate and distinct qnoma , so that this Person (and at least we can agree that Yeshua Meshiaka is a Person) has two qnomas.

To you, a qnoma is an occurrence of a nature , therefore, you interpret any mention of a person's nature to have it's qnoma. I do not see a qnoma as anything less than "self", whether animate or inanimate (himself, itself, herself). If in reference to a person, then that self would be a center of consciousness- a mind or a spirit; That would be the person himself.

Two qnome would be two persons; Our Lord never said that He has two qnome; He only refers to one in John 5:26.
(How do you know which qnoma He refers to here? I would think the Divine qnoma already had life in it by its very nature.)

The incarnation means "God became human". In so doing He had to change His form (Greek has "schemata', from which English derives "schematic") from The Divine to the mortal Human servant. Philippians 2 says that "He divested Himself"; Hebrews 2 says "He became lower than the angels" for the suffering of death. Neither text says that He put on humanity as a cloak.

By the way, if The Son (The Divine qnoma)became lower than the angels for the suffering of death, then that Divine qnoma came to die.
John says "God became flesh", flesh signifying humanity.

He no longer was in The Divine form; His identity was still the same, but no longer was He omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. If we were to believe that He retained all these attributes, then we would have to believe that from infancy, there would have been two centers of consciousness in Him, one that knew all things, and one that knew practically nothing.
That is unthinkable, and is tantamount to saying there were two persons in one body with the same name.

The Council of Chalcedon states
Quote:there is no division between His Natures,
yet I hear and read so much that indicates Christians believe otherwise, including you both.
To say that Jesus suffered in His humanity but not in His Divine being sounds like Multiple Personality Disorder , at the very least. Perhaps it is sheer Gnosticism, which teaches that "He" really is "They".

Prove to me that every living qnoma is not either a "He" or a "She" , and I will listen further to what you have to say on this matter.

As to 1 Cor. 11:27, Andrew, your explanation is just another example of your sophistry, as I expected. I suppose swine's blood would have done as well for the "Blood of Jehovah" , according to your way of interpreting this passage .
Quote:"All blood is therefore God's blood."

That is an outrage. This does not strike me as the teaching of God's Spirit.

Shelikha Paul is discussing the blood and body of God and those who partake of the bread and wine unworthily , thus eating and drinking damnation , not discerning Jehovah's body , and you have the audacity to say that the "blood of Jehovah" simply means all blood is His blood, because He has no blood of His own ?

Here is a passage that says "Jehovah's blood" , and we are to believe you when you flatly contradict the word of God ? If Paul meant that Jehovah had no blood, he had one hell of a way of saying it !

Surely he could have used the phrase , "The Blood of Yeshua" , or "the blood of Meshika", so as not to confuse the unlearned.

He wrote ,"The blood of Jehovah".That means what it says. Jehovah shed His blood for the sins of the world, is the message of the Lord's supper.

You are really struggling to defend the indefensible here.

God Himself , in The Person of Marya Yeshua, made the sacrifice for sin with His own blood and His own death for all mankind.That is what the gospel is.Nothing less would avail for the atonement of the sins of the world- Glory to His Name, Hallelu-JAH !


If that is Paul's meaning in Cor. , what's the problem with "God's blood" in Acts 20:28 ? Is not all blood God's blood in Acts as in 1 Cor. 11:27 ?

And please do not compare Jesus with "the Angel of The LORD" in the OT. Jehovah's Name is not in Him or on Him-
He is Jehovah ! He sent the angel of Jehovah and put His Name on the angel ! All angels are His and he sends them, and they worship Him !There are so many passages that show this.

Hebrews 1 asks the question: To which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art My Son... ?"
The Son created the angels !
Yeshua is Jehovah, therefore it is proper to say that what Yeshua did, Jehovah did. This is not complicated. "Jesus died" is the same as saying "God died".

Theologians like to complicate things to justify their existence; frankly , we don't need theologians; we need disciples who believe in our LORD Jesus and obey His words.


Andrew,you should practice law or start selling bridges.You would be great at both !

Sorry, I would have to give up so much faith and life to believe what you do that it would require a death on my part. I have been through much in my 51 years- 27 years an ordained minister , husband of a beautiful and wonderful woman,and father of twelve beautiful and wonderful children and Grandfather of two.
I have paid a price for my beliefs and been rejected by several churches after preaching the word for a time. My position has been hammered out on the anvil of trial and opposition and forged in heaven. I cannot deny what God has revealed to me and proven in the lab of life. I have seen Him and heard his voice. I cannot go back.

I still do not understand what your views of the atonement are. What was the atoning work whose merits satisfied the requirements for removing the sins of the world ?


[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fxrwb[/font]

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=212">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=212</a><!-- l -->

or how about this one:

gbausc Wrote:Akha Paul and Andrew,

You both admit that your theologies govern your understanding of "qnoma". I don't see your position as objective and cannot see any evidence for your position.

Brock's position is to leave the word untranslated because there is no synonym for it; it is an untranslatable. That sounds like nonsense to me. God's word is for the whole world to hear. He would not use words that no one can understand; neither of you has convinced me that you know what it means; one definition Paul gave is "individuated nature"; that is essentially the English definition of "self". Rob wrote that qnoma is "member of a taxonomic class"; Paul responded , "That is the best English definition I've seen yet." In Biology, a member of a taxonomic class is an "organism".
I don't know that non -biological taxonomic classes exist.I'm sure there are no developed charts for any such classes.
Bottom line of all this is that this becomes such an exercise in esoterica that nobody understands it or is edified by it. Like "Miltha", we lose a precious description and understanding of The Son of God as LOGOS ,"The WORD" ,to the ether of some nebulous , untranslatable "Miltha" .
Now it is "Qnoma" that no one can translate. This kind of club mentality has no limits; the "unknowable" word list will grow.
All this smacks of Gnosticism to me.

I do not believe my Lord ever intended his disciples to evince an unapproachable elitism that claims to know certain esoteric words or doctrines that unlock the secrets of the universe.


We are children of God by faith which works by love; "knowledge puffs up; love builds up".
"The letter killeth; The Spirit gives life".

"I thank Thee Father, LORD of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes; Amen, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight."

Scholarship is wonderful, if it be meek and humble of heart, and is filled with faith and the guidance of The Holy Spirit, and I will add- good sense.

Luke 11:17 has nothing to do with "a personality of a house", as you imply, Andrew. I don't even know why you would use the word "personality" in conjunction with "qnoma", if it has nothing to do with "person", according to your position.

The parallel passages in Matthew and Mark use "napsa" in place of "qnoma". This is Aramaic usage that shows plainly that the words are interchangeable in the mind of the Holy Spirit and of The Christ.
That is all the evidence I need.And last I checked, God was not a westerner.

Why do we make simple things so complicated ?


[font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Fxrwb F0ygs [/font]


Dave B

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=659">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=659</a><!-- l -->

gbausc Wrote:Attention! Changing the words of an original source is not sufficient to prevent plagiarism. If you have retained the essential idea of an original source, and have not cited it, then no matter how drastically you may have altered its context or presentation, you have still plagiarized.
Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism.

Again Murdock's translation and Paul's interlinear are public domain works so this doesn't apply, everyone knows this! Are you gonna accuse Thomas Nelson of plagiarizing the KJV or Paul W. Espostito of plagiarizing Brenton's LXX translation too?

gbausc Wrote:Actually, Andrew, I am the best friend you have right now. Most others here are complicit in your theft and fraud by their express approval of what you have done.

Ryan and Albion are also much better friends to you than your cheerleaders here. I know they
are very hurt, shocked and discouraged by what you have done. Where is your soul? Have you sold it and the truth for a mess of pottage?

Quote:Pr 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
-KJV

Ga 4:16
Quote:Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
-KJV

Oh please <!-- sRolleyes --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rolleyes.gif" alt="Rolleyes" title="Roll Eyes" /><!-- sRolleyes --> with "friends" like you 3 back-stabbing hypocrites who needs enemies?

gbausc Wrote:Why don't you just humble yourself, confess and repent before God and us all?

Dave Bauscher

Why don't you:

a) realize that so far no one either here or at amazon.com believes you, and why would they, you're accusing Andrew of the impossible - plagiarizing public domain works
b) admit your hypocrisy
c) apologize to Andrew not only for slandering his reputation but also for breaching copyright
d) quit claiming that Paul's work is a translation, when he's repeatedly said that it isn't
e) repent before God and us all
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.
#12
Shlama all--

A few things:

1) I never heard of Lawrence Sheets before these accusations. If he also copied Paul's work, then that's fine, because again Paul's work cannot be plagiarized. David, you are so ignorant. You think that Mr. Sheet's can claim originality from Paul's work but I am a plagiarist? Do you see how stupid and inconsistent that is? Either both Mr. Sheets and I could copy or neither of us could. But Paul himself has clarified this--I helped him when you probably didn't even know what the Peshitta was. Since Paul never worked with Mr. Sheets, but he has worked with me why aren't you going after him for "plagiarizing" Paul? Or is it just me who has that "privilege". I wonder why...

2) If Paul says he wasn't plagiarized, that should suffice. As I said, PUBLIC DOMAIN works can NOT be plagiarized.

3) Nevertheless, you David say that the preface was the proper place to give attribution, not the footnotes. Which leads to these observations:

a) You admit that I give credit in the footnotes.
b) You have NO PROOF for his assertion that I did not give attribution. Where and how I did so is less important than the fact that I did so.
c) As a matter of fact, I do give attribution in the Preface section. If you David had bothered to read the rebuttal I gave on Refiners Fire, or just go to p v of AENT, this is what you would have seen:

"To retain as much consistency as possible, Paul Younan's translation has been compared from Matthew 1 to Acts 15 and James Murdock's translation for the remainder, each word has been cross-checked with Aramaic"....

In some cases, both sources are woven together with translation, under a unifying editorial vision and approach. That approach includes the following: In places where James Murdock used the later Western Peshitto readings, the Eastern originals have been restored. In places where a more accurate or detailed reading was required than detailed by my mentors, the preferred readings were substituted in this edition.

"cross checked" also has a meaning that you apparently don't understand. Really, it's not my fault you don't understand English fully.

And David, I have refuted you, and it is you who will repent or YHWH will take you out of my way. Why don't YOU admit that you have, putting it kindly, major animosity towards anyone who disagrees with you, especially if they are of my lineage? Why don't you admit that you are trying to promote your translation at my expense? Your hateful speech on this forum betrays your intentions.

I am not only not sorry, I am proud of my work and the way I explained it. I call the work MARI (Murdock-Roth-Younan). I also call it "a compilation, annotation and translation". I give attribution in the Preface, in the footnotes and throughout the work. It is not my fault that you are so ignorant as to neither understand these words nor the proper defintion of plagiarism.

And BTW, as long as we're at it, what about 400 pages OTHER than the translation? If I'm just cutting and pasting, what about the 1500 other footnotes that are all mine? Also, unlike you, I didn't just blindly cut and paste the 1905-20 Critical Edition on the Aramaic side, but carefully restored the Eastern readings of the Peshitta that you left on the cutting room floor, such as Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9. I also itemized hundreds of variances between Khabouris and your precious later Western imitation.

I suggest that you repent of your nastiness, anti-Semitism and religious prejudice. I have refuted you with words from your own mouth. Why don't you follow the Scriptures you say you venerate?

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1 Cor 13:1-13 (From Crosswalk.com)
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
#13
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means:
1. To steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2. To use (another's production) without crediting the source
3. To commit literary theft
4. To present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

Andrew, your quote from your intro. does not attribute the translation text to Paul Younan and Murdock.
You say you"compared them". Proper credit would have been rendered if you said you "copied them".
There is a big difference between "compared" and "copied".

I am really unconcerned with the notes; I am discussing the main body of the text.
All I know of Mr. Lawrence Sheets is that aramaicpeshitta.com has Paul Younan's interlinear and "English only files", prepared by "Lawrence Sheets" (as if you did not know this,Andrew), and that James Murdock's files are also there on the same web site under "Peshitta Resources".

The plagiarism testing program- "Essay Rater" lists this site as the suspected source for practically every single line of every chapter of the 60 chapters I tested from your book.
Are you denying having used the "English only" files prepared by Lawrence Sheets, for your translation?

"Public domain" is irrelevant. If I were to publish Etheridge's translation with my name on it, it would be plagiarism, even though Etheridge is public domain.

You all seem to be saying that plagiarism either cannot exist in the Bible translation world, or that it simply does not matter.

And Christine, I quoted 27 verses of MARI, not hundreds, and 27 < 70, n'est ce pas?
And you couldn't copy a footnote, due to copyright notice? Did you have more than 70 verses in mind?

Simply because Paul Younan says his interlinear is not a translation, does not make it so.

Here is Paul Younan's Preface to his Interlinear:

Quote:Conventions used in this translation.

Aramaic, like its direct Semitic descendants Hebrew and Arabic, is written from right to left. A study of the Aramaic alphabet and language is required to utilize this work effectively. The closest English equivalent is written above the corresponding Aramaic word. Words are also added to the English translation which have no corresponding Aramaic word, but are required for sense in English. Such words are enclosed in square brackets [ ]. Words in Aramaic which would be superfluous or redundant in English are translated, but they are enclosed in angle brackets < >. When two or more Aramaic words are translated by one English word or phrase, the English translation is underlined. The words of Mshikha (the Messiah) appear in red.
Disclaimer: This translation is not sanctioned by the Church of the East. This is a personal translation only, and all readers are encouraged to verify the work on their own. This translation has not been edited nor verified by anyone other than the author (who does not have official sanction for this work) and is likely to have numerous errors.

So if Paul never did a translation, why does he say he did six times in the Preface on this very web site?
And why do you sheep all so stupidly go along with whatever he says, no matter what? Where are your brains? Paul says, "I never did a translation", and you all simply nod your heads and say, "baaaah"! He says, "I never took part in translating; I am not a translator"; "Baaaah!", "Baaaaah".

"I am no expert in Aramaic", says Paul. "Baaaah", Baaah", say the sheep.

Translation is scripture, and scripture cannot be plagiarized or copyrighted or protected, says Paul; "BAAAAH,BAAAAH,BAAAAH,BAAAAH!", comes the chorus from the corral of sheep.

Andrew says:
Quote:PUBLIC DOMAIN works can NOT be plagiarized.

Sheep, altogether now....

So, Andrew, what is your source for that statement?


Dave
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.com">http://aramaicnt.com</a><!-- m --> and Lulu.com
I also have articles at BibleCodeDigest.com
#14
I am going to do what I seem to do constantly, which is take the middle road.
Andrew: I was under the impression that this was an all new translation before I bought it. However, in response to Mr. Bauscher, I think that the introduction makes it abundantly clear what Mr. Roth has done. Indroduction, page v, second paragraph. The understanding that I get from this paragraph is that it might be better advertized as a revision, like RSV, NKJV, or NASB, instead of a new translation, but I might be misunderstanding.

Now, as to Mr. Younan's claim that he is not translating the Peshitta...that is pure semantics. To translate, simply defined, is to render in another language. What you have done is to create an extreme version of formal equivalency, but it is still a translation. According to one Jewish sage, to translate literally is to be a liar, but to translate according to the meaning is to be a blasphemer. :-D

Now, for Christina, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that PY and JM after the footnotes are not sufficient to note something about the translation. It is still necessary to give credit for the footnotes that he borrowed, and that is one way to do it, but it doesn't apply to the translation. Also, to quote the book in a review is not in violation of copyright law.

There is one or two things I might suggest for future editions to avoid this sort of controversy. You might include a bibliography. Frankly, if I footnoted my papers for college the way you have footnoted this book, and failed to include a references or bibliography section, I would get major point deductions.

In essence, I think Andrew has done nothing wrong, but he could have made it clearer what he was doing. Mr Bauscher and the others have some valid points about insufficient notation, but I think they're overreacting. I have to say that I was under the impression that this was a brand new translation, and I was slightly disappointed in finding out that it was more of a revision, but that does not make it an invalid scholarly work, nor does it make it plagiarism.

Now you may pick this post apart all you wish. I know we religious people like nothing better than to tear eachother up.
#15
gbausc Wrote:According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means:
1. To steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2. To use (another's production) without crediting the source
3. To commit literary theft
4. To present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

Blah, blah, blah, give it up dude, this doesn't apply to public domain works, everyone I know agrees. And Andrew has already pointed out your inconsistency:

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama all--

3) Nevertheless, you David say that the preface was the proper place to give attribution, not the footnotes. Which leads to these observations:

a) You admit that I give credit in the footnotes.
b) You have NO PROOF for his assertion that I did not give attribution. Where and how I did so is less important than the fact that I did so.
c) As a matter of fact, I do give attribution in the Preface section. If you David had bothered to read the rebuttal I gave on Refiners Fire, or just go to p v of AENT, this is what you would have seen:

"To retain as much consistency as possible, Paul Younan's translation has been compared from Matthew 1 to Acts 15 and James Murdock's translation for the remainder, each word has been cross-checked with Aramaic"....

In some cases, both sources are woven together with translation, under a unifying editorial vision and approach. That approach includes the following: In places where James Murdock used the later Western Peshitto readings, the Eastern originals have been restored. In places where a more accurate or detailed reading was required than detailed by my mentors, the preferred readings were substituted in this edition.

"cross checked" also has a meaning that you apparently don't understand. Really, it's not my fault you don't understand English fully.

...I am not only not sorry, I am proud of my work and the way I explained it. I call the work MARI (Murdock-Roth-Younan). I also call it "a compilation, annotation and translation". I give attribution in the Preface, in the footnotes and throughout the work. It is not my fault that you are so ignorant as to neither understand these words nor the proper defintion of plagiarism.

...I suggest that you repent of your nastiness, anti-Semitism and religious prejudice. I have refuted you with words from your own mouth.

Basic psychology 101 declares that inconsistency is a sign that the person is lying, trust me Dave, you're not fooling anyone!

gbausc Wrote:Andrew, your quote from your intro. does not attribute the translation text to Paul Younan and Murdock.
You say you"compared them". Proper credit would have been rendered if you said you "copied them".
There is a big difference between "compared" and "copied".

Wrong, the definition of copying is to duplicate something WORD FOR WORD, even a school kid will tell you this. The AENT is NOT identical (doesn't read WORD FOR WORD) to Murdock or Younan, so your argument falls flat on its face.

gbausc Wrote:The plagiarism testing program- "Essay Rater" lists this site as the suspected source for practically every single line of every chapter of the 60 chapters I tested from your book.
Are you denying having used the "English only" files prepared by Lawrence Sheets, for your translation?

Question: how did you test "EVERY line of EVERY chapter of the 60 chapters" of AENT? Did you type everything out yourself or did you hack into the publisher's computer to obtain the master file? And I know that the AENT is not available in electronic format! Your hypocrisy truly amazes me, if you did the former then you violated the copyright notice which restricts quotations to 70 verses - AS BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION YOU QUOTED EVERY LINE OF 60 CHAPTERS!!! If you did the latter then you not only breached copyright but also committed cyber-theft!

Andrew cannot be prosecuted for plagiarism anymore than Thomas Nelson, Paul W. Esposito, J. P. Green, or the publishers of the WEB or NRSV. You however can be prosecuted for breaching copyright and possibly cyber-theft, if you did indeed obtain the master file by hacking into the publisher's computer.

gbausc Wrote:"Public domain" is irrelevant. If I were to publish Etheridge's translation with my name on it, it would be plagiarism, even though Etheridge is public domain.

You all seem to be saying that plagiarism either cannot exist in the Bible translation world, or that it simply does not matter.

Actually "public domain" makes all the difference. If you don't know what "public domain" means, I'll explain it to you:

When you place something in the public domain you are saying in layman's terms: "this is not mine, it belongs to the public, anyone can do whatever they want with it." Katalaves?

gbausc Wrote:And Christine, I quoted 27 verses of MARI, not hundreds, and 27 < 70, n'est ce pas?
And you couldn't copy a footnote, due to copyright notice? Did you have more than 70 verses in mind?

Dave you, Albion & Ryan have quoted much more than 70 verses of the AENT on amazon.com, there are several pages of quotes, anyone can go to amazon.com and see for themselves:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-English-Testament-Andrew-Gabriel/product-reviews/1934916269/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_recent?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending">http://www.amazon.com/Aramaic-English-T ... Descending</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/review/RJIDUGQK1IMGX/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1934916269&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful">http://www.amazon.com/review/RJIDUGQK1I ... hisHelpful</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/review/RNIE3VYLR63PC/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1934916269&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful">http://www.amazon.com/review/RNIE3VYLR6 ... hisHelpful</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/review/RMBD46YXFOE6M/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1934916269&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful">http://www.amazon.com/review/RMBD46YXFO ... hisHelpful</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/review/RI9KA9QH7XD6X/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1934916269&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful">http://www.amazon.com/review/RI9KA9QH7X ... hisHelpful</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R19M3VPHX7YDG8/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1934916269&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful">http://www.amazon.com/review/R19M3VPHX7 ... hisHelpful</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DWV246DZYW0U/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1934916269&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful">http://www.amazon.com/review/R3DWV246DZ ... hisHelpful</a><!-- m -->

gbausc Wrote:Simply because Paul Younan says his interlinear is not a translation, does not make it so.

Here is Paul Younan's Preface to his Interlinear:

Quote:Conventions used in this translation.

Aramaic, like its direct Semitic descendants Hebrew and Arabic, is written from right to left. A study of the Aramaic alphabet and language is required to utilize this work effectively. The closest English equivalent is written above the corresponding Aramaic word. Words are also added to the English translation which have no corresponding Aramaic word, but are required for sense in English. Such words are enclosed in square brackets [ ]. Words in Aramaic which would be superfluous or redundant in English are translated, but they are enclosed in angle brackets < >. When two or more Aramaic words are translated by one English word or phrase, the English translation is underlined. The words of Mshikha (the Messiah) appear in red.
Disclaimer: This translation is not sanctioned by the Church of the East. This is a personal translation only, and all readers are encouraged to verify the work on their own. This translation has not been edited nor verified by anyone other than the author (who does not have official sanction for this work) and is likely to have numerous errors.

So if Paul never did a translation, why does he say he did six times in the Preface on this very web site?

No one I know considers an interlinear an actual translation, neither do I, and Paul said over and over again that he doesn't either, so get over it!

gbausc Wrote:And why do you sheep all so stupidly go along with whatever he says, no matter what? Where are your brains? Paul says, "I never did a translation", and you all simply nod your heads and say, "baaaah"! He says, "I never took part in translating; I am not a translator"; "Baaaah!", "Baaaaah".

"I am no expert in Aramaic", says Paul. "Baaaah", Baaah", say the sheep.

Translation is scripture, and scripture cannot be plagiarized or copyrighted or protected, says Paul; "BAAAAH,BAAAAH,BAAAAH,BAAAAH!", comes the chorus from the corral of sheep.

Andrew says:
Quote:PUBLIC DOMAIN works can NOT be plagiarized.

Sheep, altogether now....

Now this is just plain childish Dave, now you've finally convinced me without a shadow of a doubt that you are just plain egotistical & nasty and are not be taken seriously at all! All you want to do is to fight with and haul insults at anyone who doesn't agree with your views, that's the only thing you've really proved to everyone here!

As for Paul saying that "he's no expert in Aramaic" although he is humble about his credentials, the fact is being a native speaker does indeed make him an expert. You on the other hand are no expert on the Aramaic language, not because you're incapable of learning Aramaic, but because you flat out refuse to understand core concepts of the language ON ITS OWN TERMS. Paul, Andrew and others have exposed your blatant ignorance many times, examples:

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Dave,

Firstly, "Burkate" is spelled with a Kaph, not a Khet! <!-- s:crazy: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/crazy.gif" alt=":crazy:" title="Crazy" /><!-- s:crazy: --> Secondly, you have no place telling anyone what Qnoma means if you can't even spell an Aramaic word properly!

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:FIRST OF ALL YOU HAVE SOME MAJOR CHUTZPAH TO GET ON THIS FORUM AND DICTATE TO PAUL AND MYSELF WHAT WORDS IN OUR NATIVE LANGUAGES CAN AND CANNOT MEAN...

...PROVE TO US YOU UNDERSTAND ARAMAIC. IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE ORIGINAL ARCHAIC DEFINTION OF QNOMA AND IF YOU REJECT THE TESTIMONY OF ONE OF THE WORLD'S LEADING ARAMAIC SCHOLARS THEN CONGRATULATIONS. YOUR LEARNING HAS EXCEEDED ALL OF US PUT TOGETHER.

...EXCUSE ME AGAIN, BUT DO YOU KNOW A SEMITIC IDIOM WHEN YOU READ IT? CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT BLOOD AND WINE AND OTHER THINGS ARE METAPHORIC IN SUCH A CASE? IS LIVING WATER A LITERAL REFERENCE OR IS IT SYMBOLIC OF ETERNAL LIFE? WHY THEN CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT THE BLOOD OF YHWH IS SYMBOLIC OF THE DIVNE NATURE THAT GIVES ETERNAL LIFE? YOU THINK THAT BECAUSE YOU CAN READ AND HIGHLIGHT A LITTLE ESTRANGELA THAT SUCH A THING PROVES TO US YOU ARE AN ARAMAIC SCHOLAR? IF YOU CAN'T GET THE IDIOMS DOWN, PLEASE DON'T COMPOUND IT WITH THE AUDACITY TO LECTURE US. YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT THE WINE AT THE LAST SUPPER IS LITERAL BLOOD, WHEN Y'SHUA SIMPLY SAYS, "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME."

IF WE FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC, THEN WHY HAVE YOU NOT PLUCKED OUT YOUR EYE WHEN YOU SINNED LAST? WHY DID YOU NOT HANDLE SNAKES AND DRINK DEADLY POISON AS IT SUGGESTS IN MARK 16? IT SEEMS TO ME YOU ARE SELECTIVE AT WHAT YOU SEE AS IDIOMATIC AND WHAT YOU DO NOT, AND THE FIRST MISTAKE ANY NOVICE AT ARAMAIC MAKES IS OVER-LITERALISM. GET BEYOND THE DICTIONARIES AND SEE THE TRUTH.

...NO, NO, NO AND NO, RESPECTIVELY. KNOW WHEN BLOOD IS LITERAL AND WHEN IT IS NOT AND MAYBE YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING WORTHWHILE TO SAY.

...YOU STILL SHOW THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT QNOMA IS. THERE IS ONLY ONE NAME, AND THAT IS YHWH, AND HE GAVE IT TO HIS SON. OTHERWISE, I GUESS YOUR BIBLE HAS THE PASSAGE OF JOHN 17:11 AND HEBREWS 1:3 TORN OUT.

From: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=212">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=212</a><!-- l -->

More proof:

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama Dave and all,

Obviously Akhan Paul is the true expert, but I would also like to weigh in here a bit. In my opinion, the use of "self" by any stretch linguistically as an equivalent of QNOMA would be disastrous.

In fact, such an equivalence invites a flexibility on the English side that leads to more confusion...

...I resist the SELF defintion because the references in Scripture do not support it, and it makes a huge difference to me doctrinally and personally...

...These are important concepts, but the use of SELF and the concept of SELF is Hellenistic, and we need to leave such masks behind us when looking at this original text.

In fact, the greatest problem with QNOMA as SELF, is that we could also say the PARSOPA is SELF. In other words, those characteristics that make me different from you, my individuality, is my SELF. PARSOPA's cognate in Greek is PROSOPON (person) and that is where the west got this whole gig wrong in the first place. And, if you read the history of how the West got this wrong, you will see how they first changed the meaning of the Greek word HYPOSTASIS (originally having a closer meaning to QNOMA) and then declared that HYPOSTASIS (and QNOMA by implication) was the same as PROSOPON/PERSON, leading to divine persons, and in my view, idolatry.

It may then seem hard to fit a word like QNOMA into our western frameworks, but we have to. We have to make a space and a distinction for it that our previous understandiings did not have available previously. We should not make the word fit us. Rather, we should have our minds and understanding fit the word...

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Dave,

...The piece you are missing is that this word, Qnoma, has an archaic meaning (pre-Hellenism) and another totally different meaning, post-Hellenism. The archaic meaning has been preserved by the Church of the East, while the altered (post-Hellenistic) meaning has been adopted by other groups such as the Syriac Orthodox Church...

...The bottom line is that, as any bi-lingual person can attest, sometimes there can be no 1-to-1 relationship between words in two different languages (especially when the languages are as different as Aramaic and Greek (or English) are.) This is an unfortunate consequence of the tower of Babel. But it's a fact we have to live with.

We have to leave Qnoma alone. I know both Aramaic and English, so trust me when I say that we don't have an English "Qnoma." The concept doesn't even exist, let alone a word.

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Akhi Dave, when dealing with Elohim-breathed sacred text, theology is the key to everything, and it arises from linguistic and etymological grounds. It is those original meanings that draw us to this text to begin with. As for emotion, I do not think either myself or Akhi Paul has exhibited one bit of that. The word means what it means.

...With all due respect Akhi Dave, you need to see this through Eastern eyes...

...We are dealing with terminology that has NO COGNATE IN GREEK. The only way to deal with QNOMA is to describe it at length. Or you can do what Paul did with MILTHA--list a bunch of terms and descriptions but leave it UNTRANSLATED.

In both cases, there is nothing that substitutes totally for it in any other language. And so, by your example, you are looking at the difficult and incomplete choices that Luke had to make to get his Gospel into Greek, and now, from the view of how that Greek was itself brought into English, are imposing a flexibility on the meaning that does not exist in Aramaic that began it...

...QNOMA is not abstract but an actual occurrence of a nature. It is not theory, but real living fact. By western standards that can mean "person", but from the viewpoint of the word QNOMA it does not...

...Therefore, it is not for anyone to look at how the Greek handled the word and think that is fine for English too. Instead, we need to look at the original Aramaic and translate IT AND ONLY IT DIRECTLY INTO THE BEST ENGLISH WORD OR DEFINTION. If there is no matching equivalent, which is true a lot of the time, then the task is define it, explain it, and do whatever is necessary for however long it takes, until the concept matches the original.

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Dave,

This has nothing to do with any club mentality or elitism. It has everything to do with the basic fundamentals of linguistics. It is very naive to suggest that every word in Aramaic must have a direct cognate in every other language that has ever existed, including English, Eskimo or Swahili for that matter!

...There is no English cognate for Qnoma, either linguistically or conceptually, no matter how badly we think there should be. The words of the world's leading Aramaic scholar at Oxford University are nonsense to you? Well, I'm afraid to say that if I had quoted a Church of the East scholar, you would probably have charged that he was theologically biased and would have summarily dismissed his testimony outright!

Akhi Dave, with all due respect, I strongly suspect that you are a monolingual person. No one who can effectively communicate in more than one language would ever suggest that there must be direct cognates in two different languages 100% of the time, all the time. That is nonsensical. Think about it...

The fact remains that we have no English cognate to Qnoma - never was one. We can make one, though. But we don't have one right now...

From: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=659">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=659</a><!-- l -->

and:

Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhi Dave,

gbausc Wrote:Please excuse me for seeming obtuse, but do we know that BAR BAHLULE is giving a meaning that was current in Yeshua's time?

The very fact that some Greek manuscripts of Mark contain the "rope" meaning, should be enough to tell you that "Gamla" meant the same thing in Meshikha's time that in did in Moshe bar-Kepha's time.

bar-Bahlul, bishop of the Church of the East, live in the 9th-10 centuries. He quoted Moshe bar-Kepha, who lived in the 8th-9th centuries. If Moshe bar-Kepha gave this definition in his lexical work (now extant), during the 9th century, it must have been an established meaning for many centuries before he was around. Moshe bar-Kepha didn't make up the meaning.

...You seem to me to be narrowing the criteria that will satisfy you to only those witnesses directly related to the primary sources. That, in my opinion, is a rather dangerous approach to lexical study. There are many words the are only used once in the NT. If we were to rely on the NT alone, we would not know what that word meant.

Yes, Khawla is used in the NT to mean "rope." It is also used in Acts, where the Greek translator misread and translated it as "pains." Much in the same way most Greek translators misread Gamla and translated "camel" instead of "rope". You are willing to convict the former and forgive the latter, based on what seems to me to be your own preference for contextual meaning.

Does "camel" work in the passage? Sure, as would "elephant" or even "pig". But why on earth would we prefer "camel" to "rope" when referring to a needle?

Both meanings are equally impossible through a needle. I've never seen a needle eye that you could thread a rope used to bind bridges and ships. That's one hell of a needle. I don't know how you consider that a possibility. You could grind up camel flesh into patties and push them through that way, about as easily as you could do the thick rope thread-by-thread.

But alas, it appears your mind is made up and it's really not that important of a topic, except for the fact that in either case, it proves the NT was written in Aramaic and not Greek, otherwise you wouldn't have some manuscripts of Greek Mark containing the "rope" meaning.

Andrew Gabriel Roth Wrote:Shlama to all and you Akhi David--

For the record, I agree with Shamasha Paul and also translate this instance of GAMLA as "heavy rope". I have been astonished as well David at how narrow you have been in assessing the objective evidence. The fact is, in addition to all the reasons Shamasha Paul stated, we do NOT use Greek as our guide nor is it the case that "heavy rope" doesn't work contextually.

...I know you can read this in the Aramaic as easily as we can, and this whole "it doesn't matter how fluent these others are I am right" tactic is not worthy of you my friend.

Staying on point here, a heavy rope CAN fit through a literal needle's eye IF, and only IF it is unraveled into the thinnest possible strands. That unravelling is a clear visual metaphor for the rich man "unravelling his fortune". I don't need to tell you how key a concept unravelling is in Aramaic though to "disslolving/destroying". This is true, for example, in talking about divorce as the unmaking/unravelling marraige. Is it easy? NO. But Y'shua's point is that in the real world of the everyday man (which is why he talks in parables of mustard seeds, sowing, fishing, etc) is that it can be done if the commitment is strong enough.

I think this is ironclad. "heavy rope" fits not only Y'shua's speech patterns but also the exact context of the actual event in the Gospels. Instead, what we have seen from you is that the Greek disagrees and my point back is, again, who cares about the Greek? Aramaic Primacy is NOT CONCERNED with what the LATER GREEK redactors did. If I were you I would not be so quick to dismiss the ancient Semitic traditons that Shamasha Paul refers to, nor would I devalue Paul's scholarship, my scholarship and yes, not even Lamsa's. The fact is Lamsa got this one right.

And finaly, you crossed the line with personal attacks. I think you owe Stephen Silver an apology.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1601&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1601&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30</a><!-- l -->

Also you are no expert on the Aramaic language by your own admission:

gbausc Wrote:Akha Paul,

Thankyou for correcting my spelling; I hate incorrect spelling in any language; I admit I am not an expert in Aramaic; I am quite good at NT Greek and French; Hebrew to a lesser extent.

From: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=212">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=212</a><!-- l -->

and:

gbausc Wrote:Shlama Akhi Paul,

Exactly what is a "Casus Pendens" ? I gather from Gesenius Hebrew Grammar that it involves a participle.

It seems that your subject always includes the main verb and that the non verbal predicate is usually a predicate nominative, renaming the subject in the previous category which you call casus pendens.

Please clarify. I am very interested in your Semitic syntax idea being used by The Greek. It seems to be valid. I just want to be sure of the grammatical argument involved.

From: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=652">viewtopic.php?f=25&t=652</a><!-- l -->

Your attitude hasn't changed since you first started posting here. Going through your various posts on this forum has lead me to agree with Andrew's statement in his rebuttal that you are actually not qualified to translate the Peshitta.
Shalom, Shlama, Salaam & Yiasou.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)