Setting the record straight

[Christina]

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 --> <!-- sarcasm: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sarcasm.gif" alt="arcasm:" title="Sarcasm" /><!-- sarcasm: -->

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? <!-- stern: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/stern.gif" alt="tern:" title="Stern" /><!-- stern: -->

I can't believe much of what I am reading here in the several responses to my post.
Paul wrote:

"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:

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:

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:

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: -->

Christine writes:

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.

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: -->

And:

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.

And Andrew :

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:

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

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 .

"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:

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 -->

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?

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?

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

-KJV

Ga 4:16

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

-KJV

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

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