Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why doesnt the AENT use the Crawford Aramaic?
Sorry, this will be my last question on here and only thought of this once I saw a few and remembered another few posts from before. I remember the Crawford was supported by Dave B. so well that I was surprised Mr. Roth wouldnt use it. I remember I asked him once but cant remember what he said. Im still using my AENT to "correct" my NKJV do I can still read a normal bible but make note of the Aramaic primacisms, if you will. I remember Rev. 9:11, the Crawford uses the word "in Aramaic" but the Harklean uses the words "in Greek".

Isnt that a great pointer to an original, or am I just too simple to understand the complexity behind Revelation and its supposed origins?
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear Elohim, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc.12:13
Does G. Roth answer questions regarding EANT here?

As for the crawford issue.
I believe that history and tradition especially stasis also applies to Aramaic Bible-translators.

Read this thread.
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2640</a><!-- l -->

The crawford codex is a very young find and nearly no scientists did research on it.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)