Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Liberalism of George Lamsa
Personally I greatly honor George Lamsa as great scientist but his liberality seems to
me too excessive. Although I often refer to Lamsa for excellent modern translations.
For example Peter 4:1 word 'dmaeeth'.

Not sure how to make Estrangelo fonts look right although I put everything into Control panel/Fonts.

1. Dr. John W. Etheridge's English Peshitta translation
Peter 4:1 - If then the Meshiha hath suffered for you in the flesh, be you also armed in it with the same mind; for every one who dieth in his body hath ceased from all sins,

2.Dr. George Lamsa's English Peshitta translation
Peter 4:1 - FORASMUCH then as Christ has suffered for you in the flesh, arm yourselves also with this very thought; he who subdues his body ceases from all sin;

3. King James Version (KJV)
1Peter 4:1 - Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Our modern Christianity life reflects what they read.My belief that not only excessive but normal liberalism is a problem in society.
We are dead for sin, we are dead through the body of Christ etc. are usual NT terms.
Just wonder why to convert "dying" into "subduing".
Lamsa's translation is the only one that makes sense.

As a native speaker he understood the aramaic text more intimately than did Etheridge. Lamsa did not "convert" anything....

The Greek text and the KJV translation is nonsense. Suffering does not lead to sinlessness.

The Etheridge version is trivial. Sinning does stop after death.

Lamsa's translation suggests that we need to subdue out sinful human nature.

The Scriptures are clear, that we, The Body of Christ, are freed from sin, having died with Christ, with The Law, thus no longer binding upon us, since we have died already. We are free from the law of sin and death, having already passed from death unto Life...for the Life that we now live is not ours, but Christ who is our Life, lives in and through us.

The Body of Christ does not sin...It is sinless and Holy. And those who are joined/fused with Christ is ONE Spirit, with Him, as the Scriptures teach.

No religious exercise will help or add to one inch of doing the work that Christ has already finished on our behalf.

Ehthridge has the correct reading...and "in His body" is talking about Christ, not our own self...we were put to death IN Christ...we were buried when Christ was buried, and we rose to New Life, when He rose...We are His Body, and He is our Life.

Keep studying...
No matter how great my faith, my sinful human nature is still with me which I try to subdue.

Like the Apostle Paul, the things I should not do I still do.

Lamsa's translation is clearly correct and meaningful.

I'm sorry to offend any sinless Christians who read this....

If you are trying to subdue your dead flesh...then you are doomed to failure. Which you must know by now. Christ lived a Life that we could not, and to do and finish a work, which we could not, nor cannot.

He is The New Man, who lives His Life in and through us. Our old man has been put to death, and is no longer us, we being transfered from darkness into Light.

According to God, we are to consider ourself to be dead to and freed from the power of sin, which is not in God's Kingdom within us...we are not still alive to it, we have been freed from and have died to its power, not still being a slave to it.

We died with Christ, was buried with Him, and was raised to Life with Him...we are right now seated with Him in the Heavens according to what God says. If we have His Holy Spirit dwelling within us, we are a NEW Creation, the old creation has passed away.

The Apostle Paul understood who it was that was the sinner...and it was not The Saint, whom He and all those who have been born again was/are.

"But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me." Romans 7:20

Those whom Christ has set free, is free indeed...Rejoyce!
If you have some time Otto, show how it can be, that the Aramaic word 'dmaeeth, can mean "subdue". Not interpretation, but translation please. And also, what's the Aramaic word, which means "Subdue".

Religion likes to make us believe that we are still a slave to sin, and that it has some authority over us, but God has declared us righteous, by the imputed righteousness of His Son, who is our Life.
Here is a literal translation from the Khabouris Manuscript of Peter 4:1

?Therefore, if M?shikah has suffered in your place in the flesh, then you also arm yourselves with this conception. For, all who have died in His body, have ceased from all sins,??

This agrees with Romans 4:15, Romans 6:7, Romans 6:11, Romans 7:4, Romans 7:6, Colosians 2:20, & Colosians 3:33.

Glory to God.
my 2 cts on the subject <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Lamsa was too liberal. If he simply did not agree with something, he translated it otherwise. Too many examples of it.

The writing above Yeshu's head. Was it a table / tablet? Well, a stone tablet! (According to Lamsa).

WHy so? Because only John mentions this particular word (luwha), for which also the stone tablets (10 commandments) and other texts (2 Corinthians 3:3) are used. So, luwha only was associated with stone tables.

But the word stone (kipa) is _not_ existing in John 19:19.

The luwha, in that verse _could_ have been from wood (plank) but still; Lamsa concludes that the writing must have been written in stone by Pilatos.
Quote:"Pilate also wrote on a stone tablet, and placed it on his cross. And the writing was, THIS IS ..."

I'm afraid that the choice made by Lamsa (John 19:19), has nothing to do with his Aramaic nativity.
He often changes the historical meaning and context of something.

The other thing often mentioned here, is that Lamsa did not believe in evil spirits. So, when somebody was posessed, he/she was just ill/crazy, not 'posessed' (e.g.) . Well, this could have been true, but 2000 years after somebody wrote it down, why reinterpret the original writing? (Lamsa)
Quote:The people answered, saying, You are crazy; who wants to kill you?

Because IF 'being posessed' was Aramaic idiom for being ill/crazy, why did Yeshu in one row, mention 'cast out the demons, heal the sick?'
(Matthew 10:8)

Now they just take/administer prozac to take care of the demons, er, mental illness. Much easier than having The Holy Spirit's power to do that work, and works so much better. Not.

So, it was mental illness that Jesus sent the hundreds of demons out of the man and into the flock of pigs that day? That would have taken a whole bottle of prozac back then. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Hi ThirdWoe,

I know somebody who really could heal such people, having a multiple personality disorder e.g., something which they defenitely would call ' posessed '. The MPD often is introduced because of selfdefence and our brain might create new personalities to protect itself.

However, that might be true. I think whether or not real demons (as with the flock as you mentioned) were involved or mental illness was involved, Jeshu cured them both. There is no reason to change the translation as Lamsa did.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)