Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
AENT Errors
#16
Luc Lefebvre Wrote:
Burning one Wrote:it isn't about the reckoning of good or evil, but about following the way to LIFE.
i.e. chayim b'Moshiach, nachon? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> Todah achi.

Chen, chen.

Luc Lefebvre Wrote:So what are your thoughts on Roth's translation of Matthew 10:38 then?


"staff" is simply unwarranted as a translation. i don't intend to be harsh in any way, but it just is not a viable choice, if we're completely honest with the language. and since we're dealing with HOLY WRIT here, we have no choice but to be as unbiased as possible and render as closely as we can by text and context. the word is "his cross," and should be translated as such.

the only way one could reach "his staff" would be to come from a Greek primacy place, where the word *could* have that meaning. i don't know any other reason to translate it as "his staff" other than it being a carry-over from the Greek idea of "staff / stake / cross." i've lived in the Messianic / Hebrew-Roots / Netzari community since 1998, and in my earilest memories as a newbie there, before anyone in that movement was ever really talking "Peshitta/Aramaic Primacy," there were those who opted for the "staff" translation in that particular passage based on the Greek allowance. so i personally think it is a carry-over from his pre-Peshitta days. though that is merely my own assumption. only he could answer that, and i'm sure he would be happy to speak to it if addressed, as he was always receptive to textual questions/corrections when i offered them.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#17
I wish Roth was still frequently posting on here. Seeing what he thought about our ideas to make his New Testament translation better would be very useful.
Reply
#18
Burning one Wrote:the word is "his cross," and should be translated as such.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you. I have not found sufficient evidence or justification for anything otherwise. I like your theory about why he may have it in there though.

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I wish Roth was still frequently posting on here. Seeing what he thought about our ideas to make his New Testament translation better would be very useful.
You can still reach him easily by e-mail or on his own network (One Faith One People). But I intend to put together a collection of things to submit to him anyway, which will include a summary of things based on these kinds of discussions. So, it will eventually get there <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply
#19
I haven't been able to read individual emails on my laptop for a month. <!-- s:angry: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif" alt=":angry:" title="Angry" /><!-- s:angry: --> I've had too many issues with this computer...
Reply
#20
Shlama,


you should be able to at least pass on the info to Baruch so that Andrew will see it at some point.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#21
I did send Andrew an email on a computer at my school. Hopefully he'll respond positively.
Reply
#22
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I did send Andrew an email on a computer at my school. Hopefully he'll respond positively.


i'm sure you won't be disappointed. it has been some time since our last conversing over textual issues, but he was always receptive to the input.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#23
Even if I disagree with him, he does seem very sincere about his beliefs. I respect that about him. I know a lot of people give him a bad rap for using Paul Younan's Interlinear and James Murdock's translation, but I think he did a fine job at making it his own.
Reply
#24
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I know a lot of people give him a bad rap for using Paul Younan's Interlinear and James Murdock's translation, but I think he did a fine job at making it his own.

It ain't that he used Younan's and Murdock's translations as base texts to make a revised version, it is that he said that he did not use them as a base text and only consulted them as he made a brand new word for word translation. Well the evidence shows that he only but used Younan's and Murdock's translations as base texts revising them here and there, except the book of Galatians (in which it would seem that he heavily revised it to the point that it is defiantly his own).

And it seems as if he used a word processor to change "LORD" and "Lord" to "Master YHWH" and God over to "Elohim" - being he has Elohim where Murdock rendered MarYah to GOD, and he has "Master YHWH" in places that Murdock has Lord for "mara" (i.e.-"lord"). If Roth had done a word for word translation as he claims he would have caught where Murdock rendered "MarYah" as "GOD" and he would of put "Master YHWH" instead, and he would have understood in the other instances that he should of put "Lord" instead of "Master YHWH" - unlike a word processor which can not cross reference the PeshittA Text.

Now I am not saying, besides the obvious mistakes, that Roth did not accomplished a good feat. But as for the above accusations about Roth lying about check for yourself. Besides the 4 PDFs listed below you can listen to any of Roth's videos about his version and see that he clearly lays claim that he only refered to Younan's and Murdock's translations or just read his Introduction to the AENT:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/114743718/A-Roth-s-Misversions">http://www.scribd.com/doc/114743718/A-R ... isversions</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/114743722/b-Proof-AENT-is-an-Act-of-Plagiarism-by-Roth#">http://www.scribd.com/doc/114743722/b-P ... m-by-Roth#</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/114743724/c-Roth-Plagerised-Younan">http://www.scribd.com/doc/114743724/c-R ... sed-Younan</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/114743728/d-Plagerisim-by-Roth-101">http://www.scribd.com/doc/114743728/d-P ... y-Roth-101</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#25
We really don't need to revisit this whole supposed "plagiarism". When I read the AENT introduction I get the impression that he used them as base texts and cross checked the Aramaic to make any updates he saw fit. When I look at the actual text I can see where he missed cross checking the Aramaic, and I also see evidence of how he actually did not use a simple word processor replacement as is typical of Sacred Name Bibles (otherwise some words would not be as they were). Of course, you would need to own an AENT and have read the entire thing to find all of these instances, and also to see that some of your copying and pasting without referencing from this forum to form this document is actually now incorrect in subsequent editions.

But this thread is about AENT errors. Not the use of other people's public domain texts, nor of theology. Let's stick to discussing the Aramaic and it's translation as presented in this volume's current printing.

ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:Even if I disagree with him, he does seem very sincere about his beliefs. I respect that about him.
Yeah, I don't always agree with him either, but from conversing with him and such I have always gotten the impression of both humility and sincerity. Which, sad to say, is somewhat difficult to find amongst those claiming to be "nazarene/netzari/natsari/natzraya" etc.
Reply
#26
I've looked through his translation of Galatians and I don't really see any problems with it. It seems like it is very objective. The only problem I see is his interpretation! Does anyone else have any translational errors or any theological bias in the translation? I don't seem to be getting that much of an answer LOL.
Reply
#27
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I've looked through his translation of Galatians and I don't really see any problems with it. It seems like it is very objective. The only problem I see is his interpretation! Does anyone else have any translational errors or any theological bias in the translation? I don't seem to be getting that much of an answer LOL.
Check your PM's. But, as far as Galatians goes, there are a couple of other things off the top of my head. One I mentioned to you in another thread, Galatians 1:4. In the AENT it read,

"Who gave his nefesh (soul, self) so our sins that are delivered from this world (that is) evil, as (according to) the will of Elohim our Father"

But it should read,

"who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from this evil world, according to the will of Aloha our Father: (Ethridge)

Also, a few verses earlier, in Galatians 1:1 it reads "from the house of the dead" when it should simply be "from among the dead".

A final one I've been looking at that was updated from the 3rd edition onward but that I think the 1st and 2nd edition render it better is Acts 2:36 - Neda Kula Beth Israel d'Marya w'Meshikha Awdeh Alaha l'Hana Yeshua = literally "Let be known to all the house of Israel ... That MARYA and Messiah has God made this Yeshua..." In AENT due to the (apparant) strange reading (when we accept MARYA to mean Lord Yah) Roth made the passage to say something along the lines of "Master YHWH has made this Y'shua to be both Elohim and Mashiyach". But I think he got his verbs and subjects confused. I talked to Paul about this one and the theology behind it (think parsopa VS qnoma), and I'm going to write up something to submit to Roth.
Reply
#28
I always found Acts 2:36 to be a strange Peshitta reading. Anyway, thanks for the PM and giving me more info! But really, a lot of people have talked bad about his translation of Galatians by saying that he essentially twisted it to say what he wanted it to say. I really don't see that at all. I know there is another place, I believe RAT mentioned it again, where he didn't correct Murdock's translation of "MarYah" in one place (Murdock translated it God, so Roth puts it as Elohim, rather than Master YHWH).
Reply
#29
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I always found Acts 2:36 to be a strange Peshitta reading. Anyway, thanks for the PM and giving me more info! But really, a lot of people have talked bad about his translation of Galatians by saying that he essentially twisted it to say what he wanted it to say. I really don't see that at all. I know there is another place, I believe RAT mentioned it again, where he didn't correct Murdock's translation of "MarYah" in one place (Murdock translated it God, so Roth puts it as Elohim, rather than Master YHWH).
I did too until Paul explained it to me (if you're interested in talking theology about this one, let me know). Anyway, with Galatians, I won't say it doesn't have bias, but every translation has bias. You are always going to have to choose whose bias you want when you purchase a translation, and a literal translation will always have less of whatever bias that ends up being. I agree though that Galatians is not twisted. He made certain translation choices, but nothing that blatantly paraphrases and thus twists the text from what the original wording really says. It's not like the NWT or some of the whacko Sacred Name Bibles which often do it without admitting it. In the few places that Roth adds or changes a word, it's put in brackets and explained in footnotes so you have a chance to either agree or disagree with him. But he is always honest in those regards.
Reply
#30
I agree. He is an honest translator. I would be interested in you sending me a PM about Acts 2:36! Bauscher, while his translation is more free, still did a very good job. I've only seen a couple of times where he delves into interpretation and bias. I still prefer Roth's as a literal translation (I love how it reads).
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)