Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who would name the child according to custom?
#31
whoops news flash!

"She shall give birth to a son, and thou shalt call his name JESHU;"
John Wesley Etheridge


Now that's 3 translators that have translated this as the angel talking to Joseph and telling him that he would name the child.

Now come on. Are you gonna tell me that this person also didn't know what he was talking about?

And he translated it the same way by saying she named him. Now how are all 3 of these guys translating it the same way and your not?

I know you brushed off Murdock, but he spent considerable time going about looking at manuscripts and such, just as Lamsa did. I'm sure they both did some textual criticism amongst the manuscripts, as did Wesley.

The mistake is there. All three of them point it out, exact.

I wasn't even using another language against ya, such as your greek friends try to, I only speak english. I just took what was available from other translators and let their actions speak. I bet if I look around I can find another.
Reply
#32
Dave you should show a little more respect to your brothers and not say that Paul has a "mediocre knowledge of the language"

What do degrees and such matter? Did Matthew hold a degree in Biblical studies or in foreign languages?

If two extremely educated Rabbis are dicided on an issue, and a simple peasant sides with the right one. Is the peasant wrong and the wrong Rabbi right?

Show a little more respect to a man who gives you free translations from the Word of God.
Reply
#33
I'm not a respector of persons.

wasn't that one the meanings of Hypocrite?

Don't get me wrong, I like who Paul is, I think he does a major service to showing the corrections that are prevalent in the Peshitta, and so do you, But I won't side with him or you or anyone else when that person is wrong about something. I will follow the Spirit of Truth. I appreciate my blood bought salvation first and the indwelling Spirits leading.

In fact, let me do another approach here. Since Greek is a translation of a semetic language, then these truths should somewhere come down to those translations also, or at least be in a footnote.

Let's see what we find:

AV: the husband of Mary
NKJV: the husband of Mary
Rotherham: the husband of Mary
RWebster: the husband of Mary
YLT: the husband of Mary
ASV: the husband of Mary
Douay: the husband of Mary

no footnotes on any of them.

What about the Angel talking to Joseph:

AV: thou shalt call his name
NKJV: thou shall call His name
Rotherham thou shalt call his name
RWebster: thou shalt call his name
YLT: thou shalt call his name
ASV: thou shalt call his name
Douay: thou shalt call his name

again, no footnotes

what about a really new translation:

ESV: the husband of Mary,... you shall call his name

again no footnotes

Let's take it even farther, Old Syriac:

Jan Wilsons translation: S, C you shall call his name

and the kicker, drumroll please,....

Jan Wilsons :

S Jacob begat Joseph, the Joseph to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin
C Jacob begat Joseph, he to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin

Now that is amazing. The Old Syriac spelled it out completely. Much farther than any translation has. It leaves nothing to dought within it, over this. Simply amazing.

Now I couldn't find it anywhere so far. So, it's still ok to go with the theory?

You guys figure it out. I think it's very clear here what I've shown. Now harp on me for not knowing aramaic, crack on me, blah blah blah, like a kid,..so what. I don't need to learn it to know any better. I'm quite resourcefull as it is, and I'm definetely not beyond searching to find the truth.

If Paul would have been right, I would have backed him 110%, same way with you, and I would have the truths and the resources to back up what I say in standing beside you, but not in this case, I won't be at agreement with something that is wrong.
Reply
#34
Dave Wrote:"She shall give birth to a son,
and thou shalt call his name JESHU;"
John Wesley Etheridge

Now that's 3 translators that have translated this
as the angel talking to Joseph and telling him that
he would name the child.

Now come on. Are you gonna tell me that this
person also didn't know what he was talking about?

And he translated it the same way by saying
she named him. Now how are all 3 of these guys
translating it the same way and your not?

Dave,

Did you check the lexical entries I provided?

I don't know and really don't care why those 3
translators translated the way they did - perhaps
some were influenced by the Greek - maybe they
made an honest mistake - who cares? In the case of
2 of them, they were not speakers of the language.

All you have to do is email any professor in Aramaic
and ask them about [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0rqt [/font]-
don't take my word for it. Buy Thackston's grammar
from amazon.com - he has the lessons pertinent to
our discussion. Also, consult the lexicon created
by Dr. Kiraz that is hosted on this site with his
permission (like I asked you to.)

It can be translated in either the 2nd-person masculine
or 3rd-person masculine. That's the bottom line.

I don't care if 100 translators chose the wrong meaning.
I speak the language everyday - since I learned to speak
as a baby. Aramaic is the first language I learned.

I'm not the only translator who translated the verb
in the 3rd-person feminine. The Way International as
well as others (who translated into both modern Aramaic,
Arabic and Hebrew) translated it that way, too. Here
is a scan from the Way International's translation:

[Image: mattai1.jpg]

Also, consult Jan Magiera's (LWM) translation here:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/matti.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/matti.pdf</a><!-- m -->
(this aligns 5 major translations)

If you can't handle it - that's your problem.
I have no more to say on this topic.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#35
Dave,

I must thank you, though. You found an incredible mistranslation as well as a contradiction in the Greek New Testament.

You see, they (like 3 translators that you noticed) missed the possibility that "Taqra" can be translated in the 3rd-person feminine.

There you have it! You discovered a major mistranslation in the Greek - a very simple one to make!

Akhi Chris, add this to your collection in your upcoming article!

For now, I'm adding it to both the "Mistranslations" and well as the "Contradictions" forum - with credit to Akhan Dave, of course! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#36
heh
Reply
#37
the genealogy has always been a major problem for years.

I will give in on the naming of the child in this case, why? Cause, the first person they asked who John's name was, was Elizabeth, then John. So there is a possibility of the Peshitta being correct in this instance, of which it notes, where others don't.

So, in those regards, You have my humblest apology Paul, If I offended you, I'm sorry. I do admire your ability, and you are a fighter.

Same way with you Chris, although I tried to keep you at bay through this, if I offended you, you have my humblest apology, I'm sorry.

That don't mean I'm finished with the Joseph father thing.
Reply
#38
There you go Dave.

You've got two posts to your credit in the
"Mistranslations" and the "Contradictions" forum.

See, you found something supporting Aramaic
primacy and you weren't even trying. <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: -->

This is a beee-yut! <!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#39
I don't know if you guys wanna deal with me and my discoveries lol
Reply
#40
Dave Wrote:I don't know if you guys wanna deal with me and my discoveries lol

Dave,

You're a pain - but all the headache you've
given me for the past 2 days has just been
made worth it.

This discovery is a wonderful thing!

Besides, you being in the military and all,
I have to show my respect. All is forgiven, of
course - and I'll try to deal with your incessant
rambling a little more patiently.
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#41
Likewise Paul <!-- sBig Grin --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="Big Grin" title="Happy" /><!-- sBig Grin -->

I've been through some tramatic things over the last 17 years. I think that hardens a person quite a bit inside, sure does toughen them up.

I don't mean to be argumentive with you or anyone, honestly. I'll try not to so provocative towards you and your friends on here.
Reply
#42
Yes AKhi Paul I surely shall! That definitely goes in the contradiction one I'm doing now (poetry and idioms ones are done pretty much), and is even a candidate for "semi-split words part 2"!

The Lord can always turn bad into good <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)