Translation of Rom 5:16; 7:25; and Heb 7:18-19

[Keith]

Paul,

Could I get a translation on the following three verses, Romans 5:16; 7:25; and Hebrews 7:18-19? The NASB translates these verses with the "old English" phrase "on the other hand" (or a phrase similar). Obviously this phrase would hold no significance to the Semitic mind since the earliest known reference is 1638 A.D. Obviously a paraphrased Bible (like the NIV) could properly translate a Semitic phrase with an "old English" phrase like this but NOT a literal translation like the NASB. What is the Aramaic original of these verses?

By the way, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over debating an atheist like the one I have read about here lately. My former brother-in-law (a member of Mensa) was an atheist who subscribed to Madelyn Murray's beliefs and actually was a protoge' of hers. My interaction with him and his friends revealed something that I'll never forget. Some atheists are bright, most are not, but the overwhelming majority have never had a single original thought or argument which I felt was too difficult to answer. Their arguments, for the most part are rooted in 18th century rationalism which have been argued and answered thousands of times. One of the issues I NEVER let happen was to let them define my terms and I never trusted their exegesis of any passage they argued. If I can help let me know. I also noticed that many of these guys have the answers to the world's problems yet struggle with solving their own personal problems (i.e. relationships, job security, ego, etc.). They will, deceptively, try to get you to believe they are an expert in the field in which they argue. Ask for proof of credentials, I doubt many have completed any secondary work.

In Christ,
Keith

[Paul Younan]

Paul,

Could I get a translation on the following three verses, Romans 5:16; 7:25; and Hebrews 7:18-19? The NASB translates these verses with the "old English" phrase "on the other hand" (or a phrase similar). Obviously this phrase would hold no significance to the Semitic mind since the earliest known reference is 1638 A.D. Obviously a paraphrased Bible (like the NIV) could properly translate a Semitic phrase with an "old English" phrase like this but NOT a literal translation like the NASB. What is the Aramaic original of these verses?

Shlama Akhi, no prob here are the verses:

Not according to the offense of one, was the gift. For the judgement which was from one (offense) resulted in condemnation, but the gift from many sins resulted in righteousness.

I thank God through our Lord Yeshua Meshikha. Now, therefore, in my mind I am a servant of the law of God, but in my flesh I am a servant of the law of sin.

Now the change that happened to the first commandment was because of its lack of power and because there was no benefit in it. For the law did not perfect anything, but for its sake a hope that is greater than it entered by which we are drawn near to God.

By the way, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over debating an atheist like the one I have read about here lately. My former brother-in-law (a member of Mensa) was an atheist who subscribed to Madelyn Murray's beliefs and actually was a protoge' of hers. My interaction with him and his friends revealed something that I'll never forget. Some atheists are bright, most are not, but the overwhelming majority have never had a single original thought or argument which I felt was too difficult to answer. Their arguments, for the most part are rooted in 18th century rationalism which have been argued and answered thousands of times. One of the issues I NEVER let happen was to let them define my terms and I never trusted their exegesis of any passage they argued. If I can help let me know. I also noticed that many of these guys have the answers to the world's problems yet struggle with solving their own personal problems (i.e. relationships, job security, ego, etc.). They will, deceptively, try to get you to believe they are an expert in the field in which they argue. Ask for proof of credentials, I doubt many have completed any secondary work.

In Christ,
Keith

I'm not in the least bit concerned, Akhi. I have only one term - that he demonstrate that whatever contradictions he thinks are in the Greek-based bibles (and there are many), also happen to be in the Aramaic bible.

I have no intention or desire to rehash dumb arguments that have already been addressed thousands of times over the centuries. He has a specific task at hand - one for which he'd better be prepared. I hope he's reading this and decides to take me up on my challenge.

We have a knack here for exposing people for what they really know. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="" title="Wink" /><!-- s -->

[drmlanc]

Conder is not just your typical atheist. He "preys" on Christians and Jews alike (even a Rabbi who had a website venerating Tanakh now has a big sign blaspheming it, on the front page, after debating him) and hast cost thefaith of THOUSANDS.

It would be good to see what he has to say and how Paul will deal with it. It would be a great learning experience for me too.

I "mini-debated" one of his "disciples" and I was not impressed. They seem to pick out verses that they find morally apprehensible, and attack thefaith on that. Even if God ordered us to rape and kill our neighbours, does that mean He is not God? And of course, part of their tactics is teh deception of similarities of our faith to paganism, that Paul has just discussed.

And of course, his crusade started when disillusioned by Greek contradictions. Hopefully Paul can convince him of Aramaic primacy and instill within him love of thePeshitta.