11-28-2012, 04:42 PM
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.