Aent

[Eddie_T]

Rik Wadge is on this program discussing the Aramaic English New Testament which he uses in his church. You can move about within the two hour talk show if you don't want the whole thing. God's Learning Channel :: Watch

[RedJeepXJ]

here is another interesting religious link about the only real religion
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

so what was the point of this post other then pushing a religion? is there something of note or just the standard 2 hour long religious brainwashing/church

[blucher]

Religion / Philosophy > Aent

Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ

here is another interesting religious link about the only real religion
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

so what was the point of this post other then pushing a religion? is there something of note or just the standard 2 hour long religious brainwashing/church

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ

so what was the point of this post other then pushing a religion? is there something of note or just the standard 2 hour long religious brainwashing/church

You may never know?

[Hillman]

I am intrigued by an Aramaic NT translated into English. While it has merits, based in the language of Jesus, I need to study it more.

It is my understanding that the original texts were not in Aramaic therefore to attain an Aramaic rendering one would have to use Greek to translate back to Aramaic and then from Aramaic to English.

While I remain intrigued and certain nuances are tickled......does the AENT change the message or the messenger?

[blucher]

does the AENT change the message or the messenger?

depends on the static

[Hillman]

Originally Posted by blucher

depends on the static

Is that an answer or a slander? Either of which will need to be explained intellectually and not electronically....sin "cut and paste".

If possible.

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by Hillman

I am intrigued by an Aramaic NT translated into English. While it has merits, based in the language of Jesus, I need to study it more.

It is my understanding that the original texts were not in Aramaic therefore to attain an Aramaic rendering one would have to use Greek to translate back to Aramaic and then from Aramaic to English.

While I remain intrigued and certain nuances are tickled......does the AENT change the message or the messenger?

The AENT is not from the Greek, here's a review from the Amazon site that explains:

A MUST-HAVE book for Bible Scholars, May 3, 2009
By
Otto G. Raabe "Prof. Otto G. Raabe" (Davis, CA USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Aramaic English New Testament 4th Ed. (Hebrew Letters) (Hardcover)
Wow! I am delighted and overwhelmed to have a copy of Andrew Roth's ARAMAIC ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT, Netzari Press, 2008. This is the Aramaic New Testament book for true scholars! I am well familiar with the topic of this book since I have been studying the Aramaic New Testament literature since I first met the late Aramaic Scholar and Bible translator, George Lamsa, about forty years ago.

Andrew Roth has distilled the original Aramaic New Testament 22 books plus the Western five additional books into a perfectly balanced English translation that maintains the Semitic foundations without confusing the reader. For his Aramaic text in Estrangela Midyat font, Roth used the ancient Khabouris manuscript of the 22 books of the Aramaic New Testament, along with the 1905-1920 Edition of the Syriac New Testament published by the British and Foreign Bible Society. For his English text Roth started with and edited two excellent public domain translations, the original Aramaic New Testament Interlinear by Paul Younan and the translation of the Syriac New Testament western version by James Murdock. This functional use of existing translations is clearly explained in the book's Introduction.

Roth carefully reviewed and contrasted the Aramaic text with the English text and deftly made editorial changes and revisions that incorporated his rational interpretation of the underlying Aramaic text and Semitic culture. Roth's numerous footnotes (over 1,500) clearly explain these issues in helpful detail. He presents the English text and original Aramaic text side-by-side for easy comparison. Aramaic scholars can readily compare the English text to the corresponding Aramaic text. Roth's numerous footnotes clearly explain the important issues associated with his editorial changes in helpful detail.

The Appendix is an intellectual gold mine of 82 separate relevant topics including: a survey of Aramaic Bible primacist scholarship, eighteen New testament misconceptions, Torah in the renewed covenant, when was the crucifixion, when was the resurrection, and Y'shua in the Talmud.

I have recently seen some depressingly negative reviews of Roth's book which I believe were related to the reviewers' failure to understand Roth's methodology which is clearly explained in his book's Introduction section. Instead of writing yet another translation of the Aramaic New Testament, Roth has verified, improved, and elucidated the text using two existing public domain versions.

Prof. Otto G. Raabe
Davis, California USA

[blucher]

Is that an answer or a slander?

I don't think the messenger can ever be a constant let alone a reliable part of an equation..

[Hillman]

Originally Posted by blucher

I don't think the messenger can ever be a constant let alone a reliable part of an equation..

I now understand all of the perceived inappropriate pics. They didn't make sense at the time.

It's a matter of a personal definition of the messenger and the message. I identify with Christ as the messenger, and The Good News as the message....both without doubt or reservation.

We disagree...no biggie.