The original text.

[AllforJesustheLord]

Well we can probably understand YeHuSHua mainly spoke Aramaic which is the street language of Hebrew, and there is still a text that is Aramaic around. Look into this, and download the free book, and let us discuss. www.aramaicpeshitta.com

I am believing this is God's scriptures more so then any Greek text. The Aramaic is more indepth.

[Ovedya]

However, we need to be very careful when approaching texts like these. Adherants of the Peshitta sound an awful lot like KJV only when refering to the texts:

"In reference to the originality of the Peshitta, the words of His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun, Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East, are summarized as follows:

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

[ayin jade]

Im still working on my reply, which is taking far longer than I expected.

Basically, no, it is not a sound translation. Ive encountered this bible before.

More to come in next post.....it may take another hour.

[ayin jade]

The Peshitta bible was translated by George Lamsa. In his own words:

The Peshitta Old Testament contains what is known as the Books of the Apocrypha, which have been handed down in the Peshitta manuscripts together with the Books of the Law and the Books of the Prophets, and since these Apocryphal books are included in the text they are looked upon as a sacred literature, even though they are not as commonly used as the others. Moreover this ancient New Testament text omits the story of the woman taken in adultery, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. (But these books are included in later Aramaic texts.) The Peshitta canon was set before the discovery of these books.

This bible doesnt have the entire canon as we know it today.

Altho this bible may be interesting to compare with our KJV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, it should be read with caution. (Still writing the rest.)

[ayin jade]

From the website you provided, Lamsa writes:

For centuries translations from Semitic languages have been subject to revision. They are, even now, subject to revision. This is why there are so many Bible versions varying each from the other. Let us just take one instance which I consider very important.

In the King James version, we read in Numbers 25:4:

[ayin jade]

Lamsa, from the website:

These discrepancies between various versions have been the cause of contentions and divisions among sincere men and women who are earnestly seeking to understand the Word of God. At times, they do not know what to believe and what not to believe. They cannot understand why the Scripture in one place says,

[ayin jade]

This part:

Lamsa considers "spirit" to be synonymous with "influence," "expansion," "effectiveness," and "hidden power," and suggests that the Comforter of John 14:16 and 16:8 is but the influence Jesus left behind after His dissolution on the cross.

When I first encountered this bible, it was in conjunction with a discussion with a muslim who claimed that this older bible proves that the trinity is false, that the comforter is not the Holy Spirit (he was claiming it was Mohammed of all things). Muslims accept this bible as valid, but not ours (whether KJV, NASB, etc). I believe it is because this bible takes away from the message of salvation.

This is important enough to restate, if you read nothing else in my long post (to follow), please read this:

Lamsa attempts to unite world religions in part by eliminating the uniqueness of Jesus and His atoning sacrifice on the cross. He follows the lead of the metaphysical (or "mind science") cults by redefining sin as mere error or (at worst) evil, not as moral disobedience to the Creator which deserves punishment from Him. Salvation in Lamsa's view is simply knowing Truth and "understanding the good" -- a view which reduces Jesus from the essential suffering Savior to the dispensable model man. Christ died, Lamsa says in his notes on John 3:16, to show us meekness and the existence of life hereafter, not to atone for our sins. He thus contradicts the central theme of the whole Bible.

[ayin jade]

The peshitta bible was translated by George Lamsa.

Below are some facts about his history, beliefs and scholarship.

Above all (given his history of growing up in a war torn area), Lamsa sought a "new world order" in which "the light of the gospel would be shared, racial and class barriers would be eliminated, and national boundaries would be eliminated." Accordingly, Lamsa interprets Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (in his book appropriately titled _The Kingdom on Earth_) as a commandment for world peace, international understanding, and the overthrow of enslaving governments by meekness and love.

Lamsa's desire to unite nations into a universal state led him to avoid matters of dogma and make many concessions to the beliefs of other faiths, seeking the lowest common denominator among religions

[apothanein kerdos]

It's really inaccurate to say that the original text would have been written in Aramaic. For one, Aramaic was semetic in nature, but used more outside of Israel than within Israel (until the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity). This is why we only have a few passages in the Old Testament written in aramaic. As for the new Testament, it would have been almost entirely written in Greek with a possible exception to Matthew. The reason for this is most of the New Testament epistles were written to gentiles in the Greek area. The way it was in the day of Christ and the apostles was that Aramaic was the language of Judea, whereas Greek was the trading tongue, and Latin was the governmental tongue. Thus, if you were talking to a friend, you'd speak in Aramaic. If you were talking to someone of another territory or culture, you'd most likely speak in Greek because most people would know it. The only time latin would have been spoken or written is if the letter was adressed to a governmental official, was written by a governmental official, or the person happened to live in Rome (thus Romans is another possible exception for not being originally Greek). What we do know for sure is that while Aramaic is in the Old Testament (mostly in Daniel), we cannot find any manuscripts that pre-date the actual hebrew manuscripts.

[AllforJesustheLord]

I guess I would say He spoke in there language, in greek, thus we can look at the two main Greek texts, the majority texts, and the Minority texts, and we can see for the most part in them when they are different, that is because the Greek spoke of different truths, which are summerized in the Aramaic. Normally in the Aramaic the Aramaic words show, more then one meaning.

For instance Luke 13:24 either in Greek has gate, or door. The Aramaic word "tarea" can be translated as both door, and gate. Thus both are true, The Aramaic shows both the Greek Translations are correct, but adds them together to make them fully correct.

Romans 8:24 In Greek texts either to hope, or wait. In Aramaic ("saky") can mean both.

John 3:15 In Him, on Him, or into Him. The one Aramaic letter when added, or atached to the beginning of a word means "By, into, in, inside, etc". Thus The Aramaic with the full word means In Him, On Him, through Him, into Him, etc..

So the thought is different texts were used, or different words were used to understand what was fully being explained. Thus The Aramaic Words explain fully what is meant.