Let's discuss about issues: George Lamsa was wrong about the NT being in Aramaic
Totnak
Theistic Apologist
George Lamsa's assertion that the NT was written in Peshitta's Ancient Aramaic is something that the scholarly world rejects. This could be summed up by the below quote:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical... (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8)
For the sake of discussion, given that Lamsa's translation of the bible is so erroneous, what then could we say about those sects that relied heavily on the Lamsa bible for their doctrines and teachings?
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical... (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8)
For the sake of discussion, given that Lamsa's translation of the bible is so erroneous, what then could we say about those sects that relied heavily on the Lamsa bible for their doctrines and teachings?
0
Comments
-
George Lamsa's assertion that the NT was written in Peshitta's Ancient Aramaic is something that the scholarly world rejects. This could be summed up by the below quote:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical... (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8)
For the sake of discussion, given that Lamsa's translation of the bible is so erroneous, what then could we say about those sects that relied heavily on the Lamsa bible for their doctrines and teachings?
The only person who can discuss this with you to defend his claim is Mr. George Lamsa himself, but he's dead now!
0 -
Since INC believes that Lamsa's translation is correct, INC can defend Lamsa's interpretation.
INC uses all translations, even your catholic version Do we have to defend them all? Tumigil ka na Ferdinand. Bakit hindi ka magbago ng style at "pabanguhin" mo na lang yang nabubulok mong relihiyon imbes na pasikatin mo lalo ang INC? 0 -
There's nothing to debate here. Lamsa translated the Peshitta to English and the Peshitta is just a Syriac Translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew and New Testament from Greek.
Using Lamsa's Translation (from a Translation) is no different than using a Tagalog Translation, which is Translated from say King James Version, which is translated from Another Translation (dot dot dot).
People are missing something here. If you don't trust translations, learn Hebrew and Greek and read the originals.
And yeah, using all the Translations is funny. They are all written and translated by different groups of people in the language of your choice (i.e. English), further confusing you with different words being used for a word. Why would INC people just learn Hebrew and Greek and read the originals?0 -
pag nabasa nila ang original verses ng bible mababasa nila na si Kristo ay Diyos kaya ang binabasa lang nila na version ng bible eh yung pabor sa kulto nila ang translation hehehealchemistofophir wrote: »There's nothing to debate here. Lamsa translated the Peshitta to English and the Peshitta is just a Syriac Translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew and New Testament from Greek.
Using Lamsa's Translation (from a Translation) is no different than using a Tagalog Translation, which is Translated from say King James Version, which is translated from Another Translation (dot dot dot).
People are missing something here. If you don't trust translations, learn Hebrew and Greek and read the originals.
And yeah, using all the Translations is funny. They are all written and translated by different groups of people in the language of your choice (i.e. English), further confusing you with different words being used for a word. Why would INC people just learn Hebrew and Greek and read the originals?0 -
KidlatNgayon wrote: »INC uses all translations, even your catholic version Do we have to defend them all? Tumigil ka na Ferdinand. Bakit hindi ka magbago ng style at "pabanguhin" mo na lang yang nabubulok mong relihiyon imbes na pasikatin mo lalo ang INC?
INC uses all translations YET your sect insists on the LAMSA translation when defending the biblical origin of your sect's name......
wag na tayong maglokohan dito
0 -
KidlatNgayon wrote: »The only person who can discuss this with you to defend his claim is Mr. George Lamsa himself, but he's dead now!
stup1d rebuttal......
all those who adheres and are staunchly defending Lamsa's translation should be able to defend it...else, they would just be idi0ts who are using something that they cannot explain and defend when put under scrutiny......0 -
-
stup1d rebuttal......
all those who adheres and are staunchly defending Lamsa's translation should be able to defend it...else, they would just be idi0ts who are using something that they cannot explain and defend when put under scrutiny......
INC NEVER said that Lamsa's translation is a perfect translation. Kahit anong pigil ng diablo sa pagpapalaganap ng TUNAY na salita ng Diyos, lalabas at lalabas yan. At paano mapapatunayan? Sa pamamagitan ng ibang verses din sa biblia:
1 Corinthians 2:13
New Living Translation
When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths.0 -
alchemistofophir wrote: »There's nothing to debate here. Lamsa translated the Peshitta to English and the Peshitta is just a Syriac Translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew and New Testament from Greek.
Using Lamsa's Translation (from a Translation) is no different than using a Tagalog Translation, which is Translated from say King James Version, which is translated from Another Translation (dot dot dot).
People are missing something here. If you don't trust translations, learn Hebrew and Greek and read the originals.
Sa wakas, me sagot ding matino itong si Ophir! 0 -
Mr. George M. Lamsa is a native Assyrian who was born and reared in that part of the ancient biblical land from which Abraham migrated to Palestine. His people, because they were isolated for many centuries, preserved the Aramaic language and the ancient biblical customs which have disappeared everywhere else. The language and the manners and the customs of his people are almost identical with that in which Jesus and his contemporaries were reared. His family, from the days of the patriarch to 1918, lived a simple pastoral life. Even today, they speak in idioms and parables, some of which would be difficult for a Westerner to understand.
Mr. Lamsa began his study of the Scriptures in Aramaic under the teachers of his tribe. Then he was educated in the Archbishop of Canterburys College in Persia and Turkey and after the First World War, in the Virginia Theological Seminary of Alexandria, Virginia. In addition to being translator, Mr. Lamsa is a world traveler and lecturer. His translations from the Aramaic and comments on the Scriptures have aroused tremendous interest both in America and in Europe. They have helped many to a better understanding of the greatest of all books.
Mr. George Lamsas scholarship led him to knowledge that the Hebrew word for God and Lord is one and the same. This is probably the reason why many Bible versions render Acts 20:28 in reference to the Church as either Church of the Lord or Church of God. The Hebrew word for Lord may refer to the Lord God or to the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who believe that Christ is God are prone to be led by their mind set to ignore scholarship and to put their belief in their research and thus the translation of Acts 20:28 has been either Church of God or Church of the Lord.
Mr. Lamsas research revealed to him that the Hebrew word for Lord in Acts 20:28 refers not to God who cannot shed blood for He, being spirit, has no blood. Rather, the word refers to Christ who actually was crucified for the Church.
Acts 20:28 is not a parable. Christ literally shed His blood for the Church when He was crucified (cf. Jn. 19:17-30, 34). He gave His life for the Church because He loved her (cf. Eph. 5:25). And to save her it was necessary for Him to shed His blood (cf. Heb. 9:22, Revised Standard Version).
NAKAKATAWA ITONG SI TS!
Ipo-prove nya raw wrong si Mr. George Lamsa. ibig sabihin mas magaling at matalino at mas mataas ang pinag-aralan niya kay Mr. Lamsa. Ito ba ang gusto mong mangyari, Kant??? 0 -
KidlatNgayon wrote: »INC NEVER said that Lamsa's translation is a perfect translation. Kahit anong pigil ng diablo sa pagpapalaganap ng TUNAY na salita ng Diyos, lalabas at lalabas yan. At paano mapapatunayan? Sa pamamagitan ng ibang verses din sa biblia:
1 Corinthians 2:13
New Living Translation
When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths.
did I say that the INC said anything like that?
the fact that you are using LAMSA's version to justify the biblicality of your sect's name is proof enough that you are subscribing to the teachings of a flawed translation.......0 -
KidlatNgayon wrote: »Mr. George M. Lamsa is a native Assyrian who was born and reared in that part of the ancient biblical land from which Abraham migrated to Palestine. His people, because they were isolated for many centuries, preserved the Aramaic language and the ancient biblical customs which have disappeared everywhere else. The language and the manners and the customs of his people are almost identical with that in which Jesus and his contemporaries were reared. His family, from the days of the patriarch to 1918, lived a simple pastoral life. Even today, they speak in idioms and parables, some of which would be difficult for a Westerner to understand.
Mr. Lamsa began his study of the Scriptures in Aramaic under the teachers of his tribe. Then he was educated in the Archbishop of Canterburys College in Persia and Turkey and after the First World War, in the Virginia Theological Seminary of Alexandria, Virginia. In addition to being translator, Mr. Lamsa is a world traveler and lecturer. His translations from the Aramaic and comments on the Scriptures have aroused tremendous interest both in America and in Europe. They have helped many to a better understanding of the greatest of all books.
Mr. George Lamsas scholarship led him to knowledge that the Hebrew word for God and Lord is one and the same. This is probably the reason why many Bible versions render Acts 20:28 in reference to the Church as either Church of the Lord or Church of God. The Hebrew word for Lord may refer to the Lord God or to the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who believe that Christ is God are prone to be led by their mind set to ignore scholarship and to put their belief in their research and thus the translation of Acts 20:28 has been either Church of God or Church of the Lord.
Mr. Lamsas research revealed to him that the Hebrew word for Lord in Acts 20:28 refers not to God who cannot shed blood for He, being spirit, has no blood. Rather, the word refers to Christ who actually was crucified for the Church.
Acts 20:28 is not a parable. Christ literally shed His blood for the Church when He was crucified (cf. Jn. 19:17-30, 34). He gave His life for the Church because He loved her (cf. Eph. 5:25). And to save her it was necessary for Him to shed His blood (cf. Heb. 9:22, Revised Standard Version).
you are working on a wrong premise.....
one, Lamsa's assertion that the NT was actually written using aramaic has long been debunked by biblical scholars.....and that's a fact that no amount of spinning can belie......
two, the aramaic version being used in Lamsa's native tribe IS NOT the same aramaic version used in the Ancient time.....and again, this has been proven beyond doubt.....NAKAKATAWA ITONG SI TS!
Ipo-prove nya raw wrong si Mr. George Lamsa. ibig sabihin mas magaling at matalino at mas mataas ang pinag-aralan niya kay Mr. Lamsa. Ito ba ang gusto mong mangyari, Kant???
Nope, I'm not claiming that.....but I have references coming from sources who are more knowledgeable than Lamsa on the subject of theology and religious history.......0 -
did I say that the INC said anything like that?
the fact that you are using LAMSA's version to justify the biblicality of your sect's name is proof enough that you are subscribing to the teachings of a flawed translation.......
We are using it because a non-INC religious scholar finally hit it right!
And with reason!
Actually it is not only Lamsa who used church of Christ in that verse (acts 20:28)
Other English Versions
These critics are misinformed because Lamsa is not the only version containing the phrase "church of Christ". Below are some other English versions containing similar renderings.
Etheridge Translation:
"Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to the whole flock over which the Spirit of Holiness hath constituted you the bishops; to pasture the church of the Meshiha [Christ] which he hath purchased with his blood."
Disciples New Testament:
"Therefore, take care of yourselves, and of all the congregation in which you have been appointed through the holy Spirit as bishops, to shepherd the church of Jesus Christ, that which he established by his blood."
Early Manuscripts
Regarding manuscripts supporting the rendering "church of Christ", there are in fact existing ones. The English translation of the verse in Syriac Manuscripts such as MS Syriac 4 (12th century), MS Syriac 325 (12th Century), MS Syriac 27 (16th century), and the Novum Testamentum Syriace (17th century) read "Church of Christ."
Ezra Abbot, a New Testament Textual Criticism scholar, listed some of the earlier manuscripts containing the reading "church of Christ".
Admittedly, there are more manuscripts supporting other variant readings and that those manuscripts are even written in Greek. However, no rule of reasoning compels us to conclude with certainty that one particular reading is correct based on its quantity alone. We must remember that the greek manuscripts we have are not the originals but are just copies which can also contain transcription errors.
Ancient Versions
Also, there are evidence that the Syriac texts we currently have, whether they are transcriptions or translations, are better than some Greek texts, so we should not in any way disregard the value of the Syriac texts. Syriac is an Aramaic dialect into which most of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were first translated. Consulting Syriac manuscripts can help settle controversies in the Greek manuscripts.
Aside from Syriac manuscripts, the phrase "Church of Christ" can also be found in Acts 20:28 in Peshitta Aramaic Text which when translated into English, reads: "Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to the whole flock over which the Spirit of Holiness hath constituted you the bishops; to pasture the church of Christ which he hath purchased with his blood."
Early "church fathers"
In addition to the ancient versions, we also have witnesses in the quotations of the early "church fathers". Among these are those of Athanasius, Theodoret, Pseudo-Athanasius, and Pseudo-Fulgentius.
Internal Evidence
Most importantly, we can turn to internal scripture evidence to see whether the rendition "church of Christ" is correct or not. Apostle Paul says, "These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Cor. 2:13, King James Version).
Spiritual things will not contradict with other spiritual things when they are compared with one another. In no way will they manifest disagreement, but only harmony and unity. They go together perfectly well-at all times. With this apostolic method of teaching, nothing is added to or taken away from the Word. Consequently, when one Bible verse seems to clash in meaning with another verse, the former or the latter is either mistranslated or misinterpreted.
Based on scriptural evidence, we can conclude that "church of Christ" is the more accurate rendition because the latter part of the verse states, "which he purchased with his own blood". The rendering "church of God" would mean that it is God who died and shed blood on the cross. This would contradict other bible verses that teach God is immortal (1 Timothy 1:17) and that God is a spirit (John 4:24), has no flesh and bones (Lk. 24:36-39), and therefore has no blood. It is the Lord Jesus Christ's blood, which washed the members of the Church of their sins (I Pt. 1:18-19; Rev. 1:5).
REFERENCES:
[1] The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and other Critical Essays, Ezra Abbot
[2] Khabouris Codex
http://archive.is/xgi34#selection-147.1-249.190 -
-
KidlatNgayon wrote: »Ah, sabi ko na hindi ka makaintindi eh Sorry for you! *peace*
wala akong sinabing hindi ko naintindihan....ang sabi ko, ipaliwanag mo yung paskil mo sa sarili mong salita......
malakas ang hinala kong ikaw mismo, hindi mo nawawawaan yung sarili mong paskil....
0 -
-
KidlatNgayon wrote: »Yan naman ang lagi kong sinasabi sa inyo - PURO KAYO HINALA!!!
Just answer him Kidlat, you guys just keep circling around.0 -
KidlatNgayon wrote: »Yan naman ang lagi kong sinasabi sa inyo - PURO KAYO HINALA!!!
Bakit ayaw mong sagutin?
0
Welcome to PinoyExchange!
Forums
- 4.5K All Categories
- 27.1K PEx Sports
- 56.7K PEx Local Entertainment
- 30.4K PEx International Entertainment
- 41.7K PEx Lifestyle
- 26.8K PEx Hobbies
- 64.1K PEx News and Tech
- PEx Business and Careers
- 44.5K PEx Family and Society
- 25.3K PEx Relationships
- 13.1K PEx Chat
- 29.5K PEx Campus
- 32.3K PEx Classifieds
- 703 PEx Community
In this Discussion
- KidlatNgayon 58 posts
- Totnak 48 posts
- wing_commander 7 posts
- Ferdinand 3 posts
- Mabuhay-Rex 2 posts
- salermo 1 post
- mzabat2 1 post
- VirtusoXXX 1 post
- alchemistofophir 1 post
