judge

No..i think peer review is a great way to sort these things out!

Thr problem is that western scholars have not considered the primacy of the peshitta, or if they have it has been done in a very very superficial way.

Doctor X

They have.

Nevertheless, you now have your chance to "correct" the oversight.

--J.D.

judge

Hi again DR X...hope you are well.

You say here that western scholars have considered the primacy of the peshitta.
Can you tel me where, perhaps we can examine the details?

Can you elaborate?

judge

It is not changed in the current versions because the current versions are translated from greek.
Protestants , when they rejected the authority of Rome needed to have the (correct?) scriptrures.
Without bothering to check if there was an aramaic or if the aramaic was in fact underlying the greek they went and assumed the greek was the original.

Remember the Aramaic peshitta was held by the Assyrian Church of the East, not present in Europe.

Because the reliabilty of the scriptures is such an important point in protestant theology they now are very resistant to the idea that they have not relied upon the original language.

extremely ironic if you ask me.
hope this helps javaman

RUmike

Judge, you didn't answer the second part of the question.

For the lay man picking up the bible, is he or she expected to see an alleged "mistranslation" and go research the original manuscripts, learn Aramaic, and then translate them (permitting everything you said is true, that the real original is in Aramaic and that it really says "father" and not "husband" of Mary in Matthew's genealogy)?

judge

Yes...a layman would have to do this. What is the big deal?

Very few people (from my experience are that interested in these things anyway)...only nuts like us

RUmike

My point is, upon reading the New Testament, the lay man who isn't already brainwashed would NOT say to himself, "Hmm. I bet this is a translation error! Let me go learn Aramaic, even though most scholars say the original wasn't written in Aramaic." Instead, he would probably say to himself, "Well one of these guys is obviously wrong, so I guess the bible isn't entirely truthful, even on things regarding its most important figure. How, then, can I really trust anything it says?" *throws bible in trash can* According to Christianity (or at least most denominations I'm aware of), in the latter case this man will be going to hell thanks to his logically deduced conclusion.

leftfist

I think what RUMike is saying is this: "If God exists and you are right about the original being Aramaic, why would he have allowed nearly every translation of the NT to contain significant errors, especially considering those errors may cause people not to believe in him?"

Of course I'm not sure that's a valid argument, since despite many clear errors in the Bible many many people believe in it. (On the other hand, now that I think about it, if the Bible didn't have errors and was consistent with what we know about the world, maybe even more people would be Christians.)

judge

Clearly He does not give it the same importance that RUMike does.
Why is it so imporatnt really...apart from to nuts like us

Quote:

Of course I'm not sure that's a valid argument, since despite many clear errors in the Bible many many people believe in it. (On the other hand, now that I think about it, if the Bible didn't have errors and was consistent with what we know about the world, maybe even more people would be Christians.)

Hmmm...from my experience whether or not parts such as this involve translation errors has nothing to do with whether people decide to be "Christians"

RUmike

Well what I'm trying to say is not "How did God let that happen?", but instead "How can God truly blame someone for noticing such large errors/inconsistencies and thus dismissing the religion?" And I do think this is a very valid argument, even though many believe in Christianity anyway. Everyone is their own person and should reach their own conclusions accordingly. The argument that "well so many do believe it though!" is essentially saying that you should let the majority do your thinking for you, and that if an intelligent person comes to the conclusion that the bible is not true at all, he should believe it anyway, just because many others do, regardless of how ill-founded their belief is.

"I have the right to do my own thinking. I am going to do it.
I have never met any minister that I thought had brain enough to
think for himself and for me too. I do my own."
-- Robert Ingersoll