reply to post by Awen24
..so, who exactly is "Victor N. Alexander", and what credentials does he have that would make him a good source as a sole translator?
He is a native Aramaic speaker and it is all offered for careful discernment understandably. Some information on his background and how he has applied his translation method linked.
reply to post by yuppa
5th of Nov? What happened?
It's not wrong Yuppa; just twisted for Power! Care so shed some Light in this Dark?
I need to hear all so I can understand nothing. My path is bound by this my Friend.
He might be a native Aramaic speaker, but as he himself highlights, this is a language that has been dead since the 13th Century. What are his credentials? What makes him a good candidate for translating the Scriptures? To whom is he held accountable? ...I can find very little about the guy online, which isn't exactly a stellar start.  This Translation Comparison doesn't look very favourably on the Aramaic text. It ranks among the lowest translations in terms of preservation of the original meaning and intent of the text. www.cob-net.org...
It seems certain that, even with the presence and probable familiarity with a Palestinian Greek Old Testament at this time, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles were still familiar with and used the Old Testament in Hebrew. The Lord makes statements in the Gospels which seem to explicitly show His day to day reliance upon the Old Testament in Hebrew, and that when He thought of them and referred to them, it was to the Hebrew. In one of His most incisive statements concerning Biblical preservation, the Lord said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18) In this statement, the Lord explicitly refers to the Hebrew scriptures. The jot is the smallest of the Hebrew letters, and a tittle is any of the small strokes which serve to differentiate between Hebrew letters which are orthographically the same. Both are unique to the Hebrew when taken in relation to the Greek, and His statement explicitly directs the reader, and at the time His listeners, to the Hebrew Old Testament, not the Greek. Further, when the Lord read the scriptures and expounded upon them in the synagogues (as, for example, in Luke 4:17-22), He must necessarily have done so from the Hebrew scrolls, as that language only has been used in the synagogical readings of the Scriptures, even up to the present. This view is supported by Bruce, who says, "When Jesus was about to read the second lesson in the Nazareth synagogue...it was most probably a Hebrew scroll that he received." 8 Thus, as the Lord Jesus used the Hebrew scriptures, it necessarily follows that He was using the Hebrew canon of 22 books as well, without the Apocrypha. As the claim to the presence of the Apocrypha in an "Alexandrian" canon is already dubious, even more so would be such a claim for the Hebrew canon amongst the Jews of Palestine, who had never been separated from their spiritual heritage after the return from the Babylonian exile. That the Lord makes reference to the explicit Hebrew canon is shown at several points in the Gospels. For instance, "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:35) In this passage, the Lord records a concise history of the persecution of righteous men of God for speaking the Word of Truth through the entirety of the Hebrew scriptures, with Abel being the first recorded (Genesis 4:8) to the last recorded, Zechariah the priest (II Chronicles 24:20-21). This apparent order follows the traditional ordering of the Hebrew books, starting with Genesis and ending with II Chronicles, whereas the Septuagintic order most commonly used ends with the book of Daniel, specifically with Bel and the Dragon. Further, the Lord commonly spoke of, and thus delineated, the Old Testament scriptures (the only ones present at the time of His earthly ministry) using the term "the Law and the Prophets", which encompassed both the Pentateuch and all the other Jewish canonical books (see Matthew 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, etc.) Likewise, on occasion He would fully delineate the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, making individual reference to the Pentateuch, the earlier prophets, and the other writings (thus, the Tanak, see Luke 24:27-44). And at other times, such as Matthew 5:18, He used "the Law" as a term to encompass all of God's Word.
The bible has been translated so many times. If it is the word of god, there would be one translation, not 100 different versions of it.
reply to post by Awen24
Hi Awen, what credentials would be satisfying to you? He is not an 'establishment' man, and to me that is a stellar indication of a lack of affiliation bias, not to mention he bears the generous virtue to offer his work free online for students. As a general rule, it is wise to be extremely wary of ANYTHING promoted and funded (research grants, part of government based employment etc.) by the political/corporate/university mainstream machine structure. It is the dominion of devils here as the Word denotes and those who bear all the money and power influence in worldly 'authority' positions are more often than not the agents of the enemy, whether they are aware of the deceptions they are foisting upon mankind or not by the paymasters they obediently serve with agenda.
I hope this link by the translator below offers a little more perspective of his work and position. It should also hopefully clear up why that very minor example of translation did not appear literally accurate to the texts that author was referencing in comparison.
For yours is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory to the end of the universe, of all the universes." Amen I copied that from the part of the text that relates the Lords Prayer. I thought it was of interest when considering that scientists are now speculating the existence of parallel universes or "other" universes.
I like your translation simply because for me its written to all humanity, not different sects of it. The best part of the translation for me is in the Lord's Prayer where one prays for serenity. I started to realise the power of serenity within one's spirit some time ago, but its hard to find at times with all that is going on and for so many the excruciating pressure most of us are being subjected to. I would like to ask about the term Allaha. Is it a generic name for God. I often read comments that say that God and Allah are two different Gods? I have always instinctively felt that we cannot know God only his representatives through which he creates and nature functions. I also read recently that Christianity has more in common with `islam than would be 'comfortable' for most Christians to accept. I wondered if you had views of this?
I started to realise the power of serenity within one's spirit some time ago, but its hard to find at times with all that is going on and for so many the excruciating pressure most of us are being subjected to.
Anyway - thanks for the links and additional info, I do appreciate it.
What exactly is he translating? What is the year of that text's origin? ...and so on. ...because after all, if the text he's translating from (and he admitted himself on the site (as he should have, so kudos for that) that he spent a year and a half translating a Syriac translation from the 19th Century, inadvertently)) isn't close enough to the time of Christ, then who is to suggest that the accuracy and veracity of the text has been maintained?
One of the mistakes that I made at the very beginning was assuming that the modern Syriac translation of the P'#ta was authentic work of translating. This misconception set me back about a year and a half. At first the mistake depressed me, but later it turned into an unexpected advantage. I became familiar with the evolution of the Aramaic language. I had already translated the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, in that order. Then I had a conversation one day, with an old Church of the East priest. I told him that I had been translating the Bible from Syriac into English, for the sake of sharing the authentic Aramaic Bible with my American friends and English speaking people. At this time he did not say very much, except for smiling what I thought was approval. At a later meeting, he asked me what I was doing. I said that I was still translating the Bible. Then he had to tell me. He said, "The Syriac is all wrong!" Talk about being shocked! I had just finished translating Matthew and was getting ready to translate John. I had already translated Mark, before I met him the first time. I asked him, "Wasn't the Syriac translated from the ancient tongue?" The Church of the East is an Ashurai Church, and we do not use the term Aramaic. This is a modern-day designation. "Aramaic" really evolved from the language of the Ashurai, the people of Mesopotamia. He said, "No, the Syriac version was translated by the Protestants and Catholics from the Greek versions." I asked him, still incredulous, "You mean, no one has translated the ancient tongue original at all?" He said, "No." Then I purchased a copy of the official Ancient Church of the East New Testament Book from him. I began reading Mark, and later Matthew. I was amazed. It was different! It took me a while to recover emotionally. I had spent one and half years of my life translating the two Gospels from what I thought was the authentic Ancient Aramaic transcription into modern Syriac. Now I found out that I had been translating from a 19th century Syriac translation of what I finally determined was really a Syriac translation of mostly an English version. This 1897 Syriac version that I had, was translated in Urmi, Iran, by American and English missionaries with the help of proselytized Ashurai Christians.
It outlines that the 19th century Syriac version was apparently translated from the Greek texts also in rejecting. The project now involved translating directly from the ancient Aramaic Church of the East texts rendered from the early Apostolic period (transcribed disciple writings circa up to 100 AD), and without allegiance to any formally subscribed denominational influence.
what indication do we have that these texts are accurate, or even that they were written around the time of Christ?
The Christian Church was established by the Apostles around 33 A.D. The Apostles spread around the world to preach Christianity, and became the first Patriarchs of the Christian Church in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople. And so the Grace of the Holy Spirit passed from the Apostles to each new Patriarch after the Apostles died. All five Patriarchs (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople) formed the New Testament and held councils to decide different issues in the Church. But around 1054 the Patriarch of Rome changed the words of the Nicean Creed and declared that he had power over all of the other Patriarchs. When he was not recognized as the supreme leader, he excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. Immediately the Patriarch of Constantinople called together the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, and they all agreed to excommunicate the Patriarch of Rome. The Patriarch of Rome lost the Grace of the Holy Spirit and broke off to make his own Church, the Roman Catholic Church. The other Patriarchs stayed true and united to the True Church of Christ and later came to be known as the Eastern Orthodox Church. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox Church is the first church that stays true to the teachings of Christ.