Aramaic Translation Of The Bible

[A Cup Of Tea]

I can't tell if you are dense

I'm out, sorry

 

[BigJoeNobody]

maybe I should have put it at the end so you could finish it. oh well.

 

[Thomas]

I will admit I did not realize the NIV changed the word until now from the Gospel to "the good news of God".

Er, you do know that 'gospel' is an Old English word, god-spell means 'good news', and was used to translate the Greek euangelion ('good news').

What was that Gospel? Or if it was "good news of God" what was the news?

Well same thing, but yes ... what was it?

Mind you Jesus was not aware that he was supposed to die at this point (again for argument purposes I'm agreeing with Bible on Crucifixion).

Well that's your opinion. But anyway ... the 'good news'?

So the Gospel, message, or "good News" couldn't have been that Jesus was God

Why?

... and that he was sent to be sacrificed for all people's sins.

Why?

I'm not sure on the policy on this site about arguing logical vs illogical or for / against any religion so I am actively trying not to.

Well so far you seem to have aired a lot of one-sided opinion.

IO supports free speech, logic doesn't really come into it. Some of our most prolific posters defy reason and logic – it's not a criteria here.

I do know there are several books that were intentionally left out of the Bible for the simple sake that they did not promote what the Church wanted to be true.

Opinion.

They also missed several books from slightly closer to Jesus's life and ascension that were not discovered until much later.

Opinion.

I suspect someone at some point had a copy of verbatim what Jesus preached in each of his sermons, but those are either hidden or destroyed at this point.

Opinion.

Your opinions aside, got any evidence for the claims you make, specifically:
Why you think Jesus spoke Syriac?
What is the Gospel the Bible doesn't contain?

D'you not think the same could not be said of the Quran?
That what made it to the page is what his followers wanted to hear, not what the Prophet actually said, and that it's most likely that what he actually said has been lost or destroyed?

 

[wil]

Well documented that he spoke Syriac? I have never heard this...only heard Aramaic...

Don't even get me started on the KJV...

I love folks that say the KJV is the true bible....when it is labeled king james's Version!

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Since the biggest question in what I said is syriac or not, I'll try to explain. Syriac was a dialect of Aramaic. (at one time hebrew and arabic were also) Syriac was the dialect of Aramaic spoken throughout the area Jesus was said to have been born and lived early on. Now if you are familiar with a Boston accent, you would know that if someone with the accent came to Texas, people in Texas would be able to understand the Bostonian accent. It is still English, and it is still said to be the same English as is spoken all over the US and UK. But with that knowledge of being English, does that mean there aren't differences? No. I wouldn't expect a Bostonian to use the phrase "there are several ways to skin a cat". But if you would quote me, you wouldn't change that to "there are several ways to accomlish your goal." if you were familiar with the original phrase.

As for the content I stated that was passed off as opinion. I don't have time to go into detail, but I will try to explain why that isn't just my opinion.

you say it is my opinion that: IF he didn't know his death was coming, that his sacrifice couldn't be the "Good news" or "Gospel" that he was preaching. And I can counter that arguement quite easily with: How can he be sacrificed if he doesn't DIE? Now I don't personally believe he died on a cross, and that he still lives in heaven as the Messiah. But basing my arguments off of Biblical context, I can quite clearly (and you are welcome to show me where he indicates otherwise) argue that he in fact did not know he was going to die. And I could argue that there is major reason to believe in biblical texts that he did not die. This would be an arguable fact. but to say it is my opinion that a person who does not know the future to preach about something dependent on a major future occurance is illogical.

 

[wil]

Still confuddled.... If Syriac is a dialect, like bostonian or texan....both of those use the same english language for writing...if Jesus spoke bostonian, texan, or southern...the words on paper would be the same (the idioms may be different).

no yes? In China, the dialects are written the same but completely differing pronunciations.. Is that what you are saying with this language?

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Still confuddled.... If Syriac is a dialect, like bostonian or texan....both of those use the same english language for writing...if Jesus spoke bostonian, texan, or southern...the words on paper would be the same (the idioms may be different).

no yes? In China, the dialects are written the same but completely differing pronunciations.. Is that what you are saying with this language?

I would say it is a combo of both. For instance I wouldn't expect a Bostonian to use the word Y'all or any of the other things exclusive to the Southern and western dialects. Their writing was similar to the point it could be read without the help of a translator. Pronunciation and sayings would be slightly different (accent and idioms as you put it). The main thing to gather from this slight difference is the meaning of the words to the people who spoke that dialect could easily differ from other Aramaic speakers. The word Gay for example in English. If you read "That gentleman certainly is gay", in the US almost exclusively think Homosexual. Other people who speak english might interpret it as happy. Context can help clear up some things, but in the end the easiest way to decifer what is being said is by analyzing it as the person who said it's dialect would dictate.

Hopefully this clarifies it a bit.

Edit to add: A modern example would be Spanish and Portuguese. Where if they needed to they could probably discern what the other is saying but it would not have been fluent unless they learned the language wholy

 

[greentwiga]

What Jesus spoke is irrelevant to the Old Testament, except where he quotes the Old Testament. What is important is that the Masoretic text inserted vowels around 900 AD. The Aramaic, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Bibles, being much older often show us where ancient people separated the consonants into different words and inserted different vowels. God preserved his word, but sometimes it is not in the Masoretic text.