/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Bump

Whats the point of it?

>>617802

Just the pleasure of being in touch with something that might be close to how it was "dictated" or how it sounded. For me, I mean, since I would not be interested in getting anything deep out of it.

Comparison between the translation from Greek and its Aramaic possibilities can be interesting too, though.

>>617807

I assume every person reading this knows it. Not sure I got your point.

>>617807

It's the language that Jesus spoke, and is still spoken today by Israeli Levant Arabs, Assyrians, and Syriac rite Christians in Lebanon and Syria

>>617702

Only the Gospels are worth reading in Aramaic.

Isn't it a translation into aramaic from greek? If so there's no point as the word of God was given to us in Greek. I guess it's kind of cool but entirely pointless. Like every translation, it should be used only to allow native speakers to read the Gospel

Aramaic in the Hebrew alphabet? I've only ever seen it Syriac letters.

The jews don't have Isiah 53 in their books. really makes you think

>>617823

Well, that is what the book in the picture I (OP) posted is about. I mean, that is exactly my interest there.

My question is mostly about whether anyone has any experience with that edition in particular.

>>617828

>Isn't it a translation into aramaic from greek?

Yes it is, formost of it.

>If so there's no point as the word of God was given to us in Greek.

Not really. It was "saved" for us in Greek. Still the closest documentation we have access to, though.

>I guess it's kind of cool but entirely pointless.

As I put abovr, I do not expect to have anything deep out of it. It is just theological curiosity.

>>617888

That was how it used to be written around the Levant back then.

The Syriac version is also a translation from Greek.

>Y'shua

DROPPED

R

O

P

P

E

D

>>617702

What on earth is "Aramaic English"? Is it a two-language Bible with one language in English and one in Aramaic? Or is it one of those texts that (((claims))) to be the original? Why is it so hard for some people to accept that the New Testament was written down in Greek? It was the common language of the day. English is not my native language, and yet I'm currently writing my thesis in English because that's the common language of today. It would be absurd for someone to translate my English thesis and then claim that their translation somehow captures my intention more accurately than my own writings do.

>>619242

>What on earth is "Aramaic English"? Is it a two-language Bible with one language in English and one in Aramaic?

Both languages separately. One in each page or each page half/half, not sure.

> Or is it one of those texts that (((claims))) to be the original?

No it does not claim to be original. It makes clear it is a translation into Aramaic done in order to explore meanings that might appear through etymology, as an example.

>Why is it so hard for some people to accept that the New Testament was written down in Greek?

Is it? Never met anyone who would seriously dispute that.

>>619242

Written in Greek, yes, but dictated directly from Jesus Christ himself and repeated for decades after in Aramaic.