Why do people think that Jesus and the rest of his Jewish disciples knew 3 languages each?
#1 Hebrew/Aramaic (Closely related)
#2 Latin (Language of the Romans) or a version of Romantic to speak with Romans
#3 Greek? For what? Greek was only used to preach to the Gentiles which was not Jesus job as he said "I have only been sent for the lost sheep of Israel"
Work on a better lie please. Common sense throws that out.
First off, they didn't need to speak Latin. Any educated person of the time would have spoke Greek, even the Romans. The Romans idolized the Greek people.
Second, Greek was not only used to preach to the Gentiles (which for the most part means nations by the way). Greek was one of the most common tongues and could have been used to communicate with most individuals in the area.
I'm not saying this precludes the possibility of an Aramaic N.T. (which I find has some merit).
There is a difference between Jews which are from the House of Judah and Israel which could include the House of Judah but also could be just the House of Israel. In "Kings" you can read about the House of Israel and the House of Judah fighting each other (as well as in Ezekiel). They are not the same. The House of Israel is called the "ten lost tribes" that were taken captive into Assyria. The lost tribes of Israel (lost sheep) were lost by the time of Jesus (long before).
John 6:63 The Words I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life. Not Greek and Aramaic.
call him Jesus, call Him Yeshua-Heb, call him Jesu-Pidgin Nigerian call him OkparaChineke Igbo, call him Inyanabo- Ijaw or Isah Al Masih- Arabic. He is rich to all who call on him. For with out faith it is impossible to please God.
Except for the Book of Matthew, I think the New Testament was written originally in Greek. It makes perfect sense to write it in Greek since majority of the Roman Empire spoke, read, and wrote in Greek. A lot of the New Testament was done by Apostle Paul who was an Apostle to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles are not Jews and thus would most likely read Greek.
That colophon is only for a portion of the Khabouris text. We know the 4 harmony gospels in Greek were translated into Aramaic about that same time. This is probably what it is referencing. The Khabouris text canon is of a much later time period. The Septuagint is much closer to the Dead sea OT than the Hebrew Masoretic. It was good enough for Paul and the Holy Spirit.
@JarheadPatriot0311 The newest edition is printed in square script, but is still in the Aramaic language. It would be like printing a book in cursive and then putting out a new edition in block letters instead. Same language, just different script style.
Can someone please lead me to some proof of these Aramaic text from the first century? Where are they? Is there a place where one can view these? I hear all this talk but I want to see the Aramaic text otherwis it's all just speculation.
@GanEdenAustralia this is what christians seem to forget, that the new testament always refer to the solid foundation (the Torah). That most of the new testament are just letters to different churches addressing issues in the congregations of old. All we need is in the Torah. And we must use the new testament as a backup to Torah understanding.
Paul - of course, a translator of a source he has never seen? makes no sense, please stick to the context. Also in your personal vid you ask others to study this source to see if adds up to Torah, however refuse to give no such example of a mistranslation in the Greek that could have only been done from Aramic texts. alot to ask for people to add another source to read with the others just to see if they approve of the new translation.
how can Andrew Gabriel Roth procalim authority to create a new translation that he claims came from the ("aramaic") "earliest manuscripts" That he doesn't even have nor ever had access to. I was hoping he would give at least one example of these mistranslations that could have only came from the aramaic. This layout didnt try support its claims (just saying).
@paulgem123 Personally would seem more productive to me to list these mistranslations "in the greek that could have only came from attempting to translate Aramaic texts", at least ONE. This way they would actually Demonstrate the importance and base this discussion on more than just hearsay.
@paulgem123 I responded to your effort there as well. I see no support. Thanks for the humble convo. G'day (Anyone with a example or support please contact me with such)
@KRU78 if you want some examples and see the evidence, I have videos with some on at my channel. go look em up.. it's under the grouping of "Aramaic Primacy"
Why do people think that Jesus and the rest of his Jewish disciples knew 3 languages each?
#1 Hebrew/Aramaic (Closely related)
#2 Latin (Language of the Romans) or a version of Romantic to speak with Romans
#3 Greek? For what? Greek was only used to preach to the Gentiles which was not Jesus job as he said "I have only been sent for the lost sheep of Israel"
Work on a better lie please. Common sense throws that out.
vexxisthewise 3 weeks ago
@vexxisthewise
First off, they didn't need to speak Latin. Any educated person of the time would have spoke Greek, even the Romans. The Romans idolized the Greek people.
Second, Greek was not only used to preach to the Gentiles (which for the most part means nations by the way). Greek was one of the most common tongues and could have been used to communicate with most individuals in the area.
I'm not saying this precludes the possibility of an Aramaic N.T. (which I find has some merit).
bbryant0620 1 week ago
@vexxisthewise
There is a difference between Jews which are from the House of Judah and Israel which could include the House of Judah but also could be just the House of Israel. In "Kings" you can read about the House of Israel and the House of Judah fighting each other (as well as in Ezekiel). They are not the same. The House of Israel is called the "ten lost tribes" that were taken captive into Assyria. The lost tribes of Israel (lost sheep) were lost by the time of Jesus (long before).
bbryant0620 1 week ago
Shalom All,
Yeshua said, the Truth Shall set us free and boy oh boy it still is, HalleluYAH
Paul. NZ
Swanseapiglet 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
John 6:63 The Words I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life. Not Greek and Aramaic.
call him Jesus, call Him Yeshua-Heb, call him Jesu-Pidgin Nigerian call him OkparaChineke Igbo, call him Inyanabo- Ijaw or Isah Al Masih- Arabic. He is rich to all who call on him. For with out faith it is impossible to please God.
Is it me or do all Jews sound like New Yorkers?
childofconvenant 2 months ago
Comment removed
childofconvenant 2 months ago
Comment removed
childofconvenant 2 months ago
Comment removed
childofconvenant 2 months ago
Except for the Book of Matthew, I think the New Testament was written originally in Greek. It makes perfect sense to write it in Greek since majority of the Roman Empire spoke, read, and wrote in Greek. A lot of the New Testament was done by Apostle Paul who was an Apostle to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles are not Jews and thus would most likely read Greek.
TheGenuineChristian 2 months ago in playlist Jewish and Roman History
A few days ago I received my two Aramaic English New Testament Bibles in the mail, What a blessing to the soul to Praise Yeshua and know the TRUTH!
Shalom,
Richard and Alice
CountryDesigns 8 months ago
this guy is a joke he thinks he can rewrite the Bible and only he knows when things were written people always have to make up there own bible
chrisandstaci 8 months ago
The analysis in regards to the internal evidence of textual criticism of the Peshitta stands really strong in affirming all what Roth states.
graysonbr 8 months ago
Comment removed
Pinkindian1 9 months ago
That colophon is only for a portion of the Khabouris text. We know the 4 harmony gospels in Greek were translated into Aramaic about that same time. This is probably what it is referencing. The Khabouris text canon is of a much later time period. The Septuagint is much closer to the Dead sea OT than the Hebrew Masoretic. It was good enough for Paul and the Holy Spirit.
protochris 11 months ago
kind of a solidifying argument with the palestinians...?
00MORDRED1 1 year ago
A friend got me a copy of the Aramaic New Testament but its only in Hebrew and English. No Aramaic text at all??? What happened?
JarheadPatriot0311 1 year ago
@JarheadPatriot03 because its a farce.
adonelahi 8 months ago
@JarheadPatriot0311 The newest edition is printed in square script, but is still in the Aramaic language. It would be like printing a book in cursive and then putting out a new edition in block letters instead. Same language, just different script style.
davidmsmith78 2 months ago
Can someone please lead me to some proof of these Aramaic text from the first century? Where are they? Is there a place where one can view these? I hear all this talk but I want to see the Aramaic text otherwis it's all just speculation.
JarheadPatriot0311 1 year ago 2
I purchased this bible earlier last year. I do love it.
DontFriendInviteMe 1 year ago
Isnt there a big legal thing going on for plagiarism on this translation?
yaboy762 1 year ago
The NT is not scripture but a set of writings and commentaries that back up the Tenach.
GanEdenAustralia 1 year ago 2
@GanEdenAustralia this is what christians seem to forget, that the new testament always refer to the solid foundation (the Torah). That most of the new testament are just letters to different churches addressing issues in the congregations of old. All we need is in the Torah. And we must use the new testament as a backup to Torah understanding.
katpiering123 3 months ago
Comment removed
KRU78 1 year ago
Paul - of course, a translator of a source he has never seen? makes no sense, please stick to the context. Also in your personal vid you ask others to study this source to see if adds up to Torah, however refuse to give no such example of a mistranslation in the Greek that could have only been done from Aramic texts. alot to ask for people to add another source to read with the others just to see if they approve of the new translation.
KRU78 1 year ago
how can Andrew Gabriel Roth procalim authority to create a new translation that he claims came from the ("aramaic") "earliest manuscripts" That he doesn't even have nor ever had access to. I was hoping he would give at least one example of these mistranslations that could have only came from the aramaic. This layout didnt try support its claims (just saying).
KRU78 1 year ago
@KRU78 He is the translator not the writer. He has several books and DVD's explaining his position.
paulgem123 1 year ago
@paulgem123 Personally would seem more productive to me to list these mistranslations "in the greek that could have only came from attempting to translate Aramaic texts", at least ONE. This way they would actually Demonstrate the importance and base this discussion on more than just hearsay.
KRU78 1 year ago
@KRU78 I gave you one in a PM. There are many videos on the topic on their website.
paulgem123 1 year ago
@paulgem123 I responded to your effort there as well. I see no support. Thanks for the humble convo. G'day (Anyone with a example or support please contact me with such)
KRU78 1 year ago
@KRU78 if you want some examples and see the evidence, I have videos with some on at my channel. go look em up.. it's under the grouping of "Aramaic Primacy"
Mencel89 1 year ago
Na'im me'od- Pleased to meet you. Love your work!!
papacowboy 1 year ago
MattitYAHu at least was inspired in Hebrew, then translated into Aramaic, and lastly, Koine (Greek.)
Search: Nehemiah Gordon
1cutchie 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1cutchie Still going to buy Andrew's book!
1cutchie 1 year ago
@1cutchie Nehemiah Gordon has good info, but he's wrong on Shem Tov. it shows a great number of hints that it's a TRANSLATION.
Mencel89 1 year ago
@Mencel89 Thank you for the response. These are great days to be living in, more people seeking the Truth, no matter the obstacles.
1cutchie 1 year ago