Book of Revelation

Add me! I love reading Revelations... it's my favorite next to Leviticus.
 
Anyone else want in the group?

Just mention me
 
Hey, [MENTION=4717]subwayrider[/MENTION]! I'm not sure if I can catch up, but let's try an invite. :)
 
Watch the most current season of Dexter, they like mimic the end times when they kill people. SICK
 
myself said:
I recently began reading an Aramaic to English translation of the New Testament.

It's quite good.

I'll read some Revelations tonight and see if I'm inspired to share anything.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure why you would consider this valuable. Any Aramaic translation would already be a translation from the Greek. Reading a translation of a translation??? Have you seen how copies degrade if you make copies of copies of copies?
 
myself said:
Curious about the 144,000.

What is the significance of this number?
Click to expand...
It's 12 squared. Twelve is a significant number in Judaism, and so also in Christianity. Twelve sons of Israel. Twelve disciples of Jesus. Etc. It is not meant to be taken literally, but basically means "a whole awful lot of significant people."
 
just me;577053 [MENTION=4576 said:
GracieRuth[/MENTION], the first three chapters mean so much to me before trying to read the rest of it for obvious reasons..
Click to expand...
Oh no problem. I wasn't trying to imply that the beginning of Revelation was insignificant, ONLY that it is a different genre (not apocalyptic).
 
GracieRuth said:
Oh no problem. I wasn't trying to imply that the beginning of Revelation was insignificant, ONLY that it is a different genre (not apocalyptic).
Click to expand...

I was rather agreeing with you when I said that.
 
Pretty much all arguments for Aramaic primacy are focused on the Gospel accounts, especially the Gospel of Matthew. The scholarly consensus is that the Gospels were all originally composed in Greek, but likely relied at least somewhat on sources (whether written or oral) which were in Aramaic.

Many of the earliest church fathers taught that our Gospel of Matthew was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which most agreed was written in Aramaic despite its name. (Some said Aramaic in Hebrew script, which is odd considering that by the time of Christ Hebrew was already almost always written using the Aramaic script, with only the Samaritans sticking to Paleo-Hebrew.) Their quotations from the Gospel of the Hebrews though shows that it could not have been a literal or direct translation though, as it started with Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist rather than the nativity and included longer accounts of things like why it is so hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Jesus denounces the rich man for violating the commandment to love thy neighbor by hoarding his wealth while surrounded by so many fellow Jews who are too poor to support themselves.) I am inclined to believe Matthew was composed in Greek but drew primarily from the Gospel of the Hebrews.


However, it seems highly implausible that the entire new testament was originally written in Aramaic. It makes absolutely no sense for epistles written to churches in Greek speaking cities to be written in Aramaic rather than a language that the recipients would understand. As Greek was the language spoken in all of the churches in Asia Minor to whom Revelation was addressed (and at Patmos where it was written), I cannot see much if any value in reading an English translation from the Aramaic.

It would be a different matter if you actually spoke Aramaic (and not Greek), as that could help you pick up nuances that are not easily conveyed in English grammar. I personally do like my Latin Vulgate.
 
myself said:
I've seen much evidence supporting Aramaic primacy.

I believe the Greek was translated from the Aramaic text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy#Peshitta_primacy_approach

http://aramaicnt.com/articles.htm
Click to expand...
Certainly Jesus spoke Aramaic. So what? The texts were written in Greek. AT MOST, the early Greek manuscripts are all that survived. So..... ALL translations come from the Greek. You are reading a translation of a translation. It will contain IMHO too many errors.
 
magister343 said:
Pretty much all arguments for Aramaic primacy are focused on the Gospel accounts, especially the Gospel of Matthew. The scholarly consensus is that the Gospels were all originally composed in Greek, but likely relied at least somewhat on sources (whether written or oral) which were in Aramaic.

Many of the earliest church fathers taught that our Gospel of Matthew was a translation of the Gospel of the Hebrews, which most agreed was written in Aramaic despite its name. (Some said Aramaic in Hebrew script, which is odd considering that by the time of Christ Hebrew was already almost always written using the Aramaic script, with only the Samaritans sticking to Paleo-Hebrew.) Their quotations from the Gospel of the Hebrews though shows that it could not have been a literal or direct translation though, as it started with Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist rather than the nativity and included longer accounts of things like why it is so hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Jesus denounces the rich man for violating the commandment to love thy neighbor by hoarding his wealth while surrounded by so many fellow Jews who are too poor to support themselves.) I am inclined to believe Matthew was composed in Greek but drew primarily from the Gospel of the Hebrews.


However, it seems highly implausible that the entire new testament was originally written in Aramaic. It makes absolutely no sense for epistles written to churches in Greek speaking cities to be written in Aramaic rather than a language that the recipients would understand. As Greek was the language spoken in all of the churches in Asia Minor to whom Revelation was addressed (and at Patmos where it was written), I cannot see much if any value in reading an English translation from the Aramaic.

It would be a different matter if you actually spoke Aramaic (and not Greek), as that could help you pick up nuances that are not easily conveyed in English grammar. I personally do like my Latin Vulgate.
Click to expand...

Yeap. This is pretty much what I've learned also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top