Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Federal Court Claims Right to Regulate Scripture Interpretation


James Trimm
 Share

Recommended Posts

You're not gonna be singing Kumbaya :biglaugh:, nor working together with them on symposiums--that aint gonna happen either..

I understand your position but the way I see it you're still gonna get nailed and then be at the mercy of the court

The Way is an insulated isolated corporation that has only one real doctrinal language ($$$$$).

What are their demands? How much do they want?

Why dont you negotiate a counter offer and be done with this headache?

Everyday that it drags on it costs them more and you more. They probably dont want to deal with (pay for ) this anymore than you do.

You might get off lighter now if you negotiate a settlement than if you carry this through to the end and lose which it looks to me like you will...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not gonna be singing Kumbaya :biglaugh:, nor working together with them on symposiums--that aint gonna happen either..

I understand your position but the way I see it you're still gonna get nailed and then be at the mercy of the court

The Way is an insulated isolated corporation that has only one real doctrinal language ($$$$$).

What are their demands? How much do they want?

Why dont you negotiate a counter offer and be done with this headache?

Everyday that it drags on it costs them more and you more. They probably dont want to deal with (pay for ) this anymore than you do.

You might get off lighter now if you negotiate a settlement than if you carry this through to the end and lose which it looks to me like you will...

"Blessed [are] the peacemakers..."

(Matt. 5:9 AEINT)

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proverbs 11:!4.

"Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."

You've had the benefit of counsel of a number of posters. They've all said different

things in different ways, but they all offered the same general advice

and foresaw the same general outcome.

Of course, you're free to ignore them all, keep saying you know better than

everyone else, and keep yourself as a client in a court of law.

(There's a saying about that.)

Us, we'll just wait for the report of how badly you get spanked.

You've chosen a losing strategy, and chosen to ignore the advice of the people

who actually didn't recommend you getting spanked. Either you're so

narcissistic you can't see you're completely outclassed and don't know your

way around a courtroom, or you KNOW you're going to crash and burn and are

persisting out of some perverse desire to be humiliated in court.

Either way, there's really no point to posting here anymore, unless you want

to join in some of the discussions with nothing to do with your court-case.

You're free to do that, of course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wouldn't it be nice if we could just get together with the TWI and resolve our problems between us. Maybe even have a community bridges of understanding event together next year at Holocaust Remembrance Day, or a joint Aramaic Studies Symposium...

The Way's current research department is one guy part time. They have no current Aramaic skills. Bernita Jess was the last who did. Those who did the work on the Aramaic publications have been run off. One of them posts here. I don't know what they would do at a joint Aramaic Studies Symposium except stand around and pick their nose. They certainly couldn't intelligently discuss Aramaic translations - nobody there knows anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But wouldn't it be nice if we could just get together with the TWI and resolve our problems between us. Maybe even have a community bridges of understanding event together next year at Holocaust Remembrance Day, or a joint Aramaic Studies Symposium...

I have to think you at least understand The Way's party line regarding The Holocaust. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James,

Would you mind telling us how you translated Matt. 27:46 and why you might have decided on your translation of that verse? It reads like this in the KJV:

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eli Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Thanks,

Pen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Blessed [are] the peacemakers..."

(Matt. 5:9 AEINT)

:-)

There you have it. They would be peaceful if you would just stop using their work, and you would be peaceful if they would just stop insisting that you stop using their work. Have you ever approached them about paying them a percentage for royalties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Way's current research department is one guy part time. They have no current Aramaic skills. Bernita Jess was the last who did. Those who did the work on the Aramaic publications have been run off. One of them posts here. I don't know what they would do at a joint Aramaic Studies Symposium except stand around and pick their nose. They certainly couldn't intelligently discuss Aramaic translations - nobody there knows anything about it.

But that is the beauty of it Chockful, James doesn't either!

They will have a great time.

There you have it. They would be peaceful if you would just stop using their work, and you would be peaceful if they would just stop insisting that you stop using their work. Have you ever approached them about paying them a percentage for royalties?

Now then there is an excellent logical solution and some how i doubt that it would happen, though I am sure TWI would be willing to handle it that way. as was noted before TWI is about the Money!

Edited by leafytwiglet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, I think I see the direction you're taking with this and I see your point. I would hope that you have some documentation of TWI's own doctrine that there is only one right way to interpret scripture, because working backward from that as you've worked forward in your argument one should logically conclude that if one works with language as it is commonly used, the two "versions" would of necessity be strongly similar, even using identical words/sentences, if both groups of translators use sources in common, speak the same language, and have established similar standards of correctness.

how many ways, in German, could one translate "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"? I bet if I ask 10 educated german speakers, I'll get 10 virtually identical translations.

TWI is claiming ownership of a translation of scripture by saying it's an interpretation of scripture and therefore any other translation/interpretation of scripture should be significantly different because interpretation is based on church doctrine.

can no one else see the hypocrisy in that argument? TWI, who maintains there is only one correct interpretation of scripture, in order to defend their version now says their interpretation can't be the only correct one, because it should all depend on the doctrines of the church as to how the translation/interpretations read?

TWI is making the case into one of church doctrine, which is why the argument to throw out the case is valid. if they focus on the issue of copyright infringement (which is properly heard in federal court), all James has to do is demonstrate that the similar/identical passages are most likely to be translated the way they are by various scholars or to find an older source out of copyright that does translate that way, and the court rules for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, I think I see the direction you're taking with this and I see your point. I would hope that you have some documentation of TWI's own doctrine that there is only one right way to interpret scripture, because working backward from that as you've worked forward in your argument one should logically conclude that if one works with language as it is commonly used, the two "versions" would of necessity be strongly similar, even using identical words/sentences, if both groups of translators use sources in common, speak the same language, and have established similar standards of correctness.

how many ways, in German, could one translate "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"? I bet if I ask 10 educated german speakers, I'll get 10 virtually identical translations.

TWI is claiming ownership of a translation of scripture by saying it's an interpretation of scripture and therefore any other translation/interpretation of scripture should be significantly different because interpretation is based on church doctrine.

can no one else see the hypocrisy in that argument? TWI, who maintains there is only one correct interpretation of scripture, in order to defend their version now says their interpretation can't be the only correct one, because it should all depend on the doctrines of the church as to how the translation/interpretations read?

TWI is making the case into one of church doctrine, which is why the argument to throw out the case is valid. if they focus on the issue of copyright infringement (which is properly heard in federal court), all James has to do is demonstrate that the similar/identical passages are most likely to be translated the way they are by various scholars or to find an older source out of copyright that does translate that way, and the court rules for him.

Potato - you have it backwards - James' organization is making the case into one of church doctrine. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but what he seems to be saying is that because the HRV that he wrote is essentially the doctrine of his religious organization, that it supersedes anyone's claim to copyright under the first amendment of the constitution.

The WNAE maintained that the HRV is its standard accepted version of the Scriptures, and as such, is the doctrine of its organization. The WNAE maintains that Bible translation is Scripture interpretation and that Scripture interpretation is doctrine. They state that they believe in every word the Bible as it as written as their doctrine and that the HRV is their Bible.

In their Motion filed March 8th, the WNAE argued that their Bible is their doctrine, that Bible translation is Scripture interpretation, and Scripture interpretation is doctrine. They further argued that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been understood by the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the court from hearing property disputes between religious groups where doing so would require the court to consider, weigh or interpret doctrine or resolve doctrinal disputes. In this case they argued that the court would have to engage in all of these forbidden activities in order to hear this case, and in effect regulate their interpretation of Scriptures and therefore their doctrine.

TWI is treating this as a simple copyright violation and that Mr. Trimm plagiarized a good portion of its Aramaic NT for his HRV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Potato - you have it backwards - James' organization is making the case into one of church doctrine. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but what he seems to be saying is that because the HRV that he wrote is essentially the doctrine of his religious organization, that it supersedes anyone's claim to copyright under the first amendment of the constitution.

yes, I get that James' organization is making it into a case of church doctrine, and after analysis, I think he has a point. it's a translation of scripture, not a creative work like a novel. churches use a lot of the same language and hold beliefs in common that permeate religious life. it follows that any translation is going to end up infused with it and two groups translating the same texts should have similarities, and in the case of religious texts I'd expect strong similarities, unless their goal is to create a new version that goes beyond a translation into a dogmatic interpretation.

TWI is treating this as a simple copyright violation and that Mr. Trimm plagiarized a good portion of its Aramaic NT for his HRV.

I got that. if he didn't plagiarize, he can prove it to the court. I just see a lot of irony that an organization like TWI that believes there's only one right way to interpret scripture is claiming ownership of a translation. now anyone else who translates the texts and comes up with something too similar has infringed copyright and must invent a new version, which guarantees TWI can point fingers and ridicule the less perfect version as inferior because TWI got it right but no one else can.

like I said, I could ask 10 educated german speakers to translate "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" and see what comes back.

p.s. I think TWI is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And at the ninth hour, Yeshua cried with a loud voice, and said: My

El, My El, why have you forsaken Me?

(Matt. 27:46 HRV)

A Footnote reads:

Psalm 22:2(22:1); The Hebrew of DuTillet has "forgotten" see Psalm

42:10(42:9) Shem Tob and Quinquarbos have ”forsaken me” in agreement

with Ps. 22:2(22:1). Munster and the Aramaic (Old Syriac and Pedangta)

has ”forsaken me”. Most Greek and Latin manuscripts have SABACHTHANI

(a transliteration) however Greek Codex D and the Old Latin have

“Zapthani”. See also note to Mark 15:34.

The Parallel passage in Mark 15:34 has:

And in the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out with a loud voice and said:

<El, El l’mana sh’vaktani, which is,> My Eloah, My Eloah, why have You

forsaken Me?

(Mark 14:34 HRV)

A Footnote reads:

Obviously quoting Ps. 22:1 (22:2). The Aramaic phrase l’mana sh’

vaktani could also be understood as “for this you have kept me”. See

note to Mt. 27:46.

(In the HRV <> indicate passages which appear in the Pedangta but not

in the older Old Syriac Version)

Regarding the Holocaust, I am aware of TWI's past issues, and it is an

issue near and dear to my heart. My children's grandmother (who

recently passed away) was a Holocaust survivor. WNAE is the Worldwide

Nazarene Assembly of Elohim. We are a "Messianic Jewish" group seeking

to restore the ancient sect of the Nazarenes as mentioned by the so-

called "Church Fathers". The first believers in Yeshua were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes"

or in Hebrew "Netzarim" (Acts 24:5).

The "church father" Jerome (4th Cent.) described these Nazarenes as

those "...who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to

observe the old Law." (Jerome; On. Is. 8:14).

Elsewhere he writes:

Today there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the

East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans,and which is still

condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called

'Nazarenes'; they believe that Messiah, the son of God, was born of

the Virgin Miriam, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under

Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe."

(Jerome; Letter 75 Jerome to Augustine)

The fourth century "church father" Epiphanius gives a more detailed

description:

But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians--but

"Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not

only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews

do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as

the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion-- except for their

belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the

resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and

declare that G-d is one, and that his son is Yeshua the Messiah. They

are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the

Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely

are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from

Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because

they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered

by the Law--circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in

accord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the

Goodnews according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is

clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was

originally written. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

We maintain that Yeshua came to be the Jewish Messiah of Judaism rather then to create a new religion.

Ironically Nazarene Judaism is/was also known as "The Way".

Acts 24:5 reads:

"For we have found this man to be one who is corrupt and stirs up

sedition among all the Jews in all Ha-Eretz (The Land). For he is a

leader of the teaching of the Nazarenes."

(Acts 24:5 ? HRV from the Aramaic Pedangta)

The Greek has "sect" in pace of "teaching".

Then in Acts 24:14 Paul responds to this accusation saying:

"…this I do confess, that in the same teaching about which they are

speaking, I serve [Elohim]?"

(Acts 24:14 ? HRV from the Aramaic Pedangta)

Now while book of Acts was originally written in Aramaic, the only

surviving witness to that original Aramaic text in Aramaic is the

Pedangta (and a few quotations by Syriac "Church Fathers") the more

primitive Old Syriac Aramaic text of Acts has not survived.

We do have indirect witnesses to that text through the Western type

text of Acts preserved in the Western Type Greek manuscripts, and in

the Old Latin. While the Greek is not the original language of Acts,

it can preserve original readings not preserved in the Pedangta, in

much the same way that the LXX can sometimes preserve original

readings which have not survived in the Masoretic Text. In this case

the word "The Way" (a single word in Aramaic) has been omitted from

the Aramaic Pedangta version of Acts, but it is almost certainly

original, since it appears in all other versions of Acts.

The Original Aramaic of Acts most probably read:

"…this I do confess, in this Way, the teaching about which they are

speaking, I serve [Elohim]?"

(Acts 24:14 as it must have read in the original Aramaic)

Here it is clearly stated by Paul that "The Way" is a synonym for "The

Teaching/Sect of the Nazarenes".

So if we can better understand how "The Way" is used, we will better

understand how the term "Nazarenes" was understood.

The term "The Way" is used to describe believers in Acts 9:2 and Acts

22:4 (which actually recaps the events of Acts 9:2).

Both the Qumran community, and John quoted Is. 40:3 as being a

prophecy foretelling of their work (Mt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk. 3:4; Jn

1:23; Dam. Doc. viii, 12-14; ix, 20). This verse appears in most New

Testaments as:

The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

"Prepare the way of the Lord;

make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

However, the cantor markings in the Masoretic Text give us the

understanding:

The voice of one crying

"In the wilderness prepare the way of YHWH;

make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim."

As a result of their use of this verse, both John and the Essenes of

the Qumran community referred to themselves as being "in the

wilderness" and both the Essene Qumran community and the early

believers in Yeshua called their movement "The Way". (Mt. 3:3; Mk.

1:3; Lk. 3:4; Jn 1:23; Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14 compared to Manual of

Discipline viii, 12-14; ix, 17-22).

In Acts we read about Paul just before he became a believer in Messiah:

Now Shaul was yet full of the threat and anger of murder

against the talmidim of our Adon. And he asked for letters

from the Chief Cohen to give to Darm'suk (Damascus)

to the synagogues, that if he should find any who follow in

this way, men or women, he might bind and bring them

to Yerushalayim.

(Acts 9:1-2)

Now why would Shaul want to go to Damascus to pursue the followers of

Yeshua?

Damascus was the capitol of Essene Judaism as laid out in the

"Damascus Document" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first

Essenes "...went out of the land of Judah and dwelt in the land of

Damascus..." (Damascus Document 6, 5)

As we have demonstrated so many times before (and this is a whole

separate article) the first followers of Yeshua were from the Essenes.

Now while on his way to Damascus Paul encounters the resurrected

Yeshua and himself becomes a believer in Yeshua as the Messiah (Acts

9:3-7). As instructed by Yeshua, Paul enters Damascus and makes

contact with the followers of Yeshua there (Acts 9:8-19). In his

letter to the Galatians Paul describes these events as follows:

And I did not go to Yerushaliyim to the emissaries who

were before me, but I went to Arabia and again returned

to Darm'suk (Damascus), and after three years, I went

to Yerushalayim to seek Kefa and remained with him

fifteen days.

(Gal. 1:17-18)

Why did Paul remain for three years in Damascus? Because it took

three years to be fully admitted into the Essene community. As

Josephus writes:

"But now if any one has a mind to come over to their sect, he is not

immediately admitted, but he is prescribed the same method of living

which they use for a year, while he continues excluded'; and they give

him also a small hatchet, and the fore-mentioned girdle, and the white

garment. And when he has given evidence, during that time, that he can

observe their continence, he approaches nearer to their way of living,

and is made a partaker of the waters of purification; yet is he not

even now admitted to live with them; for after this demonstration of

his fortitude, his temper is tried two more years; and if he appear to

be worthy, they then admit him into their society."

(Wars 2:8:7)

Paul went through the entire process of learning the ins and outs of

Essene Judaism. These studies also shaped Paul's thinking. There are

several Parallels between Paul's teachings and the Essene teachings at

Qumran.

The important point I want to make here is that the term "The Way" was

originally a euphemism for Essene Judaism and became a euphemism for

Nazarene Judaism as an offshoot of Essene Judaism. Thus "Nazarene" is

clearly a designation of a Jewish sect, just as the Essenes, Pharisees

and Sadducees were also Jewish sects.

It is important to realize that the term “The Way” is drawn from the Torah itself, in which “The Way” is clearly identified as being the Torah and the commandments.

And YHWH said unto me: Arise, get you down quickly from hence, for your people

that you have brought forth out of Egypt have dealt corruptly. They are quickly turned

aside out of THE WAY which I commanded them: they have made them a molten image.

(Deut. 9:12)

For if you shall diligently keep all this commandment which I command you, to do it,

to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in all HIS WAYS and to cleave unto Him,

Then will YHWH drive out all these nations from before you, and you shall

dispossess nations greater and mightier than yourselves.

Every place whereon the sole of your foot shall tread, shall be yours: from the

wilderness and the L’vanon, from the river--the river Euphrates--even unto the hinder sea

shall be your border.

There shall no man be able to stand against you. YHWH your Elohim shall lay the

fear of you and the dread of you, upon all the land that you shall tread upon, as He has

spoken unto you.

Behold, I set before you this day, a blessing and a curse:

he blessing, if you shall hearken unto the commandments of YHWH your Elohim,

which I command you this day.

And the curse, if you shall not hearken unto the commandments of YHWH your

Elohim, but turn aside out of THE WAY which I command you this day, to go after other

gods, which you have not known.

(Deut. 11:22-28)

See, I have set before you this day, life and good, and death and evil,

In that I command you this day to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in His WAYS,

and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His ordinances; then you shall live

and multiply. And YHWH your Elohim shall bless you, in the land where you go in to

possess it.

(Deut. 30:15-16)

Scripture also tells us that Messiah himself is “The Way” (Jn. 14:6).

To begin with we must understand that this Assembly is also known as the "Body of Messiah" as we read:

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,

the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the

preeminence."

(Col. 1:18 - KJV)

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head

over all things to the church,

Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all."

(Eph. 1:22-23 - KJV)

Now one may ask what "Assembly" is the allegorical Messiah? To find the answer to that question lets look at Matthew 2:14-15:

"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and

departed into Egypt:

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled

which was spoken of the Lord

by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. "

(Matthew 2:14-15 - KJV)

Now here Matthew is citing a prophecy in Hosea 11:1 and applying it to Messiah. Now let us go back and look at this prophecy in Hosea 11:1 in context:

"When Israel was a child, then I loved him,

and called my son out of Egypt."

(Hosea 11:1 - KJV)

Here Hosea is referring to Israel as the son who is called out of Egypt. This points us back to a passage in the Torah:

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go,

behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

(Ex. 4:22-23 - KJV)

From these two passages we learn that Israel is the firstborn son of Elohim who is called out of Egypt. However in Matthew it is Yeshua the Messiah who is called up out of Egypt and in Col. 1:18 Messiah is the "firstborn". Moreover Hebrews speaks of the "church of the firstborn" (Heb. 12:23 - KJV).

Thus Israel is allegorically equivalent to the Messiah. Messiah is “The Way” and His true Assembly, the Assembly of Israel, is also “The Way”.

The Way in the Scriptures is a Torah Observant sect of Judaism known as “Nazarene” with roots in Essene Judaism.

Ironically also the Aramaic (Syriac) New Testament is originally a Nazarene Jewish document. Eusebius writes of The second century Nazarene writer Gish’fa (Heggissipus) him:

And he quotes some passages from The Gospel according to

the Hebrews and from ‘The Syriac’, and some particulars from

the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was … from the Hebrews,

and he mentions other matters as taken from the oral tradition

of the Jews.”

(Eccl. Hist. 4:22)

As for the court case I will just say that at the moment, in the interest of peacemaking we have high hopes of working out something mutually acceptable with TWI. So while we do have a case to make (concerning the HRV), I will not make it here at this time while that hope is alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, I get that James' organization is making it into a case of church doctrine, and after analysis, I think he has a point. it's a translation of scripture, not a creative work like a novel. churches use a lot of the same language and hold beliefs in common that permeate religious life. it follows that any translation is going to end up infused with it and two groups translating the same texts should have similarities, and in the case of religious texts I'd expect strong similarities, unless their goal is to create a new version that goes beyond a translation into a dogmatic interpretation.

I got that. if he didn't plagiarize, he can prove it to the court. I just see a lot of irony that an organization like TWI that believes there's only one right way to interpret scripture is claiming ownership of a translation. now anyone else who translates the texts and comes up with something too similar has infringed copyright and must invent a new version, which guarantees TWI can point fingers and ridicule the less perfect version as inferior because TWI got it right but no one else can.

like I said, I could ask 10 educated german speakers to translate "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" and see what comes back.

p.s. I think TWI is stupid.

The irony is delicious. That doesn't make the argument (on Trimm's part) any less weak. His argument would be stronger (IMO) if he could pull a translation that predates TWI's and run a similarity test on it and thereby bypass the TWI thing altogether. My gut feeling is that it wouldn't pass, which is why he's playing the doctrine/first amendment card.

On a different note - i can't help but wonder where we would all be if BG Leonard and others had as vigorously defended their intellectual property?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And at the ninth hour, Yeshua cried with a loud voice, and said: My

El, My El, why have you forsaken Me?

(Matt. 27:46 HRV)

A Footnote reads:

Psalm 22:2(22:1); The Hebrew of DuTillet has "forgotten" see Psalm

42:10(42:9) Shem Tob and Quinquarbos have "forsaken me" in agreement

with Ps. 22:2(22:1). Munster and the Aramaic (Old Syriac and Pedangta)

has "forsaken me". Most Greek and Latin manuscripts have SABACHTHANI

(a transliteration) however Greek Codex D and the Old Latin have

"Zapthani". See also note to Mark 15:34.

The Parallel passage in Mark 15:34 has:

And in the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out with a loud voice and said:

<El, El l'mana sh'vaktani, which is,> My Eloah, My Eloah, why have You

forsaken Me?

(Mark 14:34 HRV)

A Footnote reads:

Obviously quoting Ps. 22:1 (22:2). The Aramaic phrase l'mana sh'

vaktani could also be understood as "for this you have kept me". See

note to Mt. 27:46.

(In the HRV <> indicate passages which appear in the Pedangta but not

in the older Old Syriac Version)

Maybe I've misunderstood a few things here (wouldn't be the first time). I thought your Bible was a translation from the Aramaic (the P-e-s-h-i-t-t-a). If so, how come you put your translation for the Aramaic in footnotes?

Edited by penworks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I've misunderstood a few things here (wouldn't be the first time). I thought your Bible was a translation from the Aramaic (the P-e-s-h-i-t-t-a). If so, how come you put your translation for the Aramaic in footnotes?

Matthew and Hebrews in the HRV are primarily translated from old Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew with Aramaic noted in footnotes.

The Aramaic of the Four Gospels is partly taken from the P-S-H-I-T-T-A.

The extra-Pedangta books of 2Peter, 2Jn, 3Jn and Jude are taken from Greek (for lack of authoritative Aramaic)

The extra-Pedangta book of Revelation is taken from the Crawford Aramaic text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew and Hebrews in the HRV are primarily translated from old Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew with Aramaic noted in footnotes.

The Aramaic of the Four Gospels is partly taken from the P-S-H-I-T-T-A.

The extra-Pedangta books of 2Peter, 2Jn, 3Jn and Jude are taken from Greek (for lack of authoritative Aramaic)

The extra-Pedangta book of Revelation is taken from the Crawford Aramaic text.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I could understand if James Trimm had plagiarized one of the way international's garbage publications such as the collaterals, are the dead alive now, etc. But to go after someone for coming up with a new version? That one has me baffled. I would think a work of this nature would only serve to help add insight and understanding to the bible by having another Hebrew / Aramaic based text to use for reference. How low, how very low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I could understand if James Trimm had plagiarized one of the way international's garbage publications such as the collaterals, are the dead alive now, etc. But to go after someone for coming up with a new version? That one has me baffled. I would think a work of this nature would only serve to help add insight and understanding to the bible by having another Hebrew / Aramaic based text to use for reference. How low, how very low.

The thing is,

if his version is plagiarized from THEIR book(s), then they have a legal basis for a

complaint (violation of their legal rights under copyright law), and are entitled

to their day in court, and judgment in their favor.

Whether or not his version is plagiarized from their book(s) is a matter for the

court(s) to determine.

From a Christian standpoint, it would be better if they went directly to him and

tried to get satisfaction from him first. I do not know if they attempted this.

From a legal standpoint, that is not required beyond possibly issuing a

cease-and-desist letter. It should be no surprise IF the way international

handled this solely as a legal matter, and ignored how the Bible says to treat

other Christians- they abuse their OWN Christians and are unlikely to treat

outsider Christians with the respect Christians usually accord one another

at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points. I was basing my views on a "furtherance of the gospel" perspective. But we all know that the way international isn't really about that.

James probably thought the same thing. He seems to be genuinely surprised by this turn of events. If it were me, I'd probably point people to TWI's book and then publish a commentary to point out deviations from his theology. But then there's that pesky problem of TWI's reluctance to sell its products to non-way people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...