That’s fine, but firstly there are no “original documents” we only have copies of copies, of copies. Secondly I do not believe that the OP has personally expressed doubt about the Bible translations, but is asking for information from “experts” to be able to counter the assertions of his/her co-worker who has said,Regina Love;10388496] When you doubt the original documents, and Bible translations which the Church has asserted to be true for centuries, then you are doubting the ability, and authority of the Church to handle such things, and to accurately represent the truth!
That information has now been supplied by other posters on this thread.that since we base it off Greek instead of Aramaic, there is some meaning that is lost in what is said thus rendering the New Testament less reliable.
Easily. Because Greek was the language spoken in the Eastern part of the Roman empire. It is plausible it may have been written in Aramaic (some of the gospels/letters) but did not survive over the time. Second, if the HS guided the human author, I do not see why the person translating it from Aramaic into Greek would royally mess up in the translation?I’m currently answering some questions my Muslim coworker has posed to me and I don’t know how to respond to one of them:
If Jesus and his disciples spoke in Aramaic, why isn’t the New Testament scripture based off of written Aramaic as opposed to Greek?
My coworker is asserting that since we base it off Greek instead of Aramaic, there is some meaning that is lost in what is said thus rendering the New Testament less reliable. Anyone an expert on this?
That’s credible. That particular phrase was preserved in its Aramaic form in the Latin Vulgate as well.There are a few phrases. The gospels that were specifically written in Greek included transliterations of Aramaic/Hebrew and the Greek translation.
For example:
Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani
You seem to have some experience with this. I feel like that’s where he was going with all of the discussion and questions. But I’ll be sure to bring the questions about the Quran and see what he has to say about that. Thanks!The Muslim is trying the old “Islam is completely true only in Arabic” angle that Islam uses. I must point out that if the Quran is true only in Arabic, then Islam is not a world religion, but one that is intended only for that fraction of the world that speaks Arabic. As well, the Quran has been revised over the ages, by using a simpler writing style, as the language is quite laborious to copy in its original form. Thus, many of those subtle nuances that Arabic is famous for have vanished over time.
Since the Quran has been simplified, and since the subtle nuances that reportedly make Islam truest only in Arabic have been lost via the ancient copyist’s switch to simpler writing styles, how can the modern Muslim know that what they possess is true to the original? This is vitally important in light of the fact that they have no Apostolic Tradition which preserves the meaning and intent of the words as written.
Some of the only bits of Aramaic (or “Hebrew”) words and phrases we have specifically from the gospels are:There are a few phrases. The gospels that were specifically written in Greek included transliterations of Aramaic/Hebrew and the Greek translation.
For example:
Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani