Rating: 
Summary: Useful in learning Syriac to some extent
Review: If you want to study Syriac this book will provide a (not very reliable) translation of the Syriac Bible. So it is useful to some extent.
Unfortunately this book is presented as "the Bible translation from the language Jesus spoke". While Jesus and the disciples did speak Aramaic, it was Western (Palestinian) Aramaic, differing greatly from Syriac (Eastern Aramaic).
Further remark on the back cover about the author's native language and culture being "almost identical to those in the time of Jesus" is simply outrageous. Syriac (dead language now) was not very close to the language Jesus spoke but the author's native language is even more distant - its speakers have to learn Syriac in order to read the Syriac Bible.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best Bibles ever written
Review: Instead of interpreting another interpretation, Dr. Lamsa goes directly to the ancient scrolls themselves for this interpretation. Written in very clear and concise language, he removes the lies placed into the text for the purpose of controlling the masses and allows the true words of the text to come alive with meaning and inspiration. This is a must have for any seeking to find the true meaning of the bible.
Rating:
Summary: BEST TRANSLATION OF GOD'S BESTSELLER
Review: Let me quickly dispense with the negative aspects of this Bible first: The words of Christ are not printed in red; the personal pronouns for God and Jesus are not capitalized; there is no center-column referencing; and quotation marks are not employed. What this version needs is an overhaul by a good editor, and to be made available in a durable leather-bound and/or hardcover edition.
In his book, NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN, Dr. George Lamsa states, 'Not a word of the Scriptures was originally written in Greek...the Scriptures were written in Aramaic.' I believe that he is correct and that those Christian apologists and ministers scrutinizing the nuances of Greek words for deeper understanding would be better served investigating the subtle meaning of Aramaic words and the cloaked truth behind Aramaic idioms.
The Aramaic word for 'camel' is written so nearly identical to the word for 'rope' that when the original scrolls were being transferred into Greek, an error occurred due to the translator's limitations. Matthew 19:24 is commonly translated as, 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.' This is an obvious 'non sequitur', whereas the Aramaic manuscripts read 'rope' instead of 'camel'. Rope, of course, is much more in keeping with the imagery of a needle, and is probably what Jesus said, and what was originally recorded.
Similarly, Matthew 7:3 says, 'Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?' And yet, in Lamsa's version the word 'splinter' appears in place of 'speck.' The organic relationship between a splinter and a plank (or beam) is obvious while speck is more nebulous. Again, Lamsa's translation remains true to the imagery being conveyed.
The ninth chapter of Daniel contains the amazing Old Testament prophecy concerning the surprisingly sudden death of the long-awaited Messiah and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. A portion of verse 26 in other Biblical translations states, 'The end of it shall be with a flood.' The most well written and spiritually mature approach to 'The Tribulation' and the events of 'The Revelation' that I am aware of is David Haggith's, END-TIME PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE. But even the ordinarily clear-minded Mr. Haggith had trouble correlating this passage with known history. 'Blood covered the land like a flood', he overreaches. It comes as no surprise then that the Aramaic manuscripts do not make mention of any unknown flood. Lamsa's translation accurately reads, 'And the end thereof shall be a mass exile.'
Although there is much more evidence, these three examples should be sufficient to convince most serious Bible students that Lamsa's translation from the ancient Aramaic offers us the most trustworthy rendering of Scripture.
Finally, I'd like to elaborate on the comment of brother Ram Munjal from his good 2004, Jan. 21 review: All Bibles tell us that from the Cross, Jesus (quoting Psalm 22:1) cried out, 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?' (See Matthew 27:46) This verse has undoubtedly disturbed people for centuries, and no wonder - it is extremely unlikely that Jesus ever felt utterly abandoned by God while He was hanging on the Cross. The Messiah had been promised His Father's abiding Presence! Nothing happened to Jesus that He was not mentally prepared for. He told His disciples in advance what to expect : He would be mocked, spat upon, beaten, and killed, but that three days later He would rise again. (Mark 10:34) He also said to them, 'you will be scattered...and will leave Me alone. And yet I am not alone, because The Father is with Me.' (John 16:32) Was Jesus mistaken? Or is the translation inaccurate? 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' (My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?) correctly appears in the Aramaic manuscripts as, 'Eli, Eli, lemana shabakthani' (My God, My God, for this I was spared [this was my destiny.]) Indeed! At different times mobs had attempted to kill Jesus, but He was always SPARED because it was His Will and His DESTINY to take mankind's sins to the Cross to be washed clean in His Blood. The Aramaic phrases are so similar that it is easy to understand how the mistake was made, but the meanings are worlds apart, and Lamsa's version is much more consistent with the Mission of The Christ. Trying to correlate the mistranslation, Christian theologians have been forced to create a flimsy dogma based on a couple of vague passages (Ephesians 4:9 & 1 Peter 3:19, 4:6) in order to cover for this improbable utterance from our Lord while He was suffering on the Cross. Lamsa resolves this dilemma in a far more satisfactory manner. Furthermore, according to the Aramaic Scriptures, Psalm 22:1 doesn't read, 'Why have You forsaken Me?' in the first place, but rather, 'Why has thou let Me to live?'
There are plenty more sound arguments to support Lamsa's contention that the New Testament first appeared in the Aramaic language. You may wish to get a copy of his IDIOMS IN THE BIBLE EXPLAINED AND A KEY TO THE ORIGINAL GOSPELS and/or NEW TESTAMENT ORIGIN (Available from the Noohra Foundation - an organization I strongly disagree with on certain crucial issues.)
When in doubt, George Lamsa's translation is the one I always side with. An added bonus is that this Bible is large and heavy, and should you ever find it necessary to really whack somebody upside the head with The Word Of God, this version is sure to make quite an impression!
Rating:
Summary: Translation from the Language of Christ
Review: Ms. Abrante is wrong. Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Middle East region at the time, so that the Romans, Greeks, Jews and others all used this common language to communicate with each other. The majority of New Testament was indeed written in Aramaic before being translated into the Greek. Ask any biblical scholar (the Western World goes to the Greek texts because the Greeks made much of what they discovered palatable to the west. Much of the intellectual and philosophical achievements of Greece are actually Middle Eastern in origin-- after all, Mesopotamian writing and civilization came before the Greek variants.)
Rating: 
Summary: Lamsa; Helpful but not the solution
Review: One will find Lamsa's work helpful in certain difficult passages just as one will find the Hebrew-Greek Key study bible helpful. I think that we need is a translation which considers ALL of the available ancient texts and is not bound by the format and thinking of either ancient Greece or old England. If you are like me your study of the scriptures generates more questions than any current version is able to answer. Rest easy though, the mind of man cannot encompass the mind of God, so one just has to do the best one can, in this case by comparing several versions. Lamsa is helpful in doing this, but as mentioned in another review, he limited himself to someone else's format. Fortunately God is not interested in the quantity or quality of your texts, just the dimensions of your faith.
Rating:
Summary: Lamsa's Bible: A Step Forward
Review: That Jesus and his contemporaries spoke Aramaic as their primary language is not in question. This is accepted, historical fact. Therefore, it makes sense that to better understand what Jesus and others of his era said, we must look to the Aramaic language which precedes Greek texts.What George Lamsa did several decades ago was to look to Aramaic language manuscripts to create a more enlightened translation which reflects the language of Jesus, his followers and the common people to whom He ministered, rather than the Greek language of the military and political leaders of His time who would in time crucify Him. The Lamsa Bible is then a step forward, but still, Lamsa was apparently afraid of offending too many people with his groundbreaking version, so he relied upon the King James translation in large part for style and form, making thousands of corrections to the Bible from the Aramaic texts and applying it to the more accepted form. The KJV reader then will not find the Lamsa Bible too shockingly different, but the careful student of scripture will detect the differences and be blessed by Lamsa's Aramaic language perspective. One might say Lamsa translated the Aramaic Bible text on the back of the King James Version. I have used the Lamsa version as my primary Bible in 7 years of teaching and preaching, and it has served me well, although I often use also the superb NRSV, the Good News Bible (TEV) and the Scholar's Version (Jesus Seminar) and Inclusive Language translations of the Gospel as well. I give the Lamsa Bible 4 stars, because it is a step forward into the light of understanding the Truth of Spirit, but it is now several decades old and becoming a wee bit archaic and musty in the face of user-friendly, easy-reading but simplistic modern translations like the NIV, CEV and NLT. It's time for a modern revision of the Lamsa Bible!
Rating:
Summary: A good translation of a good book
Review: The Bible is a source of wisdom and knowledge, and for many, it is also the source of religion. I view it as a source of wisdom. I'm not a Christian, so if you want a Christian review of the book, please look elsewhere. However, I am curious about the bible, and wanted to read the best possible version of it. This appears to be it - a book translated from the closest to original possible manuscript, fixing many translation errors that have cropped up over the years into the standard "King James" version. These errors have caused the Bible to at times seem beyond surreal, transforming it into a rather convoluted narrative. This version fixes those errors and makes the Bible a much more reasonable and understandable narrative. An example: In the King James version, when Christ is crucified, he calls out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", which, when you think about it, basically means that Christ gave up hope and decided that God had forsaken him in his greatest hour of need! Not a very encouraging statement. In the Lamsa version, the translation is "My God, My god, for this I was spared!", a bit more obtuse, but it conveys a sense of worthiness and value, rather than despair. It is certainly more encouraging! If you are interested in what claims to be the most correct possible translation of the Bible, this is probably it.
Rating:
Summary: Good Vibrations
Review: This book has the wonderful, gentle vibrations of the heart mind. It will activate the vibration of the God within (depending on how clear one is) and understanding will simply be absorbed. All spiritual books should be of such fine, subtle energy, then perhaps there would be fewer holy wars. It is not the words themselves that count, but the vibrations!
Rating:
Summary: Good Vibrations
Review: This book has the wonderful, gentle vibrations of the heart mind. It will activate the vibration of the God within (depending on how clear one is) and understanding will simply be absorbed. All spiritual books should be of such fine, subtle energy, then perhaps there would be fewer holy wars. It is not the words themselves that count, but the vibrations!
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Translation of the Holy scriptures
Review: This is an excellent translation that adds much needed light to the Holy Scriptures that are obscured in other translations -- such as King James Version. A must for the serious Bible student!!
|
