Talk:George Lamsa

message: I contest that Lamsa provided any meaningful insight.  The last words of Jesus are an Aramaic translation of the opening of Psalm 22, which undoubtedly says "Why have you forsaken me"?  Creeating a spurious variant that disagrees with the Old Testament is no solution.
Lamsa gives a long list of places where the Aramaic text of the Peshitta apparently agrees with the Hebrew or Greek original, but a slight alteration in the Aramaic produces what he regards as a better reading.  This is not a sensible way to proceed with Bible translation.  No doubt other Bible translations alter their original to yield better sense, but few are as cavalier as Lamsa, and most will carefully justify any changes by reference to the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls or other sources.
Lamsa argued that his procedure was valid because the Peshitta represents the original version of the New Testament and the received Greek text is a translation of the Peshitta.  Few if any scholars would give this the slightest credence.  He even argues that the original Hebrew of the Old Testament was lost and the received Hebrew text is a re-translation of the Peshitta. 81.134.14.236 22:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Well done to Ms Brown for her re-write.  But shouldn't an article caled George Lamsa be basically a biography of Dr. Lamsa?  I suggest that the discussion about the meaning of words in the Bible belongs in the article Lamsa Bible.  But if it is moved, there's not much left of this article. 194.200.241.36 16:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we do with this article? 

message: It's not NPOV to say that his is the one true version of the Bible. If someone did some research to this effect, we might accurately describe the research in NPOV terms, but never state a contraversial opinion as fact.--Prosfilaes 22:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Without judgment on the part of this article's authors, it can be neutrally stated that Dr. Hawkins' personal conclusions -- determined by means of scientific kinesiology tests -- were that Dr. Lamsa's version of the Bible is the most truthful version currently known to mankind.  Dr. Hawkins, a M.D. and Ph.D., has been knighted for his work, and lectured widely at universities (Harvard, Oxford, et al.) and to spiritual groups from Westminster Abbey and Notre Dame to Catholic, Protestant, and Buddhist monasteries.
The first part of that statement is lousy; don't say "Without judgment on the part of this article's authors, it can be neutrally stated that". Why include a huge list of credentials? "scientific kinesiology" isn't linked to anything, but kinesiology doesn't seem to make any sense in this statement?--Prosfilaes 01:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: What the hell does "scientific kinesiology" mean? Since no one can clarify, I'm going to follow my gut in saying that it's pseudoscientific nonsense and delete the reference to it.--Prosfilaes 19:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One true authoritative version of the Bible 

message: The bit about David Hawkins really didn't seem to fit where it was, and he seems rather a fringe voice.  I didn't see the point in deleting it all, since someone might find this of interest, so I moved it to its own section.
I appreciate the desire not to squelch potentially useful information, but I do see the point in deleting it all. This is entirely outside the scope of this supposed bio page of Lamsa, besides being fringe and incoherent. Also note that the page on David Hawkins has been killed completely. I'm removing this section.PFR 03:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Hawkins

message: These links are broken. Can anyone fix them?
Review of Lamsa's translation by Herbert G May, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 26, No. 4, Oct., 1958 (JSTOR)
Review of Lamsa's translation by PAH de Boer, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 8, Fasc. 2, Apr., 1958 (JSTOR)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.80.98 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need someone with a JSTOR account to look for the right link. Chaldean (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken links

message: Unless I am missing something, the Branham quote:
    "To our gratification we find the words in both amazingly the same so that there is no difference actually in content or doctrine.
    ..."
seems to be lacking context, such that the meaning of "the words in both" is unclear. 
Both of what, exactly?
Toddcs (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Branham quote lacks context

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George Lamsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626040056/http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/lbp.htm to http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/versions/lbp.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified