Aramaic English New Testament

Most New Testaments come from Greek translations that were originally translated from Hebrew and Aramaic texts. However, the Aramaic English New Testament comes directly from Aramaic. The meaning of an entire verse can easily be altered by a translation, for example; the Greek "Kurios" is often rendered as "Lord", however there is both "LORD" (the Father) and "Lord" (the Son), which the translator must choose. However the Father (YHWH) and Son are clearly distinguished in Aramaic, there is no confusion about the speaker or Who is being addressed.

Never heard of it before. Have you seen it, or just run across the description of it?

Do they have an old testament as well?

I just ran across a description of it. Sounds interesting coming from a Semitic viewpoint but there are some things that are iffy to me. One of the things about it is it says Jesus did not die on the cross for our sins but because of our sins. ??? What intrigues me is the knowledge of the Hebrew idioms and customs and that sort of thing, kind of firsthand. It would only be a resource Bible, tho'. It's only the NT and it's not something I can "trust" at this point.

I'm not sure where you heard this. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. Aramaic was the spoken language, but there were no written versions in Aramaic.

Here are links to folks that say it was written in Greek (the strongly supported position)
http://www.biblica.com/bibles/faq/11/
http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/nt-languages.html
(the third one here actually points out that they have never found any Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts, some scholars just theorize that they must be out there)

Here's one that thinks the entire thing was in Hebrew, but his biggest argument in favor of that comes from a verse that is one thing in the "textus receptus" but is something else in other (earlier) manuscripts.
http://www.wcma-usa.org/hebrewnewtestament.html

Here's another one that pretty plainly deals with the claim of Aramaic "primacy" and points out that there wasn't an Aramaic translation until centuries later.
http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/aramaicprimacy.html

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Aramaic.

Just read this: NIV= JW Bible. ??

This person went on to say that the ONLY difference between the NIV and the New World Translation (which is the JW Bible).

Hmm. This gets murkier and murkier.

What was the only difference?

Puh! My brain has been working like that all day!

The only difference is the notes. I know that's not true because I know they change things like John 1:1 to say "a god" instead of "was God".

It's hard to know who to believe/trust.

My Grandmother of Blessed Memory had a zero-tolerance policy. Once she caught someone in *one* deliberate lie, she would no longer trust their information.

As my Mom got older, she said of Grandma's policy, "I always thought she was being too harsh, but the older I get, the more I realize how wise it was."

I tend to agree with her. I'm not saying to hate or judge the person who gives you false information - just recognize that their info might be inaccurate in more than one place.

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/

Well, since none of the books of the New Testament are among the dead sea scrolls, this is irrelevant. Old Testament books (and aramaic versions thereof) are in the dead sea scrolls, but no New Testament books.