An Aramaic Word

[John Reece]

I sent an e-mail to the Professor of Biblical Languages at UTS, who responded graciously, but so far has not provided an answer to my question about the meaning of this Aramaic word:

שרבתא

That is the word rendered דור in the Hebrew translation of Matthew 24:34 in the Aramaic text of The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation, Edited by The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel; published by The Bible Society, Jerusalem, 1986.

The rendering in the Greek New Testament is γενεα. The rendering in English is generation.

If any of you can inform me of any resource that may provide information about this Aramaic word
(שרבתא), I would be very grateful.

P.S: Since it's obvious what the word means in terms of translation, I suppose I should say why I wish to know more about the word. It has to do with the question of whether or not it's possible for the word rendered γενεα in the GNT to mean anything other than a period of time limited to the lifespan of a person and his/her contemporaries.

[MuggleOrSquib]

Having checked www.peshitta.org for the root (Shin Resh Bet), I conclude that lineage is the key factor.
The English translations are:
Stock, Line, family, tribe, generation

Bob Griffin

[John Reece]

Very interesting!

Thanks, Bob.

Blessings,

John

[John Reece]

So, the Aramaic word has an etymological history and dictionary definition similar to that of GENEA.

That fact confirms my conviction that word meaning is determined by neither etymological history nor by dictionary definition.

Word meaning is determined by context and usage.

[dizzle]

And there is no wiggle room in Matthew 24:34. It means exactly what it appears to mean, Left Behind notwithstanding.

[John Reece]

Dee Dee,

:thumb:

[dizzle]

Why not... here it goes again...

"What’s happening is that Preterism is challenging futurism. Idealism is not a factor out there and Historicism is not a factor. Preterists are rising up, coming mainly out of the Reconstructionist Movement, to do this. What is their theme verse? Does anybody know? Let’s all say it together, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.” So, when you talk to a Preterist, get ready to hear the words, “this generation” at least eight dozen times if you have an extended conversation.

We’ll have to have some Christian sociologists do an analysis of how frequently Preterists in an average hour discussion of Preterism say “this generation” and report back. That would be a good thing for the Christian Ed department to do. That way we could have some probability rates on these kinds of things."

--Tommy ICE

The Conservative Theological Journal, 48, Volume 3,
in an article entitled "The Destructive View of Preterism," pg 393

[John Reece]

And since there is so much emphasis on "this generation" in Matthew 24:34, a very thorough exegesis is required.

I think that my exegesis of GENEA on my web page (http://www.johnreece.us) stands the test of scrutiny:

Both the context and usage of both DOR and GENEA in the Bible (OT and NT) are consistently in accord with the etymological history and dictionary definition of DOR, rather than with that of GENEA. (The dictionary definition of GENEA contains a broader range of meaning than that of its usage in the context in the Bible).

[GrayPilgrim]

03-12-2003 @ 10:17 PM
MuggleOrSquib:

Having checked www.peshitta.org for the root (Shin Resh Bet), I conclude that lineage is the key factor.
The English translations are:
Stock, Line, family, tribe, generation

Bob Griffin

Thanks for the info and the link Bob.

Preterists,
I still say that you ignore that generation is NOT the only possible gloss for γενεα and דור. in addition most of the other glosses make perfect sense and it is only your desire to prove a point that makes you take such a hard line on that passage. Even if you do make that point I still think that your system is shipwrecked on Gen 15, 17; Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28...

Moreover, I as discussed elsewhere, I do not see the relavance of what potential word would lay behind the Greek is anywho.

GP

[John Reece]

GP,

Re:
I still say that you ignore that generation is NOT the only possible gloss for γενεα and דור.

I would like to see an exegetical case made for another "possible gloss" for γενεα in Matthew 24:34, or any other verse in the New Testament. Assertion is one thing, demonstration another.

I do not see the relavance of what potential word would lay behind the Greek is anywho.

Since you don't see the relevance, we can drop that as a consideration, as I have already suggested in a prior post.

Even if you do make that point I still think that your system is shipwrecked on Gen 15, 17; Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28...

What do you mean by that?

John

[John Reece]

GP,

Re:

it is only your desire to prove a point that makes you take such a hard line on that passage.

It is quite the other way around with me. But enough of my comments.

Please respond to these:

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, in his Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew, wrote regarding γενεα in Matthew 24:34 that it is "well neigh absurd" to attempt to "force" into γενεα the meaning of "race" or "nation."

Frederick Lewis Godet, in his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, wrote regarding γενεα in Luke 21:32 that projections of the meaning "race" or "nation" into γενεα in this context "are now regarded as forced."

D.A. Carson (despite his presuppositional stance as a premillennialist), in his commentary on Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, wrote regarding Matthew 24:34 'This generation' can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke."

The view of A. B. Bruce in The Expositor's Greek Testament is echoed in A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament: 34. This generation... The problem is whether Jesus is here referring to the destruction of Jerusalem or to the Second Coming and the end of the world. If to the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a literal fulfillment. In the Old Testament a generation was reckoned as 40 years. This is the natural way to take verse 34 as of 33 (Bruce), 'all things' meaning the same in both verses.

John

[GrayPilgrim]

03-13-2003 @ 01:38 PM
John Reece:
The view of A. B. Bruce in The Expositor's Greek Testament is echoed in A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament: 34. This generation... The problem is whether Jesus is here referring to the destruction of Jerusalem or to the Second Coming and the end of the world. If to the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a literal fulfillment. In the Old Testament a generation was reckoned as 40 years. This is the natural way to take verse 34 as of 33 (Bruce), 'all things' meaning the same in both verses.

John

For now I'll comment here first cause I just taught on Genesis 15 Sunday and it contradicts the 40 years generation theory--

13 know for certain that your offspring will be sojurners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there...for four hundred years
16 And they shall come beack here int he fourth generation...

So it appears here that generation is not as tightly defined as Bruce would have it to mean. Now that does not mean he is wrong, but it shouws that we might need to rethink part of the reading, so now if we go to the 100 year generation, maybe we get to teh Bar Kokhba rebellion of AD 125 (I don't think so but just showing how the 40 year view does not necessarily answer all the questions.

GP

[ItalianGold]

All the silly bickering notwithstanding...I have a sincere question for the waring Christians who seem to think that they are doing Christ's work by nit-picking their scripture to bits.

Why don't you find 3 or 4 general points upon which you can agree and then agree to disagree on the rest? Clearly it is not important exactly when the second coming will or won't happen. It will or won't happen regardless of what any of you believe. Presumably you won't live your life any differently based on your understanding. Why waste your energy arguing about it?

I continue to be astounded by how angry, indignant and rigid some of you are when it comes to details of your belief. You profess that the requirements for salvation are simple. You claim Christ's message is clear. Yet you are a house divided in profound and trivial ways.

I am at a loss to comprehend why a supposedly clear message of Love and "good news" has created not a united brotherhood of followers of Christ - but a vast range of militant splinter groups all insisting on their own version of the Truth. What motivates this battle? Could it be that it's not so much the details which are in question but your Faith period? Are you so filled with doubt on the deepest level that you must lash out at anyone and everyone who questions? I have trouble understanding your outrage at non-believers. I would think you would be dedicated to teaching by gentle words and example that the Christian life is the Way. But that is nothing compared to my inability to comprehend why you fight among yourselves so incessantly. One has only to look at the bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants to see the fruit of this hostility. But more and more the infighting among even Protestants, even evangelicals, even conservative, fundamental, evangelicals is creating a frightening tableau for the world. This is not Witnessing for Christ. This is not spreading the word of salvation. I submit that it is ego driven, competitive, devisive and symptomatic of desperate doubt. Does Revelations address this sad state of affairs?

Perhaps instead of maintaining your attacks on science, other religions and indeed the person sitting beside you in the pew on Sundays...you should direct your energies to finding a way to "love your neighbor as yourself."

[GrayPilgrim]

03-13-2003 @ 03:25 PM
ItalianGold:

All the silly bickering notwithstanding...I have a sincere question for the waring Christians who seem to think that they are doing Christ's work by nit-picking their scripture to bits.

Why don't you find 3 or 4 general points upon which you can agree and then agree to disagree on the rest? Clearly it is not important exactly when the second coming will or won't happen. It will or won't happen regardless of what any of you believe. Presumably you won't live your life any differently based on your understanding. Why waste your energy arguing about it?

I continue to be astounded by how angry, indignant and rigid some of you are when it comes to details of your belief. You profess that the requirements for salvation are simple. You claim Christ's message is clear. Yet you are a house divided in profound and trivial ways.

I am at a loss to comprehend why a supposedly clear message of Love and "good news" has created not a united brotherhood of followers of Christ - but a vast range of militant splinter groups all insisting on their own version of the Truth. What motivates this battle? Could it be that it's not so much the details which are in question but your Faith period? Are you so filled with doubt on the deepest level that you must lash out at anyone and everyone who questions? I have trouble understanding your outrage at non-believers. I would think you would be dedicated to teaching by gentle words and example that the Christian life is the Way. But that is nothing compared to my inability to comprehend why you fight among yourselves so incessantly. One has only to look at the bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants to see the fruit of this hostility. But more and more the infighting among even Protestants, even evangelicals, even conservative, fundamental, evangelicals is creating a frightening tableau for the world. This is not Witnessing for Christ. This is not spreading the word of salvation. I submit that it is ego driven, competitive, devisive and symptomatic of desperate doubt. Does Revelations address this sad state of affairs?

Perhaps instead of maintaining your attacks on science, other religions and indeed the person sitting beside you in the pew on Sundays...you should direct your energies to finding a way to "love your neighbor as yourself."


Very well said and thank you for the rebuke. I mean this with all sincerity.

GP

[ItalianGold]

Gray Pilgrim:Very well said and thank you for the rebuke. I mean this with all sincerity.

GP

Your comment completely disarmed me. (took the wind right out of my sails of indignation and self righteousness) :teeth:

I would love to be able to sit with you over a cup of tea, beside a warm fire, and talk openly and honestly about how we might find ways to foster peace and understanding on earth.

I have no illusions that we can solve the world's problems, mind you. But I have hope. I struggle daily with my beliefs and my questions about the meaning of life and my place in it. I am certain of almost nothing. But somewhere deep inside is a small voice that says we are in this together. That we share a common desire to love and be loved...and that this little flame which burns in every heart is Holy.

[John Reece]

See what an inquiry into the meaning of an Aramaic word has led to!

:love:

:yipee:

[GrayPilgrim]

03-13-2003 @ 04:11 PM
ItalianGold:

Gray Pilgrim:

Your comment completely disarmed me. (took the wind right out of my sails of indignation and self righteousness) :teeth:

I would love to be able to sit with you over a cup of tea, beside a warm fire, and talk openly and honestly about how we might find ways to foster peace and understanding on earth.

I have no illusions that we can solve the world's problems, mind you. But I have hope. I struggle daily with my beliefs and my questions about the meaning of life and my place in it. I am certain of almost nothing. But somewhere deep inside is a small voice that says we are in this together. That we share a common desire to love and be loved...and that this little flame which burns in every heart is Holy.


I agree that the desire to love and be loved is at the heart of what it means to be human.

I to would enjoy sitting down with you.

GP

[John Reece]

Now that ItalianGold has corrected GP's attitude (just kidding, GP :smile: ), I'd like to continue my quest for a clear understanding of scripture, in the irenic spirit in which the tread was started.

Do you see any relationship between Matthew 16:28 and Matthew 24:34, with regard to the question of the meaning of a generation in the NT?

Matthew 16
28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 24
34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

If not, how would you define the difference in the meaning of the respective texts, in terms of the question of time?

[ItalianGold]

Now that ItalianGold has corrected GP's attitude (just kidding, GP ), I'd like to continue my quest for a clear understanding of scripture, in the irenic spirit in which the tread was started.

Blake, if I didn't know you better I might think that comment was a subtle dig/warning to GP...that "consorting with the enemy" would result in ridicule. However, I give you the benefit of the doubt as you have never demonstrated a mean-spirited side to me. And just for the record, although I stand by my unflattering observations of the state of the Christian world, it was my MY attitude that got adjusted by Gray Pilgrim's humble response.

I now return you to your stated purpose of this thread. I would open another to explore the possibility of finding common ground, but I'm not sure where to do it.

Peace,

IG

[John Reece]

ItalianGold,

Who is "Blake"? :huh:

I was quite touched by your initial comment, and wrote a long reply, but it was devoured by a cyber monster. Before I could rewrite it, you and GP had gotten into an exchange that I did not wish to interrupt or distract from.

The lack of unity in the Body of Christ grieves me more than anything. The most precious scriptures to me are these:

John 17
20 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. (ESV)

1 Corinthians 13
8Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (ESV)

Ephesians 4
11And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love. (ESV)

The focus of the three texts are the maturity and unity in love of the Body of Christ.

It matters much how we understand the scriptures. I loathe debate, but I hunger for irenic searching of the scriptures to better understand God's purposes, so as to participate with Him in the fulfilling of it.

I could have wept when I read what you wrote. So I was glad my original message was lost. I was happy to leave the serious communication to you and GP, while I hid with humor the pain in my own heart.

Blessings,

John

[ItalianGold]

John, mea culpa. I must have been having a low blood-sugar moment when I called you "Blake."

sorry

:argh:

[John Reece]

No problem, ItalianGold.

Blessings,

John

[Recognitiones]

I may not have kept up with the thread, but if it is any help, it is the word for "tribe" as used in the book of the Revelation chapter 7 where it lists the twelve tribes. And in the Peshitta itself in Matthew 24:30.


I sent an e-mail to the Professor of Biblical Languages at UTS, who responded graciously, but so far has not provided an answer to my question about the meaning of this Aramaic word:

שרבתא

That is the word rendered דור in the Hebrew translation of Matthew 24:34 in the Aramaic text of The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation, Edited by The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel; published by The Bible Society, Jerusalem, 1986.

The rendering in the Greek New Testament is γενεα. The rendering in English is generation.

If any of you can inform me of any resource that may provide information about this Aramaic word
(שרבתא), I would be very grateful.

P.S: Since it's obvious what the word means in terms of translation, I suppose I should say why I wish to know more about the word. It has to do with the question of whether or not it's possible for the word rendered γενεα in the GNT to mean anything other than a period of time limited to the lifespan of a person and his/her contemporaries.

[John Reece]

I may not have kept up with the thread, but if it is any help, it is the word for "tribe" as used in the book of the Revelation chapter 7 where it lists the twelve tribes. And in the Peshitta itself in Matthew 24:30.

Thanks, Recognitiones.

I see the occurrences you have noted.

The word $RBT) is also in the Aramaic text of Matthew 1:17, where the Hebrew text has DWRWT (for Greek geneai and English generations).

Blessings,

John

[Agent Yoshi]

Don't know about the Aramaic word, but דורות is the Hebrew equivalent for "generations". The word is used in Pirkei Avot 5:2

There were ten generations. from Adam to Noah — to show the degree of His patience; for all those generations angered Him increasingly, until He brought upon them the waters of the Flood.

שרה דורות מאדם ועד נוח, להודיע כמה ארך אפים לפניו, שכל-הדורות היו מכעיסים לפניו עד שהביא עליהם את-מי המבול

[theonomist]

Why not... here it goes again...

"What’s happening is that Preterism is challenging futurism. Idealism is not a factor out there and Historicism is not a factor. Preterists are rising up, coming mainly out of the Reconstructionist Movement, to do this. What is their theme verse? Does anybody know? Let’s all say it together, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.” So, when you talk to a Preterist, get ready to hear the words, “this generation” at least eight dozen times if you have an extended conversation.

We’ll have to have some Christian sociologists do an analysis of how frequently Preterists in an average hour discussion of Preterism say “this generation” and report back. That would be a good thing for the Christian Ed department to do. That way we could have some probability rates on these kinds of things."

--Tommy ICE

The Conservative Theological Journal, 48, Volume 3,
in an article entitled "The Destructive View of Preterism," pg 393 Preterists are rising up, coming mainly out of the Reconstructionist Movement, to do this. us reconstructionists shall NEVER quit:flaming: tommy ice you do not have the theological fortitude to stop us

[theonomist]

And there is no wiggle room in Matthew 24:34. It means exactly what it appears to mean, Left Behind notwithstanding.amen/amen and AMEN:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: the defeatists will be defeated

[Menachem]

I sent an e-mail to the Professor of Biblical Languages at UTS, who responded graciously, but so far has not provided an answer to my question about the meaning of this Aramaic word:

שרבתא

That is the word rendered דור in the Hebrew translation of Matthew 24:34 in the Aramaic text of The New Covenant Aramaic Peshitta Text with Hebrew Translation, Edited by The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel; published by The Bible Society, Jerusalem, 1986.

The rendering in the Greek New Testament is γενεα. The rendering in English is generation.

If any of you can inform me of any resource that may provide information about this Aramaic word
(שרבתא), I would be very grateful.



I was looking this over and decided to check a few sources of Aramaic to cross reference this particular word.

Are you sure of the spelling of שרבתא
I saw that it was listed as the word for tribe but When I cross referenced thsi with the Targum Onkelos at every point that many points where the word for tribe in hebrew, מַטֶה The Aramaic word used is spelled different than the word you are giving the word used in the aramaic is שִבְטַא

That is why this particularly raised my eye when another person said that the word you listed means "tribe" in Aramaic because of the spelling that would not make it mean that.

Targum Yonatan uses the word I gave also but it is spelled differently also however the spelling here is not an issue as it is using another letter as a vowel. The rendering it gave is שְיבֶטַא

I have no clue as to what the word you gave, if spelled as you posted it, means. If it is the word for tribe then מַטֶה is the word the hebrew translation should have used. If the Aramaic document wanted to express the word for generation then the word is דָּרָא .

[John Reece]

Are you sure of the spelling . . .

Yes, I am quite sure of the spelling — I am looking at the word as it occurs in The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament: Peshitta Aramaic Text with Hebrew Translation, Edited by The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel (Jerusalem: The Bible Society, 1986).

That is why this particularly raised my eye when another person said that the word you listed means "tribe" in Aramaic because of the spelling that would not make it mean that.

The “person” (Recognitiones) simply referenced the fact that, in chapter 7 of Revelation, $RBT) is the Aramaic rendering in the Peshitta for the word that is rendered “tribe” in English texts. The corresponding Hebrew word in the text referenced above is $B+

I have no clue as to what the word you gave, if spelled as you posted it, means. If it is the word for tribe then מַטֶה is the word the hebrew translation should have used. If the Aramaic document wanted to express the word for generation then the word is דָּרָא .

This thread is focused on actual occurrences of the Aramaic word $RBT) in the texts of The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament: Peshitta Aramaic Text with Hebrew Translation, Edited by The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel (Jerusalem: The Bible Society, 1986). The semantic range (“tribe”, “generation”) of $RBT) in that text is indicated by its usage in the verses of scripture noted in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=999308&postcount=24).

[theonomist]

Yes, I am quite sure of the spelling — I am looking at the word as it occurs in The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament: Peshitta Aramaic Text with Hebrew Translation, Edited by The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel (Jerusalem: The Bible Society, 1986).



The “person” (Recognitiones) simply referenced the fact that, in chapter 7 of Revelation, $RBT) is the Aramaic rendering in the Peshitta for the word that is rendered “tribe” in English texts. The corresponding Hebrew word in the text referenced above is $B+



This thread is focused on actual occurrences of the Aramaic word $RBT) in the texts of The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament: Peshitta Aramaic Text with Hebrew Translation, Edited by The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel (Jerusalem: The Bible Society, 1986). The semantic range (“tribe”, “generation”) of $RBT) in that text is indicated by its usage in the verses of scripture noted in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=999308&postcount=24).you ROCK john reece:sh:

[Menachem]

Yes, I am quite sure of the spelling — I am looking at the word as it occurs in The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament: Peshitta Aramaic Text with Hebrew Translation, Edited by The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel (Jerusalem: The Bible Society, 1986).

OK



The “person” (Recognitiones) simply referenced the fact that, in chapter 7 of Revelation, $RBT) is the Aramaic rendering in the Peshitta for the word that is rendered “tribe” in English texts. The corresponding Hebrew word in the text referenced above is $B+

The reason I brought that up was that the word for tribe in Aramaic is very similar to one of the words in Hebrew. The one you gave is the word it is similar to. However the reason I brought up the Aramaic Targums was that I could not locate an instance in those witnesses that expresses this word to mean "Tribe" nor "Generation(s)."



This thread is focused on actual occurrences of the Aramaic word $RBT) in the texts of The New Covenant Commonly Called the New Testament: Peshitta Aramaic Text with Hebrew Translation, Edited by The Aramaic Scriptures Research Society in Israel (Jerusalem: The Bible Society, 1986). The semantic range (“tribe”, “generation”) of $RBT) in that text is indicated by its usage in the verses of scripture noted in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=999308&postcount=24).


I know what the thread is about. I simply wanted to state that the Targums Onkelos and Yonatan do use the Aramaic word you gave to mean "generation(s)" nor "Tribe". The words I gave previously for "Tribe" as well as the one I gave previously for "generation" are used by the Aramaic Targumim to represent the those words. That is all I wanted to express.

[John Reece]

OK





The reason I brought that up was that the word for tribe in Aramaic is very similar to one of the words in Hebrew. The one you gave is the word it is similar to. However the reason I brought up the Aramaic Targums was that I could not locate an instance in those witnesses that expresses this word to mean "Tribe" nor "Generation(s)."






I know what the thread is about. I simply wanted to state that the Targums Onkelos and Yonatan do use the Aramaic word you gave to mean "generation(s)" nor "Tribe". The words I gave previously for "Tribe" as well as the one I gave previously for "generation" are used by the Aramaic Targumim to represent the those words. That is all I wanted to express.

:thumb:

Thanks for the information and clarification.

By the way, please re-read your last paragraph and see if you left out a word ("not") . . .

[Menachem]

:thumb:

Thanks for the information and clarification.

By the way, please re-read your last paragraph and see if you left out a word ("not") . . .



I did....lol....thanks for pointing that out.

[judge]

Hi john, I have seen several discussions on the menaing of this word in Aramaic, and in fact you will find some in the archives of the old forum at peshitta.org which have input from native Aramaic speaker even.
From what I have learned the menaing is pretty much generation, as in English.

Another idea might be to check the lexical concordance at
http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi

type in the word generation and you will see every use in the peshitta (22 books) in context.

all the best

[John Reece]

Hi john, I have seen several discussions on the menaing of this word in Aramaic, and in fact you will find some in the archives of the old forum at peshitta.org which have input from native Aramaic speaker even.
From what I have learned the menaing is pretty much generation, as in English.

Another idea might be to check the lexical concordance at
http://www.peshitta.org/cgi-bin/lexicon.cgi

type in the word generation and you will see every use in the peshitta (22 books) in context.

all the best

Thanks, judge.