Expert: Rev Philip Dacre - 6/2/2011

Question
Jesus spoke Galilean Aramaic which we all know, and in Jerusalem they spoke Judean Aramaic and there is a difference in words and dialect.
Talya ALAHA in J.Aramaic means "son of God", in the tongue of Jesus (p )"G.Aramaic" and his disciples it means "Servant of God", both child & son can be traced back to the greek word "UIOV".
Now if we translate "UIOV" back to Galilean Aramaic we would of got Servant of God, but xtian scholars chose to translate it into Judean Aramaic.
so when he says "I am the Talya Alaha" in his tongue it means "i am the Servant of God" and not "i am the son of God" John 10:36 and 19:7 proves there was confusion.
"Talya Alaha" in J.Aramaic can also mean "Lamb of God".

So why does the Bible only focus on the Jewish Aramaic translation when Jesus (pbuh) was a Galilean Aramaic speaker?
Considering Jesus was accepted in Galilee, i presume because they understood him to be a servant of God, and rejected in Judea i assume because he was regarded as making claims to be the Son of God, and he himself was confused at this (John 10:36)

Answer
Dear Arf,


I am not a student in languages but this I know. He equaled Himself with God in nature...and this is spoken off elsewhere in the bible. He Himself spoke to Philip as the Father in a man...God's voice called Him His son and so ratified Him.

Lastly He is the only servant of God ever to accept and welcome worship.

So whatever the miss translations I feel them inadequate to cancel this @God in man@ and His existence on earth.

God bless