How is the George Lamsa translation of the Bible (from Aramaic) viewed by Evangelical scholars? According to Why does Iglesia ni Cristo use the Lamsa Bible?, at least one Christian church thinks Acts 20:28 in the Lamsa translation supports thier non-trinitarian viewpoint. Many translations use "church of God" and suggest God's blood purchased our salvation, whereas the Lamsa translation says [emphasis mine]:


  Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood.


What do evangelical leaders and scholars think about the Lamsa translation? Does it appear to contradict their doctrines?
The Bible scholars involved in the translating of the English Standard Version say this:

Acts 20:28 (ESV): “to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”  Refers to the blood of Christ... the blood of God’s own Son, which would be a legitimate alternative reading of the Greek.  Some Greek manuscripts read “the church of the Lord.”

The Bible scholars involved in the translating of the New International Version say this:

Acts 20:28 (NIV): “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”  Literally “the blood of his own one” referring to his own Son.  Many manuscripts say the church of the Lord.

The Bible scholars involved in the translating of the New Living Translation say this:

Acts 20:28 (NLT): “Feed and shepherd God’s flock – his church purchased with his own blood.”  Or “with the blood of his own [Son]”

I have no idea whether those Bible scholars and translators would wish to be labelled as Evangelical Christians, though.  However, they are in agreement that there is nothing wrong in translating the Greek into “the blood of God’s own Son” or similar.
One Bible translation (the New World Translation) renders Acts 20:28 as “the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.”  The Bible translators are not named but it is highly unlikely that they would wish to be identified as either Evangelical Protestants or Evangelical Catholics.  They are, however, unanimously anti-Trinitarian.
As for Iglesia ni Cristo, they believe that Jesus was created by God the Father and is not a deity and the Holy Spirit is the power of God and also not a deity, being sent by God the Father and Jesus Christ to guide God's people.  However, the manner in which that one verse in the Bible is translated neither proves nor disproves the Trinity, although it is understandable why anti-Trinitarians prefer the Lamsa translation of Acts 20:28.
EDIT: As requested, here are the Study Bibles I quote from:
English Standard Version (2008) page 13-17 for names of scholars/translators
New Living Translation (2008) page A29-30 for names of scholars/translators
New International Version(2000) page xx for names of scholars/translators
New World Translation (2006) No scholars/translators are named