I remember that once I said that the contradictions and misconceptions of the Bible, as well the violence, are all caused by mistranslations. I suggested that we needed a much older translation to get it right. Here it is: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...2970832/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-1204925-6766352 This translation is directly from manuscripts of the languange Jesus spoke, in Aramaic. Below are tons of examples of mistranslations and many corrections, followed by a little comparison of versions and an example of parallel between Philosophies. Have fun! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! From this site:http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl?book=pro&chapter=31 " "Mat.27:46 "..Jesus cried..Eli, Eli, lama sabach'tha-ni? (Aramaic) that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" According to another of Lamsa's books "Idioms of the Bible Explained" Matthew could not have supplied the "translation" supplied above, for it does not correctly render the ARAMAIC meaning, which is ..."My God, My God, for this I was kept." Or to use more familiar Eastern terminology..."my destiny!" The Church of the Middle Ages has brought kings to their knees, and indeed lost England to Protestantism based on another Aramaic mistranslation...Mat. 19:9 (as usually translated) "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." George Lamsa on page 98 of the above book shows "put away" is the Aramaic "shvikta", while divorced is another word "shrita". Jesus is NOT here making some profound new LAW against Christian divorce, but merely showing that a man who marrys another woman without granting his first wife a real divorce (very easy in Jewish laws of that time) was ethically responsible for his former bed-mate's supposed BIGAMY because she was still legally married to him.....Putting the ONUS here on the man, not the woman! Another "mistake" that has cost women around the world plenty, may have been done purposely by the male translators of non-Aramaic Bibles through the Ages. On page 61 of Lamsa's "Idioms..." John 21:15 "Feed my lambs"=in Aramaic "Feed my young people, take care of them....John 21:16 "Feed my sheep"=in Aramaic "Feed the adults." ...John 21:17 (Lamsa) "Feed my ewes"=in Aramaic "Feed the young women." The meaning is here so OBVIOUS that somewhere down the line of copyists, most of them celibate monks of the Middle Ages, they have dropped out "ewes" and made it "sheep" instead, spoiling a very apt saying of Jesus, and completely changing His instructions to Peter, allowing popes to this very day to ignore the rights of "young child-bearing women" or to put it symbolically..."EWES"! " A Little Comparison... Matthew 6:9-13 : The Lord's Prayer in the New International Version: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen. The Lord's Prayer directly from the Aramaic: O cosmic Birther of all radiance and vibration, Soften the ground of our being and carve out a space within us where your presence can abide. Fill us with your creativity so that we may be empowered to bear the fruit of your mission. Let each of our actions bear fruit in accordance with your desire. Endow us with the wisdom to produce and share what each being needs to grow and flourish. Unite the tangled threads of destiny that binds us, as we release others from the entanglement of past mistakes. Do not let us be seduced by that which would divert us from our true purpose, but illuminate the opportunities of the present moment. For you are the ground and the fruitful vision, the birth-power and fulfillment, as all is gathered and made whole once again. George Lamsa's - best Bible translation "Idioms in the Bible Explained and A Key to the Original Gospels" by George Lamsa's What a difference!!:bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Unifying different Philosophies! Compare! Yah Chanan (John) 1:1-3 In the beginning the Word having been and the Word having been unto God and God having been the Word he having been, in the beginning, unto God all through his hand became: and without him not even one being whatever became. Tao Te Ching: Chapter 1 The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name. (Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all things. Comparison: In the first paragraph... Comparing, the word "WORD" in the Aramaic Bible means the word "NAME" in the Tao Te Ching! Both means that God cannot be perceived in a rational manner as God is beyond "WORDS" or "NAMES", He is THE MEANING... In the second... The manifestation is made, God generates everything. Links: http://www.beconvinced.com/RELIGION/TRANSLATIONER.htm http://www.theexaminer.org/volume4/number2/worst.htm http://www.valleycoc.org/Bible Study/level 2/study_level_2.htm#scr http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section02.html http://www.the-gnosis-site.com/book-scr.htm http://exegesesbibles.org/expose2.htm#I. WILLFUL MISTRANSLATIONS - A "little" list: http://www.the-gnosis-site.com/sri/contradi.htm Muhammad predicted in the Bible: http://www.answering-christianity.com/predict.htm This one compares all versions to the King James Version... but not take into account that that this version itself might be wrong...: http://www.llano.net/baptist/godwroteonebible.htm Orientalisms: http://www1.itech.net/~ydl/Orientalisms_of_the_Bible1.htm Mistranslations in the Qu'ran: http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Versions/ Homosexualism and the Bible: http://www.geocities.com/~mcc_st_louis/homo.htm Lots of mistranslations...: http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl?book=pro&chapter=31 I guess that's more than enough... Love, Nelson
Thank you for that information! My father has long wanted to know if there was a book that translated the bible from Aramaic without going through all the whitewashing and censoring that has occurred through the ages. I printed the prayer for him and he wanted to order the book right away. Kudos! This should be an interesting read!
Happy to have helped... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And happy to have someone that understand about it in this thread... In my other ones... mostly people that don't know what I'm talking about...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :bugeye: Well... I proved right my point about the Bible... One point got... Some to go...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Originally posted by TruthSeeker This translation is directly from manuscripts of the languange Jesus spoke, in Aramaic. The problem here is that the Bible wasn't written in Aramaic. George Lamsa's - best Bible translation This is hardly a well-accepted translation. http://www.equip.org/free/DL010.htm http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa033b.htm http://www.letusreason.org/Iglesia7.htm If you're seeking a good Bible reference that includes various translations try this site: http://unbound.biola.edu/ you can even compare side-by-side. ~Raithere
Raithere, From the first site...: That's true and scriptural. This wasn't mistranslated. Faith was and is required for healing. He had no power. The person had. It's through free will that the healing happens... Again... That wasn't even mistranslated... My exact same view... Coincidence? I know what I'm talking about. I didn't know it was so good... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks for the site! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now, I'll get this straight. The translations we have of the Bible have been changed. The real translations are those cited by Lamsa. That's how it really works. As you see, the "supernatural" things are taken away and it gets a more psychological and Eastern point of view...
Originally posted by TruthSeeker My exact same view... Coincidence? Now, I'll get this straight. The translations we have of the Bible have been changed. The real translations are those cited by Lamsa. I hate to say it TS but you're starting to sound like Jan. Proof is that it is in accord with your personal belief? I don't know that I'll spend much time on this but there are other Aramaic translations. There is also the New American Standard version which was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew as well as Aramaic. Where is Lamsa's proof? What source material is he translating from? Some of the earliest manuscripts are in Greek, is he then re-translating them back to Aramaic and then to English? Think skeptically TS. ~Raithere
Sin and judgement Lamsa's view is that sin is just error and there is no need to have someone atone for. The whole thrust of the Bible is that man's relationship with God was broken, and that brokenness brought sin into the world. This sin that causes humanity to be doomed to separation from God after death, needed to be rectified by one who would come through the faithful lineage. This was Jesus--and that is why He calls Himself, "The Son of Man". Lamsa extolls every person of prominance as having tapped the power of God, but then goes to try and reconcile religions by extolling prominent religious people in many religions. At that point, why choose to believe a religion at all? What does it matter? You may as well choose one that focuses on self-gratification--maybe something with plenty of beer and sex. If all religions are equal, you might as well have fun, right? Then Lamsa doesn't matter based on his own beliefs. Who cares about the Bible if it doesn't matter anymore? The only point would be to comfort yourself in the face of people who believe the Bible. If that is true though, there are plenty of others who claim the Bible is wrong and don't do it in a roundabout way by claiming the Bible is merely "mistranslated" first, and then translating it into oblivion. But it is one of the less pursued tactics to try to invalidate Christianity.
Dan.... whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa WHOA! That negates the whole purpose of Salvation! It negates John 3:16*, which is basically the foundation of Christianity! How in the f*** does he justify THAT? It sure as hell ain't Scriptural! Well where in the f*** is THAT in Scripture? Power of God? Bah! The OT heroes like Samson were "blessed" - given power - they did not tap into any "power of God". Bah-humbug, I prefer the argument from morality, Cris' argument from nonexistance of Origional Sin and my argument from irrational belief. *For our athiests who aren't masochists, or prefer leather.... John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Uh, Xev? Watch the language please. I know it wasn't used abusively, only casually, but it's against the TOS anyway. I censored the offending word, but that's all I did. You should probably do something about your signature, too. I didn't mess with it, but I'm pretty sure that's a no-no as well. E-mail me if you have any questions, okay? Thanks, Your cheerful Cow-God moderator.
Raithere, The same everyone does...?:bugeye: Well... you see... You get the mistranslated Bible and say that that is the true one. This Bible passed trough the hands of hundreds of kings, emperors and interpreters. Before being translated to English, it was translated to Latin, Greek, perhaps Italian, German, etc... Now... people get manuscripts directly from the language Jesus spoke, manuscripts that date about 2000 years (of course...), and intepret them directly into English, it make sense, and you still prefer the other version? Do you prefer the normal version so that you can blame it...? Because that's what it seems...:bugeye: Well... what I read is that those are manuscripts directly from Aramaic... Xev, What did I just said...? Was Jesus God or a Philosopher like Buddha and Lao Tzu...? Think about it. Even because this Bible translated from Aramaic agrees with other Philosophies... Again... As I always said, those scriptures were totally distorted and mistranslated...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! dan 1123, If all Religions are talking about the same thing... isn't there an evidence of the Truth...?
Raithere, *cough... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You mean... the oldest version were not written in Jesus's own language...? And the apostle's...? :bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And personal interests...? I mean... Roman Empire... hundreds of Religions... Christianism... one Religion... change here, change there, and you control your people with lies made up from the Truth...:bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I will answer your question: His translation make sense. Most of the Bibles simply seem different books! And all of them have mistranslations and mostly intentional distortions... In the Middle Age, kings wanted to control people. Modifying the Bible would be an easy way... However, Lamsa's translation makes sense and show clear parallels between Jesus' Philosophy and Eastern ones.
Back in the middle ages when people still lived according to the bells of their local church or cathedral, literacy was pretty rare (I could make a social comment about today's literacy rates, but, eh, why bother?). The only book that most people ever saw was a bible, and that had to be read to them. In a nearly completely agricultural society, literacy just wasn't that important. People placed a tremendous amount of trust in their church officials to teach them how to live in accordance with God's laws. When the church involved itself in the affairs of the state, it was easy to control the governments by controlling the masses upon which they relied. Since everybody wanted to live by God's law, a little adjustment was needed here and there to the scriptures to get things swinging the church's way. If a king fell out of favor with the church, a few well-placed and well-timed sermons could start to sway popular sentiment against the king, and we know what unpredictable creatures angry peasants can be. Of course, it's not a foolproof method, but it was the best weapon the church had in its arsenal (aside from the Inquisition and the Crusades, that is.) It's all about power.
I think what Raithere is trying to say is that the oldest copies of the Bible in existence are written in Greek. There arent any original aramaic transriptions available, so how exactly can someone write a book claiming that they are translated directly from the original Aramaic text when non of them are in existence. Its like someone publishing a new book about the Ten Commandments saying that they've been translated directly from the original stone tablets.
You mean... the oldest version were not written in Jesus's own language...? And the apostle's...? You got it. Fact is, there aren't many (if any) original manuscripts around. All of the old testament would have been in Hebrew, not Aramaic. I believe all of Paul letters we're in Latin or Greek. So it's not simply a matter of retranslating. I mean... Roman Empire... hundreds of Religions... Christianism... one Religion... change here, change there, and you control your people with lies made up from the Truth. And from what I read Lamsa has an agenda too. I will answer your question: His translation make sense. To you perhaps. Once again, you're sounding like Jan. Just because it "makes sense" to you doesn't mean it's the truth. Most of the Bibles simply seem different books! And all of them have mistranslations and mostly intentional distortions... As does Lamsa's from what I've seen. Lamsa's interpretation does not fit in with what we know of the history of that period and that region. For one, historical evidence points to Yahweh being a tribal storm God, one of many Gods, not "O cosmic Birther of all radiance and vibration". In the Middle Age, kings wanted to control people. Modifying the Bible would be an easy way... Actually, this was done by the RC and Protestant Churches rather than Kings. Try reading the Apocrypha and other Non-Canonical manuscripts some time. It's interesting to see what was left out. However, Lamsa's translation makes sense and show clear parallels between Jesus' Philosophy and Eastern ones. I seems to me that Lamsa had a deliberate agenda in mind. That his translation reflects this agenda is not, therefore, surprising. What you should be looking for, Nelson, is agreement or argument by other experts for Lamsa's work. Is it generally accepted by those who have some expertise? Or is it mostly ignored or rebuffed by the experts and only championed by people with the same agenda as Lamsa has? ~Raithere
Dracula's Guest, The point is that Jesus' language was Aramaic. He used to speak in Aramaic most of the time as much as the apostles. It's more probable that the original manuscripts were written in Aramaic then Greek or Latin (at least the Gospels, as the Epistles were adressed to countries where Greek and Latin were spoken...) Raithere, Read above... Which "agenda"...? If you prefer the translation where there are supernatural powers and many controverses... ...? Jesus' ideas comes from east. There is a gap on the history of his life in the Bible... if you noticed... In this gap, he was in the East. There are archeologist and historicians that found evidence of his presence in the east... Those too... What would he win with this lie...?:bugeye:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker The point is that Jesus' language was Aramaic. He used to speak in Aramaic most of the time as much as the apostles. It's more probable that the original manuscripts were written in Aramaic then Greek or Latin (at least the Gospels, as the Epistles were adressed to countries where Greek and Latin were spoken. Possibly. Problem is no such manuscripts exist. Please remember that most people back then were illiterate, even more so outside of Greece and Rome. There would be little reason to write in Aramaic. Particularly when the Apostles could simply speak to them. Such documents do not now exist and may have never existed. So, once again, I must question where Lamsa found these original Aramaic manuscripts? Where are they now? Which "agenda"...? If you prefer the translation where there are supernatural powers and many controverses... I don't prefer any particular translation. I find them all interesting myths and translations of myths thickly laid over a framework of historical truth. Jesus' ideas comes from east. There is a gap on the history of his life in the Bible... if you noticed... In this gap, he was in the East. There are archeologist and historicians that found evidence of his presence in the east. None that I've seen evinced. From what I've read Jesus was strictly Jewish but wanted to clear some of the hypocrisy from how it was being practiced. Care to show me to the contrary? What would he win with this lie? A measure of power and prestige. Also see above. I think you're headed in the right direction; seeking the commonalities between the religions. But don't swallow BS just because it supports your notion. ~Raithere
Jesus in the East? Please tell me more. One day it will all fit! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
