Esther4:14 Posted October 13, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 603 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 628 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) This is taken from the Hebraic Roots Bible, which was translated by a private ministry and is free online in different formats from http://www.coyhwh.com/en/bible.php I was fortunate enough to find this about a year ago when I finally got fed up with the KJV only debates and Bibles printed by Zondervan. I do believe that the KJV corrupted the work of Erasmus and intentionally made it poetic and intentionally evolved the English language to create a barrier to understanding, and Zondervan prints questionable material. A Bible publisher should have standards that exclude material from being printed. If you can print some material that is questionable, it is suspicious that the Bible would be printed with integrity. I enjoy this version, as I do enjoy using Tyndale's version. Tyndale's version is very easy to read once you get past the differences in spelling. Anyways, Matthew 27:46 in the Hebraic Roots Bible reads: "And about the ninth hour, Yahshua cried out with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama shabakthani; that is My El, My El, why did You honor Me to be here?" This is a very familiar verse that usually reads "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (KJV). which caused me to investigate the reason for changing forsaken to honor. The footnotes of the Hebraic Roots Bible reads "This verse has been greatly misquoted as the original Aramaic can mean to leave in a good way, such as if you were an owner of a company and had to go away and left someone very trusted to care for your business while you were gone. From Isaiah 63:1-9, we see that only Messiah qualified to redeem Israel and it is stating here the honor given to Him for His perfect life and sacrifice," (p. 1215). According to Strong's Concordance, the word in Greek can stress towards a positive or stress towards a negative. Therefore, the word might not technically be translated wrong, per se; however, English has many more words in our vocabulary and is not required for this word to hold a positive or negative meaning. We have other words to describe positive experiences, while we commonly use this word to describe negative ones. However, this has not stopped us in the church from creating a positive narrative to go with this word that describes a negative experience in English. I have heard many extra-Biblical descriptions like how this verse is describing a separation between Jesus and God for the time that He was hanging on the cross for our sins. We have created this story to go along with it that describes and dramatizes the experience of the cross with something that is mentioned no where else in scripture. No where does Jesus say that He does not want to die on the cross because it will separate Him from the Father. It is common that we attach His time in Gethsemane to accentuate the way we have reconciled using a word that more often has a negative experience in English from a word that carries both meaning in languages of antiquity. We explain that this experience of separation would have been why Jesus asked that this cup might pass from Him-because it would be too much for Him to have to be separated from the Father during His time on the cross (Matthew 26:39). So, we know whether we know that the word held a double meaning in the original language or not, that using the word forsaken does not hold the same meaning that we commonly believe when we use this word at other times. We instinctively know that this is not the same meaning, which is why we have created multiple narratives to explain this verse in a positive way. In other words, we know that He does not leave Jesus because He is dying on the cross whether we use the word forsake or not. Now, when compare this verse with the last words of Jesus from the other Gospels how does it compare. "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34). Mark is said to be the first gospel and Matthew is said to have been derived from this original text, so the verses repeat for the same reason. The actual word translated is used to stress positively and negatively."And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke 23:46)Luke is also said to have derived from the gospel of Mark; however, he transcribes a experience that translates in a positive experience of finishing on the cross using different words. "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." (John 19:30). John's gospel speaks of a positive experience of accomplishment as well. Therefore, all four gospels translate towards a positive experience. So, if we change the word forsake to a word that more clearly translates a positive experience in the English language, we are given a completely different experience from the text. Instead of reconciling the way it sounds like Jesus is saying He is forsaken because we instinctively know that is not what is happening. When we use a word like honor, he is no longer separated from the Father on the cross the way He does not appear to be in the other gospel accounts. He is being comforted. It is as though the Father is with Him while He is on the cross, comforting Him, telling Him how He will be honored and how all the things He has promised to Him will be fulfilled because He has been obedient to the point of suffering death on the cross. It changes what we expect if we were to experience suffering as well if we were to clearly see how the Father never left His side, but was comforting Him and reminding of the reward that was set before Him for finishing the race set before Him (Hebrews 12:1). This is a narrative that is much more more consistent with the other Gospel accounts and the rest of scripture considering how frequently we read "he will never leave you nor forsake you" (Deuteronomy 31:6; Hebrews 13:5; Genesis 28:15; 1 Kings 8:57; etc). In fact, it is probably because of this that we have never been comfortable believing that Jesus was ever saying He was forsaken. What do you think? Edited October 13, 2015 by Esther4:14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdemoss Posted October 13, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 59 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,402 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 2,154 Days Won: 28 Joined: 02/10/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/26/1971 Share Posted October 13, 2015 What you have written above is a complete perversion of the text. The gospel accounts are based on psalm 22 verse 1 that Jesus is quoting. It is not a positive experience to say the least. I would throw away that bible version it sounds worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted October 13, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 790 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 878 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2015 On the website it states (without giving any supporting evidence) that "the original New Testament was not written in Greek but in Aramaic."Can you really believe that Paul wrote to Greek-speaking Gentile churches in Aramaic? We have an old Aramaic translation of the New Testament (which is presumably what they are using) but it is translated from the Greek.You may not feel able to trust the publishers of modern Bibles, but I don't think I can trust the publisher of this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted October 13, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2015 What you have written above is a complete perversion of the text. The gospel accounts are based on psalm 22 verse 1 that Jesus is quoting. It is not a positive experience to say the least. I would throw away that bible version it sounds worthless.I have to agree it really missed what was happening there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esther4:14 Posted October 13, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 603 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 628 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/07/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 13, 2015 What you have written above is a complete perversion of the text. The gospel accounts are based on psalm 22 verse 1 that Jesus is quoting. It is not a positive experience to say the least. I would throw away that bible version it sounds worthless.Hmm, then how do you address the four Gospels presenting that Jesus said something different each time? Or, that this statement coming from the man who knew it was His will to go to the cross, sounds almost like He doesn't understand the will of God anymore. So, the point I am making is looking at the word on a deeper level and in recognizing that the word does serves a positive or negative way. When Jesus is saying this, He is not saying this. He is then saying this to identify with David in his suffering if we associate this with Psalm 22. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15). So, the experience is different because He is saying this in order to complete the will of God for Him, and not because during the time on the cross He is actually separated from God, which is a common narrative that is made up in order for us to understand the conflict between Jesus knowing the will of God at one moment, and not knowing the will of God in the next. Changing the word, challenges the made up narrative of this account scripture does not confirm anywhere like a defibrillator because no where does it say that Jesus was concerned about going to the cross because He did not want to be separated from the Father. That is something that we have completely made up to explain Him saying this. In truth, Jesus might not have wanted to go to the cross because it would be a painful way to die and He was able to feel pain because He was given a nervous system. Therefore, when He would say this, it was not because He was not being comforted that He has successfully finished what He set out for Him to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esther4:14 Posted October 13, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 603 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 628 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/07/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 13, 2015 On the website it states (without giving any supporting evidence) that "the original New Testament was not written in Greek but in Aramaic."Can you really believe that Paul wrote to Greek-speaking Gentile churches in Aramaic? We have an old Aramaic translation of the New Testament (which is presumably what they are using) but it is translated from the Greek.You may not feel able to trust the publishers of modern Bibles, but I don't think I can trust the publisher of this one. Thank you for pointing this out. I am even more interested in investigating this version because I do believe that we are living in a time when the mystery of lawlessness will be revealed (2 Thessalonians 2:7), and that this mystery is rooted in the early church councils which established a canon that they corrupted into the Vulgate like a bunch of Pharisees trying to pretend to be Christians. I think it is very possible for many of the books to have been originally written in the common language of Aramaic; especially, James and Hebrews in particular. We have been in a struggle to have the scriptures available to us as they should be since the beginning. It couldn't be counted against Wycliffe's for translating the scriptures from the Vulgate; and, it would not have been the fault of Erasmus to have only been able to use the Greek texts that were corrupted by the authors of the codex Vaticanus and the Vulgate (Ancient Word of God, page 27-28). Within this history of the attempt to corrupt the scriptures lies the trail that leads to the son of perdition and the unveiling of the mystery of lawlessness. So, the potential to understand and investigate the way the enemy has tried to withhold the Bible from us is a worthy endeavor because I do not think the efforts of these early reformers trying to remove oppression by providing the scriptures to the body of Christ is finished, and I am interested to see what they will say. I have posted a question and will hear back shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esther4:14 Posted October 13, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 603 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 628 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/07/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 13, 2015 What you have written above is a complete perversion of the text. The gospel accounts are based on psalm 22 verse 1 that Jesus is quoting. It is not a positive experience to say the least. I would throw away that bible version it sounds worthless.I have to agree it really missed what was happening there.What would you say is happening here Therese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted October 13, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 790 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 878 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2015 (edited) Actually, the fact that a translation is given (in Matthew 27:46) of Jesus' Aramaic words virtually proves that Matthew's gospel was not originally written in Aramaic. If his readers had been able to understand Aramaic, then a translation would have been superfluous. Edited October 13, 2015 by Deborah_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted October 13, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.35 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2015 What you have written above is a complete perversion of the text. The gospel accounts are based on psalm 22 verse 1 that Jesus is quoting. It is not a positive experience to say the least. I would throw away that bible version it sounds worthless.I would agree 100%. When we read Psalm 22 and see what it reveals about the sufferings of the Savior and His agony on the Cross (which were all necessities for our redemption) then we dare not put a different spin on this verse. Christ said again and again that He must suffer (in His body, soul, and spirit), and if the experience of the Cross had not be horrifying, He certainly would not have cried out to the Father to take away that "cup" of suffering. Stick with the King James Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted October 13, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted October 13, 2015 What you have written above is a complete perversion of the text. The gospel accounts are based on psalm 22 verse 1 that Jesus is quoting. It is not a positive experience to say the least. I would throw away that bible version it sounds worthless.I have to agree it really missed what was happening there.What would you say is happening here Therese?The same as what gdemoss said - Jesus is quoting Psalm 22 verse 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts