Jump to content
IGNORED

The "Aramaic Bible in Plain English" translation


Psalms37:4

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  569
  • Content Per Day:  0.23
  • Reputation:   75
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/30/2017
  • Status:  Offline

I wanna bring up a topic on a particular bible translation not intended to be a debate but as a warning to all unfamiliar with this version of the bible, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English. However you guys can debate amongst yourselves, I could use a bump to keep this thread on the first page so more viewers are made aware. 

Dr. Rocco Errico is a near eastern theologian and Aramaic expert. He teaches from the Holy Bible, a translation from Aramaic to English by his mentor Dr. George Lamsa. He is the man in the video, the author and translator of the "Aramaic Bible in Plain English" translation in the video link below. 

While no one will argue that Jesus and his disciples spoke some Aramaic, and there is nothing wrong with the Aramaic language, the controversy lies in Errico's interpretation in the Aramaic bible which he translated himself, and in some degree, his understanding of the gospel as you'll see in the video.

If you're wondering if Errico is teaching another gospel, that's precisely what he's doing with his Aramaic translation of the bible. Errico does not recognize Jesus' death on the cross as a redemption of our sin. Meaning there's no salvation for sin and that God does not punish us (God does not punish, God does not reward) if we remain in a sinful state. 

 

George M. Lamsa, Rocco A. Errico and the Aramaic Argument

By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon; ©1999

The Aramaic argument claims that Jesus and the Apostles spoke and wrote in Aramaic, not in koine Greek. Translations from the Aramaic to Greek and then into English have left the Bible with “numerous errors,” which must be corrected by someone knowledgeable in the Aramaic language.

Reduced to its simplest form, the Aramaic argument may be summarized as follows. Jesus and the Apostles not only spoke in Aramaic (a Semitic language similar to Hebrew, originally of the Syrian Aramaeans), they also wrote in Aramaic. Therefore, the original inspired writings of the Apostles were written in Aramaic, not in koine Greek. Translations from the Aramaic to Greek and then into English have left the Bible with “numerous errors,” which must be corrected by someone knowledgeable in the Aramaic language. Lamsa believed the original Aramaic text was the Syriac Peshitta, and thus he argued, “The Peshitta New Testament text varies considerably from the Greek and Latin versions which were made later for the use of new converts to Christianity. There are hundreds of passages where the meaning is different from that of the Greek version.”[1] Of course, everything depends on the assumption of the primacy of the Peshitta, an assumption we will show is false.

Before beginning our analysis, we should point out that no one can lightly dismiss the influence of the Aramaic argument. For instance, Lamsa’s own translation of the Bible and many of his books are regularly found in evangelical bookstores. Lamsa’s translation is published by the A. J. Holman Company, a large publisher of Bibles and Christian books that is now Broadman and Holman. His New Testament has sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Lamsa himself wrote a score of books, among them Key to the Original Gospels; New Testament Origin; Idioms in the Bible Explained; The Hidden Years of Jesus; Gospel Light; Old Testament Light Commentary; and New Testament Commentary. Classes in “Aramaic and the Bible” are taught nationwide by various “Lamsa groups” and others with related interests.

Despite all this, in considering his life’s work, four basic points should be stressed:

  1. Scholars reject the basic premise of Lamsa’s Aramaic originals.
  2. The evidence declares that the Aramaic texts were derived from Greek texts, not vice versa, and therefore the Peshitta is the one with translation errors.
  3. Lamsa was not the objective scholar he is made out to be; he ended his life in close agreement to many New Thought heresies (for example, he denied the deity of Christ and the atonement).
  4. Aramaic is used by more than a dozen cults to reject biblical doctrines, rather than to elucidate the meaning of the text.

Nevertheless, Lamsa argued that the original Aramaic text of the Bible was the Syriac Peshitta, hence his magnum opus comprises an English translation of this document, titled The Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts. There are over a dozen new religious groups (such as Astara, Edgar Cayce study groups and Victor Paul Wierwille’s The Way) which make use of this Bible and Lamsa’s other writings to change the meaning of the biblical text into their own meanings. Lamsa and his co-workers are particularly adept at using an idiomatic argument to deny Scripture: many things in the Bible are (supposedly) mistranslated or misinterpreted because we do not understand Aramaic figures of speech.

For over half a century certain scholars theorized about or attempted to make a case for Aramaic originals.[2] C. F. Burney, in The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 1922), and C. C. Torrey, in The Four Gospels: A New Translation (1933) and Matthew Black in An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1946) are representative. Even though all attempts to discover Aramaic originals have failed,[3] George Lamsa was convinced he had succeeded, and his friend and confidant, Rocco A. Errico, broadcasts such information widely as a “fact.”

Lamsa’s Errors

In the introduction to his Bible, Lamsa claims that “Greek was never the language of Palestine” and that teaching it was forbidden by Jewish Rabbis. Elsewhere he says, “Paul did not write in Greek”; and “not a word of the Scriptures was originally written in Greek.” To the contrary, there is abundant evidence that Greek was one of the Palestinian languages, and all doubt has been removed concerning the Greek composition of the original New Testament. Not surprisingly then, historians like Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, a scholar from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, points out that Lamsa was ignorant of basic facts.[4]

Dr. Yamauchi observes that Lamsa stoops to misquoting Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews xx.12.1 to support his beliefs. Lamsa claimed that Josephus argued that “hardly any” Jews succeeded in learning Greek and he quotes Josephus in the previous passage. But what Josephus actually said is that he, personally, did not attain precision in Greek pronunciation. Lamsa also misunderstood Jewish views about learning Greek in the Mishna, Talmud and Tosefta, which ban teaching Greek to children, not adults.[5] The fact that there are about 1,500 Greek loan words in Talmudic literature is evidence of knowledge of Greek among Rabbis. (Half of Rabbian Gamaliel’s students—500—studied Greek literature.[6]) In his article, “The Language of the New Testament,” J. H. Greenlee of Oxford University provides ample evidence for Greek as a known language in Palestine.[7] For example, when visiting Greeks wished to see Jesus (John 12:20-21), no indication is given that Philip had any problem in communication with them. Neither is there evidence that an interpreter was needed between Pilate and Jesus during His trial. Greenlee argues in detail why the “Aramaic argument” is wrong:

It is unlikely that the Roman governor was conversant with Aramaic and even less likely that the Jews knew Latin. The logical assumption is that the entire discussion was carried on in Greek. Paul wrote his Epistle to the church at Rome in Greek, not in Latin or Aramaic. Even the Epistle “to the Hebrews” was written in Greek—indeed, in the most literary Greek of any book of the NT. It was in Greek that the Roman tribune and Paul conversed after the apostle had been rescued from the Jewish mob at the temple (Acts 21:37). Peter’s communication with the Roman centurion Cornelius and his friends (Acts 10) must have been in Greek, and likewise his sermon on the day of Pentecost. It is noteworthy that Greece is not included in the list of lands in whose (foreign) languages the disciples’ praises of God were being heard (Acts 2:5-11). At the same time, local languages were maintained alongside the use of Greek, just as scores of tribal languages are maintained today alongside Spanish, French, and other trade languages. This was clearly the case with the Jews and their use of Aramaic. The fact that certain Aramaic expressions are found in the Gospels… should not therefore be taken to mean that Jesus normally spoke in another language and interjected this Aramaic phrase for some special effect (though it could be thus interpreted if other evidence supported the hypothesis). It appears, rather, that they were words from expressions the NT writers chose to preserve in their original form because of their special significance or the significance of the events in connection with which they are used.[8]

Nevertheless, Lamsa declared he was the only competent translator (hence interpreter) of the Bible, summarily dismissing all the exegetes of history! In More Light on the Gospel, he declared: “The author, through God’s grace, is the only one with the knowledge of Aramaic, the Bible customs and idioms, and the knowledge of the English language who has ever translated the Holy Bible from the original Aramaic texts into English and written commentaries on it.”[9]

Before we consider specific theological errors from the writings of Lamsa (and Rocco Errico of the Noohra Foundation), we first note the conclusions of Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, a scholar whose academic background eminently qualifies him to assess Lamsa’s claims. Dr. Yamauchi is an authority on Mediterranean studies and a specialist in Mandaic, an Eastern Aramaic dialect and author of Mandaic Incantation Texts, 1967. The material below is excerpted from his article in Bibliotheca Sacra, “Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or Syriac?: A critique of the claims of G. M. Lamsa for the Syriac Peshitta.” He begins by dismissing Lamsa’s premises, noting his grave errors in assigning authority to the views of the Assyrian Church of Iraq and the primacy of the Syriac Peshitta:

It is in fact Lamsa’s faith in the dogma of the Assyrian Church of Iraq which he grandiosely calls “the Church of the East” which serves as the basis of his conviction in the superiority of the Syriac Peshitta Version…. The Syriac of the Peshitta is not the language of coastal Syria around Antioch, which was evangelized in the first century A.D., but of the area in the interior around Edessa, one hundred fifty miles from the coast, which was evangelized between A.D. 116 and 216…. No one but an unquestioning adherent of “The Church of the East” would subscribe to the legendary account of the apostolic roots of the Edessene church. In the light of the claims advanced by Lamsa for Syriac, it should be underlined that Syriac is an eastern and not a western dialect of Aramaic, and indeed that it is “a form of Aramaic that emerges toward the beginning of the third century A.D.” As such it is one of the least suitable of the Aramaic dialects to use for a reconstruction of the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic used by Jesus. As the basis of his translation Lamsa uses the Peshitta Version of the Old and the New Testaments, which serves as the “authorized version” for the Syrian Orthodox Church. The Peshitta was accepted as the official version before the split of the Syrian Church into the West Jacobite and the East Nestorian branches in the fifth century. The Peshitta Canon omitted 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, which Lamsa therefore translates from unidentified “later Aramaic texts.”[10]

Dr. Yamauchi also refutes a number of Lamsa’s additional teachings, including his claim that the Greek Septuagint was never read by Palestinian Jews who spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew. “Lamsa’s contention that the Septuagint ‘was never officially read by the Jews in Palestine who spoke Aramaic and read Hebrew,’ is flatly contradicted by the discovery of Septuagint fragments at Qumran and the quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament which are more numerous than quotations from the Masoretic [Hebrew] type texts.”[11] Dr. Yamauchi next dismantles Lamsa’s approach to the Old Testament text, noting that his views here are “pure fantasy.” About the New Testament, he observes that Lamsa “willfully disregards” the consensus of sound scholarship in order to uphold his own biases:

The suggestion of Lamsa that one can revise the Old Testament text on the basis of the ambiguities in either the consonants or vocalization of the Syriac Peshitta text is pure fantasy. The value of the Peshitta for the text of the New Testament is quite minimal. Lamsa willfully disregards the view of scholars that Sinaitic-Curetonian Syriac texts of the New Testament are older than and superior to the Peshitta New Testament…. Since Lamsa quotes from Kenyon’s (Handbook to the) Textual Criticism of the New Testament, he cannot be ignorant of the evaluation of the Peshitta by scholars but has chosen to deliberately disregard their views. In contrast to Lamsa, all reputable scholars hold the Peshitta New Testament to be based on translations from Greek texts—and from relatively late and inferior Greek texts at that. According to Metzger: “in the Gospels it is closer to the Byzantine type of text than in Acts, where it presents many striking agreements with the Western text.”[12]

As Yamauchi contuse, he observes that even Lamsa’s translation of the Peshitta is of poor quality:

In spite of Lamsa’s outrageous and mischievous claims for the Peshitta, he might have done a service by offering a usable English translation of the Peshitta. Instead, his translation is defective in many respects. In some cases, Lamsa has slavishly copied the King James Version even where the Syriac could be rendered differently. For example, in Philippians 2:6-7…. Where Lamsa does offer an original rendering, it is at times a misleading [one, e.g.] “Caesar’s court,” in Philippians 1:13 for the Syriac Pretorin, which is simply the transliteration of the Latin praetorium, the emperor’s praetorian guard.[13]

Finally, Dr. Yamauchi observes that one may utilize Aramaic if one does so with caution. He discusses the reasons for this and concludes that the “cautious circumspection” of Aramaic scholars is in marked contrast to the “reckless speculation” of Lamsa. Though it is impossible to lend any credence to the fantastic claims of Lamsa, there,

…are sources of Aramaic which can be used with caution. In contrast to Lamsa, who minimizes the dialectical differences between late, eastern Syriac and early, western Aramaic, Fitzmyer warns us: “We should be suspicious of philological arguments about the Aramaic substratum when they depend on texts and dialects of Aramaic that come from a later date (e.g., from the third century A.D. or later), precisely because a new phase of the language begins about that time with clear geographical distinctions”….

How far removed is the cautious circumspection of Aramaic scholars from the reckless speculations of G. M. Lamsa![14]

With this brief background, we now examine the writings of Lamsa and Errico. To start we should observe that Lamsa claimed he was a Christian. “I pray God this translation will benefit Christians everywhere and will help them toward a better understanding of the greatest and most inspiring book of all ages. After all, sincere faith in Jesus Christ has its own reward and devotion to Christ is the principle of all Christianity.”[15]

Lamsa and the Bible

Did Lamsa remain faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible in his translation? The plain answer is “no.” In his writings, Lamsa denied the deity of Jesus Christ, the biblical teaching on salvation, the judgment, the personality of Satan and demons and numerous other cardinal doctrines of Christianity. Far from being a careful exegete of the Holy Scriptures, Lamsa played so fast and loose with the biblical text that it becomes obvious why so many different cults that deny the Bible turn to him for inspiration.

In his Idioms in the Bible Explained: A Key to the Holy Scriptures, we find a typical example of his approach to the Bible: allegorical and non-literal interpretations abound. The following examples, taken from pages 1-6 and 60-83, in his mind represent the true meaning of the following Scriptures. “Let there be light” in Genesis 1:3 refers to enlightenment or understanding. The Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:8 is a metaphor for a wife or a family. The tree of life in Genesis 2:9 refers to sex or posterity. The angels in Genesis 19:1 indicate God’s counsel, or spirits or God thoughts. Wrestling with an angel in Genesis 32:24 refers to being suspicious of a pious man. In Exodus 3:2, the burning bush means that difficulties lie ahead. In Exodus 3:5, “take off your sandals” means to disregard pagan teachings or to cleanse your heart. In Matthew 2:1-10 the wisemen following the star of Bethlehem is interpreted as “walking in the direction of the stars.” “The only begotten Son” (KJV), referring to Jesus Christ in John 1:18, signifies “the first one who recognized the fatherhood of God” and “the only God-like man, hence a spiritual son of God.” In Matthew 5:22, “fire of hell” means mental suffering or torment.

Lamsa in particular did not like the idea of a real devil or demons, and so in Matthew 8:31, “the demons” refers to insane men. In Matthew 12:43 “evil spirit” means an evil inclination or a demented person. In Mark 1:34, “he would not let the demons speak” is interpreted as Jesus not allowing the insane to speak after he had healed them. In Mark 5:9, “My name is Legion,” means that the possessed man had many wrong ideas or that he was a hopeless case. In Luke 4:41, when the demons came out of men, it indicates that many insane men were restored to mental health. In Luke 8:2, “seven demons,” refers to seven bad habits or wrong inclinations. In Luke 10:18, “Satan” expresses the idea of to stray, to slide, to mislead and to slip, and “[I saw] Satan fall” indicates that evil is destroyed.

In Lamsa’s book, More Light on the Gospel, he attempts to explain over 400 New Testament passages. Again, typically, we find non-literal renderings. In Matthew 4:8 the term “high mountain” is figurative and “means he took Him to the summit of his highest human imagination” (p. 2). The word “hated” in Romans 9:13, although perhaps used relatively, still means hate, but for Lamsa it is defined as “to put aside” (p. 187). Lamsa states, “God did not hate Esau. God is love and there is no hatred in Him” (p. 188); never mind that Scripture declares that God does hate (Psa. 5:5; Zech. 8:17; Mal. 2:16; Rev. 2:6). He denies that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, in spite of Romans 9:17-18 and Exodus 4:21, and he rejects that God judged the Canaanites, in spite of the clear testimony of the book of Joshua (p. 189). He also denies eternal punishment, despite Jesus’ clear teaching in Luke 16:19-31, which he calls “wholly allegorical.”[16] In relation to 2 Corinthians 5:10, which refers to the judgment seat of Christ, Lamsa misinterprets the verse and states, “God and Jesus punish no one. People bring punishment upon themselves through their own evil deeds” (p. 227). This is in direct contrast to 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 and many other verses. In Revelation 20:13-14, where death and hell are cast into the lake of fire, Lamsa says that “these sayings are used metaphorically,” and he again implies there is no eternal punishment (p. 363). Lamsa also has an unorthodox view of the second coming.[17]

Lamsa and Jesus Christ

Even more disturbing are Lamsa’s view on Jesus Christ. In The Hidden Years of Jesus, Lamsa expresses a characteristic New Thought and Mind Science view of Jesus Christ: “Jesus” was the man; “Christ” was the God-part of him (cf. 1 John 2:22). “Jesus was born a man. He died on the cross a man, but Christ, God dwelling in him—his divinity, was not subject to human suffering nor to birth nor death” (pp. 10-11). The following statements by Lamsa, in More Light on the Gospels, also document his false view of Jesus Christ. “Jesus did not believe in the power of death” (p. 37). “Jesus… was the first to restore man’s divinity… he became the begotten son of God” (p. 120, emphasis added). “As Jesus advanced in his studies, he discovered that he himself was the man [the messiah] who was to take this mantle of the prophets” (emphasis added).[18]

Further, in his 400 page text Gospel Light, Lamsa states that Jesus was never worshipped as God (p. 353), and that Jesus was not the Son of God as Christians understand the term (p. 148). “Any claim which Jesus might have made to be greater than God or even to be God himself would certainly have caused misunderstanding even among his own followers. He always declared that he was in accord with God who was greater than he” (p. 369).

Lamsa and Salvation

Lamsa’s views on salvation are also heretical. In More Light on the Gospels (pp. 117-120), commenting on John 3:16, Lamsa rejects the clear meaning for his own biased interpretation. He actually denies that on the Cross Jesus atoned for the sin of the world:

No verse in the Holy Bible is more quoted than this one and yet none is probably more theologically misunderstood. This is because the Western reader does not understand Eastern customs and mannerisms of speech…. It is often said that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that our sins could never have been forgiven without his death. The Aramaic word mitol means “because, or on account of or for” but the preferred meaning is “because.” I am inclined to believe that Jesus died because of our sins, because of man’s transgression against God’s law [i.e., not in an atoning sense but as a victim because evil men killed him]. God, being the living father, does not need to be appeased by his children [i.e., Jesus]. No human father would try to appease his wrath by putting one of his sons to death…. Assuredly the death of Jesus on the cross was predicted by the prophet Isaiah…. The prophet did not at any time say that Jesus’ death would reconcile God…. The Scripture says “God is love.” Indeed, love could not demand human sacrifices because there is nothing in love to be appeased. Jesus died on the cross not to appease God or the evil forces, but to prove that [all human] life is indestructible and everlasting because God is indestructible and everlasting.

Thus, “Jesus, through his death, became an everlasting example of meekness and loving kindness” (p. 228). “We do not mean that Jesus died to pay a price to the forces of evil for the sins of the people, but that he risked his life to rescue them from sin” (p. 229). “Jesus through his resurrection saved all mankind in that he gave to them an assurance of life here after” (p. 249).

In the quote above, Lamsa claims Jesus’ death did not atone for our sins or reconcile us to God. But one only need read Isaiah 53 to see how wrong Lamsa was. Finally, rejecting the biblical meaning of the term regeneration, he says that, “to be born again means to start over, to become like a child, receptive, like the first Adam before the transgression” (p. 310).

From all of this it is clear that Lamsa’s theology was not Christian, despite his claims. It is not surprising then, that his chief disciple, Rocco A. Errico, also denies basic Christian teachings.

Rocco A. Errico and the Noohra Foundation

The Noohra Foundation is the brainchild of Rocco A. Errico, whose purpose involves a “special emphasis on the teachings of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, and related subjects.”[19]

Errico and Lamsa were close friends. For seven years Errico studied under Lamsa, whom he believed to be a biblical authority and Aramaic expert. By and large, both Errico and Lamsa have taught doctrines close to New Thought teachings in general. In the quarterly publication Noohra, Vol. 4, No. 4, Errico states, “Man is God in disguise” (p. 3) and that false thinking, not sin, is the cause of human misery. “Jesus spoke of true freedom, i.e., freedom from erroneous thinking which is the cause of all human difficulties and enslaving philosophies, politically and religiously.”[20]

Errico and Scripture

Looking at Errico’s doctrines comprehensively, he denies the biblical nature of God, man, Jesus Christ and salvation as well as the biblical teaching on prayer and many other topics. On page 30 of The Ancient Aramaic Prayer of Jesus—The Lord’s Prayer, he states, “When we say the words ‘our universal Father,’ we are automatically recognizing other people’s sonship with the Father…. This means that the Chinese, the Russians, the Japanese, the Arabs, and all people everywhere are the sons of God!” Because everyone is already one in essence with God, no one needs repentance from sin or the atoning Savior. People only need to realize that they are fully redeemed children of God; nothing else is necessary.

Like Lamsa, Errico alters the biblical text to conform it to the purported Aramaic original. For example, in Psalm 7:11 we read, “God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day.” Errico changes this to “Alpha is a just judge and He is not angry every day.”[21] Errico has changed hundreds of Scriptures like this, and he claims that thousands of others need changing! In effect, Errico and others are rewriting the entire Bible in accordance with their own wishes; they are restructuring biblical teachings into New Thought teachings (or whatever) by appealing to “Aramaic originals.” Thus God is defined as “infinite intelligence,” “the essence of all things… the entire cosmic system is alive,” “one power,” “life forces,” “the Source,” “inherent spiritual power” and so on.[22] “He [God] is not someone to be feared.”[23] God cannot be understood intellectually or doctrinally, He can only be perceived intuitively.[24]

Errico’s teachings on Jesus Christ are also quite wrong. To him, Jesus is little more than a New Thought practitioner. To pray in Jesus’ name means experiencing the same New Thought awareness that Jesus supposedly felt: that all people are one and God is the universal Father; only the Good exists).[25] In The Ancient Aramaic Prayer of Jesus, Errico offers us his new Christ. We are told that Jesus changed the Old Testament concept of God from a God of fear to a God of love.[26] Errico also states, “Jesus knew that man’s spirit and God’s Spirit are of the same essence…. God and man, then, being of the same spiritual essence, are able to communicate—the infinite with the Infinite.”[27] In John 8:24, where Jesus says, “You [will] die in your sins [if] you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,” Errico argues, “‘Ye shall die in your sins’ means ‘You will die in your mistaken ideas, not knowing the truth.”[28] John 14:13-14 is translated and given an expanded New Thought meaning from the Aramaic, “And anything you may ask according to my method I will do it for you so that the father may be celebrated through his son. And if you will ask me in my way, I am doing it.”[29]

Errico’s views on salvation are also unbiblical. What we need is salvation from our ignorance about our oneness with God. Jesus never had to die on the Cross for sin because no one was ever separated from God. “And yet, we have been taught to approach God as if we were totally degraded, no good, unworthy sinners. Jesus never taught us this! It is a misunderstanding of Scripture!… At no time can there be separation from God! If we believe that we are cut off or separated from Him, then it is we who bring the sense of division. It is not God who does this; it is our own mental attitude. God is! And He is everywhere! He hasn’t changed! We have to change our wrong attitudes!”[30]

The Occult

Finally, we should note that given their New Thought worldview in general, the teachings of Lamsa and Errico endorse interest in the occult world. Lamsa stated, “Man has unlimited power within himself.”[31] Errico has made an approving, if casual reference, to those who “seek aid and assistance from their personal spirit guides.”[32]

This openness to the occult is evident in Noohra Foundation publications. Errico teaches psychic development classes titled “Intuitive Development Workshops” where people are taught psychic meditation and how to develop their “intuition”—psychometry, clairvoyance, clairsentience, clairaudience, “auric” and “pranic” healing and so on. Psychic development is also integrated into Errico’s Bible studies; for example, titles of his studies include “Moses and the Mystery Schools” and “Seers, Kings and Prophets—The First School of Psychic Development and the Methods Used by Samuel.”[33] A Noohra Foundation brochure confuses the supernatural and natural realms when it declares: “Supernatural? Intuitive development will show you just how ‘super’ the natural in you really is. Learn to develop your healing and intuitive forces…. Allow yourself to be receptive; turn within and listen; the voice that speaks to you through you is known as intuition.”[34] However, as we documented in our Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs in the chapters on New Age Intuition, Inner Work and Channeling, such attempts at psychic development often lead to occult involvement and have been employed by aspiring mediums and occultists for millennia. The end result here can hardly be different.[35]

In conclusion, we lament that Errico has not taken his own advice: “We have become too bogged down in outward forms and dogmas and have set aside his [Jesus’] original teachings.”[36] And, “it is the tendency of so many biblical authorities to complicate the obvious and simple meaning of the Scriptures.”[37]

https://www.jashow.org/articles/guests-and-authors/dr-john-ankerberg/george-m-lamsa-rocco-a-errico-and-the-aramaic-argument/

 

In conclusion, the bible warned us about those who would come promote and encourage us to accept another gospel contrary to the bible that Christ taught us. Be on the alert, stay away from them and don't listen to their teachings. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me." By His death on the cross, Jesus is our redeemer and the only way to God.

Acts 20:28-30 New King James Version (NKJV)

28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

Galatians 1:6-9 New King James Version (NKJV)

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Romans 16:17-18 New King James Version (NKJV)

17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. 18 For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.

2 John 9-11 New King James Version (NKJV)

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

It is good that others are also in the process of Aramaic translations.

As more and more people recognize its significance, more scholars will contribute.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,178
  • Topics Per Day:  0.88
  • Content Count:  43,784
  • Content Per Day:  6.23
  • Reputation:   11,227
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

The so called lamsa bible (the aramaic translation) is used by muslims to "prove" that the Christian view of Jesus is wrong. 

Thats all I needed to know about it to avoid that translation.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, ayin jade said:

The so called lamsa bible (the aramaic translation) is used by muslims to "prove" that the Christian view of Jesus is wrong. 

Thats all I needed to know about it to avoid that translation.

Aramaic completely replaced Old Hebrew as the language of Hebrews during Babylonian Captivity after the destruction of first temple of Jerusalem. Prior to this, Aramaic was spoken by most of the Hebrew tribes who were taken during Assyrian captivity. During Babylonian Captivity, Old Hebrew died out as a spoken language. After Babylonian Captivity, Old Hebrew was used by Hebrew Priests only for religious purposes. So Books like Daniel, Zechariah, Haggai, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Malachi were originally written in Aramaic. Not Old Hebrew. It is believed that some books (prior to Babylonian Captivity) like Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jonah, and Nahum were written in both Old Hebrew and Aramaic due to the fact that Most of the Hebrew tribes were taken during Assyrian Captivity where Aramaic was spoken and books like Jonah and Nahum have to do with Assyria.

It must be noted that the language of Abraham and his family was Aramaic prior to their arrival at Canaan. For example, Laban the Aramean (the grandson of Abraham's brother Nahor and the brother of Rebecca) spoke Aramaic - "Jegar Sahadutha" (in Genesis 31:47).

Around 400-375 BC, Aramaic Old Testament replaced Old Hebrew as Old Testament among Hebrews when all of the books written in Old Hebrew prior to Babylonian Captivity were translated into Aramaic. Old Hebrew OT was used only among Hebrew Priests at Jerusalem. Aramaic was the language of first century Israel. Unlike Hebrew Priests at Jerusalem, the people of first century Israel had no knowledge of Old Hebrew. That is why whenever the apostles say Hebrew, the word comes up is transliteration of an Aramaic word (For Example, John 19:13, John 19:17).

Although the mainstream media (owned by Jews) claims that Septuagint was translated from Old Hebrew OT, still Septuagint itself points out it used an Aramaic source. Some manuscripts of Septuagint points out that Book of Job was translated from Syriac (a.k.a Aramaic) book.
"In some manuscripts of the Septuagint (Manuscripts- Aleph, A, B, and C) there is an epilogue which is introduced with the words: houtos hermeneutai ek tes syriakes bibliou." (Book "Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible" by Martin McNamara, Page 96 under "3. The Septuagint Ending of Job and Targum."). 

Vowel markings (dots on top and bottom) were added to Aramaic Old Testament many centuries after first century AD. But you can easily ignore them since these dots are on the top and on the bottom of Aramaic words.

Hebrew OT (Hebrew Masoretic Text) that is used today is a corrupt Old Testament that was written many centuries after Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD) by Jews who didn't believe in Jesus Christ.
Here is the document for further details - 
https://archive.org/download/AramaicOT/HebrewOldTestament.docx
Here is the originality and importance of Aramaic Old Testament (Peshitta Tanakh) through correcting the errors in Hebrew Old Testament (Hebrew Masoretic Text) and Greek Septuagint - https://archive.org/download/AramaicOT/TheOriginalityOfAramaicOldTestament.docx
Here is the history of Aramaic - https://archive.org/download/AramaicOT/HistoryOfAramaic.docx

The file "Does Song of Songs belong in Old Testament Canon?" is available under the word document in the Download options above.
 
It must be noted that Jesus Christ and First century Israel used Aramaic form of Law of Moses which was called either Auraytha (in Matthew 11:13, Matthew 12:5, Matthew 22:40 of Aramaic Peshitta) or Namusa (Matthew 5:17, Luke 16:16, etc.). Prophets were called Nwiye (in Matthew 11:13, Matthew 12:5, Matthew 22:40, Matthew 5:17, Luke 16:16, etc.)
Identifier AramaicOT
Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t3128pn4c
Scanner Internet Archive HTML5 Uploader 1.5.2
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

12 hours ago, ayin jade said:

The so called lamsa bible (the aramaic translation) is used by muslims to "prove" that the Christian view of Jesus is wrong. 

Thats all I needed to know about it to avoid that translation.

I am surprised that a savvy person like you would be so easily put off.

There is so much poor reporting on the internet, yet the sources for original information has never been greater.

Some will read one report of negativity and close a door that could lead to understanding and wisdom blessed by the Lord. He will not make anyone read anything, unlike the detractors whos main goal seems to put perpetual stumbling blocks in the way of others.

Maybe you should read about Cranmer. Visualize him being burned at the stake for daring to oppose the RC Church. Does that ring a bell? Witch hunts always kill more than just witches - right?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, Justin Adams said:

I am surprised that a savvy person like you would be so easily put off.

There is so much poor reporting on the internet, yet the sources for original information has never been greater.

Some will read one report of negativity and close a door that could lead to understanding and wisdom blessed by the Lord. He will not make anyone read anything, unlike the detractors whos main goal seems to put perpetual stumbling blocks in the way of others.

Maybe you should read about Cranmer. Visualize him being burned at the stake for daring to oppose the RC Church. Does that ring a bell? Witch hunts always kill more than just witches - right?

Muslims use bullets.

Walmart sells bullets.

Let's boycott Walmart.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

                                     The Originality of Aramaic Old Testament (aka Peshitta Tanakh)
Aramaic Old Testament (known as Peshitta Tanakh) is Old Testament written in Aramaic. There is also another Aramaic Old Testament version known as Syro Hexaplaris version which is a translation of Septuagint.
The originality and the importance of Aramaic Old Testament (known as Peshitta Tanakh) can be seen through its consistency by solving the contradictions between Septuagint and Hebrew Masoretic Text (Hebrew Old Testament written several centuries after Jesus Christ).
EDOM/ARAM
Genesis 25:21-23 (NIV) - "Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. The Lord said to her,“Two nations are in your womb,  and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger."
Esau was the father of Edomites (Genesis 36:9) and Jacob became known as Israel (Genesis 35:10). The importance of the prophesy in Genesis 25:21-23 can be seen a lot more clear in Aramaic Old Testament (Peshitta Tanakh)
In Hebrew Masoretic Text, Aram ("Syria" or "Syrians") is mentioned 139 times while Aram ("Syria" or "Syrians") is only mentioned 18 times in Peshitta Tanakh. On several occasions, Edom is mentioned several times instead of Aram in Peshitta Tanakh. Edom is mentioned 117 times in Peshitta Tanakh (Source - Vetus Testamentum - Vol. 18, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1968), pp. 268-270). 
Unlike Peshitta Tanakh, there are contradictions between Septagint and Hebrew Masoretic Text. In some verses, it says Edom (or Idumea) in Septuagint while it says Aram in Hebrew Masoretic Text. While in other verses, it says Aram in Septuagint while it says Edom in Hebrew Masoretic Text.

Below are some examples.

1) 1 Kings 11:14 in Hebrew Masoretic Text, Septuagint, and Peshitta Tanakh (1 Kings 11:14 in Book "Translatio Syro Pescitto Veteris Testamenti Ex Codice Ambrosianus") says Hadad was an Edomite and of the king's seed in Edom.

1 Kings 11:14 (JPS Tanakh translated from Hebrew Masoretic text) - "And the LORD raised up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the king’s seed in Edom."

I Kings 11:14 (III Kings 11:14 in Septuagint) - "And the Lord raised up and enemy to Solomon, Ader the Idumaean, and Esrom son of Eliadae who dwelt in Raama, and Adadezer king of Suba his master; (and men gathered to him, and he was head of the conspiracy, and he seized on Damasec,)and they were adversaries to Israel all the days of Solomon: and Ader the Idumaean was of the seed royal in Idumaea."

Hadad is Ader in Septuagint. 

But in 1 Kings 11:25, Hebrew Masoretic Text contradicts Septuagint and Peshitta Tanakh.

1 Kings 11:25 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria'."

1 Kings 11:25 (III Kings in Septuagint) - "So Ader returned to his country; this is the mischief which Ader did, and he was a bitter enemy of Israel, and he reigned in the land of Edom."

1 Kings 11:25 of Hebrew Masoretic Text contradicts 1 Kings 11:14 while 1 Kings 11:25 in Peshitta Tanakh (available in Book "Translatio Syro Pescitto Veteris Testamenti Ex Codice Ambrosianus") and Septuagint is in agreement with 1 Kings 11:14 by saying Edom.

2) 2 Samuel 8:12-13 (Septuagint) - out of Idumea, and out of Moab, and from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines, and from Amalec, and from the spoils of Adraazar son of Raab king of Suba. And David made [himself] a name: and when he returned he smote Idumea in Gebelem to [the number of] eighteen thousand.

But in Hebrew Masoretic Text, it says Aram and Arameans

2 Samuel 8:12-13 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "of Aram, and of Moab, and of the children of Ammon, and of the Philistines, and of Amalek, and of the spoil of Hadadezer, son of Rehob, king of Zobah. And David got him a name when he returned from smiting the Arameans in the Valley of Salt, even eighteen thousand men."

This contradiction is solved by Peshitta Tanakh which says Edom and it is in agreement with Septuagint for 2 Samuel 8:12-13.

3) 2 Chronicles 20:2 (NIV) Some people came and told Jehoshaphat, “A vast army is coming against you from Edom, from the other side of the Dead Sea. It is already in Hazezon Tamar” (that is, En Gedi).

- 2 Chronicles 20:2 One Hebrew manuscript; most Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Vulgate Aram.

Note - The [Old Latin] has Edom for Aram (2 Chr 20:2). Peshitta Tanakh says Edom.


4) Ezekiel 16:57 (NIV) - "before your wickedness was uncovered. Even so, you are now scorned by the daughters of Edom and all her neighbors and the daughters of the Philistines—all those around you who despise you."

Note - Many Hebrew manuscripts and Syriac; most Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Vulgate Aram.

Ezekiel 16:57 (Septuagint) - "before thy wickedness was discovered, even now thou art the reproach of the daughters of Syria, and of all that are round about her, even of the daughters of the Philistines that compass thee round about."

Peshitta Tanakh says Edom.

5) Ezekiel 27:16 (NIV) - "Aram did business with you because of your many products; they exchanged turquoise, purple fabric, embroidered work, fine linen, coral and rubies for your merchandise."

Note - Most Hebrew manuscripts; some Hebrew manuscripts and Syriac Edom.

6) 2 Kings 5:1 (JPS Tanakh translated from Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "Naaman, the commander of the Aramean king's army, was respected and highly honored by his master. The LORD had given Aram a victory through Naaman. This man was a good soldier, but he had a skin disease."

2 Kings 5:1 (of Septuagint) - "Now Naiman, the captain of the host of Syria, was a great man before his master, and highly respected, because by him the Lord had given deliverance to Syria, and the man was mighty in strength, but a leper."

But 2 King 5:1 (of Peshitta Tanakh) has Edom instead of Aram (aka Syria) and mentions Edom throughout 2 King 5 instead of Syria in Hebrew Old Testament and Septuagint. 

Additional Notes - Greeks called Arameans or Aramites as "Syriacs" or "Syrians." So Aramaic is also known as "Syriac." That is why Aram is Syria and Arameans are Syrians in Septuagint.
Poseidonios from Apamea (ca. 135 BC - 51 BC) - "The people we Greek call Syriacs, they call themselves Arameans." [Source - J.G. Kidd, Posidonius (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 1988), vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 955-956].
Josephus wrote - "Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians."(Antiquities of the Judeans, translated by William Whiston in 1737, Book I, Chapt. 6, Paragraph 4)
Verses that are not in Peshitta Tanakh (Aramaic OT)
There are several verses in Hebrew Old Testament and Septuagint that are not in Aramaic Old Testament. Below are some examples from the second book of Chronicles. Below information about Peshitta Tanakh is from this source .
1)Both Septuagint and Hebrew OT have 16 verses in 2 Chronicles Chapter 12. Aramaic OT only has 2 Chronicles 12:13-16.
2)Both Septuagint and Hebrew OT have 23 verses in 2 Chronicles 11. Aramaic OT only has 17 verses in 2 Chronicles 11.
3)Both Septuagint and Hebrew OT have the verses 2 Chronicles 9:25 & 2 Chronicles 9:29. But Aramaic OT does not have 2 Chronicles 9:25 & 2 Chronicles 9:29.
4)Both Septuagint and Hebrew OT have the verses 2 Chronicles 28:16-22. But Aramaic OT does not have 2 Chronicles 28:16-22.
5)Both Septuagint and Hebrew OT have the verses 2 Chronicles 29:10-19. But Aramaic OT does not have 2 Chronicles 29:10-19.
                       Other errors corrected by Peshitta Tanakh
1) Did Moses' father marry his aunt?

 Exodus 6:20 (1917 JPS Tanakh English translation of Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bore him Aaron and Moses. And the years of the life of Amram were a hundred and thirty and seven years."

Exodus 6:20 (Samuel Bagster & Sons' Translation from Septuagint) - "And Ambram took to wife Jochabed the daughter of his father's brother, and she bore to him both Aaron and Moses, and Mariam their sister; and the years of the life of Ambram were a hundred and thirty-two years."

Let’s also look at John Wycliffe’s translation.

Exodus 6:20 (John Wycliffe’s translation) – “Forsothe Amram took a wijf, Jocabed, douytir of his fadris brother, and sche childide to hym Aaron, and Moises, and Marie; and the yeeris of lijf of Amram weren an hundred and seuene and thretti.”

Here is a link - http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/biblical_studies/wycliffe/Exo.txt

Peshitta Tanakh has "Amram took his uncle's daughter Yokhaber" in Exodus 6:20. Compared to Peshitta Tanakh and Wycliffe’s translation, the difference with Septuagint is that it says the years of the life of Ambram were a hundred and thirty-two years.

Peshitta Tanakh and Wycliffe’s translation agree with Hebrew Masoretic Text about Amram’s age.

2)  Genesis 2:2 (1917 JPS Tanakh English translation of Hebrew Masoretic Text) -  “And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.”

Let’s look at Septuagint. 

Genesis 2:2 (Translation from Septuagint) – “And God finished on the sixth day his works which he made, and he ceased on the seventh day from all his works which he made.” 

Here is the link to check this verse - http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm

Genesis 2:2 (Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh) – “And on the sixth day God, finished his works which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made.” 

In Hebrew Masoretic Text, it says "seventh day" (in Genesis 2:2), is in contradiction to Exodus 20:11 (in Hebrew Masoretic Text) where it says "six days."

But Peshitta Tanakh has no such contradiction.

3) Exodus 20:7 (look at the differences below)

Peshitta Tanakh - "You shall not swear falsely in the name of MarYA your Alaha, for MarYA will not consider him innocent who swears falsely in his Name... for MarYA made the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that is with them in six days, and rested on the seventh day; for that reason, Alaha blessed the seventh day and made it holy {or, sanctified it}."

LXX - (Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord thy God will not acquit him that takes his name in vain... For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and the sea and all things in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it. - Brenton)

Hebrew Masoretic - You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain; for Yahweh will not allow to go unpunished he who takes his name in vain... For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all which is in them. And he rested on the seventh day; thus, Yahweh blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.

KJV (King James Version) - Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain... For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

4) 2 Kings 8:26 & 2 Chronicles 22:2

2 Kings 8:26 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel."

2 Chronicles 22:2 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri."

2 King 8:26 of Hebrew Masoretic Text, it says Ahaziah was 22 years old. But in 2 Chronicles 22:2, it says Ahaziah was 42 years old. 

Does Peshitta Tanakh has this contradiction?

Both 2 Kings 8:26  and 2 Chronicles 22:2 (of Peshitta Tanakh) says Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign.

Peshitta Tanakh clears the contradiction found in Hebrew Masoretic Text.

5) Did Joram marry the daughter of Ahab or the sister of Ahab?

2 Kings 8:16-18 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being the king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD."

2 Kings 8:24 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) -  "And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead." 

Through this, we know that Athaliah was the wife of Joram and their son was Ahaziah. But in 2 Kings 8:26 & 2 Chronicles 22:2, it says Athaliah was the daughter of Omri and Athaliah was the mother of Ahaziah. But in 2 Kings 8:16-18, we read Athaliah was the daughter of Ahab. In 1 Kings 16:29-30, we know that Ahab was the son of Omri.

What does Peshitta Tanakh say about this contradiction?

2 Kings 8:16-18 (Lamsa Translation of Peshitta Tanakh) - "And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel. Joram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, began to reign. He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for the sister of Ahab was his wife; and he did evil in the sight of the LORD."

Unlike 2 Kings 8:16-18 of Hebrew Masoretic Text, Peshitta Tanakh points out that Joram married a sister of Ahab. Through this, the contradictions in Hebrew Masoretic Text are cleared by Peshitta Tanakh. Ahab was the son of Omri and Athaliah was the daughter of Omri.

Lamsa translation of Peshitta Tanakh is the only current available English Translation of Peshitta Tanakh. His translation is an alright translation. It’s not great.

6) Was Jehoiachin  8 years old (2Chronicles 36:9) or 18 years old (2Kings 24:8) when he began to reign?

2 Kings 24:8 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; and he reigned in Jerusalem three months; and his mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem."

2 Chronicles 36:9 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD."

It says Jehoiachin was eighteen years old in 2 Kings 24:8 and Jehoiachin was eight years old in 2 Chronicles 36:9. What does Peshitta Tanakh say about this contradiction?

Both 2 Chronicles 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 of Peshitta Tanakh says Jehoiachin was eighteen years old. This contradiction in Hebrew Masoretic Text is cleared by Peshitta Tanakh. 

7) 1 Samuel 13:5 
1 Samuel 13:5 (Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "And the Philistines assembled themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the sea-shore in multitude; and they came up, and pitched in Michmas, eastward of Beth-aven."
There are 30,000 chariots. But there are only 6000 horsemen? There is something strange here.
Let's look at Peshitta Tanakh.
In 1 Samuel 13:5 of Peshitta Tanakh, it says there were 3000 chariots instead of 30,000 chariots in Hebrew Masoretic Text. This makes much more sense.
In Peshitta Tanakh, it says Bayth-eil. But Hebrew Masoretic Text has Beth-aven.

8) Psalms 104:3 (1917 JPS Tanakh translation of Hebrew Masoretic Text) - "Who layest the beams of Thine upper chambers in the waters, Who makest the clouds Thy chariot, Who walkest upon the wings of the wind;"

It says God makes the clouds his chariot. God travels on his chariots above the clouds. The clouds are not his chariots. For Example, 2 Kings 2:11-12, 2 Kings 6:17, Jeremiah 4:13, Isaiah 66:15. 

Let's look at Peshitta Tanakh.

Psalms 104:3 (Bauscher's translation of Psalms 104 of Peshitta Tanakh) - "He makes his lofty dwellings in the waters and sets his chariot above the clouds and walks upon the wings of the wind."

So we see that this error in Masoretic Text is cleared by Peshita Tanakh. .

9) Genesis 8:4 - 17th day in both Peshitta Tanakh, Hebrew Masoretic Text, and Samaritan Pentateuch. But in Septuagint, 27th day.

There are several other errors in Hebrew Old Testament and Septuagint corrected by Peshitta Tanakh.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

15 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

The so called lamsa bible (the aramaic translation) is used by muslims to "prove" that the Christian view of Jesus is wrong. 

Your comment seems a bit simplistic and perhaps disingenuous.

If I read my Israeli history correctly, it is the Masoretic text by Jews that was used to suppress the idea of Yeshua. The Mohammedans may also use this, just like many Christians use odd texts to 'prove' just about anything they want to 'validate' or discredit.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,178
  • Topics Per Day:  0.88
  • Content Count:  43,784
  • Content Per Day:  6.23
  • Reputation:   11,227
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

I am surprised that a savvy person like you would be so easily put off.

There is so much poor reporting on the internet, yet the sources for original information has never been greater.

Some will read one report of negativity and close a door that could lead to understanding and wisdom blessed by the Lord. He will not make anyone read anything, unlike the detractors whos main goal seems to put perpetual stumbling blocks in the way of others.

Maybe you should read about Cranmer. Visualize him being burned at the stake for daring to oppose the RC Church. Does that ring a bell? Witch hunts always kill more than just witches - right?

Rather uncalled for. I did a lot of research into this version about 10 yrs ago when a bunch of muslims were using that to attack His deity. This is no witch hunt but my opinion based on what I found out. 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,178
  • Topics Per Day:  0.88
  • Content Count:  43,784
  • Content Per Day:  6.23
  • Reputation:   11,227
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Muslims use bullets.

Walmart sells bullets.

Let's boycott Walmart.

Seriously? 

The lamsa bible was translated by one man, george lamsa, who is not a Christian and imparted a bias to his translation. I refuse to use it because of the antiChristian bias in his translation. This type of comment from you is really low.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...