http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm English HEBREW bible - Masoretic Text
This thread is for the purpose of exsposing common perversions of Scripture weather it be mistranslations/ transliterations or misinterpretations.
For the English reader that is interested in indepth biblestudy I suggest a KJV AND a "Strong's Exhuastive Concordance" this allows you to revert any word back to its orginal term and context. There are many website links with this (look at the study tools section in the margin -->)
The english versions of the word are not free from mis-translations. Please share as many as you like at any rate you like. I will be coming here to study what is posted to see if I see any I haven't caught.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
We know this to be an obvious mistranslation. The orginal Greek word that was translated "hate" is in fact μισέω/ miseō/ mis-eh'-o - and means LOVE LESS in this context.
Not only is this a use of the term, but agrees here in context with all scripture unlike the mistranslation, which is evident within the comandments. Ex.20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. Ex.5:16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. Put God fisrt and give due respect to others - Mk.12:29-31,/ 1 Jn.2:9,11; 3:15; 4:20....
Oddly enough a muslim hadith tells muslims they should love their "prophet" (not God) more than their family. There is a saying that when muslims learn to love their families as much as they hate Jews then there will be a chance for peace.
Feel free to use any English source even though I'm mainly interested in the ****KJV****! Just List the source you use when doing so.
I will start it off with an obvious mis-translation.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
evil here would have been correctly translated Hardships. How the translators would have choosen Evil in this context is beyond me. ONE place such a translation would contridict the Word is Jas.4:7, when the correct translation agrees with all scripture.
For those without a Strong's or way to document such within the Greek here is a link of the term used in this area according to the Greek.
______.....*Turn the Other Cheek......______
Note the prior verse Matt.5:38 says its lawful to take an eye for an eye however this passage is directed to the Disciples of Christ in relation to ministry (Matt.4:19;5:2,13,16...) thus the more edifying context of Matt 5:39 (Lk.6:29). If you go forth sowing seed and the truth offends (Gal.4:16) someone and they react from the flesh and haul off and slap you, would it be proper to forget your fruits in the spirit and result to taking your own vengance by striking back or would it serve your purpose (in Christ) to be the bigger man and endure this hardship? (as Christ did Matt 26:67)
When you "turn the other cheek" it immediatly causes the heartless attacker to consider his actions and your message!
One More for now! (this is Not a mis-translation but rather a relation!)
Note Satan name as it is given in the Greek:
Revelation 9:11 (King James Version)
11And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
When we look at the term perdition in the greek see how it relates to Satan's name! http://www.studylight.org/desk/view.cgi?number=684
We also know what within the Word only one is condemned to perish by name and that one is Satan or "the son of perdition".
This name Apollyon in the Strongs relates back to the root which is the very Word that is translated perdition! # 622 &623 in the Greek!
Liver כבד (Kaved) = glory, honor or heavy. This is the same word for Glory as the Glory of God and honor as to honor parents, friends etc. Kaved (honor) means heavy to give weight to. The opposite word in Hebrew is “Kal: which means light or a curse. When we don’t honor we curse. When we ask our children or anyone to do something for us and they forget our words weren’t heavy (kavod and glory), they were light (Kal light)
When G_d asks us to do something his words should be heavy Kavod, that is important and first priority. There is a lack of liver, honor, and glory in our society. Can we have the glory of G_od and not honor and respect or fellow man? In the bible man cannot stand up on the glory (presence) of God our honor, glory, liver just don’t measure up to his so it knocks us down.
Physical problems can be the reflection of a deeper spiritual problem (but physical probelms arent always a sign of a spacific spiritual issue). We find that many sicknesses that effect the liver are results of dishonoring our bodies with such things as drugs. However we shouldnt be quick to condemn people because they have health issues.
"Easter" is a Mis-translation. The one place it appears in Acts 12:4 . the term was Pasal (Pascha/ Pesach/ - PASSOVER), it can neither be translated OR transliterated "Easter". When we look up easter in the websters dictionary it clearly says a Pagon Holiday and ritual related to the Godess Ishtar the fertility goddess as the ritual included egg rolling and brothels outdoors to ensure offspring for coming years thus the rabbits and eggs.
This link shares contridictions within alternate versions of the bible. I support the KJV as the best English translation (however know it has its mistranslations and that there is an importance to consideration of manuscripts)
1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record /in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth/, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
I dont know why texts is sometimes not showing up so this LINK is this reposted!
I am a bit concerned about the growing support for this NEW source. I listened to a portion of a speech by one: "Andrew Gabriel Roth" who stated that there were mistranslations in the Greek manuscripts that could have "only" come from mis-translation of aramaic Texts. In this small clip there were No examples given and even through discussion with many who supported the source i was being left without any such example.
* The thing to stay mindful of is that this New bible and those who push it claim to have The Proper translation of a Source (manuscripts) they don't have (that dont exsist) while we do already have accepted greek manuscripts.
I have been taking note of some claims that have recently come to my attention. And while they seem to show how some mistranslations could have taken place by misunderstanding Aramaic when attempting to translate it this gives no one authority to claim they know better how to rewrite the N.T. without any proper manuscripts.
1) Acts.8:27 And he (Philip) arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship. (didnt say he entered into the temple grounds)
Anyone familure with the Torah and the culture of Israel would know it is forbiden 4 a eunuch to enter the gates of YHVH (Deut.23:1) to do anything including to worship.
Hebrew term for eunuch is saris (#5631) and is basically to mention one with injured stones (male privates) or a castrated one (or one that for one reason or another doesnt produce offspring by natural intercourse).
However the Aramaic term M'Haymna (M'HAIMNA/ pronounced: mahameanah) Can mean "eunuch" yet can also mean "Believer", "faithful one".
This seems to be the only correct context of the verse! This faithful one went to Jerusalem to worship.
Matt.19:24/ Mk.10:25/ Lk.18:25
While I have recieved understanding on the verse before hearing the aramaic claims i will share the claims for individuals to do their own research!
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "
While many of us clearly understand this verse as saying the rich man must not allow his personal material riches to cause him to stumble rather if his focuss is on The commands of YHVH then the LORD is 1st and also others which would lead the man to use these material riches to please God.
THe same message is repeated elsewhere in the NT making it more problematic that this was a one time mistranslation and to me personally the verse makes GOOD sense with the term camel. Oral Torah uses two simular Habraisims and even the quran (not like its a reliable source) carries the use of a camel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle.
This has been revealed to many with the concept of the needle gate. It is said that before the (Golden/ eastern) gate was sealed (Eze.44:1-3) that within the gate was a smaller gate (door) which would have been used at night and perhaps times of increased defense, this needle gate is recorded within Jewish writtings such as Rashi's commenatry of Eze.44:2 "shall be closed": "Our Rabbis interpreted this verse as referring to the southern wicket, for the gate of the Heichal had a wicket, a small entrance. So we learned in Tractate Middoth (4:2): The Great Gate had two wickets, one in the south and one in the north. No one ever entered the one in the south, of which Ezekiel says, “This gate shall be closed.” ...and "comes through it": is described as "in the future" Of this being given (and of course Rashi who didnt know Yeshua as King Messiah would have still insisted on this being future however the gate that once was is no more and will never be again! No one shall enter that gate again and the location now is a bricked up surface (sealed gate) not made to enter. This needle gate would only be big enough for a single file line entrance and a overloaded camel would first have to unload in order to enter.
Anyway will share their claim:
The term Gamla can mean "camel" or "Large/Thick Rope"
Khawla (Aramaic) Khevel (Hebrew).
According to this its harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom than a Large Rope to pass through the eye of a needle. I will leave it up to the individual to study the verse for themselves. A rich man's camel having to be unloaded and possibly still would probably have to stoop down to enter in a needle gate seems to relate more to a rich man entering in much more than a big rope and a sowing needle comparision. (please feel free to share on any of these points for i am not a exspert on Aramaic and am but sharing recent claims i have come across)
Matt.19:24-26 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
(iI was impossible with man, thus tends to be pointing to the literal camel passing through eye of needle.)
Seems to me these Aramaic "scholars" would do better to list the "mistranslations" they find rather then creating a New source (version) that they ask we put side by side with our already supported sources to see if we approve of their "New" translations (bible versions)
Parts of the bible were written in Aramaic in relation to our latest sources (manuscripts). Example: Daniel 2:4b-7:28 I know there are other areas so if anyone else cares to share those that would be nice but to create a whole bible in Aramaic based on how man thinks it would have ("originally") read in the Aramaic is silly and knocks the door down to allow leaven and traditions of man (perversion).
What to think of this? There are claims that the world's oldest Torah scroll found in Italy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22697098
Acts 26:13-14 "Hebrew" not Aramaic (as suggested with NIV) the Greek is "Hebraidi". (Shem Tov's) Matt.27:46 "Yeshua cried with a loud voice, saying in the holy language, Eli, Eli Lama 'azavtani?" ( Ivrit) Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew is obviously in Hebrew and this Hebrew manuscript of Matt. directly quotes Ps.22:1 in Hebrew Not Aramaic Thuss there is reason to say the "Holy Language" is in fact Hebrew and not Aramaic!
Followers of the "English Aramaic New Testament" are by their own authority > claiming < that Matt.23:8 doesn't say "Rabbi" (Be not called Rabbi). Can we trust these "Aramaic Roots" movement claims?
The "English Aramaic New Testament" Is a Modern bible version and the article claims the following: "But I want to look at the verse with you in Matthew 23 which reads (in the original Aramaic)" (Matt.23:6-11).... Then it gives its translation as:
"But you should not be called ‘My Great One’ for there is only one Who is Great and you are all brothers. "...
The article goes on to say: "it is properly translated in the Aramaic English New Testament from the original manuscripts of the New Testament."
We don't have an "Aramaic Manuscript" of Matthew or the "New Testament" we do have the Peshitta which is a translation To the Syriac From The Greek and the so called Aramaic scholars of the "English Aramaic NT" basically just used their own authority and their biased view of "scholarly works" to compile their texts (source).Claiming that an Aramaic scholar can know what proper words these texts Would Have been relative to the Aramaic. (Feel free to correct me and give a "Aramaic Manuscript" and not a later source that has no real foundation).
None of the earliest texts of this verse support the claim made here. There are two separate words used in the Greek here but the first is to say "rabbi" as in "call no man rabbi" (in The Greak Manuscripts (earliest copies) and Shem Tov's Hebrew Mathew! We can't make attempts to change it by creating our own texts but if its gonna be taken seriously better support needs to be given rather than just telling people this is the proper text "bases on manuscripts" (WHAT MANUSCRIPTS?). The claims of the "Khaboris Codex" is that its a medieval (5th - 15 century) text. What is the exact date? What studies have been done on it? Most of those making claims and studies of this source are supporters of the New Aramaic New Testament Bible so I tend to think they are biased. Where are scientific studies of the date of this texts? The claim is that this is a "Medieval" text (of course claims I by those people who push and use this source/ claims I have yet to even see supported but lets act like they have said this much in truth without demanding them to document it) which conclude it at a later date (500-1500 AD)! The Book of Mathew was "said" to be originally written around 60-65 AD!
The Earliest texts we have of this book are Greek (no denying that)! Thus to show an Aramaic source ("purchased from a Kurdish monastery") that came long after that as being a trust worthy "original text" rather than a (LATER) translation just isn't trust worthy without Evidence (Especially when it has a different context). Example the Codex Sinaiticus (which contains the earliest Complete copy of the New Testament) was hand written in the middle of the fourth century (Codex Vaticanus another nearly complete manuscript dates to the same time period & there are many other Earlier fragments of manuscripts / None of which are Aramaic)... So I think the foundation of the claims is misleading to begin with. Many DO consider Shem Tov's Hebrew Mathew to be a Hebrew manuscript of Matt. and it says Do not desire to be called רבנים (Rabanim/ plural sense of Rabbi)...
I would have to get get past this before considering this article any further (be cautious who does your "translating". Looking forward to a response.
(רבי / H#4461 rhabbi -Resh Bet Yod/ רב H#7230 rob/ רב rab H#7227)
........ <-- reposted.. The "Complete Jewish Bible" makes an attempt as well. (KJV) Jn.13:13 "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." ... You see here the KJV uses a Different word than that used in Matt.23:8 for Good reason it is a different Word here in the Greek Manuscripts! (Jn.13:13 / Greek #1320 Master, instructor, doctor, teacher....) (Matt.23:8 G#4461/ my master, title of honor, rabbi) KJV Matt.23:8 " But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."....
“You call me ‘Rabbi’ and ‘Lord (G#2962),’ and you are right, because I am.” – (John 13:13) Yahshua’s words ("Complete Jewish Bible" – Translation by David H. Stern)... This verse doesnt contradict Matt 23 in any way! Notice how this source uses the same word in both verse when its two different terms in the manuscripts. I think you can see how these people are Playing word Games and why.These people that Love to be called rabbi are attacking the Word cause they love their social positions of power and they do the very things that Messiah condemned false shepherds of doing many times. Matt 23:8 (C.J. Bible) "But as for you do not desire to be called Rabbi: For one is your Rabbi, even the Moshiach; and all you are Yisraelite brothers. (the Word "Yisraelite" isn't even present in the verse)
For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
I don't expect to agree with anyone on all things all the time (where two or more agree in truth there he is in the midst of us) nor do I think that any two people are always at the same stage of their walk. With that being said I do know that G-d uses others as instruments of truth and edification in our lives. I personally acknowledge a number of people I consider as Elders, or sages. But I know no one has it all figured out. We all have room to grow in Faith and I only look to GOD for my completeness! Everything works to the good for them that Love the LORD. A truth seeker can learn even from an enemy. On our paths we will choose weather we trust GOD or put confidence in man. I also find bards (or a Azmari, minstrel, skald, scop, rhapsode, udgator, griot, ashik) to be useful for carrying on history and culture (tribal identity), Christ himself taught in parables!
Intro to 1611 KJV.
Message of the translators to the reader. They did they best they could and encourage you to study the most original texts when/if possible. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bibl...
Sorry if this subject isnt one of Great value but interested in how others may respond to those who like to point out small things in the texts as to attempt to belittle the written Word. I am currently looking at the color of the robe of Christ. I have crossed paths with one who is highlighting the fact that the KJV says it was purple and or scarlet. I have noticed the Greek uses two differ terms as well. The Documentations are: *Matt 27:28,31 (Scarlet/ G#2847) And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. Compared to *Jn.19:2,5 (Purple/ G#4210)And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! and *Mk.15:17,20 (Purple /G#4209)And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his head, And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him./ So while two different terms are listed are we to consider them the same? Or was the robe both colors like the women in Rev.(17:4/18:16) who wore both colors?/ 1love
_________2 Sam.24:12-13 vs. 1 Chron.21:11-12 _____
seems to show a mistranslation. When listing out the different judgements one says 3 yrs and the other says 7yrs of famine. Bullinger hasn't much to say in relation to this other than "perhaps mistaken by an ancient scribe. Both may be right 7 or even 3". But did Bullinger miss the context?
Words of prophet Gad in GREEN Word of the LORD in RED
1 Chronicles 21:10-12 says:
"Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me."
2 Samuel 24:12-13 says:
"Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me."
The "three years" in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 are the words of the LORD whereas the "seven years" in 2 Samuel 24:13 are the words of the prophet Gad. The two accounts can be harmonized as follows:
Harmony of 1 Chronicles 21:10-12 and 2 Samuel 24:12-13:
"Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me; and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me."
The verbatim words of the LORD as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 must fit in 2 Samuel 24:13 in between "and told him" and "and said unto him". Otherwise, the phrase "and told him, and said unto him" is very redundant. Thus the prophet Gad first "told him [David]" the verbatim words of the LORD as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12, and then "said unto him [David], Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?" Dynamic translations such as the NIV, NLT and CEV unfortunately remove the clause, “and told him". Translators of these translations apparently thought the words "and told him" were insignificant verbal surplusage. But this clause is the key to understanding the seeming discrepancy between the two accounts.
Why did Gad speak of “seven years” after delivering the LORD’s word concerning three years of famine? The figure “seven years” spoken by Gad is not the number of years that the LORD will be adding in the future. The seven years is the combination of the four prior years of famine and the possible future addition of three years. Prior to this incident, in 2 Samuel 21:1, the narrator says “Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year.” And from the time of 2 Samuel 21:1 to 2 Samuel 24:13 we understand that there was a lapse of one year. Thus by the time the LORD gave David this dilemma in 2 Samuel 24:13, there were four years of famine(already plus 3=?). Now, when Gad asked David, “Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?” Gad was basically saying, “Shall [a total of] seven years of famine (four previous years and three added years) come unto thee in thy land?” Seven years of famine would have been the ultimate result of receiving three more years of famine.
__________________1 Kings 7/ 2 Chron.4_______
1 Kings 7:26 ("it contained two thousand baths") compared to 2 Chron.4:5 ("and it received and held three thousand baths"). Bullinger says "But 1 Kings 7:26 speaks of what it did (Usually) contain; while 2 Chron. 4:5 speaks of what it Could "recieve and hold"." Thus this isn't a mistranslation however is often mis interpretated! :)
A muslim attempt to attack brother Paul
First of all, its not even the same Word being used in both of these verses (neither is it the same context).
1 Cor.12:3 "Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed (Greek #331): and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost."/
Gal.3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse (G#2671) of the law, being made a curse (G#2671) for us: for it is written, Cursed (G#1944) is every one that hangeth on a tree:".
What did 1 Cor.12 say??? "no man speaking by the Spirit of God"..... "calleth Jesus accursed" - When you speak of the spiritual Authority (annointing) of Messiah or any messenger of God then you certainly are Not speaking about one being accursed, now what did Gal.3 say???
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse...... This "curse" is not speaking of the authority of Messiah as Lord as 1 Cor.12 was its to mention the wage of sin and when we are told "cursed is the *man that hangs on a tree" again we are not speaking about the spiritual authority of annointing we are speaking about PHYSICAL trials and tribulation of a "man", NOT Spiritual authority. Simple minds struggle with Paul cause he was a master teacher of Torah as well as relating it to the nations.
Common misinterpretation and asertion made by muslims. ( Shepherds Chapel 1 Cor.1 http://youtu.be/G_5TM_cdCwo)
Here is the muslim claim:
"The Holy Bible - Can it be Trusted ? Prophet Jeremiah says BIG NO"
A Responce :
Jer.8:8-9 "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?............
Why is the written word vanity to these people? Why is the hand of the scribes in vain to these people? Cause they proclaim the Lord is with them yet REJECT his Word and pervert.