The Lamsa Bible Controversy, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 21 times

Topic started on 4-3-2011 @ 12:25 PM by Skyfloating

Some consider the Lamsa Bible, which was translated from Aramaic instead of Greek, a better translation than all the rest. They say Aramaic, not Greek, is the original language of the Bible. The Lamsa Bible was translated from Syriac Aramaic which is closer to the Aramaic spoken by the people of Jesus time, than Greek. This view is not mainstream and certainly controversial among fundamentalist Christians. For example, on this page by Chick Publications the Lamsa Bible is called "perverted" and "occult", part of a conspiracy to subvert Christianity. This reflects the view of many Christians out there. But what if the opposite is true - that the Bible was mistranslated and even changed, some by accident but some with manipulative intent. Looking into this only peripherally, I was surprised to find such huge discrepancies amongst translations.

What follows are a few side by side comparisons that make the Lamsa Bible look more accurate.

Mathew 24:7

King James Bible : Jesus says: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Lamsa Bible: Jesus says: "My God, My God, for this I was spared!"

Comment: Jesus, having predicted that he would be beaten, would most not likely say that God has forsaken him. It makes no sense in that context.

Ephesians 6:12

Bible, New International Version: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms".

Lamsa: "For your conflict is not only with flesh and blood, but also with the angels, and with powers, with the rulers of this world of darkness, and with the evil spirits under the heaven".

This, of course, completely changes the meaning of the text. The Lamsa version shows that the spiritual struggle is ALSO one with flesh and blood.

Lamsa:

Mathew 19:24

KJ: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle..."

Lamsa: "It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle"

Comment: The Aramaic word for "Camel" and "Rope" are the same. This proves that whoever translated it to Greek, most likely used the wrong translation, as "rope" makes much more sense in this context.

Mathew 7:3:

KJ: Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?

Lamsa: Why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?

Comment: Notice how "splinter" and "plank" are a better match.

Luke 14:25

NIV: "If any one comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he can not be My disciple".

Lamsa: "He who comes to Me and does not put aside his father and his mother and his brothers and his sisters and his wife and his children and even his own life can not be a disciple to me".

Comment: Note how the regular bible asks you to hate and the Lamsa bible to "put aside".

Debate Welcome.

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 12:37 PM by DonnaLynn

S&F OP. I was under the impression that it was widely accepted that the bible was altered. Silly me!

It does seem to be The Lamsa Bible makes much more sense. Why someone would feel that it undermines Christianity is beyond me.

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 12:42 PM by KOLTON

Wow,
this is very new to me.

Interesting, I wonder what other differences we can find between the two Bible translations;

possibly more accurate references to the "Annunaki" and the miracles of "Jesus"?

Or more likely, nothing of significance will be different.

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 12:42 PM by Dyax-

great post
no debate here

i often thought the bible was messed up
Constantine had an agenda when he wrote it
ther wer 12 apostles an he only used the words/works of 3
he didnt even use pauls words/works an he was the leader of the apostles

it drives me crazy how people follow it so blindly

if jesus saw the crusades he would have been pissed off

i mean what religion goes around slaughtering people an torturing them till they believe

its just not right

btw -- i was raised roman catholic then i started reading some things that made me think

then i started asking questions

like

the catholic church has so much money they can stop world hunger all by
themselves

jesus would want them to do that

so why dont they do that??

sorry for drifting off topic

thanks for ur post

it just proves my point in my eyes

Constantine had an agenda

the bible is all messed up

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 12:45 PM by Slipdig1

I like your threads mate! cheers will read it properly tomorrow! Can you do one on the book of the giants next?

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 12:45 PM by Demiwatt

I've read parts of the Messianic Jewish Translation en.wikipedia.org... of the bible before and it too has many many differences. But as DonnaLynn said, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the bible has been pretty heavily "modded" to suit whomever is power in the Vatican at the time.

I find it hard to stomach though, that the majority of Christians I've come across think that these alternate translations are either "cute" attempts at deciphering "God's Word" or crude blasphemes -__- postulated by those who's aim is only to draw the true believer from the right path...

edit on 4-3-2011 by Demiwatt because: grammar

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 12:53 PM by The GUT

Bible, New International Version: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms".

Lamsa: "For your conflict is not only with flesh and blood, but also with the angels, and with powers, with the rulers of this world of darkness, and with the evil spirits under the heaven".

This, of course, completely changes the meaning of the text. The Lamsa version shows that the spiritual struggle is ALSO one with flesh and blood.

Don't know much about the Lamsa Bible, but I do know that "the devil made me do it," is ridiculous as an excuse. When I do wrong, I know exactly who's to blame. So that particular translation sounds not only right on, but concordant with other scripture:

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. (James 1: 13-14 NKJV)

When it comes to different translations, it doesn't really bother me because I find that what the Word claims about itself is true...

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (Heb. 4:12 NIV)

...and as such is spiritual, alive in a supernatural way, and ultimately impervious to man's meddling for the sincere seeker.

edit on 4-3-2011 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 01:14 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Dyax-

it drives me crazy how people follow it so blindly

Ive been trying to find explanations for unquestioning, fanatical obedience all my life. And either its a sort of fantastic stupdity or, seen more positively, a way of being 100% commited, I guess. Tolerating the intolerant is a real chore.

the catholic church has so much money they can stop world hunger all by themselves jesus would want them to do that so why dont they do that??

Seen negatively, its a conspiracy of keeping power at the expense of others. Seen positively, the theology behind that might be so that people learn to grow up and make their own money.

Constantine had an agenda

It would seem so.

edit on 4-3-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 01:16 PM by havok

I will have to find one of these Lamsa Bibles and read it for myself.
Been looking for as closest translation as possible.

Even the one I have is the New Living Translation.
Which was put together within the last 40? years or so.

But to think that a religious sect would change the words....no! No way!

To me, mankind manipulates anything for a gain of some sort.

Pitiful at best.

Good find! (I never heard of the Lamsa)

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 01:25 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by The GUT
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (Heb. 4:12 NIV)

Fantastic quote. Thanks Sir

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 01:35 PM by The GUT

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Ive been trying to find explanations for unquestioning, fanatical obedience all my life. And either its a sort of fantastic stupdity or, seen more positively, a way of being 100% commited, I guess. Tolerating the intolerant is a real chore.

I don't really get that when I hear folk couch it in those terms. I've raised a lot of hell in my life and have ultimately come to the conclusion that my selfishness hurt many people.

That's not who I want to be these days, so I find that the Word is undeniably amazing in helping me towards my own personal goals. I fall down often, but I also get some things right. I'm not "fanatical" in my obedience, but I do hope to be fanatical in my desire for spiritual growth.

Folk often confuse intolerant fundies for those who are truly seeking a loving path. You should meet some of the Christians I know: They are not only tolerant in the same sense that Yeshua was, but ace humanitarians as well. I've never met anyone like them in that sense.

I spent a few years deeply involved in the new age community. Lots o' talk of peace & love and changing the world. And while I still love my friends there, and many are decent folk, at the end of the day I found them much more selfish than they imagined themselves to be.

So I guess it's like that whatever side of the fence you're on Christian or otherwise: Some are talkers and some are doers.

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 01:38 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by The GUT

Folk often confuse intolerant fundies for those who are truly seeking a loving path. You should meet some of the Christians I know: They are not only tolerant in the same sense that Yeshua was, but ace humanitarians as well. I've never met anyone like them in that sense.

I know plenty of those type too. Great people.

There are very few actual fanatics but there appear to be more because they are so vocal.

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 01:50 PM by The GUT

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by The GUT

Folk often confuse intolerant fundies for those who are truly seeking a loving path. You should meet some of the Christians I know: They are not only tolerant in the same sense that Yeshua was, but ace humanitarians as well. I've never met anyone like them in that sense.

I know plenty of those type too. Great people.

There are very few actual fanatics but there appear to be more because they are so vocal.

Yeah, it makes me cringe. I'm not so sure that the super-hypocrites are the minority, but the good ones give me hope for myself.

Peace, SkyFloating, you are "aces" with me.

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 02:37 PM by Skyfloating

Any Christians out there who object to the Lamsa translation? Id like to hear the reasons.

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 05:53 PM by Lynda101

I did read somewhere that Jesus spoke Aramaic so perhaps this is a pure translation of his words.

The bible has been translated hundreds of years ago and today with our modern linguistics, its probably time someone went through the St James or whatever version people have and I expect there will be one hell of a lot of mistranslations found.

Constantine must have noticed how this 'new' religion was growing in numbers and was clever enough to realize that
the religious 'velvet glove' approach literally shepherded people into obeying his laws. Glove wins over sword everytime.

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 06:38 PM by adjensen

reply to post by Skyfloating

While I would have to say that Jack Chick is hardly a reputable source of almost anything, I'm probably in agreement with him here. The Lamsa Bible is a translation of the official Bible of the Assyrian Church of the East, which is not in communion with any other church -- Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Protestant. That is the first red flag.

Second is the notion that an Aramaic Bible from the First Century would exist -- though Aramaic was the spoken language used in the Eastern Mediterranean, Koine Greek was the written language of choice, and I've never seen a New Testament scholar say that those books were originally written in anything other than Greek (apart from speculation that the first version of Matthew was written in Hebrew.) According to the Wikipedia article on George Lamsa, who did the translation, the Aramaic that is being translated is not the version that was in use at the time of Christ, so even the claim that it is not a translation INTO Aramaic from Greek cannot be sustained.

Finally, this article lists a number of intentional errors on Lamsa's part which support his church's very different view of Christianity, and this article similarly cites errors in translation that are intended to support racism. There are others, of course. As one would expect, controversy breeds controversy.

For me, I'll stick with the "original"

reply posted on 4-3-2011 @ 07:37 PM by Byrd

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Skyfloating

While I would have to say that Jack Chick is hardly a reputable source of almost anything, I'm probably in agreement with him here. The Lamsa Bible is a translation of the official Bible of the Assyrian Church of the East, which is not in communion with any other church -- Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Protestant. That is the first red flag.

I agree. There would be an agenda to support the teachings of that particular church.

Second is the notion that an Aramaic Bible from the First Century would exist -- though Aramaic was the spoken language used in the Eastern Mediterranean, Koine Greek was the written language of choice, and I've never seen a New Testament scholar say that those books were originally written in anything other than Greek (apart from speculation that the first version of Matthew was written in Hebrew.) According to the Wikipedia article on George Lamsa, who did the translation, the Aramaic that is being translated is not the version that was in use at the time of Christ, so even the claim that it is not a translation INTO Aramaic from Greek cannot be sustained.

That was the first thing that struck me. It has been claimed that some of the apostles were illiterate -- however, if they were Good Jewish Boys they would have been taught the Torah and therefore any writing they did might have been in Hebrew. Paul and some of the others were Greek educated and it makes more sense for them to have written in one of the two dominant languages of the area (Greek or Latin) for purposes of communication.

The comment about the differences in Aramaic are particularly telling. I would like to find out more about the manuscripts he was working from. The manuscripts involved with the Bible are known (as are copying errors and version errors)... this particular Bible is a new one for me.

Thanks for the interesting read, Sky!

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 12:33 PM by HardbeatAcolyte

Haven't seen the Lamsa translation before, nice find. As a Christian, from a brief cursory glance at a few scriptures it sounds reasonable enough.
The Lamsa translation of Luke 14:26 certainly seems more accurate - I think the widely-accepted translation means the very same, though it either may have been slightly mistranslated, or is an archaism.
Regarding Matthew 19:24, 'rope' rather than 'camel' sounds like it could be correct.
I wouldn't be able to give an informed opinion of the translation as a whole, though.

In my opinion, Jack Chick's opinions should largely be ignored, he'd had some pretty wacky ideas

Star & flag

edit on 5/3/11 by HardbeatAcolyte because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 06:31 PM by kallisti36

Originally posted by Skyfloating

What follows are a few side by side comparisons that make the Lamsa Bible look more accurate.

Mathew 24:7

King James Bible : Jesus says: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Lamsa Bible: Jesus says: "My God, My God, for this I was spared!"

Comment: Jesus, having predicted that he would be beaten, would most not likely say that God has forsaken him. It makes no sense in that context.

This is a major stumbling block for Christians. A lot of people simply aren't content with the Gospels being written in Greek and often go for the Semitic Bibles that are quite simply inferior. A good example of this is the diatesseron which is in Syriac, which is a lot like the Jefferson Bible in that it tries to mix the Gospels to make a more cohesive narative while omitting important nuances.

This above passage is a perfect example of it's inferiority. It shows a clear misunderstanding of the OT which means it probably wasn't written by Jews. A lot of people have been perplexed as to why Ya'hshuah would say "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" if he was doing God's work. The answer to this is found word for word in the OT in Psalm 22 which begins with "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?". When Ya'hshuah said this on the cross he was making reference to the prophecy of what the Messiah must suffer, "they part my garments among them, and cast lots on my vesture" and "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and feet".

So what we have here is what must have been pious Christians compromising what really happened and what Ya'hshuah really said for easy consumption. It's kind of like the Gospel of Thomas in that respect. Fractured teachings based on the real thing with serious doctrinal problems. The nice thing about these documents is that they expose themselves rather easily by showing their lack of Jewish understanding.

reply posted on 5-3-2011 @ 06:53 PM by kallisti36

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Lamsa:

Mathew 19:24

KJ: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle..."

Lamsa: "It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle"

Comment: The Aramaic word for "Camel" and "Rope" are the same. This proves that whoever translated it to Greek, most likely used the wrong translation, as "rope" makes much more sense in this context.

The Eye of the Needle is a very small entrance into Jerusalem. A Camel could manage to squeeze through this entrance by shimmying through, but a camel carrying packs of merchandise and riches would not fit through the entrance. This is an example of being encumbered by the treasure of this world.

Mathew 7:3:

KJ: Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?

Lamsa: Why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?

Comment: Notice how "splinter" and "plank" are a better match.

You can get a speck of sawdust in your eye. This is an example of Ya'hshuah's sense of humor, by making an outlandish example of hypocricy. Really it works either way, but speck to plank is more dramatic. There may also have been translating issues since Matthew was first written in Hebrew which translates into non-Semitic languages notoriously badly.

Luke 14:25

NIV: "If any one comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes even his own life, he can not be My disciple".

Lamsa: "He who comes to Me and does not put aside his father and his mother and his brothers and his sisters and his wife and his children and even his own life can not be a disciple to me".

Comment: Note how the regular bible asks you to hate and the Lamsa bible to "put aside".

The Greek word is miseo and though it is translated into "hate" in English, it doesn't have the harshness to it as it does in English, it's more akin to "detest". For instance, # has a definite harshness to it in English whereas the German sheisse, which means the same thing, does not and is a common expletive in normal conversation. Still, it's not the best word choice. Personally, I think Matthew is superior (and older) in it's wording than Luke which was more concerned with history and actions then words. I mean the meanings are essentially the same, but Matthew transcribes them better (probably because Matthew was written first in Hebrew, whereas Luke was written in Greek) and Luke focuses on actions. In Matthew you get the same speech, but he says "do not think I have come to bring peace on Earth. I have come not to bring peace, but a sword" the sword doesn't mean war, but division. The next verse not usually quoted by atheists who love the sword quote is that he will set family members at variance with each other. The Christian family members will disagree with or renounce the values of their family and their family will persecute them.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^