Bible found to be mistranslated

So far this makes some sense. And is a lot more accurate than the other version. But, God still is a God that harms, which is not my God.

I am hearing self described experts say this is drivel and silly.

But I have yet to hear why.

I read their newsletters and I can't find an agenda really, other than to uncover the truth about what the biblical law really is. The group states they are Jewish and that comes across a bit in the newsletters, but I can't find ads or any financial incentives.

I do not read Hebrew. I know nothing about it. It would help me a lot more if 'experts' would debunk this with facts other than attacks on people 'they look like vampires' or whatever.

In fact, I sorta laughed to myself, what if they WERE vampires and immortal and lived all this time and KNOW the truth? People would still be yelling "You don't know what you are talking about!!!"

What strikes me as so weird is how in their video and on their website they can at first come across as rather unlearned- as an impression, I mean - but when I read their newsletters I see some good evidence of serious study there - not of Hebew but of history. There's some of the hebrew but again, I do not understand it.

My friend who reads Hebrew states they are silly, because there are more than 22 words in the Hebrew language, that no language could exist with that few words - but I think that is not a good grasp on what they are saying - I think - from what I hear - that they are saying that the way the language is arranged that the words all have modifiers in place.

To me, NO ONE is explaining themselves very well, but I am interested and would like to hear a better discussion of it. Is that a sin?

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by wearewatchingyouman

 

Thankyou for that, but i wont bother. This isnt even a feasible theory. They have even ignored the fact of their being 22 unique characters...

Who in the academic community is paying attention to this "theory" - which attempts to make aliens and technology the hidden or "correct" interpretation of the Hebrew language.

Listen. Do you read Hebrew? Does anyone here who has posted a positive reply to this 'chronicle project' read Hebrew? no... I read Hebrew and everything about this "project" wreaks of propaganda. It isnt a serious or legitimate effort to understand the Hebrew bible. Anyone who has knowledge of Hebrew Grammar can only shreek in utter confusion with these claims... They simply make no sense.

Does academia even acknowledge it? Do the secular experts at Hebrew university - the leading university in biblical research, even know about this? Its an internet gimmick. Food for Conspiracy enthusiasts. Not real, academic scholarly stuff because it ISNT based on any real research. There is no need to try to 'understand' the bible anew when it is understood perfectly fine already..

Sumerian cuneiform is a hierolyphic language; which means that it conveys ideas via hierolgphyics. Hebrew on the other hand is an articulated language. Each letter is a consonant. There are 22 letters in Paleo Hebrew - just as in biblical Hebrew. The letters of the tetragrammaton in Paleo - Hebrew and Assyrian Script (block script; a script which many scholars believe to have been the 'original' Hebrew scipt, seeing when working with tools it is infinitely more easier to etch into clay/stone in a sqaure rather then with curves..Suffice to say, the forms of the paleo-Hebrew script are more complicated than in block script)





Show a correspondence between letters. The first letter, the Yod, is pronounced as "ya"..The second and 4th letters, the Heh, as a guttoral, "huh" sound, and the Vav, as a "W" sound. Do you get how completely untenable this theory is? how is it then that correspondences can be made perfectly between the shape of the 'vav', as it appears in the tetragrammaton, with other appearances in the dead sea scrolls or other ancient texts which perfectly correspond with the modern block script? They create the same words; just in a different script. To challenge the Paleo-Hebrew script would be in essence to challenge the Modern, Assyrian script, because they are perfectly consonant with one another. this than challenges the whole of Hebrew Grammar.

It is insane! It is a #ing Ireport piece. Any person with a functioning brain can see how pseudo-intellectual this is.

Do you need a knowledge of Hebrew to know this? Not exactly. Simple common sense should suffice. You should also respect what someone who has a knowledge of Hebrew thinks about this,. I have never met anyone who knows Hebrew consider this theory pluasible. I am actually embarrassed because of its obvsious charletanry to ask a Rabbi or Hebrew scholar what they think about this.

Its like asking an astronomer if that moving orb in the sky is a UFO. Its an airplane. Basic common sense would show that. Likewise here, just explaining and knowing the basics of Hebrew grammar should disqualify this painfully stupid theory - which appeals to the gullible internet crowd, those 'ufo' and alien enthusiasts who read Sitchins but not Jung, or Campbell.

I will not say anything more about this. This is a stupid, idiotic, hashed up propaganda piece to delegitimize and sully the historical significance of the Hebrew Torah.

Also, can someone not look at these 6 weirdos responsible for this travesty and not be a tad confused about their appearance? Do they not look a bit dark? To me they look like Satanists and the type of people (having seen pictures and known such people, i can make this superficial statement) who revel in the dark, depressing, or chaotic side of life. Not one of them looks normal.

The fact that you can say that these 6 ordinary people look like Satanists completely destroys your credentials and earlier arguement contesting their work. Surely you should be attacking their work not their appearance.

reply to post by hadriana


The naysayers are just that, naysayers. They don't take the time to look at the research, or ask questions about how the system works.

Any person with any amount of IT or computer experience knows the #1 rule of troubleshooting... K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid). Others will recognize the concept as Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2] For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

The same applies here. Scholars have complicated things, and have added a great deal of confusion instead of applying logic, and keeping it simple.

The "language" is not constructed of 22 "words",but 22 universally understood concepts.
These concepts can be expressed as movement, like charades, that are easily recognizable, they are "universal".
By putting these together, these concepts then give a description of the "word" attempting to be conveyed.

Play along with me, as you are sitting at your computer, and you will see what I mean.

ארץ
(to activate)(to spread out)(to set down)

to activate- and indication of a beginning of movement, or to indicate everything that this is in front of you.
to spread out -spread out your arms or body
to set down- take your arms or body and move them in a motion downwards (set down)

What are you indicating or doing?

The "word' (concept being portrayed) here is defined here is "earth"

שם
(to project)(to raise up)

to project- raise your arm (or arms) out in front of you
to raise up- raise your arm (or arms) up

What are you indicating or doing?

The "word' (concept being portrayed) here is defined here "to bring attention to".

רע

(to spread out)(to arc)

to spread out- spread your arms out
to arc- place your arms in an arc above your head.

What are you indicating or doing?

The "word' (concept being portrayed) here is defined here "to fear".

These are just 3 examples, and you can see how the system works, if you look at the research, and it works quite well.

The problem is finding the root (or beginning concept) in the placement (context) of the sentence.

I hope that clears up some of the process that is used, and how yes, 22 "universal concepts" can define every word in a language, and one that would be universally understood.

As a Christian that has studied a bit of Hebrew hoping to one day be able to read and understand the Bible on its own native language, I can tell that what they are proposing is not very different from what we already understand about Ancient Hebrew.

Currently, Hebrew is translated by separating the word in two pieces; a three letter root (very rarely only two letter) which gives its basic meaning and a byanin that gives the actual detailed meaning of the word. The closest analogy I could give to the English language would be verbal tenses, with the infinite tense being the root and the clauses being the byanin.

I've read their account of Genesis 1 fully, and I don't think that it is anything world-changing as some people implied. It is very close to what would be a literal word by word translation of the Hebrew text using our present understanding of the language. Some translators would take issue with some ways they translated some words here and there (specially the translation of 'elohin' in the plural instead of singular - yes, I know it is plural, but they have some rules when plural is actually translated as singular, and not only for this word), but overall, it looks like the work of those very old automated translation softwares that translated words one by one in order, with little regard for the grammar of both the original and of the target languages.

I hope they can refine it a bit more so the result looks more 'natural.' I will keep an eye out on them. S&F.

iReport is a user-generated section of CNN.com. The stories here come from users. CNN has vetted only the stories marked with the "CNN" badge.

So this isn't an actual CNN story, but it just happens to be on CNN just for the record. At any rate the video's of this group are interesting I suppose. Not sure how well their studies will pan out but we will see if anyone else jumps in their wagon and agrees with them.




www.thechronicleproject.org...

reply to post by keldas


LOL - There's only so much mistranslating you can do .

The evil moral and ethical teaching is there, the extraordinary metaphysical claims still are apparent.

It's quite common for Priests and believers to preach interpretation of etimology to hide their sinister dogma.

Originally posted by hadriana
I am hearing self described experts say this is drivel and silly.

But I have yet to hear why.

I read their newsletters and I can't find an agenda really, other than to uncover the truth about what the biblical law really is. The group states they are Jewish and that comes across a bit in the newsletters, but I can't find ads or any financial incentives.

I do not read Hebrew. I know nothing about it. It would help me a lot more if 'experts' would debunk this with facts other than attacks on people 'they look like vampires' or whatever.

In fact, I sorta laughed to myself, what if they WERE vampires and immortal and lived all this time and KNOW the truth? People would still be yelling "You don't know what you are talking about!!!"

What strikes me as so weird is how in their video and on their website they can at first come across as rather unlearned- as an impression, I mean - but when I read their newsletters I see some good evidence of serious study there - not of Hebew but of history. There's some of the hebrew but again, I do not understand it.

My friend who reads Hebrew states they are silly, because there are more than 22 words in the Hebrew language, that no language could exist with that few words - but I think that is not a good grasp on what they are saying - I think - from what I hear - that they are saying that the way the language is arranged that the words all have modifiers in place.

To me, NO ONE is explaining themselves very well, but I am interested and would like to hear a better discussion of it. Is that a sin?

edit on 26-5-2011 by hadriana because: (no reason given)

Hi I thought your query about the 22 words was interesting so I sent Chris an excerpt and invited him over to ATS to debate his points - anyway with his permission this is his reply -

>>I would love to debate, if there was time, but we are suddenly up to our eyeballs in emails and I am officially freaked out LOL
Tell Hadriana, that there are twenty two letter/words. These concepts are then mixed to create other words. Look at the research notes for a complete explanation.
You can post this on ATS if you want, and as I said, I would love to debate as the research stands on its own as soon as this dies down.

reply to post by AlreadyGone


Oh really now .. there is over how many Christian denominations out there is that T or F ? and each and one of them have bible study groups or at least most of them do .. and lets see now I have sat in with the Baptist's, Lutheran, Jehovah Witness .. only because I got sick of them coming ot my door every other day.

Oh ok and the Catholic also um Episcopalian, A non-denominational based church study ,, SO er over the years I have sat in on bible studies ok and I just want to tell you they all have a different way of explaining the verses ,

Yet I am Native and have my own spiritual faith,, It will always be mistranslated just as you say and yes I agree
unity and love through ones personal spiritual faith no matter who's should be the main issue not the bickering on who has the best Bible or geese ya know what I mean .. so this is why I say if you differ with it then look up the Universal Law

I get into discussions because TBH i don’t like to be fooled and I don’t think anyone does so yes there are times I will debate certain things but all in all its just a dispute .. and I will never walk away hating someone over it .. cuz everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by keldas

 

LOL - There's only so much mistranslating you can do .

The evil moral and ethical teaching is there, the extraordinary metaphysical claims still are apparent.

It's quite common for Priests and believers to preach interpretation of etimology to hide their sinister dogma.

I've seen this before... how can you call something evil when you have no belief in anything spiritual?

Could you define evil for me?

Is it just someone that breaks a certian moral code?

The whole idea of evil is very subjective, and there is no universal defination of evil either.

A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether evil is determined by one's social or cultural background.[citation needed] C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered evil, such as rape and murder. However the numerous instances in which rape or murder is morally affected by social context call this into question. In fact, many acts now considered evil have been termed as acceptable in some societies at different times.[citation needed] One might argue, nevertheless, that the definition of the word rape necessitates that any action described by the word is evil, since the concept refers to causing sexual harm to another. Up until the mid-19th century, the United States — along with many other countries — practiced forms of slavery. As is often the case, those transgressing moral boundaries stood to profit from that exercise. Arguably, slavery has always been the same and objectively evil, but men with a motivation to transgress will justify that action. The Nazis, during World War II, found genocide acceptable, as did the US Union Army's massacre of "savage" Native American Indians and the Hutu Interhamwe in the Rwandan genocide.[4][5] One might point out, though, that the actual perpetrators of those atrocities probably avoided calling their actions genocide, since the objective meaning of any act accurately described by that word is to wrongfully kill a selected group of people, which is an action that at least the victimized party will understand to be evil. Universalists consider evil independent of culture, and wholly related to acts or intents. Thus, while the ideological leaders of Nazism and the Hutu Interhamwe accepted (and considered it moral) to commit genocide, the belief in genocide as "fundamentally" or "universally" evil holds that those who instigated this genocide are actually evil.[improper synthesis?] Other universalists might argue that although the commission of an evil act is always evil, those who perpetrate may not be wholly evil or wholly good entities. To say that someone who has stolen a candy bar, for instance, becomes wholly evil is a rather untenable position. However, universalists might also argue that a person can choose a decidedly evil or a decidedly good life career, and genocidal dictatorship plainly falls on the side of the former.

en.wikipedia.org...

Are people born "evil"?

Please explain..

reply to post by Akragon

how can you call something evil when you have no belief in anything spiritual?

LOL. Yeah - Atheists don't believe in anything. Atheism = nihilism.

We don't believe in love either, we can't understand it without a belief in the supernatural.

DERP.

I am amazed at how easily this new 'research' has been swallowed by some people. Why, because it is yet another seeming attack at the Bible, and its reliability.
Firstly, the old testament only was in hebrew, so the greek/aramaic new testament is totally untouched (as is the book of Revelation for one interested poster)
Do the authors of this honestly think that the Jews have misunderstood their own Holy book, since its inception, and it takes a handful of canadians 3500yrs later to reveal to them the truth?!?
Check history. The Jews have circumcised the males for 3500yrs. The Jews have celebrated all their Holy days for 3500yrs - the JEWS UNDERSTAND HEBREW!!!

The Old testament was translated into greek before Jesus in the septuagint. This would have had theoretically better chance of accuracy in translation being closer to the time, and maybe having better original texts.

How can texts be unreliable now, and yet taken as reliable for this canadian translation? What have they got that hebrew scholars haven't poured over for thousands of years?

I find it particularly strange looking at Genesis 3.15. This is widely thought to be the first reference to the Savior Jesus Christ, This shows that God had a plan to save us once man had voluntarily disobeyed him through freewill. The King James Version reads:
"Genesis 3:15  And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
The thought is that Satan will bruise His (Jesus) heel (crucifixion/ressurection), but Jesus will bruise his (Satan) head (destroying). A bruise to the foot obviously being far less serious to a bruise to the head.
This first reference to the coming Saviour is 'translated' as
"v15 And hostility, an obstacle between your and between the woman, and between to sow your and between the
offspring to know as so to leave your "to envision". And you to proceed to leave to follow being to tread on."
I cannot see the similarity between the two. I know the KJV makes sense in english, unlike the canadian translation.

I grossly mistrust this interpretation. I will however look at it myself having a copy of the textus receptus. However, I would caution everybody into accepting this until more is known. I find it slightly arrogant for them to make a claim that a small group have made such a 'monumental' discovery, where thousands of years of devotion and meticulous reading by devout followers have failed.

reply to post by keldas


Make sure you don't abide by the guidelines of ATS. ( sarcasm ) Where posting a thread is concerned. Two paragraphs of your own thoughts on the subject of your thread. Provides a base for discussion and debate.
No flag No star.

The creator of the universe is capable of the universe. I think he can see to it we get the message he wants us to have. K ? Nuff said.

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
I just thought I would add this original Aramaic translation (the language of Jesus) of .....


The Lords Prayer

Our Father, who is throughout the Universe
Let your name be set apart.
Come your kingdom, Let your desire be
As in the Universe, also on the Earth
Give us bread for our necessities this day
And free us from our offenses
As also we have freed our offenders
And do not let us into temptation
But set us free from error
For belongs to you the kingdom, power and song
From ages to ages
Amen

So who/what is Amen? Does this refer to Amen Ra? Or does 'Amen" just mean "goodbye for now"? Is Amen the name that is "set apart"?

First of all Ancient Hebrew isn't the only ancient language out there that differed in the way it arranged its ideas into a systematical linguistic format.

2. If, Hebrew was as described in the opening statement, given of God, then the rules from other man made languages, used to interpret the hebrew language, were not applicable. Their use would cause wide spread error in the translation. And so the question was posed; If this truly is the language of higher beings, given to man, should it not show evidence of this?

The Chronicle Project is attempting to single ancient Hebrew out as being a divine language. I don't see any research done as to other ancient languages and the way they arranged their meanings. If English is the only language they are comparing it to then their research is as shallow as a puddle.

Plus, there are hundreds of thousands of extinct languages that no one knew about or that are trying to be deciphered to this day.

This is very interesting. I always could see how the Bible is written in a certain way to give a certain idea of supernaturalness.
Reading the transaltion so far that I have, from the Chronicle site, it seems to me that the Earth was a barren planet that was rejuvinated by the "celestials"(ETs?).

This translation reads more like Ancient Alien theory.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by keldas

 

Make sure you don't abide by the guidelines of ATS. ( sarcasm ) Where posting a thread is concerned. Two paragraphs of your own thoughts on the subject of your thread. Provides a base for discussion and debate.
No flag No star.

The creator of the universe is capable of the universe. I think he can see to it we get the message he wants us to have. K ? Nuff said.

To be quite honest I have been on ATS for a long time and I forgot the new rules. I remembered something about providing more than one sentence but I do not remember anything about having to provide two paragraphs.

I just wanted to provide everyone a link to the information posted on the Chronicle web site because I personally found it fascinating, and I was sure other people would too. Also the tools they provide on their web site enables people to do their own research if they feel so inclined.

Some articles are up on ATS because other posters want to debate particular aspects of something they find interesting and other snippets of information are their because people want to spread the word about an event or something they have come across.

I do think you are being a bit hypercritical, if the initial post had been a stupid post with just the intention of gaining stars or flags or to knock up additional posts then I would say you had some justification for that comment. But as I have been on ATS for a number of years I do not need to claim a minimum number of posts and I am not interested in stars and flags. I may not always debate everything I post, but I am interested in ensuring anything I come across that I personally find interesting gets a wider audience. And ATS does have a wide audience and with a few exceptions on the whole many intelligent and erudite posters.

So >>The creator of the universe is capable of the universe. I think he can see to it we get the message he wants us to have. K ? Nuff said

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Akragon

 

how can you call something evil when you have no belief in anything spiritual?

LOL. Yeah - Atheists don't believe in anything. Atheism = nihilism.

We don't believe in love either, we can't understand it without a belief in the supernatural.

DERP.

That is literally the worst explanation you've ever given me...

I ask you a serious question and you respond with sarcastic comments, that wern't even funny...

sarcasim fail much?

Come on man you can do better then that...

Originally posted by tom502
This is very interesting. I always could see how the Bible is written in a certain way to give a certain idea of supernaturalness.
Reading the transaltion so far that I have, from the Chronicle site, it seems to me that the Earth was a barren planet that was rejuvinated by the "celestials"(ETs?).

This translation reads more like Ancient Alien theory.

So far reading what they have translated seems to me to err towards ancient aliens but it could be because of bias on their part or it could even be bias on mine. People do tend to see everything through their own world view and it can be difficult to get rid of all misconceptions and look at something with new eyes.

However what I like about the chronical project is that they have provided a dictionary and tools for someone who has the time and the interest to do their own translation.

I know a lot of people go on about having information peer reviewed but is that always the best way. People usually go down the well trodden paths of their teachers and find it difficult to formulate their own opinons on something. Perhaps a new look at something will provide answers for some of the information people have been searchng for.

Although the King James version is beautifully written a lot of it does not make sense. Many books have been omitted from the Bible, who knows what gems they may contain when translated by the Chronical Project.

reply to post by Akragon

That is literally the worst explanation you've ever given me...

I ask you a serious question and you respond with sarcastic comments, that wern't even funny...

sarcasim fail much?

No problem, i'll put it in a rather serious tone for those who don't find wit tasteful or who can't work out the arguments through the sarcsasm.

Atheism doesn't equal Nihilism.

how can you call something evil when you have no belief in anything spiritual?

Just because you don't believe in a deity doesn't mean you can't understand what is meant by the concept of evil, nor does it mean you can't be a "Spiritual Atheist".

Atheists only have on thing in common, a lack of belief in a deity, and it's normally considered as a rational response to the position that God does exist - a disagreement towards a proposed theory to existence or the universe.

There, all sarcasm removed, let's see what you have to say - probably something detailed and inciteful? Normally the case.