|
"There is clear and systematic mistranslating that can be footnoted or presented in the final compilation of translator notes that will demonstrate the deliberate attempt committed by translators, that ended up destroying a significant bond that would have existed between the Jews and Christians from the very beginning, even if there was no meeting of the minds on theological matters to the very end" -- Project Proposal. There is no doubt, at this point in my translation, that the modern churches, in their complacency as the champions of Christianity, changed the underlying message of Jesus Christ in declaring their position of authority over the Bible. As the West's domination continued and grew over the next two thousand years of Christianity, the Roman church, and subsequently the Protestants and other sects, began the systematic elimination of every direct reference to the fact that Jesus Christ is God from the Scriptures. The initial effort was very subtle, as there was widespread opposition to Christianity from the unconverted multitudes, when it came to emphasizing Jesus Christ's divinity. The nations to whom Christianity was preached were more comfortable with the separation of the power, the grace and the holiness of God into three personas, the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit. This separation of personas of the Trinity was accomplished by declaring the holy Trinity as a "mystery," a notion which continues to this day. Another word for "mystery," therefore, had to be found in reference to the Trinity. The early translators of the modern Bible then took the word "sermon" in the Ancient Aramaic and changed it to "secret," or "mystery." This subtle switch in the meaning of the original word was highly successful, because a "sermon" could be easily called a "secret" or the "mystery" of something. Where the word didn't fit, there were some additional modifications. Now, you might wish that I would give some examples of this, and I could by doing a research of all the places this switch has taken place, but because there are hundreds of examples, I won't. Another reason I won't is the fact that this one word is but one in a thousand words that have been changed, and so I'll move on and leave this analysis for the "final compilation of translator notes," as I've indicated in my project note above. What I want to discuss is the "bond that would've existed between Jews and Christians" if these distortions by the modern churches didn't take place. What is this bond? It's the bond that Paul writes about in his Letters. The fact that the New Testament and the Old Testament are not contradictory. Now, you might say, who came up with this notion that they were. The answer is, then why is the name of Jesus Christ taken out of the Old Testament, and why is the Trinity not mentioned by name? In order for the modern churches to wrest the heritage of Christianity from the early Jewish converts, who were predominant in the early churches, the Scriptures had to be distorted toward a uniquely modern-day perspective, and this was accomplished firstly by changing the definition of certain words. I've already written about the obvious manipulations that the modern-day theologians did by inventing the concept of "the gentiles inheriting the Kingdom." I'm going to go into additional words and concepts in this web page. The word for "sermon" is significant. There are hundreds of words that have been changed in their meanings, but a few of them are significant. Let me go back then to the holy Trinity. The word in the Ancient Aramaic for "the Trinity" has been changed to represent a reference to an "individual entity." So when the Scriptures mention "the Trinity," the modern-day Bibles translated this in various ways to mean that Jesus was referring to himself as one of the personas of the holy Trinity. The reference is subtle again. Jesus is one of the three Manifestations of the Trinity, but He is also Triune Himself. Well, how could that be? Because the word that has been changed in meaning by the modern-day translators is "Q'nu-mah," and "Q'nu-mah" when Jesus applies it to Himself means that He is God, but the word in the modern-day languages represents Jesus as one of the "three personas" of the Trinity and it does not connote the singularity of the word "Q'nu-mah," or in other words, " the unity" implied in the word "Q'nu-mah" as Jesus refers it to Himself. In the Ancient Aramaic each "Q'nu-mah" is triune in essence and the word "three" is superfluous sometimes and dropped from the verses for grammatical or stylistic reasons. Sometimes when the reference is to the "three Q'nu-meh," or "Tla Q'nu-meh," this reference is for a specific theological meaning, and these references are usually understood by even the modern-day translators, otherwise they couldn't have deduced the Trinity from John's Gospel. However, even in John's Gospel, the word Trinity is not used in the modern-day translations of the Bible. The bond between Judaism and Christianity at the early stages had to do with Paul's preaching to his Jewish converts to accept their intended inheritance of the Kingdom promised in the Old Testament. If the non-Jewish converts had not spurned the Jews amongst them, this bond would've survived throughout the ages. Right now we have a Messianic movement of Jews trying to bridge the gap between Western Christianity and Jewish Christians. However, it's difficult to re-establish the natural bond that already existed in the early churches. It was easier when the language was the Ancient Aramaic and the Scriptures were not distorted. Right now there's no consensus on the origins of Scriptures. How would this bond have helped us today? I think we could've been more effective as Christians in fomenting peace between Palestinians and Jews. We could've explained better what the peace that Jesus Christ offers us in this world as well as in the spiritual realm. We could've come to grips with our role in maintaining peace in the world and our need to protect ourselves against terrorism. April 21, 2002 |