Spoken languages are always changing and evolving. Word usage, vocabulary and even grammar change. Modern Aramaic and other derivatives of ancient Aramaic, such as modern Hebrew and Arabic, cannot be relied on to explain or interpret the meaning of ancient Aramaic in its scribal form, except on a very marginal level. Ancient Aramaic is the sacred language of Scriptures. The language is preserved within its ancient form by the very authentic Scriptures themselves, which survive only with the Ancient Church of the East. The language preserved the Scriptures and the Scriptures preserved the language. A sacred language could not contain improper idioms, expressions or obscene words and there are none in the ancient Aramaic. The language ceased being used as a literary language since the 13th Century. It was silenced. Ancient Aramaic is frozen in its sacred form for all time. It is not a spoken language, therefore it is not susceptible to change.
--Dec. 13, 1999
As I continue translating the Letters of Paul, it's becoming clear how the distortions of the Bible were accomplished by the early translators. With each translation work, the message of Jesus Christ was altered to fit the political situation of the times. Since translation was necessary only for the non-Aramaic speaking converts, I believe the modern-day churches wanted to take over control of the church and they needed to make the claim that the "Kingdom" was taken away from the "Jews" and given to the "Gentiles." Therefore, it was necessary to prove the claim that the New Testament was written in Greek. This claim opened up the gates for the distortion of the Bible.
The Letters of Paul, however, were preserved in the scribal language, the ancient Aramaic. These Letters are highly theological and they are written at a level of scholarship that can only be fully achieved in one language, the ancient Aramaic. Neither the "original Greek" translation, nor the Latin could match that level. As developed and rich the English language may be, the Scriptures could not be translated any better than the King James Version, because there have never been scholars of both ancient Aramaic and English who discovered the discrepancy and the extent of the distortion.
The greatest errors, however, were introduced in the Letters of Paul, since these were not very easy to understand in Greek, Latin and English anyway. Paul's ministry itself has been degraded and the fact that he started the church in Rome has been covered up.
While reading the Letters of Paul especially, please study carefully the differences between my translation and other translations.-- Dec. 28, 1999
The word for church in Aramaic refers to "congregation," not "building." The word for "temple" is different. Outside of the temple in Jerusalem, the emphasis shifted to churches in the Christian era, and churches always meant congregations.
-- Feb. 6, 2000
In the Four Gospels, Jesus is called with three designations by the people who sought his wisdom or healing. The three designations have no exact equivalents in English, but they can be expressed by two words. The first designation in Aramaic is "Mal-pa-na," or "Educator-Teacher." The second one is "Rabbi," or "Teacher-Master." The third is "Mar-ya," or "Master-Lord." It's interesting that when the person at the time of Jesus was seeking the help of the Lord used the first designation, Jesus responded with a parable or healed with some physical manifestation. When the second designation was used, Jesus answered directly and healed the person with a word. When the person used the third designation, namely "Mar-ya" or "Lord and Master," Jesus healed them instantly. In other words, when they recognized Him as God, He healed them immediately. Even in the case of the sick who were laid out along the paths that he traveled, since they recognized Him as God, they were healed from a distance and immediately. He often said to those who had this kind of faith in Him," Your faith has healed you." That is the faith in Him -- the recognition alone is what does it.
--Mar. 9, 2000
As I continue translating the New Testament, I've noticed that the order of Books is not related to chronology. For example, the Gospel of Mark is perhaps the first Gospel recorded, yet it's second, after the Gospel of Matthew. There is one criterion that has emerged and that is, it seems the order of the Books is based on the progression of the theological doctrine revealing that Jesus Christ is God. With Matthew we start with the genealogy of the Son of Man, it goes on to tell of the birth of Jesus and finally all the events of his life until he ascends to heaven. The Gospel of Mark is much more direct in revealing Jesus as a healer, casting out demons. The Gospel of Luke takes on a literary and historical approach in documenting the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah. Then finally the Gospel of John begins the final revelation that Jesus is the Son of God and the second Q'nu-mah of the Trinity. With the Acts of the Apostles, we begin with Shim-mun Keepa (Simon Peter) preaching about Jesus the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. Then Paul begins his ministry and in a series of profoundly theological Letters reveals Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in every tenet of Judaism. By the end of the Revelation there is no detail left in revealing that Jesus Christ is God.
--Apr. 2, 2000
While translating Paul's Letter to the Galatians, it occurred to me that what I thought of as errors in the translation of Scriptures by modern-day churches are really not errors, they're deliberate distortions and part of the program to destroy the authenticity of the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures and the Ancient Church of the East.
The distortions of the New Testament, however, were very subtle, and their perpetration took many centuries. The main purpose of most of these distortions was to gloss over the fact that Jesus Christ is God. By emphasizing his human Q'nu-mah, they hoped to effect a form of succession, in a way to continue the order of the Pharisees that Jesus had retired. Since Paul had started out as a Pharisee, it was necessary to distort and downgrade Paul's teachings, so that the new order of priesthood could continue. This was precisely what Paul was fighting against in his day. Paul's ministry had to do with building congregations and showing Christians how to serve each other and live the Christian life.
--Apr. 15, 2000
I'm getting a lot of e-mails and guest book entries from people wondering about the origin of the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures. Many people in the West don't even believe that there is such a thing as the Ancient Church of the East. Coincidentally I've been seeing many programs on TV regarding Jerusalem and the origins of Christianity. From everything I can discern, most of the Galileans who preached Christianity in the first millennium must've been murdered by those people seeking to take over the leadership from the early Aramaic speaking churches. It explains also why there were no Aramaic speaking Christians left in Jerusalem and why the Jewish converts ended up escaping to Europe and reverting back to Judaism. I think the genocide against the early Christians by the Romans and the nations that were loyal to Rome must've wiped out most of the Aramaic speaking Christians. It's possible that's why there were no original inhabitants left in all those cities in the Holy Lands. Perhaps the second millennium was when the false churches proliferated and the third millennium may be the age when all the Christians of the world will return to the Ancient Church of the East faith. I think the Ancient Aramaic Scripture is the key to a true revival of Christianity.
--Apr. 22, 2000
If the Bible is inspired, then it couldn't have been written in Greek or any other language in fact, it must've been written in the sacred, scribal language of Scriptures, the Ancient Aramaic. One cannot say that any God inspired version is in any other language then. If the Old Testament and the New Testament are mere histories, then any translation or compilation can be a valid edition. Therefore, the Ancient Aramaic is the only inspired version. Anyway it has never been lost, whether you think of it as inspired or not. Today's churches have a clear choice. Do you want the true Gospel?
Of course, by claiming that the Greek version is the original, then that validates both the Catholic and the Protestant Bibles, and all churches then can draw their authorities in administering the teachings contained in the Bible. Any church therefore can raise funds and use them for education, buildings and charities, and they have. By usurping the authority of the Bible from the Church in Jerusalem and driving out the founding Christians from the Holy Lands, the modern-day churches have made the claim that there is no such thing as the Ancient Church of the East. They've called this Church Nestorian, Orthodox and Eastern, but they've ignored it and officially this church is the only one not recognized by the Western governments. Even the news media never mention it. Is this a conspiracy? That's not the point. The fact is that the Ancient Church of the East is the only Church that emerged out of Jerusalem during the Apostolic Age that retained the original Ancient Aramaic Bible.
--Apr. 25, 2000
As I am nearing the end of the New Testament, I'm beginning to prepare myself for the translation of the Old Testament. From what I've learned so far, I believe that nothing of the Old Testament is left to be fulfilled. Everything in the Old Testament was fulfilled at the time of Jesus Christ. Only the New Testament is left to be completely fulfilled, because the New Testament is also a Book of prophesy.
--Aug. 19, 2000
While translating the Letters of Paul, I became aware of a major discrepancy in the early translations of the New Testament from the Ancient Aramaic into Greek. I'd always wondered and had been asked on a number of occasions regarding when the division of the Bible into chapters and verses took place. I really didn't know and I didn't think that was an important aspect of my translation of the original Scriptures from the language they were conceived and written in.
Because the Letters of Paul were so complicated theologically and linguistically, I discovered that here the verses were very often divided in illogical places.
Originally, the division of the verses was no doubt a way of setting apart certain ideas that were complete on their own, so a preacher could quote them separately and analyze them or pray about them and so on. This must've been one of the criteria, and it makes sense. It has become apparent to me now that it must've been some people that didn't quite understand what these verses meant, who divided the verses in illogical and sometimes even contradictory segments.
What with the style of most modern-day preachers to zigzag through the New Testament and the Old Testament and then draw conclusions about the combined meaning, I'm not surprised about some of the disastrous conclusions they've arrived at during certain sermons and commentaries. The most glaring example is the concept that "the Father forsakes the Son" and lets him die on the cross. Once the word "forsaken" is used, there's no way to save the sermon. You've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. God cannot forsake Himself. He can consecrate Himself as the Sacrifice, which Jesus did on the Cross. He designated Himself, He accomplished the fact. It was finished -- that is, it was fulfilled.
It would appear to me that the division of the New Testament, especially the Letters of Paul, were accomplished at a time when the original Greek translators, who knew Ancient Aramaic well, were no longer alive. It must've occurred a few centuries later, probably when the Roman church drove out the Ancient Church of the East from Jerusalem and subsequently out of the Western sphere altogether.
It doesn't surprise me then that the Eastern churches in general have been ignored by the West.
I have no choice but to continue following the division of the chapters and verses, since I want everyone to be able to compare my translation with other translations.
--Oct. 21, 2000
One of the elegant features of the Aramaic language stylistically is the repeated usage of the same word in two or more of its forms in the same sentence. Each time the word is used, it's used in a different way, to reveal a different shade of meaning or to emphasize a point poetically. In contrast to this, in the English language, repeating a word is not elegant at all. It's usually an indication of a poor vocabulary. As a result of this peculiar difference in the two languages, much of the elegance of the Scriptures has been lost in translation for English speaking readers, as the same word is repeated several times in one sentence. In my translating, I uncover the idiomatic nuances of those words that are used in the contexts of new expressions or figures of speech. A good example is the opening verses of the Gospel of John, 1:3-5. Compare other English language translations to mine.
--Nov. 14, 2000
I just finished watching a PBS production, "From Jesus to Christ." It's amazing how such a beautiful production artistically can be so totally false. The production creates an intricate lie about early Christianity as being the religion that was started by a few Jews and Gentiles that developed into today's Christianity. They did all this without ever mentioning the Aramaic language and the Aramaic speaking peoples. They didn't say anything about the Ashurai, the Chaldeans or the Armenians. These were the early Christians. The Jewish converts were of course the biggest component of early Christianity, but there was no mention of all the other people in the Holy Lands at the time. The first disciples and apostles were from Galilee. There were a few Greeks as well who were converted. However, according to this production, it was the Romans and the Greeks and a few Jews who made up early Christianity. When the lie is so big, everything that is told within that lie is true, but the truth within is ultimately that it is a lie. There's no truth in lying, unless one kills off all the witnesses. The murder of Eastern Christians is still ongoing. There's one truth and one truth only. The New Testament is not a Greek or Western document, it's an Eastern Book, written in the Ancient Aramaic language, by Aramaic speaking disciples and apostles of Jesus Christ.
The lie, that this program perpetuated, breeds contempt among the people that it addresses. The Christians of the Middle East that this program ignores are not affected by the lies about early Christianity, but the lies that portray Christianity as a Judeo-Gentile religion create confusion. These lies breed hostility. The truth about Jesus Christ breeds peace and well being. Telling the truth about early Christianity would show how people of different religions can live at peace with each other, since Christianity was never the faith of this world, but the faith in the heavenly Kingdom according to what Jesus Christ preached. These lies about Jesus, the Gentiles, the Greeks, the Romans and the lack of mention of the Aramaic speaking people, will lead modern-day Christianity down a dead end path from where there's no turning back.
--Dec. 20, 2000
Early on when I was told by people that the Greek version of the New Testament was written before the Ancient Aramaic, I didn't realize that the Greek "original" manuscripts couldn't have been written during the Apostolic Age. I even said that probably the Greek scribes must've recorded their translation at the same time as the Ancient Aramaic. Now that I've translated so many of Paul's Letters, it's clear that the Greek version must've been written at least two centuries after the Apostolic Age. Not only the Letters couldn't have been written in Greek, they are badly botched. The Greek translations of the Letters are incompetent and misleading. The Latin and the subsequent versions are even worse. Just read my translation of Paul's First Letter to Timothy and decide for yourself.
--Jan. 17, 2001
You can never err in exalting the name of Jesus Christ, because He has the most exalted name already -- He is God.
--June 9, 2002
The day when the lies must stop: the Day of Judgment for the unrepentant sinners is not like any other trial. There will be no witnesses, no jury and no prosecutor. Everyone will stand by themselves before the Lamb That Was Slain Before the Foundations of the Universe, and they will be judged "according to their works." Everyone, therefore, is subject to the second death, except for those who went to heaven without "passing through trial." That's why we pray the Lord's Prayer every day and ask that we may be judged according to our faith.
July 9, 2002
I always wondered why Jesus didn't teach more from the Old Testament. His main references to the Scriptures were to those passages that prophesied directly about himself. Now that I am two-thirds of the way through the translation of Genesis, I can see why he didn't. The Old Testament is a series of Scriptures that were compiled over the centuries preceding His coming to the world. They were a prophesy and a preparation for His coming. That's the only legitimate context for us in which to read the Old Testament, namely it's the affirmation of His coming and the lessons that were meant for those who would receive Him in their midst, so as His mission would be accomplished.
What Jesus taught then is in addition to the Old Testament. He fulfilled it, to be sure; however, it was what he said that mattered most, not what was written about the Jews historically.
For us, as Christians, to live according to the laws of the Jews is futile. The only thing I can see is that the modern-day churches go according to the Old Testament for the sake of tapping into the authority of the Bible, for the sake of receiving tithes and garnering the rewards associated with the ceremonies, for the sake of financial gain. This may be why the churches emphasize the Old Testament so much. There's nothing with making a living, but we have financial empires now based on the preaching of the word.
December 21, 2002
The purpose of Satan is not to separate us from God the Father. That's impossible. God created everything and everyone. The purpose of Satan is to separate us from our Savior Jesus Christ. The purpose of Satan is not to deny the existence of God, because if he denies the existence of God, then he is denying the spiritual realm and his own existence.
The purpose of Satan is not to deny the existence of Scriptures and its prophesy of the Coming of the Messiah, because without the Scriptures, Satan cannot mislead humanity and present himself as the Antichrist. Without a moral code, nothing can be considered as evil; everything becomes possible and expedient, and, therefore, Satan can tempt everyone with what is accessible and exciting, the pleasures of this world.
December 29, 2002