Fired Vatican Hebrew Translator exposes the OT for what it is in his LITERAL translation of the Hebr

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by scary
He translated the accepted MMS from all three Abrahamic religions using ONLY the consonants as it was written and without injecting punctuation (not written with it) and vowels,

What is/are "MMS?" How do you translate Hebrew without inserting vowels? The language had vowels, you know, they didn't go around clicking consonants and glottal stops at each other all day. You have to insert vowels into the written language to translate it. You said "all three Abrahamic religions" used only consonants in their writing ... but I've seen the Greek New Testament, and I'm pretty sure it has written vowels, too. I recall something about an Alpha and an Omega. What's up with that? Is Christianity no longer an Abrahamic religion?

edit on 19-1-2012 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)

OH wow...no. I am guessing tha tyou don't understand ancient Hebrew. Please, do yourself a huge favor and listen to the first video. Ancient Hebrew as this was written had NO vowels and NO consonants. ANY meaning inserted into the text beyond the meaning of the original consonant is an extrapolation to "I THINK they meant this" and is a control mechanism...which has worked beautifully. No, in fact ancient Hebrew did not have vowels. Manuscript=MMS and there is ONLY one that all three abrahamic cults agree on together, and that is the version he used. Man why are you here talking if you are not going to engage in a meaningful way by at least watching the FIRST video.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by benrl
You do realize the OT is apart of the Jewish Torah And that Jewish scholars had it and have read and translated it far longer than there has even been a "Catholic" church...

Just saying...

Thats what i'm saying. This guy in the video thinks he knows more than jewish priests who spend their entire lives studying this stuff. They don't just spend 4-6 years in college studying it they spend up to their entire lives starting at the age of 12.

Again you didn't watch the video...Jewish scholars know exactly what the torah says. HELLO. Their whole mystical Kaballah is organized around this knowledge. SO does the Vatican. He quotes other scholars.

I assume that MMS is a typo for mss (manuscripts, plural). But it's not the three Abrahamic religions; this Biglino was talking about three schools of Judaism, only.

Unfortunately, his fluency in Hebrew is not accompanied by paleographic knowledge about the ancient manuscripts. The fact that the vowel points were added around the 7th century AD is no secret. But these were not entirely arbitrary; there were, from the first century AD, Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible, called Targum, and paraphrases and explanations of individual verses and expressions in the Talmud. There were also some ancient translations into other languages done in the first few centuries of the Christian Era. These all generally agree with the Massoretic Hebrew text that contains the vowel points added in the 7th century.

Additionally, the possibility that other meanings might be possible if the vowel points were ignored is not a new idea. The Revised Standard Version, for example, said that it relied on the consonantal Hebrew text - that is, without being controlled by the traditional vowel points. Some very important old manuscripts - such as the Dead Sea Scrolls - do not use the vowel points, and some early (and modern) printings of the Hebrew Bible similarly dispense with the vowel points (which make for complicated typesetting).

The chance that someone would read the Hebrew Bible without relying on the traditional vowel points is also not new. Newspapers in Israel are published without vowel points and adult readers fluent in Hebrew seem to have no problem reading them. So this fellow, for all his fanfare, has discovered nothing new and had no new idea. It's not as if eliminating the vowel points and interpreting the consonants without them could lead to "every sort of meaning" -- just as if you eliminated the vowels from English words, you'd have to guess at some but the range of guesses would be limited and most of the words would be obvious even without their vowels. People have already been reading the Hebrew Bible without bothering with the vowel points and, although some suggestions have been made about alternative renderings, there's been nothing as expansive and dramatic as this guy suggests.

His mentions of flying saucers only persuade me that his has allowed his simplistic realization about the Hebrew vowels to tip him over the edge.

This guy may like to think that the Hebrew Bible was originally Sumerian or Babylonian or something and then translated, but the fact is that there are so many proper names, so many turns of phrase, that absolutely depend on peculiarities (or rhymes) in Hebrew that it seems very unlikely that the Hebrew is the secondary language.

Originally posted by Shoonra
I assume that MMS is a typo for mss (manuscripts, plural). But it's not the three Abrahamic religions; this Biglino was talking about three schools of Judaism, only.

Unfortunately, his fluency in Hebrew is not accompanied by paleographic knowledge about the ancient manuscripts. The fact that the vowel points were added around the 7th century AD is no secret. But these were not entirely arbitrary; there were, from the first century AD, Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible, called Targum, and paraphrases and explanations of individual verses and expressions in the Talmud. There were also some ancient translations into other languages done in the first few centuries of the Christian Era. These all generally agree with the Massoretic Hebrew text that contains the vowel points added in the 7th century.

Additionally, the possibility that other meanings might be possible if the vowel points were ignored is not a new idea. The Revised Standard Version, for example, said that it relied on the consonantal Hebrew text - that is, without being controlled by the traditional vowel points. Some very important old manuscripts - such as the Dead Sea Scrolls - do not use the vowel points, and some early (and modern) printings of the Hebrew Bible similarly dispense with the vowel points (which make for complicated typesetting).

The chance that someone would read the Hebrew Bible without relying on the traditional vowel points is also not new. Newspapers in Israel are published without vowel points and adult readers fluent in Hebrew seem to have no problem reading them. So this fellow, for all his fanfare, has discovered nothing new and had no new idea.

His mentions of flying saucers only persuade me that his has allowed his simplistic realization about the Hebrew vowels to tip him over the edge.

Again you did not watch the video or if you did you skimmed. The literal translation of ANCIENT Hebrew is the up and coming new kid on the block and is becoming more popular as more information is gleaned from the text. Ancient Hebrew simply didn't HAVE those features. AGAIN here is another project doing the same thing. the chronical project

When people stop lying to themselves and trying to prop up false belief sets this world might be able to get better. The OT as translated in the KJV mentions flying chariots. HELLO.

The point is that NO ONE can surmise what the original transcriber meant when he wrote the consonants and NO ONE is qualified to insert vowels and punctuation unless they were the original writer. The only responsible way to translate the MMS is to translate it as it stands using only the consonants. As Mauro explains you can change the meaning of each and every symbol by using different vowels and punctuation and no one should do that as no one can know anything more as fact other than what was actually written. WHO are the supreme ones? (PLURAL).

Originally posted by scary

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by scary
He translated the accepted MMS from all three Abrahamic religions using ONLY the consonants as it was written and without injecting punctuation (not written with it) and vowels,

What is/are "MMS?" How do you translate Hebrew without inserting vowels? The language had vowels, you know, they didn't go around clicking consonants and glottal stops at each other all day. You have to insert vowels into the written language to translate it. You said "all three Abrahamic religions" used only consonants in their writing ... but I've seen the Greek New Testament, and I'm pretty sure it has written vowels, too. I recall something about an Alpha and an Omega. What's up with that? Is Christianity no longer an Abrahamic religion?

edit on 19-1-2012 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)

OH wow...no. I am guessing tha tyou don't understand ancient Hebrew. Please, do yourself a huge favor and listen to the first video. Ancient Hebrew as this was written had NO vowels and NO consonants. ANY meaning inserted into the text beyond the meaning of the original consonant is an extrapolation to "I THINK they meant this" and is a control mechanism...which has worked beautifully. No, in fact ancient Hebrew did not have vowels. Manuscript=MMS and there is ONLY one that all three abrahamic cults agree on together, and that is the version he used. Man why are you here talking if you are not going to engage in a meaningful way by at least watching the FIRST video.

But it wasn't written in ancient Hebrew. The earliest writings, as he claims, was written in Amorite or Sumerian and then translated by the Babylonians in 600 or 800 a.d., and they inserted their own thoughts and beliefs. Hebrew did not exist as a language at the time of the writings.

I would be interested in the reason for the burnt offerings.

Originally posted by scary
The point is that NO ONE can surmise what the original transcriber meant when he wrote the consonants and NO ONE is qualified to insert vowels and punctuation unless they were the original writer. The only responsible way to translate the MMS is to translate it as it stands using only the consonants. As Mauro explains you can change the meaning of each and every symbol by using different vowels and punctuation and no one should do that as no one can know anything more as fact other than what was actually written. WHO are the supreme ones? (PLURAL).

Stuff like the destruction of the Library of Alexandria doesn't just coincide with Murphy's Law.

Maybe all them books had corroborating evidence?

We are forced to utilize our own discernment...or have a favorite flavor of kool-aid.

Originally posted by Onboard2

Originally posted by scary

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by scary
He translated the accepted MMS from all three Abrahamic religions using ONLY the consonants as it was written and without injecting punctuation (not written with it) and vowels,

What is/are "MMS?" How do you translate Hebrew without inserting vowels? The language had vowels, you know, they didn't go around clicking consonants and glottal stops at each other all day. You have to insert vowels into the written language to translate it. You said "all three Abrahamic religions" used only consonants in their writing ... but I've seen the Greek New Testament, and I'm pretty sure it has written vowels, too. I recall something about an Alpha and an Omega. What's up with that? Is Christianity no longer an Abrahamic religion?

edit on 19-1-2012 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)

OH wow...no. I am guessing tha tyou don't understand ancient Hebrew. Please, do yourself a huge favor and listen to the first video. Ancient Hebrew as this was written had NO vowels and NO consonants. ANY meaning inserted into the text beyond the meaning of the original consonant is an extrapolation to "I THINK they meant this" and is a control mechanism...which has worked beautifully. No, in fact ancient Hebrew did not have vowels. Manuscript=MMS and there is ONLY one that all three abrahamic cults agree on together, and that is the version he used. Man why are you here talking if you are not going to engage in a meaningful way by at least watching the FIRST video.

But it wasn't written in ancient Hebrew. The earliest writings, as he claims, was written in Amorite or Sumerian and then translated by the Babylonians in 600 or 800 a.d., and they inserted their own thoughts and beliefs. Hebrew did not exist as a language at the time of the writings.

I would be interested in the reason for the burnt offerings.

edit on 19-1-2012 by Onboard2 because: Made a correction

Whew this is hurting my brain. In case you didn't watch the video (and you didn't or you wouldn't have made that comment) he says that exactly in fact he says that Moses didn't speak Hebrew. What he is working with is the mms that is accepted by all three abrahamic religions as being authentic. What more can he do? He then used LITERAL translation of the symbols without extrapolation (such as in KJV) and then he explains the symbol and their literal meaning. His point is, that taking any other meaning or inserting anything else is impossible to do in any authentic way because no one can know what was in the head of the writer and it is possible to change the meaning of each and every symbol in many ways by adding vowels and punctuation that were NOT present in the MMS. It is clear that I am going to have to post each and every video because for some odd reason people can't actually go to youtube and click on them.

part 2



part 3 (the meat stuff starts towards the end of this one)



the meat stuff continues here in pt. 4



part 5 discussion of Nephilim (different take on it)


part six, the danger zone...if there was no original sin, what was the jesus story all about?

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by scary
The point is that NO ONE can surmise what the original transcriber meant when he wrote the consonants and NO ONE is qualified to insert vowels and punctuation unless they were the original writer. The only responsible way to translate the MMS is to translate it as it stands using only the consonants. As Mauro explains you can change the meaning of each and every symbol by using different vowels and punctuation and no one should do that as no one can know anything more as fact other than what was actually written. WHO are the supreme ones? (PLURAL).

Stuff like the destruction of the Library of Alexandria doesn't just coincide with Murphy's Law.

Maybe all them books had corroborating evidence?

We are forced to utilize our own discernment...or have a favorite flavor of kool-aid.

perhaps, or maybe we just stick to what is known (the plain text without extrapolation), and see where that takes us.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by scary

 

The Pope claimed to be Jesus, that's enough for me to write off anything that comes from Roman Catholicism.

No, he didn't. The Pope did not claim to be Jesus.

But the OP is claiming that the translator was actually fired by the Vatican, so that should be a plus in your book, right?

Eric

reply to post by scary


All though I am sorry you had to go through so much BS to get this thread up in the first place I am glad I was able to track it down in the end and that you added more of an opening statement and a few excerpts from his thoughts. ( I had one of your deleted threads bookmarked from earlier and it took me some skillful search functioning to find this.) (And sorry, OP, I am writing this as I watch so I do not miss any comments I want to make on this momentous information so if I say anything that seems a little obvious I apologize)

I am on part 1, and before I continue, I want to make a statement about the RUACH. He says the pictogram clearly shows a "Something" hovering over water. I see a "something" that rides on the wind...(Double squiggle) What is your personal take on this? Do you agree, OP, that there could be several interpretations to that pictogram than those which he proposes? I just want your personal thoughts since you are closer to this subject (being the one who has brought it to our attention).

I find it very intriguing that when the literal translations begin and we look more at the root of these OT stories (whether they be originally of Sumerian account or something earlier that the Sumerians adopted into their texts) that the similarities between Genesis and Sumerian creation myth (as other creation myths) become even more apparent. He is stating the literal interpretation to be "made from materials of ELOHIM which was cut out" makes me think immediately of DNA manipulation of primitive man... And as I am continuing to watch, it look like I was right, he is indeed moving into the idea of DNA right now.

Mauro just made another fantastic point about "God" being likened to a potter in one of the biblical accounts of creation. Stating that anyone who is a biologist or geneticist would know the importance of clay as a catalyst as a precess for the combination of DNA/RNA. I never was able to draw that link before but not I see how that particular likeness of a molder/potter is given to deities throughout most creation myths.

As for the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he shows that this is a representation of how "man" came to learn of right and wrong. (The loss of innocence and the embracing of the duality). It reminds me of what we experience on the individual level when we come to an age of cohesive understanding a lose our child-like innocence.

This reply is going to be long, I will stop and post it... then watch the rest and come back with any questions or comments I may have. Thanks OP for bringing this great information to my attention.

Pretty interesting thread except for all the crap people who didn't even watch the video are posting.

The guy makes LITERAL translations, and it comes out that 'God' was hovering around in a spaceship. The Roman empire changed the translations to suit their agenda, and this guy, fluent in the languages of old, translated them to their original meaning.

Pretty much the God that Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe in..........is an alien.

Old News Bears for me but I like seeing more translations like this come out.

Thanks for posting - this looks intriguing, but I'll need to bookmark it to view when time permits.

Well, isn't this ATS in the flesh if I have ever seen it.

I came to this thread legitimately interested in the content, I even watched the video. I had some questions in relating these literal interpretations with the chronicle project, which I also find intersting.

I followed my typical protocol to read the few posts to the end at which point the OP refers to christard's pissing him off, which I assume is a slandering term for a Christian.

Too bad the thread went from interesting to retarded in the span of a few posts. I thought the info was cool until I realized I couldn't take the author seriously based on their whiny and childish rantings about getting erased because of those wild and whacky christards that are supposedly too scared to face the truth.

The Author, not this thread is ATS idiocy at it's purest and most refined...nice.

Along the same lines wasn't there some guys from a swedish university (or something like that) who where translating the old testament in a literal form, and found out the meaning was totally different ? I can't seem to find the info anymore if anyone knows what i'am talking about ?

(and again) i want to see proof for his work for the vatican (in such a high position)....

OP if you want more people to listen to you stop with the name calling. Im a Christian and i dont like being called a christard . To any mods i dont want to see this deleted becos of the op, or some of the people replying without even watching the videos. I find the topic interesting, as im sure many others will too.

Ok after watching the 3rd video (I will watch the rest) this guy is wrong. The God was a kind and loving person, that is why we are here. whoever this guy is on about is not god, but seems more like the devil in the 3rd video...

Sounds like a Von Daniken supporter or believer.
Von Daiken made the same claims from the OT which he described passages from the OT to UFOs or helicopters and other modern/ futuristic vehicles.