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

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by Jordan River
I wanted to inject the personal ideals of those who are believers of God and the like., Many do believe because of some external experiance that they cannot explain. Either supernatural, super coincidental (no such thing as coincidence, jewish law) or other external and or internal experiances. Either drug related, death, relationship, further involvement. So those individual experiances aren't shared online due to criticisms and the like.

all of what you said has nothing to do with the OP or the video. The OP and video are discussing the literal translation of the OT. NOT who or what god is. If the OT translations says that the OT god is a flying spaghetti monster then thats what it says. Unless you can translate ancient Hebrew and prove categorically thats NOT what it says speculation and conjecture of what YOU think the nature of god is has no bearing on anything here. In fact all it does is make an already complex topic even more convoluted.

So basically if i dont discuss what you want to talk about, i'm irrelevant? The bible has been translated for centuries, and I am suppose to find justification of this mans translation as valid after it has been repeatedly changed, altered, and distributed throughout other languages, been meticulously translated through Jewry scholars and have also been tested by the authenticity of the translation through the dead sea scrolls. Stop hating, I am not looking for trolling arguments

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by Jordan River
I've studied ancient scriptures enough to know this is B.S. Any one with a brain would know that God is an alien (not a physical alien) but a spiritual multi dimensional omnipresnce alien (cause we dont associate with God on a physical realm/level

We are not here to debate the nature of the one and only god(if there is such a thing) we are here to debate the creators of either life on this planet or the human species. God might have made the universe but aliens can still make humans from apes. Try to keep up.

Well I believe in the panspermia theory of the creation of life through asteroids, comets, etc

I dont think the title of this thread is "Tell me your theories of the origins of life on this planet"

so if thats the agenda you're trying to push or thats the subject you want to discuss why dont you make a thread of your own that relates to that topic? As you can see we already have a subject to discuss here.

I admit it is such a long thread I haven't read everything so what I will say may have been said already. Here goes:

Am I the only one who finds that the Sumerian pictogram of the RUACH, according to this man, looks a lot like the UFO, or RIV, filmed in Turkey, hovering above water?...

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by Jordan River
I wanted to inject the personal ideals of those who are believers of God and the like., Many do believe because of some external experiance that they cannot explain. Either supernatural, super coincidental (no such thing as coincidence, jewish law) or other external and or internal experiances. Either drug related, death, relationship, further involvement. So those individual experiances aren't shared online due to criticisms and the like.

all of what you said has nothing to do with the OP or the video. The OP and video are discussing the literal translation of the OT. NOT who or what god is. If the OT translations says that the OT god is a flying spaghetti monster then thats what it says. Unless you can translate ancient Hebrew and prove categorically thats NOT what it says speculation and conjecture of what YOU think the nature of god is has no bearing on anything here. In fact all it does is make an already complex topic even more convoluted.

So basically if i dont discuss what you want to talk about, i'm irrelevant? The bible has been translated for centuries, and I am suppose to find justification of this mans translation as valid after it has been repeatedly changed, altered, and distributed throughout other languages, been meticulously translated through Jewry scholars and have also been tested by the authenticity of the translation through the dead sea scrolls. Stop hating, I am not looking for trolling arguments

nice leap of logical reasoning. I never said you were irrelevant but if you feel that way thats not my issue. I was suggesting you stay on topic lest you're comments and now mine by association be removed by the mods for not staying on point which ironically we have veered off. so get on it or get off it. I didnt make the rules im just informing you of them.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd
Since we're apparently trying to help people be less confused...

firstly according to the bible there is only 1 god.

So who exactly were Chemosh, Molech, Baal, Dagon, and all the rest again? Perhaps you were just making a semantic point about the singularity of the one true 'god', but that wouldn't seem to square with your support for this video.

Now, I haven't had a chance to watch the video as yet, but according to the general narrative of the bible, there is only one CREATOR. There are multiple 'gods', however, and the title was even given to men at times (elohim being 'mighty ones', or apparently the SUPREME ONES!!! the OP has gotten so excited about, as though the plural reference in elohim is a new concept).

I will get around to watching these today, but just from my reading so far, it seems all we're dealing with is one gentleman's interpretation of how to properly interpret the hebrew (in addition to that of the Chronicle Project somewhat, which I also need to follow up on), while admitting that we can't know what was in the original author's head - which is the exact same fault with his own interpretation here, as far as I can tell.

He can ASSUME that this "ZOMG LITERAL!!!" translation with no vowel points, etc., is the proper way to read it - but you know what they say about assumptions.

And regardless - the bible has already had plenty of overcast as a possible couching of ancient aliens truths and interpretations for quite some time, tied into the various debates over the nature of the trinity, etc.

So...if we could all calm down and stop assuming this guy has uncovered the hither-to unknown absolute truth of the matter and stop emphasizing things that honestly seem a little less amazing to me than presented - while worthy of further consideration - that would be great. This thread HAS become a bit silly, as some others have already stated.

Thanks in advance.

does nobody care that there is still no proof this guy really worked for the vatican (has credebility)....?¿?

66 flags for an ancient-alien guy who wants to sell a book with a fake? (proof me wrong) vatican past....

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

They also have an AGENDA. They have been schooled their entire lives in religious dogma. If they did come up with something controversial, it would be hidden away and they would be chastised. Just like the fellow doing the videos was chastised and fired by the Vatican.

Did anyone else get the part where he says the ancient Israelites did not speak Hebrew? What I am understanding is that the Bible was translated INTO whatever language it was written in from whatever language they were speaking at the time. Is that correct?

If one were to believe John Anthony West and Graham Hancock, I would date the original texts to somewhere around 36,000 years old. The Jews would have taken them when they took the Ark of the Covenant, both relics from this "Atlantian" civilization.

I need to know something. Who wrote the King James Bible? And what were their linguistic qualifications?

The Africans who wrote the Bible.

There is another monkey wrench into the works.

Thanks for sharing
I used to drive my sunday school teachers batty with this #....
Gave up religion because of it....A childs literaal mind sees this stuff, and it gets beaten out of you early......
This guy makes some real sense.....ive wondered about the campaigns with David and the ephods for ever
The radioman analogy didnt get me farther than the corner with a dunce cap back then......
I gotta get this guys book in english!
I dont care if he and Sitchin disagree on finer points, they at least have the balls to try to get to the bottom of things.....
Its hard to get out from behind the christian censorship of western print.
Again this is majorly cool and relieves my mind of a few questions that got me punished for as a kid......
regards ....s

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by TiM3LoRd

 

Since we're apparently trying to help people be less confused...

firstly according to the bible there is only 1 god.

So who exactly were Chemosh, Molech, Baal, Dagon, and all the rest again? Perhaps you were just making a semantic point about the singularity of the one true 'god', but that wouldn't seem to square with your support for this video.

Now, I haven't had a chance to watch the video as yet,

You havent watched the video yet???
So then how would you know if what im saying squares with the posted video?? Are you psychic??

the first video i watched didnt mention anything about those "other" gods. So im not sure where you got YOU'RE information from. Im commenting about the information in the OP and the first video NOT my opinion of the bible. also the full quote for comparison

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by arpgme
I think people read too much into things. Gods do not equal aliens. Gods are spirit, aliens are physical. They are not the same. Unless you are saying spirit doesn't exist and only aliens do, then you would be justified in saying that all angels, devils, gods, are really aliens from other planets...

edit on 20-1-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

firstly according to the bible there is only 1 god. So from the get go your logic is flawed. second there is no debate about spirit in fact the only thing we need to discuss is the LITERAL translation which is what the video and thread is about. I dont know why you would bring up points that have nothing to do with the video unless you are confused as to what you are seeing or you are trying to derail the thread.

Also the very first thing you say is that you think people read too much into things...well if you bothered to watch the video or read the OP you would KNOW the speaker agrees which is why he translated the OT LITERALLY.

Do you know what the meaning of literal is??? it means there was NO READING INTO THINGS!!

hope you're less confused.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd

You havent watched the video yet???
So then how would you know if what im saying squares with the posted video?? Are you psychic??

Correct - and one doesn't need to be psychic to read through a thread and pick up on various indications, such as the OP continuing to ask WHO ARE THE SUPREME ONES? while you're saying the bible says their is only one god - which doesn't square with the bible OR the video, just based on my reading.

Am I assuming incorrectly? My apologies if so.

the first video i watched didnt mention anything about those "other" gods. So im not sure where you got YOU'RE information from. Im commenting about the information in the OP and the first video NOT my opinion of the bible. also the full quote for comparison

Well, first off you were talking about what the bible says, not this man's interpretation of it - I'm assuming, again - as the videos apparently go on to reference multiple entities. And from what I've read about the video, other than arguing about the interpretation of the word we've translated 'god[s]', it sounds like you're wrong on both counts as the bible also addresses the multiple gods of the other nations.

So were you talking about our traditional understand of the bible, or the video's interpretation - because if the author we're discussing ends up claiming there's only one god, then I'll be REALLY confused after I have time to watch this.

And that would be "your" (not "you're") when discussing my information - just to clarify. Take care.

I can't believe that publishers will not publish his two unpublished books. There are publishers for this type of thing and there is no doubt that, if his books are a half way credible read, they will sell and make him and his publisher money.

I would buy his books, based on the OP's video.

As to his methodology, i.e., deriving meaning by going to the meaning of the roots of words and the meaning of their etymological antecedents, this is a procedure that can be fascinating and illuminating as well as, in many cases, misleading.

One simply has to open an etymological dictionary of English or one, like the Oxford English Dictionary with etymological content and try the oldest meaning listed for each word in a sentence. Here is an example:

The unidentified flying object landed in the parking lot.

I'm typing this off the top of my head. I don't know what the etymological results will be and I am now going to walk over to my copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary to look up each word and translate it into the oldest meaning listed for it.

The Referring to an individual object or objects. This word has numerous antecedents in ancient Indo-European languages, but I don't have time to delve.

unidentified Using "identify" as the root. To make different from something to regard or treat as different.

flying That moves through the air with wings.

object Thing thrown before the mind.

landed Posessed of land, having an estate in land.

in To give or put in . . . .enclose.

the See above.

parking To enclose in, or as in, a park.

lot An object used in an ancient method of selection or decision by chance.

Keep in mind that for the purposes of this illustration, we don't know the correct translation of the original sentence or we know a translation, but we suspect that later scholars have taken the original roots and distorted their meaning in accordance with an agenda of some sort.

I will now translate taking the meaning of the roots into consideration.

A mental presence, different from others, that moves through the air with wings, a land owner, enclosed in a park, a casino.

One can see the headline now: Jet Setting Developer To Build Casino and Theme Park

I'm aware of some of the shortcomings of this example, but I think if one looks at it sympathetically, it does make some valid points about the pitfalls of this approach to translation. This issue has come up in other fields as well, the "old" and "new" translations of Buddhist texts from Sanskrit to Tibetan for example, where in the "old" school, the Sanskrit roots were translated, with mixed results.

.

For those that haven't watched the clip yet, the first 10 minutes is basically just the guy explaining his credentials and his translation process. He mentions that the original Hebraic language did not contain vowels and that over the centuries translators inserted vowels to interpret the texts and its his position that inserting vowels added unintended meaning. It's not until around the 10 minute mark that he even touches on an instance of what he considers a mistranslation and he hits on a word that he believes describes a UFO rather than the traditional meaning of it being "God's spirit". Unfortunately he doesn't get very far into this explanation before the clip ends and we're left with the rather annoying "to be continued".

Overall I'm left with the impression that he's just trying to sell a book (which is mentioned in the clip). There have been many scholars that have looked at the texts over the centuries and there has been general consensus that overall, the translations are accurate. This process in fact continues today, scholars are still poring over the Dead Sea scrolls and comparing them to accepted Bible translations to see how they compare, and the reports have been that the modern accepted translations are indeed surprisingly close to the original texts.

He touches on the argument in the clip that the Bible as we know it was assembled in later years (hundreds of years after Christ) and it could have been assembled differently and potentially the meaning would have been different. I agree with him on that point, had the Book of Enoch or other apocryphal texts been included then the Bible would have a slightly different feel than it does, but I've read those texts and while they do present some concepts that don't quite align with modern religious teachings they don't substantially change the message either. He's mixing some truth in with his own brand of reinterpretation to grant himself some credibility that I don't think he really has.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by TiM3LoRd

 

You havent watched the video yet???
So then how would you know if what im saying squares with the posted video?? Are you psychic??

Correct - and one doesn't need to be psychic to read through a thread and pick up on various indications, such as the OP continuing to ask WHO ARE THE SUPREME ONES? while you're saying the bible says their is only one god - which doesn't square with the bible OR the video, just based on my reading.

Am I assuming incorrectly? My apologies if so.

the first video i watched didnt mention anything about those "other" gods. So im not sure where you got YOU'RE information from. Im commenting about the information in the OP and the first video NOT my opinion of the bible. also the full quote for comparison

Well, first off you were talking about what the bible says, not this man's interpretation of it - I'm assuming, again - as the videos apparently go on to reference multiple entities. And from what I've read about the video, other than arguing about the interpretation of the word we've translated 'god[s]', it sounds like you're wrong on both counts as the bible also addresses the multiple gods of the other nations.

So were you talking about our traditional understand of the bible, or the video's interpretation - because if the author we're discussing ends up claiming there's only one god, then I'll be REALLY confused after I have time to watch this.

And that would be "your" (not "you're") when discussing my information - just to clarify. Take care.

Originally posted by Praetorius

but you know what they say about assumptions.

What DO they say about assumptions???

To clarify i was talking about the widely accepted version of the KJV of the bible which in Sunday school never mentioned baal or any other entity. the only major players were god the devil and archangels.

I havent watched the rest of the videos yet but i will so i cant comment on what they have to say about other gods. Mind you i was brought up roman catholic not that i practice so my understanding of the OT is limited at best.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd

What DO they say about assumptions???

I'll let you google that - but in this instance, mine appear to be correct.

To clarify i was talking about the widely accepted version of the KJV of the bible which in sunday school bever mentioned baal or any other entity. the only major players were god the devil and archangels.

I havent watched the rest of the videos yet but i will so i cant comment on what they have to say about other gods. Mind you i was brought up roman catholic not that i practice so my understanding of the OT is limited at best.

Fair enough, and that explains the confusion. You'd either have to have more thorough instruction in the bible or actually do some studying in it yourself to come across the many other gods of the other nations that are discussed.

I only sought to clarify, and not to pick on you, so my apologies as no offense was intended.

EDIT:
Bah...you can google search for "Deities in the Hebrew Bible" to get started, but be mindful that some mentioned here are also just additional titles for the Israelite god.

Take care.

Originally posted by EricD

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

Pope Pius X was quoted saying these exact words:"The Pope is the Human representative of Christ on earth and he is Christ himself"

So yeah the Pope did claim this, and no Pope after him refuted it either. Furthermore the word "Pope" means "Father" and Jesus forbade any man to claim that he was our Father because we only have one Father and he's not on earth.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by TiM3LoRd

 

What DO they say about assumptions???

I'll let you google that - but in this instance, mine appear to be correct.

To clarify i was talking about the widely accepted version of the KJV of the bible which in sunday school bever mentioned baal or any other entity. the only major players were god the devil and archangels.

I havent watched the rest of the videos yet but i will so i cant comment on what they have to say about other gods. Mind you i was brought up roman catholic not that i practice so my understanding of the OT is limited at best.

Fair enough, and that explains the confusion. You'd either have to have more thorough instruction in the bible or actually do some studying in it yourself to come across the many other gods of the other nations that are discussed.

I only sought to clarify, and not to pick on you, so my apologies as no offense was intended.

none taken at all. i appreciate and value knowledge in all its forms and look forward to any opportunity in which to grow that knowledge. I thank you for educating me on this specific bit of knowledge about the other gods that if i interpret correctly were a rival to the OT genesis god.

To be honest i stopped paying attention to the bible after the glaring paradoxes and hypocrisy, this information only serves to validate and verify my earlier beliefs about Christianity.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd

none taken at all. i appreciate and value knowledge in all its forms and look forward to any opportunity in which to grow that knowledge. I thank you for educating me on this specific bit of knowledge about the other gods that if i interpret correctly were a rival to the OT genesis god.

Sure thing, and you'd be interpreting that somewhat correctly.

To be honest i stopped paying attention to the bible after the glaring paradoxes and hypocrisy, this information only serves to validate and verify my earlier beliefs about Christianity.

I'm truly sorry to hear that - views on the content aside, it is an amazing work for various reasons of history, moral teaching (with plenty of object lesson on both the good and bad), and general writing & poetry. And I also find that such complaints usually fall down in light of more serious review, but I can understand the claims.

Just always seek to deny ignorance, and don't be willing to limit such denial in scope to sell yourself short.

Stay safe out there.

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

They also have an AGENDA. They have been schooled their entire lives in religious dogma. If they did come up with something controversial, it would be hidden away and they would be chastised. Just like the fellow doing the videos was chastised and fired by the Vatican.

Did anyone else get the part where he says the ancient Israelites did not speak Hebrew? What I am understanding is that the Bible was translated INTO whatever language it was written in from whatever language they were speaking at the time. Is that correct?

They can't do that. Hiding this knowledge from the people that God wanted them to know is the same as lieing to them and wouldn't go unpunished and even they know that.

Wanna know what the ancient Israelites spoke? I can show you in this LINK.

Pretty much the same language over the last several thousand years, with minor changes so yeah. It would be like modern english speaking person talking to someone who spoke middle english but doable.