Bible - Alternative Translation

[angellous_evangellous]

Just as a side note, what do you think is harder; Greek or Hebrew?

That's difficult to judge. Hebrew was much more difficult on the outset - learning the letters and parsing was very time consuming. But I think that Hebrew grammar and syntax is far less complex than Greek --- and then again, I don't really know as much Hebrew as Greek.

Greek was far easier to me at the outset. It just came natural to me - when I was given an exam, I just corrected it and handed it back to the professor. He was old school and didn't like to type Greek... he wrote it and did so badly (he watched baseball while writing his exams). Then in my phd work I had more Greek than I could digest, and almost no Hebrew.

I hate to answer it like this -- but German is hands down the most difficult language to learn. Jeez.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree. I was just trying to expand on that.

I just didn't want you to think that I thought that translation was easy for those with advanced knowledge, because we know that it isn't.

The professor knows what the text does'nt say and can help rule out incorrect translations. However, what the professor cannot do is lead the student to a positively correct translation.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Just as a side note, what do you think is harder; Greek or Hebrew?

Language difficulty is relative to one's native language (or perhaps especially relative). Granted, my knowledge of Hebrew is fairly limited and all self-taught, while one of my majors was classical languages, but Greek was easier because the grammar was similar. As I used to tell the students I tutored in Greek or Latin, it's not just a lucky coincidence that so many different genitive constructions can be translated by putting "of" in front of the noun and the same with dative and "to/for." Greek may be distintly related to English, but it's still Indo-European. On the other hand, I had a student whose first language was arabic who was struggling with Latin but had taught himself biblical Hebrew with relative ease.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Book of Mark
--Ur Marcus Re-Chronological translation-- (Part One)

(1) The Good News of Julius Caesar, the Son of Venus;
--deleted Isaiah interpolation
(4)Pompeius was cleaning weapons whilst Metellus demanded from Caesar the dismissal of his army.

(5)And there went out unto him all the land of Italy and they of Rome , and cleaning the Weapons in the river of Rubricorn, praising their arms

(6)Pompeius was clothed with camel's hair , and with a belt made of leathor around his waist ; and during supper consumed pancakes with wild honey;

(7)Pompeius preached by saying, here comes one mightier than me who is helping me with my shoes, for i am not worthy to stoop down myself.

(8)Indeed clean you with water but he shall clean you with the Good word.

(9)And it came to pass in those days that Julius Caesar coming from Gaul , whos weapons where cleaned by Pompey in Rubicon.

(10)And Straightaway coming up from the water, he saw the skies opening, and Venus like a dove descending upon him

(11)And there came a voice from heaven, Thou art
my beloved son, in whom i am well pleased

(12)And Immeditately the Spirit drivewth him into Rome

(13)And he was there in Rome tempted by the Senate, and was with bestial men and the messengers ministered unto him

(14)
Now after that Pompey was put in Prison, Julius came into Gaul, preaching the Good News of the Roman Empire

(15)
And Saying, the time is fulfilled, and the Roman Empire is at hand, repent ye, and believe the good word

(16)
Now as he walked by the Gallic Sea, he saw Antonius and Gaius his brother casting a net into the sea for they were Sailers

 

[Levite]

(Christians don't read below)
So all the Old Testament (pseudo)Prophecies of a Messiah was none other then King Cyrus and all the quote taken from Isaiah that tell of the coming Messiah was also, none other then King Cyrus.
The True Savior of the Judean People. The book of Mark has Isaiah quotes interpolated that where referring to Cyrus (Koresh). Mark Author was thus creating a Jewish Messiah based upon Cyrus and used Isaiah was a Prophecy Base, instead of Taking the Hebrew Messiah, he took the Hebrew "Koresh", or "Choresh" and Hellenize it as "Chres(t)/Christ" from Isiaiah 45:1 (mashiyachc Kowresh)

The messianic prophecies you speak of have nothing to do with Cyrus. There were and may yet be many people who bore the title mashiach Hashem ("anointed of God")-- and many were so called simultaneously, for they were anointed for different tasks and purposes.

The messianic prophecies that are usually so called refer not just to any mashiach Hashem but specifically to mashiach ben David ("the messiah who will be descended from King David"). The future prince of whom they speak has very specific defining characteristics, of which a notable one is that he will be descended lineally from King David. Which, of course, Cyrus was not: he wasn't even an Israelite. Cyrus and the future mashiach ben David have nothing to do with one another.

And the Greek word christos simply means "anointed." It comes, if I am not mistaken, from the word chrisma, meaning "oil," since that was what one was anointed with. It has nothing to do with the Hebraicized Persian name Koresh.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

The messianic prophecies you speak of have nothing to do with Cyrus. There were and may yet be many people who bore the title mashiach Hashem ("anointed of God")-- and many were so called simultaneously, for they were anointed for different tasks and purposes.

The messianic prophecies that are usually so called refer not just to any mashiach Hashem but specifically to mashiach ben David ("the messiah who will be descended from King David"). The future prince of whom they speak has very specific defining characteristics, of which a notable one is that he will be descended lineally from King David. Which, of course, Cyrus was not: he wasn't even an Israelite. Cyrus and the future mashiach ben David have nothing to do with one another.

And the Greek word christos simply means "anointed." It comes, if I am not mistaken, from the word chrisma, meaning "oil," since that was what one was anointed with. It has nothing to do with the Hebraicized Persian name Koresh.

I don't believe Messianic Prophecies are not even Jewish at all, but Christian Inventions set up by Gospel authors to pacify the Jews to accept Christ.

Since Cyrus was a Messiah, and not Jewish, and there was no evidence that he was literally Ceremonially anointed with oil, but Cyrus permitted the Jewry Religion and allowed them to build a Temple.

The only people that came close to what Cyrus did, was Pompey whom defeated Hyrancus II
whom was a terrible ruler that the Jews hated, Julius Caesar as Pontifax, permitted them to carry on with there Jewry, and later, Mark Antony appointed Herod as King of Judaea, later Rome permitted him to build the Temple, whom also created dedications to Julius Caesar.
To the Jews at the time, Julius Caesar was there Savior, even his symbols are found on Ossuaries

I don't understand why this part of History is blindly Ignored.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't understand why this part of History is blindly Ignored.

It's blindly ignored for the same reason more conspiracy theories are ignored by scholars and historians; there is no credible information.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

It's blindly ignored for the same reason more conspiracy theories are ignored by scholars and historians; there is no credible information.

It is not a Conspiracy, it actual fact.

 

[Levite]

I don't believe Messianic Prophecies are not even Jewish at all, but Christian Inventions set up by Gospel authors to pacify the Jews to accept Christ.

Since Cyrus was a Messiah, and not Jewish, and there was no evidence that he was literally Ceremonially anointed with oil, but Cyrus permitted the Jewry Religion and allowed them to build a Temple.

The only people that came close to what Cyrus did, was Pompey whom defeated Hyrancus II
whom was a terrible ruler that the Jews hated, Julius Caesar as Pontifax, permitted them to carry on with there Jewry, and later, Mark Antony appointed Herod as King of Judaea, later Rome permitted him to build the Temple, whom also created dedications to Julius Caesar.
To the Jews at the time, Julius Caesar was there Savior, even his symbols are found on Ossuaries

I don't understand why this part of History is blindly Ignored.

I don't think the naming of Cyrus as mashiach Hashem meant that someone literally anointed him. I think that by that time, the anointing was purely figurative.

But I'm sorry, there absolutely is such a thing as Jewish messianic philosophies. The books of the major prophets were written centuries before the turn of the common era.

And as for the Romans, they were "invited" in by several opposing factions in the dynastic civil war going on between the Hasmoneans, who had made the mistake of grabbing too much power by attempting to unite the kingship with the priesthood. The evidence seems to be that Pompey and Caesar manipulated the situation with exceptional adeptness. While there was apparently initially some hope among the people that the Romans would end the civil war and withdraw, their hopes were quickly frustrated by the inevitable annexation by Rome and the installation of the puppet Herodian kings.

Julius Caesar was never revered as a savior, mostly because we have no such concept. But he was certainly never revered as a liberator the way Alexander the Great had been. Roman rule was tolerated by most Jews, so long as Rome's demands of taxation and military levies were reasonable and interference with the practice of religion was at a minimum. But the Romans were never loved, save by those few rich and powerful who became tools of the puppet monarchy.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

I don't think the naming of Cyrus as mashiach Hashem meant that someone literally anointed him. I think that by that time, the anointing was purely figurative.

But I'm sorry, there absolutely is such a thing as Jewish messianic philosophies. The books of the major prophets were written centuries before the turn of the common era.

And as for the Romans, they were "invited" in by several opposing factions in the dynastic civil war going on between the Hasmoneans, who had made the mistake of grabbing too much power by attempting to unite the kingship with the priesthood. The evidence seems to be that Pompey and Caesar manipulated the situation with exceptional adeptness. While there was apparently initially some hope among the people that the Romans would end the civil war and withdraw, their hopes were quickly frustrated by the inevitable annexation by Rome and the installation of the puppet Herodian kings.

Julius Caesar was never revered as a savior, mostly because we have no such concept. But he was certainly never revered as a liberator the way Alexander the Great had been. Roman rule was tolerated by most Jews, so long as Rome's demands of taxation and military levies were reasonable and interference with the practice of religion was at a minimum. But the Romans were never loved, save by those few rich and powerful who became tools of the puppet monarchy.

The opposite of a Prophet is a Historian, the Torah is written as a history for the Jewish people, even
Isaiah is written as a history.

The title "Savior" did exist as a title, the greek god "Zeus" was titled "Ζευς Σωτηρ" (Zeus, The Savior)
Latin had many words "salvator, liberator, conservator or servator."

On the Priene calendar inscription of 9BC desribed "Augustus Son of God" as "Savior of the World".

In secular Greek, the word “savior” was “a laudatory name that men bestow in recognition of noble actions.” Performing deeds that safeguarded the people or preserved what was precious could earn a person the title of savior. The title of savior was common used for the Roman emperor, especially denoting his ability to maintain or restore peace in the empire.

The Only roman that the Jews loved was Julius Caesar, and his death caused unrest in Jerusalem for
there savior, protector, now that Julius was dead, who going to protect the Jews?

Even on the Jewish Library it states

Julius Caesar°

Caesar's enmity toward Pompey, who had conquered Jerusalem and defiled the Holy of Holies, led to a positive attitude toward him among the Jews. His restoration of the unity of Judea, his deference toward the high priest, Hyrcanus II, and his tolerant attitude toward the Diaspora Jews increased the sympathy of the Jewish masses for him. When he was assassinated, he was mourned by the Jews more than by any other nation, and for a long time after they continued to weep over his tomb both by day and night (Suetonius, Divus Iulius, 84).

 

[Levite]

The opposite of a Prophet is a Historian, the Torah is written as a history for the Jewish people, even
Isaiah is written as a history.

First of all, I don't think that "prophet" is the opposite of "historian." The two things have nothing to do with one another. That's like saying that the opposite of "physician" is "cactus."

Second of all, yes, one of many purposes in Tanakh is setting down Jewish history. It is by no means the only purpose, though, or even the primary purpose.

And while Isaiah does have certain historical elements to it, that is hardly its primary purpose. Isaiah, of all the major prophets, I should say was the least concerned with history and the most concerned with theology. Isaiah may be written with many goals in mind, but it seems fairly hard to believe that history heads the list of them.

The title "Savior" did exist as a title, the greek god "Zeus" was titled "Ζευς Σωτηρ" (Zeus, The Savior)
Latin had many words "salvator, liberator, conservator or servator."

On the Priene calendar inscription of 9BC desribed "Augustus Son of God" as "Savior of the World".

Yes, but those have nothing to do with the Jewish People. If anything, it may present interesting ideas about where Christians got such notions, since they were absent from Jewish thought.

The Only roman that the Jews loved was Julius Caesar, and his death caused unrest in Jerusalem for
there savior, protector, now that Julius was dead, who going to protect the Jews?

Even on the Jewish Library it states

Julius Caesar°

I think JVL is stretching things a bit by taking Suetonius at his word. But in any case, mourning Caesar is hardly the same as considering him a "savior," or implying that the Jews embraced Roman rule.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Yes, but those have nothing to do with the Jewish People.

Why do you auto assume that every Person in Judaea around Roman times where all practicing Judaism, they did worship Greek-Roman Pantheon Gods.

The rendering of Roman or Greek gods in there Hebrew tongue is subject to controversy

since they were absent from Jewish thought.

Jesus was supposedly in Judea, the Jews understand that he did not exist, because they where living there, and they knew such events never occurred but in 66-70CE they perishd and 100,000+ Jews where killed in the Roman-Jew War thanks to Titus and his nephew Josephus, weird coincidence that Christianity appeared around the time of this event

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The rendering of Roman or Greek gods in there Hebrew tongue is subject to controversy

And all the more controversial for one who doesn't read Latin, Greek, or Hebrew.

Jesus was supposedly in Judea, the Jews understand that he did not exist

What?

 

[Rhadamanthus]

What?

If someone told you an Alien Invasion occurred in your town and destroyed everything 30 Years would you believe them

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If someone told you an Alien Invasion occurred in your town and destroyed everything 30 Years would you believe them

You said

Jesus was supposedly in Judea, the Jews understand that he did not exist,

What do you mean?

 

[Rhadamanthus]

What do you mean?

When significant events occur, they would usually depict them in Epigraphy, there is no Epigraphy that display Jesus in Judea, and all the writings of Jesus appeared right after 70CE in Greek?.

It be like Celebrating the first Moon Landing of 1968 for the first time in the Year 2000

 

[Shermana]

You are forgetting the fact that Hebrew contains use of the "majestic plural", in which the Singular verb is used with a Plural noun to indicate that its still a Singular noun. Olde English somewhat retains this concept along with other languages, like when the Queen says "We are not amused". Sometimes Elohim does in fact mean gods, like in Psalm 136:2, Elohei Ha-Elohim means "god of the gods". You can tell by the singular or plural verb usage. Angels are in fact referred to as "gods", such as how the Septuagint translates "Elohim" as Angels in Psalm 8:5. This also coincides with some of the extra-canonical literature like Ascension of Isaiah (Which is referenced in 2 Chronicles 32:32). Also, when the Witch of Endor summons Samuel's Soul, she claims to see an "Elohim", which seems to indicate that she conveyed to King Saul that the Spirit of a deceased prophet was known to them as "An elohim".

 

[Rhadamanthus]

You are forgetting the fact that Hebrew contains use of the "majestic plural", in which the Singular verb is used with a Plural noun to indicate that its still a Singular noun. Olde English somewhat retains this concept along with other languages, like when the Queen says "We are not amused". Sometimes Elohim does in fact mean gods, like in Psalm 136:2, Elohei Ha-Elohim means "god of the gods". You can tell by the singular or plural verb usage.

In Genesis 1 , Elohim is used without a Singular Noun and Yahweh/Adonay do not appear.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

When significant events occur, they would usually depict them in Epigraphy

No, not at all. Epigraphic evidence is quite spotty.

there is no Epigraphy that display Jesus in Judea, and all the writings of Jesus appeared right after 70CE in Greek?.

Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, and his letters predate 70CE.

It be like Celebrating the first Moon Landing of 1968 for the first time in the Year 2000

Not at all. There is virtually no biographical information for anyone in Jesus' day. Yet for Jesus, we have a number of letters which refer to him by a contemporary, and four sketches of his "life" written while contemporaries were still alive.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

No, not at all. Epigraphic evidence is quite spotty.


Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, and his letters predate 70CE.

Not at all. There is virtually no biographical information for anyone in Jesus' day. Yet for Jesus, we have a number of letters which refer to him by a contemporary, and four sketches of his "life" written while contemporaries were still alive.

Mark = 73CE
The Wars of the Jews = 74CE
Matthew = 75CE
Luke = 80-85CE
Antiquities of the Jews 93-94 CE
Against Apion 96-100 C.E
The Life of Josephus = 100 C.E
John = 105 CE
Acts = 96-100 CE
Romans = 100CE
1st Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians =100-103 CE
2nd Corinthians and Philipians = 103-105 CE
Colossians = 105-106 CE
1st Timothy = 105CE
2nd Timothy = 107CE
1st and 2nd Thessalonian = 107CE
Titus = Pliny the Younger 107CE
Philemon = 108CE
James =110 CE.
1st and 2nd Peter =110-115 CE.
1st, 2nd and 3rd John = 110-115 CE.
Jude == 110-115 CE.
Revelations = 137CE
Hebrew = 140 CE.