Fraud In The Bible, or It Sucks That You Don't Know Hebrew, Greek or Aramai

by VM44 18 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • VM44

    Fraud in the Bible or It Sucks That You Don't Know Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic

    W hat is Pious Fraud?

    Pious fraud was a common technique employed by early Christian writers to make a point. Their intention was to convert anyone and everyone by any means available. One of the more persuasive methods was to write a text and falsely tell others that it was written in first person. For example, the four canonized gospel tales were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. That has been a well known fact for about 200 years. And to this day, no one knows who the gospel stories were written by. These texts are perfect examples of pious fraud. Pious fraud is the foundation of the deception known as Christianity and it continues to this day.

    During the first couple of centuries of the Common Era the early Christian priest craft, which would eventually become the early Catholic fathers, were in the process of assimilating religions from all over Europe. Ultimately the new religion become known as the Christian religion, or more accurately The Catholic Church. The Bible was put together by hundreds of people who were either at the head of the fraud or were pawns in its assembly. Once the original languages were translated into Latin, it was only a matter of time before the original language nuances could be discarded. Ever wonder why it was punishable by death to read the Bible during the Middle Ages? Punishable by death by the common folk to read it, that is. Well, the reason was that the priest craft was well aware of the errors, inconsistencies and flat-out lies that riddled the Bible. If the common man found out, it could have been the death of the Church's authority, power and control over the masses. And since the original languages are rarely, if ever, used by those who read the Bible (well, those who actually READ it), the fraud is perpetuated.

    When a pious fraud is knowingly perpetuated in the name of power and money, you have deception. Remember, 1700-2000 years ago, when these texts were being assembled into a 'new testament', the vast majority of humanity was illiterate. Science was not known. Demons rules the world. Anything could be put forth and said to be 'absolute truth' when it was in fact, completely fraudulent.

    What is the implication of this? The implication is self-evident. The story of Genesis, that Christian proselytizers love to advance (althou it is part of the much older Jewish texts), is a complete and utter forgery. In that story we are led to believe that there was a single god who created the earth, etc. in 6 days. Not only has science proven the timeline to be completely false, the religious aspect is a complete fabrication. At the time that the Genesis story was supposed to have been written the Hebrew people were not monotheistic. That's history. They believed in many gods and Genesis proves it. The story actually goes back to before the Hebrews were a distinct people-it is not Hebrew in origin.

    Pious Fraud in Translation

    Let's take a look at the very first words of the book of Genesis. Note very carefully that the Hebrew culture, at the time of this writing, was not monotheistic, but rather, polytheistic. Will your priest, minister or preacher tell you that? No. But you can find out for yourself with a simple dictionary.

    The Hebrew word for God is el; the plural is elohim, gods. What is the first sentence in the Bible?

    "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1).

    Here is Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew (transliterated into the Latin alphabet, of course):

    "Bereshith bara elohim," etc.,

    "In-beginning created (the) gods (the) heavens and (the) earth."

    In the same chapter the word "elohim" (gods) is used thirty times., Those gods are the ones who created the 'universe' in 6 days.

    To clarify, here is the translation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1. Notice how Jewish and Christian 'fathers' don't bother to tell you what the original text says. They would like you to believe that a single god created everything. But, they messed up big time and actually translated it properly. In plain English, the translation reads 'let us make man in our image':

    Here are three examples of the Hebrew plural gods mentioned in Genesis: 1. "And-said elohim (gods), let-US-make man (adam) in-image-OUR, after-likeness-OUR" (1:26).

    2. And when "adam" had eaten of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, "the Lord God" said, "Behold, the-man has become like one of US, to know good and evil" (3:27).

    3. And when the Tower of Babel was being built: "The Lord [Heb. Yahveh] said ... Come, let US go down," etc.

    When speaking of the Hebrew deity, Yahveh, elohim, (gods) is used in the Hebrew texts, The plural elohim is used 2570 times. It is always falsely translated to the singular "God", thus falsely making us believe that this text was written at a time when the Hebrew people were monothestic, when it clearly is the case (written at least 2570 times, no less!) that they WERE NOT.

    In the three Genesis verses above, there are three different designations of the Hebrew deity or deities: elohim, (gods), falsely translated "God":

    Lord God (Heb. Yahveh-elohim); and Lord (Heb. Yahveh). Yahveh is the proper name of the Hebrew God, which, in English, is Jehovah.

    Yahveh-elohim is a Hebrew "construct-form" which is translated to "Yahveh-of-the-gods." Invariably these personal names were falsely translated "Lord" and "Lord God," respectively, for purposes of pious fraud.

    First Man, First Woman

    There was no first man "Adam," according to the Hebrew text. The word adam in Hebrew is a common noun, meaning man in a generic sense and in Genesis 1:26, it states:

    "And elohim (gods) said, Let us make adam (man)"; and so "elohim created ha- adam (the-man); ... male and female created he them" (1: 27).

    In the second creation story, where man is first made alone:

    "Yahveh formed ha-adam (the-man) out of the dust of ha-adamah-the ground" (2:7).

    Man is called in Hebrew adam because he was formed out of adamah, the ground; just as in Latin man is called homo because he was formed from humus, the ground. Early Christian father Lactantius stated it as 'homo ex humo' ('man from the ground', or 'dust' as it commonly stated today).

    The forging of the name Adam from the Hebrew noun adam into a mythical proper name Adam, was after the so-called Exodus. The fraud in the forging of fictitious genealogies from "in the beginning" to Father Abraham.

    And this wasn't done by Christians, but rather by early Hebrew priests. Nonetheless, early Christians took this deception and used it for their own newly forged religion. Who has a Soul?

    In Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the elohim-gods-on the fifth day, of "nephesh hayyah" which is "the moving creature that hath life," and of "nephesh hayyah-every living creature" out of the waters (1:20, 21); and on the sixth day of "nephesh hayyah-the living creature" out of the ground (1:24); and he gave to ha-adam-the-man dominion over "kol nephesh hagyah-everything wherein there is life," (1:30.)

    The Hebrew text states that all animal living creatures are by God called "nephesh hayyah," literally "living soul".

    In Chapter 2 is the history of ha-adam made from ha-adamah; and, in contrast to these lowly "living creatures" (nephesh hayyah), Yahveh-clohim "breathed into his nostrils nishmath hayyim -- (living breaths), and ha-adam became nephesh hayyah-a living soul". (2:7)

    In Hebrew everywhere you read the word nephesh it simply means soul, and hayyah (living) is the feminine singular adjective from hai, life.

    In the original Hebrew texts, Man was created exactly the same as the other animals. All had or were 'nephesh hayyah' or living souls.

    Remember, tho, that the reason there are two creation stories is because two culture's stories of creation were woven together by the early Hebrew priest craft.

    Unknown scribes, in translation, made animals merely creatures, and "Creation's masterpiece, Man," became a "living soul." They falsely altered these plain words so as to deceive us into believing a special God-breathed soul is in man which is completely different from animal that merely perishes to dust.

    The implication of this is that someone has fraudulently decided that we are a special creation that has a soul, and eliminated the actual words of what Genesis says. Now all other animals don't have a soul. According to the story, all things that live have a soul. So what happened here? Forgery. That's what happened.

    Chalk one up for vegetarians.

    There Was No Continuous Hebrew Monotheistic Culture

    When Yahveh appeared to Moses in the Burning Bush, and announced himself as "the God of thy fathers," he was a total stranger to Moses. How do I know? Read the account. It doesn't take a scholar to read where Moses ASKS who's taking. No, Moses wasn't merely surprised at the voice…he simply didn't know what was going on. (The fact that Moses is just a rehash of the Egyptian Mises is another essay altogether. But for the purposes of this essay, I'm pretending that Moses was a real person.)

    Moses did not know this Yahveh, and had never heard of him. So that he asked, "What is thy name?" -so that he could report it to the people back home in Egypt, who had never heard it. After some intermission, the God came directly to the point, and declared-here are the exact words-one of the most notorious falsities in the Hebrew text:

    "And elohim spake unto Moses, and said unto him., anoki Yahveh -- I am the Lord!

    "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of el-shaddai, but by my name Yahveh (JEHOVAH) was I not known to them." (Ex. 6:2, 8.)

    The Hebrew God for the first time since the world began, is "revealed" to mankind the "ineffable name" of Yahveh, here first appearing in the Bible translations, and there printed as JEHOVAH in capital letters; for more vivid and awe-inspiring impression.

    But this is a notorious lie-since we known that Moses did not write the first five books of the Hebrew text.

    In Genesis 2:4, the name YAHVEH first appears; "in the day that Yahveh-elohim made the earth and the heavens." Its first recorded use as a mystical personage, was when Eve "conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahveh-the Lord." (Gen. 4:1.)

    The personal name YAHVEH occurs in the Book of Genesis one hundred and fifty-six times. It's spoken dozens of times by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as any one can read in Genesis. Every single time that the title "the Lord" and "the Lord God" appears, it is a false translation by the priests for the Hebrew personal name YAHVEH.

    Throughout the Hebrew "scriptures" it occurs thousands of times: "The sacred name occurs in Genesis ~156 times; and is found in the Old Testament approximately 6000 times, either alone or in along with another Divine name."

    More exactly, the Tetragrammaton (YHVH), appears in the Old Testament 6823 times as the proper name of God as the God of Israel. As such it serves to distinguish him from the gods of the other nations." Thus was the Hebrew tribal god YAHVEH distinguished from Bel, and Chemosh, and Dagon, and Shamash, and the dozens of "gods of the nations". Just as James would distinguish his name from Rudolph, or Cary, this was precisely the Hebrew usage-to distinguish one heathen god from another.

    And this the pious translators, foisting their fraud on us, sought to hide, giving names to all the "other gods," but suppressing a name for the Hebrew deity, who as "the Lord," or "the Lord God," was high and unique, "a god above all gods," -the one and only true God-thru the use of a tetragrammaton.

    But yet a more malicious and evil-intentioned deception, 6828 times, is the name of the Hebrew God concealed by false rendition for the deliberate purpose of forging the whole Hebrew texts, as translated, into a semblance of harmony with the false declaration of Exodus 6:3, that "by my name YAHVEH was I not know unto them."

    Search as one may, outside Exodus 6:3, the god-name YAHVEH (Jehovah) is never to be found in the translations, except in Psalm 78:18, and Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4. (But they are irrelevant for this discussion because those passages were written well after the original 5 books were forged.)

    The false translations thus "make truth to be a liar," the lie of Exodus 6:3 to seem the truth; and a barbarous heathen tribal god among a hundred neighbor and competitive gods to be the nameless One Lord God of the Universe. For more on this tribal god, you can read

    Who is this Jehovah and Where Does He Live?

    What does this imply? It implies this: the Hebrew-Christian-One-God is a patent forgery and myth; a mythological Father-god can have no "only begotten Son"; Jesus Christ is a myth even before he is mythically born by the forged whimsy of the early Christian 'fathers'.

    A Few Translations

    These translations, while only three in number, will change your whole way of thinking about what is being presented in your Bible.

    Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being". Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man). The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels. It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day. In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness." For example barabba means "resembles his father". Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being".

    Son of God: The word bar means a likeness or resemblance to the suffix word. The Aramaic term that Son of God comes from is bardalaha. Translated literally as "son of God" it does not mean this. Bardalaha in reality means "like God" or "God-like". So when Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" we should read this correctly as "God-like" or "like God". So what does that tell you about the translation we read in today's Bibles? It tells you that Jesus was not the Son of God - but that he was "God-like". There is a big difference. Jesus himself repeatedly referred to himself as a "human being". The Aramaic reference does not mean one is physically divine - it means there is an important spiritual relationship between God and the man whom is bestowed that phraseology. In addition, don't forget that the Council of Nicea in 325 CE voted to change the human Jesus to a supernatural being. It wasn't until that time that any church thought of Jesus as such.

    Only Begotten Son: The world ehedaya is Aramaic. It is very important to understand its meaning when hearing that phrase being bantered about. When we read that Jesus was God's "only begotten son" - it is an incorrect translation of the Aramaic word. The term is found exclusively in the Gospel of John. The phrase we read in English was translated from a Greek word, monogenes. Monos means "single" or "one" and genos means "kind". So the Greek translation originally was with "one-of-a-kind". So where does 'begotten' come from? The Greek word genos is distantly related to the verb gennan which means "to beget". Thus, to translate monogenes as "only begotten" is improper and incorrect--which is an indication of an ill-trained translator being involved with the text. The actual translation should be "unique son" or "one-of-a-kind". The Aramaic word ehedaya means "sole heir" and "the beloved". So when we combine monogenes ehedaya we get "one-of-a-kind, beloved son". That's considerably different from 'only begotten son'.

  • VM44

    Original source is attributed to the website,, which no longer exists. --VM44

  • Leolaia

    Or rather, it sucks that this author does not know Hebrew, for it would have kept him/her from repeating old canards.

    In the Priestly creation narrative in Genesis 1, 'lhym is obviously singular, not plural, because it has singular verbal agreement, e.g. "And God ('lhym) said (w-y'mr, "(and) he was saying")," in 1:26. The plural form of the verb is y'mrw "they were saying," e.g. "And they said (w-y'mrw) to one another", 11:3. The Yahwist text in 3:5 is ambiguous because there is no verb agreement (k-'lhym "as God/as the gods"). Translating 'lhym as a singular "God" is not a "fraud"; moreover, the "us" -- which is clearly plural -- is an allusion to the divine assembly present with God at the creation of the world (cf. Job 38:6-7). Technically the text is more henotheistic than polytheistic. The strictly monotheistic Deutero-Isaiah goes further and even denies that such beings were present with God during creation or that he consulted with any of them (Isaiah 40:13-14, 44:24), or that God has an "image" (40:18), or that God grows tired or weary (40:48), implying rhetorically that some do not "understand how the earth was founded" (40:21).

  • Leolaia
    Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being". Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man). The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels. It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day. In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness." For example barabba means "resembles his father". Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being".

    This is only partly true. First of all, the Gospels were written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. The Semitic idiomatic meaning of "human being" probably lies behind a number of the logia, but the phrase in Greek may not have meant the same thing as br-'nsh' in Aramaic. In particular, there is another sense of the term that the author completely neglects: "Son of Man" as an apocalyptic title of a divine being assigned the role of eschatological judge and deliverer. This title appears in Jewish sources, first in a proto-form "one like a son of man" in Daniel 7, and then in a more developed character in the Book of Parables of 1 Enoch (early first century AD), which was an important influence on the Gospels. The references to the Son of Man in the synoptics associated with motifs like "coming"/"glory"/"clouds"/"judgment/"throne"/"accompanied with angels"/etc. (cf. Matthew 10:23, 13:41, 16:27-28, 19:28, 24:30, 25:31, 26:64, Mark 8:38, 13:26, 14:62, Luke 9:26, Luke 11:30, 12:8, 17:24-30, 18:8, 21:27, 36, 22:69; cf. John 3:13, 5:27, Acts 7:56) are all part of this eschatological tradition. Hence:

    1 Enoch 62:5: "Pain shall seize them when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory."

    1 Enoch 69:27: "And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the sum of judgment was given to the Son of Man."

    Matthew 19:28, 25:31: "When the Son of Man sits on his throne of glory, you shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel...When the Son of Man comes in glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne of glory in heaven."

    1 Enoch 69:27: "And he sat on the throne of his glory, and all judgment was given to the Son of Man."

    John 5:22: "For not even the Father judges anyone, but he has given all judgment to the Son."

    1 Enoch 38:2 : "Where will the dwelling of the sinners be, and where the resting place of those who denied the name of the Lord of the Spirits! It would have been better for them not to have been born."

    Matthew 26:24: "The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."

    The "Son of Man" traditions in the synoptics also draw on other parts of 1 Enoch:

    1 Enoch 1:9: "Behold, he comes with the myriads of his holy ones to execute judgment on all".

    Mark 8:38: "The Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels".

    Matthew 25:31: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him".

    1 Thessalonians 3:13: "May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy angels".

    The phrase thus did not simply mean "human being"; it was a specific title for the eschatological deliverer (also called "Anointed One", or "Elect One" in the Book of Parables), and the gospels are clearly dependent on this innovative sense....just as it is used as a title or epithet in the gospels as well.

  • Leolaia
    In addition, don't forget that the Council of Nicea in 325 CE voted to change the human Jesus to a supernatural being. It wasn't until that time that any church thought of Jesus as such.

    This is Dan Brown Da Vinci Code nonsense.

  • Forscher

    Leo, did you get the feel that the author assumes Aramaic primacy for the NT? Or was it just a gratuitous going to Aramaic language because "that is what jesus spoke " kind of stuff. His/Her lack of reference to Greek sure smacked of that to me. Bye the way, good analysis.

  • cyberguy

    As usual, thanks again Leolaia, for your comments!

    My view of the Bible has changed from when I was a JW, but this stuff is simply crazy!

    And VM44--I guess you went and saw the Da Vinci Code movie? I hear it's extremely boring.

  • Leolaia

    Forscher...Yeah, it's not too clear to me what the author has in mind. For instance, what in the world is this supposed to mean, "So when we combine monogenes ehedaya we get 'one-of-a-kind, beloved son' "? Is the author suggesting that we are really translating an Aramaic Greek mixture? Or that we ought to assume an Aramaic substrate in the Greek and mix Aramaic and Greek senses together in a single translation? It looks like the author wants to take the Greek phrase, retrovert it into Aramaic, and then adopt whatever new nuance he/she gets from the Aramaic. But that totally depends on which Aramaic phrase one chooses to retrovert it to in the first place. And none of this is what a translator does. So the reference to "ill-training" in translation is quite the author's erroneous claims betray a lack of training or knowledge of translation procedure at all.

  • Leolaia

    Just to add that retroversion may play a role in conjectural emendation in a text that has not been preserved in its original language (i.e. in cases of suspected scribal errors in the original language). But that is not what is in view here.

  • Kristofer

    I found this to be a poorly written article with many assumptions and assertions. I found the first 3 paragraphs to be complete fluff. If you're going to make claims about the authorship of the Gospels, back it up.

    The inconsistency with the Son of Man and Son of God comment is interesting as well. Son of man or like man should be translated human being but Son of God translates that he is only God-like and not God. This is a contradiction of the definition by your own terms. They are applying rules where they like to apply them and not across the board. This takes the exception to the rule when it is seen as fitting.

    This is Watchtower-style reasoning...reaching for answers to prove things you already want to believe.
    In addition, the claim that no one thought Jesus was supernatural until the Council of Nicea is utterly false. Anyone can read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers in the first century and see that Jesus was seen clearly as a diety and was even claimed to be the one speaking to Moses through the burning bush.

Share this