Friday, February 28, 2014

In the Peshitta Matthew 27:46...my god, my god why have you SPARED me...

In the Peshitta Matthew 27:46...my god, my god why have you SPARED me...
In the KJV... My God, my God, why hast thou FORSAKEN me?
Lamsa's Peshiita has "my god, my god, for this I was KEPT"

 Anyone care to give insight?

  • Laima Briediene A good question ! Interesting that yesterday I listened one teaching and the answer was there ,from Aramaic Peshitta translation !

    Andrew Gabriel Roth's Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) translation is more accurate ,as I can see often . It says :" My El! My El! [Lemana shabakthani] Why have you spared me?"    Andrew Gabriel Roth's Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) translation is more accurate ,as I can see often . It says :" My El! My El! [Lemana shabakthani] Why have you spared me?"
  • Yeshua was never forsaken ,He just was suffering for so long time and wanted to die ,so asked ,why Father still keeps Him .

  • Laima Briediene Matthew 27: 46. And about the ninth hour, Y’shua (Yahushua) cried out with a loud voice and said, My El! My El! [Lemana shabakthani] Why have you spared me?
    http://www.therefinersfire.org/forsaken_me.htm

  • Laima Briediene Below is an appendix in the AENT that further explains this concept:

    My El! My El! Why have you spared me?

    Perhaps no Scripture evokes more emotion than the cry from the stake in Matthew 27:46. How is it possible that these powerful words have been misunderstood for nearly two millennia? For many, Y’shua’s last utterance was either understood as a cry of desperation or a declaration of his Messiahship from Psalm 22:1; "My El, My El, why have you forsaken me." Greek versions attempt to transliterate the Psalm as Eli, Eli lama sabacthani. However, the Aramaic Peshitta NT reads: "Eli, Eli lemana shabakthani," while Hebrew Psalm reads: "Eli, Eli lama azbatani." Greek transliteration reflects the Aramaic word as does the Peshitta. However, there is a key difference between azbatani, which only means "to forsake" and its Aramaic counterpart shabakthani which has multiple meanings but also includes the same concept.

    Even so, does this mean Y’shua is quoting Psalm 22? To answer that question, consider these verses: "And from that time onwards, Y’shua began to make known to his disciples that he must go to Urislim and suffer much from the elders and from the chief priests, and scribes. And he would be killed, and on the third day would rise up" (Matthew 16:21). "Behold, we are going up to Urishlim, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and to the scribes. And they will condemn him to death. And they will deliver him to the Gentiles, and they will mock him, and they will beat him, and they will execute him on a stake. And he will rise on the third day" (Matthew 20:18-19). When Peter prepared to fight Y’shua replied, "...don’t you think that I am able to ask my Father to raise up twelve legions of Messengers? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled. Thus say that it must be" (Matthew 26:53-54).

    Y’shua informed his disciples that his death was inevitable, and that it would be fulfilled according to Scripture. Anyone who tried to prevent his death, even a loyal disciple like Peter, was referred to as being of haSatan! Y’shua knows that he is laying down his life as a voluntary offering according to John 10:11-18, but he can also take it back. He is referred to as the "lamb of Elohim" because the lamb submits his life unto death; a key requirement of Mashiyach according to Isaiah 53:7. Therefore, when Y’shua is suffering on the stake, he is fulfilling the very reason he came into the world – the suffering he could end in the blink of an eye, according to John 10. In this context then, with full power in him, the blessings of the Father, and YHWH’s Messengers with him, he could not have, even for an instant, been forsaken! When Y’shua was praying in the garden just before being betrayed, his prayer was immediately answered by YHWH sending a Messenger, in Luke 22:43, "...a Messenger appeared to him from Heaven to strengthen him."

    This being the case, we must look at the final words that come out of Y’shua’s mouth; so let’s examine the Aramaic word shbakthani. As mentioned above, it shares the "forsake" meaning with the Hebrew word used in Psalm 22. However, the root of the word shbak has several other meanings including: (1) reserve (2) keep (3) spare (4) forgive. In Luke 23:34, Y’shua uses the exact same word to say, "Father, shbak (forgive) them for they know not what they do." This multiplicity of meaning in Aramaic, naturally groups related concepts under the umbrella of the same word. In this case, reserve, keep and spare all are variations from the same concept of setting aside. The same can be said idiomatically of forgive, where offenses are metaphorically also "set aside." Conversely, the rabbis throughout the centuries have always translated the Hebrew azbatani in Psalm 22 exclusively as "forsaken." That is not to say the other meanings of shbak do not exist also in its Hebrew equivalent, because they do in other verses of Scripture. In the end only one solution reveals itself, which is that another meaning of shbakthani is intended. The context safely eliminates forgive as a possibility as it makes no sense; therefore, the highly similar concepts of reserve, keep or spare are left to investigate.

    Some scholars have suggested that lemana could be interpreted as a statement and that would allow the first two definitions as possibilities with readings like, "My El, my El, for this you have reserved/kept me." However, traditional understanding of this verse has always affirmed lemana only as a question. Therefore, what remains as the most viable reading is: "My El, my El, why have you reserved/kept/spared me." While all these possibilities will clearly work, the choice of Paul Younan (a foremost Aramaic scholar) is the wording, "why have you spared me" because reserve or kept has a connotation of a wider question that Y’shua is clearly not asking. Furthermore and in concordance with the other Scriptures mentioned, Y’shua is clearly aware of the reasons for his death, and therefore to use the other options would allow for inadequate options like, "why have you kept me around" or "why have you reserved me for this purpose." Since he fully knows the reasons for his suffering, the preferred choice is "why have you spared me" or, "I’ve been here for six hours and will die for this cause, but how much more time will this take?" In response to this question Scripture tells us that Y’shua dies shortly thereafter, thus validating the context.

    Finally, there is very good reason why tradition has been so strong on linking this utterance to Psalm 22. While Y’shua himself may or may not be quoting the Psalm, the rest of the narrative is clearly referencing it. This section of Matthew is a Midrash, or dramatic story rendering, of Psalm 22. The very rebukes found in the Psalm are on the lips of the Pharisees as they taunt Mashiyach (Psalm 22:6-8; Matthew 27:39-40). The Psalm references his "hands and feet pierced" and having "enemies gamble for his clothing" (Psalm 22:16, 18; Matthew 27:34). Even the probable condition of Y’shua hanging on a stake is described with phrases like, "I am poured out like water and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax and has melted away within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth. You lay me in the dust of death." With all this Psalmic imagery, it’s no wonder many have concluded with apparent logic that Y’shua is quoting Psalm 22:1! But we must also consider other factors; for instance: Y’shua was also experiencing brutal physical trauma, which is known to cause impairment of speech. Secondly, we do not have concise evidence to know whether Y’shua was speaking Hebrew or Aramaic at that moment, so even in the best of circumstances those who stood by listening may not have clearly heard what he was saying. In this matter, Hebrew speaking witnesses at the site of the execution thought he was calling on "Eliyah" as opposed to "My El." Perhaps it was only an exhalation of pain (Eli-ah). Altogether these criteria present a compelling case for determining how two similar phrases were transposed. In the end what we have here is another section of Matthew which "represents" rather than "quotes" from Scripture.

         Romans 10:13 For whoever calls on the name MarYah (Master Yah=YHWH) shall be saved.

  • More verses from Aramaic NT (Peshitta) :

    1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one Elohim, the Father, from whom comes every thing and by whom we live; and one MarYah Yahuwshuwa Meshikha (Master Yah Yahuwshuwa THE Messiah), by whom are all things, and we by Him.

    1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore, whoever shall eat of the bread of MarYah (Master Yah), and drink of His cup, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of MarYah (Master Yah=YHWH).

    1 Corinthians 11:29 For he who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks to his condemnation; for he does not discern the body of MarYah (Master Yah=YHWH).

    *********************************************************1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore, I want you to understand that no one, speaking by the Spirit of Elohim, calls Yahuwshuwa accursed: and that no man can say that Yahuwshuwa is MarYah (Master Yah=YHWH), but by the Set Apart Spirit.*************************************

    1 Corinthians 15:47 The first Adam (man) is of the earth, earthy; the second Adam (man) is MarYah (Master Yah=YHWH) from heaven.

    2 Corinthians 3:16-17 Nevertheless whenever a man turns to MarYah (Master Yah=YHWH), the veil is taken away. Now MarYah is that very Spirit; and where the Spirit of MarYah is, there is liberty.

    Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore Elohim has highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name; that at the name Yahuwshuwa every knee shall bow, of those in heaven, and those on the earth, and those under the earth. And every tongue shall confess that Yahuwshuwa THE Messiah is MarYah (Master Yah=YHWH), to the glory of Elohim His Father.

    Colossians 3:24 Knowing that from our Master you shall receive the reward of inheritance; for you serve MarYah THE Messiah (Master Yah THE Messiah=YHWH THE Messiah).

    Hebrews 13:5 Let your way of life be free from the love of money, being content with what you have;for MarYah (Master Yah=YHWH) Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

    HALLELUYAH !!


  • Andrew Gabriel Roth's Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) is a translation of the oldest NT ever discovered, the Khabouris Codex (http://therefinersfire.org/khabouris_codex.htm) which was written in all Aramaic - no Greek in sight!


  • http://www.whyagain.com/khabouris.php

    HEARTLAND & THE KHABOURIS
    www.whyagain.com
    Enlightenment From The Aramaic - currently published work from the Khabouris Click to read the UPDATED INTRODUCTION TO ENLIGHTENMENT

  • The Aramaic English New Testament is the recommended NT version for all! Aramaic scholar Andrew Roth spent a decade working on translating the Khabouris Codex directly into English while correcting long-standing mistranslations which crept into English versions of later Greek translations.
  • Anyone wanting to truly understand the Messiah, as well as what Paul was really saying, should use only this NT - the AENT. 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho5_Rwps2To


         Aramaic and Hebrew scribes annotate their copy with a notation that identifies the source document they copied. The annotation is called a "colophon". The colophon in the Khabouris Codex identifies its SOURCE as a document that existed about 165 CE. That makes the TEXT in the Khabouris Codex *****older than any Greek manuscript*****.
  •  The greek manuscripts (papyri) from the 2nd century are FRAGMENTS,not all copy of NT . 

  • The Khabouris Codex is a copy of the oldest known Eastern Canon of the New Testament in its native, and the original language of the Scriptures, Aramaic. The physical manuscript has been carbon-dated at approximately 1000 AD plus or minus 50 years. 
    The colophon bears the seal and signature of the Bishop at the Church at Nineveh, then capital of the Assyrian Empire located today in the present-day Iraqi city of Mosul. According to colophon it is a copy of a text from approximately 164 AD.<<<<

    Nobody is hiding ,there are pictures of all 510 PAGES online 
    http://whyagain.com/KhaburisKhaboris/index.php

    "The Manuscript was written as a whole New Testament of the twenty-two books of the Oriental Canon, which excludes Revelations and four short Epistles (II Peter, II and III John, and Jude). "    http://www.whyagain.com/khabouris_history.php

Posted by at 1 comment:

The genealogy of יהושע ha'Mashiah in Aramaic

MATTITHYAHU (Matthew) 1 

The book of the genealogy
of יהושע ha'Mashiah, Bĕn of
Dawid, Bĕn of Abraham: _______________________
 verse 16 And Ya'aqob brought forth Yosĕph
the husband of Miryam, of whom was
born יהושע who is called Mashiah.

  • Here is ERROR in KJV and even in ISR Scriptures and HalleluYah Scriptures !!! It should be the FATHER of Miryam! If it is husband of Miryam ,then 2 genealogies in Mt and Lk contradict one another and there is missing one generation (should be 14+14+14) in Mt genealogy . And Yahushua even can't be the Messiah ,if there is no evidence ,that He does come from the lineage of David !!!

  •  From the link above :"It is only when we refer to the Aramaic story, in an Aramaic psyche, will we be able to finally answer the puzzling questions raised by the plain reading of the text: 
  • • Why are there only list 13 generations listed from the Captivity of Babylon to Jesus, in Matthew's account? Doesn’t Matthew say there should be 14 generations? 
    • • Why does Luke list 20 generations in the second series, and 22 in the third? If this is the same Joseph, shouldn't there be 14 generations in the second and third series of Luke as well?
      • Why do the lineages of Joseph, the husband of Mary, almost completely differ in the two accounts?
      • How can Jesus be the Son of David, if Mary is not a daughter of David?
      • If both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the genealogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of Solomon, the other through that of Nathan - how can the lines converge in Joseph? How can Joseph claim descent from King David, through both Nathan and Solomon?
      As with most problems that appear complex on the surface, this one has a very simple answer. The answer lies in the Aramaic original of the Gospel of Matthew, according to the Peshitta version."
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)