I have recently purchase a Bible . It is From the Aramaic of the Peshitta . In Matthew 19:24 Where it is said that it is easier for the camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God .
In my bible the quote is : It is easier for a rope to go through an eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God .
Also in Matthew 27:46 It says in the king james and other bibles , MY God , My God , why have you forsaken me ?
In this bible the quote is : My God , my God , for this I was spared
These two seem to make a lot more sense than what I have been taught all these years. Anyone out there with a suggestion ?
Do not ask for a cite on this, but I’ve heard that the “eye of the needle” was not what you are thinking of. At the gate of a city like Jerusalem there was a door next to the larger gate. At night the gate was closed and entry was allowed only thru the door. The door was referred to as the “eye of a needle” or maybe “needle eye”. Either way if you arrived late with a camel you were in one hell of a mess, but still it was conceivably possible to get the camel thru the door.
So here’s a cite, that confirms that it isn’t something I dreamed up, but which says it isn’t true.
Yes , I had read this article and have searched out many things before buying this bible . The bible is translated from the Araimac language (which is what Jesus would have spoke at the time on earth ) . In this bible it is translated differently than the king james . Was just curious to see if anyone else was in agreement with these writings. As we all know by now , the King James bible was not translated accurately in all things . I believe in these end times , possible the Holy Spirit is opening doors to us that have until now been kept closed.
Sincerely
Simonne Lerette
Thank you for your answer.
Actually, there was a well-known Rabbinical saying, quoted in the Talmud, about people who were so convincing in their logic that they could manage a very adroit argument that the average person could never accomplish. They referred to this as fitting an elephant through the eye of a needle, meaning that this person took what appeared to be an impossible conclusion and found logic that allowed this seeming impossibility to be (or seem?) true.
I'm not sure I explained this well.
As to the second quote, it was, presumably, originally taken from a verse in Psalms 22:2, which says, in Hebrew: "My G-d, my G-d, why have You forsaken me?"
TO Motcha
I am so pleased to hear from someone that is taking my questions seriously . I only want to learn the truth and it so difficult because there are so many people with answers . I do know that if I search hard enough and in truth , I will find the answers because my Father in heaven tells us that . In this bible it says , My G-d , my G-d , why hast though let me to live ? and yet thou hast delayed my salvation from me , because of the words of my folly , O my G-d , I call thee in the daytime but thou answerest me not ; and in the night season thou abidest not with me . Psalms 22:1-2 . Are you familiar with this bible ?
Holy Bible from the Aramaic of the Peshitta .
Welcome to the SDMB, and thank thee for posting thy comment.
Please include a link to the column on which you are commenting, if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
<< The bible is translated from the Araimac language (which is what Jesus would have spoke at the time on earth ) >>
It is certainly true that Jesus would have spoken in Aramaic. However, the New Testament was written originally in Greek. There is no existing text in Aramaic that pre-dates the Greek. If you are reading from a text of the New Testament that is “translated from the Aramaic”, then you’ve had two translators – Greek to Aramaic, Aramaic to English – which is twice the opportunity to miss.
Dex, I’ll go beyond this. The Pishetta was supposedly translated into Syriac (a literary dialect similar to Aramaic) from Greek around AD400; there is no guarantee of the accuracy of this translation. Furthermore, reputable Bible scholars (both Christian and otherwise) regard George Lamsa, the author of the “Aramaic Bible,” as misguided at best; some regard him as an outright fraud. They note that his translation contains errors very similar to those made by Erasmus in the 16th century, and they note that no one else has seen Lamsa’s source material.
Finally, and directly to your question, there are four lines of Aramaic in the entire Greek corpus of the New Testament; all are brief quotes from Jesus himself. The longest is the line from Mark that you quoted: “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?” EVERYONE but Lamsa translates this Aramaic as: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
First , I would like to thank everyone for their answers. The main reason I started on a search for the answer to this question was because I couldn’t imagine our Father in heaven forsaking anyone . especially Jesus his begotten , and it always bothered me . I suppose when I read this passage , (for this I was spared)it is more in line of what I thought our heavenly Father would be like . I know God is Love , and he will never forsake Israelites or the people that trust in him . I am really more confused now than ever . Bless you all , I will keep searching in my heart for the answers.
Thanks.
Simonne Lerette
I wish you luck on your search, Simonne, but it seems to me that the kind of truth you are looking for is not going to be revealed by the kind of evidence you are looking through. Do you really believe that your quest for spiritual knowledge is dependent on historical details, documents, and the vagaries of translation?
(1) The scripture quoted in the NT is of the wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth variety, and does not necessarily imply that the author has been forsaken, only that he feels that he has been forsaken.
(2) If one is inclined to be cynical, one can say at this point that these words were put into Jesus’s mouth by later authors, so as to indicate the fulfillment of prophecy.
(3) If one is not cynical, one may take refuge in this explanation: In order for Jesus’s sacrifice to be a true sacrifice, he had to be separated from God. In other words, God-made-flesh has his godhead ripped from him, his eternal communion with the creator suddenly vanished. He is now merely human, with merely human understanding, and feels…forsaken.
I don’t know if this helps, but it’s what I believed when I was Presbyterian.
There will be a question following the scripture below.
David took the Philistine’s head and brought it back to Jerusalem , and he put the Philistine’s weapons in his own tent .
As Saul watched David going out to meet the Philistine, he said to Abner , commander of the army , " Abner , whose son is that young man ? "
My question is , Why didn’t Saul Recognize David ? He had dressed David himself before going out to battle , and if you read the story , Saul knew who his father was .
Simonne, you’re not going to like this, but the obvious answer is that several different and not totally compatible stories have been patched together in a way that doesn’t always work.
The way I see it is , Goliath being such a big man , when David bent to cut off his head , imagine the blood and mess all over David . Not to mention they were fighting in the sand and dirt. Then he had to tote that big head back to Jerusalem along with the weapons that belonged to Goliath . ( I can picture David with that big head next to his body . And I can also imagine the mess David was in after this fight . I think that is why Saul didn’t recognize David , He was in such a mess what with blood , dirt and all . What do you think ?