Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hebrews 13:20
#1
In this verse, from Vicor Alexander the website:

"Then the God of Peace, who rose from the dead to be the great shepherd of the Church through the blood of the Covenant, who is Eashoa the Messiah our Lord,"

WOW, that is a big direct statement that Jesus is God or rather, that God is Jesus. Is this the literal true rendition? Because I check myself and it doesn't say, and I check other translations and also they are not the same?
Reply
#2
I checked again, with the lexicon this time and I wonder if he is on to something so I am not so sure. The word is "ascend" rather than "raise".
Reply
#3
Hello Richard,

Smith's Compendious Dictionary has "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]qs0[/font] : Aphel of "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]qls[/font]" -"to raise, place above; offer sacrifice or praise."

"To raise" is not quite the same as "to rise", is it ?
Also notice that the word for "Shepherd",
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)])y(rl[/font] has the direct object marker, meaning it receives the action of the verb "aseq"; The Shepherd is raised by another.
The NT makes it plain in several places that The Father raised His Son from the dead.

Victor Alexander is a fraud. He seems not to understand basic Aramaic while pretending to translate accurately, or he willfully distorts it to suit his heretical doctrine. Either way he is a fraud and a charlatan.

By the way, I also believe Jesus is God. I simply believe there are three Persons in the Godhead- One in nature, mind , purpose & attributes.

Very Humbly Yours,

Dave
Reply
#4
Thankyou, I have seen many more instances in his translation, especially to do with the divinity, that he is a fraud.
Reply
#5
gbausc Wrote:Victor Alexander is a fraud. He seems not to understand basic Aramaic while pretending to translate accurately, or he willfully distorts it to suit his heretical doctrine. Either way he is a fraud and a charlatan.

Hi Dave,

Have you spoken with Victor Alexander yourself about this?

This is what he says about himself on his website -- is it inaccurate?

Yes, I do understand Aramaic to a profound level. I went to an Aramaic language school. It was a Presbyterian Church school. Our two teachers were both from Urmia, Iran, where the Aramaic language scholarship was the dominant force in Ashurai cultural life and where most of our best literary people came from. I studied religion and language from the first grade, in the language Jesus spoke! I continued my education at an American Jesuit high school, from the time I was twelve, entering the seventh grade. I studied religion with Father Merrick. I got an "A" in the course based on my presenting a final assignment on the "Proof of the Existence of God." I studied Latin at Regiopolis College in Kingston, Ontario, during my eleventh grade. Later, I completed my high school in San Francisco in 1962. I entered college and finally graduated in 1970, from the San Francisco State University, with a BA in Filmmaking.

What are the other distortions of the Aramaic, if any, are in his translation?

In Messiah,
Wayne
Reply
#6
Distortion of Aramaic - He inserts the word "trinity" as a translation of "Qnoma". Whether the trinity is true or not, ask any Aramaic expert what "Qnoma" means. Most will probably say "eesence" or somesuch, or people like Younan say something different. But no meaning of trinity.

Insertions - Read his Genesis 1. He writes there that the Son created all etc. We know it to be true from the rest of the Bible, but he shouldn't add that. Adding to the Word is extremely grievous.
Reply
#7
Greetings Wayne,

I have not corresponded with Victor. I have read some of his translation. It is a distortion of the word of God , by any objective standard. He obviously has an underlying agenda in his work so powerful that he will twist the scriptures to say what he wants them to say, without any
basis in Hebrew or Aramaic grammar & entymology.

Find another translation of Hebrews 13:20 that says ,"God arose to be the great Shepherd." No Aramaic lexicon would support this use of the word in question. No honest Aramaean scholar would make "The Shepherd" the predicate when it has the object marker "lamed" before it.
I don't know that he ever learned Aramaic well; neither do you. If he did, he proves himself a deceiver and a fraud. If he didn't, well, he proves himself a deceiver and a fraud.

I have no doubts that there are myriad examples like this and Genesis 1 throughout his "translation".

Yours in Maryah Meshikha,


Dave
Reply
#8
"I don't know that he ever learned Aramaic well; neither do you. If he did, he proves himself a deceiver and a fraud. If he didn't, well, he proves himself a deceiver and a fraud.
"

Good point!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)