If you're interpreting the Book of Revelation today, consider this original text source

Whenever anyone says they only want and need PROOF but there is NO PROOF

you can give them PROOF

173,880 days

and see if they honestly want, need and care about PROOF at all...

I'm an ancient language scholar of Aramaic and H-brew. The University of Manchester (Special Collections Department) gave me access to the oldest known copy on earth of the Book of Revelation in the 1st century language of the messiah Yahshua (Jesus).

I published a literal word-for-word transcription and translation at a respected source here: [link to www.dukhrana.com]

Scholars estimate this ancient codex is dated to the 12th century AD and is a copy (or copy of a copy) of the original Book of Revelation written in the 1st Century language of Israel, which is called Aramaic.

I color-coded in blue the variances from the text you'll find taught at universities or in your KJV at home. You might be surprised what you learn just by cross-referencing your thinking to the literal original text. It's mostly the same, but there are some key differences.

Background: the original language spoken by Jesus and the apostles is relevant

Once you learn the history of bible writing and translation, it becomes pretty obvious the bible was written in the same Aramaic language that Jesus and the apostles spoke daily.

A great example for scholars is polysemy, where a single word in the root language has multiple meanings. Like our word in English "mole" means "skin blemish", "spy", and "burrowing animal". If you found three Chinese translations of some "mystery language", each one citing a different definition of mole (i.e., 1. "we must get rid of that skin blemish" 2. "we must get rid of that spy". 3. "we must get rid of that burrowing animal"), it would be downright obvious the original language was English. That's called polysemy.

A great example, compare these two translations of Mark 10:25:

-- Greek (foreign language): "It is easier for a camel through the eye of the needle to enter, than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God."

-- Aramaic (native language): "It is easier for a rope to enter into the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.”

The word gmla in Jesus' language had dual meanings: 'camel' and 'rope'. So it's obvious that a Greek translator made a mistake saying 'camel', because it makes no sense for someone trying to push a camel through a sewing needle. Of course the original Aramaic makes perfect sense as a metaphor -- trying to fit a rope through a sewing needle.

There are hundreds of these examples throughout the original Aramaic text, which is why even university scholars have conceded Matthew was not written in Greek. Basically the only reason universities teach a Greek original for the rest of the NT is because of 'loan words' like "stadium" (a word that crosses cultures). They basically argue that if someone in the 1st century says the word "stadium" in a sentence they must have been speaking Greek. It's not a great argument -- I guess they would say if you're going to a baseball game today at Yankee Stadium, you must still be speaking Greek, never mind the word "stadium" is a word used across different languages and cultures.

The more you know.

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Hidden Message in Genesis WOW

Until you find out the John only wrote in Greek, and not Aramaic.

You have fallen for the lies already, trying to find the answers in what is already lies.

"The great discovery is that the Bible is a message system: it's not simply 66 books penned by 40 authors over thousands of years, the Bible is an integrated whole which bears evidence of supernatural engineering in every detail."

"The Bible is an integrated message system, the product of supernatural engineering. Every number, every place name, every detail every jot and tittle is there for our learning, our discovery, and our amazement. Truly, our God is an awesome God."

[link to www.khouse.org]



"Since God has the technology to create us in the first place, He certainly has the technology to get a message to us. But how does He authenticate His message?

It may seem old-fashioned to take the Bible seriously, especially in our modern age of scientific discoveries and multicultural emphases. It has become politically correct to deny the existence of absolutes and to deny the involvement of our Creator in our affairs. And yet there are many intellectual and well-informed people who take the Bible very seriously—who even regard its origin as supernatural. Why?

My own personal background has been in the information sciences—computers, communication, cryptography, and the like. With graduate degrees in engineering and business, and having spent a 30-year career in the corporate boardrooms of over a dozen high-tech enterprises, I have become most profoundly impressed by two astonishing discoveries:
1.The 66 books which we call the Bible constitute a highly integrated message system. What makes this so astonishing is the fact that they were penned by more than forty different people over a period of several thousand years!1 Yet we now discover that virtually every detail of the Biblical text evidences a highly skillful integrated design from cover to cover. In fact, every word, every place name, every detail was apparently placed there (in the original) deliberately as part of an overall intricate plan.
2.What is even more astounding is that it can be demonstrated that the origin of this intricate design is from outside of our dimension of space and time."


"A Message of Extraterrestrial Origin"

"We are in possession of this collection of 66 books we call The Bible, written by more than 40 authors over several thousands of years, yet we now discover it is an integrated message from outside our time domain. It repeatedly authenticates this uniqueness by describing history before it happens. And this discovery totally shatters our traditional concepts of reality."

[link to www.khouse.org]

Camel to enter the eye of a needle is referring to gates that were entered outside the main gates which were closed at night in Jerusalem.

In order for the camel to enter 'the eye of the needle' entrance, he had to be unpacked and stoop.

That's the meaning here. A rope is IMPOSSIBLE to put through the eye of a needle, it isn't just hard to do.

The camel is correct in that it was difficult, but not impossible.

Because you didn't justify your position with any examples (which is fine), I'll help you out by joining your side temporarily for the sake of your argument -- see this article that deconstructs and criticizes the most cited examples in favor of Aramaic primacy: [link to www.torahapologetics.com (secure)]

Okay, now I'm going to return to my position (in support of Aramaic primacy), by citing to Greek and Aramaic scholar David Bauscher (whose work is published via highly respected BibleHub).

Bauscher provides hundreds of examples showing the problem with Greek is there really is no one Greek text, rather there are hundreds of manuscripts that differ, and they're all mixed up. You'd never know it reading KJV or even any one Greek manuscript. So to understand the arguments here, you need a Greek scholar (like Bauscher) who has compared multiple Greek manuscripts to the one Aramaic codex (Khabouris), line-by-line.

When Bauscher translates the entire NT, he provides such line-by-line examples.

If you take any one example, you can do an apologetic (just as others have tried here on this GLP thread, claiming that "camel and needle" makes more sense than "rope and needle" because of an old gate in Israel, or because of their theological preference for a comical example showing impossibility).

But if you genuinely study the original Aramaic (literally the language of Jesus and the apostles), with its beautiful wordplays stated abundantly on literally every page of the codex, you realize the Vatican has been gaslighting us for centuries.

It's actually just like vaccines. If you're a PhD and you challenge vaccines at a university, your career is over. So you write apologetics instead. It's a racket. The scientists who deep dive and study the subject (such as genuine control groups comparing unvaccinated to vaccinated), you realize the so-called experts have been gaslighting the public with "safe and effective". "Your baby was not injured by the vaccine; you're just ignorant." And they try to convince you that the original (natural born) are corrupt. It's pretty easy to see Satan's hand in vaccines. Hope the analogy helps.

OP, thank you from my heart for this! You are a credit to your field, and a shining diamond in the blue clay that is GLP!

How were your ears so tickled?

I'm an ancient language scholar of Aramaic and H-brew. The University of Manchester (Special Collections Department) gave me access to the oldest known copy on earth of the Book of Revelation in the 1st century language of the messiah Yahshua (Jesus).

I published a literal word-for-word transcription and translation at a respected source here: [link to www.dukhrana.com]

Scholars estimate this ancient codex is dated to the 12th century AD and is a copy (or copy of a copy) of the original Book of Revelation written in the 1st Century language of Israel, which is called Aramaic.

I color-coded in blue the variances from the text you'll find taught at universities or in your KJV at home. You might be surprised what you learn just by cross-referencing your thinking to the literal original text. It's mostly the same, but there are some key differences.

Background: the original language spoken by Jesus and the apostles is relevant

Once you learn the history of bible writing and translation, it becomes pretty obvious the bible was written in the same Aramaic language that Jesus and the apostles spoke daily.

A great example for scholars is polysemy, where a single word in the root language has multiple meanings. Like our word in English "mole" means "skin blemish", "spy", and "burrowing animal". If you found three Chinese translations of some "mystery language", each one citing a different definition of mole (i.e., 1. "we must get rid of that skin blemish" 2. "we must get rid of that spy". 3. "we must get rid of that burrowing animal"), it would be downright obvious the original language was English. That's called polysemy.

A great example, compare these two translations of Mark 10:25:

-- Greek (foreign language): "It is easier for a camel through the eye of the needle to enter, than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God."

-- Aramaic (native language): "It is easier for a rope to enter into the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.”

The word gmla in Jesus' language had dual meanings: 'camel' and 'rope'. So it's obvious that a Greek translator made a mistake saying 'camel', because it makes no sense for someone trying to push a camel through a sewing needle. Of course the original Aramaic makes perfect sense as a metaphor -- trying to fit a rope through a sewing needle.

There are hundreds of these examples throughout the original Aramaic text, which is why even university scholars have conceded Matthew was not written in Greek. Basically the only reason universities teach a Greek original for the rest of the NT is because of 'loan words' like "stadium" (a word that crosses cultures). They basically argue that if someone in the 1st century says the word "stadium" in a sentence they must have been speaking Greek. It's not a great argument -- I guess they would say if you're going to a baseball game today at Yankee Stadium, you must still be speaking Greek, never mind the word "stadium" is a word used across different languages and cultures.

The more you know.

Begone, dark star…

Who do YOU say that Jesus Christ is?

.

The most troubling assumption you make is that the original was written in Aramaic.
Yet the book known as "Revelation", was written to the seven churches in Asia minor,( chapters 1- 3).
Asia had been a Roman Province for more than two hundred years, when the Seven Letters were written.
Who's common language would have been Greek, not Aramaic.
Thus your whole assumption as to the original language, it was written in, is false.

The more you know, the less foolishness you post here.

Begone, dark star…

Well.... say goodbye to the thread.

The spasmodic demonic obsessive has arrive to hijack this thread.

Exactly. It wouldn't even matter if it was rope or camel because OP is saying it's a sewing needle, making it IMPOSSIBLE. Clearly, there were many wealthy men in Scripture who were saved. The door is open to ALL.

Anonymous Coward 42762838

So you have judged me first.

Surely you find yourself most righteous..

Who do YOU say that Jesus Christ is?

.

The most troubling assumption you make is that the original was written in Aramaic.
Yet the book known as "Revelation", was written to the seven churches in Asia minor,( chapters 1- 3).
Asia had been a Roman Province for more than two hundred years, when the Seven Letters were written.
Who's common language would have been Greek, not Aramaic.
Thus your whole assumption as to the original language, it was written in, is false.

The more you know, the less foolishness you post here.

Camel to enter the eye of a needle is referring to gates that were entered outside the main gates which were closed at night in Jerusalem.

In order for the camel to enter 'the eye of the needle' entrance, he had to be unpacked and stoop.

That's the meaning here. A rope is IMPOSSIBLE to put through the eye of a needle, it isn't just hard to do.

The camel is correct in that it was difficult, but not impossible.