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

It always aggravates me the name thing, Jesus, was never his name, it was Aramaic, I’m sure you understand.

So much about ancient writings is very askew.

I have read a translation of the common Lords Prayer, by the Sufi scholar,
Neil Douglas-Klotz, Ph.D, at the time, if this translation is valid, God, is termed mother/ father, the duality, that’s how it lands in Aramaic. Something like that shifts the whole biblical paradigm, but it is ignored by the early churches.

I hate dogma, it wrecks the planet, it would be nice if holy books were accurate.

Anonymous Coward 42762838

So you have judged me first.

Surely you find yourself most righteous..

Who do YOU say that Jesus Christ is?

.

I hear you. Amazing though the power in the name Jesus, as people cast out demons.

The text says the Messiah has multiple names and titles, and the gospel will be shared throughout the world in different languages.

I think the people who are drawn to the literal Aramaic and H-brew are primarily scholars wanting to get as close as possible to the source. There's a certain irony it ultimately though, because the source is Holy Spirit and not ink.

Regarding your question about pronouns, I've thoroughly studied that in Aramaic. The Aramaic consistently uses the masculine for God, Son, and Holy Spirit. Angels too are almost always masculine. There is one instance in Revelation 11 where a female spirit is referenced in relation to a male spirit. I found that very interesting, but again in Aramaic the female pronoun is never used for God, Son, or Holy Spirit.

One time I debated online another Aramaic scholar who tried to claim female pronouns for the author of the fourth gospel. I showed very clearly the debater was falsely inserting words into the text. Its sad when folks get so keen on an ideology they will change literal text to fit their narrative. Nowhere is this more prevalent than the false translation "everlasting". Here's my blog and video on that subject: [link to www.logicalhierarchy.com (secure)]

Not only are demons cast out in the name of Jesus Christ, but my prayers have been and are answered in His name.

I hear you. Amazing though the power in the name Jesus, as people cast out demons.

The text says the Messiah has multiple names and titles, and the gospel will be shared throughout the world in different languages.

I think the people who are drawn to the literal Aramaic and H-brew are primarily scholars wanting to get as close as possible to the source. There's a certain irony it ultimately though, because the source is Holy Spirit and not ink.

Regarding your question about pronouns, I've thoroughly studied that in Aramaic. The Aramaic consistently uses the masculine for God, Son, and Holy Spirit. Angels too are almost always masculine. There is one instance in Revelation 11 where a female spirit is referenced in relation to a male spirit. I found that very interesting, but again in Aramaic the female pronoun is never used for God, Son, or Holy Spirit.

One time I debated online another Aramaic scholar who tried to claim female pronouns for the author of the fourth gospel. I showed very clearly the debater was falsely inserting words into the text. Its sad when folks get so keen on an ideology they will change literal text to fit their narrative. Nowhere is this more prevalent than the false translation "everlasting". Here's my blog and video on that subject: [link to www.logicalhierarchy.com (secure)]

Wow, it looks like you’ve put in quite a bit of time & energy into producing this document. Thanks for sharing it.

I’m still trying to understand the significance though. I’m not a scholar like you and I do look up to you for all of this work.

Your work is based on documents from the twelfth century…whereas the Romans filtered the known scriptures in the third century in Nicaea (got their story straight if you will).

Are you implying that the Romans had some specific reason for leaving out the version of scripture you have been studying? You say right up front that the oldest known record of the Aramaic “bible” did not show up until some 800 years after the Roman Council settled the issue.

I sure hope the archeological scholars of the future don’t come across fragments of the National Enquirer thinking that it is an accurate portrayal of American spiritual thinking.

I like the rope analogy. You could get it through..a string at a time by unraveling it first.

Thanks OP! Good explanation. I use several translations of the Bible including George Lamsa's translation from the ancient "Aramaic of the Peshitta". I often compare particular versions such as KJV, NKJV, and the Hebraic Roots Bible with the Aramaic version. There is a high degree of consistency within these four translations, but every once in awhile the Aramaic translation may use a few different words which makes the scripture more clear or adds new meaning. I also like having a translation from the language Jesus spoke the most growing up!

That's great! Do you have a favorite bible verse from Revelation to share on this Sunday? (The book of Revelation begins with the statement that John was praying in Patmos on the first day of the week, or has he says literally "1 in 7").

OP, do you have any insights on the mark of the beast scriptures in revelation?

Yes, thanks for asking. The relevant verses are Revelation 13:16-18 (mark of the beast between the eyes or right hand; given to anyone, rich/poor, great/small; can't buy or sell; 666 and the number of his name).

In the original Aramaic text, the term 'mark' is ruShma, meaning tattoo or inscription. That Aramaic word ruShma is also a wordplay for rhuma Shma ("Roman name").  

So the mark of the beast is probably a biometric ID tattoo, because that would check all the boxes. They will give you your ROMAN NAME. Biometric ID controls your identity, your accounts, your payments, etc. and it links seamlessly to other technologies.

I'm an anti-vaccine activist (lawyer) and so I research the latest vaccine patents. I can tell you something almost no one is noticing -- the latest vaccine tattoo technology (you'll see it soon, it's only just beginning to make national news from Gates Foundation funded groups in Queensland and America) foreshadows the mark of the beast, especially because this new vaccine tattoo technology uses the compound luciferase to illuminate the subject's skin.

Reported March 6, 2022, "An electronic tattoo will soon become part of our everyday lives according to Microsoft co-founder, Bill Gates... Bill Gates said in a recent Instagram post that he believes that regardless of the fact that the technology is still in a very early stage of development, it has all the potential to replace today’s smartphones. The company behind this pioneering technology is called Chaotic Moon Studios, and it is currently focusing specifically on the medical field...Gates wants electronic tattoos to replace smartphones."  [link to euroweeklynews.com (secure)]

Gates is probably lying about his tech being in an early stage. How do I know? Because I found the latest mainstream publication, August 12, 2022, from these same people discussed above (holding the patents), who are pushing their vaccine tattoos as ready for deployment:  [link to www.sciencedirect.com (secure)]
("Skin-patch delivered subunit vaccine induces broadly neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern")

But again, I think the vax technology is not the mark of the beast. The biometric tattoo ID technology is the mark. The vax is just the poison they push with it (just as they push debt with it, and more), in order to claim everyone must get it in order to buy and sell in society. 

It probably won't get rolled out internationally until after the grid goes down (they'll tell us EMPs and/or hackers). I'd say we're about 1-3 years away from the UN's implementation of worldwide biometric ID.  But I'm just guessing. I don't think it will happen here in the US though; I think the destiny of the US is to ultimately overthrow the UN this decade. Before that happens, God is giving America natural disasters and various institutional reboots as our detox, so we eliminate this woke-left systemic infection. Once we're battle ready (Christ-reoriented as a Nation), then God will use the American military (strongest in the world) for the Revelation 19 war against the beast. Gonna be epic. I think we're going to crush its head and usher in the Millennial Reign, for Yahshua!

That's my interpretation. I'm sure it will be refined as we navigate these end-times, but I'm excited to utterly end the satanists. This generation is finding power in Christ. Good news.

So glad to see you're reading it! If helpful, here is a list of the main variances. The original text better identifies what to expect during the end-times. I've bolded the ones I think are most important.

1:1 consistent grammar in Crawford suggests the first word glyna (revelations) is actually plural

1:3 the first blessing is to Yahshua exclusively. The second blessing is to those who hear and guard the word, and their blessing is not separate from Yahshua but rather is within Yahshua (because the blessing is stated as a singular word twbThna, which is an emphasized word (na suffix) to show the fullness of the blessing given to Yahshua).

1:6 Crawford uses the definite article twice lEalma dEalma to confirm that the Father remains in control of the "the age of this world"

1:16 an energetic "spirit" (ruKha) comes from the mouth of the messiah, not a sharp spear (rumKha)

2:17 Crawford identifies a person in Pergama with a solitary life, not a white pebble/accounting.

2:23 Crawford has a scribal correction in the margin about the bridal veil of Jezebel

3:7 Crawford has the spelling davyd. The first spelling dvd was used during the first temple period, and then dvyd was the progression of the name around the second temple period. And now here is Crawford we see davyd, which is suggestive of a third temple period (the messiah is the temple).

6:12 In regards to the beginning of the 6th seal, Crawford has nuhra ("light"). Obviously that is a big difference from the standard translation of the 6th seal beginning with nuda ("earthquake"). So the standard text prophesies a great earthquake, whereas Crawford prophesies a great light.

6:12 Crawford refers to the sun being like zqa ("wineskin"), whereas the standard translation has sqa ("sackcloth").

6:14 Crawford says the sky aThpShr ("was dissolved/interpreted"). By contrast, the Peshitto has aThprSh ("was parted").

7:4 Crawford spells Israel aysrayl, which preserves the wordplay with ayln in the beginning of this chapter seven.

7:15 Crawford uses the Aphel conjugation of nagn ("will cause dwelling"), which conveys a much different meaning that ngn ("will dwell") because the subject here is the one God on the throne.

9:11 Referring to the angel of the abyss, Crawford has mlaka ("angel/messenger") but the standard translation is mlka ("king"). So Crawford highlights many angels overseeing the 5th seal locusts, and one particular angel as the angel of the abyss. By contrast, the standard translation refers only to this "king/ruler angel" of the abyss.

10:1 - Regarding the angel's feet, Crawford has gmura ("burning coals"), whereas the standard translation has Eamuda ("pillars"). Crawford preserves the wordplay in the verse that refers to the Gemara and Mishnah.

10:6 Crawford has two unique aspects that change the grammar of the verse to point it correctly, as you can see in more detail in my spreadsheet.

10:9 The Peshitto has 13 additional words here to state twice that John devours the little scroll. By contrast, Crawford advises only once that John eats the scroll.

11:6 In regards to how the two witnesses cause harm to the earth, SP has udnmKhwn ("and they will strike (plural)"), whereas Crawford has udnmkkun ("and they will lay low (plural)").

11:12 Crawford has an Aphel conjugation umaTsdyn ("are caused to gaze") but SP has the normal passive umTsdyn ("and were gazing"). The meanings are quite different, because Crawford suggests that the two witnesses (filled with spirit) are directed by spirit to gaze from above into their enemies below, whereas SP suggests the enemies below are gazing into the witnesses above.

11:13 Crawford has a vav prefix that potentially changes the whole meaning of the verse, such that 7,000 men die in the earthquake and desolation, rather than 7,000 names of men in the earthquake.

11:19 In reference to the ark of the covenant in heaven, SP has the same spelling for the ark of the covenant on earth, but Crawford has a unique and plural spelling "ark of the convenants".

12:1 SP has a "crown of stars" on the woman, but Crawford has "crown of thorns".

13:3 SP has waThdmrTh ("and was amazed"), but Crawford has waThdbrTh ("and was guided").

13:12 Regarding the authority of the second creature with respect to the first creature, SP has ThEabd ("was worked"), but Crawford has dThEabry ("of being transferred"). Crawford has a more specific legal meaning, and a potential wordplay with Eabr ("H-brew"), which is quite relevant if Rome transferred its office/authority to any particular institution, such as the Catholic church.

13:14 Regarding the actions of the second beast, SP has wThtEaa ("and is seducing") whereas Crawford has wThEata ("and is forgiving"). The root in Crawford is Eata, which has some important alternate definitions as well: "cover", "blot out", "cancel". Some will be reminded of the Catholic priests forgiving sins, or the infamous Catholic power of excommunication.

14:3 SP has ala an maa ("unless if one hundred..."), whereas Crawford has umaa ("and one hundred..."). The difference is important because SP is saying that the 144,000 are nSha ("humans"), but Crawford is saying they are not nSha ("humans") because the text just advised that no nSha ("humans") are able to learn the song. Indeed, the text confirms this further by saying these 144,000 were purchased from the earth. So the 144,000 are in the kingdom of God at this point, rather than characterized as nSha ("human"). Lastly, this phrase umaa begins a new sentence in Crawford that concludes in the next verse with the word bThula ("virgins").

14:14 SP has KhrypTha ("swift/sharp"), but Crawford has KhurTha ("shining/white"). Crawford is logical because Rev 14:18 highlights only one angel that holds a "swift/sharp sickle" and he is identified in Rev 14:17-18 as we note the singular tense ldayTh mglTha KhrypTha ("to he having to him the sickle sharp").

16:8-9 SP has three phrases here that are not found in Crawford. SP concludes Rev 16:8 with the phrase bnura ("in fire") and then begins the new verse with uaThKhmmu bnynSha ("and were scorched the sons of men"). Crawford is more logical because it does not require men to burn literally "in fire" as SP requires, but rather Crawford specifies that men are burned by the great heat.

16:16 SP has an extra word here. SP has unknSh anun ("and will assemble them") in the plural form, whereas Crawford has simply unknSh ("and will assemble") in the singular form. Crawford matches the singular tense of the previous verse (Rev 16:15). By contrast, SP is plural so it requires reference back two verses to the anun ("them") in Rev 16:14. This is a very important distinction because it means that SP connects mgdu ("Megiddo" or "Armageddon") with war. By contrast, Crawford opens up the possibility that mgdu ("Megiddo") is not a place of war (or at least not exclusively a place of war), but rather is (also) the positive place where a last remnant ('he/she who watches and guards his/her garments') can assemble for the blessing of meeting "Yahshua the thief". Indeed, in H-brew mgdu means "pleasant" and "valuable", which sounds like it could be a fitting place for 'Yahshua the thief' to steal away this remnant. Moreover, the dichotomy of verses further supports the Crawford reading, as Rev 16:12-14 describe evil spirits and war, whereas Rev 16:15-16 appear to focus on the positive, namely Yahshua and the remnant.

17:12 SP has the ten horns ruling for ShEaTha ("hour" or "moment") but Crawford has ShnTha ("year" or "sleep"). This is a big difference, especially given the Roman precedent of the DECEMVIRI who ruled for one year and set law.

17:16 Regarding the relationship between the whore and the ten horns, SP states that the ten horns nsnyn ("will hate (plural)"), but Crawford has nsEarn ("will inspect (plural)"). The root verb in Crawford sEar has many alternate meanings: "visit", "look after", "heal", "care for", "work", "perform", "act".

18:9 SP states oddly regarding the merchants who watch Babylon burn waShThEalyw ("and they were elevated") but Crawford has the logical phrase waShThEayw ("and they tell tales"). Crawford comes from the root aShThEawTha ("tale/narration/speech").

19:9 Regarding those invited to the lamb's supper, SP has kThub ("write"), but Crawford has Thub ("again/repent"). Crawford is used logically here as an expression Thub tubyhun which means "they are blessed again" or "they are even more blessed".

19:9 Regarding the lamb's supper, SP has repetitively dmShThwThh ("of his marriage feast"), but Crawford has this unique insight dThShmShThh ("of his service").

19:17 SP has Thu aThknShu ("come be assembling (plural)"), but Crawford has uaThknShu ("and they were assembled"). The distinction changes the verse and quote, because SP is translated, "And he says to the birds that fly in the middle of heaven/sky, 'come, be gathering together to the supper great of Alha." By contrast, Crawford is translated, "And he says to the birds of flying, 'be midst the sky'. And they were assembled to the supper great of Alha."

19:19 SP has umlka ("and kings"), but Crawford has ulmlka ("and to kings"). The lamed here is quite significant because Crawford distinguishes between 'the creature and her armies' and 'the kings of the earth and their armies'.

20:6 SP has mnTha ("part"), but Crawford has myTha ("death"). Crawford is logical, first because it emphasizes that only those who have died can receive the blessing, and second because this word myTha concludes the sentence; and the next word bqymTha is logically the beginning of the next sentence (thereby preventing a run-on sentence).

21:11 Regarding the foundation stone of New Jerusalem, SP has yShph ("jasper") but Crawford has nShph ("its smoothness"). The letter nun is very clear in Crawford (and indeed is repeated in Rev 21:18, adding certainty) -- the root word here in Crawford has many alternate translations as well, such as "soul", "purifying", "breath", "light wind", "glide", "morning", "evening".

21:17 Regarding the wall surrounding New Jerusalem, SP has 144,000 cubits but Crawford has 140,000 cubits. The ancient cubit has several possible measurements historically (i.e., 17.5 (H-brew short), 18 inches (common), 20.4 inches (H-brew long). The wall described here in Crawford (140,000 cubits) would be approximately 44 miles (depending on the precise cubit measurement, the length from the elbow to middle finger on the mlaka ("angel/messenger") holding the measuring rod (as this verse advises that his/her hand is the standard).

21:18 Once again, and regarding this wall around New Jerusalem, SP has yShph ("jasper") but Crawford has nShph ("its smoothness").

21:19 For the first foundation stone of the wall around New Jerusalem, SP once again has yShph ("jasper") but Crawford has nShph ("its smoothness"). Smooth stones began several mighty things in the bible (such as the smooth stones taken from the Jordan river before the J-wish people entered Jerusalem after the exodus; or King David's smooth stone that defeated Goliath) - a smooth foundation is a cornerstone of traditional building. Indeed, another translation for nShph is "His smooth one", so the cornerstone here (the first stone) would be the smooth rock of Alha, yShuEa. In H-brew, yShuEa means "Yah's rock".

If you're interpreting the Book of Revelation, congratulations, you just effectively wasted your time!

Great point about prayer, especially as you've given the most relatable point.

I'm reminded of John 21, where the Messiah appears on the shoreline (reincarnates if you will) as an older man. And the one who recognizes Messiah first was the beloved disciple. Imagine it's like connecting with the heart before the traditional senses of sight and sound. I think it all works together, but the heart has a primary purpose for some reason.

Thanks, I will so check out your link.

I get hung up on names, and mistranslations, bugs me.

If for instance I was a human of significant importance, and my name was Aristotle, but for centuries everyone called me Johnny, I’d be pissed, it would not resonate.

J wasn’t even a letter until 15th century I believe, the Jesus thing doesn’t work in my perspective. He had a name, erroneous men changed it to suit their need.

Where are you getting that Jesus appeared as an older man? Is that speculation as to why they don’t recognize Him or is there something in the other translations to indicate that?

Also, I’d love to see a translation from Aramaic for Psalm 23 if you have it handy.

Thank you!