The Trinity in the Old Testament
The Trinity in the Old Testament
(Comment by Victor Alexander, Ancient Languages Scholar)
The distortion of the Old Testament was initiated by the Roman church and it was carried out by the Protestant churches and all the breakaway sects that followed. The foundation for the falsification of Scriptures was based on removing the name of Jesus and His titles from the Old Testament Scriptures. At first this would seem to be a conspiracy of Judaism or even later of Islam, but this was not the case at all. Jesus had to be removed from the Old Testament Scriptures so as to deny that the Jewish Patriarchs that came out of Padan Aram had a direct relationship to Jesus. This way Jesus could become entirely a persona of the New Testament.
While on the one hand the modern churches could claim that Jesus was their own, that He took the "Kingdom" from the Jews and gave it to the "Gentiles;" on the other they could retain the power, the wealth and the ceremonies of the Old Testament as having nothing to do with Judaism. Thus, according to the Greek version that the modern churches inherited, the Patriarchs brought forth the lineage of Jesus as to the time of Mary and Joseph, and then they disappeared from the scene altogether, leaving only the Jews that survived in Europe and until now; when in fact the real Jews were and are the descendants of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, the Israel of God, that preached Christianity throughout the world.
However, these Jews, together with all the other Aramaic speaking nations, that came out of Padam Aram and Mesopotamia at large, who preached Christianity in the West and the East, were re-discovered by the modern-day missionaries in the 20th Century. They survive today as Eastern Christianity and as Orthodox church members. Ironically, even the Greek Orthodox church has thrown in their lot with them. However, due to the jealousies and internal squabbles over doctrines, these genuine churches have been ignored by the modern-day churches, especially the Protestants, and sometimes they are branded as heretical.
And interestingly, the Jews of today and even the Muslims have adopted the modern-day distortions of Scriptures and have claimed that Jesus Christ was not mentioned in the Old Testament as the Son of God and as the second Q'numah of the Trinity. It's furthermore an irony that the Jews and the Muslims are in a death struggle and the modern-day churches are trying to mediate between them. Of course, each party distorts the Scriptures in its own way; therefore, it isn't possible to bring about peace based on the fact that the name of Jesus was indeed mentioned in the Old Testament and that the Old Testament Scriptures prophesied about the coming of the Messiah as God in the flesh. Also, if the name of Jesus was not mentioned in the Old Testament, then the Trinity could not have been known from the Old Testament either. And here's the crux of the matter. If the Trinity did not exist in the Old Testament Scriptures, then our Triune God was the invention of the Catholic Church and the writers of the New Testament, as is claimed by the detractors of Christianity. So now it's clearer where the problems emerged, where the distortions began.
So despite the fact that today Judaism, modern Christianity and Islam deny that the Old Testament Scriptures mention the Trinity by name, they cannot agree on the fact that there is one God for all, and regardless of His name in different languages that He's the same God. What's even more pathetic about modern Christianity is that none of the modern Bibles identify or retain the word "Trinity" in their text.
How is it that modern Christianity failed to identify the word "Trinity" in the Old Testament? When the modern churches split off from the Church of the East in the 5th Century AD and adopted the Greek version of the Old and the New Testament, the theologians of the Roman church began to redefine the words of Scriptures. They literally wrote a new dictionary of the Ancient Aramaic. Today, my translation is ridiculed by the official churches on the basis that I'm not following the Aramaic-English dictionaries in existence. That's true, I'm restoring the original words. So far I've identified the word "Eil" in the Old Testament, the very title that Jesus uses from the Cross in His great utterance, "Eili, Eili, l'manna sh'wik-thani." Incidentally, the reason why it's left intact in the modern Bibles is because they didn't know what it meant.
However, the modern-day theologians didn't only change the meaning of certain words in the Bible dictionaries, they also changed the grammar in key passages. Because they couldn't have lost the meaning of the word for the Trinity if they'd only changed the words. Ironically, the Greeks borrowed from the Ancient Aramaic and used the word Q'nomos in their writings, but they didn't identify or understand its meaning. In the Ancient Aramaic, the word "Q'nu-meh" refers to the Trinity. "Tla Q'numeh" or "The Trinity." The error was mitigated by the fact that the grammar was changed also; therefore, arriving at the well-known Catholic formulation of "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." In the modern-day grammars based on the Greek language, the Latin and the English also, this formulation leads to the conclusion that God is made up of three elements, better referred to as three personas or three Manifestations. In fact, the last is the best way to describe the Trinity in English. However, in the Ancient Aramaic, the scribal language of Scriptures, the Trinity means that God or Elohim is "The Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit." He is One God. This is the only language in which the word "Trinity" is preserved. That's why the Ancient Aramaic is the only language of Scriptures. No other language can take its place without changing the meaning of the Scriptures. In other words, for modern-day theologians to begin understanding the Scriptures, they have to return to the scribal language and relearn it. They have to discard their old dictionaries and grammars and start from scratch. This I don't think will happen very soon, thus the justification for my translation. That's why I'm translating the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures all over again, even though they've been translated several times before, and continue to be translated and re-translated but all in error, because the translators don't accept the primacy of the Ancient Aramaic as the only sacred scribal language of Scriptures.
I constantly hear that the modern-day churches are going to do a new translation from the "original sources," and even the Congress of the United States has initiated a new translation project. Frankly, why bother? How will the modern translations of today be any better than those of earlier times? As long as there are no native Aramaic speaking scholars leading the translation work, how can the work of translation be even close to the truth? Not only is the work of translation carried out by non-Aramaic speaking theologians, there are no theologians left who know the language, and that's the reason why the West doesn't bother even looking for Ancient Aramaic theologians. Now, there are modern Aramaic language natives by the millions, and there certainly are millions of Hebrew and Arabic speaking theologians among the Jews and the Arabs, but these languages are at the center of the problem. The modern Aramaic version of the P'shitta has been translated by the American missionaries of the 19th Century. The modern Torah of Judaism has been translated back into Hebrew from the Greek Septuagint of the 2nd Century BC. The Arabic Bibles have been translated from the Greek and vice-versa from the early days of Islam. The Arab conquerors of the Holy Lands destroyed all the Greek "originals," so the Greek "Original" is a translation of the Arabic Bible that was approved by the Islamic conquerors of the 7th Century. Only the Ancient Aramaic has survived by the very fact that it was "ignored" and branded a "heretical" translation made from the Greek version.
The telltale sign that the Greek Original and its English language derivatives are translations from the Arabic is there in the modern Bibles. Read the passage in Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani." Notice the letter "s" of the Arabic-Greek, instead of the "sheen" of the Hebrew-Aramaic in the last word. Also, "lema" instead of "lemana" -- two different words. And more significantly, "Eloi" instead of "Eil." They have it all wrong, and that's why the wrong translation, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?"
What difference do a few words make in our life? How is all this significant? Take for example the Irish Catholics and the Irish Protestants. Here are a beautiful Christian people killing each other for centuries over some differences in the interpretation of the same Bibles. The irony is that both their Bibles are flawed exactly the same way. In a documentary program that I saw on the PBS channel during the nineties, a group of Irish school teenagers from Ireland went to visit Northern Ireland in an experiment that would promote peace and understanding. I was struck by an exchange between an Irish Protestant girl from Ireland and a Catholic boy from Northern Ireland. The Protestant girl said, "Why do you have Jesus on your Cross -- He's risen!" The Catholic boy answered, "So we'll remember that He died for our sake." After I dried the tears from my eyes, I wondered who won the theological argument? Well, until the Irish stop killing each other, I suspect the devil did.
The Father does not forsake the Son, He glorifies Him. And the Son glorifies the Father with His sacrifice on the Cross. And the Holy Spirit glorifies the Father and the Son, because of their love for each other. "Eili, Eili, l'manna shwikthani." Learn Ancient Aramaic and translate it for yourself.
"Eil" means "He Is," as in the "I AM." The "i" after "Eil" in the passage is a possessive pronoun, added as part of the word. "Lema" is "why," but "lemanna" is "why I." "Shwik-thani" means "forgiven Me," "spared Me," "left Me," "abandoned Me," "forsaken Me," "allowed Me," or "glorified Me." Which one is it in this context?
I'm a translator. My job is to give you a clear translation. I believe that Jesus on the Cross was letting us hear this utterance so we'd understand our own moment of death and so we wouldn't despair but endure in faith to the very end and believe in His power to resurrect us. | E-Mail
If you have questions or comments, please click here.
Or go to Chapters 1 to 22 or
SUBJECTS GROUPED or