Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"MarYah deception" ???
#1
See this article:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.natzraya.org/Articles/The%20Mar-Yah%20Deception/The%20Mar-Yah%20Deception.html">http://www.natzraya.org/Articles/The%20 ... ption.html</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#2
Quote:Unfortunately this error has found its way into several so-called translations purporting to be most accurate. Don't waste your hard earned money on these anti-Jewish misrepresentations of our scriptures which will only weaken and undermine your faith with false doctrines setting you back and causing you to stumble on your spiritual journey.
Quote:The fact that this is very new translation theory which does not appear to have been heard of or recorded anywhere before this century, reveals that it was not entertained by the Jewish or Natzari community previously nor currently.
Quote:Theology that does not resonate with orthodox Judaism is false theology.
Really? He is willing to throw good translational scholarship away due to a translator's using YHWH? and then call it anti-Jewish? Sounds kind of rash to me...

I think he should try building a more impartial argument if he wants to be heard. Whether marya is to be understood as Mar Yah or as a euphemism for YHWH, the fact is that it does direct us to YHWH; this cannot be denied... so why should one ruffle feathers about it?

I agree though that it is relevant with respect to faithfulness to the source text, but the disclosure/restoration of the name YHWH where it clearly is or ought to be is by no means condemnable.
Reply
#3
i think it is always important to hear the "other side", but Aaron told me that MRYA is often times used in the OT quotes, which, to me, makes it far more likely that it is a direct replacement for YHWH. Why would one look for more euphemisms that can be confused with other words? it seems likely they were looking for an expression to unmistakenly represent YHWH.



About the author's introduction:

Quote:This theory is a slight-of-hand trick, an illusion, used to support the erroneous doctrine that Yeshua and YHWH are one and the same being or person.
i apologize for being a little OT here, but we are talking about this article, and i would like to respond:
If YHWH is not Yahshuah, how are we to understand this:
John 1:1 "THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word."
Now, if, for example, we assume the trinity to be God, then it should read:
"THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with the trinity, and the trinity was that Word."
Or, maybe in this case God is only the Father?
"THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with the Father, and the Father was that Word."
You pick and choose, i see no way possible to claim that the Word is not fully and completely all God.

So, please tell me, is Yahshuah in the Godhead, or is the Godhead in Yahshuah?
Let's ask the Bible...
Colossians 2:9 "For in him is embodied all the fulness of the Godhead."
So, if the fulness of the Godhead is the trinity, then read:
"For in him is embodied all the trinity."
No way to get around this.

And, why do people always ignore Hebrews?
Hebrews 1:3 "For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his being, [...]"
i think many prefer this:
"For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of the trinity, [...]"
or:
"For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of the Father, [...]"
"For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of one third of his being, [...]"
See where i am getting? Makes no sense, right? Unless, of course, you accept Yahshuah is YHWH, as he proclaimed in Isaiah:

Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

i believe these verses to be directly written to people believing in multiple personalitles in the Godhead. Try< to swallow it all. It could not be any more plain. i like this illustration:
Always look for the opposing sides of the wheel to get to know why Yahshuah is YHWH.
http://www.acts238.50megs.com/whats_new.html


i am not claiming to be smarter than all of you theologians, but i don't think that the truth can oppose very simple and basic logic, and in that sense, who can tell me that it is wrong to say that Yashuah is the highest revelation of the fulness of YHWH a human can percieve?
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#4
I have yet to see anything that would lead me to believe that moryo` is the unique or sacred name for YHWH. Instead, it is a generic NT expression that only alludes to YHWH. The primary reason moryo` cannot be the sacred name is that the same root word is used to refer to common individuals as well in the NT. In English, moryo` is best translated as "the Lord", "the Master", or any other word of similar meaning.

A good way to learn the grammatical nuances between the varied inflections of the base (absolute) word moro` is to look here.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/lexeme.php?adr=1:1843&font=Estrangelo+Edessa&size=150">http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/lexeme.php? ... a&size=150</a><!-- m -->%

The basic forms without prefix or suffix, and using "Lord" for translation are:

moro` = "Lord" (absolute singular)
morawon = "Lords" (absolute plural)
more` = "Lord of" (construct singular)
moray = "Lords of" (construct plural)
moryo` = "the Lord" (emphatic singular)
morayo` = "the Lords" (emphatic plural)
Reply
#5
rafa Wrote:Of course he is a fake scholar and he probably doesn't even KNOW that Peshitta Tanakh exists and that it uses "MarYah" in place of the Holy Name consistently every single time.
Actually, he does know as he wrote:
Quote:Someone may ask, why in the Peshitta Tanak does m?rya only refer to YHWH and is not applied to anyone else? Setting aside for the moment that m?rya "the lord" is a a substitute for a Name, and presuming that the Tanak does not in fact contain any instances of m?rya referring to humans, this can best be explained by the Tanak paradigm. In this paradigm the central phenomena is YHWH and the books are written by His servants, His people. Therefore what if any opportunities are there to frame the testimony around another "lord" as "the lord"? The introduction of the messianic paradigm in the scriptures creates an additional central focus allowing the opportunity for his disciples to express his supreme lordship which was given from YHWH. Now both he and YHWH are the central phenomena of the New Testament and there is no opportunity to speak of another "the lord" as Paul said there are many gods and many lords, but for us there is one God (YHWH) and one Lord (Yeshua). Outside of working as a substitute for YHWH's Name, m?rya rarely if ever is used to address YHWH in the scriptures.
Reply
#6
Quote:Someone may ask, why in the Peshitta Tanak does m?rya only refer to YHWH and is not applied to anyone else? Setting aside for the moment that m?rya "the lord" is a a substitute for a Name, and presuming that the Tanak does not in fact contain any instances of m?rya referring to humans, this can best be explained by the Tanak paradigm. In this paradigm the central phenomena is YHWH and the books are written by His servants, His people. Therefore what if any opportunities are there to frame the testimony around another "lord" as "the lord"? The introduction of the messianic paradigm in the scriptures creates an additional central focus allowing the opportunity for his disciples to express his supreme lordship which was given from YHWH. Now both he and YHWH are the central phenomena of the New Testament and there is no opportunity to speak of another "the lord" as Paul said there are many gods and many lords, but for us there is one God (YHWH) and one Lord (Yeshua). Outside of working as a substitute for YHWH's Name, m?rya rarely if ever is used to address YHWH in the scriptures.
his argument is complete nonsense, from beginning to end. i am sad to read someone's strange thoughts here. He is actually saying nothing besides that marya is used for YHWH, and that he thinks besides that, it does not address YHWH, but he did not offer any real explanation. His focus argument has no basis whatsoever. If we accept it, why can't we assume the same for any and all other divine titles and descriptions???
Rubbish.
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#7
What is the argument for moryo` being the original vocalization for YHWH? I have seen none, other than it was used in an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text, in lieu of YHWH. Perhaps I am missing something, but to me that makes it no more special than the KJV using "the Lord" in lieu of YHWH.
Reply
#8
On a technical matter, I am comfortable transliterating moryo` as moryah or even maryah. It is hard to be absolute with vocalizations, since they change over time and amongst different dialects even of the same time.

There is little doubt that the Aramaic uses moryah as a reference to YHWH. The question is whether or not moryah is in fact the real personal name for YHWH. I don't think it is, but instead a translation little different from the KJV translating it as "the Lord". I can't really prove that to anyone, but this is a thread where I and others have offered their various thoughts on the subject.

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=123&start=30">viewtopic.php?f=18&t=123&start=30</a><!-- l -->
Reply
#9
"So, please tell me, is Yahshuah in the Godhead, or is the Godhead in Yahshuah?
Let's ask the Bible...
Colossians 2:9 "For in him is embodied all the fulness of the Godhead."
So, if the fulness of the Godhead is the trinity, then read:
"For in him is embodied all the trinity."
No way to get around this."



To get a better view of this read slowly the beginning of Revelation and you will be given a clarification. This area was dealt with by Isaac Newton, he had written at one point about this. Look it up as my information on Isaac is not credible by investigation. It was a radio report. But, Revelation's Word demonstrates the oneness of our Elohim bodily according to Colossians 2:9 "For in him is embodied all the fullness of the Godhead.

Plus, it was opened to me as I read there when I was coming to an understanding of the Trinity theology I had been given as Truth. He is one in Spirit and bodily. He is The Spirit and the Tabernacle (body) which is represented by "The Temple" earthly and The Temple without hands which is heavenly Jerushalayim. The Body with Him as Head is New Jerushalayim. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->




Andrej Wrote:i think it is always important to hear the "other side", but Aaron told me that MRYA is often times used in the OT quotes, which, to me, makes it far more likely that it is a direct replacement for YHWH. Why would one look for more euphemisms that can be confused with other words? it seems likely they were looking for an expression to unmistakenly represent YHWH.



About the author's introduction:

Quote:This theory is a slight-of-hand trick, an illusion, used to support the erroneous doctrine that Yeshua and YHWH are one and the same being or person.
i apologize for being a little OT here, but we are talking about this article, and i would like to respond:
If YHWH is not Yahshuah, how are we to understand this:
John 1:1 "THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and [b]God was that Word."
Now, if, for example, we assume the trinity to be God, then it should read:
"THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with the trinity, and the trinity was that Word."
Or, maybe in this case God is only the Father?
"THE Word was in the beginning, and that very Word was with the Father, and the Father was that Word."
You pick and choose, i see no way possible to claim that the Word is not fully and completely all God.


And, why do people always ignore Hebrews?
Hebrews 1:3 "For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his being, [...]"
i think many prefer this:
"For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of the trinity, [...]"
or:
"For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of the Father, [...]"
"For he is the brightness of his glory and the express image of one third of his being, [...]"
See where i am getting? Makes no sense, right? Unless, of course, you accept Yahshuah is YHWH, as he proclaimed in Isaiah:

Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.

i believe these verses to be directly written to people believing in multiple personalitles in the Godhead. Try< to swallow it all. It could not be any more plain. i like this illustration:
Always look for the opposing sides of the wheel to get to know why Yahshuah is YHWH.
http://www.acts238.50megs.com/whats_new.html


i am not claiming to be smarter than all of you theologians, but i don't think that the truth can oppose very simple and basic logic, and in that sense, who can tell me that it is wrong to say that Yashuah is the highest revelation of the fulness of YHWH a human can percieve?
Reply
#10
Shlama,


in the case of the writer at Natzraya, i personally think that it is more "doctrinally motivated," but i'm open for correction. he has a stance wherein he says it is WRONG to promote Yeshu'a as Deity, and this comes out in his translation of the Peshitta (on-going). an acquaintance on another site referred me to him, and i spent some time looking over what he has translated so far. specifically, i noticed his bias in Colossians, where a simple term in the Aramaic was twisted horribly out of context with resort to Jastrow's Dictionary of the Targumim as "proof," and used to attempt to disprove the Deity of Messiah. i personally corresponded with him against the misuse of the term, but he resisted the correct usage and maintained that his choice was viable, unfortunately. this makes me think that his reason for writing what he has concerning MARYA is more doctrinally-motivated than anything else - if he is staunch concerning the non-Deity position of Messiah, then his position on MARYA is a necessity for him.

that said, there is a degree of clarification which he makes that is indeed true. as i've posted here elsewhere---

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2338&p=14015&hilit=muwshe#p14015">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2338&p=14015&hilit=muwshe#p14015</a><!-- l -->

---you can see that MARYA was used to translate a few different terms in the Peshitta AN"K. most were indeed speaking of the Creator YHWH, but as you can see, some were not, and so there is some degree of room for translation allowed, and i think it falls into the realm of contextual judgment to ultimately decide what is being referenced when it comes to how to translate it in the Peshitta NT. in my personal translations, sometimes i opt for MASTER and other times i simply leave it as MARYA, especially when quoting the Hebrew Scriptures. but i personally think contextually-based translation of the term is the safest route to take, other than simply transliterating the term MARYA at every appearance, and letting the reader decide for themselves how to take it. i've considered that option, as well, but have yet to implement it in my personal translations.

just some points to consider... <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->



Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#11
Unlike most here, I didn't get into the study of foreign languages to prove ones superiority over the next. I merely wanted to see what the original texts looked like and after seeing some errors in the English versions it only aroused more curiousity...

Now after saying that, I note that no one thus far has quoted MOSHIACH in their posts wherein He is referring to Himself and ABBA YHWH. If we are to say that they are one and the same should not His very words be looked upon as proof of such??? And should not the very absence of Him saying such show us prove of the opposite??? When it comes to this particular subject I have most often found mostly quotes from Shaul and Yahuchanan 1:1 for the basis of most arguments; however there is a plethora of scriptures out there, so why aren't they also being used?

I asked a question in another forum about the following passages: Yahuchanan 5:19-23, 5:30-32, 5:36-38, 5:43-44. Before I asked about these verses Andrej had stated that perhaps I had a "wrong concept of sonship". Whenever someone makes a statement about anything in the absence of facts (in this case Andrej knows absolutely nothing about me or my belief system) it is just subjective opinion and I look upon it as such.

Usually because they cannot truly answer the question presented or they do not like their ideology questioned, (in this case I fear it was a case of both) people will attempt the old ad hominem fallacy of attacking the person (that also appears to be the case in relation to the website also). If you were/are or wanted to persuade this person that they were in error, how would you go about it: by making snide and snobbish remarks about him (where is the unconditional love in that?) or presenting the emet YHWH without bias? Surely the latter would attract more bees than would the vinegar of the words I have seen in this forum.

I am open to facts that show that YHWH and YAHUshuah are one and the same however speculation doesn't do much unless you're prospecting for gold. Also about this "maryah"... I took the time to try and find it in the Peshitta texts and I still haven't found that spelling. Is there a reason for that or is the adding of the "hey" at the end just as the author of the website said, " a parlor trick"? (And please spare me the "transliteration" spiel, as I hardly see where adding an "h" to the end of the word is transliterating it), it's deceptive to promote a certian ideology at best.

JustAlex
Reply
#12
Shalom,

I like the footnote on Yukhanan chapter 8, verses 13 and 47 in Bro. Paul's Interlinear. He gives the force of Ena-na in 13 and by the time he repeats Himself in 47 they're ready to stone him. Pay close attention to the footnote on verse 13....and all the way to the bottom of the PDF is the corresponding footnote relating back from v. 47 to v. 13.....

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Yukhnch8.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Yukhnch8.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Hope this helps!

Bro. Larry
Reply
#13
Shalom,

Shamasha Paul says that Mar = Lord and Yah = the Name of God in this post

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic....Yah#p11447

Blessings, Bro. Larry
Reply
#14
BrotherLarry Wrote:Shalom,

Shamasha Paul says that Mar = Lord and Yah = the Name of God in this post

http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic....Yah#p11447

Blessings, Bro. Larry

I don't know where I have read this, but take the Chaldean god 'marduk' what that not be alike? Mar-Duk? (Lord-Duk)
B.t.w. it's unknown what the exact meaning of this name, but it happens to be that in Russian, something like that, 'ducha' means 'spirit' <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> So Mar-Duk could mean Lord of the Spirit. But, that only would be valid if 'duk' is derived from an ancestor of the Russian people.
Reply
#15
Lately, I also keep seeing this word Yahushuah, or something similar, from numerous sources beyond this website. Where is this being derived from? My guess is that it is coming from "Joshua" of the Old Testament y:howConfusedhu:a, but that has no relevance to YHWH that I am aware of.

"Yeshua" of the Peshitta NT is derived from the Hebrew word for salvation, which is yConfusedhuw:ah (H3444) in Hebrew. As a proper name in the OT, it is translated as "Jeshua", and transliterated as yeiConfusedhuw:a (H3442), very similar to the yeConfusedhuwa of the Peshitta NT.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)