Without recourse.
All Rights Reserved. Tree of
Life©
Tryck här för den svenska versionen!
¡Haga clic aquí para ver la versión en español!
Statement
of belief: “Sanctify
them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17 KJV)
My initial discovery
re the within issue occurred in the fall [around Sep 2022] and is recorded in
the WhatsApp messages between me and Peter. A second condensed version was
shared with Rolf, and a third version was shared with Erwin via the WhatsApp
group Jesus: “Sök, ni ska finna
Created 5942[v2016-12-14-21:32]
02 04 2039 [2023-05-24] – A fourth version in my attempts to make this
issue more accessible to my readers…s
Edited 5967[v2023-12-04]
08 22 2039 [Wed 2023-12-06]
Revised and improved
for clarity 5967[v2023-12-04]
08 27 2039 [Mon 2023-12-11] – A fifth version. Cf. last prior
version!
Further revisions and
additions 5967[v2023-12-04] 09 12
2039 [Mon 2023-12-25] – Including the addition of the Abstract.
Further additions 5967[v2023-12-04]
09 19
2039 [Mon 2024-01-01] – Additions and edits within the Abstract.
Minor edits 5967[v2023-12-04]
01 12
2039 [Sun 2024-04-21] – While updating the Swedish
version, and while creating also a Spanish
version (motivated by Daniel Primera’s Apr 20, 2024 Sabbath sermon)
with the help of the Google translator.
New Abstract created
on 5967[v2023-12-04] 01 13-15
2039 [Mon 2024-04-22 – Wed 2024-04-24] – The old Abstract now entitled
Introduction.
Time for yet another step in the Protestant Movement?
More truthful independent Bible translations!
No more Bibles “Authorized by…” the Vatican, by the Government, or by any
other Authority of men!
Revelation 14:8; 18:4!
Pregnant or Not?
-
Why Did Joseph
Hesitate
To Marry Mary?
Have We Been Fooled
All These Years?
An In-Depth Study of
the Original Hebrew Behind Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:31
Abstract:
We have been fooled! Mary was not pregnant at
the time of the angel’s visitation to her! Instead, Mary was filled with a
passion. A passion for some kind of special calling provided to her by the Holy
Ghost! She was burning for the truth! Whatever she was doing, it apparently was
not considered politically correct, and apparently Joseph was uncertain as to
the source, or nature, of Mary’s passion. But both of them must have been
deeply committed to their belief in God, and when the angel came to visit each
of them, both of them accepted, obeyed, and heeded the message given. In
accordance with the angel’s message, their marital relationship was accordingly
consummated and Mary conceived and became pregnant with her firstborn son,
Yeshua, Jesus.
The above said becomes quite clear upon a close
study of the best available transcript of the original Hebrew Matthew. In
essence, the misconception and presumption of Mary being with child before the
two of them came together is built upon one very rare Hebrew word that does not
mean, as previously assumed, “being with child” or anything to that effect.
Quite to the contrary!
Thus, a more correct translation of the two key
verses are as follows:
Matthew 1:18, 20 TLT
18 … When as his mother [to be] Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found with a passion of the Holy Ghost.
…
20 But while
he [Joseph]
thought on these things, behold, the angel
of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David,
fear not to take unto thee Mary as thy wife: for that which is her passion is of the Holy Ghost.
Please, partake of, and study carefully, the
detailed analysis of the relevant Bible texts and words below! How else will
you ever convince yourself one way or the other? It is not sufficient merely to
take my word for it!
Introduction:
Are we, I and you, willing to discover long
forgotten truths in the Bible? Or do we prefer to stick with such teachings and
traditions as we have each learnt to love and to accept heretofore? Are we
willing to let go, to sacrifice, some pet ideas of ours that we have come to
associate with good and valuable times in life? Am I willing to disassociate
the good from the bad? Am I willing to be cleansed from my erroneous thoughts
and habits and to thus be, in a real sense, cleansed by the Holy Spirit of God?
Am I on a step by little step learning path towards heaven and towards the
everlasting truths of heaven, or am I not?... How about you?
In particular, this is a study seeking to
discover the real meaning[1]
of the rare Hebrew word מעוברת,[2]
which word corresponds to KJV’s words “was found with child” (Matt
1:18), and “is conceived” (Matt 1:20). But, do those quoted words out
of KJV really represent the original event?
Please notice that the one word consistently
used in the Hebrew Old Testament indicating conception and pregnancy is הרה, never מעוברת!
Indeed, מעוברת,
in that exact format, is nowhere to be found within the Old Testament. Also, in
the best available Hebrew transcripts of the original Hebrew New Testament, מעוברת
is used only twice. That is, in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew 1:18, 20. Please note
also that other words in the Hebrew OT, that are based on the very same root as
מעוברת,
are never translated in KJV in terms of anything associated with conception or
pregnancy!
The within study indicates that the real
meaning behind said Hebrew word מעוברת
has something to do
with a passion of Mary. Indeed, a passion in the nature of being filled with
the Holy Spirit. That is, as in boldly standing up for an unpopular truth of
God.
[The red highlighted
words within verses 18 and 20 below indicate the differences between TLT vs.
KJV. Bold is used for emphasizing the future tense used in e.g. KJV]:
Matthew 1:18-25 TLT
18 Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother [to be] Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found with a passion of the Holy Ghost[3].
19 Then
Joseph her husband [to be], being a just man, and not
willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while
he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in
a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary as
thy wife: for that which is her passion is of
the Holy Ghost.
21 And she
shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall
save his people from their sins.
22 Now all
this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the
prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a
virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then
Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and
took unto him his wife:
25 But
did not [really get to] know her[4] until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called
his name JESUS.
Luke Chapter 1 (KJV)
26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring
forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
39 And Mary arose in those days, and went
into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
56 And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
Notice in Luke 1:39, 56 the obvious, or apparent, reason behind Joseph
not really getting to know Mary until later! That is, as translated in KJV:
“Joseph… knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son” (Matt
1:24-25):
Accordingly, subsequent to the consummation of
their family founding covenant, as expressed by the words “Joseph… took unto
him his wife” (Matt 1:24), Joseph and Mary spent at least “three months” (v.
56) apart from one another prior to the time when Mary “returned to her own
house” (Luke 1:56).
Furthermore, if the Hebrew original text behind
the Greek translation, from which the KJV translation is derived, points to
month #3 in the Hebrew calendar, rather than to a “three months” duration, then
Mary stayed with Elisabeth until not long before her own delivery. That is, for
close to nine months.
So why did Joseph and Mary stay apart from one
another at all? We can only guess. Could it be that Joseph needed to prepare a
house for them, Mary’s “own house” (v. 56), during the winter months following
their wedding? The autumn Feast of Tabernacles in month #7 (cf. Luke 1:26!) is
traditionally a time for Jewish weddings. Could it be that the two of them
agreed that once their house was completed, Joseph would pick up Mary at
Elisabeth’s place in Juda and bring her to Bethlehem? Nine months, counting
from month #6 (Luke 1:26), brings us to month #3, not too long before
midsummer. Pentecost typically falls near the beginning of month #3, and is one
of the three annual feasts that are to be celebrated in Jerusalem (cf. Ex
23:14-17; Deu 16:16; Isa 27:13; Eze 20:40). Also, how likely would it be for
the two of them to undertake the long journey all the way from Nazareth to
Bethlehem during Mary’s last month of pregnancy?
More about Mary’s passion and the reason for
Joseph’s hesitancy here…
Re the dates for these events, please click on this link!
More comprehensive considerations:
A Tad of a Background. Some
Real Time Values
As always, there are more valuable discoveries yet to make in well-known
Biblical stories. Some of these may be unexpected, and for some people, even
undesirable. Perhaps this could apply also to those found below, but as for me,
I find joy in discovering things that gives me reason for changing my own prior
misconceptions. That is, ideas of “my own” that are frequently traditional
teaching, and thinking derived from teachings of the Roman Catholic Church,
though as yet not discovered as such by Protestants, whether for lack of time,
interest, courage, or will power…
This article is about the supposed pregnancy of Mary prior to her
wedding to Joseph, and about how the now available transcript, of an original
Hebrew Matthew 1:18-25, and of Luke 1:31, may help us better discern the
original events behind those Bible records. My hope is that you too will find
value in that which I am sharing?
For starters, I’ll mention the fact that Matt 1:23 is a reference to
Isaiah 7:14, as are also the words of the angel to Mary per Luke 1:31-33, which
words seems also to be a reference to Isaiah 9:6-7. Nevertheless, these
references are not intended as exact quotes from Isaiah. There are differences
such as re past, present, or future tense.
When reading the Scriptures for my own edification, as though God is
speaking to me directly, I find value in applying lessons of the past into my
own present and future, and such that hopefully in the future my past will be
better than otherwise. More specifically, I find that the Hebrew version of
Isaiah 7:14 is using past tense (perfected time), whereas all translated Bible
versions that I’ve looked at are using future tense when quoting that same
passage. (More about that at this
link!) As I remember, my Hebrew language teacher in California did mention
something about the reason for this, but to me his explanation did not make
much sense. At any rate, I hope we may all find value in learning from the
experiences of Joseph and Mary, and from those experiences as reported in the
New Testament…
The Heart of the Matter – The Exact definition
of each given word
Please compare each of the following quotes! You’ll need to read
carefully and with full attention to every detail, in order to make these
discoveries your own. That is, lest you will merely perceive these discoveries
as “the opinion of the author”, me. But how valuable is that to you in the long
run?
Also please notice that in his translation of Luke 1:31, Nehemia Gordon
is sticking to current grammatical rules when translating the Hebrew word הרה
as found in Luke 1:31.
In so doing Nehemia is apparently sticking to traditional current teachings re
the birth of Jesus, rather than considering also the corresponding translations
as understood and written by the seventy translators of the LXX. More about the
LXX understanding below…
1.
“a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son”
KJV Matt 1:23
2.
“jungfrun skall bliva havande och föda en son” Swedish 1917 Matt 1:23
3. Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew 1:23
” הנה העלמה הרה ותלד בן”
4.
Hebrew OT/OT+ (e-Sword) Isaiah 7:14:
“הנה
העלמה הרה
וילדת בן ”
הנה H2009
העלמה H5959 הרה H2030 וילדת H3205
בן H1121
5. Vatican
Library Hebrew transcript Luke
1:31:
” הנד הרה
ותלד בן”
6. “Se, du skall bliva havande och föda en son” Swedish 1917 Luke 1:31
7. “Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son”
KJV Luke 1:31
8.
“Behold
you are pregnant and
will give birth to a son and will call his name Yeshua.” Nehemia
Gordon Luke 1:31
9. “behold, G2400 the G3588 virgin G3933 [in G1722 the womb G1064 will conceive], G2983 and G2532 shall bear G5088 a son G5207 ”
Isaiah 7:14 Apostolic Bible Polyglot w/ Strong’s numbers
10. “ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν”
Isaiah 7:14 Greek OT (LXX)
11. ”ιδου G2400 INJ η G3588 T-NSF παρθενος G3933 N-NSF εν G1722 PREP γαστρι G1064 N-DSF εξει G1838 N-DSF και G2532 CONJ τεξεται G5088 V-FMI-3S υιον G5207 N-ASM”
Isaiah 7:14 Greek OT+ (LXX w/ Strong’s numbers)
In the
above 11 items I’ve highlighted the two Hebrew words of special importance for
this particular study using red font, as also
for the corresponding translations as found in the Swedish 1917, KJV, &c..
Re תלד, translated ‘bring forth’ (KJV)
When
you compare the words in line #3 vs #4 you will recognize said differences as
regards past tense, ילדת,
vs. future tense, תלד.
That is, the Hebrew word, תלד,
used in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew 1:23 is written using future tense, and is
correctly translated in KJV as “shall bring forth”
(Matt 1:23 KJV). Thus, in his dream Joseph perceived the angel as quoting the
prophet Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Matt 1:20, 22). Yet, in so doing the angel of the
dream was using the future tense word תלד. That is, rather than the past tense word ילדת that we find in Isaiah 7:14. Well, dreams
rarely correspond exactly with the realities we perceive while awake, do they?
The important thing is that Joseph perceived the words of Isaiah as a prophecy
applying to a future event that was to be fulfilled within his very own family.
At any rate, at the time Joseph had his dream, Mary’s delivery and the birth of
Jesus was certainly a future event. As clearly seen in the passages quoted in
items #1-3 & #5-7, there is no controversy on this point so
far as the words ילדת
and תלד
are concerned.
Re הרה, translated “shall be with child” and “shalt conceive in thy womb” (KJV)
But
how about Nehemia Gordon’s translation “are pregnant” (Luke 1:31)? That is,
Nehemia’s translation of the word הרה, which Hebrew word is
indeed written in present tense? (Cf. items #3-5 above!)
Is it
not true that a simple and straightforward reading of both Matthew 1:23 and
Luke 1:31 as translated in KJV as well as in the Swedish 1917 version of the
Bible clearly states that Mary’s pregnancy was yet a future event 1) at the
time of the angel’s visit with Mary (Luke 1:31), and also 2) at the time of
Joseph’s dream (Matt 1:23)?
A simple answer to this apparent paradox seems to be that the ancient
Septuagint (LXX), the ancient Greek translation, of the Hebrew word הרה (Isaiah 7:14) is consistent with said
future tense translations as found in both KJV and the Swedish 1917 versions of
the Bible. That is, the LXX is consistent with said NT translations in terms of
Mary not being as yet pregnant at the time of the angel’s words to Mary and to
Joseph. (Cf. items #9, #10, & #11 above!) Or, how likely is it that the
seventy translators of the LXX would all mistranslate the word הרה
as future tense, if indeed the Hebrew word הרה was at that time understood as indicating present
tense? Furthermore, isn’t it true also that both present tense and future tense
are imperfect? That is, only past tense indicates a perfected event…
Consider
also the apparently forgotten, albeit ever so obvious, fact that if not even
Mary thought that she could possibly be pregnant at the time of the angel’s
visit, how is it that Joseph could perceive Mary as being pregnant very close
to that very point in time?
So
where is the error to be found re the above said issue? Have we thus far
discovered any error in either a translation of the Bible, or in any more
original Bible text? If not, is the error not necessarily in our own perception
of said Bible passages?[5]
Let’s look a little bit further into the words of the Bible… Perhaps by
searching the Bible, God will answer each our prayers and direct our minds to
where exactly the source of our error is to be found? Consider the well-known
words: “The error is in the eyes of the beholder…”
A Conclusion thus far re
present vs future tense:
– Per
the two Hebrew words commonly used in the Bible in reference to pregnancy and
delivery, Mary was not yet pregnant at the time of the angel’s visit with her.
In summary, according to the words of the angel to Mary (per the Swedish
1917, FB98, FB15, KJV, and indeed also, considering the LXX translation, the
original Hebrew
Luke 1:31) Mary was not yet pregnant. That is, at the time of the angel’s
visit with Mary, she had not conceived, and she was not pregnant, in the sense
that we use those words today!
Use this
link to download a pdf copy of the first pages of each of the gospels of
Luke and John in Hebrew and with parallel English translation.)
More Word Studies
But what of Matt 1:18-21? Do we not read in those verses that Mary was
pregnant at the time when the angel spoke to her?
Let’s zoom in on these verses (18, 20, & 21), and, in particular,
upon the words translated in terms of conception
and pregnancy. [Translated words and phrases in red
font are associated with conception, pregnancy, or delivery, while red bold font correspond to the Hebrew word מעוברת]. Let’s do a
few more word studies…
Matt
1:18-21:
- KJV:
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
- Swedish 1917:
18 Med Jesu Kristi födelse gick det så till. Sedan Maria, hans moder, hade blivit trolovad med Josef, befanns hon, förrän de kommo tillsammans, vara havande av helig ande.
20 Men när han hade fått detta i sinnet, se, då visade sig i drömmen en Herrens ängel för honom och sade: "Josef, Davids son, frukta icke att taga till dig Maria, din hustru; ty det som är avlat i henne är av helig ande.
21 Och hon skall föda en son, och honom skall du giva namnet
Jesus, ty han skall frälsa sitt folk ifrån deras synder."
” 18 ולידת מיש״ו היה בזה האופן) ויהי כאשר היתה אמו ארוסה ליוסף קודם שידע אותה נמצאת מעוברת מרוח הקדש”
” 20 ובחשבו
בזה הדבר בלבו
והנה מלאך
נראה אליו
בחלום ואמר
יוסף בן דוד אל
תירא לקחת
אשתך מר״ים
שמרוח הקדוש
היא מעוברת”
” 21 ותלד
בן ותקרא שמו ישו״ע כי
הוא יושיעאת
עמי מעונותם.”
Re the word ‘birth’
Let’s first look at the Hebrew word לידת translated ‘birth’ (v. 18 KJV).
Entering לידת
into Google Translator לידת
is indeed translated
into English as ‘birth’. It should be noted however that לידת is not found
in the Old Testament. Accordingly, it may be helpful to analyze its Hebrew
roots. Most Hebrew words have a root construction using three Hebrew letters.
Thus ל,
meaning ‘towards’ or ‘before’, may be perceived as a prefix to ידת.
The Hebrew word ידת is found once only in the OT, Exodus
36:22:
Exo 36:22 שׁתי ידתH3027 לקרשׁ האחד משׁלבת אחת אל־אחת כן עשׂה לכל קרשׁי המשׁכן׃
Exo 36:22 KJV One board had two tenonsH3027, equally distant one from another:
thus did he make for all the boards of the tabernacle.
Strong’s H3027:
יָד A primitive word; a hand (the open one indicating power, means, direction, etc.), in distinction from H3709, the closed one); used (as noun, adverb, etc.) in a great variety of applications, both literally and figuratively, both proximate and remote
Accordingly, could it be that the KJV translation ‘birth’ is an archaic
English word meaning something slightly different than our common current day
use and understanding of said English word? Could it be that said archaic
meaning is a more correct reflection of the real meaning behind a rarely used,
and therefore poorly understood, Hebrew word? Could it be that a more accurate
understanding of the word לידת
as used in Matthew 1:18
would be in terms, not primarily of ‘birth’ as in ‘delivery’, but as a word
pointing towards the very beginning of the relationship between Joseph and
Mary? That is, including also their very first inclination to form a covenant
between one another, that is, even before their espousal? As per…
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:
Birth… 4 a) archaic: one that is born; b) : beginning, start
Maybe a better translation would be…
Matthew 1:18
18 TLT Now the beginnings of Jesus
Christ was on this wise:…
Swedish:
18 TLT Jesu Kristi tillblivelse gick till så
här:…
Or wouldn’t that make sense?
Re the word ‘espoused’
The Hebrew word (Matthew 1:18) translated “espoused” is ארוסה. I do not findארוסה in the
Old Testament or in Strong’s Dictionary, and in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew I
find it once only. In George Howard’s translation it is translated using the
word ‘betrothed’. Google Translate provides ‘fiancee’,
‘betrothed’, and ‘bride’. In Strong’s Dictionary I find these related Hebrew
words:
H7446: רִסָּה From H7450; a ruin (as dripping to pieces); Rissah, a place in the Desert: [KJV:] - Rissah.
Total KJV occurrences: 2
H7450: רָסַס A primitive root; to comminute; used only as denominative from H7447, to moisten (with drops): - temper.
Total KJV occurrences: 1
Re
the word ‘before’
The Hebrew word (Matthew 1:18)
translated “before” is קודם. I do not find קודם in the Old Testament, but in Shem Tov’s Hebrew
Matthew I find it fourteen times. In George Howard’s translation it is translated using either the word
‘before’ or ‘first’.
Re the words ‘came
together’
The Hebrew word (Matthew 1:18) translated “came together” is ידע. ידע is a very
common word in the Old Testament. Following Matthew 1:18, 25, the first
occurrence of ידע
in Shem Tov is Matthew
6:3. According to KJV: ”Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand
doeth.” As noted in Strong’s
Dictionary quoted below, its use is by no means tied exclusively to a sexual
encounter. Indeed, the first occurrence of the word ידע in the Hebrew Bible is
Genesis 3:5 where we find it in the phrase “For
God doth know that in the day…”
Strong’s H3045: יָדַע A primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively instruction, designation, punishment, etc.
Total KJV occurrences: 946
Re the words ‘to take’ in “to take unto thee Mary
thy wife”
The Hebrew word (Matthew 1:20) translated “to take” is לקחת.
I find לקחת
131 times in the Old
Testament, and in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew I find it
7 times. The first occurrence in the OT is found in Genesis 3:19 KJV “out of it [the ground] wast
thou taken”. Thus, once
again, a word not primarily used in the context of sexual intimacy, etc..
In Summary re the Word Studies
thus far
None of the words thus far studied above provides a firm basis for the
common belief that Mary was pregnant at the time of her visit with the angel…
Re מעוברת, translated “was found with child” and “is conceived” (Matt 1:18, 20 KJV)
What remains then is for us to study and properly understand the Hebrew
word, מעוברת,
translated, respectively, as “was found with
child” (v. 18) and “is conceived” (v. 20). As you notice, מעוברת (Strong’s H5674-5679), is an
entirely different word than the Hebrew words considered above. In particular,
the Hebrew word מעוברת
(Strong’s H5674-5679),
is an entirely different word than the Hebrew words הרה and תלד (Strong’s
H2029-2032 and H3205-3206).
What is the real meaning of this other word, מעוברת?
Please notice that the word consistently used in the Bible to indicate
conception and pregnancy is הרה,
not מעוברת!
Let’s study and consider Strong’s definitions for each of the Hebrew
words using the same Hebrew root, עָבַר, as in מעוברת:
עָבַר, A primitive
root; to cross over; used very widely of any transition (literally or figuratively;
transitively, intransitively, intensively or causatively); specifically to cover (in copulation)
H5675:
עֲבַר (Chaldee); corresponding to H5676:
[KJV usage] - beyond, this
side.
H5676:
עֵבֶר From H5674;
properly a region across;
but used only adverbially (with or without a preposition) on the oppositeside (especially of the
Jordan; usually meaning the east):
H5677:
עֵבֶר The same as H5676; Eber, the name of two
patriarchs and four Israelites: [KJV usage] - Eber, Heber.
עֶבְרָה Feminine of H5676;
an outburst of passion: [KJV usage] - anger, rage, wrath.
H5679:
עֲבָרָה From H5674; a crossing place: [KJV usage] - ferry, plain [from the margin].
Using e-Sword, I find these words (H5674-79) 711 times in the OT. Upon reading quite a few of
those 711 OT occurrences, I found none using any of those words in reference
to conception or pregnancy! Accordingly, please again review the above
definitions carefully, and if you find a good and valid reason for translating מעוברת,
as used in Matt 1:18, 20, in terms of anything pertaining to conception or
pregnancy, please let me know!
Furthermore, wouldn’t the Bible passage Matt 1:18-25 be more consistent
with itself by using one and the same word in reference to one and the same
thing?
But let’s analyze מעוברת
a bit further. The root of מעוברת
is עבר. -מ
is a prefix meaning
’after, behind, etc.’. It is also used for converting a verb into a noun. -ו-, when
inserted after the first letter of a verb, indicates present tense. ת- at the end of a noun indicates the
plural of a feminine word.
Thus perceived, the word מעוברת
can hardly be applied
to ‘pregnancy’, can it? Or is it somehow possible for one woman to be doubly
pregnant at one point in time? If somehow applied to a twin pregnancy, it is
still one pregnancy, not two or more pregnancies, is it? And, for that matter,
I’ve never even heard a suggestion about this pregnancy of Mary being a twin
pregnancy, have you?
On the other hand, applying מעוברת
to ‘passion’ makes a
lot of sense. Or in this case, as applied to Mary, it makes a lot of sense to
perceive Mary in terms of being in multiple ways a very passionate woman. That
is, as in Mary being at that time in a double sense filled with a passion or
two.
More about this analysis here…
What about the corresponding word being used in
Greek New Testament?
Given the common, but obviously false, teaching that the New Testament
was originally written in Greek, let’s briefly consider also the Greek word
corresponding to the Hebrew word מעוברת.
The Greek words being translated as “she was found with child” are ευρεθηG2147, εχουσαG2192, ἐνG1722, and γαστριG1064. Obviously the key words in said English phrase is ‘with child’, and the corresponding Greek key word is γαστριG1064 , or, transliterated, ‘gastri’ as in ‘stomach’.
Yes, when we talk to small children about pregnancy, we commonly say
that the new baby is in the mother’s stomach. But is this really the intended,
or primary, meaning behind said Greek word in the New Testament?
For the sake of brevity, please consider the meaning of said Greek word
in the following New Testament verse found in Titus 1:12.
One of themselves, even a prophet of
their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies G1064.
But ok, Titus 1:12 is not using the term ‘ἐν γαστρι’.
And true, the LXX is
indeed using said Greek term, ἐν γαστρι, when translating the Hebrew word הרה. Even so, must we assume that
said Greek term as used in the Greek New Testament corresponds to the Hebrew
concept הרה?
That is, rather than being a bad translation, based upon a misunderstanding, of
the Hebrew word מעוברת that is in fact being used in Shem Tov’s Hebrew
Matthew 1:18? To be sure, said Greek term, ἐν γαστρι, as used in the New Testament, is not a translation
of the Hebrew word הרה,
but on the Hebrew word מעוברת.
So how can it be that
the Hebrew word מעוברת is translated by George Howard, and by Nehemiah
Gordon, as “was found pregnant”? That is, corresponding to KJV’s words “was found with child”? Could the simple
answer be that, as a very rare word, מעוברת was first mistranslated by some influential person of
some renown, and that subsequent translators simply followed in his footsteps,
not daring to veer from an accepted traditional [mis]understanding of the
context?
And, if מעוברת
is indeed the correct
Hebrew word describing the real event behind Matthew 1:18, isn’t it true then, that
George Howard’s and Nehemiah Gordon’s translations both are mistranslations of
Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew 1:18? That is, translations based upon traditional
current teaching, rather than upon the Bible alone? That is, Traditional
teaching over and above Sola Scriptura?
Isn’t the error in the eyes of the beholder? And, isn’t the initial
error first and foremost in the eyes of the responsible translator(s)? In
consequence, aren’t said errors then typically inherited also by most every lay
Bible student who is being misled by such translations?
Or, is there an error in the best available Hebrew transcript, i.e. in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, of the original record,
as written by the original author of Matthew 1:18? Which shall it be? Who is
responsible for each our own belief? How long shall we, each one among us,
choose to be led by blind leaders of the blind? By atheistic Doctors of
Theology, by Doctors of Divinity, and the like? Remember Revelation 14:8!
Remember the power of gossip!
The Alternative – Using the
Real and True meaning of the Hebrew word מעוברת
Let’s say that the Hebrew word, מעוברת, is in fact referencing something entirely
separate from conception and pregnancy. Something making Joseph ”minded to put
[Mary] away privily”, Matt
1:19. What was the reality behind the choice of the word מעוברת? What was the author’s intent? May we glean something from how
this word is used elsewhere in the Bible? In particular, any first-time occurrence within the Bible?
KJV:
Gen 8:1 And God
remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle
that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass overH5674 the earth, and the waters asswaged;
Swedish 1917:
1 Mos 8:1 Men Gud tänkte på Noa och på alla vilda djur och alla boskapsdjur som var med honom i arken, och han lät en vind gå fram över H5674 jorden, så att vattnet sjönk undan.
Said
word(s) (Strong’s H5674-5679) are first found in Gen 8:1, as above quoted.
Perhaps not very helpful? Is it?
Searching the OT and Shem
Tov’s Hebrew Matthew for מעוברת (the exact form used
in Matt 1:18, 20), I get zero hits in the OT, and none in Matthew outside of
Matt 1:18, 20. Nothing besides
those two occurrences! Not very helpful, is it?
The closest I find is eleven (11) hits when searching the OT for מעברת. None in Matthew. That is, eliminating the one letter waw, which letter when used in that position is indicating present tense and not much more. Strong’s definition of said word is as follows. That is, the very same root as the above (H5674-9):
מַעֲבָרָה
מַעֲבָר
From H5674;
a crossing place (of a river, a ford; of a
mountain, a pass); abstractly a transit, that is,
(figuratively) overwhelming: - ford, place where . . . pass,
passage.
Again,
not very helpful. Is it?
On the other hand, searching my Bible for H5678,
I get 34 hits in OT. Seeing that the definition of H5678 is “outburst of passion” I could make sense out of
applying that to Matt 1:18, 20. KJV is translating H5678 using “anger, rage,
wrath”. However, none of said 34 hits is a word including the letters mem, מ, or waw, ו, as found within מעוברת. Accordingly, those
hits too, are less than a perfect help, or are they? Even so, said missing
letters do not necessarily change the root meaning of said word. (Mem-, -מ, may be seen as a prescript, and
waw, ו, is a letter usually
indicating present tense, i.e. imperfect, as in
something yet to be perfected. As also above said.) Seeing also that most of
said 34 hits do have a ת- at the end of the word,
I find further cause for translating Matt 1:18, 20 in terms using H5678. That is, in terms of ‘passions of Mary’. Certainly not
in terms of ‘pregnancy’!
And
isn’t it true also that Mary’s song, as recorded in Luke 1:46-55 may be
understood in terms of being an expression of said passions of Mary?
Perhaps one may consider the English expression “to be beside oneself…”,
or the Swedish expression “att vara
ifrån sig…”, as being within the Strong’s definitions
above quoted for H5674-9, H4569,
and most specifically for H5678? Accordingly, I find it
reasonable to conclude that the word מעוברת
in Matt 1:18, 20 has
something to do with passion, more specifically, in these two verses, a passion
associated with the Holy Spirit.
But, if so, why would such a passion make Joseph “minded to put [Mary]
away privily”, Matt 1:19? Could it be that the words “Joseph her
husband, being a just man” is an indication of Joseph having a tendency
towards leaning to such as is ‘politically correct’? And that Mary’s passion was perceived by some
as not being in harmony with such as was at that time considered ‘politically
correct? Or how would Joseph initially recognize that this passion of Mary was
indeed spurred by the Holy Ghost? To me, an interpretation of מעוברת
in terms of ‘having a passion for something of importance’ seems in perfect
harmony with the textual and contemporary setting. Even more so when
considering how such a passion of Mary may have contributed towards fostering
her son Jesus into the man he was to become. The fruit is not falling too far
from the tree, it is said. Or is that not so?
After all that, I discovered the following Google translation:
However, notice carefully that that translation is more than likely
based solely upon the extant and traditional KJV translation of that word! That
is, as indicated in the right lower quarter of the above screenshot, and
considering that the word מעוברת seems
to be a very rarely used word outside of its direct associations with Matt
1:18, 20. Sure, I could perceive some logic in applying such a meaning, i.e. ‘pregnant’, to that word, that is, as in the sperm passing over from the male to the female.
Nevertheless, considering the clear meaning derived from the context using the
generally used word for conceive, הרה, I do not see
any sense in translating the word מעוברת
in terms of conception of pregnancy in the context of Matt 1:18, 20. Doing so
seems contradictory to me. That is, such a usage does indeed make Matt 1:18-25
and the Biblical record self-contradictory.
Thus, translating מעוברת
in terms of pregnancy is certainly contrary to the fundamental Bible study rule
that says that any Bible interpretation, to be true, must be in harmony with
both the Bible record and with the reality created by God, i.e.
with nature.
Indeed, the practice of basing any translation merely upon past translations is none better than placing tradition over and above Sola Scriptura and truth itself. That is, as per the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. These days I am seeing this Babylonian principle being exemplified in many ways. For instance in several Bible dictionaries, in the so called ‘peer reviewed’ articles of so called science, in the commonly used argument “everyone knows…”, etc..
This practice, as I perceive it, constitutes the fundamental cause of the confusion of languages associated with the tower of Babel, Gen 11. This practice is the very essence of gossip, and a prime tool used by the chief Gossip Monger of all, Satan himself. Compare Strong’s G1228: “διάβολος, a traducer…”, and Webster’s Dictionary: Traducer, a gossip monger, a slanderer. Compare below!
Why are obvious mistranslations in the Bible
being maintained?
Why are the authorities among men, and the authorities of most or all
societies that I am aware of, commonly tending towards quieting, censoring,
persecuting, or even murdering, such among men as are pursuing the truth? Is it
not simply because of their aim of maintaining status quo, their monopoly of
powers, and financial wealth?
Seeing that that is indeed so, I do not find it very difficult to understand
why any Bible version authorized by a king, by the Vatican, or by any such
authority of men (e.g. KJV and the Swedish 1917
version) tends to put blame upon individual citizens rather than upon the
hierarchy and its prime representatives. That is, politically correct Bible
translations are given preference over and above the translations of such
procreative brave men as Tyndale, Martin Luther, Elijah, and many other
pioneers and front men.
Accordingly, in most every authorized version of Matthew 1:18-25, we
find Mary in a setting where she is being portrayed as a promiscuous woman and
where her son is being portrayed as being conceived outside of marriage. That
is, unless, and until after her death, Mary is artfully, and contrary to
nature, magically pronounced to be, not only a saint, but the virgin mother of
God Himself, yes even of the very same God who is said to have made her
pregnant in the first place. Indeed, is this truly in harmony with Biblical
teaching? I would say not. How about you?
An added bonus for said authorities of so doing, is that men in general,
and husbands in particular, as also the fathers of each their own children, are
being disassociated from their original God given responsibilities as the head
of each their own family. The family unit, as created in the image of Elohim,
the Creator, is being trampled in the dust, and intimacy between husband and
wife is being downplayed and destroyed in favor of all species of perversity,
hidden behind the curtains though it might be. All in the name of transferring
all trust towards said authorities of men.
Thus also creating a sense of holiness, sanctity,
and awe towards such blind servants of the Church and of the State as are then
fooled into choosing celibacy over and above our Creator’s own very first
instructions to mankind per Gen 1:28. Indeed, what kind of wisdom
is that, other than that being described by the words “the serpent was more
subtil than any beast of the field which the Jehovah Elohim had made” Gen 3:1?!
Not to mention the obvious fact that women will often come to view the
priest behind the curtain as a holy man, as God’s own representative. Something
that a young priest may use for his own purposes in order to get women to view
pregnancies caused by his own intimate encounters as comparable to the
pregnancy of Mary by means of the Holy Spirit. As in a Coocoo’s nest!
But isn’t Luke indicating that
Jesus was merely the adopted son of Joseph?
”Jesus… being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which
was the son of Heli…”
Luk 3:23
Perhaps you’ll find cause for studying the above translation just a
tidbit more deeply? Here’s a link that you
might, per chance, find helpful towards that end…
To Learn and to Apply Within
One’s Own Life – As Did Joseph and Mary
Cause and Natural Consequence
– Mistranslation Leads to Wrong Lessons Learnt
And vice versa…
The Value of
Accurate Dating
The built in meaning of the angel’s command to Joseph per Matt 1:20, 24,
following the above said conclusions, will naturally be what it ought to be in
the first place. That is, a reassurance to Joseph, and a guidance, for him not
to hesitate any further, but to perfect his marital relationship with Mary by
consummating their relationship, and for the two of them to conceive and give
birth to a son.
Also the words “And knew her not
till she had brought forth her firstborn son” Matt 1:25 will then naturally receive
their true meaning, other than that of current tradition and teaching. None the less, an even better
translation would then be in terms such as “And really did not get to know her until after she had brought forth her
firstborn son…” No wonder, considering that shortly
following the consummation of their marriage, thus making Mary pregnant, Mary
chose to spend at least three months with Elisabeth in Juda Luke 1:39.
I find it quite possible that said “three months” is yet another
mistranslation. That is, considering also the above said, ‘three months’ may be
rather a reference to the Biblical month named month #3, which falls out
shortly prior to midsummer. That is, about nine months following the
consummation of their union as husband and wife. That is, about the time of
either Passover or Pentecost, a time most likely for their journey to Bethlehem
and for the birth of their son. Under such circumstances the words of Matt 1:25
falls perfectly natural into place. Or don’t you agree with that?
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
And, considering the role of the Holy Spirit in all of these events,
isn’t it quite obvious that the instructions given per Gen 1:28, and more, are
being fulfilled in the lives of Joseph and Mary, as were then also the specific
words given each of them by the angel of God? What do you think?
Why and How is it that
for such a long Time we have all misunderstood the reason for Joseph’s
hesitancy?
How is it that not even the 1397 Wycliffe Bible, the 1531 Tyndale Bible,
or any among the Protestant pioneers discovered or recognized the obvious
truths suggested above? I believe the answer to that question is quite simple
and straightforward. The original mistranslation is found in the Aramaic
translation of the Hebrew original. The Greek NT translations are based upon
said Aramaic translation, and so on. This happened very early, even in the 1st
or 2nd century CE, and since then the Inquisition effectively
removed most every trace of said Hebrew original NT scriptures, while
pretending that Greek was the original language of the NT scriptures. Yet,
isn’t it obvious that if that would have been the case, then why so many
different Greek versions of the NT? Makes no sense at all considering how
carefully each copy of the Bible is said to be exactly transcribed and copied,
or isn’t that so. Shem
Tov’s Hebrew Matthew has been denigrated based upon ridiculous reasons, and
the Aramaic likewise. For further studies of these sequential translation,
please feel welcome to study this
link of mine!
Now, if those of us calling ourselves SDA truly are the Sola Scriptura
based people that we claim to be, how is it that we are not more intent upon,
and more willing, to receive, accept, and thoroughly study the best available
originals and transcripts that our Redeemer and Creator is making available to
each among us from time to time? For instance Shem
Tov’s Hebrew Matthew? May I suggest that you make youself
familiar with Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew by means of this
book and this
book…
Remember this quote from Papias, one of the very earliest ‘church fathers’: “Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. (Papias, 150-170 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3:39)”
Consider these things carefully, and in the light of God’s own Word! I
am sure the Holy Spirit of our Maker will abundantly bless you in so doing!
Consider it! ”Remember the Sabbath day…” Every
one of them! Ex 20:8-11; Lev 23! Selah!
Click on the
present above to receive a gift for you!
- If you will
accept the blessings within?
Comments and donations freely
accepted at:
Tree of Life©
e-Post: TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com
The GateWays
into Tree of Life Chronology Forums©
The
GateWays of Entry into the Tree of Life Time
Chronology Touching upon the Book of Daniel©
Pearls & Mannah – “I found it!”
Feel free to use, and for sharing freely with others, any of the truth
and blessings belonging to God alone. I retain all the copyrights to the
within, such that no one may lawfully restrain my use and my sharing of it with
others. Including also all the errors that remain. Please let only me know
about those. I need to know in order to correct them. Others don’t need to be
focused upon the errors that belong to me alone. Please respect that, and
please do not hesitate to let me know of any certain error that you find!
Without recourse.
All Rights Reserved. Tree of Life©