The Cross |
Come Out Of Her My People Revelation 18:4 |
The Cross = The Taw |
Greetings: I have been reading your article on the "CROSS" and wish to share some information from my own research. I noticed that you suspect the connection of the cross (taw) with the mark of the beast. I believe your suspicions to be warranted and now maybe I can offer some further confirmation. I am a Messianic believer studying the Hebraic roots of the faith. I am working on my fifth earned degree and also conducting personal research. I have been communicating recently with other Messianic sites and sharing information from a research paper I am working on and hoping to turn into a book. In my study of the history of the cross, I am finding that its pagan origins betray a more involved deception than I imagined. Not only was it the symbol and 'mark' of the pagan god Tammuz, and a substitute for the plain object of impalement of Messiah, I have made a connection to Revelation 13:16 and the 'mark' mentioned there. More to follow later. The Hebrew text connection. The Hebrew text of Revelation. The Greek word (charagma) means a mark, and has the primary connotation of the Hebrew term "taw". However, the bombshell is found in the ancient Aramaic New Testament with Hebrew translation (Peshitta Mosul text) where I found the actual reading and spelling of 'TAV or TAW' in the text of Revelation 13:16. With this in mind, the MARK has a direct lineage to Babylon and can be, positively, from the Hebrew-Aramaic text's. There is a false assumption that the mark of Revelation is 666. This is the number of the name of the beast and we are told that he will cause all to receive a mark OR a number (optional) meaning they are not one and the same. The modern Hebrew translation of the New Testament translating back from greek into Hebrew also gives TAV in the text of Revelation 13:16. Another text that I am trying to obtain is the Revelation Aramaic text (Crawford Aramaic text) of Revelation, John Rylands Museum in England, to see if it also contains this reading. One of the Teffilin worn on the forehead of Hebrew men contained the Name YHWH. The High priest also had on his Mitre the Name YHWH. The 144000 of Revelation have the Father's Name written on their foreheads, all in opposition to the the name, or letter of the name of the beast. It should be noted that the second beast (religious leader or Prophet issues the "mark," not the first beast. We immediately see a religious connection. Its interesting to note that in pagan practices the initial letter T was placed upon the foreheads of the initiates. More to come later. Thank you for permitting me to share this information. The following from an email received 01 Jan. 2004 In showing that the mark of Revelation 13 is the ancient taw of Babylon I will be using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac sources. Since some scholars go so far as to deny that such materials exist, I find it necessary to verify and show that a total reliance on Greek is primarily because of either the ignorance or bias of such scholars. From time to time we are confidently told by some of these folk that there are no Hebrew-Aramaic original manuscripts (as if they actually exist in Greek). There are equally no original documents in Greek either, and to pretend that one is deficient while the other is not is nothing short of blatant deception. There are three major families of texts. The Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western. The Alexandrian is a text type from Alexandra Egypt and is the text behind most modern translations. The Byzantine is primarily the King James text. The Western text is also known as the Syro-Latin text and is actually the earliest text type but this is ignored or denied by most scholars. Every single bishop of the church for the first two hundred years cites this text. All the earliest Semitic language manuscripts belong to this text and it is cited everywhere in the church world. On the contrary, the Alexandrian text can't be found anywhere outside the local area of Egypt. Even there in Alexandra, the Alexandrian father Clement quotes primarily the Western text. It was later from about the time of Origen that we first see more quotations from the Alexandrine text, but there were still numerous Western readings. So, it appears that the Western text is much earlier and in widespread use. The Western text was the main text of Syria where the Disciples of the first century faith primarily preached and taught.To assume that there are no Semitic New Testament sources is false. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that the Semitic source group was secondary to Greek, but there is much evidence to the contrary. For the first three to four hundred years of documented church history you have the fathers of the church either quoting from or translating from "the evangel according to the Hebrews," or the "Gospel which the Hebrew believers use." Jerome says he was translating from such into the Greek and Latin and testifies that it was not known who first translated it into Greek. I wonder where all those original Greek copies were? It took five hundred years for the Semitic Diatessaron ( which is erroneously thought to be a harmony of the four Gospels) To be replaced in Syria by the four Gospels. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Peshitta Syriac "is the Syriac version of the Bible the accepted Bible of Syrian Christian churches from the end of the 3rd century AD. The name Peshitta was first employed by Moses bar Kepha in the 9th century to suggest (as does the name of the Latin Vulgate) that the text was in common use. The name may have also been in contradistinction to the more complex Syro-Hexaplar version. Of the vernacular versions of the Bible, the Old Testament Peshitta is second only to the Greek Septuagint in antiquity, dating from probably the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. The earliest parts in the Old Syriac are thought to have been translated from Hebrew or Aramaic texts by Jewish Christians at Edessa, although the Old Testament Peshitta was later revised according to Greek textual principles." Some have criticized the preface of the Lamsa Bible. But let's look at a quote from it in light of the above information: "In the first century, Jesus and his earliest followers certainly spoke Aramaic for the most part, although they also knew Hebrew. Therefore the Gospel message was first preached in the Aramaic of the Jews of Palestine. Modern scholarship tells us that the originals of the four Gospels and of other parts of the New Testament were written in Greek; this is disputed by the Church of the East and by some noted Western scholars. Regardless of which view one may accept, Aramaic was the language of the Church that spread east, almost from the beginning of Christianity, from Antioch and Jerusalem, beyond the confines of the Roman Empire." According to the "History of the Christian Religion," the most celebrated of all ancient Gospels appeared early in the second century and was the Hebrew-Syriac so often quoted and referred to by the fathers. All these early fathers seem to have been in the dark about a Greek New Testament which so many scholars today are so sure of. There are 9,300 manuscript versions in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic. When you add to these 10,000 Old latin, the 5,300 Greek copies and fragments look very "minuscule" especially when you learn that 2,811 of those are in a "minuscule" writing which was not used before the 9th century. Only about 30 of them date earlier than the 9th century. We should now be ready to proceed to the Semitic background of the meaning of the Mark of the beast. The following received on 06 Jan. 2004 same author... The first mention of the term "mark" is found in Genesis 4:15 where we are told that Yahweh set a mark upon Cain. The Hebrew word here is "ot" or "oth" and is given for the purpose of keeping anyone from killing Cain. It is interesting that Websters Hebrew-English Dictionary gives the meaning of "oth" as a letter or character. This immediately draws attention to a letter whether any specific letter is meant or not. The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament says, concerning oth, that tav (taw) may be regarded as an original feminine ending. This same Dictionary says that this sign serves to protect Cain, and is probably to be understood as a tattoo, or perhaps a tribal sign. Even without direct specificity, we have a connection to a letter as a sign and a possible relation to the taw. Another note of interest is the fact that in the Midrash and Phoenician traditions, the mark of Cain is defined as being a cross within a circle. If true, would not such a use place the taw in a good religious connotation? If this was indeed the mark that was put upon Cain, it could easily be seen how it could become such a prominent symbol in the religions which were devised by his offspring and followers. Although this mark was to prevent him from being executed, it was also a reminder that he was a cursed man, cursed from the earth, a murderer, and that he was doomed to be a fugitive all of his natural life. Since this was the only intent of his mark, whatever it was, it was in no way to be interpreted to be a symbol of spiritual life. It was indeed a mark of shame. Likewise, the mark of Ezekiel 9:4 spared the life of its recipient, that does not justify its acceptance as the symbol of spiritual life anymore than one could accept the serpent on the pole as such a representation. In fact that's just what Israel did and it became an abomination to them. In that instance, the image depicted what was killing the people, the serpents. Now who wants to erect images of serpents in their place of worship to adore them? I have already mentioned Ezekiel 9:4 and the use of the taw in that text. I would also call attention once again to the representation of the symbol in relation to the serpent on the pole. What did that serpent represent? It depicted what was killing the people and their sin. The use of a symbol does not make that symbol an accepted religious relic nor, although it may avert the wrath of Yahweh or man because of the recipients obedience, it does not render the symbol itself as holy, else the serpent would have been so and the Israelites would have been guiltless when they went a whoring after it. Our next word we want to look at is "qaaqa" in the Hebrew of Leviticus 19:28 and means to make an incision, or to cut the flesh. This term corresponds to the Greek term "stigma" which means a point, or to puncture. We now go to Revelation 13:16 to what is commonly called to mark of the beast which is translated from the Greek word "charagma." The meaning of this word is, to stamp, mark, engrave, or brand. In Greek thought, it has the primary meaning of a stamp or mark of an owner of a slave, or the mark or seal of an Emperor. Even the Greek carries the primary meaning of a symbol of identification. In the Crawford Aramaic Revelation, the term given is "roshma" and is related to Hebrew "roshem," meaning an impression or mark. The Aramaic in this, as well as another prominent Aramaic text adds the pronoun making it more personal, his mark. This might be viewed in light of the sealing of the servants of Yahweh in their foreheads, Revelation 7:2, and Revelation 14:1 where His (The Lamb) and His Fathers Name is in their foreheads, see also, Revelation 22:4. While these comparisons are being made, look also at Numbers 6:27 where the mikva blessing places Yahweh's name on the recipient. Also, Aaron's crown 28:36-38 reveals that the Name Yahweh was upon his forehead. Another related word is the Hebrew "totaphoth" translated as "frontlets," meaning that words were to be bound on the hand and forehead. First, if you take the Greek word charagma and translate back to Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac, you will find, as some modern Hebrew translations of the New Testament have, that the corresponding word is "taw." The ancient Semitic alphabets, including Syriac, give the meaning of the letter "taw" as a "cross." Even the Mosul text contains the "taw" in Revelation 13. The Orthodox Brit Chadasha translates the term "taw" in Revelation 13:16. Actually, "taw" is a transliteration. If you actually translate (give the meaning of the word) into English from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac, it would read: He causes all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a CROSS in their right hand, or in their foreheads." The false messiah of Babylon has taken his name and the letter of that name, imposed it upon his subjects throughout the entire world. Which sign do think this entire world has been conditioned for and familiarized with in preparation for the acceptance of a false "Christ?" The historical trail from Babylon to Revelation 13 is tedious and very much involved to follow, but it must be done. The following Received 09 Jan. 2004 Since it has been shown that the meaning of the term "taw" is actually "cross," how then are we to understand the translation of the term "cross" in the New Testament? Actually, The term "cross" has no business being in the translated text as it is not even a translation of the terms it's supposed to represent. The Greek terms stauros and stauroo, according to many Christian sources never mean a crossing of wood at any angle. Since this article is a condensation of a much larger work, I will not give the many references that are available for this position which can be found in any good library. I will say that the meaning is to "impale on a stake" or to "hang on a pole." I will also say concerning those reference works which give the meaning of "cross" or "crucify" as the meaning of stauros and stauroo are substituting those terms in the place of the original intended meaning, and that is deceptive. Even Youngs Analytical Concordance gives the meaning of "stake" under the listing of "cross," then contradicts himself and reverses the meaning in his dictionary of Greek words section under "stauros," where he gives the meaning as a "cross." Let me venture to quote one reference from The Book of Dual Heritage-The Bible and the British Museum: "It may come as a shock to know that there is no such word as "cross" in the Greek of the New Testament. The word translated "cross" is always the Greek word [stauros] meaning a "stake" or "upright pale." The cross was originally not a Christian symbol; it is derived from Egypt and Constantine." When information is given, most, immediately jump to the conclusion that you are a member of some fringe group or even a cult, disallowing that most of the information comes from their own sources and scholars. They refuse to accept the fact that Christianity at a very early stage adopted pagan signs, symbols, adopted their teaching, simply disguising it in Biblical terminology. There are those who make reference to the supposed "patibulum" that was carried by Messiah to the execution site. The patibulum was supposedly only the cross beam which was carried to the site, then attached to the beam already standing. The problem here is the term stauros is applied to what was carried and also applied to the standing piece of wood. I find it strange that two different terms are nowhere distinguished in Greek. It was a stauros that was carried, and a stauros on which Messiah was hanged. When Pilate had his title affixed, did he have it placed on the stauros that was carried to the site, or the stauros to which that stauros was attached? This example of the substitution of the term "cross" is not an isolated example. Literally thousands in the translations can be shown. Here are a few of those examples: Yahweh is the personal Name of the Creator. Look at the various ways it is translated: (King James Text) Yahweh-Jehovah. Yahweh-Lord. Yahweh- GOD. The term "Lord" is also translate from "Adonai." the term "God" is also translated from the term "Elohim," yet both are translated from 'Yahweh." How do they do that? Let's look at another: Sheol (Heb.) is translated as grave, pit, and hell O.T. Hades (Gk.) is translated as hell N.T. Gehenna (Gk.) is also translated as hell N.T. Tartarus is (Gk.) is also translated as hell. What is interesting here is that in only one place in the N.T. is 'hades" translated as "grave." It is found in 1 Corinthians 15:55. The common meaning applied to hades-hell is the place where the wicked are tormented. Now I do not deny the Justice of the Almighty and future punishment of the wicked; but what I find interesting in this reference to Corinthians is that it is the righteous who are in hades-hell, not to be delivered, according to the context, until resurrection. Another problem is the way the translators translate the terms Gentiles, nations, and heathen. These are usually translated from the Hebrew terms "goi or leom," and the Greek terms "genea or ethnos." What I find interesting here is when the terms for Gentiles or Nations are being translated by those terms, it's when they are being spoken of in a good light or blessing. When they are being cast in a bad light or judgment, they are called "heathen." Also, I find it interesting how we are told in the introductions of most Bibles how they are "faithfully" translated from the "original" languages, then upon close examination, one finds that the book order and the titles of books in the Old Testament are pure Greek and follow no Hebrew text in that respect. Even the Greek Septuagint has been reedited by "faithful" Christian scribes having the Tetragrammaton which was originally there replaced by the Syrian-Roman Theos. Look also, at the way they translate the Hebrew term "masiach" as "anointed," in the O.T., then in the N.T. the term (christos) is transliterated (not translated) as though it were some kind of personal name. Actually, Christos-Theos was a personal title for Roman Emperors. Remember, first century believers were called "atheist's" for not believing in the chief god of the Roman pantheon (note the theon part of that term), yet, they were believers in Yahweh and His Messiah. Today, an atheist is supposed to be a nonbeliever or unbeliever in God. When this dilemma is presented to the scholars of today, they go nuts! They don't want you to get semantical, that might be too revealing. A true believer and "atheist" in the first century was one who believed the Scriptural Yahweh, and not the Syrian-Roman Theos. It's sad but true, most people follow the Pied Pipers of religion, accepting tradition over a proper investigation of the things we are supposed to believe. That's why the most famous substitution of "Easter" (Ishtar) in Acts 12:4 can be substituted for the proper translation of the Greek term "pascha," which is translated everywhere else in the N.T. as Passover. Some go so far in trying to justify this by saying that the pagan feast was actually intended here. They fail to explain why it is represented by the very Scriptural term for Passover. Just some things to think about. Dr. Robert C. Ownby 1941 Bluff Mtn. Road Sevierville, TN 37876-7335 email: Dvr717r@ aol |
