BIBLE CODE & HEBREW NEW TESTAMENT
Theomatics & HRV
https://www.learnreligions.com/angel-of-lord-wakes-up-elijah-4031784
I have two topics to discuss. Both of these I first learned of about 20 years ago.
.1. THEOMATICS; .2. HEBRAIC ROOTS NEW TESTAMENT
.1. THEOMATICS
Theomatics is a different code in the Bible than what is popularly claimed. Part of the book on Theomatics is online at https://angelfall.com/viewpdf4897.html?file=2m-prodanalysis2.pdf. I found out about it about 20 some years ago after I had heard about Ivan Panin’s findings of a similar code in the original Hebrew and Greek versions of the Bible. The author of Theomatics said he tried to verify Panin’s findings, but wasn’t able to. However, he did find that various words and phrases, where each letter was counted as a number, added up to sums that were evenly divisible by certain numbers. E.g., words and phrases relating to Jesus are usually divisible by 8. Now I’ll quote a little from the website and then I’ll comment briefly at the end.
Theomatics scientifically proves, that a mind — far beyond human capabilities and understanding — planned, constructed, and formed every word in the Bible.
Today within New Testament scholarship, we have two texts or two essentially finished products. ... The first group, referred to as the "Nestle/Westcott & Hort crowd," follow a group of manuscripts that are fewer, but dated earlier. These are also referred to as the "Great Egyptian manuscripts," because many came from Egypt and the monasteries of the Sinai Peninsula during the early centuries. The second group, referred to as the "Textus Receptus/Majority Text crowd," follow a larger body of manuscripts, but which came later. Each of these two camps have their firm reasons for believing that their stemmas are more true to the originals.
When I began theomatics research, I used the Nestle Text. The only reason for this was that the Nestle was the only one that provided an English/Greek interlinear with which I could do my research. About fifteen years ago I began looking at the Majority Text and over the years have come to the overwhelming conclusion that it is far more accurate.
The hypothesis is advanced that "God" actually used the copying procedures during the early centuries, to work the text towards perfection (and theomatics). What I have discovered with the Majority Text, clearly indicates that this is indeed what happened. There was a divinely orchestrated and secret hidden process at work. It is a proven fact that the earliest known copies of the New Testament are very corrupt — full of misspellings, grammatical mistakes, and "school boy" errors.
It seems pretty absurd to me to think that God would “write” the Bible imperfectly at first and correct Himself afterward over time. I think if it were improved later, it would tend to prove the New Testament was inspired by angels, not God directly. And it could be that the angels used this method of gradual improvement of the text of the New Testament to show us how they proceeded. However, James Trimm claimed that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, so it's possible that the original was more nearly error-free.
.2. HEBRAIC ROOTS NEW TESTAMENT
The Hebraic-Roots Version Scriptures http://www.tabernacleofdavidministries.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/hrv_intro.pdf
The original language of the “New Testament” like that of the Tanak (the “Old Testament”) was Hebrew and Aramaic. The following is just some of the evidence to support this fact. The in depth reader may wish to consult a more detailed treatment of this issue in my more detailed on-line e-book Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament Textual Criticism....
{Following are the subsection titles showing evidence in various ways that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic.}
Language of First Century Israel
The Babylonian Exile
Hellenization
The Testimony of Josephus
Archaeology
Scholars on the Language of the New Testament
TESTIMONY OF THE "CHURCH FATHERS"
TESTIMONY OF THE TALMUDIC RABBIS
History of the Movement
The Eastward Spread
The Westward Spread
Grammar of the New Testament
Mistakes in the Greek New Testament
Semitic Idiomatic Expressions
The Pauline Epistles
Paul and Tarsus
Was Paul a Helenist? {NO}
The Audience and Purpose of the Pauline Epistles
Semitic Style of Paul’s Epistles
Tanak Quotes
HEBREW WITNESSES
The Masoretic Text
The Samaritan Pentateuch
The Cairo Geniza
The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Masorah
ARAMAIC WITNESSES
The Peshitta Aramaic Tanak
The Aramaic Targums
GREEK WITNESSES
The Greek Septuagint
RESTORING THE ORIGINAL TEXT
WITNESSES TO THE TEXT OF THE “NEW TESTAMENT
_Hebrew Sources
DuTillet Matthew
Munster Matthew
Cinquarbres Matthew
Shem Tob Matthew
Munster Hebrew Hebrews
_Aramaic Sources
The Old Syriac Gospels
The Peshitta New Testament
The Crawford Manuscript of Revelation
Editions used as Source Text for the HRV
TRANSLATION ISSUES
...
Gender of Ruach
Now the Hebrew word RUACH (Aramaic RUCHA) is grammatically feminine as is the phrase Ruach HaKodesh. This is matched by the role of the Ruach HaKodesh as “comforter” (Jn. 14-16) and the identification of the “comforter” with YHWH acting as a “mother” (Is. 66:13). Moreover there are many passages in which the Peshitta itself pairs the Ruach HaKodesh with feminine verbs and/or feminine modifiers: Mk. 1:10; Jn. 1:32, 33; 6:63; 7:39; Acts 8:29, 39; 16:17; Rom. 8:9, 10, 11, 16, 26a, 26b, 1Cor. 3:16; 1Tim. 4:1; 1Pt. 1:11; 4:14 and 1Jn. 5:6. In fact the Peshitta Aramaic of Rom. 8:16 opens with: …)dhsm )xwr yhw And she the Ruach gives testimony…. While it is clear that the Ruach HaKodesh has no literal gender, it is also clear that the Ruach HaKodesh is grammatically and figuratively a “she”.
HOLY SPIRIT FROM VENUS. I strongly suspect that the reason the Holy Spirit in Hebrew was traditionally written as feminine is because it was derived from ancient observations of the planet Venus in the Saturn Configuration. The angels seem to have capitalized on ancient misconceptions about turmoil in the day and night sky to instill in morals spiritual truths relating to Jesus’ message of Love for All. I discuss such ancient turmoil at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substack.com/archive
A Collection of Evidence Supporting Original Hebrew-Aramaic New Testament http://www.docbible.net/ldswriters/188-wa-the-new-testament-written-in-hebrew?format=pdf
That is another extensive description of the Hebraic Roots New Testament.
NOTE: I also left a message for James Trimm at http://www.scripturerestorationproject.com/author/jamestrimm/
I asked him if he has ever claimed that the New Testament was completed before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The reason that may be important is that Revelation, if not the entire New Testament, is conventionally dated after 70 AD. If that were correct it would mean that Jesus and the Apostles did not predict the destruction of Jerusalem in advance. As it is with many things, I think it's very likely that the mainstream is wrong again (because the mainstream is usually biased and tends to jump to premature conclusions). If the New Testament was written in Hebrew & Aramaic before it was translated into Greek, then it could or would have been so written earlier, i.e. likely before 70 AD.
PS, Update.
Prophecies that JESUS fulfilled (proves the Bible is the Word of God) youtube.com/watch?v=mEDlb6znvGA
351 Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled In Jesus Christ https://www.newtestamentchristians.com/bible-study-resources/351-old-testament-prophecies-fulfilled-in-jesus-christ/