The Peshitta is the term used to describe the body of Bible translations that were written in Aramaic. The ancient Aramaic translation traces to Syria, and its supporters claim it is the original New Testament. This flies in the face of mountains of scholarship pointing to the Greek as the original manuscripts for the New Testament.

 At Christian Media, the Holy Ghost has taught us that the person pitching the Peshitta to you will also be the one of your acquaintance who always seems to gravitate towards some new variation of false doctrine, the latest challenge to the truth of the New Testament, or some other aberrational development. He or she is the one who is always

 "...tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians 4:14)

In short, that person always resists the truth of the Holy Spirit and the true Word of God.

If you are the person I just described, be advised, you haven't much time left, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness.

The Lamsa Bible is a primary English translation of the Peshitta, so since most Americans are not versed in the Aramaic, it's most likely the believer will encounter the Peshitta dressed as George Lamsa.

The powerful and anointed translation team of English scholars who brought us the Authorized Version were devout believers in Jesus Christ, and they were provided with the funding and the political freedom to undertake the massive task of accurately translating the Word of God in fear and trembling. In sharp contrast, George Lamsa was a single audacious man with an agenda, who thought he could do better. The result was the abomination known as the Lamsa translation.

Lamsa's work is filled with errors, texts where he missed the primary meaning, outright bias, and what can only be considered to be the fruit of the poisoned tree that is the Aramaic translation itself. In short, the Lamsa Bible is devilish through and through, and should be considered apostate in the extreme.

For example, Lamsa believed it was wrong to mix the races, so he twisted verses in the Scriptures to propagate that perspective. Please understand, the issue here is not whether or not a person believes race mixing is acceptable, the issue is, if you seek to make the Scriptures conform to your individual point of view, you have committed yourself to the Spirit of Antichrist.

The book of Leviticus addresses those that sacrificed their children to the heathen deity Molech, also seen as Moloch:

"...thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord." (Leviticus 18:21).

This is a fundamental thou shalt not, telling the Israelites they are not to follow the deity known as Moloch or Molech (also related to Milcom), and what will happen to them if they disobey this primary commandment. Scriptural and archaeological evidence indicates that sacrifice of children, through burning, was associated with the ritual of Molech.

However, Lamsa translated the same verse as

"You shall not let any of your semen be cast into a strange woman to cause her to be pregnant; neither shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD." (Lamsa Translation)

A similar juxtaposition may be seen in another Old Testament passage where the LORD restates the prohibition against giving one's seed, or offspring, to the heathen god Moloch:

"Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones." (Leviticus 20:2)

As in the previous case, in his perverse translation, Lamsa has transformed the devilish deity into the womb of a foreign woman:

"Say to the children of Israel, Any man of the children of Israel or of the proselytes who sojourn in Israel, who shall cast any of his semen into an alien woman, he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones." (Lamsa Translation)

Although some might suggest it's plausible the "seed" is actually referencing the reproductive seed in the strictest biological sense, Jeremiah eliminates that possibility. In the young prophet's recitation of the same violation of God's statutes, he does not use the Hebrew word for seed, but instead specifies the sacrifice to Moloch was definitely associated with children:

"And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." (Jeremiah 32:35).

The "high places" were locales of worship, as opposed to some heathen harlot's bed, as posed by Lamsa's outrageous version. Ironically, in the polygamous old Israelite world, the Israelites did take wives and concubines from the adjacent nations, and it was acceptable if the woman served the LORD. Witness the fact the wife of Moses was a Midianite (Exodus 2:16), and the book of Ruth extols how the Moabite woman was grafted in to the line of Israel to become an antecedent of Jesus Christ (Ruth 1:4).

The case of Ruth is particularly interesting, for the deity named Molech was the Ammonite version of the Moabite deity called Chemosh (also seen in the text as Shamash). Thus, if Lamsa's grossly improper handling of the Scriptures was accurate, under the Mosaic law, Ruth the Moabitess would have been off-limits to Boaz in the book bearing her name. Instead she was greatly blessed, and we are all Spiritually richer because of the inspiring account that is the book of Ruth.

When it comes to the Hebrews interacting with foreign women, it is a given that things didn't work out as well for Samson when he fell for the Philistine woman Delilah, but she wasn't exactly known for her fidelity to the LORD either. Thus, the whole point of the prohibition was not about foreign women per se, it was about the practices of the heathen that would then infect the LORD's people, and sacrificing one's child to the heathen god Moloch was at the top of the "do not do this" list.

At this juncture, I might mention that I've repeatedly pointed out how doctrinal error is never random, but is instead systemic. Because the inspired Word of God is a divinely engineered systematic whole, wherever error creeps in to a portion of the text, it affects adjacent, and sometimes seemingly unrelated, portions of the Scriptures.

No error is random, for every error is Satanically inspired as part of a larger counterfeit Spirit - an intelligent lying power that seeks to link together disparate error into a Frankenstein like Spiritual beast. This passage is no exception.

For instance, the identity of Molech is very important, for it is part of a key passage that helps to identify the Luciferian power that became so firmly entrenched in ancient Israel. In the book of Amos, we find the prophet plainly associates the name Moloch with the religion that had become commonplace in Israel:

"O house of Israel....ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves." (Amos 5:26)

As George Lamsa has sought to transform the specific deity known as Molech into a generic term associated with a foreign woman, this passage forces him to shift the identity to another name. In this passage, Lamsa's travesty turns this particular deity into "Malcom," a variant of the Milcom found elsewhere in the Scriptures. The fact is, Milcom and Molech are one and the same, so with his bizarre treatment of the Levitical reference and the the foreign women fallacy, Lamsa painted himself into a corner with his dubious translation.

The Lamsa translation errs even further when it comes to the New Testament. In the fashion we've grown to expect of occultists, he changes Christ's identity from the only begotten Son of God to the Lord's "first-born" in John 1:14. This is a typical manifestation of the Spirit of Antichrist, for that Spirit always seeks to diminish the full depth of Christ's work and deity in His human incarnation.

Just like the new age Bible versions that would follow Lamsa's folly some years later, Lucifer's name was removed from the book of Isaiah. Although the passage is initially addressed to the metaphoric "king of Babylon," the prophet's 14^th chapter clearly addresses the Devil by the name of Lucifer in connection with his fall from heaven:

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (Isaiah 14:12, KJV)

 In the same fashion in which the Never Inspired Version performed the same Devilectomy on the text in our time, Lamsa's literary butchery renders Isaiah's statement with the following:

 "How are you fallen from heaven! Howl in the morning! For you have fallen down to the ground, O reviler of the nations." (Isaiah 14:12, Lamsa Bible)

There are many other examples which may be cited, but I believe I've made my point. In an age when we still have God's inspired Word in the form of the King James Version, there is absolutely no valid reason to consider utilizing a corrupted version of the Holy Scriptures. Without a doubt, the George Lamsa version, and the Aramaic Peshitta on which it rests, are corrupted versions of God's Word.

-- James Lloyd

For more on Bible translations, see also The Corrupt Tree Called The NIV, and The King James Controversy: Which Bible Is The Word Of God? More data on the Peshitta, and other aberrant manuscripts may also be found in Satanic Translations: New Age And Sacred Name Bibles.