From: heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 12:41 AM
To: Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup
Subject: Bible Versions Comments - Part I
heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com wrote:
>
> From: Bruce Barham
> To: "heb_roots_chr@geocities.com" <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
> Subject: Bible Versions
>
> My growing awareness of the Judaic roots of Christianity and continual
> study has resulted in a scary side effect. I have begun to doubt the
> correctness of many of the Bible versions I have historically held
> dear. My personal preference has always been KJV. After reading the
> book, NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS, I stopped utilizing the NIV, NASV, and
> others which are built upon the work of Wescott and Hort; however, I
> drew closer to the KJV. Now, the realization that the translators of
> the KJV probably sufferred from an anti-Judaic bias (as well as possibly
> pro-Augustinian/Calvinistic) has me wondering when the words I read may
> be tainted to reflect their bias. Furthermore, the Jewish New Testament
> and it's accompanying commentary as well as a host of other common books
> which focus on informing us of the Hebraic Heritage seem to repeatedly
> point to translational erros even in the KJV. What do we read?!?!
>
> I read the Jewish Publication Society's most recent TANAKH, but I am
> haunted by the fear they bias their translations in the opposite
> direction (against Yeshua's Messiahship), resulting in a watering down
> of messianic references. The book, THE MESSIAH CONSPIRACY, supported
> this particular doubt.
>
> I don't mean to sound paranoid, but I just want some opinions as to
> which versions are the most correct and what we should be aware of with
> regard to errors as we study. I've asked this of other websites with no
> reply. First Fruits of Zion has not responed even though I asked twice.
>
> I've decided to stick with the KJV and recognize the Living G-d's grace
> and mercy is active if I ignorantly stumble because of false doctrines
> obtained from tainted text. I figure He knows I am trying. I have
> little doubt his boundless love will cover my sins which are due to
> following poor translations. I'm not manic or losing sleep over this,
> but I would like to hear from you version-wise brothers and sisters in
> Yeshua.
>
> I am planning to take Hebrew and Greek (Hebrew first), but until I can
> read and comprehend in these languages I'm shackled to English.
>
> In Yeshua,
> Bruce
>
> >From Eddie:
> **************
>
> Welcome to the real world! There is no perfect Bible
> translation. While many love to make the King James Bible out to be
> a perfect translation, in reality it is not. In one quick example,
> Acts 12:4 reads:
>
> "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered
> him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him: intending after
> EASTER (3957) to bring him forth to the people"
>
> This is the same Greek word translated as PASSOVER in over 25
> passages in the New Testament. In Luke 22:15 it is written:
>
> "I have desired to eat this PASSOVER (3957) with you before I suffer"
>
> Can you imagine Yeshua/Jesus saying, "I have desired to eat
> this EASTER with you before I suffer" ???
>
> The original King James Bible was printed in 1611. I heard
> this week that our present King James Bible's have been retranslated
> over 10 times. If you had an original King James Bible you could not read
> and understand it because it is written in OLD ENGLISH. The English
> language has changed ALOT in the past 350+ years since the
> 1611 King James Bible was printed.
>
> Furthermore, the King James Bible is given an anti-Torah bias
> in the translation because of the theology that was present when it was
> translated and this same bias is still preached today in most
> churches. Beginning in the 4th century, this anti-Torah bias began to
> gain a strong foothold within Christianity. Some of the viewpoints
> of Marcion (who was considered a heritic by church leaders in his
> day for his anti-Torah bias) are still prevalent and taught in many
> churches today and are accepted as some of the true doctrines found
> in the Epistles of Paul. In addition, the Jews were kicked out of England
> during the era of the printing and influence of the King James Bible
> even as the "Christian church" was still steeped in many Catholic
> doctrines from the 4th century through the Middle Ages.
>
> However the words of II Timothy 2:15 are still true:
>
> "STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth
> not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth"
>
> If you are going to be doing any serious word studies of
> God's Word, you will need a Strong's Concordance and a Greek and
> Hebrew Lexicon.
>
> My favorite study Bible is the "Zodhiates Hebrew/Greek
> King James Key Study Bible"
>
> The key words in each verse in the Bible is coded to the
> Strong's Concordance. A Hebrew and Greek dictionary is in the back of
> the book and virtually every phrase within each verse of the Bible is
> cross-referenced to another verse for easy study.
>
> While the King James may be the best translation that we
> have, as I have shown in my one brief example, it is by no means a
> perfect translation. God's Word both Old and New Testament is
> inspired by the Holy Spirit of God but it is not always perfectly
> translated and communicated from the Hebraic culture to the English
> language and the culture of the 20th century. This is one reason why
> our "roots" have been hidden from believers in Yeshua/Jesus as
> Messsiah for so many years. But, praise God that by His grace, love
> and mercy that He is bringing restoration of our "roots" by the
> outpouring of His Holy Spirit in the hearts of people all over the
> world. May we continue to STUDY and show ourselves approved unto
> God !!!
>
> **************************************************
>
From: Helen Segura
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: Re: Bible Versions
Dear Family,
Just to say I believe that the only way to get to the true meaning of
what God wants to communicate through the Bible, from Genesis to
Revelation, is to:
A) Study the original languages and
B) Ask Ruach Hakodesh to reveal the true meaning behind
the word.
Let us always seek the God of the word.
Blessings,
Helen Segura.
*****************************************************************
From: Philip Nowland
Subject: Bible Versions
To: "heb_roots_chr@geocities.com"<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Shalom
I read with interest your question, and Eddies reply ... However
Have you overlooked the NEW King James Version (NKJ)?
When the KJV was introduced in 1611 it was a great step forward. It
presented a generally accurate translation to the English speaking
people of its time. It was highly regarded for both its levels of
scholarship and its remarkably clear and beautiful language. It soon
won favor throughout the English speaking world and became the
standard translation used by Christians for around 300 years. Outside
of the Christian church it was hailed by literary experts as one of
the masterpieces of the English language.
However, it is only a translation, and as good as it was in its day it
was not perfect. The KJV may have been the best available in its time
but it was far from perfect. It, like all translations suffered from
the inadequacies and bias of its translators. It shows traces of
"churchiness" which can get in the way of objective study.
The English language is always in a state of change and as time went
on the English use began to depart from the text of 1611. Words
changed their meaning in everyday use, and after a while this affected
the meanings of some of the verses in the KJV. By the middle of the
20th century the impact of its archaic language was really being felt,
not a surprise for in essence the translation was made over 385 years
ago.
A number of revisions took place in the lifetime of the KJV and by the
start of the 20th century we can say that the KJV was substantially
different to that which had been originally presented in 1611. The
last actual set of revisions of the KJV text took place in the late
1800's. These were deemed so radical that the revisers considered
that they amounted to a fresh translation - thus the Revised Version (RV)
appeared in 1881. No further major revisions of the KJV were
undertaken for another 100 years.
Furthermore, new discoveries in the field of archeology, papyrology
and linguistics had resulted in some facts coming to light, which were
not available to the KJV translators, and that made the KJV
inadequate. Yet, by the late 1960's no new translation had arrived
that could meet the exacting needs of the advocates of the principles
behind the original KJV translation. It did look like the KJV could
not be replaced.
During the latter part of the 20th century many English translations
appeared, many of which were serious attempts to replace the KJV as
the standard translation available to Christians. But all fell by the
wayside, for one reason or another.
Only two versions came anywhere near the popularity necessary to
replace the KJV and provide a translation to bridge the gap of the
ever-increasing unreliability of the KJV, these were the NASB and the
NIV.
The NASB presented us with an accurate translation of the Hebrew and
Greek original texts, but was unfortunately based upon a textural
basis, that of Westcott and Hort, that was flawed. Largely for this
reason the translation achieved only moderate favor in the Christian
church.
The NIV arrived with much fanfare and promotional hype, and did
achieve rapid favor, mainly because of the ease of which its modern
type of language could be acceptable to those had previously not read
the Bible. However, the NIV was based on the same textural basis as
the NASB and was viewed with some suspicion.
Furthermore, the NIV principle of translation substantially departed
from the complete equivalence principle inherent in the KJV, and
adopted a dynamic method of translation, highly influenced by the
opinions of the translators. Many who embraced the NIV initially have
subsequently moved away from it, some even returning to the KJV. It
may have had its merit in the spheres of general reading, devotion and
evangelism, but it has simply proven to be too unreliable when used in
the field of Bible study.
In the late 1970's the American Bible publishers Thomas Nelson Inc
commissioned a thorough revision of the KJV. This became available in
full Bible form in 1982 and is known as the New King James Version
(NKJ).
After an initial slow period of acceptance, largely caused by the
temporary enthusiasm for the NIV in the 1980's, the NKJ has become
accepted in many circles as a worthy successor to the KJV. This is not
just because it has brought the language of the translation up to
date, but because of major improvements made in the inherent accuracy
and reliability of the translation.
The NKJ is a serious attempt to improve on the general accuracy of the
KJV and represent the language style in as far as possible a modern
fashion without losing its flavor. The NKJ is in all areas an
improvement over the KJV.
The NKJ translators resisted the pressure to use the Westcott and Hort
textural principles, which had been the undoing to the NASB. The NKJ
version follows the complete equivalence method of translation as
employed by its predecessor, the KJV, and as such does not open itself
so readily to the opinions and bias of the translators.
Unlike the KJV, the NKJ has been able to take advantage of the most
recent archeological finds and advanced linguistic factors. It is a
thorough going revision of the KJV and as such carries much of its
advantages, and gains many more in its representation.
While no translation is perfect, the NKJ has established itself in
many circles as the acknowledged best that is available, assuming that
is that you do not require the translation to be based on the Westcott
and Hort textural principles.
The NKJ is remarkably consistent in translation of Hebrew and Greek
words, and in this it has proven itself as more readily capable of
identifying common words than was possible with the KJV.
One area that has proven to be a real advantage over the KJV, is the
general lack of churchiness in the translation. For example, in the
New Testament, wherever the Greek word PASCHA, itself a
transliteration of the Hebrew word PESACH, is encountered it is
translated by the correct, and acceptable word Passover, and not as
the KJV incorrectly translates as Easter.
Another example is the correct and consistent translation of the Greek
word HEBRAIKOS, meaning the Hebrew language, or a Hebrew speaker,
rather than the incorrect word Aramaic, as is found in the NIV.
If you are looking for a trustworthy translation that is based upon
sensible texts, then look no further than the NKJ. It is not perfect,
but then is any translation going to offer that, but it does achieve a
level of accuracy and reliable that puts it well ahead of other
translations. What surprises me is why it is that so few people in the
Hebraic roots movement appear to have made themselves aware of it, for
it is quite readily availability.
I trust that these comments are of assistance to you, as I have found
the value of the New King James Version.
Yours in Yeshua's name
PhilipNowland
Huntingdon, England
*******************************************************************
From: Andrew Harmon
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: Re: Bible Versions
Shalom, Bruce!
I wanted to share a couple more lexical resources with you. As
Eddie said, go get a Strong's concordance. Strong's numbering system
is the cornerstone of everybody elses concordance! Pick up also a
copy of Gesenius' Lexicon (which is most awesome, and keyed to
strongs). Then if you've got a little change left over, get Jone's
lexicon of Old Testament Proper Names.
J.P. Green's Interlinear Hebrew/Greek Bible is now in print again.
Each word has the Heb/Gr and Strong's # right above it. Also hire a
few people to help you lug this tome about!
Now, be smart and you to the C.B.D. website (URL anyone?) to make
your purchase, and you'll actually be able to afford all this stuff!
Or, go the the Library. If they don't have what you want, they
can probably get it from another branch, or on inter-library loan.
Shalom!
In Yeshua,
Andrew
p.s. The KJV is not "Old English". It is Elizabethan, and fairly
modern. A Christian bookseller I know keeps a facimilie edition of
the AV 1611 on hand specially for those who march up and announce
presumptuously "I would like a copy of the King James AV 1611,
please!". Then much to their bewilderment, he hands the facimilie
edition, with its blackletter typeset, funky f,s,and u's. "I can't
read this!!!" they pout. "Hey, I just gave you what you asked for!" he
replies!
Old English goes like this:
Wodin tha wolwolfas
wicinga werod west ofer panta
fer water ne murnin
I can't remember the translation right off the bat. Middle English is
more recognizable, but still carries a handful of letters you wouldn't
recognize. When you're at the library, look at a bi-lingual copy of
Beowulf, and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (but don't read Chaucer's CT,
it's smutty!).
********************************************************************
From: Nathan Martin
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: Re: Bible Versions
Hi Eddie,
Just for your information, the Thomas Nelson publishing company
printed a version of the original KJV about 10 or 15 years ago as a
commemorative issue. I don't know if it's still available. But it had
the original typesetting where "s" was printed as "f" etc. It also
contained the Apocrypha, which the original 1611 contained. I no
longer have a copy but it's a useful tool to show those KJV-ONLY
folks.
Blessings on you and your work!
Nathan
******************************************************************
From: Darlene Howard
Subject: Bible Versions
To: "heb_roots_chr@geocities.com"<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Dear Eddie,
I agree with everything that you said, but I would like to mention the
New King James version. It is another updating of the language to a
more modern sense, and it corrects the "easter" in Acts to Passover.
But where would those of us without Greek/Hebrew be without our
Strongs with dictionaries? Taking the translators at their word, I
suppose.
Steve found a Strongs without a Greek/Hebrew dictionary. This really
bugged him because he feels that that is perhaps the most important
function of this study tool, to identify and define the words that
were used to be translated into English. (Really! there is being
published a version of the Strongs with only the English words and
their placement in the text, can you imagine?) So I guess that when we
reccomend a Strongs now, we will be careful to reccomend the
Exhaustive with Greek/Hebrew dictionaries.
Love through Yahshua,
Darlene
*****************************************************************
From: Dave Jewell
To: <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Subject: Re: Bible Versions
Dear Bruce.
I just wanted to back up Eddie's comments. For years, I
was happy with my trusty RSV and then moved onto the NIV when this
became the fashion. <g> Eventually, the Lord started leading me into
a deeper love for his Word, and a deeper respect for scripture, part
of which resulted in my desire to understand the Scriptures in their
original Jewish context.
Along the way, I encountered the "Everything except the KJV is an
abomination!" brigade, and for a time I listened to what they had to
say. It's certainly easy to prove that there are passages in the NIV
which denigrate the deity of Yeshua. What is not so easy is proving
that this is intentional. It turns out that there are also plenty of
places in the KJV which gets it wrong too. Here are a few examples
from Hosea, which is the book I am studying right now:
Hosea 2:19
"And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee
unto me in righteousness, and in justice , and in loving-kindness,
and in mercies."
If you compare the above rendering with the King James, you will find
the word judgement used instead of justice. The Hebrew used is
'mishpat' which >>CAN<< mean judgement, but it also can be rendered
as justice. In the context of the passage, justice is a much better
translation since the passage is discussing Israel's future spiritual
resoration and rededication to the Lord. This mistake is corrected in
the ASV and in the NIV.
Hosea 3:1
"Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her
friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward
the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love cakes of
raisins."
Compare this with the KJV. You will find that the KJV uses the phrase
"flagons of wine" instead of "cakes of raisins". This is a serious
mistake which - again - is corrected by more modern translations. The
Hebrew word 'ashiyshah' is consistently (and wrongly!) translated in
the King James as flagons of wine. It is actually a reference to the
sacred raisin cakes which Israel used in the worship of other gods.
These raisin cakes were also an erotic symbol - look carefully at Song
of Solomon 2:5 and notice once again how the King James gets it wrong.
Israel used these sacred cakes in the idolatrous worship of other
gods - compare with Jeremiah 44:19 and 7:18.
Hosea 4:11
"Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the understanding."
The Hebrew used here is 'leb', which in context should be translated
as understanding. The King James blindly goes for the most common
translation of the word and replaces understanding with heart which is
an error. The whole thrust of Hosea is that "my people are destroyed
through lack of knowledge" and understanding is contextually a much
better translation than heart. As ever, modern translations correct
the problem.
So what's the bottom line? To put it bluntly, if anybody tries to
persuade you that the KVJ is free from error, they're just plain
ignorant, and you can tell them I said so. <g> The truth is that all
the Bible versions we have right now are imperfect. I truly believe
that -- as originally given -- the Bible was inerrant, but we don't
have access to those original source documents.
On the positive side, there is a lot less error in the Bible than one
would think. When we match up a good modern translation against the
oldest documents we have, academics are often amazed at how close
they are. I believe that the Lord has sovereignly preserved Scripture for
us, down through the centuries. Better yet, we have access to the
same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures in the first place, and
He is always willing and able to open our hearts and minds to the
original meaning behind the words.
You mentioned the anti-Jewish bias in the King James. Let me finish
with one final example. Many people nowadays believe that the church
(by which they really mean the Gentile church, natch) is going to
"take the nations for Jesus" before the Lord returns. This view does
not fit with what Yeshua Himself said when He commented that "When
the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the Earth?" I was debating
this issue recently with another believer who told me -- in no
uncertain terms -- that the church **MUST** finish up triumphant
before the Lord's return because didn't the Lord say that "this gospel
will be preached to all nations" and then the end will come". This
was my response:
The real question is >>who<< is doing the witnessing and to >>whom<<
is the witnessing being done? The Greek word "ethnos" used in Matt
24:14 can be translated as "nations" but it can also be quite validly
translated as "Gentiles". For example, if you look at Matthew 4:15 in
the King James Bible, or in the NIV, you'll see the phrase "Galilee of
the Gentiles". And yet, in the Greek it's exactly the same word
"ethnos" that appeared in Matthew 24:14 !!
As it happens, the word "Gentiles" actually appears 99 times in the
King James New Testament. In almost every case, it is translated from
the Greek ethnos. (When it isn't, it's a mistake - e.g. compare 1 Cor
10:32 in the KJ with the NIV and the ASV). Similarly, the word
"nations" appears 37 times in the King James NT and it is likewise
translated from ethnos.
So why is ethnos sometimes translated as "nations" and sometimes as
"Gentiles"? It's because, to the Jewish mindset, the two are pretty
much the same thing, and it doesn't much matter which one we go for.
To the Jew, non-Jews are the nations - the heathen. We find the same
ambiguity in the Old Testament where the Hebrew "goy" can likewise be
translated nations or Gentiles. E.g. compare the phrase "Galilee of
the Gentiles" in Matthew 4:15 with Isaiah 9:1 which reads "Galilee of
the nations".
My suspicion is that Matthew 24:14 was translated as it is largely
because of the prejudices and or preconceptions of the KJ translators
who regarded Gentiles as "chosen" and Jews as the "heathen" who needed
to be witnessed to. The idea of Jews witnessing to Gentiles was an
absurdity to them, and -- I fear -- probably still is today.
Let's remember that in this passage, Yeshua was speaking to his
[Jewish] disciples, and they would have understood "nations" to be
pretty much the same thing as "Gentiles". If we substitute Gentiles
for nations in this passage, the whole thing clicks into place:
"And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And
this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a
witness unto all [the] Gentiles and then shall the end come."
See what I mean? Suddenly, this business of world-wide witnessing
fits right into the schedule of what Yeshua is saying, instead of
appearing as a curious little aside. Those of us who love the Jewish
people know that there will be an end-time turning of the Jews to
Messiah Yeshua - a removal of the veil whereby they recognise Him as
their long-awaited Messiah. When this happens, it is (in my opinion)
the Jews who will preach the Gospel world-wide to the Gentiles! And
what will that signify, says Paul, but life from the dead.
Dave
****************************************************************
From: peggy Jones
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: Re: Bible Versions
Bruce Shalom,
I too early in my studies found a suspious attitude toward our
accepted translations. Peace was stollen from me through this doubt. I
was on the bridge of anger when a wonderful and quiet voice calmed my
fears and told me to hear HIM when I read whichever translation and
that HE would teach me. HE is in very selected ways... through this
newsgroup through different translations that have come across my
desk, through learned speakers and schollars such as Eddie Chumney,
Marvin Wilson, Dwight Prior, Brad Young, Ron Mosely just to name a few
and I cannot forget the wonder of bringing Rabbi O and Rabbi Silver
and a few others that G-d has provided with Love and joy. It is so
amazing and heart warming to know that OUR G-D loves us so very much
that at this time in our lives HE has chosen us to question and to
seek truth. HIS TRUTH in a more complete way. HE is opening HIS heart
to us in a way that is beyond mere words. With all my love and prayers
that you too find the peace that G-d has given me when I read whatever
translation of HIS word I have at hand. And that you can look past the
frailties of man in his arrogance when you find a truth and that not
only can you praise G-d for bringing you that piece of Gold but that
you can also pray with a true heart for those who do not have that
piece and cannot hold it yet.
IN HIS LOVE
Peggy
*****************************************************************
From: Alan Niederauer
To: <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Subject: Re: Bible Versions
Bruce,
An excellent translation, which is based upon the 'Textus Receptus'
(sp?) is the Young's Literal Bible, by Robert Young. He is the same
person that wrote the Young's Concordance, which I prefer to the
Strongs. It is by Baker Book House, and comes in and out of print. I
have found it in used Bible book stores.
One of my favorite things about this bible is the way it translate
Hebrew verbs. In many O.T passages the verb is actually in the past
tense, yet translated as a future. For instance, when God told
Abraham that He would make him the father of many nations, this should
actually be, I HAVE made you the father of many nations. Just as Paul
says in Romans, 'God calls those things that be not, as being.' As
far as God was concerned it was done. Just as Jesus was slain from
the foundation of the earth, when God spoke it, it was finished. The
actual manifestation may not come for awhile, but in the spirit realm,
it was finished.
By the way, for my day to day reading I use the Zodhiates Hebrew Greek
NASB Study Bible, yet I also have an Amplified, a NKJ, Wuest, Berry's
Interlinear, and am looking at getting a Dake's annotated version.
Like Eddie said, 'Study to show thyself approved!'
I hope this helps.
Alan Niederauer
******************************************************************
From: Dallas James
To: <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Subject: Re: Bible Versions
One version that is a closer translation to the orignal is The
Emphasized Bible by Joseph Rotherham
Dallas James
****************************************************************