Translating The Bible

Bible Translating

updated 3-Jun-09

The effect that Christianity has on the world in general is directly related to the manner in which God's words that Jesus Christ had taught, have been translated. If the Holy Spirit is weak in the interpreters of the original, what chance is there for translating and transmitting God’s Holy Spirit to others. Languages are by nature difficult to translate because of the spirit behind, or embedded within the words themselves. Therefore, you be the judge as to whether the Christian Church of today has that same power that Jesus instilled in the first generation of Christians or not. There is no need for anyone to possess any special investigating skills to be aware of the state of the church today. Just look around you and then look at the competition. Still not convinced? Please read on. Legend: My words are in bold blue, [my entries], Christ' words are in red, Words in black are text lifted from reference material. Caps, boldfaced type and/or underlining are my personal added emphasis. Numbers, preceded with the letters "H" or "G", represent the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance reference numbers.

Many problems within Christianity can be attributed to the translation of scripture or even what is to be considered as Scripture. Christ taught: Luke 24:44 (KJV) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [Some NT references only to "The Law and the Prophets"] Not all present books in our OT part of the bible qualify under this teaching; Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and others. However, so that we do not cloud the issue, this subject will be expounded on further down in this document.

In regards to bible translating, the following are extracts from the Jerusalem Bible (Doubleday & Company). From the book of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach); Translator's forward: (written over 2000 years ago). "But it is not enough merely for those who read the scriptures to be learned in them; students should also be able to be of use to people outside by what they say or write." "You are therefore asked to read this book with good will and attention and to show indulgence in those places where, not withstanding our efforts at interpretation, we may seem to have failed to give an adequate rendering of this or that expression; the fact is that you cannot find an equivalent for things originally written in Hebrew when you come to translate them into another language; what is more, you will find on examination that the Law itself, the Prophets and the other books differ considerably in translation from what appears in the original text".

["see under Biblical Contradictions"] In my opinion, the above statements should be inserted into every translation of every bible. For these words hold true. Even if the book of Ecclesiasticus is not considered as canonical by all of Christianity, it is frequently quoted in the rabbinical writings. In the New Testament, the Epistle of St James borrows many expressions from it, and it is, next to the psalms, the Old Testament book most frequently quoted in the Christian liturgy. I want to state, that in my humble opinion, compared to the book of Ecclesiastes, which is considered canonical, Ecclesiasticus wins hands down. Any one who reads Ecclesiastes, in the very beginning at Ch 1 verse 5, "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose"; should be tipped of as to the validity of this book. People before the time of Columbus may have had an excuse but not in this day and age. And it would be absurd to say that God made a mistake. The sun does not “hasteth to his place where he arose", nor revolve around the earth. To brush this aside, we are told that "that's the way the writer saw things in those days". This would go to say that scripture then is nothing more than the author's opinion/perspective and not God's word. How absurd! Another verse 10:19 states ", A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things. Is this God inspired? I think not. The author of Ecclesiastes no doubt believes in a god/elohiym, but he is writing human ideas and not necessarily godly wisdom. The book "Song of songs" can go also. I recommend however, that you do not just throw these books away. This would be equal to a foolish hungry person being given an apple with a small speck in it so he throws the whole apple away rather than cutting out the speck and eating the rest. In spite of all the honest efforts of "men of good intentions", Satan has his hands in everything.

Here is an example: (taken from the introduction to the NLT (New Living Translation) bible. "The value of a thought-for-thought translation can be illustrated by comparing 1 Kings 2:10 in the King James Version, the New International Version, and the New Living Translation. "So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David" (KJV). "Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David" (NIV). "Then David died and was buried in the City of David" (NLT). Only the New Living Translation clearly translates the real meaning of the Hebrew idiom "slept with his fathers" into contemporary English". [However, the Hebrew word for "died" is "muwth" (H4191). and is not found in the original Hebrew manuscript for this verse].

The use of the words "slept with his fathers" may be in error with "lay down with his fathers" being maybe more correct, however, this idea of suffering physical death and not being dead is introduced during the time of Jacob when he was in

Egypt with Joseph, for he chose the word "shakab (lie)"(H7901) rather than "muwth (died)": Gen 47:30 But I (Jacob) will lie (H7901) with my fathers, and thou shalt carry me out of Egypt, and bury me in their burying place. Jesus uses this term also as follows: John 11:11-14 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. Even before that, the idea of being able to live after one dies is the faith of Abraham: Heb 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son. Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. The idea of a state one enters after dying, therefore is not new in David's time. They are not really dead, dead, but alive. This is the New Testament teaching of Christ. The story of Saul and the woman of Endor gives us an example of the idea of life continuing after one lies down at physical death. (1 Sam 28:7-19)." Therefore, in an attempt to make this scripture easier to be understood, they exchanged/translated one word with a word (died) that does not appear in the Hebrew text for 1 Kings 2:10. In eliminating this hint of life after death, which preceded the teaching of Jesus Christ by more than a thousand six hundred years, they added to the problem of the thought for naught syndrome. Here is another example of slight differences in Scripture readings: Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. [The Jerusalem Bible of the Catholic Church in Italian reads: "heirs of God and coheirs of Christ". The English version of the same Bible is the same as the KJV as quoted above.] This seemingly subtle difference of the use of the words "with Christ" and "of Christ" has a strong bearing on the Trinity doctrine in my opinion. Who is right? You would have to be more than an expert translator to decide on this one. The spirit tells me that we are joint heirs with Christ. What's your opinion? Scripture should be translated using the Spirit as your guide. How damaging it is to think that human understanding is a surer guide. I am inclined to believe that most translations, made after The Trinity became accepted doctrine, are biased towards this idea: rightly or wrongly. To say that Scripture has been "doctored" intentionally, might be going a bit too far but men that are not being led by the Holy Spirit are not trustworthy. By reading some of the newest translations, it is obvious, at least to me, that some of the translators are also short suited of the Spirit. Again pointing to Satan's

intervening. Furthermore, I have a strong hunch that too much liberty was allowed to translators during the Christian era and many errors were introduced by translators not spiritually discerning believers, or people not baptized in the Holy Spirit.

It is a well known fact, among the serious bible readers, that Bibles do contain errors, contradictions, and gross mistakes in their interpretations plus a bunch of other problems that cause the weak to stumble. [see under "Biblical Contradictions"] Some of these problems have existed from the very beginning and caused great misery to the leaders who had to answer to the flock. In order to combat this problem, many leaders in the past tried to force their opinions into dogma with politics and brute force. When that didn't work, they (the leaders) excommunicated those who held different opinions, or in some cases had the so-called "heretic” killed. Whereas they should have encouraged dialog among Christians, which helps to build ones faith and spiritual strength, rather than restrict this freedom which tends to destroy the brotherhood of saints. It should be obvious that Satan has his hand in this matter. Here offered is an example of this type of scripture interpretation/ changes: John 1:18 (KJV) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (NIV) No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (NAB) No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him. John 6:46 (KJV) Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Judg 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God/elohiym. [Note that they saw an 'Angel of Yehovah/Yahuah'

(preceding verse), or 'elohiym, not "YHWH God" himself, for YHWH is invisible.] IMHO, the solution to this error is tangled up in the misunderstanding about who exactly is Yahuah God. In regards to Jn 1:18 above, the NIV and the NAB present Jesus as God in error, along with the misinterpretation of all three bibles for the Hebrew term “yachiyd/H3173/beloved as “only son” for Ishmael was Abraham’s son also. Ref: Gen22:2 A better translation might be “beloved” or maybe something like “God loved”. The key to sorting out many of these errors lie in the understanding of the following verse.

2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. Our church leaders of today are not much different than those that went before them. They are being led by traditions that were not necessarily founded on the Holy Spirit. In some cases, they respond to social pressures in direct contradiction to scripture just to please their members. Women preachers for example, I am sure Paul would object to. Homosexuals as ordained Ministers ??? This shortage of preachers should give you a hint as to just how healthy Christianity of today truly is. We must reunite under the spirit and go back to basics. Languages in general are imperfect by nature and are constantly changing. To rely on them to bring out the truth of the matter without the help of the Holy Spirit is highly unreliable. I sometimes wonder just how much "doctoring" of Scripture has been done in order to make them agree with church doctrine or popular opinion. It would seem to me, only a natural process, for most translations made after the first council at Nicaea, to be biased towards the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, considering that the majority of Christianity have accepted this mystery as truth. Therefore most participants, even among the Christians themselves, are debating using questionable text in many cases, resulting in fighting a loosing battle because they are arguing with text that may not agree with the original Hebrew text. If scripture is interpreted or tampered with by one who is not spirit filled, the truth may have gotten lost in the translation. Here is a couple of examples related to this particular topic:

Matthew 28:19 (KJV) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [The part “in the name of etc.” does not appear to have been in the earliest NT text prior to the Trinity invention. Authoritative sources like Eusebius of Caesarea, a Palestinian theologian, who wrote some history up to the year preceding the council of Nicaea of 325AD, refers to the string “in my name” referring to Jesus and not “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which are not even names at all. This type interpolation in scripture had led to the three submersions during the Baptism ritual, one for each person of the trinity. Many Churches still pour water on the baptism subject three times in spite of the fact that scripture states that there is only one baptism, not three. Another famous reference of this nature is found with 1 John 5:7 which reads “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Another apparent interpolation. Could it be that some early Church fathers had never read this next verse: Proverbs 30:5 - 6 (KJV) “Every word of God/elowahh/H433 is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” [This is quite clear to me for the above two NT references.] IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes made by some critics regarding Biblical accuracy lies in the misunderstanding of this following verse:

Psalms 119:89 (KJV) For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. [Some infer from these and other Scriptures that God had promised that He would preserve His Word, according to the heavenly pattern, in the Greek Received Text. Wherein it is surely true that his word is settled/secured in Heaven, it is very doubtful that it is preserved in written/printed form for our edification. Many Christian interpreters/translators have overlooked Romans 3:1-2 which states: What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. The church then chose the Septuagint translation over the Hebrew text for communicating God’s oracles.] The idea of classifying certain books/writings as Holy Scripture is another huge problem and goes back to the pre Christian period. However, only those with the gift of "discerning spirits" can detect these errors or problems in interpreting/translating writings. It must be understood that the "Jews" were not always devout followers of Yahuah God, but throughout their history they had fallen into following "false gods", often translated from elohiym (H430) by mistake. Therefore, it may be virtually impossible to know what state of mind/spirit some writers were in when composing their works. However, it is clear to me that modern translations are not all that reliable either. Here is another huge problem: Take the word that I just mentioned above "elohiym" for example. There are at least three Hebrew words that are translated simply as "God, or gods by the Greek and Latin interpreters. These words "el or elim (plural), elohiym, and elowahh, have been translated using one or two, singular or plural words without regards to the proper translation of these most important words used for “God”. The un-spiritual/carnal minds of some translators did not recognize any distinction among these three words as did the Hebrew writers. Consequently, when we read a verse like this following, it is very easy to get led astray. John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him (Jesus), My Lord and my God. The Aramaic word used here is equivalent to the Hebrew "elohiym". Therefore, Jesus was "elohiym" to Thomas: hence Jesus is God for the reader of English translations of the bible. But the original texts of the OT use this same word for Moses as being "elohiym" to Pharaoh, and all nations had their "elohiym" (mistranslated to mean God, god or gods in the English language. But if there is only one true God, The Father, then there would be no such thing as Gods. Ref Proverbs 30:5 as mentioned above. In short, the words “el” and “elohiym” of the Hebrew language should be understood as generic terms, and not as the proper name for God, The Father. See the document titled "God", for a clear explanation and more info on this topic. One must understand that many Hebrew words like "elohiym" do not have an exact equivalent in other languages. In this case, IMHO, this Hebrew word should be

adopted directly, along with it’s interpretation, by every receptor language that the bible is to be translated into. But this is not the only problem. There are words like "soul", "spirit", "mind", "heart", "life", self", etc. that are seeming used interchangeably at times due to an improper understanding of the Hebrew scriptures, even by the Jews themselves. The Hebrew word "nephesh" translated "soul" has been translated using roughly 45 other words; even as "fish" on one incident. In the roughly 750 occasions that this word is employed in the original Hebrew OT texts of the KJV, nearly one third of the incidents use a substitute word like these mentioned here. Therefore it is extremely difficult to determine from reading the bible exactly what the "heart" or "soul" might "be", for example. “hearts” don't really think. Isa 6:10 Make the heart/leb of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart/lebab, and convert, and be healed. [Make note of the two different Hebrew words used for "heart" employed here, (leb & lebab). I personally would understand "lebab" as being the core/center of one's soul; "Leb" being understood as the center of ones carnal being. The word "fat" as used above with this definition: " fat: H8082. shamen, shaw-mane'; from H8080; greasy, i.e. gross; fig. rich:--fat, lusty, plenteous." This particular definition would have a bearing on the overall translation of this above verse as would the definition for the word "heart".] The problems, in my way of seeing them, comes from the apparent lack of the Holy Spirit in our "able ministers" of God's words found in our so-called scripture. Therefore, before things can change or get better in the Christian Church, our ministers need a spiritual healing themselves. It's my humble opinion that the Christian leaders must get back to first century Christianity and first century scripture. Ref Jeremiah 6:16 ( KJV ) Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

It is commonly taught that Greek is the language of the New Testament. Therefore the OT Septuagint would be the "authorized" or official source for the OT quotes. But IMHO this is the main problem with our Bibles. They do not always agree with the Old Testament Hebrew texts they are quoting. This Septuagint was simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew text, of at least the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures, with other books added later to complete the OT. This was translated a couple hundred years before Christ and contained a few notable errors, IMHO. The concept for "Hell" in Greek for example, is a concept from their ancient mythologies. The original Hebrew word "sheol" is an example of this type problem. “The Revised Standard Version never uses "hell" to translate Sheol. It does use "grave" one time as a translation of Sheol (Song of Sol. 8:6). Sixty-four times it simply transliterates the word as Sheol. NASB always uses Sheol, while NIV intentionally

avoids Sheol, using grave. Sheol is a Hebrew word that has taken on the properties of a proper name. The Old Testament uses the word to refer to a place in the depths of the earth.” [This paragraph was taken from Holman Bible Dictionary of the QuickVerse Library. It also points out the efforts some are making towards getting back to the truth with scripture. My personal definition would be: "a spiritual place of confinement, also on this Earth as well as "in" in a spiritual sense; not a coal burning underground cave. But I also believe in the transmigration of the soul as the norm or rule rather than as the exception to the rule; thinking of John the Baptist as the Elijah that was to return, according to the words of Jesus. Ref: Mat 11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.] Here is another problem with translating scripture, demonstrated here, where different translations are employed for the same verse. Ref: Matt 16:25 - 26 (KJV) For whosoever will save his life/G5590/soul shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life/G5590/soul for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? & Luke 9:24 - 25 For whosoever will save his life/G5590/soul, shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life/G5590/soul for my sake, the same shall save it. For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? [The word G5590 is translated to “soul”, in Matt 16:26, however, in all other places in these two references it uses “life”. Why? It may seem trivial to point out these type errors, but if they are not brought to the light, confusion will continue to reign.] Another seemingly small problem stems from the substitution of the Holy name “Jehovah, Yahweh, Jahweh, Yahuah or variations thereof” with the word “LORD”. This put the Jews of the first century in trouble, for early in the Church history, they insisted that this title was to be reserved for “God/Yahweh” only, and the Emperor could no longer use it. Even when the Greek definition is clear as to it’s usage. G2962 = κύριος; kurios; koo'-ree-os: From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title):—God, Lord, master, Sir. [I personally believe that the Name for God should not have been tampered with and left as it was in the original Hebrew text. Scripture makes it clear that the name should be used and known by His followers; not hidden.] Here is another small example of word confusion for the Christian translators. The original Hebrew word for “wind” is

the same word used for “spirit” which would be H7307 ‫ח‬ ַ ‫ רו‬rûach. The Greek word for wind is "G417-anemos M, anima F”., which sounds like the same word "anima" in Latin, which translates to "soul" as the Hebrew (nephesh) and Latin (anima,F, animus M.) This similarity between the Greek word “anima/wind” and the Latin “anima/soul mixed up with the Hebrew word “nephesh”/soul, adds confusion to the translators for the Greek texts. Therefore, the Greek word for wind and spirit and soul should be understood as that offered by the Hebrew definition, IMHO; for, to me, the Hebrew text and definitions, being the originals, have the higher value regarding our Christian scripture. How would it be possible for a translation to be more reliable than the original, or in other words, why would the Greek translation of the OT be considered more correct than the Hebrew text? I would like to be involved in producing a completely new translation of the bible using the Holy Spirit and the best Aramaic text available as the base. However, it would or could not contradict the original Hebrew text. However, unless this task were conducted by a joint task force, representing all individual groups under the umbrella of Christianity, with the end results being, that all of Christianity should accept this text as the authorized text, and future revisions allowed by the controlling office of this text. The problem here is, IMHO, that unless all of the participants and representatives are baptized in the Holy Spirit, they cannot be part of this force. In conclusion, IHMO, it is imperative that one understands the distinctions made with the words that are used in the original Hebrew text of the Bible to indicate God's involvement, as well as those seemingly unimportant words that do not agree with the original Hebrew meaning. For without this understanding, Christianity will continue its journey following the poor translations that they themselves have created. IMHO, this is all due to the apathy that our creator has confined mankind under so we must be content with what we have or else use the Holy Spirit at our disposal and change things for the better. Refer to Rom 11:30 – 32 and check out the original Greek word translated to “unbelief” which is “apathy”. Please refer to the document titled “God” or “Jesus Christ” for a better understanding of just who or what is God; and may YHWH, the Heavenly Father, bless you.