One in Messiah Congregation

קָּהָל אֶחָד בְּמָּשִׁיחַ

A part of the Congregation of Israel

עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל

27 S. Maple Street, Hohenwald, Tn. 38462

Phone: 615 712-3931 - or 615 591-9820


Shabbat Shalom

שַׁבָּת שָׁלוֹם


Today we use the Gregorian calendar from Pope Gregory; from the 1500’s

Today is May 12th, 2018 - in the 21 Century

May -- Maia's month

Old French Mai
Old English
Maius "of Maia"
Maius mensis "month of Maia"

Maius has always had 31 days.

Maia (meaning "the great one") is the Italic goddess of spring, the daughter of Faunus, and wife of Vulcan.


We acknowledge Yehovah’s calendar

We are now in the second month called Ziv /Zif – 25th day

Ziv = Brightness – (figuratively) the month of flowers

1Kgs.6[1] And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Yehovah.

בְּחֹדֶשׁ זִו, הוּא הַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי

[37] In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of the Yehovah laid, in the month Zif

Part of April / May 2018

***Make sure you change your Judaism calendars – The 2nd month is not Iyyar as Judaism states, it is Ziv as scriptures states.


The New Moon is coming

Wednesday evening starts the 3rd month Sivan, סִיוָן

Esth.8 [9] Then were the king's scribes called at that time in the third month, that is, the month Sivan, on the three and twentieth day thereof; and it was written according to all that Mordecai


My ministry is a teaching ministry to bring up topics in the Bible that have never been discussed or mentioned in your life.

They have been deleted from your knowledge. You haven’t a clue they are missing.

I will try to undelete them for you.

For your convenience, all my studies may be viewed at these websites below:

Read, Hear, Watch or Download Please Do them!

You can read them on my site at:

You can hear them on my site at

You can watch them on my site at

You can download mp3s at

for your mp3 players, iphone or ipad etc…


Join us on Paltalk in our room, in the Christian section - One in Messiah Congregation Shabbat room

Download at - it's free! Email me and give me your paltalk nic and I will invite you in the room.

Download real player, it is free

We stream live on real player live at 12 noon at: mms://

Also I would love to come and give a talk at your congregation, school or home on the Jewish / Hebrew roots of your faith from the Scriptures, not Judaism. Schedule me in.

Interested? Click here:


A short review of the soon coming Spring Feasts and Holy Days

Remember: We were told to count "Sabbaths" not omers.

An "omer" is a "sheaf" of barley

עמר omer  - A dry measure of 1/10 ephah (about 2 liters)

Lev.23 [15] And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

[16] Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto Yehovah.

Moving forward: We started our 7 week journey again towards  Feast of Weeks – Pentecost - the Feast of Harvest – the wheat harvest in Sivan

May 27, Sunday - a Sabbath

Esth.8 [9] Then were the king's scribes called at that time in the third month, that is, the month Sivan

Exod.34 [22] And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest…

Exod.23 [16] And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field…

In the 3rd month Sivan, day 20


סִיו  (seev) bright, splendid


This Sabbath is the 5th Sabbath of the seven Sabbaths we were told to count.

Our seven week journey again, spiritually speaking

Our seven week journey we observe, in memorial to meet God again on Mt. Sinai to receive the commandments and receive the Spirit of God.

From slaves in Egypt (our last lives of sin) to the people of God

The giving of the Law (10 commandments) and the giving of the Holy Spirit


Today’s Topic:

The history of the Bibles we have

Many so-called Greek scholars from the past, just like today often use the phrase “according to the original Greek”.  This leads one to believe that they have access to the original autograph manuscripts.  They do not!

No one today has the original writings themselves.

Let me repeat that again: the original autographical manuscripts of the Gospels and letters no longer exist.

They were written on perishable material and it is unlikely that they lasted more than a few years, let alone 21 centuries!

As you know, some people say they have the original Greek and the original Bible.

First of all, there was no original Bible.

At no time did the original autographical manuscripts of the 27 books known as the Gospels and letters ever reside between the covers of one particular book.

The Gospels and letters were not written as a book per se, it was written by eight or nine different men, in a variety of locations and circumstances over a period of about 60 years.  The Gospels and letters were originally letters which were written to certain congregations or individuals.

These letters were written on papyrus in Koine Greek.

Koine Greek was the language of the common man at that time.  It is important to remember that the Gospels and letters were originally written in Koine Greek, because later on we are going to encounter manuscripts written in classical Greek.

As the Gospels and letters were circulated from congregation to congregation, each congregation would make a copy of the letter before passing it on.  Possibly, each congregation had its own collection.

This collection of letters would eventually be put together in a book form, after the Gutenberg press was created. 1440


The development of the Bible that splits into two separate lines of ascension

This is the line of ascension of the Authorized Version of 1611

The underlying Greek text of the authorized version of 1611 is called the Textus Receptus or Received text, Majority text.  It is called the majority text because 95% of all manuscript evidence supports this text.

Here are 15 steps, Bibles from which the Authorized Version came from:

Milestones in the development of this text include:

1.  The Syrian peshito and the old Latin (first and second centuries),

2.  Papyrus readings of the the Receptus (150-400 A.D,

3.  The Uncial readings of the Receptus (500-1500),

4.  The Latin Bibles of the Waldensians (1100-1300),

5.  The Latin Bibles of the Albigenses (1380-1550),

6.  The Latin Bibles of the Lollards (1300-1500),

7.  Martin Luther's Bible (1530), and

8.  The Receptus of 1615, 1534, 1550, and 1565.


English Versions included:

1.  Tyndale's (1525),

2.  Coverdale's (1535),

3.  Matthew's (1537),

4.  The Great Bible (1539)

5.  The Geneva Bible (1560),

6.  The Bishops Bible (1568), and

7.  The Authorized Version (1611)


The corrupt line of ascension starts with a man named Origen.

Origen lived in the years 185 - 251 A.D., he was a Ebionite, one who accepts the teachings of Messiah, but denies the doctrine of salvation.  He believed infant baptism, like the Catholics, universal salvation that is, that all men would be saved, rather than are saved.  He believes sin was forgiven through communion, he did not believe Messiah was our high priest.  He does not believe in the physical resurrection, nor did he believe the second coming of Messiah. 

He amended the Gospels and letters whenever and wherever he felt like it.  This is where everything started, the corruption of the Gospels and letters.

After this we have the Emperor Constantine of Rome.  325 A.D.

Then we have Eusebius, he was a great admirer of Origen, he was an Arian that denied the deity of Messiah and did not believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture. Unfortunately, 50 copies of the Bible he made up for Constantine were based on the corrupt works of Origin.

Catholics were creating in 350 A.D.

The codices Vaticanus and Sinaticus were written around 350 A.D. they were written on vellum in classical Greek

The next step in the corrupt line was Jerome’s Latin Vulgate written about 400 A.D. it was based primarily on the work of Origen and Eusebius.  For the next thousand years, this was the standard Bible the Catholic Church.

The codex Vaticanus is still owned by the Catholic Church

The codex Sinaticus was rediscovered 1859 in a trash basket at the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. 

This codex was supposedly corrected by over 10 different scribes in different periods of time and is very significant to understand.

Next we have the Rheims-Douay Bible completed in 1610.  It is the current Bible Catholic Church and of course the teachings of Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome.

Some people will have you believe that there exists somewhere a single authorized Greek text from which all translations and versions of made.

This is not true.

What we did have was over 5500 Greek manuscripts.

Today, there might exist 5000 pieces of evidence, fragments.


Now we move to WESTCOTT AND HORT:

Just remember and take note:

in every Bible today, the Gospels and letters are the work of Wescott and Hort.”

Until the late 1800s, the Textus Receptus, or the “Received text,” was the foremost Greek text from which the Gospels and letters was derived. (The King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus.)

In 1881 two weasel scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort, printed their New Testament in Greek, later known as the Critical Text.

Dismissing the Textus Receptus as an inferior text rife with errors, Westcott and Hort compiled a New Greek text, with special focus on two fourth-century manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.

As a result of Westcott and
Hort’s work, their Critical Text became the standard Greek text used for modern interpretation and translation for nearly two generations.

The Critical Text was the one chiefly used for the English Revised Version and the later American Standard Version.

Today, the updated and revised Critical Text is the Greek manuscript basis for the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, and virtually every other modern English translation of the Bible.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) produced a Greek New Testament in 1881 based on the findings of Constantine Tischendorf, one who discovered and deciphered rare ancient manuscripts. One was the Sinaticus codex.

In 1870, the southern convocation of the Church of England expressed desirability of revising the Authorized Version.

Wescott and Hort were the so-called Greek scholars at that time led the charge.

This Greek NT was the basis for the Revised Version of that same year.

They also developed a theory of textual criticism which underlay their Greek NT and several other Greek NT since (such as the Nestle's text and the United Bible Society's text).

Greek New Testaments such as these produced the modern English translations of the Bible we have today.

So it is important for us to know these two men who have so greatly influenced “modern textual criticism”.

The Westcott and
Hort theory states that the Bible is to be treated as any other book written.

Westcott and
Hort believed the Greek text which underlies the KJV was perverse and corrupt.

Hort called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).

If Westcott and
Hort are the fathers of modern textual criticism and the restorers of the true text, should we not know something of their beliefs to see if they are consistent with Scripture?

Here's what Westcott and
Hort said:

The Scriptures:

"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise."
(Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

"Evangelicals seem to me
perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

"Dr. Wilbur Pickering writes that,
Hort did not hold to a high view of inspiration." (The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.212)

Perhaps this is why both the RV (which Westcott and Hort helped to translate) and the American edition of it, the ASV, translated 2nd Timothy 3:16 as, "Every scripture inspired of God" instead of "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (KJV).

On the Deity of Messiah, he says:

"He, Yeshua never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).

"(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created." (
Hort, Revelation, p.36).

Perhaps this is why their Greek text makes Yeshua a created god (John 1:18) and their American translation had a footnote concerning John 9:38,

"And he said, Lord I believe and he worshipped him," which said, "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here, or to the Creator" (thus calling Messiah a creature).

On Salvation:

"The thought (of John 10:29) is here traced back to its most absolute form as resting on the essential power of God in His relation of Universal Fatherhood." (Westcott, St. John, p. 159).

"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father."
(Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).

Perhaps this is why their Greek text adds to salvation in 1st Peter 2:2. And why their English version teaches universal salvation in Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men" (ASV).

KJV – Titus 2:11 [11] For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men…

On Hell:

"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits." (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).

"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).

Perhaps this is why their Greek text does not have Mark 9:44, and their English translation replaces "everlasting fire" [Matthew 18:8] with "eternal fire" and change the meaning of eternal as cited by Hort in the above quote.

On Creation:

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history.

I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).


"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)

On Romanism:

"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )

"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)


It is one thing to have doctrinal differences on baby-sprinkling and perhaps a few other faults interpretations.

It is another to be a Darwin-believing theologian who rejects the authority of scriptures, Biblical salvation, the reality of hell, and makes Christ a created being to be worshipped with Mary his mother.

Yet, these were the views of both Westcott and Hort. No less significant is the fact that both men were members of spiritualist societies (the Hermes Club and the Ghostly Guild).

Westcott and Hort talked to Spirits of the dead.


Darwin 1809-1882

Brooke Foss Westcott 1825-1901

Fenton John Anthony Hort 1828-1892

This is where the corruption in evolution started in our schools

Thomas Henry Huxley 1825 -1895

 Charles Lyell 1797 – 1895

 This is only a sampling of the information I have on these men.

Let’s talk a little about different bibles

The English Standard Version is an updated version of the Revised Standard of the National Council of Churches. The NCC has never been a Christian organization but is a Socialist organization like the World Council of Churches.

When you purchase an ESV, you are helping fund the NCC which is another enemy of Messiah and true Christians.

You will see that the ESV is just another rewrite of the corrupted manuscripts which underlie every other modern false version.

The ESV, like the NIV and the Holman Christian Standard Bible have absolute agreement with the Roman Catholic New American Bible and the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation.

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Kittel, Rudolf, 1853-1929) (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland. < From the ESV official Website

Most people would be shocked to learn the theological positions of Kittel.

Rudolf Kittel despised Jews, denied that salvation is through Yeshua the Messiah, denied the atonement, rejected the inspiration of scripture, contradicted the words of Yeshua, and then put all these views into writing, so as to be sure and leave a written record of his personal hostility to Jesus Christ, Christianity, the Reformation, the Bible and to Jews.

His Son
Gerhard Kittel wrote the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 Volume Set) (also so-called theologian, though both apostate) was tried for Nazi war crimes.

Both worked for the German Bible Society, which is also known these days as UBS the United Bible Society. The Copyright on both the Hebrew and the Greek base texts for translation by UBS, is retained by the German Bible Society, which has a very colorful and unrepentant history of its own activities during World War II.

Some people think that because it is a Bible Society that this means that those working either for it, or within it, are somehow believing or accepting of the truth or authenticity of Christianity or the Scriptures. This is not true when you look into it.

Here are a few Scriptures to prove the differences in the Bibles

Taken from the net…

The King James Version verse will come first, and then corrupt versions:

Here is a bad example:

KJV - Phil.2 [6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God…


ESV - Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped


English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible

ESV changed:

Eunuch to official

Comforter to helper

Antichrist to enemy

Sodomite to cult prostitute

No more hell in TaNaKh – Old Testament as you might know it

Change Isa. 14:12 Lucifer too day star like other corrupt versions did…

Here are a few verses that are just omitted:


Matthew 17:21
KJB: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: [This kind does not leave but by prayer and fasting.] (Placed in Brackets)

Matthew 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: Omitted


Mark 9:44, 46
KJB:{ 44} Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. {46}  Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: Omitted

Mark 11:26
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: Omitted

Mark 15:28
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: Omitted

Luke 17:36
KJB: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: Omitted

Luke 23:17
(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)

ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: Omitted


John 5:4
KJB: For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: Omitted


Acts 8:37
KJB: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: Omitted - Takes half of verse 36 as verse 37

Acts 24:7
But the chief captain
Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,

ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: Omitted


Romans 16:24
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

ESV: Omitted
NWT: Omitted
NAB: Omitted - They take part of verse 23 for verse 24


Let’s view the Kittle’s Nazi connection - Greek New Testament

Dictionary/Lexicon of the New Testament – from Koster’s book “come out of her my people”

There is no word Yahusha in the Hebrew Bible


Bad research - The Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament, Kittel and Bromiley, Volume 3, page 284, tells us that the name Jesus (Iesous) is a Greek form of the Hebrew proper Name Yahshua  L


Next, I would like to speak about a Bible version: the Complete Jewish Bible, translated by David H. Stern.

First, I would like to say, I have nothing against David Stern nor have I ever met him.

I am simply stating what he has stated himself in his Bible version introduction.

I find it very interesting in his credentials, he has a PhD in economics and from UCLA he was a professor, a mountain climber and a co-author on surfing and an owner of a health food stores.

I see he received a Master of Divinity degree at Fuller theological seminary,(a protestant Christian school) and did graduate work at the University of Judaism. (They don't believe Yeshua is the Messiah)

He has many other protestant Christian and messianic affiliations.


In the introduction of this Bible I see on page XIII, paragraph 3, at the very end, it states:

David Stern says, I certainly had no special expertise in biblical Hebrew that would justify my trying to translate TaNaKh. (the Masoretic text)

Now on page XIV he says however, there were many places where I questioned the JPS version’s renderings. In such cases I translated the Hebrew of the Masoretic text myself.

This is an obvious contradiction in itself.

At the end of this paragraph he said he translated the books of the New Covenant from the “original Greek”.

Remember, I told you to remember this point at the beginning of the study

To me this is amazing because the original Greek doesn't exist today 2018.

What original Greek text?

I personally do not believe David Stern can speak Koine Greek because it does not exist today. Can he speak any kind of Greek? J

In other places in his introduction, he says he decided to paraphrase the entire JPS TaNAKh, an obvious contradiction from the previous page.

He says he uses many Bible versions to assist him in expressing certain verses in modern English. He says all Bible translators do this. I can say for sure, I do not believe he met all the Bible translators. J

Then he goes on to say, frankly I can admit that the team might have done a better job but I have done the best I can. I hope readers will not be disappointed. He doesn't sound he too sure of himself.

This does not sound like the kind of Bible version you can trust or is reliable enough for your soul.

It is frightening to write a new Bible version because this is the word of God and we are not supposed to add nor diminish from the words of God. We already have way too many Bible versions to confuse the readers on their journeys to the kingdom of heaven.

It's sad to say, many Bible versions have chapters missing, verses missing, and opposite meanings of a particular verse. I believe Satan is having his way in changing the word of God.

This is why it is so vital and important for you to make sure you know the underlying manuscripts from where your Bible came from.

Just think, if I gave you two or three hundred roadmaps to get to a place you never heard of, I bet you would probably get lost, correct?

Please read the introduction to his Bible version and I am sure you will see many other discrepancies.

All the above information is very good reasons not to purchase this Bible or any other Bible that come from the Alexandrinus Codex, Sinaiticus Codex or Vaticanus Codex.

If you read English, the best English version of the Bible is the King James Version.

This version is not perfect but is not from the Alexandrinus Codex, Sinaiticus Codex or Vaticanus Codex.


Now, let's look at some particular Bible verses in the Complete Jewish Bible and discuss them.

I noticed that all through his bible he uses the word ADONAI instead of YHVH or Yehovah. This is very wrong because it replaces the name of God with a title instead of His name Yehovah. Most bibles are wrong on this point, they use "LORD" which is wrong.


In the book of Isaiah, chapter 7 verse 14, he says a young woman will become pregnant.

The word in Hebrew is alma, and means virgin. This takes away from the amazing prophecy that a virgin shall have a child and call His name Immanuel, meaning God with us.

As you know, it's not that amazing for a young woman to become pregnant and have son, but a virgin to have a son, this is a sign and a miracle of God.


In the book of Isaiah Chapter 14, verse 12, he wrote, how did you come to fall from the heavens, Morning Star, son of the dawn?

This translation is from the erroneous Bible versions. The word star is not in the Hebrew text, this is totally made up.

In the book of Revelation, Yeshua says he's the Morning Star not Satan. Isaiah Chapter 14 is talking about Satan.

On page 1555, in the book of Revelation, chapter 22, verse 14, he says blessed are those who "wash their robes", so that they may have right to eat from the tree of life and go through the gates into the city.

This is directly from the NIV Bible, which is very corrupt.

Here is what the Bible actually says,

Rev.22 [14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


In David Stern's Jewish New Testament commentary, on page IX, he says he decided to try translating the Greek text itself and discovered that he liked the results.

Then he goes on to say, thus the Jewish New Testament was born, as an afterthought.

Basically he says he's just giving his opinion on what the verses mean.

Also he uses many comments from various writings that are not scriptural. To mention a few, he cites Jewish literature, the Midrash Rabbah, Pseudepigrapha, the Talmud, and terms from the Kabbalah and many other Jewish writings that are not scriptural written by rabbis that rejected the Hebrew Messiah Yeshua.

He says he uses the Greek text used for his commentaries taken from the United Bible society’s “critical text”, 1975 edition which is the same as Nestle-Aland. - very bad...

So you see his commentaries on the New Testament are from various unscriptural writings and from basically his own opinion which is not accurate in many verse renderings.

On page 610, he explains versus 16 in Colossians 2 like this,

Don’t let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with optional matters.

Gentile believers are free to observe or not to observe rules about dining and Jewish holidays, as is clear in Roman 14 will in first Corinthians in which he has no idea what he's talking about.

He breaks down these verses like any other Christian commentator and states clearly there are two sets of rules, one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles. He says Gentiles can eat basically anything, like pork, and they don't need to take heed to these commandments because that was given to the Jewish people, not the Gentiles, which is totally unscriptural.

This doctrine is not new to me, I see many other messianic groups that teach Gentiles do not need to concern themselves with the commandments of God because they were given to the Jewish people thus making two bodies when the Bible declares plainly there is one body, one Lord, one faith, one baptism for all.


Next – taken from the net

The Scriptures 2009 (TS2009)



The Scriptures 2009

Copyright© 1993 – 2015 by the Institute for Scripture Research (ISR). All rights reserved.


Please note that The Scriptures 2009 is not in the public domain.

Please refer to the copyright at the bottom of this Preface


Notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page of the work as follows:

"Scripture taken from The Scriptures, Copyright by Institute for Scripture Research.


Some of the PREFACE:



There have been many fine translations of the Scriptures which, over the years, have been such a wonderful source of blessing to so many. Yet the multitude of choices between available translations is in itself a source of confusion for many. Which translation is truly the Word of the Most High? Don’t some translations appear to out rightly contradict the reading of certain other translations? Is it really necessary, one may ask, to add yet another one?


The reality is that the inspired Word of the Almighty is not represented adequately in any translation or version made by human beings (including this one!), for the best translation only represents the sincere and prayerful attempt by human beings to render the Word of the Creator into a receptor language which ultimately has its origins at the Tower of Bael, and words in one language do not have a one-to-one correspondence with words in any other language.


The Scriptures are, after all, those words which were originally breathed out by the very Creator Himself.


While we definitely believe in the overriding hand of Providence in the transmission of the Scriptures (Rom. 3:2; 9:4,5), no sincere translator (or board of translators) would ever be so pompous as to assert that his or her translation is the very Word of the Almighty himself!


Approaching the task of Scripture translation from different backgrounds, environments, cultural mindsets, etc. inevitably affects the end result.

Those with no access to the original language of Scripture become entirely dependent on whichever translations are in their hands.


Apart from taking steps to get to grips with the original languages of the Scriptures (something that we would earnestly encourage every genuine student of the Scriptures to do), the only other recourse they have is to acquire and compare as many translations/versions of the Scriptures as possible.


This way something, however small, may be grasped, of the multifaceted depth of the original. Thus there remains a real need for further translations which will help to bring forth yet further elements from the original tongue that are not adequately reflected in other translations.


This is precisely where “The Scriptures - 2009 Edition (ISR)” comes into the picture.


This edition of the Scriptures, while attempting to be an accurate translation, seeks at the same time to introduce the reader to something of the Hebraic mindset and culture which are very much a part of the original.


Indeed, we see this is as absolutely necessary for the serious student of Scripture.


The events of Scripture did not occur in the modern western world, with its Anglo-Hellenist mindset, but within the very different world of the ancient middle-east, and the Semitic mindset of the People of Yisra’ĕl.


While we have sought to accurately translate rather than to interpret, aiming at producing a literal translation rather than a paraphrase, we have tried to provide the student of Scripture with a tool which in some way helps him or her to “experience” the Scriptures as Semitic rather than Hellenistic.

In so doing we have taken much further the work of the 1993 and 1998 editions of the ISR “Scriptures” toward this end.


As in the earlier editions, our aims have included:

“A translation of the Scriptures which:

restores the Name of the Almighty to its rightful place in the text (see THE RESTORATION OF THE NAME, below).


Is recognisably Messianic in that it affirms the Hebraic roots of the Messianic belief by its appearance, by the use of Hebraic forms of certain words and titles, and by its usage of the same division of the pre-Messianic books of Scripture (the Tanaḵ Or “Old Testament”) that was current at the time of our Messiah.


Restores the meaning to so many words which have become popular to use, but do not accurately reflect the meaning of the original - for example, church, glory, holy, sacrifice, soul, etc.

Seeks to be as far as possible a “literal” translation, wherever possible rendering key words uniformly (exceptions being noted in footnotes or the Explanatory Notes).”


To this may be added:

1.     the further restoration of the Semitic form of the names of the books of Scripture.


2.   The rendering of words such as Hades (a Greek term, loaded with pagan connotations, variously rendered by different translators as “pit”, “grave”, and “hell”) by their Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent instead, such as She’ol.


3.    The deletion of notes, footnotes and explanatory notes of a doctrinal nature, other than those ‘doctrinal agendas’ expressed in this Preface.

4.    The addition of notes, footnotes, and/or explanatory notes which may be more useful to students of Scripture, in equipping them for their studies, rather than in doing studies for them.

5.    Highlighting by means of bold typeface those passages in the Second Writings (also known as Netzarim Writings, haBrit haḤadasha, New Testament, etc.), which quote allusions from the Tanaḵ (also known as the Old Testament).


Bad Vulgate


The traditional order since Jerome is a roughly chronologiocal arrangement, and there is much to be said for this approach.


In Western Christianity since the time of Jerome the letters of Ya’aqo, Kĕpha, Yoanan and Yehuah have been placed after those of Sha’ul/Paul.


An earlier arrangement (still preferred by Eastern Christianity) is to place these letters before Sha’ul/Paul.


Others contend that a more consistent approach is to follow a topical arrangement, as in the traditional Hebraic arrangement of the Tana.


Each arrangement have its merits, but the reality is that there is no ‘original’ arrangement for the simple but obvious reason that the Second writings were not written as one book!


Instead, they came about over time through the careful collation of those documents which had been preserved by various persons and congregations of individual ‘books’, letters, etc. written by those whom יהושע Rabbeinu appointed as his ‘personal representatives’ (shliim = ‘apostles’.)

These writings of men inspired by יהוה had been written under different circumstances in different places, at different times, yet were regarded all along as inspired documents because of the anointing on their authors. Each shaliaḥ / ‘apostle’ was writing as a personal representative of יהושע, and therefore also of יהוה, the anointing was on the very Writings themselves, from the very beginning.

However, they still had to be collected into a single collection, before they became what we today know as the Second Writings (or ‘New Testament’), and that took place over time, with many collations of these Writings not having all the books we have today, and as could be expected, differing in their ordering of the books.


Let us not forget that the original “Second-Writings-Believers” had no copy of the Second Writings.


They wrote it! Naturally then, different ones in different places had only parts of the Second Writings until all those parts which we now have had been collected, and bound together.


Thus, there is no ‘correct’ order of the books of the Second Writings.


Are the Second Writings then really necessary? Absolutely!


That is why יהוה Eloheinu inspired them to be written, and anointed the Shliḥim (personal representatives) of יהושע to the task.


These works are unique in their guidance concerning how those who follow יהושע the Messiah are to apply יהוה’s Torah to their lives. Truly, we are to live by “every Word of יהוה“, as Torah and יהושע Rabbeinu both exhort us to do (De. 8:3; Mt. 4:4), and that includes all of the Second Writings Kĕpha Bĕt 3:15, 16; Tim. Bĕt 3:16, 17).

Since there is no correct order of the books, we have decided to stay with the traditional Western order that we have followed in previous editions of The Scriptures until further consideration more strongly motivates our change to a different order of books.


Thus there is a total of 27 books in all, or if reckoned Hebraically (e.g. counting Kĕpha Aleph & Kĕpha Bĕt as one book consisting of two letters, etc.), a total of 21.



The restoration of the Name of the Almighty to any translation of the Scriptures should require no justification. After all it was the Almighty Himself who originally placed His name in the Scriptures at least 6 823 times! It was human beings who decided, for reasons that made sense to them, to delete His Name and to replace it with something “more appropriate” in their view.

This, in spite of the Creator’s own statement to and through Mosheh (Moses) that: “This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all generations.” (Shemoth / Exodus 3:15, The Scriptures - 2009 Edition (ISR).


The reference in this passage is to the Name which, in Hebrew, consists of four letters Yod, Hey, Waw, Hey, and which is frequently referred to as ‘The Tetragrammaton.


These letters are often brought across into English characters by the use of the four letters, YHWH (or as YHVH).


This has been variously pronounced as YaHWeH, YaHoWeH, YaHuWeH, YaHVeH, etc.


We have chosen not to enter the pronunciation debate, but rather give the Name exactly as it appears in the unpointed Hebrew text, i.e. יהוה.


While there has been some debate over what is the most accurate and precise pronunciation, three things are clear however:

Firstly, the word Jehovah is definitely an erroneous pronunciation.


This is so because it derives from a combination of the letters JHVH and Hebrew vowel points belonging to an altogether different word.


Incidentally, the J was originally pronounced as a capital I (or Y), and thus the term Jehovah would have been read by early readers of the King James Version as Iehovah (or Yehovah.)


Secondly, any one of the various attempts to pronounce the Name is infinitely superior to the actual removal of the Name, and its substitution by an altogether different term!


Substitution by a ‘good’ term does not alter the fact that it is a substitution, a replacement word.


Further, some of the terms traditionally substituted for the Name are actually the names of pagan deities!


This is true, not only in English, but also in the other languages of the world!


Thirdly, in spite of the above facts, many translations perpetuate a “tradition” of substituting “LORD” or “GOD”, all in capital letters, for our heavenly Father’s chosen Name, יהוה.


Why? Many, and varied are the reasons which have been given, amongst both Christian and Jewish communities, for this serious error. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a translation purporting to be literal, yet resorting to the “device”, however well intentioned, of adding and subtracting from our heavenly Father’s own choice of Personal Name, would be doing a grave disservice to His cause.


At best it would display ignorance, but at worst would show disrespect, or blatant disregard for the plain Word of the Almighty Himself!


This is a matter that the ISR has taken seriously from the very beginning. In the 1993 edition of “TheScriptures” we stated: “The Scriptures differs radically from most other translations in that it does not continue in the tradition of substituting the Name of the Father and of the Son with names ascribed to gentile (pagan) deities.


All the names of deities which in the past have been ascribed to the Father, the Son, and even used when engaged in worship, have been avoided”.


Our position has NOT changed.


But surely He has many Names, one may ask? Not so! Men have called Him by many names, and indeed there are many titles by which He is known in Scripture (mistakenly called ‘names’ by some), but there is only ONE Name by which He urges us to remember Him to all generations!


That is the Name יהוה! You may be surprised to find that the expression “I AM”, quoted by so many people from Shemoth /Ex. 3:14 as THE Name of the Almighty is NOT used even ONCE more in the Tanaḵ (Old Testament) after this verse.


However, the Name יהוה is not only used in Shemoth /Ex. 3:15, but throughout the Tanaḵ, both before and after this passage, a total of 6 823 times in the Masoretic text of the Tanaḵ Alone. A rose, by any other name may smell just as sweet, but clearly this is not the case with יהוה!


One may not simply substitute His Name with that of a pagan deity, be it God, Gott, Zeus, Theos, Pan, Allah, Lord, Lordo, Lard, Hlafweard, or any other. Nor can we refer to Him by even a generic Lord, referencing Krishna, Vishnu, or any other “Lord” of choice.


Doing so is to attribute to another the work, power, esteem and wisdom which belongs only to יהוה Elohim (Yeshayahu /Is. 42:8). By His Name יהוה, He is to be distinguished from all “other deities”.

Many misguided individuals are under the false impression that, for instance, the words “Lord, LORD, God, GOD, Adonai or HaShem are “translations” of the Name of the Almighty.


Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth!


Consider once more the passage quoted above (Shemoth / Ex. 3:15) in which the ELOHIM (Heb. = “Mighty One”) of Araham, Yitsḥaq and Ya’aqoḇ declares that his Name is יהוה and that this Name is to be His remembrance to all generations.

Should this not then be the case in this generation also?


While names, especially in the Scriptures, frequently do have meanings, it is erroneous to think that we should call anyone or refer to anyone by the “translation” of his or her name.


And the same holds true in Scripture.


Giuseppe in Italian corresponds to Joseph in English; however, Giuseppe Verdi cannot be translated as Joseph Green in English, even if that is what it means in English!

The proper name of any individual is not translated; it is always transliterated or transcribed in order to approximate its original pronunciation.


We repeat: the proper name of any individual is simply not translated, more especially when we are dealing with the most important Ones: the Most High (יהוה) and His Son (יהושע)!


For all of these reasons, we have returned these Most Set Apart Names to their rightful place in our translation of the Scriptures, and have done so by using the Hebrew characters rather than any English rendering.


Such a rendering has solid historical precedent in the earliest copies of the Septuagint (LXX), and has the merit of being true to the text, neither adding nor subtracting by means of substitutions (however well-intended).


It has also the additional merit of allowing the individual reader to progress in his own quest for accuracy of pronunciation, as he seeks to obey the scriptural injunctions to call on the Name (Shemoth / Ex. 3:15; Yeshayahu / Isa.12:4; Yirmeyahu / Jer. 10:25; Tehillim / Ps. 105:1,3), to make it known (Shemoth / Ex. 9:16; Yeshayahu / Is. 64:1,2; Yeḥezqĕl / Ez. 39:7), and to not obliterate or forget it (Dearim / Dt. 12:3,4; Yeshayahu / Isa. 65:11; Yirmeyahu / Jer. 23:27; Tehillim / Ps. 44:20)!


In the same way the Messiah’s Name in Hebrew, יהושע, was chosen in order to avoid controversy.

All the available authoritative sources and references are in agreement and clearly admit that our Messiah’s Name was יהושע (see for instance Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, under Iesous).


While the short form “Yeshua” (ישוע) is popular with many (indeed the Shem Toḇ Hebrew text of Mattithyahu renders it as such, as also the Hebrew translation of the “New Testament” by F. Delitzch), Dr. Solomon Zeitlin refutes this form as the Name of our Messiah, favouring instead the form יהושע (see The Jewish Quarterly Review, Jan. 1970, p.195).


At this stage we need to explain the word “Elohim” used in this translation.


English translations have traditionally rendered it as “God” or as “god(s)” in most instances. However, the Hebrew word “elohim” is the plural form of “eloah”, which has the basic meaning of “mighty one”.


This word is not only used for deity, but is used in Scripture for judges, angels and idols (Shemoth / Ex. 7:1; 9:28; 12:12; 22:8, 9; Tehillim / Ps. 8:5; 82:1, 6) besides being used frequently for the Almighty.


The shorter forms, “el” and “elim” have the same basic meaning and similar usage. (Needless to say, the same would apply to the Aramaic equivalents, such as “elah” and “elahin”).


By transliterating these expressions instead of translating them as “Mighty One” something of the richness of the Hebrew is communicated, and we therefore retained them, with the exception of a few instances, such as Bereshith / Gen. 10:8; 31:30,32; 35:2,4; Shemoth / Ex. 12:12; 15:11; 18:11; 20:3,23; 23:13,24, where the translation of “mighty one” or “mighty ones” seemed more appropriate.



THE Tanaḵ (Pre-Second Writings Scripture, commonly called The Old Testament):

The Tanaḵ in this translation is based on the Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Scriptures, printed in the 1937 edition of Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. This is based on the ben Asher text of Leningrad, B 19a.


Generally speaking, there are few problems with the Masoretic text, because the Masoretes copied the Scriptures in great fear of making mistakes and altering the text.


They used the device of the Kethuim and Qerĕ by means of which they indicated in the margins their preferred readings. However, they did make a few changes in the text itself which have been recorded for us, but unfortunately not all in one manuscript. In 134 places the Sopherim (Scribes) removed the Name יהוה and substituted the term Adonai. In a further 8 places the Name יהוה was substituted by the term Elohim.


These have been collected by Dr. C.D. Ginsberg in his Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, (Ktav Publishing House Inc. New York).


We have accordingly restored the text to its original readings in these 142 places, and have also restored the text in accordance with the “Eighteen emendations of the Sopherim”, which are also recorded for us by Dr. C.D. Ginsberg. A list of these 160 places is provided in the Explanatory Notes for your convenience.


THE SECOND WRITINGS (variously called The Netzarim Writings, The Messianic Writings, The New Covenant, haBrit haḤadasha, The New Testament, etc.):


An issue that presents itself to anyone wanting to get to the “original” words behind those of the various translations available in any language is the matter of Primacy.


In other words, in what language were the words of the Second Writings originally inspired?


Unfortunately, we do not have the original text.


Only very old copies are currently available, until the archaeologists give us something more.


The oldest, but not necessarily the ‘best’ copies currently available are in Greek. - wrong


Were these (ultimately) copies of Greek or Semitic (i.e. Hebrew / Aramaic) originals?


Positions vary on the matter of Primacy, most scholars opting for the more traditional view of Western Christianity, that they were originally written in Greek.


However, there are various scholars who dispute this intensely, maintaining that at least part, if not all of the Second Writings are of Semitic origin.


Indeed, this represents the position of Eastern Christianity, where for example, the ‘authorized version’ of the Church of the East is the Peshitta, in which the Second Writings are entirely in Aramaic.


The Peshitta in its current form does not go back beyond the fourth century, but its advocates strongly maintain that it rests firmly upon Aramaic originals.

We are not going to go argue the case here, beyond stating that we believe that there is a very strong case to be made for the view that the originals were inspired in a Semitic language and not in Greek, as is commonly supposed.


The Institute for Scripture Research is firmly of the persuasion that the originals were written in a Semitic tongue, and that they are intended by יהוה our Elohim to find their natural place in the Tanaḵ (Torah, Nei’im, Kethuim) as part of the Kethuim (Writings).


This view, that the Scriptures in their entirety, consist of Semitic Writings, originally given to Semitic people, within a Semitic religious and cultural context should not seem so strange, against the background of Paul / Sha’ul’s statement concerning the Yehuim (Jews) that “they were entrusted with the Words of Elohim” (Rom.3:2). This is in no way to be seen as contradicting the commission of יהושע Rabbeinu, our Master the Messiah, to make talmidim (taught ones) of all the nations ( Mattityahu / Mat. 28:19,20; Luqas / Luke. 24:47; Ma`asei / Acts 1:8), for was it not He who taught that “deliverance/ salvation is of the Yehuim” (Yoḥanan / Jn. 4:22)?


In addition to the above, there is the matter of substituting the Name of the Father and the Son with other terms, especially in light of the scriptural prohibition against adding to or diminishing from the words of the Most High (Dearim / Dt. 4:2;12:32; Mishlĕ / Pr.30:4-6).


Now Invalid assumptions


And if it be further admitted (see for example, Explanatory Notes, under Jesus) that the Greek text uses terms that come direct from pagan deities for both the Father and the Son, then it becomes abundantly clear from Scripture itself (Shemoth / Ex. 23:13; Yehoshua / Jos. 23:7; etc.) that such texts could not possibly be the inspired originals, but rather they are translations, ultimately descending from the Semitic originals.


This means of course, for the ISR, that we have to attempt to put before the reader an English text that truthfully and accurately reflects the inspired Semitic originals, when in fact the oldest and vast majority of texts we have available are Greek!


A daunting task indeed.


To the extent that we have succeeded in this, we can only give praise to the Most High.


However we are well aware of our shortcomings, and the possibility, even the probability that we have fallen far short of our goal. In this respect, let it be said that we do not view our work as in any way final or definitive.


Rather, we hope that it will encourage others to re-examine what they may have always taken for granted, and to research these matters for themselves. (We extend an ongoing invitation to any who can give input that will improve future editions of The Scriptures, especially in regard to the matter of Semitic originals).


What text then were we to use? Since the originals are no longer extant, there was no alternative but to make use of the existing Greek manuscripts, carefully considering the additional testimony of Semitic texts such as the Peshitta (Aramaic), the Shem Tob
̱ (Hebrew), etc.


Even here, however there are problems, in that for each of the main streams of textual types


(e.g. Byzantine / Textus Receptus vs. Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus) there are those who contend that a particular type and that one alone represents the true original.

We determined however, not to become embroiled in such controversies, since our position advocates a Semitic original, true to the Tanaḵ / Old Testament.


Hence whatever readings we have adopted will inevitably offend those contending for any one of the main textual types as the true original.


We cannot therefore claim that our text represents a translation of any particular underlying text.


As a modus operandi then, we have started out using the Textus Receptus, modifying our rendering as seemed appropriate in light of those other texts which we consulted, such as the Nestle-Aland text and the Shem Toḇ Text, noting certain differences in the footnotes, where necessary.


In harmony therefore with the above principles, we restored the Names of the Father and of the Son, and the names of all the Hebrew individuals, in accordance with the Hebrew, especially as found in the Tanaḵ / Old Testament.


 We also restored the names of the places in Yisra’ĕl, for after all, we are dealing with a Jewish worship; we are dealing with the Elohim of Yisra’ĕl; we are dealing with יהושע haMashiach (the Messiah), Rabbeinu (our Rabbi - Mt.23:8), the Sovereign of the Yehuim - as He is called in no less than 23 places in the Second Writings (Messianic Writings, New Testament).


In rendering Hebrew names we tried to be as exact as possible. However, with a few names there was a problem, e.g. the name Dani’ĕl is spelled in three different ways, but all three of these spellings result in the same pronunciation.

Therefore it was decided to strive for consistency and render such names according to a single spelling, in order to retain the original pronunciation as best we could. We departed from this, however, in two cases, viz. in those names containing part of the Name יהוה, where we felt compelled to add the suffix -yah or - yahu, exactly as it appears in the Hebrew text, and in the case of certain terms such as Ělohim, where we opted to use the form, Elohim, instead.


As in previous editions of The Scriptures, we stand in awe and fear before the Most High, knowing that account shall be given for every word rendered in this version, The Scriptures - 2009 Edition (ISR).

Much is going to be required from those to whom much has been given (Luqas / Lk. 12:48).


As previously stated, we do not offer our labours to the public as the “last word” on these matters, and welcome feedback and useful input from any who have insight or information relevant to the improvement of this translation.


With this new edition of The Scriptures, we continue to reach out a hand of love toward all Scripture-believers of all backgrounds, pleading that we join hands and turn back to יהוה who will then turn back to us (Zearyah / Zec. 1:3 and Hoshĕa 6:1-3).

Let us do so by turning to His Torah. This will lead to belief in יהושע and His Word (Yoḥanan / Jn. 5:45-47), and for those who come into the (re-)new(-d) covenant, this will result in reconciliation to his Father.


Portions from The Scriptures could be quoted freely in any format, provided that:

The text of The Scriptures may be quoted at any one time up to and inclusive of one hundred (100) verses without express written permission from the Institute for Scripture Research, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of The Scriptures nor do the verses quoted account for more than 10% of the total work in which they are quoted.

Notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page of the work as follows:

"Scripture taken from The Scriptures, Copyright by Institute for Scripture Research.

Used by permission".


When quotations from The Scriptures are used in media, such as bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies or similar media, the abbreviation The Scriptures (ISR) may be used at the end of the quotation.


The following conditions apply when quoting from The Scriptures:

* No change whatsoever is made to the text.

* The quotation from The Scriptures is quoted in context.


Quotations in excess of the above limitations, or other permission requests, must be directed to and approved in writing by Institute for Scripture Research
Republic of South Africa

This writing above is just a part of the PREFACE of the Scriptures Bible.


Enough to see where this bible comes from



In closing:


At this point in time, 2018, we have 2 ascensions of bibles, you decide.


Do your home work.


Remember all new bibles written today are just a compilation, in part, of other erroneous bibles versions.


Here is more information, if you are up for it:



Shabbat Shalom

[Click Here to Print]