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
Email: ministermalachi@comcast.net
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
Latin Maius "of Maia"
Latin 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: http://oneinmessiah.net/subjects.htm
You can hear them on my site at http://oneinmessiah.net/av.htm
You can watch them on my site at http://oneinmessiah.net/videoFiles.htm
You can download mp3s at http://oneinmessiah.net/mp3s.htm
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 http://Paltalk.com
- 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://97.89.83.34:8086
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: http://oneinmessiah.net/ScheduleMe
------------
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
סִיוָן
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.
Next:
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
KJB: 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
KJB: 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
KJB: 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
KJB: (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
KJB: 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
KJB: 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)
English
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:
WHY ANOTHER TRANSLATION?
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 Baḇel, 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’aqoḇ, Kĕpha, Yoḥanan and Yehuḏah 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 Tanaḵ.
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’ (shliḥim
= ‘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 (Deḇ. 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
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 Aḇraham, 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 (Deḇarim
/ 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 TEXT OF THE TANAḴ AND SECOND WRITINGS
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 Kethuḇim
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.):
THE ISSUES:
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, Neḇi’im, Kethuḇim)
as part of the Kethuḇim
(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 Yehuḏim
(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 Yehuḏim”
(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 (Deḇarim / 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).
WHICH TEXT?
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 Toḇ (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 Yehuḏim
- as He is called in no less than 23 places in the Second Writings (Messianic
Writings, New Testament).
TRANSLITERATION
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.
CONCLUSION
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 (Zeḵaryah / 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.
Copyright
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:
http://oneinmessiah.net/whichbible.htm
Shabbat Shalom