How To Pick A Good Translation
How can you pick a good translation of the Bible?
A few months back, I was examining various translations of a couple of verses to see how they differ.
I started by looking at Mark 7:19 in various translations.
Some translations had a sentence like this (the Good News Translation (GNT), for example) at the end of Mark 7:19 "(In saying this, Jesus declared that all foods are fit to be eaten.)" that was missing in other translations (the King James Version (KJV), for example).
Some translations like the New International Version (NIV) have a footnote that says that this sentence is in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. However, if you look in the Greek text in these manuscripts for yourself on various websites that make it available, then you will find that it is not in a single one of those manuscripts.
Even if it was, they are not the oldest source document for the Gospel of Mark. The oldest document that contains the Gospel of Mark does not contain the entire Renewed Covenant (B'rit Chadashah aka The New Testament). It is about a hundred years older than the oldest manuscript that contains the entire Renewed Covenant.
This oldest document with Mark 7:19 is also missing this entire sentence.
This entire sentence that is missing from the other translations is not found in a single Greek manuscript out of the over 5300 manuscripts that have been discovered. It is not found in a single Greek source document. This is why I refer to it as "one disturbing sentence".
So, why is this sentence in some translations and not in others?
One ancient manuscript does have a note in the margin that contains the commentary of the scribe with this sentence, but it is not part of the scripture that the scribe was commenting on. So at best, people transferred the commentary in one manuscript out of over 5,300 manuscripts from the commentary column to the scripture column.
No scholar of any merit would allow this to happen. They would verify that it was in other manuscripts and then realize their mistake.
So, this is not the reason why the sentence has been added, but it does shed light on the thought process of why it was added.
The translations that have this sentence are all thought-for-thought translations while the ones missing it are all word-for-word translations. The thought-for-thought translations added this sentence to the words of the Man of Truth (Yeshua HaMashiach aka Jesus Christ) because their translators thought that this was his unspoken thought. The word-for-word translations do not have it because the Man of Truth never said it in the source manuscripts.
The thought-for-thought translations say that the Man of Truth nullified a
commandment of the Law of Truth (Torah aka The Law).
This would be breaking the commandments of the
Law of Truth to not do such a thing (Deuteronomy 4:2). No one can change the commandments of the Law of Truth (Deuteronomy 12:32). The Man of Truth would have been a sinner if he did that - for sin is transgression of the Law of Truth (1 John 3:4).
The
word-for-word translations say no such thing about the Man of Truth.
I also looked at Luke 21:36 in various translations.
The word-for-word translations all say something like "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." (KJV), while the thought-for-thought translations all say something like "Be on watch and pray always that you will have the strength to go safely through all those things that will happen and to stand before the Son of Man." (GNT).
The fact is that there is not a single Greek manuscript or source document that supports the idea of having the strength to get through these things. The oldest source document is P75 and it has variations of the Greek root words "kataxioo ekpheugo" - like all other manuscripts and source documents.
People have translated the Greek word "kataxioo" as things like "be able to get through" in the Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) or "have the strength to" in the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB).
This Greek word literally means "to deem entirely deserving". It is used in this sense throughout all ancient Greek writings and is never used of having strength to get through anything. It is accurately translated as "accounted worthy" or "counted worthy".
This Greek word is used in three other places in the Renewed Covenant. Even translations like the CJB translate it as "accounted worthy" or "counted worthy" in Luke 20:35, Acts 5:41, and 2 Thessalonians 1:5. Only in Luke 21:36 do they translate it as something like "have the strength to".
So, not only does their translation of "kataxioo" in Luke 21:36 as "have the strength to" contradict the literal meaning of the word and how it is used in all ancient Greek documents, but it also contradicts how it is translated everywhere else in their own translation. If they were consistent, then Luke 21:36 would read "accounted worthy to escape" like it does in word-for-word translations.
The next Greek word in all of these ancient source documents is "ekpheugo". People have translated the Greek word "ekpheugo" as things like "to get through" in the ERV or "go safely through" in the GNT.
This Greek word literally means "to flee to safety". It
is used in this sense throughout all ancient Greek writings and is
never used of going safely through anything. It is accurately
translated as "flee from" or "escape".
This Greek word is used in seven other places in the Renewed Covenant. Even translations like the GNT translate it as "escaped" or "ran away from" in Act 16:7, Acts 19:16, Romans 2:3, 2 Corinthians 11:33, 1 Thessalonians 5:3, Hebrews 2:3, and Hebrews 12:25. Only in Luke 21:36 do they translate it as something like "go safely through".
So, not only does their translation of "ekpheugo" in Luke 21:36 as "go safely through" contradict the literal meaning of the word and how it
is used in all ancient Greek documents, but it also contradicts how it
is translated everywhere else in their own translation. If they were consistent, then
Luke 21:36 would read "accounted worthy to escape" like it does in
word-for-word translations.
So, the same translations that say that the Man of Truth sinned by nullifying a commandment of the Law of Truth also say that people are to pray for strength to go through the Tribulation. The translations that do not make Man of Truth into a sinner say for people to watch and pray to be accounted worthy to escape the Tribulation.
It is not only the Renewed Covenant where people have to be careful about the translation.
The word-for-word versus thought-for-thought translation process can also distort a translation of the Original Covenant (Tanakh aka The Old Testament). I have found significant difference between both types of translations.
However, there is another layer of concern when it comes to the Original Covenant.
There are two primary types of manuscripts that the Original Covenant is translated from. One is the Masoretic Text written in Hebrew and the other is the Septuagint written in Greek.
The oldest copy of the Masoretic Text is from the tenth century AD. The Rabbis say that it is a copy of a much older complete Original Covenant manuscript written in Hebrew that has not survived.
The oldest copy of the Septuagint is from the fourth century AD. It is a copy of a much older Greek complete Original Covenant manuscript written in Greek that has not survived. That manuscript was a Greek translation of an even older complete Original Covenant manuscript written in Hebrew that has not survived.
The problem is that there are passages of the Masoretic Text that cannot be translated into Greek that matches the Greek that is in the Septuagint. Most of these passages are about the identity of the Messiah.
However, neither of these are the oldest source documents for the passages where these irreconcilable differences occur. These passages are found in much older Hebrew source documents from as early as the second century BC like the Dead Scrolls.
In every single case, these oldest Hebrew source documents can be translated into the Greek in the Septuagint and contradict the Hebrew in the Masoretic Text!
So, a good translation of the Original Covenant not only is not a word-for-word translation, but also one that gives preference to the Septuagint where it conflicts with the Masoretic Text.
The best way for most people to tell is to look at a Messianic passage like Psalm 22:16. The Greek of the Septuagint and the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text plainly differ greatly in the last phrase of this verse.
If this verse was translated word-for-word from the Septuagint then it will end with a phrase like "they pierced my hands and feet". However, if it was translated word-for-word from the Masoretic Text then it will end with a phrase like "like a lion - my hands and feet".
There is one more thing to look for: books that are missing from the Original Covenant or the Renewed Covenant or additional books that are not in either.
A good translation has only the books that certain to be part of the Book of Truth.
Some translations like the GNT have additional books found in the Apocrypha included. These books contain a mix of history, fables, and Rabbinic doctrine.
While
they have some value as study resources, they are not part of the Book
of Truth. Their inclusion in some translations of the Book of Truth -
especially when they are inserted between the Original Covenant and the
Renewed Covenant - give the appearance of being part of Word of Truth.
This
causes confusion among many readers that would be avoided if they were
put in the appendix with other resources like the maps or placed in a
separate book like other study aids such as Strong's Concordance.
There have been translations that contained books written well after the time of Apostles as well like the Epistle of Clement. In like manner, there are translations that contain books were supposedly written before the time of Moses (Moshe) like the Book of Enoch.
The books that belong in the Book of Truth must meet a few minimum requirements given in the Book of Truth.
The Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD) entrusted only the Jewish people with His Word (Romans 3:1-2).
So, the first requirement is that the book has to have been written by a Jew.
This excludes books like the Book of Enoch, who was plainly a Gentile who lived long before Abraham was marked by circumcision as the father of the Jewish people (Luke 3:34-38). It also excludes books like the Epistle of Clement from the Renewed Covenant because it was written by a Gentile.
The Book of Truth is the writings of the Prophets of Truth and the Apostles of Truth (Ephesians 2:19-20). These are the words that we are to remember (2 Peter 3:1-2).
So, the second requirement is that the book has to have been written by a Prophet of Truth for the Original Covenant or an Apostle of Truth for the Renewed Covenant.
The Original Covenant contained all of the words spoken by the Father
of Truth until John the Baptist (Yochanon the Mikveh Man) arrived (Luke 16:16).
The books of the Apocrypha were written during this famine between
when the time of the Malachi, the last book written by a Prophet of
Truth and the birth of the Man of Truth. So, while
the books of the Apocrypha were written by Jews, they were not written
by Prophets of Truth or Apostles of Truth.
The books of the Apocrypha were written during the over four
hundred years of silence between the Original Covenant and the Renewed
Covenant. They are not part of the Book of Truth.
In like manner, there have been others, like Martin Luther, who made translations that did not have all of the books of the Book of Truth. They claimed that the Book of Truth had been corrupted by having these books included.
The fact is that there are no missing books of the Bible. In like manner, there are no extra books either for the Book of Truth is the incorruptible word. Every piece is needed and fits together with no gaps from missing pieces to reveal the deep things of the Father of Truth.
There is overwhelming evidence from ancient documents and archeology from almost the time of the Apostles of Truth that the list of the books as belonging to the Renewed Covenant is the same list that is found in translations like the KJV. In like manner, the list of books given in the KJV for the Original Covenant is the same as the oldest list of those books as well.
So, in summary consider these things to pick a good translation:
1) Look at Mark 7:19 to make sure that it DOES NOT have a sentence like "Thus saying Jesus declared all food clean" at the end.
2) Look at Luke 21:36 to make sure that it DOES contain a phrase like "accounted worth to escape" near the center.
3) Look at Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53 to make sure that the wording describes the Messiah of Israel being killed by crucifixion.
4) Look at the list of books for the Original Covenant and Renewed Covenant to make sure that it matches the same list of books used by the disciples of the Apostles that is listed in the KJV. Make sure that it is not missing any books or had any books added.
(NOTE: Some translations might have only one book of Kings or Chronicles. This DOES NOT mean that they are missing any books. This is because these are only one book in ancient Hebrew source documents but were broken into two books in later translations.
So, if a translation has only one book listed for these, just check the beginning and end of the book against the beginning and end of the set of books in another translation. The wording in beginning of the first chapter of the single book should be similar to that the first chapter of the first book of the split set. Likewise, the wording in the end of the last chapter of the single book should be similar to that the last chapter of the second book of the split set. If they are similar, then there is not a problem.)
So,
besides the four considerations listed about there is a fifth thing to
consider in picking a good translation - it must be a translation
that you can understand!
It is better to pick a version with five
words you understand than one with ten thousand that you do not (1 Corinthians 14:19).
So, a good translation is any translation that meets ALL five of these considerations.
The KVJ is an example of a good translation and the one that I use for the following reasons:
1) There are more reference materials that are indexed to the KJV than any other translation.
This includes works like Strong's Concordance, Thayer's Lexicon, and the works of Eidersheim. Some of these works have been indexed to one or two other translations in the last few years, but most are still indexed only to the KJV.
2) The KJV contains fewer flaws than almost any other translation.
Most of the flaws that people cite are actually due to changes in the English language since the KJV was made.
For example, the word Greek word "enkonos" translated as "nephews" in 1 Timothy 5:4 in the KJV actually means "grandsons". This was not a mistranslation. The English word "nephew" meant "grandson" when the KJV was translated.
3) The KJV is not perfect, but I know where the flaws are at and what should be done to correct them. This is not true with other translations.
I found the easiest way check if there is a flaw in other translations is first compare them to the KJV. If it is still not clear, then I dig deeper - usually using reference materials that are indexed to the KJV, but not to the translation that I am examining. So, sticking to the KJV saves me a lot of time.
4) The KJV is the most quoted translation, so passages of other works such as books and movies that contain a quote from the Bible without a reference can be found most of the time by doing a search using the KJV.
5) The KJV is translation that I have read the most, so most of the time when I remember a piece of scripture, I am remembering it from it.
However,
I am not advocating that the KJV is the only good translation. When I read the KJV, I am often translating 16th century English into modern English in my head. Not everyone can do this.
So, what is driving people to make these sometimes-absurd translations?
There are four factors driving people to make them and promote them.
The first is simply telling people what they want to hear, so people will seek out false teachers.
Many people want to hear that food they have been eating for years like ribs and lobster are now clean.
This is driven by a misconception that the food they eat must be clean for their spirit to be clean from sin. The irony is that this contradicts the point of the discourse that contains Mark 7:19. The point of the discourse is that a person being physically clean - their hands - has nothing to with their heart being clean.
The Gentiles do not have to be circumcised to be saved (Acts 21:21-25). They only have to keep the entire Law of Truth if they get circumcised as a sign that they are obligating themselves to do so (Galatians 5:3).
There is nothing about eating unclean food in what they are required to do (Acts 15:28-29). Eating unclean food is not one of the things that will keep people from inheriting the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Eating unclean food is not one of the things that causes people to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 21:8).
So, the Man of Truth did not need to declare all food clean for them to be part of his Kingdom. He was not sinning by changing the Law of Truth.
He did shed his blood to clean food but to clean people. Clean food is still clean food and unclean food is still unclean food.
So, creating translations that tell people what they want to hear makes people more susceptible to heaping up teachers who tell them what they want to hear, so they can be turned to listening to fables instead of the truth (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
The Jim Fakers of the world are trying to sell people Tribulation Survival Kits. They do not care about the Children of Truth - only what they can sell them (2 Peter 2:1-3).
The message of "People get ready!" is bad for business. People who believe this message will invest their money in taking care of orphans and spreading the Good News instead of trying to prepare to survive the Tribulation.
Others want to draw disciples after themselves (Acts 20:30). So they distort things like The Greater Exodus.
A translation that tells people to invest their time, talent, and treasure into the purposes of the Man of Truth, so they will be accounted worthy to escape the Tribulation is bad for those trying to draw followers after themselves.
This message destroys the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that drives people to follow them. Those who are doing what the Man of Truth said to be accounted worthy to escape the Tribulation will not fear it. Instead, they will say "Bring it on!".
The third is to keep Jewish people from knowing that the Man of Truth is the Messiah of Israel.
The Rabbis will not come into the House of Truth and put up as many obstacles as they can to keep other Jews from coming into the House of Truth (Luke 11:52-54).
These translations distort the words of The Prophets - especially Psalms 22, Isaiah 53, and the Book of Daniel. This is just another example of Rabbinic Distort.
The fourth is simply to "prove" a teaching that cannot be proven using the Book of Truth, the whole Book of Truth, and only the Book of Truth.
The False Church of Rome and others include the Apocrypha and other books in some translations because their doctrines contradict the Book of Truth. In like manner, some have made translations with books removed from the Book of Truth for the same reason.
Yet, others create translations with extra or missing books because they love to create controversy and cause general confusion with "new and exciting revelations".
They will argue that the Book of Enoch must be scripture - even though Enoch the Gentile was not a Jew - since Jude the son of Mary quotes the words of Enoch the Gentile (Jude 1:14-15).
Jude the son of Mary was quoting what had verbally been handed down
from Enoch through the scribes - not the Book of Enoch. These writings were written down as part of the Talmud later. Even if he was
quoting from the Book of Enoch, would that make everything written by
Enoch the Gentile scripture?
The Man of Truth quotes a Greek play to Paul the Jew (Shaul aka Saul aka The Apostle Paul) on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:5). Does that make the rest of the plays written by that Gentile scripture?
Paul the Jew quotes Greek philosophers and poets at Mars Hill (Acts 17:28). Does that make the works of those Gentiles scripture?
Paul the Jew also quotes a Cretan prophet (Titus 1:12). Does that make all the words spoken by this Gentile prophet scripture?
In like manner, they will argue that the Book of Jasher must also be scripture because it is quoted in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 10:13). It is also quoted in the Book of Samuel (2 Samuel 1:18). Does that make everything written in the Book of Jasher scripture?
The inclusion of investigation and execution of Bigthan and Teresh that was recorded in the Chronicles of the Kings of the Medes and Persia is quoted in the Book of Esther (Esther 2:21-23). So, this event was read from the same chronicles later in the Book of Esther (Esther 6:1-2). The Book of Esther ends with the deeds of the king of Persia and Mordecai being recorded in these chronicles (Esther 10). Does that make everything written in the Chronicles of the Kings of the Medes and Persia scripture?
These two books are obvious frauds with multiple versions that contradict each other. The tenth chapter of the Book of Jasher uses Medieval European names for different regions of the world - even though it reputes to have been written during the time of King David!
Those who are trying to treat these books that plainly do not meet the requirement laid out in the Book of Truth to be scripture, are rejecting the sound doctrine founded upon the words of the Man of Truth (1 Timothy 6:3). They are proud and know nothing but love to create envy and strife (1 Timothy 6:4).
They use these books to teach Jewish fables and the commandments of men that turn from the truth, because they do not know the Father of Truth (Titus 1:14-16). They use these books to create envy and strife that stirs up confusion and every evil work (James 3:14-15).
Their use of these books has been a major contributor to the Messianic Mess.
The Children of Truth are to withdraw themselves from these teachers with perverted minds that are desolate of the truth (1 Timothy 6:5)!
So, which type of translation are we going use to understand the message that God is speaking to us?
One that makes the Man of Truth into a sinner where the translators have added their own thoughts to the actual words OR one that only says what the source documents say? One that tells us to ignore everything that the Father of Truth said about food OR one that does not?
One that tells us to hide from the world and preparing to survive through the Tribulation OR one that tells us to obey the commandment of the Man of Truth to go into the world with the Good News, so we can be counted worthy to escape the Tribulation?
One that makes the identity of the Man of Truth as the Messiah of Israel unmistakable OR one that was purposely altered to hide his identity? One that contains the same list of books that the Apostles of Truth handed to their disciples OR one that contains a different list of books?
Or are we just going to pick and choose whichever translation agrees with whatever we already think?
This is important because it influences how we live our lives. Picking the wrong translation can cause us to follow another gospel that is different than the one taught by the Man of Truth or preached by the Apostles of Truth.
So, choose wisely which type of translation that you pick to read and believe.
As for me and my house, we have chosen translations that do not add the thoughts of the translators to the words of the source manuscripts, that do not rely on altered source documents, and that contain the same list of books that the Apostles of Truth gave to their disciples.
Still, the most important thing to understand from any translation is how to come into the House of Truth.
You come into the House of Truth by surrendering control of your life to the Man of Truth because you believe the Father of Truth raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9).
Come into the House of Truth!
Labels: Bible Translation, Deception
posted by The House Of Truth @ February 07, 2022
<< Home