Walk Through The Bible #2 - Text, Translation, and Translations (r.6.0.5)

Vol. III Supplement, No.
Text, Translation, and Translations

Dec. 3, 2022 Updated r.6.0.5
Aug 27, 2021 Updated r.5.3.7
Aug 14, 2021 Updated r.2.3.7
June 25, 2021 Updated r.2.3.6
This is one of the supplements to IRENT, a new translation of the New

Testament which is based on the linguistic and literary critical approach. The
translation with associated supporting files is open to the public and
available free to all to challenge and be challenged. You should find this
helpful in many ways. It is, however, to make the reading rather more
careful than to make it comfortable and easy for reading and studying the
Bible. And foremost it is here to help ourselves help and continually unlearn,
re-learn, and learn!
As with everything in life, many fails to unlearn those things cherished

dearly. It is a life changing effort. Sadly, no one wants to unlearn. But we all
need to unlearn, sometimes from the ground up. It pays to unlearn!
IRENT Vol. III. Supplement:
# 2 of WALK THROUGH THE BIBLE
No. 2 (Text, Translation and Translations)
No. 1 (Words, Words, and Words)

No. 2 (Text, Translation, and Translations)
No. 3-A (Name, God, Spirit)
No. 3-B ('Jesus Christ' vs. 'Yeshua Mashiah')
No. 3-C (Tetragrammaton)
No. 3-D (Trinity)
No. 4 (Man, Anthropology, and Religion)
No. 5 (People and Persons)
No. 6 (Place, Things, and Numbers)
No. 7 (Time & Calendar)
No. 8 (Festival, Feast, & Passover)
No. 9 (Passion Week Chronology)
No. 10 (Selected Biblical Chronologies)
No. 11 (Sabbath)
No. 12 (Infancy Narrative & Virgin Birth Myth)
See the collected files in Collections #2 for this Supplement:

Hominum confusione, Dei providentia
God's plan emerges out of our human confusion
-- Hopefully so
No. 2 Text, Translation and Translations
[Note: ‘Ref.’ is reading material I have found useful, not only to solve problems but
also to find challenges. Not all things written there are relevant to the topics under
the discussion here. Not all written can be correct, accurate, or acceptable. The
readers should exercise their own judgment to make best use of them.]
At the level of vocabulary: That a word is a word and is a word is contrary to what
we find in the language. Most difficult two words are ‘*meaning’ and ‘*definition’
– how to find its meaning and how to define. Each word has only a semantic field –
no meaning(s) in itself. Meaning comes when a word is found in the context in the
text. [E.g., a simple word ‘dream’ if tried to put into Latin - If your request contains
the word "dream", read this before posting ] [Problem of polysemy – a range of
meaning]
Without clear meanings, a word can be at a root of confusion and miscommunication. A

word does not have meanings by itself. A meaning of a word in dictionaries does not go
beyond glosses. Only usage of a word by people (diachronic and synchronic) we can see its
meanings on which a writer or speaker rely on what is intended to convey.
The meaning of any word or expression is compounded in varying proportions of

five ingredients: (a) dictionary (rather ‘lexical’) definition; (b) contextual
determination; (c) the referent; (d) verbal association; and (e) emotive force. [G. B.
Caird, “The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel: An Exercise in Biblical Semantics”
Mew Test. Stud. 15, pp. 265-77. The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel: An Exercise in
Biblical Semantics]
Since Bible translation work involves interpretation of the Scriptures, this file also
includes material on interpretation as such. An interpretation of any document is
fraught with many and serious difficulties. [Cf. exegesis and eisegesis ] The term
*hermeneutics covers both art and theory of understanding and interpretation of
linguistic and non-linguistic expressions.a It is the study of the principles that should
guide work of interpretation. Not about reading the present significance of a text
(and not only with its original meaning), nor a specific approach to interpretation
(as in “the new hermeneutic”). Nor it is explaining away nor finding application of
the text to bring to the readers’ life. Even The doctrine of so-called biblical
inerrancy entails certain interpretive positions. [Ref. Silva (1987), Has the Church
Misread the Bible?]
Ref.: The Bible Translator, Vols. 21 - 30 (1970 - 1979)
a
especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical
texts.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/articles_bible-translator_03.php#vol26
Bible translations;
translation process and translation product (Bibles);
Bible translations into English;
www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/bible-basics/what-are-the-earliest-versions-and-
translations-of-the-bible
200-300 CE - Appearance of Earliest Bible Translations [
www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline-important-dates-in-ad-
christian-history-11542876.html ]
www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66
www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ [English Bible History]
https://biblemanuscriptsociety.com/Bible-resources/
https://biblemanuscriptsociety.com/Modern-New-Age-Bibles
www.kjvtoday.com/home/reliable-hebrew-text
Paul Wegner (1999), The Journey from Texts to Translations – The Origin and
Development of the Bible.
Charles Scalise (1996), From Scripture to Theology – A Canonical Journey into
Hermeneutics.
Moisés Silva (1990), God, Language and Scripture – Reading the Bible in the light
of general linguistics.
Jason BeDuhn, "Marcion, Forgotten Church Father and Inventor of the New Testament",
The Fourth R, Vol. 27 No 5, Sep–Oct 2014. pp.3-6, 23-24. [A copy in <IRENT Vol. III -
Supplement (Collections #2 - text & translation)>.
OT (Hebrew Scriptures); /Rabbinic-Bible Mikraot Gedolot (or, "the Second Rabbinic

Bible") – believed to have been used by the translators of the King James Version of
1611, as the source text (Textus Receptus) of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Glen Scorgie et al. (2003), The Challenge of Bible Translation [downloaded from the web].
Terminologies
*Bible, *Scripture, Scriptures, *God’s Word; Texts; Manuscripts
*Bible vs. Scriptures vs. Word of God; The Word of the Elohim; *book, ‘scroll’;
*Scripture,
*Toraha, torah, *New Testament, Old Testament, Hebrew Scriptures (*TaNaKh),
www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/scripture.html
www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm
www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
https://youtu.be/NcdQyhngSWs <Why New Testament is Not Scripture - Michael Skobac>
what the heck is scripture?
Manuscripts, text (Scripture),

*canon.
www.bibleatchurch.com/biblehistory/literary-history-of-the-bible/canonization/
www.bibleatchurch.com/biblehistory/literary-history-of-the-bible/canonization/
Scriptural, biblical, unbiblical, nonbiblical. [e.g., ‘Biblical inspiration’ vs. ‘Bible

inspiration’ '*inspiration from bible']; ‘ noncanonical writings’ ‘Apocrypha’ Non-
Canonical.htm
Pseudepigrapha;
https://sermons.faithlife.com/sermons/715629-the-organization-of-canonical-books-and-
list-of-non-canonical-books
/Didache [a relatively short text from 1st century CE with only some 2,300 words. The
contents may be divided into four parts.]
Didache online reading: https://reformedwiki.com/read-didache-kirsopp;
https://sermons.faithlife.com/sermons/715629-the-organization-of-canonical-books-
and-list-of-non-canonical-books
[See WB#1'- Words, Words and Words>]
Bible – (A) The collection of books (66 in Protestant Bible; more in Catholic; more in
Orthodox). Cf. Hebrew Bible ‘TaNaKh’ vs. Christian ‘Old Testament’)
(B) as the translated works and its text into various vernacular languages, or the content
within.
There is no such thing as ‘the Bible’, other than it denotes a particular Bible of a certain
version/edition in a language. Often it refers to the published book of the translated text.
The word with its concept is not in the Bible itself. [Note: /Bibliolatry – not just biblical
inerrancy but believing that the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God." – it is
not. See below.] The Bible by itself is not the word of God. The word of God is what is
a
The first occurrence of the word (in singular) “Torah” in the Torah, in Exo 12:49, says, “You shall
have one Torah for the citizen and the alien. https://reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction -
Cf. plural – Gen 26:5; Exo 16:28; 18:20.
held in the Scriptures which the spirit of God brings to the hearers. Only a minute
fraction of OT corresponds to the written down of what God himself said; with the
expression ‘the word of God’ being in a figurative sense. One may believe ‘the Bible’;
but not ‘believe in the Bible’ (e.g., KJV-onlyism)
Scriptural – ditto ‘in the Scriptures’. If Scriptural, it has to be also Biblical, though
certain Bibles may not have translated correctly and clearly what is in the Scripture.
Biblical; Non-biblical – not related to the Bible; not present in the Bible. (Necessarily
also non-Scriptural); Unbiblical – contrary to what is said in the Bible.
Non-scriptural; Unscriptural –contrary to what is said in the Scripture. (Necessarily
also unbiblical)
Hebrew Scripture (TaNaKh. Cf. LXX; Aramaic Texts); Christian Scripture (NT and
OT); Greek Scriptures (NT and/or LXX);
The Scripture (used as a collective noun instead of pl. ‘the Scriptures’ in IRENT. Most
Bibles translate the plural word in Greek NT text as ‘the scriptures’, the singular one as
‘scripture’. The latter is translated in IRENT as ‘passage in the TaNaKh scripture’), vs.
the Bible vs. Bibles.
Original Scripture texts (original manuscripts; variants; OT Texts; NT Greek
Texts); Codex; papyrus; versions;
Biblical – pertaining to, contained in, or in concordance with what is said ‘in a Bible’
*Textual criticism; *critical edition; *manuscripts; manuscript variants; text
variants
*version; editions; vs. a (Bible) translation; Cf. ' translator vs. interpreter
OT quotations vs. allusions – these are indicated as such by putting the relevant text
is marked with ☼ for cross-referencing and put in Arial font in the background of the
default 'Times New Roman' font [not to be confused with simple borrowing of OT
languagea]
www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/39/6/6 <What’s Critical About a Critical Edition

of the Bible?>
The Bible, the Holy Scripture, the Word of Elohim. by which Divine Truth is
revealed.
The Word of Elohim is that which Divine Truth is revealed in the Holy
Scripture.
The Holy Scripture is not the same with the Word of God that which holds
The Bible is not same as the Holy Scripture. ['the Scriptures']
Though often used indiscriminately and interchangeably, it is of immense help for all
when we use these three terms clearly distinguished from each other. It is one example of
few things important in our life – to be better clear and precise in use of words and
phrases. See also the difference between ‘the Scripture’ vs. ‘the Scriptures’ in English
usage.
1. The Bibleb is the collective term for man’s work of translation into
a
E.g., 1Pe 2:3 'have tasted how kind the Lord is'. The language is borrowed from Psa 34:8 "Taste and see
that YHWH is good". In 1Pe, 'the Lord' is arthrous in the context which refers to 'Lord Yeshua'. It is not
anarthrous kurios (as in LXX for YHWH). It is not a quotation OT, nor an allusion.
vernacular languages. Cf. ‘The Bible’ and ‘Bibles’ also have different sense and
usage.
2. The Scripturesa (‘the Holy Scriptures’) refers to what was written in the
original languages and handed down as an accepted canon in the Church
history. Whoever claims the Scripture is inerrant has to examine their brain,
since it is impossible to read the whole Scripture (not ‘Bible’) to
understand what it was, what is and what it was and is meant for by
examining not just every letter, words, sounds in it, but how it was written
and used throughout the history of various human society and community
to be right on the context, textual and cultural [EE 1]
3. The Word of Elohim – The divine word. God’s Word which is brought for us
to 'hear' – not the written/inscribed texts in the Scripture or in the Bible. Though
the expression is not easy to define or comprehend, it is what the Scripture
holds – the great gift of God. It is not just written texts, messages or even
God’s sayings, but it IS Yeshua Himself revealed to the humanity. The
authors did not write them to be those for a canon of a cult/religion and to
be treated sacred. Mostly it is 'something as the word of God'.
The Word of Elohim (the Word of the God – Jn 1:1) became embodied (Jn 1:14); the
fullness of the state of divine-being dwells bodily (Col 2:9) (en autō katoikei pan to
plērōma tēs theotētos sōmatikōs) — in the person of Yeshua of Nazareth.
Canonb – [ecclesiastical and religious jargon]; An official list or collection of writings

that a particular religious group considers as its core scriptures or authoritative for their
religious doctrines and practices. The Greek word kanōn originally meant "measuring
rod; rule; criterion" (cf. 2Co 10:13-16; Gal 6:16), but later came to mean such a list of
writings that met certain criteria.
"Canonization" or to be "canonized" refers to the process by which a book was accepted

into the official list of core scriptures (for the Bible) by a particular religious group. A
b
A ‘Bible’ is a translation work. Synonymous with ‘bible translation’. Often the terms ‘Bible’ and
‘version’ and ‘translation’ get mixed up. (E.g., Rather than KJ version it is accurate to call it King
James Bible with several revised versions. It is NIV Bible with several revised versions. Same for
‘Catholic Bibles’, ‘Protestant Bibles’.) Often refers to a book in print or in electronic file which
contains such translation work. There is no ‘the Bible’, other than a particular Bible that which is
referred to. There is no ‘Holy Bible’, but only ‘Holy Scripture’. No Bible is inspired or inerrant, but
only the Scripture is.
[Cf. Brevard S. Childs (2013), The Bible as Christian Scripture (its title is an incorrect phrase with
‘Scripture’ actually referring to ‘canonical Bible.]
To translate the Scripture and to read the Bibles, it is necessary to have right understanding and
interpretation in harmony of the whole Scripture – not at all on the basis of doctrines, religions, and
church traditions, but on the basis of linguistic, literary, and life-setting approach.]
a
The Scripture was written in three languages: in Hebrew (which is revived along with re-
establishment of the nation Israel in 1948 after almost two millennia) and for small portion in
Aramaic (which is now almost extinct) and, for the New Testament, in Koine Greek. (Common
Greek, not classical or modern.). Cf. LXX translation of TaNaKh.
b
canon – ref: Michael J. Kruger (2013), The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the
New Testament Debate
scriptural canon is usually considered "fixed" or "closed", meaning that no additional
books will be added to it.
Canonical; Non-canonical
* Proof-texting; *eisegesis; cherry-picking; pick-choose-mix;
To the person with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

/Abraham_Maslow , an American Psychologist.
Maslow’s hammer “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail’ in
The Psychology of Science. (1966).
I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat

everything as if it were a nail.
The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance. By Abraham H. Maslow.
www.pdfdrive.com/the-psychology-of-science-a-reconnaissance-
d188228909.html p.15 [To check how it is quoted in a different wording]
- copied to WB # 1
<Something which looks like T to a dog’s eyes>

<A mongrel can see only poops> 개눈엔 똥빡에 안보인다
Translation
'Literal translation', 'literalism of a translation' vs. 'literal-literary-linguistic

approach of a translation work – the path to faithfully reproduce the life
experience the original and intended audience as reflect in the text.
Indulgence in paraphrase mindset is simply from arrogance and ignorance.
Most translation claim to be "most accurate" – "more accurate" than what?

"Reliable" of what and for what?
[Historical background and philosophy of translation of the Bible into languages
spoken by the common people to target audiences] – initially for to the public
reading in the ecclesia – only be read exclusively through the prism of patristic
exegesis provided the required reinforcement for this practice.
Caveat Lector: Let the Reader Beware. [Don’t buy and swallow what they write.]
Caveat Emptor: Let the buyer Beware. [Don't buy and swallow what they say.]
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/cro368005 Imagining a Secular Translation of the New

Testament
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/the-new-testament-a-translation-david-bentley-hart/
546551/
Bible; Holy Scriptures
(1) bible (uncapitalized) – Any book or written work that is considered authoritative
in its field,
(2) a Bible a vernacular translation of the Scriptures. Often two terms are not
distinguished.
(3) the Bible – it is men’s work of translation. Every bible (translation) would claim
that it is accurate. Accuracy can only mean how close a translation is to the original
and the degree in which it is not agenda-driven to serve particular theologies and
doctrines.
Note: All religions, doctrines, dogmas and creeds along with rules, rites, rituals, and
routines are men-made and are to serve those in power.
(4) the (Holy) Scriptures: a canonical collection of texts treated in Judaism and
Christianity.
(5) the New Testament and the Old Testament – technical terms used by
Christianisms – together called the Bible.
(6) TaNaKh – the Hebrew Scripture – corresponds to the Christian ‘Old Testament’.
Cf. ‘Torah’ – the Five Books of Moses.
Except a few, most OT quotations in NT are parallel to LXX. a Other than the five books of
Torah, LXX is a late product affected by Christian interpretation of OT. When MT and LXX
have different meaning and wording, its cross reference is indicated whether it is from MT or
LXX.
Within the text NT the word ‘Scripture(s)’ refers to Hebrew Scripture (TaNaKh); these should
not be confused with the Christian Scripture, which also includes the 27 books of the so-called
*New Testament. The word ‘testament’ here is archaic usage for ‘covenant’, not as ‘a person’s
will.
Cf. ‘translations’ ‘versions’ ‘editions’ ‘Bibles’

www.olivetree.com/blog/a-guide-to-finding-the-right-bible-translation/
a
How frequently did the NT book writers translate from Hebrew texts or quote from the Septuagint? Also
on the Tetragrammaton in LXX. http://tetragrammaton.org/lxx.html; www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/
www.geocities.ws/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm
www.scriptureanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Grant-Jones-LXXNotesFeb06.pdf
https://youtu.be/i9fHd86-jYU <The Myth of the Council of Jamnia as the Origin of the Hebrew
Scripture canon>
Heinrich Graetz -
www.academia.edu/6811953/The_Jewish_Council_of_Jamnia_and_Its_Impact_on_the_Old_T
estament_Canon_and_New_Testament_Studies
Reading material:
www.haaretz.com/archaeology/...expert-helps-archaeologists-nail-writers-of-2-600-year-old-
letters-1.9141330 [a copy in the Collection]
https://youtu.be/kpbbWdxHN_Q <How the Bible Became the Bible — Dr. Stephen Dempster> an
hour lecture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
A Bible is a product of translation work and, as such, it should not be confused with the
expression ‘the Book’ or ‘the (Holy) Scriptures’. It is a means to access and read the
Scripture of the language one can use. Any Bible claimed to be the ‘Word of God’ is a
blasphemy.a It is not something to be worshiped but to be read and studied just like any
other literary (of different genre and style) and linguistic work before one can discern
God’s word. There is not a single Bible [translation] which can be claimed to be reliable,
and there never will be – as our language itself keeps on changing and translators have to
work with something of agenda, whether it is doctrinal and religious or not, and whether
it is clearly expressed or kept hidden. “The Bible says (so and so).” Yes, but what other
Bibles say may be different.
We should not see the writers of the books in the New Testament (also the Old Testament
for that matter) think of himself as writing scripture as such. If we miss this simple
(essential) point, we miss everything and get sidetrack away from what it is to show us.
“Scripture” in the sense that the word is now used did not exist, arguably, did not exist in
the full sense of the term until well into the second century CE, either in the Jewish or the
Christian traditions.b
a
E.g., ‘KJV only-ism’ ‘KJV worship’ www.kjvonly.org/james/may_great_inconsistency.htm
b
[The portion in italics is which is quoted from D H Akenson (1998), Surpassing Wonder, p. 60.]
the Scripture vs. the Scriptures vs. a scripture passage
S1124 graphē (51x) ‘A writing; thing written’

1. Writing(s): Rm 1:2 [‘in holy writings’]; Rm 16:26 [‘prophetic writings]
2. ‘the Scriptures’ hai graphai (pl.) In NT, it does not refer to the Bible, but the Hebrew
Scripture (TaNaKh) which is called the Old Testament. IRENT renders in as the TaNaKh
Scriptures’ the New Testament was yet to begin developing in several decades after
the death of Yeshua.
Mt 21:42; 22:29; 26:54, 56 (‘the Scriptures of the Prophet Books);

Mk 12:24; 14:49; Lk 24:27, 32, 45;
Acts 17:2, 11; Acts 18:24, 28;
Rm 16:26; 1Co 15:3, 4; 2Pet 3:16
3. ‘Scripture’ Gk. graphē (singular) refers to a (particular) Scripture passage (as IRENT
renders as ‘the Scripture passage [in TaNaKh]’
Mk 12:10; 15:28; Lk 4:21; Jn 2:22; 5:39; 7:38, 42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12;
19:24, 28, 36, 37; 20:9; a Scripture passage (of OT)
Acts 1:16; 8:32 (‘the *passage of the Scripture’);
Rm 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2;
Gal 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1Tm 5:8; 2Tim 3:16a; Jam 2:8, 23;4:5
1Peter 2:6; 2Pe 1:20 (‘Scriptural prophecies’);
a
2Tm 3:16, which has become a favorite proof text for the idea of biblical errancy, as if the whole
Scripture depends for its truth and power on this passage. [See Appendix: ‘the issue of inerrancy of
the Bible’].
 The Word of Elohim – The Divine Words (not ‘message’). God’s Word which is
brought for us to 'hear' – not the printed texts in the Scripture or in the Bibles.
 The Scripturea – The Holy Writings – in the original languages.
 The Bibleb – a collective term for translation works into vernacular languages. 'Bibles'.
Such self-evident statement is usually not well discerned. Though the word ‘Scripture’ and
‘Bible’ can be synonymously used, often times the difference should become important. Note:
Greek arthrous singular word hē graphē (‘that which is written down’) refers to the (particular)
Scripture passage (as IRENT renders as ‘Scripture passage’), while in plural (‘those which are
written down’, usu. translated as ‘Scripture’ as a collective word) it is in the sense of a
collective whole (as IRENT renders as ‘Scripture’ – not that there are more than one. c Within
in the text NT it refers to Hebrew Scripture (TaNaKh); these should not be confused with the
Christian Scripture, which also includes the 27 books of the so-called New Testament.
Textural history and criticism

Manuscripts (mss), Papyrus, Parchment; Scroll; Codex,
text variants (v.l.); Versions; Editions;
Various texts of New and Old Testaments – Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and other
languages.
Various translations into vernacular languages
Related words:
Literary Genre;
History (or historiography in contrast to study of history); Hagiography; Biography
Emendation; ‘Corruption’ (as to in copying process); conflation;
Canon; canonical; canonization (‘making it included into the biblical canon’, not
‘declaring someone died as church saints’);
a
The Scripture was written in three languages: in Hebrew (which is revived along with re-
establishment of the nation Israel in 1948 after almost two millennia) and for small portion in
Aramaic (which is now almost extinct) and, for the New Testament, in Koine Greek. (Common
Greek, not classical or modern.). Cf. LXX translation of TaNaKh.
b
A ‘Bible’ is a translation work. Synonymous with ‘bible translation’. Often the terms ‘Bible’ and
‘version’ and ‘translation’ get mixed up. (E.g., Rather than KJ version it is accurate to call it King
James Bible with several revised versions. It is NIV Bible with several revised versions. Same for
‘Catholic Bibles’, ‘Protestant Bibles’.) Often refers to a book in print or in electronic file which
contains such translation work. There is no ‘the Bible’, other than a particular Bible that which is
referred to. There is no ‘Holy Bible’, but only ‘Holy Scripture’. No Bible is inspired or inerrant, but
only the Scripture is.
[Cf. Brevard S. Childs (2013), The Bible as Christian Scripture (its title is an incorrect phrase with
‘Scripture’ actually referring to ‘canonical Bible.]
To translate the Scripture and to read the Bibles, it is necessary to have right understanding and
interpretation in harmony of the whole Scripture – not at all on the basis of doctrines, religions, and
church traditions, but on the basis of linguistic, literary, and life-setting approach.]
c
[See Appendix: ‘the issue of inerrancy of the Bible’]. [esp. 2Tm 3:16, which has become a favorite
proof text for the idea of biblical errancy, as if the whole Scripture depends for its truth and power.]
“The Bible is the Word of God”?
The Bible by itself is not the word of God. What the heck is 'bible' to begin with? Translation
product? Scriptures? Scriptures in the original languages? Canons established by the ecclesial
powers? The word of God is what is held in the Scriptures which only the spirit of God brings
to the hearers.
[Any biblical statement is meant be directed to a particular group of people; not

directly to the readers of the translated Bible texts. e.g., Ten Commandments were
given to Israelites, including the Sabbath command. E.g., 'to be saved'
'Christians believe the Bible': What Bible? Which Bible? What is 'Bible'?
What does it mean by 'believing the Bible'?
A typical statement: "We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, fully
inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, written under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it has supreme authority in all matters
of faith and conduct."
The reality is that, what we believe is not much more than our interpretation of the
Bible texts translated by some human agency guided by what they believe.
'Translation is an act of interpretation; interpretation is an act translation';
''Traduttore, traditore" (Translator, traitor). Most translations follow a previous
work and edit/add/delete/alter according to their idea of what translation should
look like, i.e., implicit or explicit agenda – many of which can hardly be taken as
'translation'. It becomes *paraphrasea [e.g., Message, Living Bible, etc.] and even
ideological agenda-driven rewriting [e.g., Inclusive New Testament; Divine
Feminist Version of N.T.]
To paraphrase is to say something in different words than the original author used.
However, in reality, it is often a statement not of the author's thoughts but often
that of the translator's, not just using different words bud also different idioms.
[Cf. skopos theory ]
'God cannot err' – What God? Which God? Who is God? Whose God?
'the Bible is the Word of God' – Bible means the original manuscripts which we
don't have, but we do have reliable copies.
'therefore, the Bible cannot err' – well, go figure. Then what? For what?
a
E.g., Nonnus of Panopolis (4th/5th cent.), in his poetic Metabole or Paraphrasis of the Gospel of
John:
"Timeless was the Logos, unattainable, in the ineffable beginning, of equal nature to the coeval
begetter, a motherless son, and the Logos was a god of self-created god, from light to light; from
the father he was indivisible and shares his throne in the boundless abode. And god born on high
was the Logos." Μεταβολή του Κατά Ιωάννην Ευαγγελίου 1:1. [Pavlos D. Vasileiadis]
When we claim about 'the Bible' we should be clear about what it means by 'Bible'. What Bible?
Which Bible? Whose Bible? What does it mean by 'God' – what God, which God, whose God?
What does it mean by 'word'? Essentially, the phrase is an uncontestable statement which is
necessarily true for those understand and believe to be true – though in some measure, for others
too.
The word 'Bible' is often used as metonymic of the Scripture. As for those who claim 'the Bible
is not the Word of God', it usually means it is the Bible they happened to have and browse
through (usually pick and choose) AND to know as the way they would interpret to reinforce
what they believe about it. Logically factually no (objective) knowledge can be asserted as
original, it must be from someone else. [Cf. 'knowing another person in person'.]
"Reverence for the Bible!" "Reverence for the Word of God!" – what does it mean by
'reverence'? Which Bible to qualify to be on such level?
The New Testament

New Testament ['Book of the New Covenant']
27 books – The four canonical Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; 21 Epistles (by Paul,
Yohan, Peter, Yaakob) and the Revelation. The different ordering of the books is occasionally
seen in different Bible translations.
New Testament (Mashian Scripture); (27 books) consists of 4 Gospels, 1 Acts,

21 Epistles, 1 Apocalypse; [See a separate file: Appendix: Introduction to
New Testament]
The New Testament was composed in its final form in the Koiné Greek, the
universal Greek dialect that was commonly spoken during Hellenistic and
Roman antiquity and the early Byzantine era, or Late Antiquity. Actually, it
was a simplified form of mainly the Attic Greek dialect in a colloquial idiom as
it was spoken by nonnative speakers. The use of this vernacular Koiné played a
primary role in the wide expansion and acceptance of the Christian message.
… the *manuscripts of NT were written from the very beginning in majuscule,

i.e., entirely in capital letters with no accent marks ( diacritics ) as used in
polytonic orthography.
It is an inevitable truth that every Bible translation “involves certain ideas that
the translator would like to see in the Bible.”100 As a result, every translation
attempt aims primarily at a specific target group of readers. Reader reception is
governed by the hermeneutical presuppositions set by the translators or
translation committees in the beginning of such projects.
[Pavlos D. Vasileiadis – "An overview of the New Testament translation in

vernacular Greek during the printing era" in Fränz Biver-Pettinger & Eran
Shuali (eds.), Translating the Bible: Past and Present.
Shem Tov ibn Shaprut in Spain at the end of the 14th century -- the first
Hebrew translation of a New Testament book ‒ the Gospel of Matthew
The Old Testament; TaNaKh
 ‘Old Testament’
Protestant Church (39 books)
[mnemonic 3x9 = 27 for NT books → 39+27 = 66 for OT+NT]
Catholic Church (46 books),
Orthodox Church (49 books.).
 The Hebrew Scripture is called TaNaKh.
[3 divisions - Torah (Teachings); Nevi’im (Prophets); Ketuvim
(Writings)]; (24 books),
Differences among three:

1. languages – vernacular. TaNaKh (in Hebrew; a small portion in Aramaic)
2. Number of books and divisions, names and their order.
3. Minor chapter & verse numbering difference (e.g., Psa)
4. Deuterocanonical_books – in the Catholic Bible
Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures: texts and manuscripts

Masoretic Hebrew Text (Text Receptus)
Samaritan Pentateuch,
the Syriac Peshitta,
the Greek Septuagint [‘LXX’]
the Latin Vulgate; the Ethiopian Bible
Midrash; a Hebrew word referring to the exposition, or exegesis, of a
biblical text. The term usually refers to a specific compilation of
midrashic teachings (midrash halakhaha. and Midrash aggadah).
 Cf. Dead Sea Scrolls;
 Cf. Talmud, Oral Torah;
 Cf. LXX – all are by the Christians except the Pentateuch.
a
halakha – the collective body of Jewish religious laws, based on the Written and Oral Torah,
including the 613 mitzvot, and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and
traditions compiled today in the Shulchan Aruch, "the Code of Jewish Law".
Torah H8451 "Blessed is the man who you discipline, O Yah, and teach from
your Torah (Psa 94:12)." is "a set of Instructions, from a father to his children,
violation of these instructions is disciplined in order to foster obedience and
train his children". Notice how the word Torah is translated in the New
International Version translation in the following passages. www.ancient-
hebrew.org/articles_torah.html <What is Torah?> [it is translated as 'teaching'
- Prov 1:8; 3:1. ('law' in KJV)] This is in contrast to 'law' – "a set of rules
from a government and binding on a community. Violation of the rules
require punishment. With this type of law, there is no room for teaching,
either the law was broken with the penalty of punishment or it was not broke."
Cf. *Mishnah; *Talmud; *Midrash www.bl.uk/collection-items/first-complete-mishnah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
Relationship between Old and New Testaments:
“The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is
the Old Testament revealed!” It is about the truth and the revelation through the
teaching (God’s torah) in the Scriptures; not about sophisticated catechetical
formulated doctrines (which are all products of human minds and religions).
Bible: Great pitfall waiting in Reading, Understanding and translating

the texts:
- All of these are of human endeavor – *agenda driven; diligently studying but
*presupposition; eisegesis and suitable applications; without unlearning but keep
reinforcing and elaborating with self-claimed accuracy (what accuracy?) and
'inspiration' (what inspiration?); with cherry picking; pick-choose-and-mix;
*Bible' – what does the word 'bible' and 'Bible' mean? Which is 'the Bible'?
The Bible is a canonical collection of texts treated as the scripture by Christianity and
Judaism and as a sacred text by Islam. [what does the word 'scripture' mean here??]
Catholic Bible (46+27 = 73 books) – 7 more than Protestant 66 books = 39 + 3x9 (= 27).
How useful or essential are those additional books for Christianity?
[Cf. Greek Orthodox Bible – 79 books.]
From Koine Gk. 'biblion' – papyrus → parchment → 'paper'; 'scroll' → 'book

(printed/written/digital)'.
*Apocrypha
"The Devil can cite Scripture to his purpose," so my grandmother used to say. Or, as we
prefer to say now in the academy, "The text has inexhaustible hermeneutical potential."~
No matter how we choose to phrase it, the problem is the same. Despite the time-honored
Christian claim that Scripture is the foundation of the church's faith and practice, appeals
to Scripture are suspect for at least two reasons: the Bible itself contains diverse points of
view,
and diverse interpretive methods can yield diverse readings of any given text.
This hermeneutical crisis is nowhere more acutely embarrassing for the church than with
regard to ethical questions. …
From the Introduction of Richard B. Hays, (2013), The Moral Vision of the New
Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation – A Contemporary Introduction to New
Testament Ethic
Languages of the Scriptures – copied from BW 1a.
 *Hebrew (religious) vs. Aramaic (vernacular).

 Koine Greek – lingua franca from the time of Alexander the Great;
(commerce, cultural).
 Latin – governmental in the Roman Empire; religious language in Roman
Catholic Church [Note: it does not have grammatical article – no difference
when translated from Gk. theos (God, god) vs. ho theos ('the God' =
Elohim).]
Hebrew vs. Aramaic: (Reading material:

www.salon.com/2014/07/02/jesus_language_more_complicated_than_experts_claim_partner/ )
The word ‘Hebrew’ means primarily of people, as in Phi 3:5 (where Paul called
himself a Hebrew) and in Act 6:1.
As a language it is the main language of TaNaKh (OT or O.T.) and of modern

Israelis. It is to be contrasted to Aramaic language.
TaNaKh (in Hebrew except a small portion in Aramaic – in Dan 2:4b – 7 and Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12–
26) /Biblical_Aramaic
The Gk. word Hebraisti (‘in Hebrew language’) - Other than in Jn 19:20; Rev 9:11;
16:16, may the phrase in G-Jn ( Jn 5:2; 19:13, 17; 20:16 v.l.) may be understood as
‘in the speech of the Hebrews’? Some renders the phrase as ‘in Aramaic’ – ESV,
LEB, NET, CEV, EMTV, ERV.
In three places (Act 21:40; 22:2; 26:14) it shows as tē Ebraidi dialektō (‘in the
Hebrew language dialect’).
*Bible, Scriptures; Bibles; Versions; Translations

– Cf. <Walk through the Bible #1 - Words, Words and Words>
Textural criticism and history
*Manuscripts (mss), Papyrus, Parchment; Scroll; Codex,
Text variants (v.l.); Versions; Editions;
Various texts of New and Old Testaments – Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and other languages.
Various translations into vernacular languages
Translation; interpretation, exegesis, hermeneutics; paraphrase; metaphrase; rewriting;
*Bible, *Scripture, *God’s Word; Texts; Canon; [See BW #1]
Literary Genre;
History; Hagiography; Biography
Emendation; ‘Corruption’ ('hand-corrupted' to alter during in copying the texts; vs. physical
damage); conflation;
Canon; canonical; canonization (‘making it included into the biblical canon’, not ‘declaring
someone died as church saints’ in Catholic lingo);
[Cf. http://latindiscussion.com/forum/forums/english-to-latin-translation.2/ ]
www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=VarApp
How the Greek New Testament is transmitted and copied; textural family types:
Various causes of textual variants

Spelling difference; Similar sounding words; Similar looking words
Transposed words; Homoeoteleuton; Parallel influence
Synonyms
Marginal notes by scribes
Mistaken corrections
Coping mistakes
Important textual variants in NT

 Mk 16:9-20
 Jn 7:53—8:11
 1Jn 5:7-8 – not a variant, but corruption to put a foreign non-biblical material into
Received Text used for KJV – Erasmus took from a medieval Latin manuscript.
 Jn 1:18 'only-begotten god' instead of 'only-begotten Son' (KJV);
 1Tm 3:16 ὃς ['who'] is 'hand-corrupted' (altered) to [a Nomina Sacra Θς
for Θεος theos 'God' with a horizonal bar above] which is adopted only in a
few (KJV, Darby, NKJV, YLT, Geneva, Geneva, etc.
A manuscript may be 'corrupted' from physical damage; words in the manuscript may be
'hand-corrupted' (altered) into a similar looking but a different word.
A "corruption" of the GNT text – in Received Text (used for KJV); in Majority Text –
keeping it from an Erasmus' edition incorporating the alien text from a medieval Latin
text. The text is not corrupt, but incorporating it into the text is a corruption.
Problem of OT texts quoted in NT – with midrash outside OT context.
Alteration
Jn 19:37 And again another Scripture passage says, [Zec 12:10 MT]
 <☼They shall look [to Me], regarding the one
whom they have thrust through>.
19:37 shall look [to Me], regarding the one ░ [emended with inserting the phrase 'to me regarding' from the
Hebrew text] [‘to Me’ in OT (→ YHWH Zec 12:9)] [‘the one’ in the text refers to a false prophet to be pierced
Zec 13:2-6]; [‘elay eth' in MT & pros me LXX (→ YHWH) – missing in GNT (opsontai eis hon. Gk. eis –
'regarding' 'concerning' 'over' 'about'; not 'upon')]; [Most Bibles translate the text in OT wrongly. Cf. ‘and they
shall look towards Me, regarding those whom the nations have thrust through’ – Koren Jerusalem Bible] /shall
look on him – KJV; /will look on the one – NET; /will look at the One – HCSB; /shall look on Him – NKJV;
[Tovia Singer, Vol. I, p. 36-7] [https://youtu.be/CqW-OeLKrls; https://youtu.be/vp1kKhVCgw4;
https://youtu.be/qKivkCwt5uI]
Source: MT vs. LXX

Mt 1:23 <☼Behold! the young woman will have a child in her wombin LXX
and [to Isaiah] will bear a son
and will call his name Immanuel> {☼ Isa 7:14}
1:23 the young woman ░ (hē parthenos) [translating Heb. ha-almah] [refers to Isaiah’s wife, a prophetess; not
about Mary ‘Ever Virgin’.] [S3933 parthenos in *LXX is for 3 different Hebrew words: (1) H5959 almah 7x
(‘young woman’ Isa 7:14; Prov 30:19), (2) H5291 naarah 63x ('young woman’ ‘maiden’ Gen 24:24) as well as
(3) H1330 bethulah 50x (‘pure’ virgin) Gen 24:16. Cf. H1331 bethulim (10x) virginity Deu 22:17] [cf. ‘ten
maidens’ 25:1] /the almah – Delitz; /the maiden – ONT, Weym; /a young woman – Moffatt, GNT; /x: a mayde –
Tyndale, Coverdale; /xx: the virgin – most, NWT, JNT, Cass; /xxxx: the Virgin – YLT; /xx: a virgin – KJV,
Douay; /xx: a virgyn – Wycliffe; /xx: virgo – Latin; [To take it as 'virgin' in the sense of 'pure virgin' is a Christian
midrash for their 'virgin birth' belief.] [Gk. word in reference to the mother of Yeshua is only in Lk 1:27 (2x) as
Mariam who was given in marriage as a ‘virgin’ maiden.]
[Cf. OT text itself is variously translated: /the young woman - NAB, CJB, JPS, NET, NRSV, NWT, GNT; /x: this
young woman – NET; /xxxx: the virgin – NIV, ESV, KJV, NKJV; NASB, HCSB, LSV]
1:23 [she] will call his name ░ [Gk. kalesousin 'they will'; Cf. LXX ‘you (singl.) will call ~’. MT ‘she will call ~’
(H7121 qara 'call' + 8034 shem 'name')]; /they will call him – NIV, NET, NLT; /they shall call his name – KJV,
NKJV; /they will name Him – HCSB.
*Gospels; *Good News; good-news
[See <Walk through the Bible #1 – Words, Words and Words>
The Gospel(s) ░ [S2098 euaggelion (76x). It is in the sense of a ‘gospel-book’. IRENT

renders as ‘Gospel’ (capitalized) only in the title of all canonical Four Gospels. Elsewhere
only as ‘good-news’ or ‘Good-News’.]
In the names of the Gospel
*according to ░ [= "written down under the name of ~". Attributed to him, not of
authorship.]
*Mattityahu ░ [Heb. ‘gift of Yah’] /> Matthew; /xx: according to St. Matthews (- in
Catholic lingo);
[Cf. The Hebrew name appears 5x in NT for a disciple of Yeshua — Mt 9:9; 10:3 <tax-farmer>;
Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; Act 1:13. Known also as ‘Lewi’ (> Levi) – Mk 2:14 (Lewi ben-Halfai) //Lk
5:27 (‘Lewi the tax-farmer’), 29.]
*Markos ░ /> Mark; [The name appears 8x in NT – more than one person. Unrelated to
the name in the Gospel title]
*Lukas ░ /> Luke [The name appears 3x in NT for one person – prob. same as the name
in the Gospel title.]
*Yohan ░ [Heb. ‘gift of Yah’] /> John; [a common Hebrew name for several persons in
NT. The name in the title does not tell the author is the disciple of Yeshua.]
*canon
“canonical” and “non-canonical” writings. Later on, dogmatism was behind the
corruption of some passages of the canonical books.
the Greek kanon (measuring rod). Canonical Gospels indicate those few gospels that
were approved as holy scripture by the orthodox church of the late second century.)
The so-called ‘Lost Gospels’ – (1) NT Apocrypha; (2) Gnostic Gospels
Other than the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, there are
many other ‘Gospels’ written up from the earliest time. Among these, called non-
canonical gospels, a well-known is Gospel of Thomas (its Coptic text found in 1945,
dated at around 340 CE), a Gnostic gospel which is a darling of a fringe Jesus Seminar
Gang.
Apocrypha appeared in Luther German Bible (1534), Matthew’s Bible (1537), Myles
Coverdale Bible (1538), and KJV-1611.
 Ref: www.sbts.edu/resources/magazines/gospels-as-the-archway-into-the-canon/
 Ref. Jonathan Pennington (2012), Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and
Theological Introduction (kindle book)
 Ref. Martin Hengel (2000), The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ.
http://nicksdata.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/book-review_hengel.pdf
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/
rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html <The Jewish people and their Sacred
Scriptures is the Christian Bible>
Authorship of the Bible and history of the Scriptures and the canon:
Note: some texts in the Scriptures were written as eyewitness accounts. But the books of
the Bible (e.g., the Gospels) are not eyewitness records.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/03/armstrongs-refutations-of-
alleged-biblical-contradictions.htmlCf. ‘biblical inerrancy, infallibility, inspiration’
Biblical authority? Scriptural authority?
What authority? Whose authority? Which authority? What Bible? Which Bible?
Authority for what? Over what? To be recruited for Church authority? To be the
source for doctrinal eisegesis? Cf. The Bible is a man’s product of translation work
of the canonical Scriptures, serving evolving theology.
Authority of the Bible vs. biblical authority (one's authority backed by the Bible of
translation of one’s choice)
The authority of the Scripture means ‘God’s authority exercised through the
Scripture – Cf. NT Wright in The Last Word (2005 Harper) p. 23.
Also N.T. Wright on the Problem with Biblical Authority (Cf. Surprised by the
Scripture (2014 Harper)] (Cf. Mt 28:18)
‘sola scriptura’, which is a theological doctrine (not followed by Catholic). Yes,

but the problem is that what most follows is not the Scripture but their
interpretation of the Scripture, in their traditions and their favored Bible
(translation).
www.equip.org/article/what-is-sola-scriptura/
www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT
www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-early-christians-subscribe-to-sola-scriptura
From Scripture to Theology:
 Ref. Scalise (1996), From Scripture to Theology, (p. 44).

 Marshall, (2004), Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology.
 Meador, Sundry, et. al, ed. (2009), Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible
to Theology, https://youtu.be/YB-I0EgVGzA
 The New Testament is an Apostolic tradition. Cf.
www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2018/03/07/mike-bird-tradition-nt-tradition
'*authority' – What authority? Whose authority? Authority for what, of what? 'Power
to yield / control over others or other things? Power to give permission /allowance?
Quoting Bakunin (1871) on 'authority'.
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the
matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses,
canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such
special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the
bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I
listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their
character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism
and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any
special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which
seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special
questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and
sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person.
Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success
of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an
instrument of the will and interests of others. God and the State, (Ch. 2)
www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/godstate/index.htm
From James D. McCawley (1981), Everything that Linguists have Always

Wanted to Know about Logic but were ashamed to ask. [quoted in the preface.]
Literalism; Literal translation; Literal interpretation;
Ref. Francois Recanati (2004), Literal Meaning
Ref. Adrian Thatcher (2008), The Savage Text – The Use and Abuse of the Bible
Biblicism:
Ref. Christian Smith (2012), The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not
a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture
[p. viii. - a doctrinal position (not “theory”) about the Bible that emphasizes together its
exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-
evident meaning, and universal applicability.” - note the use of the term Bible, not
‘Scripture’, which makes it significantly different. If it is in the sense of Scripture, those
who try refute Biblicism have to be all-knowing the Scripture in the original language – in
its understanding, interpretation, and spirit’s revelation in full linguistic, literary, cultural,
and historical setting. – just same as those who deny the truth and love to pick and choose
to prove errancy and untrustworthiness of the Scripture. There is no single human being
capable enough to speak out with credulity. It is like trying to prove some is non-existent,
when no one can search out even every corner of the universe, not mentioning outside and
beyond the observable universe. That’s precisely what it means by ‘God’ (El) or God-
being – ‘mighty one’.]
*Torah; Law;
- www.mayimhayim.org/Allen/Law%20vs%20Grace%201.htm (a copy in WB #1)

The Greek term nomos for law was the only word used to translate Torah. Unfortunately,
nomos is a very poor term for 'law'. It doesn't come anywhere near having the same
concept as Torah, which conveys God's grace and love toward his people. Unfortunately,
nomos indicates a strict regulation with mostly a negative connotation, but it was the only
word at that time that could be used to describe Torah.
Law vs Grace – are these contra'? No! What is the Judaic answer to that? Torah is a gift of
Grace, and Torah is much more than ‘Law’! Torah is not a means of redemption, it is the
way redemptive folks live, and what a gift it is!"
Biblical contradiction
difficulties, differences, discrepancies and contradictions in the bible [TaNaKh vs. OT;
the Scriptures and Bible Translations; Canons, Texts (e.g., MT, LXX, etc.)].
'Holy Bible', 'Holy Scripture', 'Holy Scriptures';
'criticism', analysis, 'scrutiny', 'examination', 'comparison', 'opinion' 'accuracy',
'accuracies', 'God inspired', canonical, extra-canonical, apocryphal, 'infallible', etc.
interpreting, self-interpreting, eisegesis, proof-texting, agenda-driven.
www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/03/armstrongs-refutations-of-alleged-biblical-
contradictions.html
“Contradictions” (Supposed): Examined More Closely
Reply to Atheists: Defining a [Biblical] “Contradiction” [1-7-11]

Debates with Atheist “DagoodS” (“Bible Difficulties”) [2006-2007, 2010-2011]
Review of The Book of Non-Contradiction (Phillip Campbell) [5-9-17]
Critique of Theologically Liberal Bible-Basher [6-6-17]
Alleged “Bible Contradictions”: Most Are Actually Not So [2002 and 6-7-17]
Atheist Inventions of Many Bogus “Bible Contradictions” [National Catholic Register, 9-4-18]
Seidensticker Folly #28: Lies About Bible “Contradictions” (1. Christians don’t sin? 2.
Universalism? 3. “Tomb evangelism”. 4. Can human beings see God or not?) [10-23-18]
Bible “Contradictions” & Plausibility (Dialogue w Atheist) [12-17-18]
Seidensticker Folly #32: Sophistically Redefining “Contradiction” [4-20-19]
Seidensticker Folly #37: “What is a Contradiction?” 0101 [4-15-20]
Reply to Atheist Ward Ricker Re “Biblical Contradictions” [5-15-20]
Dialogues on “Contradictions” w Bible-Bashing Atheists [5-16-20]
Alleged Bible “Contradictions” & “Difficulties”: Master List of Christian Internet Resources for
Apologists (Links) [7-19-10; links updated on 9-6-20]
Seidensticker Folly #69: “Difficulties” Aren’t Contradictions [1-4-21]
Atheists, Biblical “Contradictions” & the Plausibility Issue [2-4-21]
Refutation of Atheist Paul Carlson’s 51 Bible “Contradictions” [4-6-21]
Refutation of 194 Biblical “Contradictions” (#1-25) [4-5-22]
Text and translation issues
Ref. Robert Alter (2019), The Art of Bible Translation
Ref. Meade & Gurry (2022), Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got
the Bible
Quotable. “Where a translation is necessary, the gap between the spirit of the original
words and that of their reproduction must be taken into account. It is a gap that can never be
completely close.” Gadamer (1975), Truth and Method (p. 386)
Reading [the text] is an active act of interpretation; so is translation. No such thing which
can be called ‘literal translation’ literally exists. [twittered]
A quotable: “All interpreters are historically, culturally, and experientially conditioned.”

Seminar on Biblical Interpretation in www.ibiblio.org/freebiblecommentary/
http://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-is-an-accurate-translation-mondays-with-
mounce/ Cf. meaning of ‘literal’.
Word – meaning (common, lexical, specific), sense, usage, and definitions (‘specification’).
“… The danger of an illegitimate transfer of twentieth-century presuppositions to

the first centurya is always present … none of us has always avoided the peril. …
But it is also illegitimate to transfer meaning from the background of the New
Testament writers to the foreground. …” b
…. One of the disadvantages of modern English Bibles is that they tremendously

alter the way English-speaking Christians think and converse. Phrases that have
been associated with Christianity for decades or centuries have been dropped
because they have been reworded. Consequently, many Christians use new Bible
terms and employ new phrases because they are using new “bibles.” They are
saying things differently than the standard way Christians have stated biblical
teachings for centuries (this allows for intentional, and even deliberate, doctrinal
modifications). With modern English versions now competing with the 405-year-
old King James Bible, there is no longer a common Christian voice. Every church
member is now quoting from his or her own “preferred” Bible translation.
Remember, to obtain a copyright, translators of all modern English versions must
make substantial word changes to the Bible text. With every new translation comes
a further weakening of the one Christian voice God intended. Just listen to
Christian people as they all read the same verse from their favorite version—it is
nothing but convolution and confusion! [by Shawn Brasseaux]
https://ambassadorsfortherisenchristministries.org/2009/05/14/biblos/
a
In italics – a quote from James Dunn (1988), Christology in the Making, p. 195]
https://usuaris.tinet.cat/fqi_ct04/dunn_christology.pdf
b
From the half-sensical www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-emergence-of-the-
doctrine-of-the-incarnation
English Bible translations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English_Bible_translations
RV (Revised Version) [= ERV (English Revised Version)

www.bible-researcher.com/erv.html
www.biblestudytools.com/rsv/
*KJV:
www.kjvtoday.com/home/language-guide [A Guide to the language of the King

James Version] -a copy in the collection.
“Worshiping the Bible”? There is one which believes only one translation in English as
the Bible. (i.e., KJV-onlyism)a. English of KJV (1611) is not Modern English, but Early
Modern English. As to understandability, KJV is very much recommended for people
who are 350 years or older as some suggests ;-<
Greek NT Manuscripts - MT and TR
MT (Majority Text)
TR (Textus Receptus – Received Text)
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/History
Examples:
Mt 6:13; 8:11 (// Lk 19:10); 15:28; 20:16; 23:14; 27:35
Mt 7:16; 9:13; 10:24; 17:21; 23:14
Mk 1:31b; 3:15; 6:11; 7:16, 19; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28
Lk 2:32 ['his father' vs. 'Yosef'] [Those of God Jesus with the virgin birth belief is furious
about 'his father' in NIV over 'Josef' in KJV, claiming that their Jesus does not have a human
father]
Lk 4:4, 44; 8:43b; 11:2; 17:36
Jn 5:3-4; 11:4a
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 15:34; 24:6-8; 28:29
Rm 16:24
Eph 3:9; 5:9
Rev 8:13
a
www.kjvonly.org/james/may_great_inconsistency.htm
https://carm.org/king-james-onlyism
www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html
The Majority Text Compared to the Received Text – the Hodges-Farstad "Majority Text" and the Received
text compiled by F.H.A. Scrivener (representing the readings followed in the King James version).
Problematic texts variants:
1Co 15:51 {/mss} ░ [See NET fn]

πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα "we all will not be in sleep, but
we will all be changed"
{/πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀ.} "we all will sleep, but we will not all be
changed"
{/πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀ.} "we all will not sleep, but we will not
all be changed"
{/πάντες ἀναστησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ ἀ.} "we will all rise, but we will not all be
changed."
Rev 5:9-10;
Rev 20:5a
1Jn 5:7-8
1Pe 3:18
Mk 16:20
Act 20:28
Lk 22:43-44
1Ti 3:16
Jn 1:18 [See Appendix - ((Jn 1.18 'only-begotten)) for full discussion of mss variants and
exegesis]
Issues in NT texts and textual criticism:
Total number of Greek words in the Greek New Testament – depending on the
text (with different variants):
Total word counts 138130 – used in Berean Literal Translation - Translation

Tables, Interlinear, Parsing and Lexical info - xlsx
Mounce – There are 5,437 different words in the New Testament. They occur a
total of 138,162 times. But there are only 319 words (5.8% of the total number)
that occur 50 times or more . . . These 319 words account for 110,425 word-
occurrences, or 79.92% of the total word count, almost four out of five. [William
D. Mounce (1993). Basics of Biblical Greek. p 17.]
Cf. *Hapax_legomenon
686 local hapax legomena, (called "New Testament hapaxes"); 62 of these occur
in 1 Peter and 54 occur in 2 Peter.
epiousios, only twice in the Lord's Prayer – in Mt 6:11 //Lk 11:3,

aphedrōn (ἀφεδρών) "latrine" only twice – in Mt 15:17 //Mk 7:19,
How not to translate the Bible; how not to read the Bible; how not to interpret the
Bible;
Example of hilarious – hellarious – translations, par excellent examples of how not

to translate the Bible.
 Eugen Peterson, The Message – (a personal paraphrase)
 Bil Holton, New Metaphysical Version – Four Gospels.
www.themetaphysicalwebsite.com/TheFourGospels/
 Kenneth Taylor (1974), The Living Bible – (A personal paraphrase).
 Martin Manser, Word Come Alive www.wordcomealive.net/about/ [download Gospel of
John, Chaper 1]
'Do not read a verse when you read the Bible'.

Reading the text out of the context is for a pretext to serve of one's agenda –
indoctrinate, deceive or peddle.
Translation theories and techniques; principle and practice
 Ref.:
1. Porter & Boda, ed. (2009), Translating the New Testament – Text,
Translation, Theology.
2. RE Whitaker, ed. (2004), Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography
Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker
3. Moises Silva (1990), God, Language and Scripture – Reading the Bible
in the light of general linguistics
4. Whitaker, ed. (2004), Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography
Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker
5. SOCIOLOGY OF THE BIBLE, in
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_02930.html
6. Nosoon Kwak, The Korean Bible: A linguistic Diagnosis, in Technical
Papers for the Bible Translator, Vol. 26, No. 3, July 1975; pp. 301-307.
www.ubs-translations.org/tbt/1975/03/TBT197503.html?num=301&x=-
164&y=-137&num1=
 What is ‘text’? [Cf. adjective – ‘textual’]

Text (written vs. spoken) – a stretch of words, short or long. A passage in
such.
Text (of original language or translation)
May refer to a particular specialized text, such as biblical texts, texts of the
original manuscripts, etc.
 ‘translation’ vs. ‘interpretation’ in communicating into another language. –

1. interpretation of a foreign speech in real time
2. translation of a written document
Note: Reading the Scripture is inevitably also an act of translation, which

again is an act of interpretation. Reading of the Scripture should begin as
theo-centric, not Christo-centric, as the so-called Christianity (Christianism
of westernized Christian religions) reads with a colored glass on, seeing
every word impregnate with their image of Christ remade. One of the
unfortunate consequences is the God’s name uncomfortable to handle,
eventual falling into a pit of Jehovah = Jesus, same person of a tri-theistic
Trinitarian style in the whole enchilada of Christological babbles. [A
definition of Christianity = a religion of Christians; Christians = those
having Christianity as their religion – definition by a circular reasoning].
Yeshua have made clear about who he is, but the focus is not on Himself,
but on the relation of Him to Elohim, His father. He always points to Elohim
in His teachings and acts. So-called miracles of Jesus are the signs to reveal
His Father, not as feats of magicians or magician healers. [e.g., What do
people make out of the so-called miracle of ‘walking on water’ where the
Greek text does not have that kind of expression? What effect had on the
disciples ever, if it was such a supernatural feat?]
 translation process vs. translation product
To express the text of one language into a different language is not by itself;
it’s only a part of translation (process). As to Bible translation, it is the
action of achieving communication from the source language to the receptor
language to effectively transfer the total information content – sense of word
or phrases and tone and intention as well as the form and format. The task is
not to find the meaning of the text and its message (which are only from the
human mind of the translator and the audience) and to put them into modern
words as palatable as possible – brining into their translations what the
translator believes the original authors said. No, it is the very meaning of the
original authors who intend to communicate to their audience that should be
clearly in translation. In this respect, most of the recent crops of English
translations, many as trumpeted as easy-read and modernized and, for some,
to suit their ideology, are not trustworthy products, but only peddling their
ideas after tradition of Adam and Eve, who succumbed the Serpent’s
challenge and to choose to decide what is right and what is wrong,
independent of the Creator.
Some think there is a perfect Bible; this is what bibliolatry is about (such as
so-called ‘KJV-Onlyism’, KJVO in short). No human work is perfect even
for the work of translating the sacred Scripture. Neither translators nor
translations are ever ‘inspired’, whatever the word ‘inspired’ may mean. No
Bible as long as it means a translated work of the Scripture, is the product of
God, nor of divine origin. It’s product of human work of enormous effort.
Only what is delivered in the Scripture is from God (Jn 17:17). Many think
the more literal a translation is the more accurate. Manya fall into a false
idea that the easier a translation is the more effective. However, the concept
of accuracy and readability should not come ahead of effectiveness of
communication and faithfulness to the original. Some with scholarly ideas
think the more precise the more informative it is, when, in fact, it proves to
be much less useful when it has not given due consideration of the receiver
side and the text has not been treated as something alive only in its totality –
a victim of scholar’s fallacy. This is especially evident for translation works
driven by doctrinal and scholarly agenda.
 Technical jargon – 'equivalence' 'functional equivalence' (Waard and Nida),

'literary function equivalence' 'literary approach' 'formal equivalence’;
meaning-based; agenda-driven (doctrinal);
 ‘literal translation’; ‘word-for-word’ translation (gloss); 'interlinear

translation'; paraphrase; re-writing/retelling;
[‘literal’ – Ref. Vincent Crapanzano (2000), Serving the Word – Literalism in

America from the Pulpit to the Bench. (pp. xv-xxvi, Preface; pp. 1-28,
Introduction)]
[Loewen, "Non-literal meanings – II What makes them so difficult to translate" in
Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Vol. 26, No. 3, Oct 1975; pp. 434-440.
www.ubs-translations.org/tbt/1975/04/TBT197504.html?num=434
 One of the major problems of translation process in its philosophy and

practice is sadly unavoidable in human hands. The Scripture becomes often
a
https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/many-does-it-take-the-plural-or-singular.8127/
a source of the religious doctrines (sectarian and denominational) and in turn
these doctrines are fed back into their work of translation to produce their
version of Bible, thus reinforcing their doctrines in all sophistry and, at the
same time, put veils over their eyes to the truths. It is the issue of agenda
and ideology.
 In reality there can be no translation which can be a literally word-for-word

translation (cf. metaphrase). It’s only possible when we are talking about an
interlinear text (which may be thought of effective and useful as the so-
called Strong’s number system). The goal of translating the Scripture is to
put into idioms of another language; not conforming to the culture of the
intended audience of the receptor language, but reflecting the culture of the
original people of the source language, so that such Bible produced should
remain faithful as possible, linguistically speaking.
[Cf. translation; skopos; skopos theory ]
 We may have to concede that a best Bible to read may be the very one you
have on your hand, as long as you are able to read through without
struggling and without getting misled. On the other hand, a worst Bible to
study with is one single Bible you use. Use two or more different Bibles to
study.
 Approaches to Bible translation process a – based on the concepts applied to

translation techniques or models of (1) formal equivalence vs. (2)
functional equivalence (or dynamic equivalence). Many articles and books
have been written on this topic. [The latter should not be equated with a
paraphrase work or free re-writing, which is not a proper Bible translation.
Some belongs to intra-language translation, such as rewriting into a
Children’s Bible, or a condensed Bible. Peterson’s Message – a paraphrase
masquerading as a transition – does taste like a work of intra-language re-
writing translation rather than cross-language translation, intentionally re-
packaging to put the translator’s speech into the translated text, rather than
the original author’s speech, with bypassing of the intention of the author
which was to be conveyed to the original intended audience. [EE-4 on
‘Equivalence’ here 2]
Note: translation work deals with ‘meaning’ of the text. However, the
meaning-based approach should not suggest that what the translated text is
supposed to mean to its readers upon their biased opinions and limited
knowledge. On the contrary, what the Scripture text was meant to the
original audiences is the guiding post for translation. A Bible should let its
a
“The task of the Bible translator is to communicate the content of the Biblical texts
originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, in the native language of the readers
for whom the translation is being prepared... the translator is concerned with
equivalence, that is, he is concerned that his finished translation communicates
accurately what the original author wrote.” Robert Martin, Accuracy of Translation –
Banner of Truth, p. 63.
translation bring out what the Scripture says from within the text. That’s
where fidelity to the Scripture (to be faithful to it) comes from. As we read a
Bible, we can recognize different layers of *voices [s.v.]. The least we
should have is a layer of translator’s voicea.
The same thing is said also for reading. We come to read the Scripture with
a Bible, but it should be understood from within the Scriptureb without
bringing something in which is not in the Scripture but which is from the
human religious ideas and traditions.
Quoted from
www.theguardian.com/books/2001/sep/08/historybooks.highereducation <<One
reason the Bible cannot be seen as literature is that too many people have been
killed for their opinions of it.>>
This is all the more reason that we should take the Scripture and the translated
work of Bibles primarily as literary work – with all the limitation and errancy
which is inherent to all - both linguistically and literarily. Unless we escape from
doctrinal and theological straightjacket, it will stop giving light and revealing
truth to lead people to life.
Translatability and un-translatability
Limit of translation - Linguistic and cultural untranslatability –

See articles in the RENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #2).
the issue of ‘biblical inerrancy’ and 'biblical authority'
Cf. (‘Every Scripture’ – the word ‘Scripture’ in singular)
a
‘Translator’s voice’ should be minimally present within the text, as footnote is a proper
place for it. The space which is occupied by the footnotes in a page also should be kept
minimal.
[Cf. A book www.translationindustry.ir/uploads/pdf/venuti.pdf ]
See also Culpepper (1983), The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel - A Study in
Literary Design, esp. Ch. 2 Narrator and Point of View (pp. 13-50)
b
This should not be confused with a method of interpretation for the text, verse, word, or
phrase in one place of the Bible by finding the same or similar ones in other place in the
Bible – that is, interpreting the Scripture by the Scripture. It means a Bible translation
should make the readers re-live the text as it is reenacted, esp. the narratives, rather than
the sourcebook of (1) doctrines and interpretations and (2) keys for deciphering hidden
things (mysteries, prophecies), serving as a canonical text for liturgical reading and
recitation, or memorization. Often times, translating or reading actually puts in opposite
way to take the Scripture to be re-made to fit into our own wishes and needs – turning
into a Bible code book and a personal application book, to extract prescriptions and
formulae for our earthly life.
2Tm 3:16 As for every Scripture passage [you hear]
they are all as God-breathed life into it
and beneficial [as you sure find]
2Tm 3:16 Scripture passage ░░ [Gk. graphē in singular = ‘that which is written down’] [The
word ‘Scripture’ (a collective noun rendering in IRENT the Gk. plural noun) in the Bible refers to
the Hebrew Scripture (TaNaKh), as our New Testament was yet to form. Not to equate the
Scripture with the ‘Bible’ (a translation product).]
[Often used a proof text for an] /As for the scripture, it is all divinely inspired, being
serviceable for – Cass; /every Scripture passage is - ARJ; /xx: every part of Scripture – MSG]
[i.e., Scripture in every part – JFB];
[i.e., those in the sacred writings Timothy had been reading. The v. 16 is not an isolated theme out
of blue here but is thematically tied to [τὰ] ἱερὰ γράμματα in the preceding v. 15. It is quoted most
of time out of its setting and context, to serve as a proof text for the idea of ‘Biblical inerrancy’,
even a doctrine of ‘(plenary) verbal inspiration of the Bible’ as such. The verse actually does not
dwell on it, which is by nature to be found intrinsic to the Holy Scripture, which hold the Word of
God in human language. Whoever denies it are commended not to bother with the Bible, but to
read the Scripture.
Ref. www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2014/02/six-factors-that-do-not-affect-inerrancy/
Problem of ‘Biblical inerrancy’: Often confused with the inerrancy of the Scripture.
Only those who has knowledge of the original language and history of the people
may dare argue about ‘inerrancy’ when they have thoroughly read and studied.
Those against ‘inerrancy of the Bible’ is actually barking at a wrong tree.] [For
some in the religion the Bible may be a rule book. However, the Scripture is NOT a
book of Rules; nor a book of rituals, liturgies, doctrines, and theologies, nor
applications. The Scripture does not belong to and is not bound to (Christian)
religions, unless of course priests, pastors, preachers and professors can make it so
for people with religiosity.]
An example of an illogical statement: ‘The Word of God is inerrant’ → ‘Bible is the

Word of God’ → ‘Therefore Bible is inerrant’. It is a syllogistic fallacy. Here the
conclusion is wrong, because the minor premise is wrong. The Bible is simply a
human product of translating the Scripture and cannot be inerrant logically. It is not
relevant whether or not one can invoke ‘inspiration’ in the translation process.
Debates on the Bible
‘biblical inerrancy’; doctrine of biblical inerrancy; Biblicism; biblical literalism;

‘biblical inspiration’ (Cf. 2Ti 3:16 – nothing to do with English word ‘inspiration’;
nothing to do with ‘divine dictation’ (‘typewriter version’).
Cf. ‘Bible vs. Scripture vs. Word of God’ vs. canon

Cf. inerrancy vs. infallibility
As such, Bible cannot be said to be inerrant, whatever the word ‘inerrant’ is used to
mean. If the expression ‘inerrancy’ is to be used, it should apply to the Scripture, not
to the Bible. Any claim to deny the inerrancy should be formulated only after thorough
study of the Scripture in the original languages and in the original text and life context.
Cf. inspiration and authority
Cf. biblical text; textual criticism.
Pesher; How NT interprets the NaNaKh – NT References to OT
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/ntot.htm (New Testament References to Old Testament

Scriptures)
www.preceptaustin.org/old_testament_passages_in_the_nt#Inductive%20Bible
%20Study (Old Testament Passages in the NT)
www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/bible-study/old-testament-qouted-in-
new.php#.W1ItHcJG2JY (Old Testament passages referred to or quoted in the N.T.)
Cf. 'direct quotation' (that it is quoting is stated in the text); 'quotation'; 'allusion';
'borrowing OT language'.
Pardes
1. peshat, plain (simple) or literal reading;
2. Remez, allegorical reading through text's hint or allusion
3. Derash, metaphorical reading through a (rabbinic sermon's) comparison/illustration
(midrash)
4. Sod, hidden meaning reading through text's secret or mystery (Kabbalah).
*pesher;
The term pesher (Hebrew noun) means 'solution', 'interpretation'. (found only once in OT
Eccl 8:1.)
[www.xenos.org/essays/matthews-use-old-testament-preliminary-analysis Lee Campbell,
Matthew's Use of the Old Testament: A Preliminary Analysis. A copy in <IRENT Vol. III
- Supplement (Collections #2 - text, translation & bible)>
[www.gbcfrederick.org/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dan-Fabricatore-Midrash-and-
Pesher-Their-Significance-to-th.pdf p. 1]
N.T. authors employ their own midrash/pesher purposefully on the OT texts as they quote
them. Our Bible students and readers on their own unwittingly do same thing on the N.T.
texts, including those quoted OT – e.g., producing '*virgin birth' belief from one verse Lk
1:34, lifting out of the context and conflating with other handful verses, contrary to the
plain statements in the N.T., that Yeshua was from the seed of David, born of a woman,
not a demi-god or god-man, born of a virgin asexually.] [/Demigod ] .
Another example of a Christian pesher is Origen's commentary on Exodus Ch. 12. - wiki
-- Peri_Pascha
[E.g., Messianic reading of Isaiah 9:5-6 [6-7] –– See a pdf file ((For WB #2 Pesher)) Isa 9.5-6 -
Messianic or Historical in IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #2).]
E.g., typical Matthean pesher of OT texts – e.g., esp. Mt 1:22-23, etc. A typical Christian
pesher is here the taking the Heb. word 'almah' (H959 young maiden) → parthenos (LXX
S3933) → virgin → virgin birth myth →virgin belief ('virginal conception' without
procreation → Catholic doctrines of 'perpetual virginity of Mary', 'Mother of God'; 'Queen
of Heaven'; 'Co-Redemptrix'.
Ref. edited by Stanley Gundry (editors, 2009), Three Views on the New Testament Use of the
Old Testament
Kaiser Jr. (editors, 1996), Five Views on Law and Gospel
Matthean pesher - How TaNaKh was quoted for the alleged prophecies.
‘as in fulfilment of’ ░ -\hina+plērōthē (← S4136 plēroō) clause [to be taken as

ecbatic (result), not telic (purpose) sense.];
hina eplērōthē Mt 1:22 (on Isa 9:6; 7:1; 8:10); 2:15 (Hos 1:1 MT); 4:14-16 (Isa
9:1ff; 12:17-20 (Isa 42:1-3); 12:21 (Isa 11:1, 10); 13:13-15 (Isa 6:9ff); 21:5 (cf.
Jn 12:15. Isa 62;11a; 40:9b); 24:4; 27:35.
hopōs eplērōthē Mt 8:17; 13:35 (Psa 78:2); Cf. Mt 2:23. (not direct text quoted
for this can be found in OT.)
[Note that ‘it was not ‘the fulfillment of’ but ‘as fulfilment of’, with ‘as’ in the
sense of ‘comparable to’. Not ‘as if a fulfillment of’. The phrase introduces a
quotation of several OT texts for Matthean pesher (cf. peshat, midras, midrash)
contextualizing in pesher on OT texts, not proving alleged prophecies on
Mashiah.]
/in fulfillment of - WNT, GSNT, TCNT; />> to fulfill – most;

/x: that it might be fulfilled – KJV;
Cf. was fulfilled: eplērōthē Mt 27:9 (Zec 11:13);

Cf. it has been written: houtōs gegraptai Mt 2:5-6 (Mic 5:2; 2Sam 5:2b)
Cf. it has been spoken: Mt 3:3 (Isa 40:3 LXX);
[As a prophecy the Isa text on giving a sign was already fulfilled in the lifetime
of the
prophet. Here the Evangelist Matthew put this OT text is not as a prophecy on
birth of Yeshua to be “born of a virgin”, but a pesher about birth of Yeshua as the
coming Immanuel, which resonates with the incarnation of Incarnate God's Logos
(not ‘Incarnate God’ or ‘God incarnates’) in Jn 1:14. The phrase ‘be born of a
virgin’ is found nowhere in NT; it’s simply out of theologians’ mind of the
Constantine Catholic Church in the history along with development of Trinity
doctrine.
Ref. www.xenos.org/essays/matthews-use-old-testament-preliminary-analysis Lee

Campbell, Matthew's Use of the Old Testament: A Preliminary Analysis. A copy
in <IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #2 - text, translation & bible)>.
www.nehemiaswall.com/new-testament-interprets-tanakh <How NT interprets the

TaNaKh> – audio and transcript. – a copy in the collection #WB #2.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1964-1_012.pdf listing incomplete
https://youtu.be/fnrFbOglP8U <The Virgin Birth Debate

TheTribeOfJudahTeach> 00:45:00 – 00:55:00.
NT pesher of OT texts and Christian Church pesher of NT and OT texts;
*proof-texting, proof-texts (proof texts)

www.prooftexts.wordpress.com <Responding to the Missionary Proof-texts>
NT shows its own pesher (a midrashic exegesis) of OT text and expression (in quotation and
even allusions. It is common especially in case of the Gospels. What we have from
such exegesis is actually unrelated to the original meaning in the setting of OT text.
(It is not so much of committing errors (fabricating) of taking out of context’. E.g.,
Mt 1:22-23 (quoting Isa 7:14 LXX), Jn 19:36 (of quoting Ps 34:20), etc.
This should not be confused with so-called ‘Christian midrash’ of NT as well as of

OT text which is more of theological and doctrinal elaboration.
A singular example is KJV, ESV translation of Psa 22:17.

This is to be examined with its quotation in Jn 19:34 had pierced [with a spear] ░░
(logchē ~ nussō) (cf. ekkenteō. Cf. nussō v. 34); /have pierced – NET, ESV trio; /pierced
– most, Bishops; /pierced {with a spear} – ERV; / have thrust through – Geneva; /[had]
pieced – AUV; /have pierced – WNT; /x: have impaled – Mft; /
[Cf. NT pesher should not to be confused with Christian pesher. A singular example par
excellence in in the translation of Psa 22:17 ‘like a lion they are at my hands and my
feet’. Only once in this text, the word is intentionally mistranslated in KJV, ASV, ESV
as ‘they pierced my hands and my feet’ in order to make it a messianic prophecy to
allude to ‘signs of the Cross’ from nailing on the execution stake.]
[The term *pesher meaning 'interpretation' in Hebrew, occurs only once in the Hebrew
Bible: "Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing?" (Eccl. 8:1).
However, the Aramaic word peshar occurs 31 times in the Aramaic portion of Daniel, where
it mainly refers to dream interpretation (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pesher). ]
Note: when applied in cases of interpreting OT texts by NT writers and, in turn, such quoted
texts in NT by the Christian Church, this Hebrew word is used in a sense of 'interpreting the
text put into the difference context for their own use. Several typical examples are in G-Mt.
[As a prophecy Isa text on giving a sign was already fulfilled in his lifetime. Here
the Evangelist Matthew Mt 1:22-23 put this OT text is not as a prophecy on birth
of Yeshua to be “born of a virgin”, but a pesher about birth of Yeshua as the
coming Immanuel, which resonates with the incarnation of Incarnate God's Logos
(not ‘Incarnate God’ or ‘God Incarnate’) in Jn 1:14. The phrase ‘be born of a
virgin’ is found nowhere in NT; it’s simply out of theologians’ mind of the
Constantine Catholic Church in the history along with development of Trinity
doctrine.
Ref. www.xenos.org/essays/matthews-use-old-testament-preliminary-analysis Lee
Campbell, Matthew's Use of the Old Testament: A Preliminary Analysis. A copy in <IRENT Vol.
III - Supplement (Collections #2 - text, translation & bible)>.
[from https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1964-1_012.pdf Matthew's Use Of The

Old Testament (Normn Hillyer) – its listing is not exhaustive.]
Ref. www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/12/old-testament-citations-in-the-nt-defended-jn-
738.html [a copy in the collection]
*Chapters and verses of the Bible
Total # of chapters, verses and words in the English translation – as is NASB

How many chapters, verses, and words are in the Bible?
NASB Chapters Verses Words

NT 260 7959 184,590
OT 929 23,214 622,771
Entire Bible 1,189 31,173 807,361
/Chapters and verses of the Bible

On the terms ‘original (text)’ and ‘autograph’. Cf. * canon;
Ref. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/02/earliest-use-of-
original-text-or.html
Ref. Hill & Kruger, eds. (2012), The Early Text of the New Testament
p. 4 - concept of the ‘original text’; ‘early text’ ‘initial text’ ‘authoritative text’
p. 6 – ‘text type’ or ‘type of text’
(‘text family’)
Extracted from:
Ch. 1. Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism – Moving from the Nineteenth
Century to the Twenty-First Century by Eldon J. Epp (pp. 19-76) in David Alan Black,
editor. (2002), Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism.
… Since New Testament textual criticism is both an art and a science, as a discipline it
is all about choice and decision. I therefore characterize the major issues as follows:
1. Choosing among variants – and deciding on priority. This is the issue of the so-
called canons of criticism what are the arguments we employ to decide between
the variant readings in a given variation unit, and, as a consequence, how do we
put it all together to reconstruct readings that make up a text most like that of the
early Christian community? (p. 20ff)
2. Choosing among manuscripts – and deciding on groups. Here the concern is
text-types-can we isolate clusters of manuscripts that constitute distinguishable
kinds of texts as evidenced by shared textual characteristics? And can we marshal
these to sketch the history of the New Testament text? (p. 34ff)
3. Choosing among critical editions – and deciding for compromise. Do our
current critical editions of the Greek New Testament reflect a reasonable
approximation to the text (or a text) that was extant in very early Christianity? The
difficulties inherent in reconstructing such a text suggest that compromise may be
the order of the day. (p. 44ff)
4. Choosing to address context – and deciding on influence. This engages the
issue of placing manuscripts and variant readings in their church-historical,
cultural, and intellectual contexts-how did they influence the church and its
theology, and how, in turn, did the church and the surrounding culture influence
the manuscripts and their variant readings? (P. 52ff)
5. Choosing to address goals and directions – and deciding on meanings and
approaches. What is the goal or what are the goals of New Testament textual
criticism? More specifically, what do we mean by original text and what can we
mean by it? And how will our decisions inform our future directions and our
methods? (p. 70ff)
Reading material on translation process:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160205024457/www.concordant.org/expohtml/
TheScriptures/intclv1.html
www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheScriptures/intclv1.html#developing
http://concordant.org/version/intro-to-the-concordant-new-testament/
WEYMOUTH’ RESULTANT GREEK TEXT

Before a version of the Scriptures can be made, we must have a settled Greek text. The three most
ancient and almost complete manuscripts are Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus, generally
referred to as A, B, and the Hebrew letter Aleph (which we designate as s). They agree in the main,
yet there are many minor variations. Opinions may vary as to which is the original reading.
Several years of research resulted in compiling a Greek text which gives all of the readings of these
three most ancient codices, and all the readings from other sources which we feel are important. As
it would be impossible to collate all the hundreds of later manuscripts, we decided to base our
comparisons on Weymouth’s RESULTANT GREEK TESTAMENT. Richard Francis Weymouth
based his text on the greatest editors of the nineteenth century: Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,
Lightfoot, Weiss, Alford, Ellicott, Stockmeyer & Riggenbach, the Revisers, and Westcott & Hort.
Weymouth’s apparatus was also consulted which gives the results of Stunica, Erasmus, Stephens,
Elziver and Scrivener.
The work was done as follows: Photographic facsimiles of each of the ancient manuscripts were
carefully compared with a copy of the text of THE RESULTANT GREEK TESTAMENT, and
every variation was noted in it. Then another copy of Weymouth’s text was cut up and pasted, line
for line on large sheets which were bound into a book. Much space was left between each line, so
that all the variations could be entered in place, above the words. If another reading was preferred
instead of Weymouth’s, the notation above the line was changed accordingly. The principles on
which this text was constructed are explained in the Introduction to the CONCORDANT GREEK
TEXT. This volume of the Concordant Library contains every word and letter of A, B, s, Codex
Vaticanus 2066 (046) for the Apocalypse, and some recently discovered fragments of Papyri.
Differences between manuscripts are shown in the superlinear. A uniform, literal word-for-word
sublinear translation is given below the Greek text, which is printed in the ancient uncial letters as
we find them in the most ancient manuscripts. The manuscripts used by us, A, B, s, were evidently
written by professional scribes, with comparative accuracy, and carefully corrected, having been
designed for monasteries, libraries or public use. There were doubtless many copies in circulation in
those days, especially of parts of the Scriptures, made by amateurs for private use, on cheaper
material, and often full of errors. Fragments of such copies are being found, some of which are even
older than the manuscripts we use, but they are not always completely reliable, though certainly of
interest.
DEVELOPING THE CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT

In order to understand why it was necessary to form a special Greek text for this Version, the
following facts must be clear. The actual “Originals” have not been preserved. In ancient times
books were copied by hand. In the course of time thousands of copies were made, but they differed
slightly among themselves. Early English translators did not have access to the earliest and best of
these manuscripts. The latest Greek texts are almost all based upon the judgment of those who
compiled them. We desire to present the actual evidence of the most ancient texts, so that our
readers may be able to use their own judgment if they wish. Hence the CONCORDANT GREEK
TEXT (which has been published as a companion volume to this Version) gives every letter of three
of the most ancient manuscripts, either in or above the line. These three manuscripts are:
CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (A) was presented to Charles I of England by the Patriarch of
Alexandria in 1628. It is now in the British Museum, in London. It was probably written in the
fifth century. Each page has two columns of text, as shown on the illustration herewith. It came
too late to be used in the making of the AUTHORIZED (“King James”) VERSION. Until the
middle of the nineteenth century it was the only ancient text accessible to Protestant scholars. It
is incomplete in some places. The greater part of Matthew’s account is missing.
CODEX VATICANUS (B) seems to have been in the Vatican Library at Rome as far back
as is known. It seems to be older than Alexandrinus and is supposed to be especially exact. The
close of Hebrews, Paul’s personal epistles and the Apocalypse are lacking. For the last two we
substitute Codex Vaticanus 2066 (046) (b) which was probably written in the eighth century,
so is not nearly as reliable as the rest. The text seems to agree better than any other manuscript
with Codex Sinaiticus. It is written on very fine vellum, nearly square in shape, about 10 by 10
inches in size. The accents and other marks have been added by a much later hand. The
subscription to Galatians shows how these were added. The oval stamp between the last few
lines of the second and third columns is the stamp of the Vatican Library at Rome. It reads
Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana. It will be noted that this manuscript has three columns to the
page, while Alexandrinus has two, and Sinaiticus four. It has no initials and practically no
indications of words, sentences or paragraphs.
CODEX SINAITICUS (s) was discovered in 1859 by Constantin von Tischendorf. In 1844,
while seeking ancient manuscripts, he visited the monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai, and
found a few very ancient sheets of vellum, older than any he had seen before. They proved to
be pages of the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures into Greek.
The monks seemed to have no idea of the value of these sheets and were using them in place of
firewood! Tischendorf managed to get the monks to give him some pages, but his joy was so
great that they became suspicious and refused to part with any more. No one seemed to know
anything of the rest of the volume, whence these pages had come. But the monks at least did
not burn any more manuscripts. Tischendorf determined to get the rest of this manuscript if he
could, but it was not until he went there the third time that he found the treasure he was after.
In the name of the Czar, the head of the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church, he took it to St.
Petersburg, where it remained until it was bought by the British Museum at a cost of one
hundred thousand pounds (£100,000) and brought to London.
During the work of comparing Sinaiticus with the other manuscripts we were much
impressed by the notations of one of the so-called “correctors” of this text, whom we
designated by the sign S2. A critical study of his changes convinced us that he was really a
reviser. It is probable that he compared it with other, more ancient manuscripts, for he did not
merely correct errors, but revised the text according to other evidence. This revised Sinaiticus
seems to us to be the best of all the ancient texts, hence it is given special weight in forming the
CONCORDANT GREEK TEXT.
The original of this famous manuscript was written on thin vellum, each page being now
about 13 by 15 inches in size. This allows the letters to be quite large and clear. This page
contains two notable corrections by the later editor we have spoken of S2. In the upper right-
hand corner will be seen the reading: “Not according to flesh are they walking, but according
to spirit” (Rom.8:1). In the space between the last two columns, a little over an inch from the
top, are the words “Yet grace,” which answer the question at the end of the seventh chapter of
Romans (Rom.7:24). In the first line on the page there are three abbreviations. These are
indicated by horizontal strokes over the words. The first two letters stand for Christ. The
second two are the first and last letters of Jesus. The next two are the article the. The seventh
and eighth letters stand for Master or Lord. The title God is abbreviated in the fifth line from
the bottom of the third column, the fifth and sixth letters from the end of the line.
None of these codices nor any other of the older manuscripts contains the incident of the
adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11). It is also absent in some of the Old Latin Versions and not
mentioned by some of the prominent Fathers. So the Version puts these verses in brackets.
Hebrew thought vs. Greek thought; Western mind vs. Oriental mind
Though the NT text is in Koine Greek, it is important to appreciate Hebrew thought

underling the Greek. In Many books are written on the subject of Hebrew mind vs.
Greek one. [E.g., Thorleif Boman (1970), Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek.]
<Hilarious Bible translations> -😊
[See as a separate file – uploaded to www.academia.edu ]
Many problems in the English Bibles -
Only bits of thoughts can be here as there are millions written on the subject.
*KJV or *KJB or AV (Authorized Version)

KJV has some words translated taking Latin words from Vulgate:
1. ‘publican’ for Gk. telōnēs (tax profiteer or tax collector) – from publicanus in
Vulgate.
2. ‘charity’ for Gk. agapē (love) from 1Co 8:1 on.
3. ‘Calvary’ (Lk 23:33; elsewhere as ‘skull’) for Gk. kranion from Calvariae in
Vulgate; [Most as ‘Skull’; IRENT as ‘Head’]
 As the pre-eminent literary work in English history; KJB served very well with
linguistic and literary as well as biblical pre-eminent role for four hundred years in the
history of English language. With continued change in English language itself, it is
archaism among other issues in the translation that is now difficult for modern people
to understand. [Ref.: Brake et Beach (2011), A Visual History of the King James Bible
– the Dramatic Story of the World's Best-Known Translation. – it covers its
descendants as well as history of English and earlier English translations with
wonderful historical photos.] Everyone should own not for reading but for comparison
since it is in 400 years old English with archaic and obsolescent words, phrases and
syntax, as well as textural issue.
 Gk. text is TR
 Various editions and revisions
 KJV-onlyism (a misnomer – it is TR-only position, not translation per se. (
https://watch-unto-prayer.org/TR-0-intro.html )
See WB#1 for *Testament vs. *Covenant; *Renewed Covenant; *New
Covenant
‘*Jews’ - how to translate the word: the Jews in G-Jn and in N.T.
[See a file (('The Jews' in G-John)) in <IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #1A -
words and terms)>]
How it is rendered in IRENT {G-Jn – 68x (in 65 verses) in KJV (no word ‘Jewish’);
Initially, an attempt was made to render it differently as the context fits: 'the Judeans'
'the Judean in authorities 18:12), Judaic (festival/custom 2:6), ‘king of the Jews’
(18:33).
Eventually however, adopting a Hebrew loanword ‘Yehudim’ is found to be the best

one. It is true to the Scriptural meaning and setting – as a neutral term (unassociated
with ‘Jews’ in modern English). A clarifying phrase is added in the passion narrative
as ‘Yehudim in authority’ to distinguish from people of Yehudim in general. This
applies as well to the rest of N.T
Bible *translations, *Reading, and * interpretation

[factual evidence beyond ‘feasibility’ ‘probability’ and ‘possibility’]
Our approach and attitude for our tasks – all about being honest to ourselves,
honest to the Bible, honest to God.
/*Orality vs. /*Literacy

Quoted from /orality and literacy "… Nearly 70% of the Bible is narrative, in story form.
And you only have to read a few verses in and there’s [sic] quotation marks. Consider the
following:
 Jesus didn’t commit any of his teachings down to writing. His disciples heard and
remembered His teaching long before it was written.
 Jesus trusted the power of story! Every once in a while, He will explain it, but often
the point of the story is the story.
 There’s very little indication that Peter was literate. Paul was definitely literate, but
dictated many of his letters, which were intended to be read aloud (in entirety) to the
churches, as was the Revelation of John.
 It’s been estimated that approximately 5% of the people in the first century were
literate! Certainly, no more than 15% were literate in the early churches. (Most
scholars keep it lower than 10-15%.)
 Mark’s gospel was probably first oral, then transcribed.
 Oral transmission of the Bible is shown from these phrases: “received what I have
delivered”; “heard me say … entrust to reliable men”; “faith comes by hearing”;
“Jesus taught them many things by parables”; and by “many similar parables Jesus
spoke to His disciples”. After they asked about the first story, Jesus gives an answer to
the story: another story! Story is teaching.
 Scholar NT Wright wrote, “It would clearly be wrong if we merely saw Jesus’ stories
as illustrations of truth”."
Bible translations:
Bible translations:
One of the most confusing things for believers today is the sheer abundance of Bible
translations. One simply does not know which version to believe.
Often asked: “If I want to read the most faithful translation of the original manuscripts, which
translation should I chose?”
No translation is and can be perfect. It is frankly impossible to fully and perfectly reflect the
exact nature of the original text, no matter what translation method is used by the scholar or
team of scholars, no matter how competent they are as translators. Regardless of how
disheartening this may sound to the ears of modern Christians, we must not evaluate
translations in terms of perfect vs. imperfect (all translations are, in fact, imperfect), but rather
in terms of “less accurate” vs. “more accurate”. This is one of the reasons why any serious
Bible reading person must stop delegating one's own responsibility for the study to the biblical
scholars, theologians, dogmaticians, and ecclesial authorities. Instead one must take
responsibility and be a part of the coalition of the willing who examines and double-checks all
official translations.
Not a least to be considered is how the Bible is used. Personal or public reading. For study or
for reading, or for lectionary?
NWT
http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-new-world-translationscholarly-
and.html
'IRENT'
IRENT is the fruit of an attempt for a new English translation of Greek New Testament,
which is undertaken with linguistic and literary critical approach, quite different from
others which are essentially to serve their particular religious and ecclesial needs with
theological and doctrinal bias. A translation is often a result of doctrinal position; such
translation in turn lead them reinforce their doctrines. Not just to come up with a translation
useful for those who read it, but to ask them be challenged – not only about the translations
and the text, but about everything conceptually and practically tied to the Bible. The Bible
has become a canonical book of religion by the people of the book – religion of liturgy,
rules, rituals, and rites, as well as relics and icons. In modern mindset, it is tapped as a book
of application. Translation works of the Bible have reflected the spirit of modernism and
‘religion-ism’. This has to return to the book of life, light, and love.
Translation vs. interpretation (of the Bible)
To ‘interpret the Bible’ is actually meant to interpret the (biblical) texts. Here, 'Bible' is
metonymic for that is written in the Bible.
Pro 3:5-6
3:5
Trust in YHWH with all your heart
and lean [H8172 shaan – rely] not on your own understanding; [H998 binah]
3:6
In all your ways [H1870 derek] know [H3045 yada; /x: acknowledge] him,
and he will make your paths straight. [H3474 yashar]
“Reading and understanding (translated) texts – it’s a work of interpretation.

Translation the text is a work of interpretation.
“interpretation is always arbitrary” It is always through colored glasses; always
depends on one’s approach, bias, agenda, presupposition, presumption, limited
knowledge, etc.
One may read the bible according to one's own faith or according the tradition of a church
or a denomination. But then what?
One needs and is forced to study not just to learn more, but also to unlearn. To remove
confusion is more important than to acquire knowledge.
[Ref. etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-2/… Martin Pickup, “New Testament Interpretation of the
Old Testament: The Theological Rationale of Midrashic Exegesis.” JETS 51/2 (June 2008) 353–81.]
 New Testament writers used midrashic techniques to interpret the Hebrew Bible
 ‘Christian midrash’ – Midrash method of interpreting a Biblical verse.]
crux interpretum – [Some text verses are indicated in IRENT by  placed before a
line begins may belong to this category.]
E.g., 1Tm 2:15; Tit 2:13; 2Pe 1:1; 1Pe 3:19; 2Co 4:4 (The God vs. the god);
E.g., 1Co 15:29 hoi baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn. “Otherwise, what do people mean by
being baptized on behalf of the dead ones? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people
baptized on their behalf?” [See EE in IRENT]
Cf. ‘code deciphering’ ‘Bible code’; ‘kabbalah (/kabala) a’; ‘homiletic’;
interpretation; hermeneutics; paraphrase; metaphrase; rewriting; children's bible;
'Bible in basic English'. /BBE.pdf
/Proof-texting b; /Eisegesis – agenda-driven;
/Quadriga – (four layers of analysis; fourfold interpretation) a method of interpretation, developed in

the early church and survived up to medieval times. It stated that a text had four layers of
meaning: the literal, the moral, the allegorical and the anagogical
http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5system_hermeneutics/parlett_Interpretation.aspx
https://apokalupsisweb.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/the-fourfold-layers-of-scripture-biblical-interpretation-
hermeneuticsexegesis-using-the-quadriga-pardes-methods/
http://whatdoesthewordsay.org/reference/2018-transcripts/Session40.pdf
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anagoge#English
Cf. interpretations of the OT texts within the N.T. writing. Esp. of quoting prophetic OT texts
('prophecies') or prophetic interpretation of OT texts – in the manner of * Midrash or * pesher.
a
/Kabbalah “The Kabbalah is the mystical and esoteric explanation of the Torah. It teaches the unfolding of the worlds,
the various ways of guidance of these worlds, the role of man in the creation, the will of the Creator and more. No other
writings explain in details; the creation of this world and the ones above it, the lights or energies that influence its
guidance, nor the final goal of everything. These writings are based on ancient Jewish texts and mostly on the Zohar .
b
Reading material www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2017/05/23/lord-save-us-prooftext-faith
[Related words: versions; editions; translation philosophy; translation issues; study such as theology,
Christology; teaching vs. doctrine. – See a separate volume, IRENT Vol. III Supplement - < #1 –
Words, Words and Words>.]
exegesis eisegesis; midrasha, rendering, paraphrase; metaphrase; transcription vs.

transliteration; amplification; ellipsis; (read) between-the-lines; anachronism,
prolepsis; hermeneutics; pick-and-choose + mix-manipulate, proof texting;
exposition, expounding, sermonizing;
lack of understating the Scripture text which was heard ('not read') in the
original setting of language and culture (Sitz_im_Leben), as far removed from
modern, especially Westernized and Americanized.
a
The term midrash (Hebrew– midrāš; pl. midrāšîm) means 'inquiry', 'examination' or 'commentary'.
[derived from the verb dāraš which means “to search” (i.e., for an answer)] Ezra 7:10 is the first use
where a written text is the object of dāraš. It is used to designate a type of literature, oral or written,
which has its starting point in a fixed canonical text, considered the revealed word of God by the
midrashist and his audience, and in which this original verse is explicitly cited or clearly alluded to. The
main use at Qumran is to denote Scriptural interpretation'.
Interpretation is transference of meaning between spoken languages, while translation is
transference of meaning between written languages. These words may refer to outcome or
product of activity of interpreting and translating. When we interpret the Bible text, we are
working on the meaning of what the text is saying, now how it was written.
Translating as well as reading of the Scripture is a work of art and involves interpretation
and one’s agenda. A common comment, ‘it is not translation, but interpretation’, is only
partly true, since all translation work is not possible without going through interpretative
process. In a sense, we can say ‘translation IS interpretation’, figuratively speaking; not
‘translation = interpretation’, but 'translation is an act of interpretation'. A translation
requires exegesis - work of interpreting the text, as is reflecting in a well-known Italian
expression – "Traduttore, tradittore" (‘Translator, Traitor’). However, this phrase would
hold true only if interpretationa involves doctrines, ideologies, in contrast to interpretation
is work of understanding of the text at the linguistic and literary level, though translation
itself affects theology in some aspect. Making things further complicated and worse,
theology itself influences translation. It is then work of eisegesis, being effected by
ecclesiastical traditions and doctrines and canonical creeds. That’s why translation is a
human work and there is nothing sacrosanct about it by itself. The readers of any Bible
should be clear about this quicksand. A Bible is a product of translation work which should
be a vessel for the Scripture, as the Scripture is what brings the very Word of God. Just as
the Scripture is to be read from within itself without bringing in external garbage
(doctrines, teachings, theologies, interpretations, and exegesis), translation work should
bear fruits from working out from within the Scripture. [In the same manner, (1)
interpretation (to suit one's own understanding of the texts) re-enforces or changes
translation, and (20 reading the Scripture is also an act of interpretation, which is only
possible in endless cycles of questions-responses-answers-correction.]
To study the Scripture,b one cannot study the Bible (whether it is ‘authorized [to be read by
a church] by a mere king’ or stamped with a seal of denominational or church approval or
endorsement), one can only study with Bibles, various available in one’s language using
them in comparative mode. That everyone is born a sucker in every area of life is also true
in learning and self-realization or attainment of truths. Notice it says ‘with Bibles’, not with
the Bible. However different may the various Bibles be, the more divergent from each
other, the better. [Note: Bible publishers are producing a dizzying array of products, with
translations and editions pitched to every conceivable human taste and bent. There are
many translations which are supposed to be ‘easy to read’ and ‘palatable’, but, in reality,
they are paraphrase, or worse personal rewriting which masquerades and being promoted as
if a Bible translation.]
a
Interpretation of the Scripture – should not to be confused 1Pe 1:20
“… take note of:
that none of scriptural prophecies springs
from one’s own understanding and unraveling [of what’s happening].”
b
To study the Scripture here means to read and hear what the text says and absorb, by the readers
putting themselves into the original literary and life settings – to understand the Scripture from with
the Scripture, with one’s presupposition and agenda. That would presuppose reading in the original
language. It is as learning from the master Himself. It is not about analyzing, arguing, and
accumulating knowledge, however useful it might be – all of such effort is something for lay
person’s ‘bible study’ all the way up to seminary and scholarly level. E.g., What Do You Do First in
Studying the Gospels: The Theological Narratives or Critical History?
In a sense, any translation is a paraphrase, unless two languages are very close to each other
in grammar, syntax, vocabulary and idiom. Technically speaking, translation from one
language to another is paraphrase, because it is phrase-based work – that is, the smallest
unit to deal is a phrase (which can be a single word), not a word.
Any translation is not possible without some elements of paraphrasing. However,

paraphrasing can be slippery slope and it drifts away from the original language and fails to
remain connected to keep the sense and idiom intact.
However, the word ‘paraphrase’ carries a sense of ‘free rendering with elaboration and
alteration which is the translator’s own, with the original sense and idiom be replaced,
altered, distorted and alien elements taking their places within the text – all agenda-driven
to suit the personal, whimsical, pseudo-scholarly, linguistic, commercial, and ideological
bent.
Not a few examples are found in modern translations – easy to find out if they are ‘easy
read’ and palatable and ear-itching (cf. 2Ti 4:3): The Living Bible (1971 by Kenneth
Taylor); New Living Translation (1996, 2004, 2007); The Message (1993-2002 by Eugene
Peterson). These should not be called Bible translation, though the translators and
publishers often let and mislead the readers buy these as translation, while publicly claim
that they are just paraphrases. [Characteristics of such private enterprises are frivolity,
farfetchedness, flippancy, frippery, fantastic, faddish, fake, fickleness, flight of fanciful
ideas, – all foreign to the Scripture – frightening] Another category is no one would
mistake as Bible translation – ‘private rewriting’[EE-2]3 to make a repackaged product
peddling for a different kind of message. [EE-3 for examples 4 ] [Cf. Related terms –
translating; translation work; translations (= a Bible, a paraphrase or a rewriting).] The
Scripture becomes translated and translations (Bibles) become interpreted to suit for
religious and doctrinal needs with its teachings altered from the original sense and intention
some becoming petrified and fossilized.
Cf. Parallel Gospels (cf. ‘Gospel harmony’ – problem of resulting in homogenizing all Four
into one – different and contrasting characteristics of individual Gospel are being
discarded.)
Criteria for good translation:

(1) Fidelity – (accountable to the original text as it was intended to the original
audience). How close would the back-translation be to the original language text?
(2) Sense and sensibility – to words, phrases, and sentences. Not only ‘meaning’
(whatever one can find be it in a glossary or a lexicon), but also ‘sense’ ‘nuance’
‘semantic field of synonymous and antonymous words’ ‘word association’ ‘word
picture’ ‘tone’ ‘accent’ ‘sound effect’ ‘collocation and collusion words’ ‘diction’
–are all these aspects dealt with adequately and given due consideration across the
language and cultural barrier? If one knows only the original language and the
target language English, the translator would miss something of rich linguistic
experience. Linguistic sensitivity accepts the fact that a word has not a fixed
meaning and the meaning comes in the context and with the text. The meaning
intended by the author, narrator, or speaker is not same as the meaning understood
by the real or implied audience. a A word in translation may have a meaning by the
a
Cf. actors; insiders vs. outsiders. Cf. Ref: Culpepper (1983), Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel – A
Study in Literary Design, – definition of (1) the real author, (2) the implied author, (3) the narrator
(pp. 15-16); and narratee, implied reader, and real reader (pp. 6-7) of the Gospel. Cf. insider vs.
translator different from that which is formed in the minds of each reader or
hearer. A common word appears as specialized theological jargon, rather than in
its plain sense and usage.
(3) Faithfulness - Do the parts harmonize with the whole with consistency?
(4) Naturalness and clarity – devoid of Biblical or church jargons.
(5) Absence of contamination – cultural, ecclesiastical, religious, ideological,
doctrinal bent with anachronism. So-called Christian midrash.
(6) Proper cultural transfer – Translation cannot be meaning-based alone; it has to
be sense-based to go through the cultural barrier, not to create something new in a
different culture, but to re-create, so that the translated text can be securely back-
translated to the original language.a
(7) Understandability – how effectively is the necessary context provided?
(8) Acceptability to the intended audience who needs to hear the Scripture itself as
originally penned, rather than to hear catechisms, doctrines, interpretations,
theologies, apologeticsb, polemicsc, products of human translation work, or some
application or canonical books. How does it help the readers put themselves as
participants into the narrative, discourse, and audience – rather than as outsiders,
bystanders, analyzers, or treasure hunters?
(9) *Visuality of the text –appropriate and judicious use of punctuation marks, page
format, paragraph format, font and typography for the reader's eyes to easily scan,
browse, search as well as to read the text.
(10) *Readability – Let the readers understand English the way it is put, with due
consideration for oral reading ('reading aloud' 'public reading'). d [See elsewhere
for * orality and * literacy] Beware of ‘easy read’ type of translations of very
smooth readable text, as often resorting to expressions which are not biblical and
sometimes of second-rate commentary or sermon level. [How useful are a number
of testing scheme (‘index’ ‘score’, etc.) for readability English text? Each proposal
may be for its intended material and its intended goal, hardly applicable to the
biblical texts of diverse genre. e] ‘readability’ – level of readability on the part of
outsider.
a
E.g., ‘what you will eat/drink’ is good as far as the meaning goes. Yes, the ‘literal’ translation is
actually meaning-based. However, the same expression has very different in affluent Western
society handing out a wrong sense from the ancient peasant society where subsistence is a top
priority, not consumption. One example is in Korean: ‘빵’, ‘for ‘bread’ since ‘bread’ is not food in
the culture. Same for ‘wine’ which did not exist for consumption; drinking wine is a modern
imported culture.
Quote: We all think, act, and communicate in ways that are primarily predetermined by our culture’
– Jim Myers (http://bhcbiblestudies.blogspot.com/2014/05/using-culture-key-to-unlock-meanings-
of.html )
E.g., wrong attempt: Mt 19:24 ‘a pig might fly before ~’ in Source NT translation for ‘camel
squeeze through a needle’s eye’
b
Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a
position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. It is paradoxically opposite of
‘apology’ in common vocabulary (which is an expression of regret; excusing). Early Christian
writers (c. 120–220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to
outsiders were called apologists
c
Polemics – is refutation for persuasion. Cf. polemic or polemical carries a word picture of
‘argument’ or ‘controversy’ ‘hostile (meaning of the Greek).
d
Ref: Clayton Schmit (2002), Public Reading of Scripture – A Handbook.
Jack Rang (1994), How to Read the Bible Aloud: Oral Interpretation of Scripture
e
E.g., Gunning Fog Index; Coleman-Liau Index; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level; ARI (Automated
Readability Index); SMOG.
the readers; vs. – text comprehensibility (level of vocabulary difficulty; specialty
words; noun vs. counterpart verbal phrase;
(11) 'Consistency' – A word, either in the source or target language, may have more
than one meaning and more than one sense. A word should be translated same
throughout when the text context and literary context is same in order to avoid
confusion and misconstrual. [Cf. not same as 'literalness' as in interlinear
translation.] This allows *back-translation a to result in a translation in the original
langue as close as possible.
[E.g., S4352 proskuneō for ‘to worship’ (as to God-being Jn 4:23); for 'to pay/bring
homage to' (Mt 2:2); for 'fall prostrate' (Rev 3:9 '~~before your feet'); /x: do
obeisance – NWT (archaic/quaint)]
(12) Necessary information – on the translation work (principle and process) and the
text being translated. Footnotes, margin notes, end-notes, and appendices as well
as references.
Horror of a vicious circle – It is a very common but pernicious practice of (doctrinal)
presupposition → misreading the text → misunderstanding → misinterpreting →
finally mistranslating in a vicious circle to reinforce the wrong presumption
creeping in the Bible reading and studying – all for a doctrinal and ideological
commitment.
Note on ‘*accuracy’: Since all the translations claim to be accurate, this term itself is
actually vacuous word. [Note: the term which is often confused with ‘*literalness’] –
accuracy is lost when translation is affected by the translator's personal linguistic literary
deficiency (even to their financial gain by peddling their own bibles, such as The Message
by Eugene Peterson) and by the denominational or theological agenda, often subtle but
even outright alteration of what the text reads.
'what is 'accurate'? 'Accurate as possible'? Consistently accurate? 'greater accuracy'?

accurate compare to others? In what aspect one claims to be accurate?
'Which Bible is better?' ('Bible' in the sense of a translation); Better for what? Like it
better? More accurate? etc.
Other high-sounding lingo – *reliability (of what and how so?), *faithfulness (o, yeah),
*literalness (how far literal? What is 'literal'?); *easy reading (- even good for children's'
bible? Easy enough to require no serious effort to study??); 'by scholarly hands'??; backed
up by some Church authorities??
On the expression 'grammatically impossible': a descriptor by the critiques

on the New World Translation:
One late well-known critic, William Barclay, Bible translator and commentator,
a
'back-translation' – "Abstract: Back translation is the technique most commonly used to check the
accuracy of translation in survey research. Although it results in a direct or literal translation, it does
not address issues of conceptual equivalence. Furthermore, if it is not combined with pretesting, it does
not address issues of comprehension and meaning to the respondent. This article discusses some of the
problems of relying exclusively on back translation in isolation. It suggests the use of a collaborative,
iterative approach for translating questionnaires for international marketing research." from Susan
Douglas & Samuel Craig (2007). "Collaborative and Iterative Translation: An Alternative Approach to
Back Translation." Journal of International Marketing: March 2007, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 30-43.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.15.1.030
even saying that such a rendering as "and the Word was a god" is
"grammatically impossible."
That very expression that 'such a rendering is grammatically impossible' is non-
sensical. Even the statement 'the rendering is grammatically possible' is non-
sensical. What is grammar? What grammar? Greek grammar? English grammar?
'How to translate something grammatically?' What does it mean 'impossible'? Either
the translation got English grammar wrong or had the Greek text has grammar
wrong.
When a text is translated, it is not (dictionary) meaning, nor the grammar that is
translated. What is being translated is the literary product in a language which was
spoken and understood by the source language speakers. "Literal" translation (not
confused as word-to-word interlinear style) is a translation true to the text which
gives due attention to grammatic, syntactic, idiomatic aspects so as to back-translate
as close to the original. No 'free' 'easy-read' translation can be without altering the
text — misrepresenting and misleading it to the readers. I would be a best seller but
should be acceptable only as a story book or a children's book level would deserve.]
Theory, text, theology, translation methods; principle, practice and problem of

translation and translations
http://missionsmandate.org/pdf/sgi12/Dynamic-Equivalence-and-its-
Daughters_Article.pdf
In their book Eugene A. Nida and Charles R. Taber The Theory and Practice of
Translation (1969) with Eugene Nida, Toward a Science of Translating (1965)
proposed a new translation theory based on the concept of ‘dynamic equivalence’ to
stand against ‘formal equivalence’ in translation practice. It seems to me that
‘equivalence’ is a fancy name for ‘rendering (to be close to the original) and
‘dynamic’ means no more than thoughtful rendering and as if the other were no more
than mechanical process or computer translation.
The two sides – form-based and meaning-based – are not separate entities, but two
sides of one. It is just matter of how much is form-based or meaning based for a
particular rendering of a word, a phrase, a sentence, or a paragraph in actual work of
translating. For example, form-based would be theoretically very important for
translation of poems, it may well-nigh impossible, unless the source and target
languages happen to be closely related. Translation work itself is translating meaning
with underlying form being subservient and supportive. The problem in actual Bible
translations is that the translators are bent on translating the text into what the text is
meant to their target audience, whereas what should be translated is what the authors
want to say to the original audience, not just meaning but also intention. Most
English Bibles are Westernized, Anglicized, and even Americanized. Here and there
it is not difficult to spot in the translations cultural difference having been blatantly
disregarded, besides religious and doctrinal issues. a
a
E.g., of such – [nothing would be more frivolous than these!]
(1) Eugene Peterson (1993) The Message: Mt 6:11 “Keep us alive with three square meals.” Cf. “With
the bread [of Life] for us [from above] in full measure — have us provided today” – IRENT. Does he
know how it is to a human being, many dying of starvation? What kind frivolous thing he asks God,
Paratext consist of all information representing elements that are added to a text
by an author, editor or translator in order to materialize the text into a specific
publication.
Paratext in Bible translations - SIL International
Note: All the written things about translation philosophy, principle and practice
did not materially aid my own translation work of IRENT. Of course, it did
help only for retrospective inspection to allow the result of work to check
against these scholarly ideas.
Problems of translations:
1. agenda driven and biased good to address to a particular audience (skopos_theory of

translation)
2. anachronism; archaism; neglect on the Hebrew mindset; rather westernized, Anglicized,
and Americanized.
3. glossary approach to translating words.
4. modernized to frivolity; replacing with alien and non-Scriptural expression from religious
traditions.
5. unable to see the underlying sense the original language carries.
6. audience characteristics – read-ability, language and literary levels, cultural setting and
mind-set, presupposition.
Translating:
1. intra-language
2. cross-language – not only ‘form’ ‘meaning’ but ‘sense’ which is shaped by the culture
(http://bhcbiblestudies.blogspot.com/2014/05/using-culture-key-to-unlock-meanings-of.html)
(1) Source language (language of the source text);
(2) Target language (of the intended audience);
(3) Original languages (of the audience hearing what authors wanted to bring in their life
setting. E.g., Aramaic, not just Koine Greek);
(4) Receptor languages – other than the target language (to beyond culturally-bound one-
language mind-set in order to understand and to interpret the text which is foreign to the target
language.
3. between the languages:
A real-life problem of using the Malay word for ‘Allah’ in their traditional Bible
translation with religious-political conflict: In Malaysia, the word Allah has been in
use from the start in the native language. This practice has been recently challenged by
the Muslim authority insisting that this Arabic word should be for the exclusive use of
Muslims – www.asianews.it/news-en/Authorities-again-stop-Catholics-from-using-
the-word-Allah-28808.html .
thinking God may hear. That kind of his God is dead – we don’t need Sartre to declare it.
(2) Ann Nyland (2007), Source New Testament: Mt 19:24 “a pig might fly before a rich one enters the
reign of God.” Cf. “It is easier for a camel to squeeze through a needle's eye, than for a rich one [like
him] to get into the Kingdom reign of Elohim.” – IRENT. Does she know about cultures as much as
she is a self-described lexicographic expert?
For purely linguistic and literary viewpoint, use of Allah in the Arabic translations of the
Scripture collides with who the very God is. Despite historical tradition in their language,
linguistically and culturally Muslim position is on the right.
For other translation issues in Muslim context, www.christianpost.com/news/wycliffe-bible-

translators-receive-recommendations-for-muslim-context-95034/
Another example: what seems to be back-ward rendering in their new translation of the
Catholic Bibles in Korean from the uniquely Christian word ‘하나님’ to a generic ‘하느님’
which is God of generic notion which belongs to a common secular and indigenous (‘pagan’)
vocabulary. However, the word is originally ‘하느님’ (heavenly one), but when the Scripture
was translated into Korean for the first time, the translator adopted a dialect ‘ 하나님’, seeing
that ‘하나’ means ‘one’, suitable as monotheistic expression. At any rate, either is to be used
consistently throughout the translated Bible text.
Ref. Porter et. Boda (Ed.) (2009), Translating the New Testament, Text, Translation,
Theology
http://missionsmandate.org/pdf/sgi12/Dynamic-Equivalence-and-its-
Daughters_Article.pdf
In this age of electronic document creation and editing, translating the Scripture is
much easier. Search on the topic of ‘Franken-Bible’, a neologism, which I would
expand into a fuller expression Frank-Franken-Frankenstein Bibles.
www.openbible.info/blog/2013/03/how-to-train-your-franken-bible/
http://bibleandtech.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-train-your-franken-bible-by.html
www.adaptivebible.com/
On various translation (versions) issue:
*KJV-only controversy: Tracts and booklets re modern translations

"An Appraisal of the RSV" by Robert L. Sumner (booklet)
"The New English Bible: Version or Perversion?" by Ian R. K. Paisley (booklet)
"Guide to Bible Translations" by Wayne Walden (booklet)
Peter Thuesson (1999), In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles
Over Translating the Bible:
www.inplainsite.org/html/bible_controversies.html
*Commentary; Bible Commentaries; Bible Dictionaries
Online commentaries:
www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/commentaries/index.php#_parent
JFB (abridged) online www.thirdmill.org/files/english/texts/JFB/JFB00.htm

JFB (unabridged; OT only) https://archive.org/details/commentarycritic1878jami1 (OT only)
Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible: A Translation and Adaptation of Adrianus van den Born's
Bijbels Woordenboek, Second Revised Edition, 1954-1957
*interpreter vs. translator
Interpreting and translating are two closely related linguistic disciplines. Difference
is only in the medium: a translator interprets written text. On the other hand, the
interpreter translates orally and as interpret the written text which is as if ‘being
read orally’.
“Literary translator”
www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/what-makes-good-literary-translator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation#Literary_translation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation
*Interpretation and hermeneutics;
 Biblical exegesis. (exegesis - explication of the texts. cf. eisegesis.)

 biblical interpretation – understanding of biblical texts; cf. Theological
interpretation of the Bible is more of its theological application and
apologetics in defense of dogmas and doctrines. Cf. Biblical literalism
 “Translating the text is an act of interpretation; reading the text is an act of
interpretation.”
 literary criticism - textual criticism higher criticism
[Pick-and-choose with mix-manipulate reading is at danger of a great sin, as what

and how are usually to serve one’s own desire.]
Quote: "If the plain sense makes good sense then seek no other sense".
But what do heck is ‘plain’? How plain it should be?
"The proper context for interpreting the Bible is not Augustine or any other church father. It is
not the Catholic Church. It is not the rabbinic movements of late antiquity and the Middle
Ages. It is not the Reformation or the Puritans. It is not evangelicalism in any of its flavors. It
is not the modern world at all, or any period of its history.
The proper context for interpreting the Bible is the context of the biblical writers — the
context that produced the Bible. Every other context is alien to the biblical writers and,
therefore, to the Bible.
Yet there is a pervasive tendency in the believing Church to filter the Bible through creeds,
confessions, and denominational preferences."
from Michael Heiser (2015), The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of
the Bible, (Kindle Locations 198-204)
quoted in https://jwstudies.com/Matthew_s_messages_through_Jesus__inaugural_tests.pdf
( www.academia.edu/ )
Reading the Scriptures; reading the Bible
https://thebibleproject.com/other-resources/posters/new-testament/
https://thebibleproject.com/other-resources/posters/old-testament/
Reading the Bible - Why and how.
How to read the Bible and how not to read the Bible.
How to choose which one? –
Do not read the bible to study with one Bible translation. Read it with reference to
the text in the original language as the original intended audience would hear (not
just ‘read’) trying to put oneself in the original setting not in the sermon and
teaching setting of a church.
Ref. Gordon Fee (1981), How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth
Why:
To find the truth. To hear God's word held in the vessel of the Scriptures.
“You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn 8:32).
Not to study per se. Not to come up with your fanciful ideas, finds, opinions and claims as
countless brains (with hands and mouths) have done throughout history and are going to
endlessly.
How:
Reading the Bible requires interpretation, interoperation to read, not to make out
interpretations. For the sake of your soul, do interpret from within the Bible, not from
teachings and opinions of others, scholars, wannabe, and Churches.
A bible is a product filtered through human interpretation and created for use by a
particular (religious group) as their Canon, Creed, and Catechism.
The spirit of IRENT is to encourage reading of the Bible (understanding,

interpreting, and translating) on the basis of linguistic and literary level, freed from
religious and doctrinal level, as all the religions in practice and their teachings are
of human origin, however they claimed to be ‘inspired’.
Ref. Klaas Smelik and Karolien Vermeulen (Editors, 2014) Approaches to Literary
Readings of Ancient Jewish Writings. pp. 281
http://faculty.washington.edu/snoegel/PDFs/articles/noegel-64-literary-craft-2014.pdf
[See in the IRENT Supplement III (Collection for #1-#2)]
Since we read the Bible to hear what the Scripture say there are two important issues
we face – (1) linguistic and (2) literary. These are tie to translation work. [The
religious issue, on the other hand, is of concern for those 'religious' persons, that is,
scholars, theologians, priests-pastors-priests, etc., and it is for doctrines, dogmas and
indoctrination (as with 'catechism').]
To read it personally, it goes without saying that that which is written in the Bible is not
personally address to the readers. When it says 'you', it does not mean the readers. The
'we' does not mean the group of people which I am part of. The 'they' does not mean
people are those other than 'we' and 'you'. E.g., 'pray you this (as with the Lord's Prayer)
does not address to the readers. The readers are not its audience. Many take an
advantage of the Bible, even putting into an application mode – how to apply and make
use of what the Bible says. "Do not read a verse!"a Read in the context. Get hold of the
whole. Don’t pick and choose before you have confronted the whole. To read a book,
you have to see the whole – the outline of the book. You have to put into the Book
equipped with necessary aids for a worthwhile life journey – maps and narrative
timelines. Make sure how the words are used, even with common or simple words. A
word may not be same as the word you or others understand. It may not be the one
which is intended by the original language for the original audience. It may often be an
incorrect or erroneous translation, whether it is claimed to be accurate or authorized, be
it KJV, more literal translations, or modern paraphrases masquerading as Bible (e.g.,
NLT, The Message, etc.). Have the mindset of those who were the actual audience in
the 1st century! Leave modern and Greek mindset and immerse into the Hebrew
mindset before it is ever possible to interpret what was written in the ancient times.
What you get with easy reading with eisegesis and anachronism is not discernment to
truth, but mental arrogance – source of ever-refined man-made doctrines and teachings
to please themselves and control others. Only when it comes as God's word, what's in
the written becomes alive and relevant to us as truth and life and the way to God the
Father.
Reading the New Testament - Introduction
"A text is not a stable object: it brings along a different response at every reading.
In such a way all texts can be understood as endless chains of interpretations,
transformations that take on a new life in accordance with the person reading them.
Thus reading, within translating, is a very complex issue." b
The premise of the work of IRENT translation of the New Testament is that the
readers should be wise enough not to take it as the book of a religion (or a Church
canon) or an application book on how to live well. To bring oneself into the world
where it was written down with all modernistic presuppositions and bias as well as
the ever dangerous ‘little knowledge’ to be thrown off.
The text to be read is much more than words written down after another. Something
between the lines and underneath the surface one needs to discover and pay
attention to — tone, intention, rhythm and flow, ellipsis, word play, ambiguity,
narrative and rhetoric device, allusion, interruption, pauses, interjection, word
association and picture, etc. as well as the extraneous crept in the translated English
words, syntax, and idioms.
a
www.str.org/articles/never-read-a-bible-verse; www.str.org/blog/never-read-a-bible-verse-2 Greg Koukl:
Never read a Bible verse. That's right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph at least.
b
Quoting from Mojtaba Askari, et al. (2015) "Translating Children’s Literature: Keeping Functions in
Translator’s Possible Interpretations" Elixir Ling. & Trans. 83 (2015) 33193-33196.
'in the Scriptures' in NT
– related to or in reference to Yeshua – who he is and what he is – in the Gospel setting: Cf.
OT quote or allusion.
the Scriptures:
Mk 14:49 (on His being arrested by the chief kohanim and the soferim and the Elders)
Mt 26:54 (Peter and a sword)
Mt 26:56 (on His arrest) – Nebiim
Lk 24:27 (on the road to Emmaus) – 'the whole Scriptures' [24:46; Psa 16:10; Act 2:31; Jon 1:17; 2:2]
Lk 24:32 (opening up the meaning of the Scriptures)
Lk 24:44 – the Law of the Moses and the Nebiim and the Psalms
Jn 12:34 ('Mashiah will remain forever')
Jn 13:18 (betrayal fulfilling OT - quoted)
Jn 17:13 ('son of destruction')
Jn 19:24 (his clothes divvied up – fulfilling Psalm - quoted)
Jn 19:28 ('I'm thirsty' – fulfilling Psalm quoted)
Jn 19:36-37 (after the soldier thrust a spear – fulfilling OT - quoted)
Jn 13:18 (for him to rise up from out of dead ones)
the Scripture:
Lk 4:21 (upon reading the scroll of Isaiah)
Lk 15:28 (being on the cross along with two rebels) – Isa 53:12
Jn 2:2 (Mishkan and his body)
Jn 5:39 (bear testimony on me)
Jn 7:42 (Mashiah from the seed of David and from Bethlehem)
Jn 15:25 (betrayal fulfilling OT - quoted)
Outline of New Testament Books
New Testament: (27 books) of 4 Gospels, 1 Acts, 21 Epistles, 1 Apocalypse
Gospels (4x)
— John a
— Matthew
— Mark
— Luke b
Acts (1x)
— Acts of the Apostles
Pauline Epistles (14x)

‘Fifth Gospel’a
— Hebrews c (the 14th of Pauline)
Major Epistles
— Romans; 1 Corinthians; 2 Corinthians; Galatians,
Early Epistles
— 1 Thessalonians; 2 Thessalonians
Captivity Epistles
— Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians
— Philemon (a personal letter)
Pastoral Epistles
— 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.
General Epistles (7x) [/x: ‘Catholic’ Epistles]:

Johannine — 1, 2, 3 John,
Non-Johannine — James d, 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude e
Apocalypse (1x)
— Revelation of John
Note: Unlike the Pauline writings (e.g., Epistle to the Romans) the Gospels are mostly of
story-telling on the life and teaching of Yeshua, not of theological collections.
a
‘Fifth Gospel’ – in the lane of the canonical Gospels. The so-called Gospel of Thomas which the
pseudo-Christian Jesus Seminar fellows take as canonical. A translation by Stephen Patterson (1998)
was titled as The Fifth Gospel: The Gospel of Thomas Comes of Age. However, it is a Gnostic
product, not canonical Gospel. Cf. www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/49/49-1/JETS_49-1_67-
80_Perrin.pdf Nicholas Perrin, “Thomas: The Fifth Gospel?” [Cf. a German fiction called ‘The Fifth
Gospel’ (Das fünfte Evangelium) by Philipp Vannderberg – in the line of another fiction The da Vinci
Code by Dan Brown 10 years later.]
Notes:
a – John – it is the fourth Gospel in the NT. Thematically and theologically distinct
from the rest of Gospels (so-called Synoptic Gospels). It is arbitrary placed as
the first in IRENT simply to help keep both G-Lk and Acts contiguous in NT.
b – Luke – G-Luke and Acts are by the same author and editorially contiguous.
c – Hebrews – Thematically it is a Gospel to tell how the Renewed Covenant in
Yeshua Mashiah fulfils the Former Covenant. It is placed as the first of
Pauline Epistles.
d – James < Yaakobo – the half-brother of Yeshua. Not ‘James’. Not to confuse a
neologism (e.g., in Historical Jesus as a Fifth Gospel ) as, in reality, Yeshua IS
the Gospel.
e – Jude < Yudah– traditionally it takes an odd position listing after 3John as the
last of the Epistle Group. IRENT keeps it in the non-Pauline General Epistles.
Relationships btw the *Synoptic Gospels
[Source: https://rhapsodyinbooks.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/review-of-jesus-before-
the-gospels-how-the-earliest-christians-remembered-changed-and-invented-their-
stories-of-the-savior-by-bart-d-ehrman ]
www.logos.com/product/7491/the-synoptic-problem-a-way-through-the-maze
Reading the OT [TaNaKh]
https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Suydam/Reln310/Biblebooks.htm
Hebrew Bible (24x) Old Testament (39+7)
Torah (5x) Law
Genesis Genesis
Exodus Exodus
Leviticus Leviticus
Numbers Numbers
Deuteronomy Deuteronomy
Nebiim (Nevi'im) History
Major Prophets (7x)
Joshua Joshua
Judges Judges
↓ Ruth
First Samuel
I & II Samuel
Second Samuel
First Kings
I & II Kings
Second Kings
Isaiah ↓
Jeremiah ↓
Ezekiel ↓
↓ I Chronicles
↓ II Chronicles
↓ Ezra
↓ Nehemiah
Minor Prophets (12x)
Hosea ↓
Joel ↓
- Tobit
- Judith
↓ Esther
Amos
- First Maccabees
- Second Maccabees
Obadiah ↓
Jonah ↓
Micah ↓
Poetry/Wisdom
↓ Job
↓ Psalms
↓ Proverbs
↓ Ecclesiastes
↓ Song of Solomon
Nahum ↓
Habbakuk ↓
Zephaniah ↓
Haggai ↓
Zechariah ↓
Malachi ↓
- Wisdom of Solomon
- Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach)
Ketuvim
Psalms ↑
Proverbs ↑
Job ↑
Prophets
↑ Isaiah
↑ Jeremiah
The 5 scrolls
↓ Lamentations
- Baruch
Song of Songs ↑
Ruth ↑
Lamentations ↑
Ecclesiastes ↑
Esther ↑
↑ Ezekiel
↓ Daniel
Daniel ↑
Ezra + Nehemiah ↑
I & II Chronicles ↑
Minor Prophets (12x)
↑ Hosea
↑ Joel
↑ Amos
↑ Obadiah
↑ Jonah
↑ Micah
↑ Nahum
↑ Habbakuk
↑ Zephaniah
↑ Haggai
↑ Zechariah
↑ Malachi
Some technical issues on translation
Syntax
(1) punctuation issue – problematic punctuations in Greek text: Lk 23:43, Jn 20:28

and Rm 9:5. Verse break in Jn 1:3-4.
(2) complex vs. compound vs. simple sentences – [e.g., Eph 1:3-14 – is a single
sentence in Gk. text. – comprehensibility vs. readability.]
*Arthrous vs. anarthrous noun in Gk.
E.g., Jn 1:1c 'theos' is anarthrous; NWT renders it 'a god'; most has it as 'God'.
 The main linguistic problem with 'God' is that it is not distinguished from the
arthrous 'ho theos' in 1:1b, which is also rendered simply as 'God'.
 The main linguistic problem with 'a god' is that (1) it is confused with its usage
as a pagan deity and (2) it suggests a connotation of one of some or many gods.
Compare: 'a god', 'a God', 'God', 'the God', 'the very God', 'that/this God', with or without
a modifier. Definiteness of the (definite) article in Gk. is somewhere between 'the' and
'that' in English.
Another example: 'spirit' vs. 'a spirit' vs. 'the spirit'. ‘a holy spirit’ vs. ‘the holy spirit’.
[b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14

[b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14
“ …Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar_ treats the definite article here as special but as an example of a
category of usage (section #126 q-r). They say: "Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article
to denote a single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable
of being defined) as being present in the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English
the indefinite article is mostly used."
The go on to speak particularly of this article in Isa 7:14: "H(LMH, i.e., the particular maiden,
through whom the prophet's announcement shall be fulfilled; we should say "a maiden."
For other examples of this class of usage they give, among others, Gen 42:23; 1 Kings 19:9; Job
9:31.
GESENIUS’ HEBREW GRAMMAR (2003)

[http://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/GeseniusGrammar.pdf ]
126. Determination by Means of the Article.
*Genitive problem
many faces of genitive – subjective / objective /source; /appositive
E.g., 'love of God' – (1) objective – to love God; (2) subjective – God loves.
The expression 'God's love' is for subjective genitive.
'God's grace' – grace from God (source genitive) > 'grace of God'
'God of me' [≈ God to me] vs. 'my God'
Possessive genitive:
'God's throne' > 'a throne of God'. Cf. 'the throne of Elohim (= 'the God')
'God's son' > 'a son of God'
Objective genitive:
'fear of God' – 'to fear God'; /x: God's fear.
Note: IRENT consistently renders of the arthrous ho theos ('the God') as 'the Elohim'; while
unarthrous theos (including genitive case) as 'God' 'what God is' 'a God-being'. For pagan deities,
as 'god'.
Genitive case – arthrous vs. anarthrous: e.g.,
huiou theou God's Son (Mk 1:1)

vs.
ho huiou tou Theou the son of the God (< the Elohim) (1Jn 5:20)
Substantive possessive pronoun:

e.g., 'mine' – 'which belongs to me' – e.g., 'of mine'
Cf. 'out of mine', 'from mine';
Cf. 'from out of mine', 'away from mine', /x: 'out of from mine'?
e.g., 'of mine' – 'of my ones, of my things, etc.'[www.english-
corpora.org/coca/?c=coca&q=20254637 'corpus of the phrase
'of mine']
e.g., ‘my thing' vs. 'a thing of mine' – different nuance and point view;
not interchangeable.
e.g., ‘He is my friend’
‘He is a friend of me’ [= He is a friend to me]
‘He is a friend of mine’ [= ‘He is one of friends I have’].
e.g., 'This is a photo of mine' [= one of photos I have], but not a photo of me' [= a
photo taken of me; a photo which has me in it; I am the person in the
photo]
e.g., ‘He is a follower of me’ vs. ‘He is a follower of mine’ (my life, teachings,
examples, etc.).
e.g., ‘my part’, ‘a part of me’, vs. ‘a part of mine’ ('mine' = 'my things')
e.g., 'I gave my book to the teacher [i.e., one book belonging to me. It could be
'MY book' not 'my mother's', etc.]
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/96597/my-of-me-of-mine-when-to-use-these-possessive-
constructions/96606#96606
Grammar – article problem
Gk. – no indefinite article
Latin – no articles, definite or indefinite. Same in Korean.
English – both indefinite and definite article. Also, nouns may carry no article. Both
articles used with the noun followed by a phrase or a clause. (E.g., ‘a God who is ~~’).
Problem of 'countable/uncountable' noun or noun used as 'countable/uncountable'.
Problem of 'definiteness' of a noun in association of articles.
Does the context allow to put the English definite article where the Gk. text does
not have? What if it alters the meaning? E.g., 'in the beginning' Jn 1:1a en archē – it
is anarthrous; IRENT renders as 'in beginning' as it does not refer to the particular
beginning. E.g., 'God' Jn 1:1b Gk. ton theon – IRENT renders 'the Elohim'. E.g.,
'God' in Jn 1:1c Gk. theos – most renders as 'God'. cf. 'a god' in NWT; /what God is
– IRENT; /what God was – NEB, REB, REV; [see * uncountable noun problem in
the file <Walk through the Bible #1 - Words, Words and Words>.]
E.g., – same with other words, e.g., God/god.
 a king;
 king
 the king – [the king the readers know; the aforementioned king in the within text]
 the King
 King
 'King'; 'KING'
 kings; the kings
 The Son of the King = princess; not king, but be regarded 'as King'
E.g., 'Never on Sunday' – 'Never on a Sunday'a 'Never on Sundays'?
E.g., The most contentious text with the article problem with indefinite articles – Jn
1:1c.
E.g., The contentious problem with definite articles – See Granville Sharp below.
Grammar – Colwell's rule

Colwell, E. C. “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament.” J. of
Biblical Literature 52 (1933): 12–21.
Statement of the Rule: “In sentences in which the copula is expressed, a definite
predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it* does not have the
article when it precedes the verb.
Problem with the Colwell's rule: '*it' construes to the word which is 'definite'. But
how in the world do we know it is 'definite' without a definite article? What does it
mean by 'definite'? E.g., in case of Jn 1:1c 'and theos was the word', here theos is
either 'a god' or 'God', but not 'the God' as in 1:1b.?
a
https://youtu.be/DPNASiM8rNQ <The Chordettes - Never on Sunday> (see the lyric)
Granville Sharp
The bulk of Sharp’s Remarks was a discussion of eight Christologically

significant texts encompassing more than two-thirds of the body of the work:
[Note: here '(the) Elohim' is for the arthrous ho theos in the GNT.]
Act 20:28; 'the blood of His own [Son]
2Th 1:12b; "according to the grace of our Elohim and of Lord Yeshua
Mashiah"
1Tm 5:21; "before the Elohim and of {Lord} Mashiah Yeshua"
2Tm 4:1; "before the Elohim and of {the Lord} Mashiah Yeshua"
Jude 4; " our only Sovereign Master and Lord, Yeshua the Mashiah". (S1203
despotēs)
2Pe 1:1; "through righteousness of our Elohim and of Savior Yeshua the
Mashiah"
Tit 2:13; "awaiting the blessed hope and the appearing
of the glory of the great Elohim
and [appearing] of our Savior Yeshua the Mashiah"
Eph 5:5; "in the kingdom reign of the Mashiah and Elohim"
http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/SharpsRule.pdf
Grammar – pronoun problem
(1) pronoun of grammatical gender issues – third person singular pronouns for non-
person nouns, e.g., ‘devil’, ‘Satan’, ‘the Spirit’, etc.
(2) Singular they
(3) referent confusion for the pronoun (especially 3rd person singular masculine):
The same pronoun occurring more than once but with different referents.
 Heb 1:3 (Father or Son);
 Rm 11:35 (‘him’ for YHWH and for a person in the same short sentence);
 1Jn (the referents of third person singular pronoun can be God, His Son, a
believer and a fellow-believer and a non-believer, etc.)
Grammar – problem of Gk. emphatic pronoun
The inflected form of a Greek verb indicates about the subject; usually nominative
pronoun is not needed in the sentence (in ellipsis), but its presence tells it is
emphatic. Depending on the context it may be translated in several different was to
bring out its emphatic sense.
[? Ref. https://ia601403.us.archive.org/2/items/greekinflectiono00hardrich/
greekinflectiono00hardrich_bw.pdf ]
Available solutions: (the I in bold may be in a larger font)

 I, I
 I [in bold font; only for the written text; for reading aloud it needs to have
accent put on the word.]
The following does make it stand out (separated from the verb) but may bring
difference nuance than being ‘emphatic’ but e.g., concessional:
 I myself [- may get confused as a reflexive pronoun]
 I on my part
 As for me, I [– Fox translation of OT Gen 6:17 etc.]
 It is I who
The same effect is achieved by placing the pronoun before a conjunctive if it is in

the sentence: e.g.
 I, however,
 I, indeed,
[Some have it in bold. Having it in italics is very misleading as KJV convention of

using italic font for those words which are not present in the Greek text.] [In
contrast, I’m or I’ve is used to reflect Greek verb with the subject implicit, not to
put the word in colloquial English; it helps to de-emphasize the pronoun.]
Vocabulary and others
(1) archaic words still crept in; jargon (esp. church or religious jargons). E.g.,
‘preach’. ‘bless’ ‘praise’ ‘pray’.
(2) difficult and common words; technical
(3) capitalization and font use. E.g., God vs. god.
(4) gender inclusiveness: e.g., (a) when man is not man; (b) ‘brothers’, vs. ‘brothers
and sisters’, vs. ‘brethren’. [Cf. inherent problem of ‘maleness’ of God –
grammatically masculine.]
*semantic confusion with 'person'.
Personification vs. personhood: anthropomorphism;

(e.g., ‘the Sprit’ 'holy spirit' 'the holy spirit' – See on 'spirit' 'holy spirit' in <Walk
through the Bible #3A – Name, Yeshua, and God (> Name, God, and Person)>
*personality vs. personhood.

See <Walk through the Bible #4 - Man, Anthropology, and Religion>
Typography, font, format
- dealt elsewhere in detail in the file 'Introductory Notes to IRENT'.
*Punctuation issue –
[See in detail in 'How to Read IRENT' in <IRENT Vol. IV - Introduction>]
The presence of punctuation in Greek Manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic

sources, can be regarded as reflections of current exegetical understanding of the meaning
of the passage. [Bruce M. Metzger (1971, 1975) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament]
[G.B. Winer (1870), Treatise of the Grammar of New Testament Greek regarded as the
Basis of New Testament Exegesis, p 64,
https://archive.org/stream/atreatiseongram00winegoog/atreatiseongram00winegoog_djvu.txt ]
When verse or paragraph break of the text, even chapter break, is problematic, it affects
interpretation which may be found not insignificant at all. [E.g., G-Lk Ch. 23 – 24, as the
last verse (of the Ch. 23 - Lk 23:56) functions parenthetical to Ch. 24:1.]
Placing punctuations affects interpretation of the text in significant way: E.g.

 Paradise in Lk 23:43 and punctuation problem [See #WB 3]
 Daniel’s 70 weeks in Dan 9:25 and punctuation problem
 Jn 20:28.
Thomas said "O my Master!", and [he said], "O my Elohim!" vs.
/xx: Thomas said, “my Lord and my God!”
 Jn 1:3
 Rm 9:5
<ho Christos to kata sarka ho ōn epi pantōn. — Theos eulogētos eis tous aiōnas>
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/rom-95-christ-came-who-is-over-all-god.html
Problem of honorifics
Ref: Ji-Youn Cho (2010), Politeness and Addressee Honorifics in Bible Translation
(As his thesis 2008 http://goo.gl/pVhTMf ) [pertaining Korean Bible] [A copy "Honorifics
in Korean Bible translation" in <Collection #2 – text & translation>]
book formats: print book vs. digital (PDF; HTML)
[IRENT is necessarily in digital book format because its cost is prohibitive for
production and distribution into the hands of many readers as possible and (2) its
nature of being a serial requires continuous editing and updating, which is
impossible in print book format. Here are some advantage and disadvantage of
digital book format.]
 www.thetakeaway.org/story/paper-vs-plasma-how-digital-reading-shift-
impacting-your-brain/
 How the shift from paper to digital has caused a gigantic change in the way
we read.
 Digital distraction vs. ability to concentrate with print book reading; – "non-
linear" reading — a practice that involves things like skimming a display
screen or having our eyes dart around a web page.
 Linear reading, which is something we humans have developed over years
and years, is what we need to do when want to do deep reading — like
immerse ourselves in a novel or read a mortgage document. Dense text that
we really want to understand requires deep reading, and on the internet we
don’t do that.
Advantage of digital books: ‘flexibility’ – dynamic; not static.
 Easy to carry with no heavy weight

 compact with no space to occupy to keep;
 cheaper (saving trees and inks)
 Easy search-and-find;
 Highlighting and annotation which do not affect the text
 interactive; multi-media; audio;
 zoom level allows comfortable display font size, limited by the line length
of the text (except in HTML format with word-wrap).
Print book;
 ‘physical side of a book’; hand-on experience of holding, opening, and

actually turning pages; flipping through and browsing; focusing the reader’s
attention;
Points to consider: Annotation, high-lighting; navigation; sear-and-find (vs.

indexing); immersion experience; emotional response; comprehension of the text;
www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/12/the-case-against-kindle-
why-reading-paper-books-is-better-for-your-mind-and-body/
M. Julee Tanner Digital vs. Print: Reading Comprehension and the Future of the Book
Naomi S. Baron (2015), Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World
How not to translate – examples
1. 'leper'
Mt 8:2 lepros a leper

/x: 'a man with a serious skin disease' HCSB
Lk 5:12 anēr plērēs lepras

On mom ee nabyung euro mundeureojin Common Transl. Korean
a man who was suffering from a dreaded skin disease – GNT

a man was there who had a serious skin disease all over him. - HCSB
a man who was covered with leprosy – NIV, ESV, NET;

a man who had leprosy all over him – CSB
a man full of leprosy – NASB, NKJV, KJV, Berean Study
2. 'to know God'

Jn 17:3 '[this is the life eternal which the Son gives so that] they shall come to know
you – the only true Elohim …"
/xxxx: [This means everlasting life,] their taking in knowledge of you – NWT3;
/their coming to know you – NWT4;
'
<Words, terms, vocabulary, semantics>
acrostic biblesa
 Barry Huddleston (1978), The Acrostic Bible

 www.slideshare.net/acrosticme/acrostics-in-the-bible
[End of the File]
a
www.slideshare.net/CStrother/how-to-write-an-abc-poem
www.slideshare.net/loidaoliveros/christian-acrostic
1
On the notion of ‘culture’, see Ref. Ernst R. Wendland (2009), The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation Forty Years
Later: A Personal Perspective from Zambia, Journal of Translation, [Vol. 5, No. 1]
pp. 63-67, 1. Introduction: What is the “cultural factor”?
Perhaps it would be helpful to begin with a short discussion of the key notion of
culture, which, unfortunately, “is one of those pesky, paradoxical concepts that
everyone knows what it means as long as they don’t have to define it” (Schultz
2009:23). In 1987 I made the following attempt, defining “culture” as a people’s
“design for living — for thinking as well as doing”, or more explicitly, the sum total of
their “system of beliefs and patterns of behavior which are learned in society, whether
by formal instruction or by simple imitation, and passed on from one generation to the
next” (Wendland 1987a:5).
The well-known cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz would rule out the overt,
visible aspects of culture, namely, those “complexes of concrete behavior patterns—
customs, usages, traditions, habit clusters” that tend to popularly define the concept, in
favor of “a set of control mechanisms—plans, recipes, rules, instructions (what
computer engineers call ‘programs’)—for the governing of behavior” (1973:44). But
why not include these explicit manifestations as vital parts of, and contributors to, the
manifold, ever-changing “webs of significance” (Geertz ibid.:5) that constitute a given
culture, or its components, at any given point in time? And time itself is a significant
factor, for diverse cultural “meanings and patterns are negotiated, contested, people
who live in a given social setting. The following then might serve for our working
definition:
Culture is then a complex, dynamic system of patterns of action and

interactions that a loosely bound group of people share in a particular
environment. Culture is [also] a system of symbols and their meanings are
shared by a group of people that allows them to interpret experience. (Schultz
2009:23)
But I am no anthropologist, and this is not a paper about culture per se. Rather, I wish
to explore in a practical way the relevance of certain culturally-related issues for Bible
translating, the entire production process from beginning to end—not just the
completion of an electronic translated text in the target language (TL), which is the
focus of most of our Scripture-applied sociocultural studies (including my own of
1987a). Before one can deal effectively with this “cultural factor” in the translation
process, a considerable amount of personal preparation is necessary. The amount of
time and effort required for this will of course vary according to the circumstances,
e.g., whether we are talking about a mother-tongue speaker of the TL or an expatriate
consultant; which stage of the overall process is being dealt with; whether the focus of
attention lies in the SL or the TL; which aspect of the task is being undertaken—
translating, reviewing, testing, project management or promotion, publishing, and so
forth. In any case, each and every person involved in a Bible translation project will at
some point or another, to a greater or lesser degree, confront the cultural factor and
have to deal with it in a satisfactory manner, appropriate to the particular situation. In
my original monograph, I emphasized this in relation to the translators themselves and
a “cultural conditioning of the translators” (1987a:193):
This is a process whereby the translator becomes accustomed to the various

types of non-equivalence that may occur, and at the same time sensitizes
him/herself to the main cultural correspondences and contrasts as they appear
in a comparison of the source and the receptor settings. Recognition, then, is
the first vital step towards a solution, since many of these difficulties lie
2
“As Roman Jakobson famously put it, “equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language
and the pivotal concern of linguistics” (1959/2000: 114). This statement seems particularly fitting to both
the theory and practice of translation, up until recently quite commonly regarded as a branch of applied
linguistics. Equivalence has long been the key term in defining the essence of translational activity:
“Whoever takes upon himself to translate contracts a debt; to discharge it, he must pay not with the same
money, but the same sum” (West 1932 in Nida 1964/2000). This fundamental notion of equivalence has
led some to the conclusion that “no linguistic specimen may be interpreted by the science of language
without a translation of its signs into other signs of the same system or into signs of another system” and
has drawn the attention of many to “the urgent need for … differential bilingual grammars … defining
what unifies and what differentiates the two languages in the selection and delimitation of grammatical
concepts” (Jakobson 1959/2000: 115). Based on this realization, implicitly present in the translational
thought for centuries, numerous contrastive studies have emerged; more importantly, however, the
scholarly paradigm encouraging the exploration and representation of peculiarities of one language in
terms of the structures found in another language has developed and established itself. ...” from Piotr
Blumczyński, On Translating the Greek Aorist into English (Introduction).
3
Note on ‘rewriting’ - André Lefevere (1992) Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary
Fame – he describes translation as ‘a rewriting of an original text’. For the translation of the Scripture,
however, his statement does not hold true. As for the Scripture translation work should not be thought of
rewriting by a translator to bring what the text is supposed to mean to his intended audience, but re-
writing as if by the original author to bring what was intended to our vernacular languages. To achieve this
(hypothetical) goal, the translator should make sure themselves remain invisible in the words and phrases
put into translation as well as any other insertion to the text. The truth is that ‘what the text means to the
readers’ is a false goal. It is only what the text meant to the original audiences. Here we require fidelity as
the essential characteristic of a translation as a literary work, not as a technical work – faithfulness of a
translation to the Scripture. Rewriting it to produce one’s own faddish is an insult to the Scripture and the
Word of God; it is guilty of blasphemy. The translator has to strive to be invisible.[ Cf. on ‘invisibility’ -
Lawrence Venuti (1995) The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation ]
4
Examples of ‘rewriting’ to produce 'alien' gospels:
 Cotton Patch Version, an allegorical story (? satirical or whimsical) from rewriting of N.T. by
Clarence Jordan, 1968).
 The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth by Thomas Jefferson, a deist. The third US President came
up about 1820 with this book, as it is formally titled, which was constructed by cut and paste literally
using a razor, carefully removing from the canonical Gospels all the things which points to the divinity
of Yeshua, including His resurrection. This volume was kept largely secret and passed among
Jefferson's relatives until 1895, when it was discovered by the librarian at the Smithsonian. In 1904, it
was published by Congress. It is commonly referred to now as the Jefferson Bible.
 The Scholar’s Version (1993 by the Jesus Seminar) – produced by cut and paste (from the Four
Gospels), color-coded for authenticity of Jesus’ sayings of different level according to their own
criteria and with a group tallying method. The gnostic Gospel of Thomas is favored as authentic
source as the four Canonical ones. Much of the sayings of Yeshua in the N.T. is discredited. In fact,
they have created a new Jesus after their own image in their false “gospel according to Jesus Seminar
Gang”.
 In a recent CT news article several Christian bestsellers are mentioned
[www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/november/christian-bestseller-best-practices-navpress-
tyndale.html] The Message by Eugene Peterson (2002) – a rewriting of Bible masquerading and
promoted as a Bible translation. It is in the style of his personal sermon material (second rate for that
matter), unworthy to stand against the Holy Scripture. The Prayer of Jabez by Bruce Wilkinson (2001
Multnomah Publishers) – an appetizing reading good for the gospel of prosperity and blessing. [See
The Real Prayer of Jabez and http://lostjabez.com/jabez/ ]

Walk Through The Bible #2 - Text, Translation, and Translations (r.6.0.5)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Walk Through The Bible #2 - Text, Translation, and Translations (r.6.0.5)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vol. III Supplement, No.

Text, Translation, and Translations

Aug 27, 2021 Updated r.5.3.7

Aug 14, 2021 Updated r.2.3.7

June 25, 2021 Updated r.2.3.6

This is one of the supplements to IRENT, a new translation of the New

As with everything in life, many fails to unlearn those things cherished

# 2 of WALK THROUGH THE BIBLE

No. 2 (Text, Translation and Translations)

No. 1 (Words, Words, and Words)

See the collected files in Collections #2 for this Supplement:

God's plan emerges out of our human confusion

Without clear meanings, a word can be at a root of confusion and miscommunication. A

The meaning of any word or expression is compounded in varying proportions of

Bible translations into English;

OT (Hebrew Scriptures); /Rabbinic-Bible Mikraot Gedolot (or, "the Second Rabbinic

Manuscripts, text (Scripture),

Scriptural, biblical, unbiblical, nonbiblical. [e.g., ‘Biblical inspiration’ vs. ‘Bible

[See WB#1'- Words, Words and Words>]

www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/39/6/6 <What’s Critical About a Critical Edition

Canonb – [ecclesiastical and religious jargon]; An official list or collection of writings

"Canonization" or to be "canonized" refers to the process by which a book was accepted

* Proof-texting; *eisegesis; cherry-picking; pick-choose-mix;

To the person with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat

<Something which looks like T to a dog’s eyes>

'Literal translation', 'literalism of a translation' vs. 'literal-literary-linguistic

Most translation claim to be "most accurate" – "more accurate" than what?

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/cro368005 Imagining a Secular Translation of the New

Cf. ‘translations’ ‘versions’ ‘editions’ ‘Bibles’

S1124 graphē (51x) ‘A writing; thing written’

Mt 21:42; 22:29; 26:54, 56 (‘the Scriptures of the Prophet Books);

Textural history and criticism

[Any biblical statement is meant be directed to a particular group of people; not

[Cf. skopos theory ]

The New Testament

New Testament (Mashian Scripture); (27 books) consists of 4 Gospels, 1 Acts,

… the *manuscripts of NT were written from the very beginning in majuscule,

[Pavlos D. Vasileiadis – "An overview of the New Testament translation in

The Old Testament; TaNaKh

Differences among three:

Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures: texts and manuscripts

Cf. *Mishnah; *Talmud; *Midrash www.bl.uk/collection-items/first-complete-mishnah

Bible: Great pitfall waiting in Reading, Understanding and translating

From Koine Gk. 'biblion' – papyrus → parchment → 'paper'; 'scroll' → 'book

 *Hebrew (religious) vs. Aramaic (vernacular).

Hebrew vs. Aramaic: (Reading material:

As a language it is the main language of TaNaKh (OT or O.T.) and of modern

*Bible, Scriptures; Bibles; Versions; Translations

Various causes of textual variants

Important textual variants in NT

Source: MT vs. LXX

The Gospel(s) ░ [S2098 euaggelion (76x). It is in the sense of a ‘gospel-book’. IRENT

The so-called ‘Lost Gospels’ – (1) NT Apocrypha; (2) Gnostic Gospels

Biblical authority? Scriptural authority?

‘sola scriptura’, which is a theological doctrine (not followed by Catholic). Yes,

From Scripture to Theology:

 Ref. Scalise (1996), From Scripture to Theology, (p. 44).

Quoting Bakunin (1871) on 'authority'.

From James D. McCawley (1981), Everything that Linguists have Always

- www.mayimhayim.org/Allen/Law%20vs%20Grace%201.htm (a copy in WB #1)

“Contradictions” (Supposed): Examined More Closely

Reply to Atheists: Defining a [Biblical] “Contradiction” [1-7-11]

Cf. Mishnah; Talmud; *Midrash www.bl.uk/collection-items/first-complete-mishnah

KJV or KJB or AV (Authorized Version)

Bible translations, Reading, and * interpretation

/Orality vs. /Literacy