The place Yahowah wants you to be—trusting Him and not men.

Restored from the Empower Network archive (2011–2017), lightly edited to meet our current advertising standards. Views are the original author’s.

At their best, translations are a compromise between attempts at word-for-word literalism and loose thought-for-thought interpolations. Either way, much of the intended message is lost or misrepresented for the sake of readability, brevity, or familiarity. So we will dig for truth the hard way. We’re going to work for it. The key words in most passages will be amplified from the original languages. Amplification is a process whereby many words are used to properly convey the full meaning and nuances of the original term as it was known and used in its time, context, and culture. If a Hebrew word requires a paragraph to adequately communicate its meaning, you will find the required background, etymology, and shadings. In other words, we are going to scratch well below the surface. This will require you to read most passages several times to fully appreciate what Yahowah is saying.

When it comes to translations, my goal is to accurately communicate the totality of the message Yahowah intended. But that does not necessarily make the translations literal for the following reasons. First, like most ancient languages, there was no capitalization or punctuation in Ancient Hebrew. Therefore, the moment we apply English grammar rules we begin making accommodations and assumptions.

Second, conjunctions (and, but, so, yet, nor, or, for) in Hebrew are usually attached to a noun or verb, as opposed to being rendered independently. This is also the case with articles (a, an, the), prepositions (in, by, with, of, on, to, from) and pronouns (I, me, we, us, you, she, he, they, them). But in English, we will have to separate all of these into individual figures of speech.

In this regard, you’ll notice that the transliterated sound of each Hebrew word set within the parenthetical was written without reference to conjunctions, articles, prepositions, or pronouns. Had I not done this, you would not have been able to verify the meaning of the Hebrew words for yourself. While you can look up qara’ or dabar in any Hebrew lexicon, you will not find the prefixed and suffixed forms, such as wyqara’ or wydabar.

The reason that I’ve taken the time to convey the Hebrew basis of each sentence is because verification is an essential component of discovery. Questioning leads to understanding. So by presenting the Hebrew for your consideration your search for answers is facilitated. (On this topic, you will find that I routinely demonstrate the source of the vowel sounds in words composed by using the Hebrew letters Aleph (א) and Aiyn (ע) by way of apostrophes.)

This brings us to a third challenge: completeness. Let’s consider qara’, for example. It forms the basis of Miqra’ (the plural being Miqra’ey), and is most often translated “called out,” but it also means “to summon, to invite, to recite, and to read.” Even more than this, qara’ speaks of “being welcomed into someone’s company and meeting with them.” Therefore, depending upon the context, qara’ could be rendered many different ways, most of which might apply. And in an amplified translation I will consistently err on the side of too much information rather than too little.

The fourth challenge to providing an accurate and complete translation is symbolism. For example, ‘ohel is the Hebrew word for “tent.” But if this is all you read, you would miss the fact that ‘ohel is also a “covering, a home, a shelter, and a protected place suited for living.” And these symbolic implications are just the beginning. ‘Ohel is based upon, and in the text is written identically to, ‘ahal, which means “to shine brightly, clearly reflecting light.”

So, like so many Hebrew concepts, there are both physical and spiritual dimensions associated with the word. Therefore, rather than depicting a nondescript “tent,” the ‘ohel / ‘ahal often represent a “protective enclosure of radiant light,” a “shining shelter,” a “covering which is conducive to life,” and a “home” which is associated with Yahowah Himself by way of His Covenant. As such, this “radiant shelter” is symbolic of the Set-Apart Spirit’s Garment of Light which makes us appear perfect in God’s eyes, enabling us to enter His presence and camp out with Him on the Miqra’ of Sukah – Shelters.

This leads us to the fifth challenge, where we are compelled to consider every reasonable vocalization of each word. The diacritic markings, or vowel points in the Masoretic Text, are the product of Rabbinical interpretation. This was highlighted by our discussion of ‘ohel versus ‘ahal, where the meanings were different, albeit complementary. In that vocalization influences most every word in the text, it is important that you realize that the Rabbinical choices were often reasonable, but at times arbitrary, and sometimes purposefully misleading.

While we are on the subject of vocalization, there is but one non negotiable rule in a field of approximations where variant means to phonetically convey foreign words are all considered valid. Names and titles must always be transliterated (replicating the sound in the new alphabet) while words must always be translated (conveying the meaning in the new language). The pronunciation of names of the Pharaoh Ramses, Genghis Khan, Der Fuehrer Adolf Hitler, and Islamic Jihadist Osama bin Laden do not change from one language to another. Similarly, the name and title Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ should never be altered, much less substituted for something of man’s choosing.

Sixth, word order in Hebrew is less significant than it is in English, and is often reversed. Rather than write “Yahowah’s Torah,” or “Set-Apart Spirit,” the text reads “towrah yahowah” and “ruwach qodesh.” Further, verbs don’t always sit in the middle of the action, as is required in English, between subject and object. So in the transition from Hebrew to English, one cannot slavishly follow the word order of the original language.

Our seventh challenge to a proper translation is a surprise to most everyone. Ancient and Paleo-Hebrew exist as an aspectual language, meaning that the same form of a verb can be translated as past, present, or future. Hebrew tenses are inclusive with regard to time. So while we can often deduce the proper tense based upon the context of a discussion, the realization that the message itself was not limited to a certain period of time, makes everything God revealed applicable for everyone throughout time. Yahowah’s Word, like Yahowah Himself, is always true, regardless of time or place.

The eighth challenge to providing a complete and accurate translation lies in determining when enough is enough. The more completely each word is defined, the more nuances and shadings which are conveyed, the more difficult each sentence becomes to read and comprehend. After a while, it all becomes information overload. So, when the number of relevant insights exceeds our ability to process them within the context of a sentence, and still retain the flow and substance of each discussion, we will color Yah’s linguistic palette in subsequent paragraphs. Further, recognizing the difficulty of processing such an enormous amount of new information, I will endeavor to introduce Scriptural passages in such a way that you are grounded within the relevant context.

In this regard, while the floodgates of understanding are opened by the unique nature of Hebrew stems, conjugations, and moods, there is no succinct way to communicate their contribution. A stem can necessitate a literal interpretation or might demonstrate a causal relationship. A conjunction can be used to reveal the continuous and unfolding nature of something, or just the opposite, that something has been completely accomplished. And the moods all convey volition, which is to say that they express a desire which is subject to choice. So while these ideas are all germane to our relationship with God, they cannot be expressed in English as fluently as they are conveyed in Hebrew. But to ignore them, as most every English bible translation does, is to shortchange the message.

The ninth consideration is also surprising. Many of the best lexicons were published by the very institutions which have brought us such horribly errant translations. And while lexicons, interlinears, and dictionaries bearing titles such as the New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries and The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament often provide the best window into the etymology of the Hebrew words themselves, if their definitions are correct, their translations are not.

Along these lines, a dependence on one, or even two lexicons, dictionaries, or interlinears will produce unreliable results, as they are individually filled with errors. Strong’s Lexicon is a valuable tool, especially in helping to identify word roots, but yet it exists in large part to justify the King James. Many hundreds of their definitions were religiously inspired, and are not the result of scholastic etymology. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon uses Arabic to define Hebrew terms, not recognizing that written Hebrew existed 2,500 years before the first Arabic word was penned. And the Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament is filled with theological opinions, most of which are invalid. Moreover, every Hebrew lexicon and interlinear is synced with the Masoretic Text and their vocalizations, which are wrong nearly twenty percent of the time.

The tenth challenge is unlike the others. An accurate translation of Yahowah’s testimony is so radically different from what is found in popular English Bibles (all of which profess to be “the word of God”), the Introduction to God and Yada Yah translations will be hard for many people to accept. How is it, some will ask, that an individual without professed qualifications could be right, and every other translation be wrong?

The answer is typically: motivation. The more English Bibles differ from what Christians have become comfortable hearing, the harder they are to sell. So, rather than losing money publishing new translations of the oldest manuscripts, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and NLT provide modest revisions of their own previous translations which were simply stylistic interpretations of the King James Version, which was a revision five times over of a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which was itself an amalgamation of Old Latin texts based upon the Greek Septuagint, a highly unreliable translation of the original Hebrew text. And with each subsequent translation, from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English, the message became confused and corrupted, and ever the more distanced from the original. Then, from this point forward, all subsequent translations became nothing more than financially-inspired revisions. Specifically, the King James Version was a modest modification of the Bishop Bible, which was a revision of the Great Bible, which amended the Cloverdale Bible, which was a revision of John Wycliffe’s translation of the Latin Vulgate, which was a blend of Old Latin texts, which were translations of the Greek Septuagint, which was a translation of the Hebrew text.

The bottom line in marketing, and especially publishing religious texts, is familiarity sells. As a result, every popular modern Bible translation is similar to every other popular Bible translation, because had they not been similar, they would not have become popular. So their similarity shouldn’t be surprising. Bible translations are all style over substance. And their authors have no compunction against changing God’s testimony to suit their faith.

Many have sought to dismiss the translations found in Yada Yah with an uninformed: “I can’t believe God would allow His Bible to be corrupted.” They are saying, in essence, that the translation they prefer is perfect. And yet to hold this view, one enormously popular throughout Christendom, a person has to ignore an ocean of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Moreover, God, Himself, told us that men would pervert His testimony. He even revealed the consequence of such corruptions. But, even if you choose not to believe Him, as is the case for most Christians, what about the evidence?

Well, for this religious myth to be plausible, there could be no divergent parchments among the 215 Scriptural manuscripts found in the cliffs above Qumran, collectively known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (dating from 250 BCE to 68 CE). And yet the small differences we find among them are magnified exponentially by the time these texts reemerge under the auspices of the Masoretic Text. Septuagint copies (dating from the 2^nd-century BCE to the 5^th-century CE) differ so wildly that in the 3^rd-century CE, Origen, one of the few early theologians to study Hebrew, was compelled to dedicate most of his life to resolving the conflicts between them, creating his Hexapla (which unfortunately has been lost to time). If God had intervened to keep His Scriptures from being corrupted, both the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text (dating to the 11^th-century CE) would have mirrored the Dead Sea Scrolls, and yet this is not what the evidence reveals. These texts differ by as much as twenty percent.

Turning to the Greek texts, the situation only gets worse—much worse—which is catastrophic to the Christian myth of “Godly protection” and “inerrancy.” The sixty-nine pre-Constantine codices which have now been unearthed differ substantially among themselves. This variance then becomes irresolvable as these first- through third-century textual witnesses are compared to those scribed in the wake of Catholicism’s emergence in fourth-century with their remarkably divergent Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. And yet the biggest discrepancy of all exists between these manuscripts and the Textus Receptus—which was acclaimed as being “without error” by the religious community in the 16^th-century. However, the known disagreements between it and the older codices have now been shown to exceed 300,000 in an 182,000-word text. Further, for the “always accurate” myth to be valid, the Textus Receptus would have had to have been word for word identical to the more scholarly and modern textual blend known as the Nestle Aland, but they differ almost as much as they agree. And these inconsistencies still don’t take into consideration a myriad of religious copyedits or countless invalid translation choices.

So for you Christians who are still murmuring: “I can’t believe God would allow anyone to corrupt His message,” for your faith to be grounded in something remotely credible, at some point you will have to deal with the fact that the Masoretic differs significantly from the text found in the one-thousand-two-hundred-year-older Dead Sea Scrolls. You will have to account for the fact that the 16^th-century Textus Receptus and the 20^th-century Nestle Aland differ materially, and both are overwhelmingly divergent from the now extant first- through third-century manuscripts of the text they purport to present. So, if your current “Bible” is accurate by happenstance of fate, it means that every prior witness to the text was inaccurate. As a result, the question now becomes: was the Christian God unable or unwilling to protect His message from human corruption, because the notion that “God would not allow anyone to corrupt His message” requires complete ignorance of the textual evidence to the contrary. It requires faith in that which is not true, completely undermining the value of religious belief.

Then we must face the issue of Roman Catholicism, and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which served as the only “bible” for most of the world for over one thousand years. As a blend of divergent Old Latin manuscripts which were free translations of wildly divergent copies of the Septuagint, which were themselves imprecise translations of the Hebrew text, the Vulgate is predictably in substantial conflict with the five-centuries-older Qumran parchments. But yet inexplicitly, it is eerily similar to today’s most popular English translations, which casts a dark shadow on their validity. Equally damaging, for over one thousand years, no one outside of Roman Catholic clerics could read the official Latin text, effectively preventing any layperson from knowing God’s Word, even if it had been preserved without corruption. The Roman Catholic Church, by way of their marriage of cleric and king, made it a crime punishable by death to own a translation of the Vulgate. And to make matters worse, in the rare case that someone would attempt a translation into a language which could be read and understood, as was the case with John Wycliffe in 1384, the perpetrator and their product were labeled heretical and burned.

Simply stated: none of these variations or eventualities would have been possible if God had intervened and refused to allow His word to be corrupted by man. So since He obviously allowed it, isn’t it incumbent upon us to not only come to understand why He did so, but also to strive to discover what He actually revealed?

Considering, therefore, the complexity of these many challenges, none of which are properly conveyed in other translations, we will not rely upon the Latin Vulgate, KJV, NKJV, ASB, NASB, IV, NIV, NLT, or any other popular Scriptural rendition. All English translations vary from poor to horrible. There isn’t any worth recommending. Even those with the good sense to write God’s names back into the text, do very little to correct the message Yahowah is revealing.

In that the biggest obstacle to knowing the truth about God is the inaccuracy of today’s Bible translations, I’d like to linger here a bit longer, even at the risk of being repetitive. The King James Bible is nothing more than a politically-inspired revision five times over of that text. The Geneva Bible, which had become popular at the time, used marginal notes to highlight passages which demonstrated that God had not anointed any king with the right to rule. Since this was contrary to the claims made by all kings, including King Iames (as he was known at the time), it became politically expedient to pen a new bible, whereby the marginal notes were removed, the translations tweaked to please the king, and Paul’s letter to the Romans was recast in the thirteenth-chapter to reclaim the Divine Sanction. So Iames hired the era’s most acclaimed secular humanist, Rosicrucian, and occultist, Sir Francis Bacon, to create a more accommodating rendition of Catholicism’s Vulgate.

********

“An Introduction to God” is found at

And Was Writen by Craig of

All Glory be to Yahweh!

*******

Build a Swimming Pool in Kenya

*******

The Nairobi Business Directory –

*******

Make Money Online – For Real –