What Is The Best English Version Of The Bible Part 2

Hello, and welcome to another video from the only channel that you need to not only survive the current apocalypse, but actually enjoy it, and today’s video is going to be the next installment in my “What is the Best English Translation of The Bible” video series.  This one is going to be about very specific alterations made to the Bible via the translation process.

 

I understand that I already gave some very specific examples of alternate renderings of several scriptures in the previous video in this series, but for the most part the scriptures that I spoke about last time were not really the ones that people are emotionally attached to.  I chose the scriptures that I did, for that video, based on my desire to teach as many people as possible that in fact there are some problems with our English translations, and how those problems came about, while at the same time not offending anyone and causing them to turn off the video before they had a chance to watch the whole thing.    

 

I knew that bringing up the errors that I discussed in the last video would cause some negative feelings in some people because there really isn’t any way to speak in any kind of negative way about any verse in any version of The Bible without making someone upset.  I was trying my best to word things in a way that would guide my viewers to do their own research in order to see that what I was saying was in fact true, and not just an attempt on my part to perpetuate some kind of doctrinal, agenda.

 

In this video, I may not be able to do that.  Translation is a very complicated process, and believe it or not some of the discrepancies that show up in a translation could be the result of nothing more than honest mistakes, or an unresolvable difference of opinion.  I think that most of the scriptures that I spoke about in my last video could potentially fit into that category.  Also, for the most part, I was able to speak about the verses in my previous video, without actually taking an overt stand, for or against, any particular religion, or doctrinal issue.

 

But, today, I’ll be addressing some of the most debated scriptures in the Bible.  Some of the mistranslations that I will be talking about today, could not have possibly made their way into the Bible by any kind of mistake, or difference of opinion.  Most of the verses that I will be discussing were very obviously placed in our English translations of The Bible directly by the churches in support of some very evil things that do not have any scriptural backing in the original language texts.

 

The first major translation debate that I am going to talk about is gender neutrality.  This information, probably could have been part of the previous video in this series since it really is based on nothing more than a difference of opinion.  The only reason that I saved it for this video is because of the very obvious anger that many of religion’s adherents express in articles about this subject.

 

For me gender neutrality really isn’t an issue at all.  I want a Bible that is as accurate as possible.  I don’t have any problem understanding how God feels about his creation.

 

In every Bible that I have ever read, I have seen the good things that men and women have done, as well as the bad things that men and women have done.  I am aware that the Hebrew word Adam that we translate as man actually means human.  When I read scriptures about what is right conduct for a man, I automatically understand that this information is about right conduct for, both men and women.  Even in English, the words men, and mankind are often used to mean humanity in general, but sometimes people can get the feeling that God left women out of the Bible because of how a scripture is translated.

 

At Matthew 18:15 The HCSB, or Holman Christian Standard Bible says “If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private”.

 

This same verse from the NLT or New Living Translation says “If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the offense.”

 

The 2011 NIV says”If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you.”

 

The actual word that the translators are trying to communicate is Adelphos, which means “Of The Womb’.  There is no similar word or idiom in English because even though it means sibling (brother or sister) In Ancient Greece this word would have also been understood to mean Member of The Human Species as opposed to other living beings outside of the species, such as angels. 

 

The way that the HCSB is translated can make it appear as if this scripture is only about how to deal with men.  Both the NLT and NIV rightfully communicate that this verse is about how to treat both men and women, but in all three verses we are being lead to believe that this information is still only about how we should treat fellow believers, when in fact this is simply about how to treat fellow human beings whether they are believers or not.

 

In this verse I really think that the 2011 edition of The NIV has the best version of this particular scripture.

 

But there are other verses where a gender neutral version is not appropriate.  Psalms 1:1 in the NIV says “Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked”.

 

Translating this verse in this way does not perpetrate a lie, but it conceals what may turn out to be a vital Bible truth. 

 

The KJV renders the verse as “Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly”.

 

The actual Hebrew word that is used here is Iysh which means “Male Tribal Leader”.  An Iysh would be an extremely powerful person, but another extremely powerful person in the Bible would be an Iyshsha, which means “Female Tribal Leader”.  It is absolutely essential that these words be understood as representing two very different kinds of people. 

 

The scripture at Psalms 1:1 is about two different kinds of Iysh.  The Male tribal leader that forms alliances with the wicked and the male tribal leader that refuses to form alliances with the wicked.  Over the course of time Israel had both types.

 

Since such a society is unlike what we are familiar with, the Churches are able to use these unfamiliar titles to their advantage by translating such Hebrew words using English words such as Master, Slave, Male Slave, Female Slave, and Slave of the Slaves.  Titles which are extremely inappropriate, especially when you consider that according to The Law of Moses, anyone taking slaves was to be put to death. 

 

I have a video posted on my channel entitled “What does The Bible say about Slavery and Marriage?” that is all about this particular subject as well as about all of the mistranslation necessary to make it appear as if God somehow approves of such things.  Many of those mistranslations are so horrific that it is only reasonable for us to be understanding about why so many decent human beings would base their spiritual beliefs on teachings other than those of our English Translations of The Bible, as they currently exist.

 

Another thing that is important to me, is that a Bible not contain any recent additions.  Our Bibles are presented to us as being reliable translations of the original language books that were produced thousands of years ago.  Nothing should be in our Bibles that was not in those ancient texts, however that is not the case.  Quite a few verses have been added through the translation process.

 

Sufficient time has passed for the Churches to produce any ancient language documents in support of the added texts.  But they will not, because they can not.  There is no evidence anywhere that such documents ever existed.  At this point it is really ridiculous that new translations of The Bible are still being produced which include those verses that obviously do not belong.

 

John 7:53-8:11 is a very good example of one of those added texts.  It is the very familiar story of the woman being stoned for adultery.  After asking Jesus what should be done with her, Jesus tells the crowd “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”  I love this story.  It really sounds like something Jesus would actually do, however this story was not added to the Bible until about 400 years after the Book of John was written.

 

I don’t have any kind of doctrinal belief that Jesus would support capitol punishment.  That is not my motivation for wanting these manufactured verses to be removed from our modern English translations of The Bible.  I just want an accurate account of the things that Jesus said and did in my native tongue.  This story does not appear in any of the early original language documents, and since that is the case, it simply should not be included in our modern language Bibles.

 

Some Bibles do put footnotes at the bottom of the pages where these kinds of verses appear, but I don’t know anybody that reads those footnotes, and since most of the footnotes about such things are rather cryptic, even if a person were to somehow see them, and actually read them, there is little chance that they would understand them.

 

Even though there is no way of knowing what motivated the person that added these verse, the motivation behind many of the late additions to The Bible are very easy to figure out.  I am now about to talk about the kinds of alterations made to our Bibles that people are very passionate about.

 

Scriptures, that seem to support the doctrinal teachings of The Empire’s religions are extremely rare.  Many of such scriptures are late additions.  As a result, those that put their faith in those doctrinal teachings get extremely upset whenever someone questions the authenticity of what are often considered to be proof texts for those unscriptural doctrines.

 

At 1John5:7 all ancient original language texts of The Bible ever found, say “For there are three that testify”  However, during the transition of power from the Roman Empire to the British Empire, the verse expanded to include the words ” the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one”.  The argument over the authenticity of this scripture has gone on ever since The Catholic Church added it.

 

This verse is known as The Comma Johanneum.

 

Some very compelling evidence that this verse was created by Trinitarians very late in Church history is preserved in other texts, outside of The Bible narrative.  The first appearance of this addition to The Bible was in 1522, when Desiderius Erasmus published the 4th edition of his textus receptus.  The added text was not included in his earlier editions, and Erasmus left no written record of why he decided to add what has come to be regarded as one of the strongest Trinity proof texts in the entire Bible.  And for a fact, this verse, is the only verse that exists in any Bible that even comes close to describing God as a Trinity.

 

Within The Catholic Church, the trinity argument had been going on for centuries prior to the publication of The Textus Receptus.  Many of the points of contention between the two sides in this argument are preserved in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.  Since the publication of The Textus Receptus, every document produced in favor of a Trinitarian god, has included references to the Comma Johanneum.  But prior to 1522, there is no mention of this verse by any of the trinitarians taking a stand in this argument.

 

From the second to the sixteenth century (a period of over a thousand years) many Catholic Theologians, put into print, quite a few extremely detailed arguments in support of the Trinity doctrine.   With so many wicked theologians, producing so many documents, in favor of a trinity, at least one of them should have mentioned the Comma Johanneum if it actually existed at that time.  There are literally thousands of copies of The Book of 1John produced prior to 1522 that are still in existence.  They are so plentiful, that authentic copies of the Book of 1John produced prior to that date are usually available for purchase on web sites such as eBay.  To date, not one of them  has ever been found to contain The Comma Johanneum.

 

Over the course of my life, I have discovered many verses in our English Bibles that do not exist in any of the original ancient language documents.  Some originated in the translations of the English Church, others originated in The Earlier translations of the Latin Church, and even earlier in the Greek Chruch.  But in nearly every late addition to our Bible it is obvious that the translators hired by The Churches, were motivated to add the false scriptures, in order to support the doctrinal teachings of The Greek, Roman, British, and American, Empires religious systems.

 

Many of the late additions to our bible seem to be in support of The Trinity doctrine.  And in fact so are many of the mistranslations.  If every verse added to The Bible or significantly altered, during the translation process by The Greek, Roman, and English Churches was removed or properly restored, there would not be a single verse left in support of such an inane idea.

 

One example of a mistranslated verse, in support of The Trinity doctrine, that is found in nearly every English Bible ever produced is John1:1 which usually says something similar to this “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was the God”.  There are quite a few references in the Bible to Jesus being “The Word”.  So in effect what is being said here is that Jesus is God.

 

The word “The” is what is called a definite article.  In English there are quite a few grammar rules about how English speakers come to the decision as to whether or not a noun should be preceded by, a definite article such as the word “The”, or an indefinite article, such as the word “A”.

 

Even though we often indicate which article is appropriate by the use of such words as a, or the, by tradition it often isn’t necessary.  In English grammar whether or not a noun needs to be preceded by an indefinite article, definite article, or no article at all, is automatically understood.

 

But few languages on this planet utilize the same grammar rules in making the determination of whether or not to include them or exclude them.  As an example, if we were to use all indefinite articles John 1:1 could be translated as In a beginning was a word, and a word was with a god, and a word was a god.  It is not up to the translator to make the decision as to which version is best.  Those ancient Greek speaking people would have understood how to form sentences such as this just as we would understand how to form similar sentences in English.

 

But just as in English, The Greeks had actual definable rules about how this was to be handled.  Words like A and The may seem of little importance, We may not even recognize words like a and the as words, but when you compare the two ways that I rendered this verse, by doing nothing more than changing from all definite articles to all indefinite articles, you can easily see that how we would understand these two renderings of the same verse, would be solely dependent on the proper use of articles.

 

If I were to tell you in English, that Jesus was a God, then you would automatically understand that he was not The God.

 

If I were to tell you in English, that Jesus was the God, then you would automatically understand that he was not simply a god.

 

But if I was to tell you, in English, that Jesus was God, without using any article at all, the definite article would be understood.  In other words, you would understand that Jesus was in fact The God.  That is how English works.

 

But that is not at all how ancient Greek works.  In Attic, the ancient version of Greek that our New Testaments were originally written in, when no article is used, it is not the definite article that would be understood, but the indefinite article.  In other words, since there is no article whatsoever in the phrase, “The word was God” as it appears in Greek, by the solidly established, rules of translation, We must insert the indefinite article a in this phrase if we wish to communicate the actual thought as it is recorded in Greek.

 

This verse can not be translated “The word was God”.  It can only be translated as “The word was a god”.  There is absolutely no way around this commonly understood rule of Attic Greek grammar.

 

Contrary to the claims made, every translator that has ever undertaken the job of Bible translation has known this.  There are literally hundreds of other verses in the New Testament with similar sentence structure, that in their original Greek text have no article of any kind and in each instance the translators always insert an indefinite article.

 

There is no ancient copy of The Book of John, in existence anywhere, that utilizes any article, in this line of text.  That being the case, John 1:1 when translated properly into English can only be translated as “In The Beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was a god”  There is simply no way around it, and yet nearly every English Version of The Bible still translates this verse as if there is a definite article present, or as if the lack of an article in the original Greek necessitates that we understand that a definite article is indicated.

 

This scripture is just as essential to the trinity doctrine as 1John5:7, and so if you do any research at all, you will be able to find quite literally, hundreds of very passionate arguments, for the use of the definite article, at this verse.  Don’t allow yourself to be swayed by a lot of big words,  especially when it comes to Greek grammar.  There are several exceptions to the rules as to whether or not an article should be understood, having to do with the positioning of, and  function of the Noun, such as whether the noun is being used as the subject of the sentence, or a direct object, or indirect object, subject complement, object complement, or appositive.  I promise you that John 1:1 does not qualify for a definite article according to any of these well understood rules.

 

Fortunately you don’t have to know the rules, or even understand the rules.  All that you have to do is compare other verses using definite articles, indefinite articles, and no articles, and look at the Greek sentence form, in particular the position of the noun within the sentence, and you will very likely recognize that there is not a single sentence in the entire bible with similar sentence structure where the absence of an article is translated into English without the inclusion of an indefinite article.

 

Another argument that you will find repeated over and over again is that Jesus has to be God, because there are only two kinds of God.  The True God, and False Gods.  In other words, if we refer to Jesus as A God, then we by default are calling him a false god.

 

This is not the case at all.  There are several places in The Bible where angels are called Gods.  Good Angels as well as wicked angles.  Psalms 82:6 is one example of this.  The Hebrew title used here is Elohim which we are suppose to believe can only be applied to Yahweh, but it is very obvious from this verse that the title Elohim is being applied not to God, but to The Angels that were gathered around him in Heaven.

 

Jesus himself quoted this verse at John 10:34 as the religious leaders were preparing to stone him, for claiming to be God.  And once again, Jesus, was not claiming to be God in this verse, because as is the case at John 1:1, the translators failed to insert the indefinite article as would be required according to the rules of Attic Greek Grammar.  Jesus asked those religious leaders why they wanted to stone him, and in response they said to him.   “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, are claiming to be God.”

 

This verse would be a very good example to look up in The Greek Interlinear format.  I will leave a link in the description box.  Should you click on that link, you will notice that in this verse there are three nouns that are not preceded by any article whatsoever, and yet in two of those cases, the translators followed the rules and inserted an indefinite article.  They inserted the indefinite article a before the noun work.  And they inserted the indefinite article a before the noun man.  It is only before the noun god that they seemingly arbitrarily decided not to insert the indefinite article.

 

The Greek sentence structure used in this verse is very similar to the sentence structure of John1:1.  I promise you that the decision to disguise the indefinite article in these verses, was not arbitrary, but craftily and intentionally contrived.

 

The cultures of each of the Empires that has taken possession of The Bible over the course of the last 2,300 years, have been Trinity based.  It should not surprise anyone that those societies would take the opportunity to insert some of that religious system into their Bible translations.

 

Another Satanic teaching of many of the Churches of Christendom that does not exist in any of the original language texts is the Hell fire doctrine.  I recently posted a video Called “Of Angels And Men, The Afterlife”, that exposes how the churches have manipulated The Bible, once again, through the translation process, in such a way as to make it appear as if The Bible somehow supports this Demonic Teaching.

 

Rather than repeating everything from that video, once again, I will simply place a link in the description box on this page.

 

Another very obvious addition that did not come into existence until The Bible was translated into Latin, is the idea that Jesus died on a cross.  Long before Jesus came to Earth, the cross, was a very important symbol in the mainstream religions of ancient Rome.  Those religions were all based on a trinitarian god that punished non compliant dead people for all eternity.  Those religions simply substituted, many of the words associated with the instrument of Jesus’ death with the Latin word Crux, meaning cross.

 

Making it appear as if Jesus was executed on a cross, allowed all of The Roman Empire’s converts to continue utilizing their satanic talismans, while at the same time making it appear as if those talismans were in fact not Satanic at all.

 

Even though those of us that Love God can easily see through the thinly veiled foolishness of The Religions of The Empire, it can not be denied that this particular tactic, has been extremely effective.  Crucifixes are quite possibly the single most popular talisman, sold today.

 

Not to long ago, I posted a video about The Cross, on this channel.  I will also post a link to that video here as well.

 

If prior to watching this video, you were not aware of the information presented here, you may be feeling rather discouraged.  Please don’t give up on your search for Bible Truth.  The Bible is a very big book.  It’s teachings, unlike the teachings of The Churches, are wonderful, and not that difficult to understand.  Nobody reading a Bible from start to finish would ever be able to develop any kind of understanding of the nature of God that would even remotely resemble the doctrinal teachings of the religions.  The very obvious mistranslations and late additions to our Bibles are minuscule when compared to the Bible overall.

 

It is extremely important that you educate yourself about how the religions of The World maintain their control over humanity.  Reading a Bible produced by one of The Empire’s religions could never cause anyone to believe in any of the wicked things taught by those religions.

 

But.  That being the case, you need to understand that most religions rarely deviate from the scriptures that support their agenda.  If we allow ourselves to be constantly bombarded by the same doctrinal scriptures, over and over again, without being exposed to the rest of the Bible, it can have a negative effect on our ability to discern truth.

 

A simple solution to that problem is to just avoid religion.  If you don’t go to their meetings, or engage in their rituals.  If you don’t listen to their radio programs, or watch their TV shows.  If you stay away from their internet sites.  Then, you’ll be much better equipped to read the Bible for yourself with an open mind.

 

If you feel that listening to me is no different than listening to them, then stop listening to me, and start reading The Bible. 

 

I love people.  Especially seemingly good people.  I clung to religion for 40 years, unwilling to walk away from what I perceived as the spiritual support from my previous faiths.  A spiritual human being will always want to be part of something larger than ourselves.  Once I was able to separate myself from religion and approach God as an individual, I became part of something much larger, than any alliance of spiritually dead church goers.

 

Even after leaving, it took about a decade before I started to be able to read the Bible with an open mind, and to this day I still struggle with the desire to hold on to unscriputral notions acquired during my time within those previous religions.

 

This video is being posted as an aid to anyone trying to determine which version of The Bible does the best job of accurately rendering the original language books, clearly into English.

 

Over time I have read from many different versions.  Some are better than others in one way, while being worse in other ways.  I did not make as many comparisons in this video as I did in the first video in this series, because often, where long standing church doctrines are concerned, there is very little difference between our English versions of The Bible.

 

However, if you think that you would be more comfortable reading a Gender Neutral version of God’s word, I will post my recommendations, in the description box, and if I should become aware of any reason to change my opinion or if a new version should be produced.  I will change that information.

 

Every translator knows about the verses that have been added to The Bible or altered in order to support Church doctrine, and yet they continue to perpetuate those obviously errant scriptures.  They have to.  Bible publishers don’t get rich selling accurate Bibles, they get rich by selling popular Bibles.  It is impossible for a Bible to be popular if it does not contain the popular scriptures.  The ones that the churches talk about at every opportunity.  The scriptures that their founders added to The Bible.

 

I know that the two Bibles that I am currently reading have inaccuracies.  They both contain the majority of the doctrinal verses,  And yet I still love to read them.  I upload Bible based videos as often as I can, and will continue to do so as long as I can.  Obviously, living in a slavery based society, very few of us have the luxury of reading every English translation of The Bible.  I recognize the fact, that I have much more freedom than most.  I promise to do everything in my power to use my time wisely, not just for my own benefit, but also for the benefit of others, who have been robbed of their time by the wicked powers that rule over us all.

 

There will come a time when we are all finally allowed to rest.  Unfortunately that time has not yet arrived.  I am planning on resting with all of you, when this system finally reaches it’s conclusion.

 

If you don’t want to survive……… Don’t listen to me.

2
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
1 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Member

Hi Henry, I use the Scriptures 1998 and have a bible module downloaded called e-sward that contains all the bibles I want to cross reference like the Septuagint. It also has the Apocrypha, writings of Josephus, the Talmud, and other historical writings and it’s all free. I love the Scriptures 1998 which is on the e-sword program. http://www.e-sword.net