The Gabriel Version -Index

The Gabriel Version’s Index To

“The Testimony of Yeshua”

(Usually mislabeled “the New Testament”)

In the Original Peshitta (& Greek) Order

From the Aramaic, Harmonizing and Contrasting the Greek:

Greek and Aramaic Bible Rewritten In the English Language

G.A.B.R.I.E.L. INTRODUCTION

(This acronym was coined by a long time brother.)

“The world has never had a complete Bible of the Old and New Testaments in the original manuscript order of the biblical books. This is a fact! It is almost unbelievable that such a non-manuscript arrangement of the books of the Bible could exist, but all modern translations of the Holy Scriptures do not follow the early manuscripts.” —Restoring the Original Bible, Ernest L. Martin, Ph. D.

“Our English Bibles follow the order as given in the Latin Vulgate. This order, therefore, depends on the arbitrary judgment of one man, Jerome (A.D. 382–429). All theories based on this order rest on human authority, and are thus without any true foundation.” —Companion Bible, Appendix 95, p.139

“Testament” isnt a synonym for “covenant”, and the “New Covenant” isnt a book. Tertullian was the first to apply the term “New Testament” to the newer Messianic Texts, and “Old Testament” to the Hebrew Scriptures. This terminology implies that the newer Texts are superior to the (Hebrew) Scriptures, rather than the completion of the books. Yet the Messianic Texts are additional Sacred Texts, they complement the Scriptures. Yeshua’s message was the aim and purpose of the Torah (Law). So I dont use the term “New Testament”, except to explain the bias of the phrase’s origin.

Romans 10:4 The Messiah is the aim and purpose of the Torah; a means of righteousness for everyone who believes in Him. GV

Prior to Tertullian’s new terminology, there was no concept of a deep chasm separating the “New Books” (documents & letters) from the Torah (Hebrew Scriptures), nor were the newer Texts thought to have anti Semitic overtones. I refer to the newer Messianic Texts as “The Testimony of Yeshua-Messiah” because the envoy (apostle) John was apparently calling them that. He was the last surviving envoy, and evidence indicates that he finished “canonizing” “the Testimony of Yeshua”. (Overwhelming evidence for “Apostolic canonization”, rather than Catholic, can be read in Ernest Martin’s above mentioned book). John used the term “the Testimony of Yeshua Messiah” three times, and “Testimony of Yeshua” twice, after he had established the term.

The Testimony of Yeshua was prophesied to be written, even tho the Disciples themselves didnt realize it until years after Yeshua had died:

Isaiah 8:13-18 Yehovah, leader of His army is who you must respect as sacred. He is the One you must fear. He is the One you must dread. 14 He [Yeshua] will be your temple. But for both houses of Israel He’ll be a Stone that causes people trip, and a Rock to stumble over. For the inhabitants of Jerusalem He [Yeshua: 1 Peter 2:4-8] will be a trap and a snare. 15 Many will stumble over Him, fall, be broken, be snared, and be captured”. 16 During a time of distress bind up [1] the Testimony. Verify the Torah among My Disciples. 17 I’ll wait for Yehovah, who hides His face from the house of Jacob, and I’ll look for Him. 18 Look, I and the children [disciples] who Yehovah has given Me are for signs and for miracles in Israel from Yehovah, leader of His army, who lives in Mount Zion. —The Word of Elohim, Gabriel Version (WE)

[1] See why the binding (books are bound) of the Testimony of Yeshua was done during a time of distress.

(Incidentally the above text is one of those places where a careful reading indicates that Yeshua {v.14} also goes by the name Yehovah {v.13}! It is also the only reference to “disciples” in the “Old Testament”.)

Revelation 12:17 The dragon was provoked to anger against the woman; and he went to war against her remaining survivors, who obey the Commandments of Yehovah [Torah], and have the Testimony of Yeshua. GV

Revelation 19:10 I fell at his feet, to worship him. But he told me, “See that you dont do that; because I also serve Yehovah, I’m your brother who also adheres to the Testimony [or “documentation”] of Yeshua. Worship Yehovah; because the Testimony of Yeshua is the empowering spirit of the inspired declaration” (also: Revelation 1:2; 1:9). GV

Revelation 6:9 After he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the bodies of those who were slain because of the Word of Aloha [1], and because of the Testimony of the Lamb that they possessed. GV

[1] John 10:35 “The Word of Aloha” (God) refers to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Torah*, but on rare occasions it means Yeshua Himself, Revelation 19:13. Claims of people hearing Father’s actual voice are quite overrated.

As soon as I read the book Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek? I came to believe that the original “New Texts” were really in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek soon afterward. But there was not a contemporary English version of the Peshitta available without copyright restrictions (unless there is a really obscure one, like this). To remedy this, I immediately decided to update Murdock’s 1851 public domain translation. My first task was to word process out the obsolete English wording and phraseology. I was able to modernize the English of Murdock’s Version very quickly by word processing it after Tabernacles, 2007. This was available online immediately. But comparing it with other Aramaic and Greek versions took about a year and a half—thousands of hours, and upgrading the writing style took another three months, and I continue to tweek it. This version will always be available online free, as noted below, as long as I’m alive and able.

When I first began reading the Aramaic to English translations, I thought that there would be many startling differences from the Greek texts, and major new insights. I have not found the differences to be so profound. It is the similarities that are surprising—due to the Protestant influence of all of the common English translations, whether being translated from Aramaic or Greek texts. The most surprising thing is the number of nuances lost by English translators going from the Greek texts to their English translations. While the GV’s Testimony of Yeshua is now based on both Murdock’s and Etheridge’s Peshitta, I of necessity checked it against The Online Bible Greek Lexicon (and have made over 2,400 live links to The New Testament Greek Lexicon, because there are no comparably thoro Aramaic lexicons, and none yet without copyright restrictions, so far as I know. These lexicons are incredibly powerful tools. They use Strong’s numbers, now universally used, to locate definitions of Biblical Greek (and Hebrew) words, but they are far more “exhaustive” than the original 19th century Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, now online, that I used for decades. This accounts for most of the live links in the Gabriel Version text. These key words make a trail that is very easy to follow, to see why the nuances differ so much when you follow along in another version. Using these Strong’s numbers is somewhat like coloring by the numbers—it doesnt take a linguist to paint a word picture.

After thoroly comparing three Aramaic translations, and about 20 Greek translations, side by side, I can say with certainty that the objectivity of the translators has a greater influence on a translation than whether or not they are based on Aramaic or Greek texts! Still, it is nice to eliminate most of the bugs lost in the translation from Aramaic to Greek, along with a few tricks. But you’ll never know what you are missing until you study the differences, and this is a thoro place to see them.

The words that I consider to be more significant all have these live lexicon links, or numbered footnotes [1], or topical links, or link to the GV Glossary. I’ll admit that neither James Murdock or John Wesley Etheridge would recognize this as having descended from their work. Even if you believe that the Messianic Texts were originally written in Greek, you should have no problems with the Gabriel, because even relatively minor differences are footnoted.

The footnotes in most Protestant (and Catholic) Bibles reflect easily verified historical and archaeological points, and popular theology that is readily accepted (sold), and cross references. The footnotes in the Gabriel reflect more controversial points of doctrine that I believe are being overlooked. No disclaimers are made or contrary views noted, for brevity. Consider them things I would urge you to research for yourself.

There was a controversy among the Jews as to what to do when they found a copy of the Testimony of Yeshua. They were concerned because the Tetragrammaton—YHVH (Yehovah), in Paleo Hebrew form, was inserted into all of the original copies of the Testimony of Yeshua in the the Aramaic, Greek and even Latin copies. Some of the Jews wanted to burn them intact, while others insisted on removing each instance of the Tetragrammaton prior to burning the Testimony. That the dedicated Name Yehovah was present in the original copies of the “Testimony of Yeshua” (the so-called “New Testament”) is apparent from the debates in Jewish Babylonian Talmud.

The existing Aramaic and the Old Syriac manuscripts use the word “Aloha” (equivalent to the Hebrew Eloah), as transliterated in the 1849 Etheridge version. There is no plural form equivalent to Elohim (God or gods) in Aramaic. “Sacred” name Bibles, aware of the word Aloha, generally substitute the Hebrew word Elohim, pronounced very much like Aloha, where the existing Aramaic now has Aloha. Yet Aloha isnt a name. It is the generic word for God/gods, that shouldn’t have bothered the Jews, who wanted sole rights to possession, and suppression, of His actual name.

In the (Hebrew) Scriptures, YHVH appears about 6,519 times, while Elohim appears about 2,346 times, about 3 times to 1. I feel certain that the New Texts—the Testimony, would have shared about the same ratio. But when the early Christians replaced His actual name with the generic terms: Aloha in the Aramaic, and Theos in the Greek, the distinction was lost. We can only guess which places would have been Aloha, and which places actually inserted the ancient Paleo form of YHVH into the text, as was originally done. Jewish first century Saints would never have stood for this, but “gentile” Christians did anything possible to distance themselves from the enemies of the Roman State, the Jews, and their “Old Testament” Yehovah. So in the Gabriel I do my best, judging from the context, to use Yehovah or Aloha where it seems best.

“It was stated in the text: The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Sacred Names which they contain, hide them, 17 and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Sacred Names if they came to my hand. For even if one pursued me 18 to slay me, or a snake pursued me to bite me, I would enter a heathen Temple [for refuge], but not the houses of these [people], for the latter know of [God] yet deny [Him], whereas the former are ignorant and deny [Him], and of them the Writ saith, and behind the doors and the posts hast thou set up thy memorial. 19 R. Ishmael said: [One can reason] a minori: If in order to make peace between man and wife the Torah decreed, Let my Name, written in sanctity, be blotted out in water, 20 these, who stir up jealousy, enmity, and wrath between Israel and their Father in Heaven, how much more so; 21 and of them David said, Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate then with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. 22 And just as we may not rescue them from a fire, so may we not rescue them from a collapse [of debris] or from water or from anything that may destroy them.”

This isnt a “Sacred Name” website—one that contends that pronunciation of names (phonics) is a determining factor in eternal life. Yet I do know the real names of the Father and the Son, and see no valid reason to substitute tainted substitutes into the inspired texts themselves. So the Gabriel Version is the only version that uses Their actual names.

Have you ever read the copyright statement in your Bible? Some of them bind the Sacred Texts with heavier chains than others, but always to make a few shekels. Here is what one Aramaic “New Testament” copyright has to say:

“All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.”

This is a serious situation. Imagine what the ultimate penalty might be for putting a lock on the truths of God! While the following Bible might not be an exact fit—perhaps it is!

Revelation 22:19 If anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, Yehovah [God] will take away his destiny from the tree of life, and from the sacred city that are described in this book. GV

In verse 10 there is another caution:

Revelation 22:10 Then he said to me, “Dont seal [or silence] the words of this document of prophecy, because the end time is near. GV

By contrast, the prophecy of Daniel was sealed, because when it was given it wasnt the end time:

Daniel 12:4 But Daniel, keep this message a secret, and put a seal on the book until the time of the end, many will travel around quickly, and knowledge will greatly increase [Literally: shoot]! The Word of Elohim (WE: Gabriel Version)

If the penalty for “sealing” the book [document] of Revelation is this serious, then imagine how serious it is to seal the entire Testimony of Yeshua (everything His envoys recorded), particularly near the end time!

Matthew 10:8 ... You’ve received freely; so give freely. GV

So here I go with my little seal cutter.

This is my best shot, but refinements to this version will continue.

I know that believing in what is called “Peshitta primacy” makes me an “extremist” and “unorthodox”, but every chapter in Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom would be classified as such by “orthodox” Christianity. The Peshitta is in primary agreement with the Majority or Received texts, such as the KJV and the Tyndale versions, unlike most modern versions.

Originally I only intended to update the Murdock Translation of the Testimony of Yeshua, and use the World English Bible for all of my quotations from the (Hebrew) Scriptures on this site. I had been substituting the WEB’s use of the name “Yahweh” with Yehovah in brackets [ ], but this alone accounts for over 6000 changes to the text of the WEB. The WEB website requests that if any changes are made to their public domain text, that it not be called the WEB, so I’ll be replacing all of the bracketed WEB quotations on this site. The Gabriel Version’s (Hebrew) Scriptures, the Word of Elohim (abbreviated WE), now only word processed, is based on the WEB, and only exists on my computer, except for the more closely scrutinized verses that are being retrofitted in the chapters of my book Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom. The more unique or controversial wordings will be linked to a lexicon or other commentary, just as is done with the Gabriel Version of the Testimony of Yeshua. While I like the WEB version, it still has a considerable KJV flavoring that couldnt be considered contemporary English. So even words like “shall”, that hasnt been used since General MacArthur said, “I shall return”, has been changed to “will” and many other rewordings that dont affect the meaning.

Most people dont know that the KJV Bibles being printed today have been updated four times. In 1901 it was revised again and renamed the “American Standard Bible”. Updates of the American Standard include the copyrighted RSV, the NKJV, the NASB and the public domain WEB. I’ll , over time, remove all quotations from the NKJV on this site as well, because I want to move away from versions that restrict quotations of the Bible.

Consultation with various translational references will be ongoing for the rest of my life, but only in the spare time I can devote to it. Everything is free to use and download.

A burning issue is the idea of paraphrasing. In essence, all translating is paraphrasing—taking a foreign word or phrase and replacing it with what is, hopefully, the equivalent words or thoughts in another language. The major obvious difference is the flavor! Using obsolete words to flavor a translation adds credibility in the minds of many; but is that logical? Another flavor is using foreign sentence structuring—the sequence of the words. Unusual word order, foreign to your language does not necessarily add anything that the Bible was intended to reveal either. The Bible was written in the language of their day. So far as I know, there isnt a bit of theological jargon in the Bible; so there really isnt any in the GV. Yet, when paraphrasing becomes liberal rather than literal, it becomes a sin! The best translation would answer the question, “What would Yeshua (Jesus) do”. A version can be very accurate, without being word for word “literal”. Word for word is actually a poor method of translating, if the objective is more than simply to convey isolated facts. Precise thought for thought is what counts.

The biggest problem with the vast majority of Greek translations is their simple synonym approach. Quite often, there isnt an English word that exactly equates with a Greek word, so the translators opt for the closest word available, rather than use as many words as necessary to convey the thought. That is why so many of the links in the Gabriel are multiple words linking to a single word from a Greek lexicon. But with just one click and you can see the full implication of the Greek word, and more often than not, the many nuances to consider.

The Murdock version is arguably the most difficult English version of the last couple centuries to understand, but my objective is to make the Gabriel the most technically accurate version, as attested to by the Strong’s links, and more readable than even most of the “comic book” paraphrases, as often as possible, tho hundreds of technical nuances are routinely sacrificed in those versions for the sake of easy reading. I wouldnt want to use any of them as a roadmap into the Kingdom!

So many Bible wordings are tied up with copyright restrictions, that the best ways to state something are usually already “in use”. So I have been utilizing some of the public domain words and phraseology found in the older versions. Some of the best terminology from the 1849 Etheridge version (Aramaic), in addition to the Murdock basis of the Gabriel, is preserved in the Gabriel. The better elements of the Tyndale and the Weymouth (Greek) versions are salvaged as well, tho virtually every verse in the Gabriel is unique, except for Revelation 17:8. Of course the Greek renderings must not conflict with the Aramaic. Most of the Weymouth was freshly translated from the Greek in the nineteenth century. He was insightful and ahead of its time, and didnt add any ecclesiastical vocabulary, (tho he did adopt the deletions of Wescott and Hort). The Weymouth isnt a stealth revision of the Tyndale in disguise, as every other Greek version that I’m aware of appears to be. The Weymouth is essentially THE only second opinion Greek version to have ever hit the mainstream, altho some passages are virtually unrecognizable, because the paraphrasing is sometimes quite loose, as in Hebrews 5:7. Another example is that the word “Christian” shows up often, while in the original texts, “Christian” was only used by the enemies of the Saints. Some of it is really interpretation, rather than translation, yet the interpretation is usually accurate and unbiased. Where Weymouth differs from the others, I have explored all the more carefully. The uniqueness of the Weymouth is easily demonstrated by comparing many versions side-by-side here. He picked up many nuances that the others simply overlooked. Unfortunately, there is a fair amount of dramatization—little embellished comments that simply arent in the Greek. Still, there are very many plain renderings—verified with live links straight out of the lexicons—that simply are ignored in every other version that I have seen.

Reading the Bible should be so overwhelming that it is literally to die for! Being willing to both live and die for your convictions requires emotional maturity. Do you feel multiple passions while reading Father’s very words? If you are tripping over awkward phraseology, you lose much of the emotional impact that should be inseparable from the facts.

Bible reading shouldnt be like reading something from a stodgy academic linguistic puzzle, fitting together individual words retrieved from a cave, from a nearly dead language. The Bible is “full of life and active” (Hebrews 4:12). They are for all time, inspired and sent to you from Heaven by the very living God! I see no reason to sprinkle the text with Hebrew or Aramaic words, except as references. What is the motive?

Understanding the Bible doesnt require understanding foreign language word structures, so long as the translation is HONEST! It is only by checking the more critical words in a lexicon that you can determine the honesty. Using a lexicon can be better than learning Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek as your second language. How many times do we use words in our own language correctly, knowing all of the possible nuances of our less often used words? Even using proper English requires knowing your way around a dictionary.

There is an interesting website devoted to translation theory. While their perspective assumes the need for “church hierarchy” and Greek originality (supremacy), it is still interesting, at least for me, to consider the goals of the mainstream translators. The most literal translations are termed “formal equivalence”. Those appearing as loose paraphrases are termed “dynamic equivalence translations”, regardless of their accuracy. Note these comments from the site:

“Translations can be located on a spectrum, which would have, at one extreme, rigid adherence to the form of the original language (formal equivalence)...

At the other extreme:

“There are problems, however, with dynamic equivalence translations. Since the translator is “freer” from the grammatical forms of the original language he is more likely to exceed the bounds of an accurate translation, in an effort to speak naturally in the native language. That is, the dynamic equivalence translations are capable of being more natural and more precise than are formal equivalence translations, but they are also more capable of being precisely wrong.”

Another commentator who prefers the term “Functional” over “Dynamic” says:

“the main flaw that people generally have with Functional [Dynamic] translation is that it looks suspiciously like paraphrase rather than translation. This isnt a methodological criticism. As a method, Functional translation says, languages are different, but that they all have the potential for conveying the same meanings. What these meanings look like, whether they are at a word level, phrase level, clause level, or paragraph level depends on the grammar of the target language, not on the source language. And what people often don’t realize about this is that by no means are formal [literal] properties excluded from the application of functional methodology. That’s because as long as meaning isn’t violated and the language of the target translation is still natural, formal properties are allowed to be maintained.”

The Gabriel Version strives for “Dynamic” accuracy, and ease of reading, but dont think that the simplicity of the text diminishes the accuracy. Almost anything can be explained, given enough simple terms. Yet anywhere that a technical understanding is beneficial, I dont hesitate to jump into the technical mode, accompanied by a live lexicon link.

Any significant words that have been added for clarity are placed in italics. These are often words that could change the meaning, if misinterpreted. These added words are primarily used to help thoughts flow in English, but they arent actually present in the Greek. (Murdock indicated some clarifying words in parenthesis, and Etheridge indicated some in brackets). This method is more conventional. Simpler connecting words arent usually marked in translations that mark clarifying words, because there are so many.

While Matthew and Hebrews may have originally been written in Hebrew, no use of the late medieval texts, such as the Shem Tov Matthew, the DuTillet Matthew, and the Munster Matthew is used in the GV. These were all filled with anti Messiah rhetoric, and used to teach that the Messiah isnt One with Yehovah. I havent seen evidence of them being descended from original Hebrew copies.

These are the primary categories of changes that were incorporated, in order to update James Murdock’s Peshitta Translation into the Testimony of Yeshua. Murdock deliberately used obsolete English because he thought that the King James style of wording somehow made the wording more sacred. Back then virtually every English reader was reading the KJV anyway, so Murdock didnt bring on change faster than he supposed it could be received. Today, obsolete English makes Yeshua’s Good News seem far less relevant to this end time generation—the very generation that needs the Good News the most! Modernization of words or expressions should have no bearing on the meaning. Many of the more important doctrinal points found in the GV are linked to Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom.) Very conservative guidelines were used to replace the obsolete and obscure English.

Below are most of the obsolete word forms (or obscure, or corrupted words) that have been updated with far more correct English words:

The most important and obvious word replacements are these 5:

“Aloha” replaces “God”. It is the generic Aramaic word for “God”, and is used when His personal name isnt being referenced.

Assembly* replaces “church*”. Tyndale was murdered by the “church”, partly because “church” was not in his translation, except to reference a pagan temple!

“Evangel*” is the original English form of the Greek word “euaggelizo”. It is usually translated as “gospel”. Euaggelizo is a generic Greek term with various Good News applications in the Testimony. “Good News”, in caps, is used in the Gabriel Version to denote Yeshua’s Good News, rather than other types of good news, that are also “euaggelizo”.

“Yeshua*” replaces “Jesus”. His friends, family and Disciples never knew anyone with a “J” in their name!

Master replaces “Lord” (kurios, 2962) when referring to Yeshua. Today’s English only uses “Lord” in a few things, like warlords, landlords & British lords.

Yehovah replaces “Lord” in every place where the Tetragrammaton was likely inserted, in Paleo Hebrew form, into the oldest Aramaic, Greek and even Latin texts. This is explained on this link. “Yehovah” generally distinguishes “Lord” (the Father) from “Lord” (Yeshua), tho They actually share that name as well.

A hyperlinked word or phrase leads to a source that explains the choice of wording.

A “searchgodsword.org” link is to a Strong’s numbered word in a lexicon.

The rest of the word upgrades are alphabetical:

There are quite a few more obsolete word forms, but most are unique or nearly so. So I stopped listing them. The above were found early on.

Words ending with “eth” such as “cometh” and “est” such as “doest” have simply been changed (as into “come” and “do”) without being listed due to the sheer number of them.

Redundant Aramaic idioms like “answered and said” is simply “said”; “replied and said” is simply “replied”, etc. This redundancy never has worked in English.

Murdock’s use of Latinized names of people and places remain almost entirely intact, so that these names remain recognizable, unlike the Etheridge. He did use Cephas instead of Peter.

Obsolete word forms, such as for example “hewed”, are now “hewn”.

Some words are simply spelled differently now but pronounced the same. Then there are the “ough” words like “through”, “though” and “although”. I side with “thru”, “tho” and “altho” as a reminder that our English is in much need of phonetic reform. Interestingly, “straitened” was retained with the gh not present. So I’m a bit ahead of our time with some words, and have adopted true English grammar as far as quotation marks go.

One rule I follow is that every sentence must make sense and not contradict any other Text. Occasional verses are translated several ways when various versions are compared. Often the older literal versions, striving for accuracy, make no sense! The context is the best reference in these instances. I look at these until a light bulb comes on.

I’m much in favor of yet another reformation. Martin Luther posted his 95 theses against salable indulgences in 1517—almost half of a millennium ago—and he just scratched the surface of what needed to be reformed. But it isnt easy to to limit reformation to one realm. I passively want to encourage the elimination of apostrophes in all the “not” words. Apostrophes arent supposed to be permanent. They’re an evolutionary measure to indicate that too many letters are typically used and that a contraction is being created. They gradually disappear anyway. Logic would dictate that we should have bonafide words with these meanings without the crutches. I’ve eliminated perhaps thousands of “not” apostrophes from my writings. These few words account for the vast majority of the apostrophes in our language. My spell checker even rejects words with apostrophies, but doesnt reject words such as “doesnt”. I actually cringe every time I see these “useless evolutionary appendages”. I dont worry about offending anyone who isnt in favor of change with this small measure. I’ll leave the offending to the numerous doctrinal challenges made on this site.

The Roman Numerals were changed to Arabic numerals as I progressed thru the books. Also Murdock’s strange numbering of verses: 01, 02, 03 is now 1,2,3.

Some simpler synonyms read much better now, without notation. Frequently more than one English word is necessary to replace an Aramaic word, as is true with translations of any language.

Awkward negatives, such as “resist not evil” became “dont resist evil”. Any contraction is also my doing. Contractions sometimes necessitate other slight rewording.

Extra words that wouldnt be found in contemporary sentence structures are omitted, such as: “Enter you in by” is now “Enter in by”. And “seeking for you” is now simply “seeking you”. Also hundreds of sentences beginning with “and” and “for” is odd for English. “And” and “for” used to be used to separate sentences before some grammar reformer invented periods! Most of these can simply vanish; others should be replaced with “So” and “Then” and “But” etc.

Obsolete word sequences (and poor synonyms), such as “answered some of the scribes” are becoming “some of the Torah teachers answered”. It makes no sense to me for a translation to look like a translation, by retaining foreign sentence structures. So, for example, as a general rule in what was going to be named the New Murdock Translation, the subject precedes the predicate. Here is another example of Victorian English being “translated” into contemporary English:

“Against the Jews I have committed no offense, as thou also well knowest.”

“I have committed no offense against the Jews, as you know very well”.

Virtually all of the awkward wording has been removed. There is no reason for the Bible to be written in English unlike that of your daily newspaper,except for things like weights & measures etc, where we have no exact equivalents.

Sectarian vocabulary has been eliminated as well. Special jargon isnt authentic. Translations actually should not have words for trinity, (totally bogus) or ordained, that replaces 15 other specific words in the Greek alone, or sermons, that were copied from pagan Greek sophists, etc. The words used only in churches, have better synonyms.

Live Greek links are used extensively. There is an Aramaic concordance put out by the Way International, with similarities to the Strong’s, but it’s copyright forbids any printed usage without written permission, and if they are at all selective about who uses it—well I’m as “unorthodox” as they come! It appears to be pretty objective, despite some of the doctrinal positions of their recent past. Yet the online version (presumably the same as the printed version) only uses one word English synonyms that are woefully inadequate for such a nuanced language.

Despite being limited with regard to Aramaic reference works, I’m finding that there are hundreds of interesting things hiding in the Greek, that can be rendered more accurately. Passages about the Torah even have a direct effect on your eternal “reward”.

Two very interesting differences that I found while comparing every Greek verse to the Aramaic are found in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8. The Aramaic is in agreement with 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, about the dead being raised, while the Greek translations only promise “rest”, “relief” or “repose”, at this most critical time. Yet up to hundreds, or even thousands of years in the grave should be enough rest! Then there is a unique (so far as I know) disagreement among translators as to where to put the “burning fire”—some put it in verse 7, others in verse 8. This may stem from an even more important difference—WHO IS IN THE FIRE! The 16 Greek versions I looked at all had Yeshua and the “angels” in the fire, while all the Aramaic versions I checked had the wicked in the fire, as so many prophecies explain, such as Malachi 4:1-3. I think I can guess who is responsible for having Yeshua in the fire, while the dead in Messiah keep on sleeping!

Aside from modernizing many old English words with modern synonyms found in the Murdock and Etheridge, the following differences were made:

Missing capitalizations at the beginning of sentences are changed.

Hyphenated words that dont require hyphens, as well as merged words no longer separated, such as “for ever” became “forever”.

Many more quotation marks were added—at least in places that were previously indicated by a colon. For instance Murdock only used quotation marks four times in Matthew, but is riddled with them in contemporary English. Punctuation has changed considerably since 1851.

Pronouns for Yeshua and the Father are being capitalized, as a convenience.

Hundreds of colons were changed to semicolons or periods.

My footnotes are in numbered brackets, like this: [1].

Murdock’s or Etheridge’s edited footnotes are in lettered brackets, like this [A].

Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom will be retrofitted with verses from the Gabriel.

Why would a house painter, with no “orthodox credentials”, create a new version of the Testimony? The idea came as a surprise to me too. Yet I have had a life long desire to understand many of the mysteries of the Bible. As a young man, maybe in my teens, my mother, a Sunday school teacher, once grabbed my Strong’s Concordance out of my hands, and hurled it across the room. I was coming up with too many “strange ideas” in the Bible. My reception hasnt improved much since then. I dont suppose that quoting my own version of the Testimony of Yeshua (mistakenly known as the “New Covenant” or “New Testament”) in my book, Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom, will gain me many friends, but popularity is overrated.

The online Edition was available in 2007. 1st Edition published 2009. 2nd Edition 2010. You can buy The Testimony of Yeshua at cost, or I can email you a free copy.