Everlasting Kingdom: Unraveling the Bible’s Secrets

Word of Elohim

The Gabriel Version’s “NT” INDEX

The Gabriel Version’s WORD OF ELOHIM “OT” INTRODUCTION

This Tanakay (Bible) is a first draft.

Volume 1 Index

Volume 2 Index

Volume 3 Index

The INDEX and TEXT of the Word of Elohim [God] Gabriel Version, (the so-called Old Testament) is arranged in the original (Jewish) order. This is unlike the Septuagint order of over 99.99% of the English Bibles in existence. The Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures was the first to come up with the present day skewed book arrangement, with the Catholic Bibles also including the Apocrypha in the Septuagint order. What evolved into what is called the Septuagint today is really the work of Origen (almost 200 years after the time of the Messiah). The Scriptures and their order were well established long before Yeshua (Jesus) arrived, contrary to the heretical Council of Jamnia theory!

You’ve found my prototype version of The Word of Elohim. It’s the real name for the ‘Old Testament’. Several years ago it was a revision of a prototype of the World English Bible (which was still “in draft form”), which is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, that was based on the Revised Version, a British revision of the KJV, itself having been revised from the original 1611 version (that does not contain the letter “J”, for example—no Jesus, no Jehovah). This is my ever changing ethereal backup, here in cyberspace. Verses with italicized numbers in the Word of Elohim, “Gabriel Version” are finished. Verses with live links in them, are more developed, if not finished. Many thousands of changes were word processed into verses in various stages of development.

There are three primary objectives for creating this version:

Objective 1: The omission of the names Yehovah and Yeshua, and their replacement with dubious to pagan LORD, God and Jesus are a misuse of their names that will not go unpunished, as specified by the third Commandment (Exodus 20:7). The Leningrad Codex, the basis for all but one or so Bibles, differs from more recent Hebrew Bibles (ofthe last 900 years) in that it has the vowel points included, even ‘accidentally’ about 50 times in the Tetragrammaton where it is actually spelled YeHoVaH! (when substituting English letters).

Objective 2: There are perhaps thousands of live links to the wonderful NASB Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, so that you aren’t even tempted to just trust my English rendering.

Objective 3: I wanted to create a completely modern version of the entire Bible, with easily read plain wording and accuracy, even easier to read than the modern copyrighted versions, but free of copyright restrictions both online and in print, a version that doesn’t constantly remind you that it was translated from other languages. There should never be any impediments to the free usage of a Bible, as explained by the writers of the World English Bible who for many years have striven for accuracy, but with wording that is deliberately quite reminiscent of the old ASV—nothing like present day English. It will take years to complete without volunteer help (or money for paid help), but it gets better every week. The Gabriel Version version is classified as Creative Commons, with only “One Right Reserved”.

Virtually all Christians say that The Word of Elohim (not really the Word of God) is the entire Bible—the ‘Old Testament’ and the ‘New Testament’. Of the 48 places where “the Word of God” is mentioned in the KJV Bible, none of the references include the Testimony of Yeshua (the so called New Testament). And of the 76 times that the ‘New Testament’ mentions the ‘Scripture/s’, none of them are referencing the ‘New Testament’ either (most of it hadn’t even been written during the relevant times yet), tho many people interpret 2 Peter 3:16 as if it were an exception. The Word of Elohim is either the ‘Old Testament’—text or spoken, or the person of Yeshua (Jesus) period! So to be precise, this is the Gabriel Version version of The Word of Elohim. So every Bible contains the Word of Elohim—the translators just don’t seem to know it! The Bible is the Word of Elohim (‘Aloha’ in Yeshua’s native Aramaic) AND the Testimony of Yeshua COMBINED, two volumes:

Revelation 1:1-2, 9 THE Revelation of Yeshua [Jesus] Messiah, that Yehovah gave to Him to show to His servants—certain events that must of necessity take place soon. He revealed these events by sending His messenger to His servant John. 2 He was a witness to the Word of Aloha AND to the Testimony of Yeshua Messiah about everything he saw. ... 9 I John, your Friend and your partner in the tribulation and suffering that are ours in Yeshua Messiah, was on the island called Patmos, because of the Word of Aloha and the Testimony of Yeshua Messiah.

This is my ever changing rough draft ethereal backup, up here in cyberspace. Right now the Torah and the Writings are largely a very word processed revision of an early version of the World English Bible. (I am nearly finished with the Prophets—Isaiah thru Malachi.) Some verses need a lot of work. The quotation marks really need work; translations vary widely on their use. Some chapters, primarily the ones with live links, are in a much more complete state of development. Of the totally finished verses, again those indicated by italicized verse numbers, you would be hard pressed to find any verse, other than the most basic, exactly like that of any other version. (Try copying and pasting any finished verse from the Gabriel into a search engine “surrounded by quotation marks”, and in all but the simplest of verses, you end up back on my site!) Occasionally, in the unfinished portions, words that were mass cut and pasted don’t always work in some contexts. My ‘New Testament’ is finished (no need for italicized verse numbers there), after having spent 5,000+ hours updating the very obsolete wording of two Aramaic translations, and comparing each word with the Greek equivalents, and footnoting every significant difference I found.

Yeshua and His followers never said anything about an ‘Old Testament’. He always referred to it as either ‘The Word of Elohim’ (Aloha in His native Aramaic, aka God), or ‘the Scriptures’.

METHODOLOGY:

My methodology is simple. Rather than learn Hebrew and do a one man translation. I am comparing as many English translations as possible to form a composite rewording, benefiting from the combined efforts of the countless translations, commentaries and lexicons of the last couple of centuries. There are ever so many possible ways to to phrase a verse, since essentially all of the necessary words are already present and common to most modern translations. Usually each verse of the various translations has the same meaning—only the style changes. When all the versions are in agreement I usually just spend time on the style of those verses (unless something seems contradictory to other passages). So in most instances, I simply compose a new and eloquent way of saying the same thing (as is done with every copyrighted Bible). If there are differences, I first consult the NAS lexicon, based on the Codex Leningrad, the oldest complete Hebrew Bible in existence, to see if there is an apparent reason for the difference. In virtually all but the simplest of sentenses, the finished verses (those with italicised numbers) are always uniquely worded to some degree. This resolves most of the remaining differences. Then any time there is still a disparity or doubt, I consult a number of online commentaries, and almost any time there is a dispute, one of these sources gives me a satisfactory resolution. On rare occasions the renderings are all over the map. Whenever that happens, it is usually a sign that the Hebrew wording is unclear. Most of the time, in this instance, I side with the consensus, if not, I usually provide a footnote. Consulting the Targums and the Dead Seas Scrolls are on my list ‘to do list’. I have discovered instances where most or all of the translations follow traditionally common wordings, when there are very compelling reasons not to.

So here, for example, is a composite from the Gabriel Version that I pieced together from various sources. First read the rendering as I see it:

Isaiah 37:21-22 Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent a message to Hezekiah, that said, “This is what Yehovah, the Elohim of Israel says: Since you’ve prayed to Me about Sennacherib King of Assyria, 22 this is the 'message' that Yehovah has spoken against him. ‘The virgin maiden of Zion despises you and scorns you. The maiden Jerusalem wags her head at your back sides as you flee!

This is a quote from the account where “the Angel of the Lord” (the pre incarnate Yeshua) killed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers to protect Jerusalem.

I can just picture the (metaphoric) virgin maiden defiantly standing in a gate of Jerusalem waging her head at king Sennacherib and taunting a remnant of surviving ‘mighty’ warriors as they are fleeing from little Jerusalem. Head wagging is a frequently used expression of scorn in the Word of Elohim. I believe the Hebrew phrase accompaning this gesture was, “Na na, na na, na na”. I started getting this picture in my mind, and confirmed it to my satisfaction when I saw that the NAS Interlinear translated achar as ‘butt end’, ‘behind’ and ‘rear’ in some contexts! So verse 22 needs some ‘butt ends’ fleeing. Thoughts of the movie Braveheart came to mind—you know the part, only the shoe was on the other foot, er, so to speak.

The virgin/maiden Jerusalem seems to have left boot tracks on some behinds. See what Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible has to say about the virgin of verse 22:

“the virgin, the daughter of Zion; hath despised thee; and laughed thee to scorn; that, is the inhabitants of Zion, particularly of the fort of Zion, called a ‘virgin’, because it had never been forced, or taken and to show that it was a vain thing in Sennacherib to attempt it, as well as it would have been an injurious one, could he have accomplished it; since God, the Father of this virgin, would carefully keep her from such a rape; and he who was her husband to whom she was espoused as a chaste virgin, would defend and protect her; and the whole is designed to show the impotent malice of the king of Assyria; otherwise, at the time when these words were spoken, the daughter of Zion was in a fearful and trembling condition, and not in a laughing frame; but this declares what she might do now, and would do hereafter, for anything that he could do against her. ... the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee; or “after thee”; by way of scorn and derision; that is when he fled; which shows, that though these things are spoken as if they were past, after the manner of the prophets, yet were to come, and would be when Sennacherib fled, upon the destruction of his army.”

So to envision this scene as I do we need some “behinds” and some “fleeing”. Without both you don’t get the picture. The ESV, the NASB, the GW and the YLT all attempted to work in a ‘behind’, but they assumed it was the virgin slinking around behind the scenes, apparently cowering at the sight of Sennacherib’s fleeing behind! Now let’s do a checklist of various versions of Isaiah 37:22, the behind, I mean latter part of the verse:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) ... the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. No behinds, no implied fleeing.

American King James Version ... the daughter of Jerusalem has shaken her head at you. No behinds, no implied fleeing.

American Standard Version ... the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. No behinds, no implied fleeing.

Douay-Rheims Bible ... the daughter of Jerusalem hath wagged the head after [behind] thee. No behinds, no implied fleeing.

Darby Bible Translation ... the daughter of Jerusalem shaketh her head at thee. No behinds, no implied fleeing.

English Revised Version ... the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. No behinds, no implied fleeing.

Webster’s Bible Translation ... the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. No behinds, no implied fleeing.

World English Bible ... The daughter of Jerusalem has shaken her head at you. No behinds, no implied fleeing.

Young’s Literal Translation ... Behind thee shaken the head hath the daughter of Jerusalem. Wrong behind, (but closer than the other oldies), no implied fleeing.

Assyrian ‘behinds’—none, 4 misapplied behinds, 11 left out any semblance of the word!

implied ‘flee’ 2 out of 15

I also doubt that the more common rendering ‘daughter’ is intended in this verse. It would seem that the infrequent rendering ‘maiden’ is the sense in this verse (aside from just making more sense). The Assyrians and many other regional countries routinely named countries and cities after the wife-goddesses of the particular god of the region. Assyria “the land of Nimrod” (Micah 5:6) was no exception. Nimrod and his wife-mother-goddess Semiramis, later known as Ishtar (pronounced Easter), were worshiped as deities. ‘Maiden’ Jerusalem would have emphasized to the Assyrians that Jerusalem was no one’s wife-goddess.

Without using all of my resources I wouldn’t catch things like this.

There is one other difference in my methodology: I believe that the Creator is directly responsible for the original Hebrew Scriptures, and I have had some life changing miracles happen in my life. As a result, I am not looking for excuses to minimize the miraculous events I am describing, or minimize the Father Himself, or His Son.

‘Old Testament’?

The first half of this introduction is very much like the intro to The Testimony of Yeshua, but this is from the Hebrew and that changes things. This introduction reads somewhat like a checklist, and to an extent it is.

Tertullian was probably the first to apply the term ‘New Testament’ to the newer Messianic Texts, and ‘Old Testament’ to the Hebrew Scriptures in an attempt to make the Hebrew Scriptures seem obsolete! It’s a derogatory application of a legitimate term used once in in 2 Corinthians 3:14. This ‘Ancient (Old) Covenant (Contract)’ is really the contract found in Exodus chapters 20-23. In chapter 24:3 ancient Israel accepted the Ancient Contract. ‘Testament’ isn’t a synonym for ‘covenant’ and the ‘New Covenant’ isn’t a book. 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 Inspired Texts, they complement the Scriptures. Yeshua’s message was the aim and purpose of the Torah (Law). So I don’t use the term ‘New Testament’ except to explain the bias of the phrase’s origin.

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

“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

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” because the envoy (apostle) John called it that six times. He used “the Testimony of Yeshua Messiah” twice to describe the collective words of Yeshua in Revelation 1, thereafter he simply called it the Testimony of Yeshua (four times). 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.

I believe that what we now call the Bible was meant to be considered two, or even four books! The Jews created the acronym Tanak (or Tanakh), from three Hebrew consonants—TNK. ‘TaNaK’ stands for the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings—essentially a series of three books that John collectively called The Word of Aloha (Elohim in Aramaic), which is called ‘the Scripture/s’ 76 times in the ‘New Testament’. Adding what the Book of Revelation calls The Testimony of Yeshua makes four fairly equal sized books.

The Testimony of Yeshua was prophesied in the Tanak to be written, even tho the disciples themselves didn’t realize it until years after Yeshua had died:

Isaiah 8:13-20 Yehovah the Commander is the One you must regard as kadosh. He is the One you should fear. He is the One you should dread. 14 He [Yeshua Jesus] will be a safe haven. But for both houses of Israel, He’ll be a Stone to trip over, and a Rock to stumble over. He will be a trap and a snare for the residents of Jerusalem. [Yeshua: 1 Peter 2:4-8] will be a trap and a snare]. 15 A great many will stumble over Him, fall, be broken, be snared, and be captured.

16 In a time of distress, bind up [2] the Testimony and put a seal on the Torah among My disciples. 17 I’ll wait for Yehovah, who has 'turned away' from the 'descendants' of Jacob, and I’ll eagerly look for Him. 18 I and the children [disciples] who Yehovah has given Me are for signs and miracles in Israel from Yehovah the Commander, who lives on Mount Zion! 19 When they tell you to consult with mediums who use ventriloquism and wizards who whisper and mutter, shouldn’t people consult their Elohim? Should they consult the dead regarding the living?

The Torah AND the Testimony!

20 To the Torah AND to the Testimony! If people don’t speak in agreement with these Words, it’s because it [the truth] hasn’t dawned on them!

[2] See why the Testimony was written 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 furiously angry with the woman, and he went off to make war with the rest of her offspring, those who obey the Commandments of Yehovah [TORAH] AND have THE TESTIMONY OF YESHUA.

Revelation 19:10 I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said, “Don’t do that! I’m a fellow servant, I’m your brother who also adheres to THE TESTIMONY OF YESHUA [His ‘written statements’]. Worship Yehovah, because THE TESTIMONY OF YESHUA is spirit inspired utterances [or ‘the spirit of prophecy’].” (also: Revelation 1:2 & 9).

Revelation 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the bodies of those who were slain because of the Word of Aloha and for the Testimony of the Lamb that they had.

Isaiah 8:20 To the Torah AND to the Testimony! If people don’t speak in agreement with these Words, it’s because it [the truth] hasn’t dawned on them!

The footnotes in most 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. For brevity no disclaimers are made or contrary views noted. Consider them things I would urge you to research for yourself.

Have you ever read the copyright statement in your Bible? Some of them bind the Inspired 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 Father’s truths! I want to completely move away from versions that restrict quotations of the Bible.

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 the original sentence structuring—the sequence of the words. Unusual word order, foreign to your language doesn’t necessarily add anything that the Bible was intended to reveal either. The Bible was written in the language of the day. And so far as I know there isn’t a single bit of theological jargon in the Bible, so there really isn’t any in the Gabriel. But when paraphrasing adds new meanings or takes away from the original thoughts, 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. A ‘version’ like the King James Version is not really a new translation. Over 80% of the King James New Testament was taken, without acknowledgement, from William Tyndale’s translation. The translators were only trying to improve or modernize the language! That is what I am doing with the Gabriel VERSION. There is always a choice, translators can either accurately translate into present day language, or they can choose to translate into something else!

Biblish is a language that was never used in any culture at any time. Is a disservice to the reader:

“Biblish is a colloquial term used to refer to the dialect of English found in many English Bible versions. This dialect of English is usually only spoken by church people who are familiar with the Bible and the ‘sacred language’ which is found in some versions of the Bible and in the church environment. Biblish includes vocabulary found in Bible versions which use this ‘sacred language,’ rather than ordinary English, as well as non-English syntax which is borrowed from the original Hebrew and Greek [should be Aramaic] biblical languages. Biblish contrasts with the use of vocabulary, syntax, and discourse patterns which are Natural in the translation language.”

Significant words that have been added, strictly as suggestions for translational clarity, are placed in italics like this, as was done in the KJV, an extraordinary idea. The Word of Elohim Gabriel Version continues the use of italization. Italicised words are used to help thoughts flow in English and should be viewed with caution since they are not actually present in the actual Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Simple connecting words aren’t usually marked in translations that mark clarifying words because there are so many. Unfortunately, the use of italics is a convention largely dropped in the modern translations. They were intended to smooth out the rough places that arise, of necessity, from translating, and help the thoughts flow into English. Sarcasm is occasionally noted with “quotation marks”. Simple connecting words aren’t usually italicized in translations that mark clarifying words because there are so many. Italization has not been a high priority. Perhaps I’ll live long enough to check each verse.

While it is quite helpful to indicate when a clarifying word is totally missing in the original Hebrew, by italicizing, I feel that it is also important to mark the words and phrases of lesser clarity—words difficult to translate or just awkward. A unique feature of the Gabriel Version is that in situations where the most literal wording would be rather meaningless in English, quotation marks ‘like this’ (changing to 'like this') indicate that a word or phrase has been interpreted or clarified from existing words. So for example “He who walks righteously” may become “He who 'lives' righteously”. When literal translations attempt to translate idioms they end up with a jumble of words. Idioms seldom translate, that’s why they’re called idioms! However, it isn’t uncommon to find English idioms that appear to have been coined by someone in the past who understood the Biblical ones (or else they really were preserved all this time but the origin was lost). With a bit of tweeking some of these idioms can be substituted, rather than a generic substitution of words, which is necessary for sense to be made of an idiomatic passage otherwise. These could be dubbed ‘idiomatic quotation marks’. Sarcasm is also occasionally noted with ‘quotation marks’.

* An Asterisk indicates that his is how it reads in the oldest known Scriptures, the Aramaic Targums. They were translated from the most ancient Hebrew texts for generations of Jews who spoke Aramaic after the diaspora. The Targums were written to be read side by side with the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogues for Jews who were using the Hebrew out of respect, not as a spoken language. They were a teaching tool. And since they were sister languages using the same alphabet it was quite efficient, especially since they are paraphrased for clarity. “This custom continues today in Yemenite Jewish synagogues.”

The Septuagint will not be ‘consulted’! “What is called the Septuagint today is the work of Origen (almost 200 years after the time of Christ).”

So many Bible wordings are tied up with copyright restrictions that the best ways to state something are often already ‘in use’.

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 shouldn’t 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). It is for all time, inspired and sent to you from heaven by our very living Father! I see no reason to sprinkle the text with to many Hebrew words, except as references, so long as an English word without a pagan etymology can be used. What is the motive?

Understanding the Bible doesn’t 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 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:

“[T]he main flaw that people generally have with Functional [Dynamic] translation is that it looks suspiciously like paraphrase rather than translation. This isn’t 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.”

It is interesting to note that the very first translation of the Scriptures, that being from the Hebrew into its sister language, the Aramaic, is the Targums. And the Targums utilized Dynamic equivalence or paraphrasing! This was a highly respected mode of teaching in the synagogues once Aramaic became the spoken language of the Jews. There was absolutely no restriction against adding a few ‘italicized words’ (so to speak) to clarify a point!

The Word of Elohim, Gabriel Version strives for ‘Dynamic’ accuracy as well as ease of reading, but don’t think that the simplicity of the text has to diminish the accuracy. Almost anything can be explained, given enough simple terms. Yet anywhere that a technical understanding is beneficial, I don’t hesitate to jump into the technical mode, accompanied by a live lexicon link. Many of the more important doctrinal points found in the Gabriel are linked to Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom.)

“Sadly, English Bible translators have an unfortunate tendency to sacrifice comprehension and clarity in a misguided attempt at ‘literal accuracy’—an oxymoron, more often than not.”

Two of the most important word replacements are these:

Yehovah replaces the pseudonym ‘LORD’, or in the case of the World English Bible (that serves as the background framework of the Gabriel), the name Yahweh (of strictly Samaritan origin and use), more on this later.

Secondly, ‘Elohim’ replaces ‘God’. It is the generic Hebrew word for ‘God’, and is used when His personal name isn’t being referenced—2,736 or so times. It’s a word that clearly references a pagan deity, that has replaced the word Elohim, a title approved of in the Word of Elohim (‘OT’) that 2,736 times.

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

A ‘biblehub.com’ link is to a Strong’s numbered word in a lexicon.

Latinized names of people and places remain almost entirely intact, so that their names remain recognizable. I’m content to rid the Scriptures of paganized vocabulary in reference to Elohim, as illustrated by my glossary, without putting people off by using a lot of Hebrew terms just because they are Hebrew terms.

I have decided to render a bit more thought for thought in the Word of Elohim than I did in the Testimony of Yeshua. Somehow it seems to be more necessary for clarity. One rule I followed 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, while 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.

On gender neutrality: Wherever ‘man’ is used but ‘humanity’ is really the implied intent, language inclusive of women will be used:

Genesis 1:27 So Elohim created mankind in His own image. In the image of Elohim He created them. He created them male and female.

Deuteronomy 8:3He humbled you by allowing you go hungry, and then fed you with manna, something that neither you or your ancestors were familiar with [check how many ways ‘yada’ is translated!], so He could make you understand that people don’t live by bread alone, but by every word originating from the mouth of Yehovah.

Paragraph breaks and quotations marks are the last thing I will address, for the most part.

Gender neutrality shouldn’t be a big issue. It’s a smokescreen covering the real issues!

Pronouns referring to Yeshua and His Father are being capitalized. Very few are really in dispute.

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

My 4 books, the Mysteries of the Everlasting Kingdom series uses quotations from the Gabriel, unless noted.

Why would a house painter with no ‘orthodox credentials’ create a new version of the Bible? The idea came as a surprise to me too. In 2007 I discovered that the ‘New Testament’ was really written in Aramaic, not Greek, and that the only accurate versions of it that I am aware of were printed in 1849 and 1851, and in very obscure English. So I set out to create a new Testimony of Yeshua (What the apostle John called it.) That took me over three years and thousands of hours. It was part of a life long desire to understand the mysteries of the Bible. But another very important reason for a new Bible is that I quote thousands of Bible verses on my website and there are copyright restrictions on every English version of the Bible written in contemporary English. So rather than risk going to jail quoting from greedy copyright protected material, I decided to create a free version. For over forty years I have been using Bible reference works to verify words. What I call The Personal Bible Project is the next step:

The Personal Bible Project: People who are serious about Bible study often have wide margin Bibles with lots of notes scribbled into them, or even color coding. Eventually I hope to finish this UNcopyright protected Bible that people can publish for personal use with the capability of adding their own footnotes to it, or simply enjoy a truly modern English Bible, derived from the true original languages, where the only requirement is that you allow other people know what it is you are quoting from! Presently this doesn’t exist. Perhaps you know of mistranslations that you would love to have fixed and of course footnoted in your copy. This could easily be done with any older uncopyrighted Bible right now, and very inexpensively with companies like lulu.com where publishing even just one book is very practical. The Testimony of Yeshua is a step in the right direction, but 1/2 of the Bible needs to be finished. Completing The Word of Elohim, Gabriel Version will be a huge task, and a free version is within sight, but without some editorial helpers, I wouldn’t print it for a couple of years. Still, my odt copies of the Gabriel can be sent for free. It’s updated very often.

There is one other reason that really pushed me most into beginning The Word of Elohim, Gabriel Version. It’s the 7,038 references (in this version) to Yehovah, that are missing in most every Hebrew translation. I simply got tired of seeing falsified names of the Father and the son in my Bible. If that were yhe only change I made it would be well worth it.

Before explaining the methodology of the Gabriel Tanakay construction, I’d like to reference the heritage of English Bibles:

Timeline of English Bible Translations

1384 AD: Wycliffe’s Bibles were the first hand written copys of the entire Bible. It also included the Apocrypha.

1455 AD: Gutenberg invented the Printing Press. Books could now be mass produced instead of being handwritten. The first book ever Printed was Gutenberg’s Bible in Latin.

1526 AD: William Tyndale’s New Testament was the first ‘New Testament’ printed in the English language.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale’s Bible was the first complete Bible printed in English. It included the Apocrypha. It utilized Luther’s German text and the Latin as sources.

1537 AD: The Matthews Bible was the second complete Bible printed in English. It was a composite of Tyndale’s Pentateuch and New Testament (1534-1535 edition) and Coverdale’s Bible, and some of Roger’s own translation.

1539 AD: The “Great Bible” was the first English language Bible authorized for public use. It incorporated much from the Tyndale Bible with the “objectionable features” revised. As the Tyndale Bible was incomplete, Coverdale translated the remaining books of the Tanak (Old Testament) from the Latin Vulgate and German translations, rather than working from Aramaic, Hebrew or even Greek texts.

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible was the first English language Bible in print to add verse numbers to each chapter. The Geneva Bible was translated from the Greek ‘New Testament’ and the Hebrew Scriptures. The English rendering was substantially based on the earlier translations by William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale (more than 80 percent of the language in the Genevan Bible is from Tyndale). However, the Geneva Bible was the first English version in which the entire Tanak was translated directly from the Hebrew.

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible: The translators of the King James Version were instructed to use the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible as their basis, although several other existing translations were taken into account. After it was published in 1611, the King James Version soon took the Bishops’ Bible’s place as the de facto standard of the Church of England.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken’s Bible was the first English language Bible to be Printed in America. It was a King James Version, without the Apocrypha.

1833 AD: Noah Webster’s Bible, a revision of the King James Bible was made after his famous dictionary.

1849 The J. W. Etheridge ‘New Testament’ is a very literal translation from the Aramaic, the language that Yeshua actually spoke in and that the Testimony of Yeshua (NT) was originally penned in.

1851 James Murdock’s ‘New Testament’ is another literal translation from the Syriac {Aramaic} Peshito Version. As with the Etheridge, it’s literal to a fault.

From this point in time on, virtually every translation of the ‘New Testament’ has been based on very defective Greek texts. Most of the modern translations controversy goes away once people realize that the New Testament, (Testimony of Yeshua) was really originally written in Aramaic! “Earlier translations of the Bible, including the Authorized King James Version, tended to rely on Byzantine type texts, such as the Textus Receptus, that are much more similar to the vast Majority of Greek texts that have been gathering dust since 1881, when a number of translations began to use the ‘critical Greek editions’, beginning with the translation of the Revised Version in England in 1881-1885 (using Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text). English translations produced during the twentieth century increasingly reflected the work of textual criticism, although even new translations are often influenced by earlier translation efforts.”

1881-1885 AD: The English Revised Version of the Bible was the First major English revision of the KJV. “The revisers were charged with introducing alterations only if they were deemed necessary to be more accurate and faithful to the Original [as in the corrupt Sinaiticus/Vaticanus Mss] Greek and Hebrew texts. In the New Testament alone more than 30,000 changes were made, over 5,000 on the basis of what was [fraudulently] considered better Greek manuscripts. The work was begun in 1879, with the entire work completed in 1885.”

1901 AD: The American Standard Version was the first major American revision of the KJV. The Basis of the ‘NT’ is also the corrupted Sinaiticus/Vaticanus Mss. The ASV was the basis of four other revisions. They were the Revised Standard Version (1946-1952/1971), the Amplified Bible (1965), the New American Standard Bible (1971, and revised in 1995), and the Recovery Version (1999). A fifth revision is still in the making, the World English Bible: “primarily an update of the 1901 edition”. The ASV was also the basis for Kenneth N. Taylor’s Bible paraphrase, The Living Bible, that was published in 1971.

1952 AD: The Revised Standard Version is mentioned under the NRSV.

1971 AD (updated in 1995): The New American Standard Bible: “While preserving the literal accuracy of the 1901 ASV, the NASB has sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention has been given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In 1995, the text of the NASB was updated for greater understanding and smoother reading. The New American Standard Bible present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1995 printing.” “A comparison of the textual and stylistic choices of twenty translations against 15,000 variant readings shows the following rank of agreement with the Nestle-Aland 27th edition ...” The conclusion is that the NASB and the ‘Old’ ASB were most ‘faithful to’ the distorted Westcott and Hort texts, while the Murdock Peshitta translation, the New King James Bible and the King James Version were the furthest from it, (in fact unrelated). On the other hand, the NASB is a ‘very faithful’ rendition of the Hebrew Scriptures. An excellent article on the new versions is found here with Part 2 and here Parts 8 thru 4. Yes, the numbers are out of sequence, and some Parts are gone. I notified the site, but it’s an amazing read!

1973 AD: The New International Version is in a class by itself. It was published by Zondervan as a "Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the Bible. The New Testament was released in 1973 and the full Bible in 1978. It underwent a minor revision in 1984 and a major revision in 2010. The text used for the Tanak (Old Testament) was the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Hebrew Text. Other ancient texts consulted were the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targum, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. The text used in translating the [Testimony] New Testament was the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament [Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text]. According to Zondervan, publisher of the NIV, the translation has become the most popular modern English translation of the Bible, having sold more than 215 million copies worldwide. A quick overview of the differences between the Minority texts and the Majority texts can be found here. The controversy is almost always framed as the KJV vs the modern versions. Why the stark differences? See why here! The controversy over gender names is a joke, compared to what is really at stake! Zondervan Publishers also owns Harper Collins, the publishers of The Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.

1982 AD: The New King James Version states that “The aim of its translators was to update the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and literary beauty of the original 1611 KJV version. Finally, a modern Bible based on the Majority Texts! The 130 translators believed in unyielding faithfulness to the original [as they presumed] Greek, Aramaic [in Daniel], and Hebrew texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Also agreed upon for most New King James Bibles was, easier event descriptions, history of each book, and added dictionary and updated concordance.” “According to the preface of the New King James Version (p. v-vi), the NKJV uses the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament, with frequent comparisons made to the Ben Hayyim edition of the Mikraot Gedolot published by Bomberg in 1524–25, which was used for the King James Version. Both the Old Testament text of the NKJV and that of the KJV come from the ben Asher text (known as the Masoretic Text). However, the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica used by the NKJV uses an earlier manuscript (the Leningrad Manuscript B19a) than that of the KJV. [The Leningrad codex is the oldest complete copy of the Scriptures. It also ‘accidentally’ includes Father’s complete name (Yehovah), about 50 times, with all the three vowel points included, tho generally the o is omitted to help prevent any Jews from accidentally pronouncing His name. So the other 6,000 references spell His name Yehvah “The New King James Version also uses the Textus Receptus (‘Received Text’) for the New Testament, just as the King James Version had used. The translators have also sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call ‘complete equivalence’ in contrast to ‘dynamic equivalence’ used by many other modern translations.” Some of the KJV only crowd have made a stink over the NKJV claiming corruptions. On this site, for example, the translators are harshly chastised for changing the word ‘corrupt’ to ‘peddling’ in 2 Corinthians 2:17. The difference is that the NKJV uses the primary Greek definition of kapeleuo, while the KJV used the secondary definition. I find it difficult to fault the NKJV translators in the translation of a word used only once in the Greek text, with their opting for the primary meaning. However the Aramaic word is more precise than either. It refers to ‘mixing’ or ‘diluting’, which in this case implies syncretism: slanting pagan philosophy into a translation, a practice that began very early on. Their many other criticisms don’t appear to me to be valid either.

1989 AD: The New Revised Standard Version and the RSV (1952) claim to “... have a ‘history’; they are direct descendants of Tyndale and AV. [Glossing over the fact that a totally different Greek text base was substituted]. Just as the AV was, strictly, a revision rather than a new translation (taking its lineage from Tyndale and Coverdale, via the Great Bible and the Bishop’s Bible), so was the RSV a revision of the American Standard Version (1901) which in its turn was a revision of the AV via the Revised Version (1881 &: 1885). This may explain why the RSV has found a place in so many hearts. The preface ‘To the Reader’ of the NRSV restates much of the earlier Preface to the RSV. It explains the philosophy of both versions and the reasons why a new revision had been deemed necessary. It acknowledges their debt to the King James Version which has been termed ‘the noblest monument of English prose’, but shows how the continuing discoveries of older manuscripts [as in the corrupt Sinaiticus/Vaticanus Mss] and ongoing investigations into linguistic features of the text have prompted the proliferation of new translations into English. ‘Following the publication of the RSV Old Testament in 1952, significant advances were made in the discovery and interpretation of documents in Semitic languages related to Hebrew. In addition to the information that had become available in the late 1940s from the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk, subsequent acquisitions from the same area brought to light many other early copies of all the books of the Hebrew Scriptures (except Esther), though most of these copies are fragmentary. During the same period early Greek manuscript copies of books of the New Testament also became available.’”

2001 AD: The English Standard Version was, first and foremost, a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version, and even so only about 5%–10% of the RSV text was changed in the ESV. Many corrections were made to satisfy objections to some of the RSV’s interpretations that conservative Protestants had considered as theologically liberal, for example, reverting from ‘young woman’ back to ‘virgin’ in Isaiah 7:14. The language was modernized to remove ‘thou’ and ‘thee’ and replace obsolete words (e.g., ‘jug’ for ‘cruse’). Aside from using fraudulent texts for the Testimony of Yeshua, see other reasons, “Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version”, by Mark Strauss.

2002 AD: The Message is extremely paraphrased. Here are some side by side comparisons of the KJV and the Message. Enough said.

2004 AD: The New Living Bible is online here. “The New Living Translation (NLT) is a translation of the Bible into modern English. Originally starting out as an effort to revise The Living Bible, the project evolved into a new English translation from Hebrew and Greek texts. Some stylistic influences of The Living Bible remained in the first edition (1996), but these are less evident in the second edition (2004, 2007)... The New Living Translation used translators from a variety of denominations. The methodology combined an attempt to translate the original texts simply and literally with a dynamic equivalence approach used to convey the thoughts behind the text where a literal translation may have been difficult to understand or even misleading to modern readers... The Old Testament translation was based on the Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) and was further compared to other sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Greek manuscripts, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac Peshitta, and Latin Vulgate. The New Testament translation was based on the two [corrupted] standard editions of the Greek New Testament (the UBS 4th revised edition and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition).”

The World English Bible is a public domain (no copyright!) translation of the Bible that is currently in draft form. It is said to be based on the American Standard Version of the Bible, first published in 1901, using the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensa for the ‘Old Testament. But while commending the Wescott and Hort texts, the NIV in particular, the translators have rather quietly reverted to the much better Greek Majority Texts for their ‘New Testament’. I had to check Matthew 20 for any deletions to be sure. It’s the first version in modern history being produced without a profit motive. Work on the World English Bible began in 1997 [what’s the rush?]. The World English Bible project was started to produce a modern version of Bible in English without the archaic English, but deliberately not updating to contemporary English. Instead of transliterating the Tetragrammaton, as the American Standard Version had done, they substituted the popular Samaritan ‘Yahweh’, rather than the nearly correct Jehovah that the ASV utilizes. (There was no letter J in any language until about 500 years ago—no Jesus, no Jehovah.) Being public domain means that you can freely copy it in any form, including electronic and print formats. It is currently being edited for accuracy and readability. The ‘New Testament’ is finished and is available in print and online. The Psalms, and Proverbs are also close to how they will read when they are finished, but most of the Tanak (OT) still contains some archaic grammar that is slowly being revised.

Many of the arguments of the KJV-only crowd, concerning the Minority texts, are quite accurate and compelling. Breaking into the middle of one such KJV-only writers commentary illustrates this. After viewing the vast majority of modern versions being based on 3 or so flawed Greek copies, you can easily see why some people are suspicious of every modern version. Where I differ with the KJV-only people is that some minority versions are available without all of the archaic language—right now, just over 400 years after the KJV revision was made.

NOW FOR MY METHODOLOGY: How can a person who doesn’t read Hebrew create a version of the Bible? I’m glad you asked. First, calling it a version implies that it isn’t a direct translation. But then I don’t suppose there is an English translation anywhere that hasn’t been based on a preceeding version from this long history of English Translation predecessors, other than of course the NIV’s ‘New Testament’, mentioned above.

The difference with this version is that rather than learn Hebrew myself, I am reviewing the collective renderings and conclusions of as many Hebrew translators as I can, one verse at a time. The collective wisdom of virtually every Hebrew scholar is available free on the internet. So this version is almost entirely based (and linked to) free internet Bibles, lexicons (dictionaries) and commentaries. I view every single verse in several modern versions side by side before rewording the Gabriel version. Most verses inply the same thing, no matter which translation is used! Verse after verse the translations differ only in the way they are worded. It is amazing how many ways a statement can be made with nearly all the same words, with the same end result. The style is the biggest difference between all of the versions, old or new, with only a minority of verses in any version actually coming to different conclusions, a different meaning, (but this minority is taken very seriously). So coming up with a new version for most verses is only a matter of rewording! As I go thru the various versions, I see that most of them have a few excellent renderings. No one modern translation, in my view, consistently outdoes the others. Then there are the phrases. Often single phrases are clearly superior in one version over another, so a composite of all of the best phrases would look really good. But I am being as careful as possible to create entirely unique verses as often as humanly possible. Other than for the most basic verses, it isn’t that difficult to be somewhat unique with every verse.

But consider that, “The [English] vocabulary has grown from the 50,000 to 60,000 words in Old English to the tremendous number of entries — 650,000 to 750,000 — in an unabridged dictionary of today”, not counting the technical terms that put it at over two million. Compare this with a mere 5,000 words used in the entire Hebrew Scriptures! There is an abundance of room for English synonyms to be used. So for each single Biblical Hebrew word we have 150 nuanced words! So I keep a large thesaurus right next to me as I look for just the right nuance in English. To make matters worse, when a person consults a Hebrew lexicon it is easy to see that the few words present aren’t used very creatively. I believe that there are a lot of nuances lost due to traditional renderings. Few translators are willing to rock the boat and be a little more expressive with the alternative possible renderings lying there undisturbed in the lexicons. While as a non Hebrew speaker I can’t do much with sentense structure, and rely on comparisons with a variety of actual translations for that, I do feel at liberty to draw from the wealth of English synonyms based on logic, context accompanied by live links.

There is one ‘philosophy’ that puts me in a different class than many of the translators—I believe:

2nd Timothy 3:15-17 and that from your childhood you were taught from the Kadosh Writings, ‘things’ that can give you the wisdom to obtain eternal Life, thru faith in Yeshua Messiah. 16 Every Scripture [literally, ‘writing’] that was written by the spirit is profitable for doctrine for proving convictions, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, 17 so that a person of Aloha can become ‘very adept’ and accomplished in every good work.

It is apparent that these Scriptures leading to eternal Life are referring to the Tanak, contemptuously dubbed the ‘Old Testament’, since all 50 other references to Scripture/s in the Testimony of Yeshua (NT) refer to it, including a twisted interpretation of 2 Peter 3:16. These Scriptures were not nailed to the cross, they are your ticket to eternal life! The Scriptures are the part of the Bible that include the Torah, the Writings and the Prophets—the part of the Bible that Timothy had from his ‘childhood’. The ‘NT’ was still being written, including this letter to Timothy! Same goes for ‘the Word of God’ (Elohim). No reference to ‘the Word of God’ includes the Testimony of Yeshua. Look them up!

I also know who Israel really is, so that in a verse like Joel 3:1-2, I know what is really going on.

The prototype online edition of The Word of Elohim was made available on 1/7/2011.

“One Right Reserved” Unlimited quotations from The Word of Elohim, ranging from a verse to the entire book may be freely distributed in any medium, so long as a link to everlastingkingdom.info is provided and —GB follows each quotation (tho for most verses it still needs lots of work, unless the verse number is italicized).

Matthew 10:8 ... Freely you have received, freely give.

Lon Martin, zech14@proton.me

Minor update March 11, 2015