~ Books ~
- Search -
~ Bible ~
VW-Edition FAQs: --Reader Comments & Questions
[From a person who had stopped reading -any- Bible due to all the controversies regarding translation issues...wanting the 'right' one.]
I tend to read slowly. I have to read a lot of tech data in my job and to be thorough I must go slow and be accurate. It has become a habit that I can't break. I have a hard time browsing or skimming. With that said reading my KJV I read very slowly. The writing style of the old English is harder for me to follow so I will re-read many passages to get it. I'm not the sharpest tool in the toll-box either :)
What I have found reading VW edition is that it just flows in today's English. As a result I can read close to double what I normally read in the same allotted time and understand what I have read. I can sit and read the whole book of Romans or Corinthians in one sitting. That would normally take a couple of days for me. It really helps me when I can read larger sections.
I must admit I still have a strange feeling not exclusively reading KJV. I feel like looking over my shoulder to see if anyone was watching. I have looked up a couple of the differences and the name for the book of James vs Jacob really stands out to me. I never knew that. I love the truth!
When will VW-Edition be ready to purchase? (update: 1/20/06)
Names of God
Since God's names are so important, let's address this issue:
Other than some of the names that include descriptive words, such as "God-Who-Sees" [El ro'iy] (Gen16:13), and other names such as "Almighty" [Shadday] (Gen49:25), etc; based on my work from Psalms thru Malachi so far, I have found that there are essentially five different basic names for God in the O.T. Hebrew (a couple of them have slight variants), that are rendered from the KJV and onward in other English translations and KJ-upgrades typically as, "Lord" and "God". They use these 'two' to render the 'five' different Hebrew names. In so-doing, they have limited much of the 'richness' in understanding the Most High and "His wonderful works to the sons of men." (Ps107:8)
When Ps43:4 in KJV says, "..I will go unto the altar of God, unto God.." there are actually two different words used there, "Elohiym and El". When reading the KJV it merely seems like emphasis is being given by 'repeating' God's name. But they are two -different- names.
In Ex20:5 when KJV says, "..I the LORD thy God am a jealous God.." there are three different words, "Yehovah, Elohiym, El". Again, God's name is not merely being 'repeated'; but each name has a specific meaning, which we have been robbed of all these years.
Here are the five basic different names, that have been traditionally rendered, simply, as "God" and/or "Lord"
Hebrew: Typical/Traditional: VW-Edition: ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ YHWH GOD, LORD Jehovah Yahh GOD, LORD YAH Elohiym God God El God Mighty God Adonay Lord Lord YHWH == the existing One; from "I AM that I AM"(Ex3:14) Yahh == contraction, shortened form of YHWH (Ps150:6) Elohiym == the basic plural word for "god". Used for both the Most High, as well as false gods. El == somewhat of a generic middle-eastern word from O.T. times for "god". Often used in conjunction with other words to attach God's name to them. e.g. Beth-el (house of God), Dani-el (God my judge), Nathana-el (gift of God), Ishma-el (God who hears), Isra-el (God prevails), etc. However, unlike Elohiym, the word itself also means "god-like, mighty one, might, strength, power". That's why Jacob's name was not changed to Isra-elohiym. El is a word denoting strength Indeed, there are a few places where, when the context is not referring to -a- "god", but to "strength", the word "el" is translated, for instance: "..the -power- [el] of my hand.." (Gen31:29) Thus, even though in Hebrew it can be said with a simple single word, "El", to convey its full meaning into English it was imperative to add a helping word and render it "Mighty God" when referring to the Most High. Adonay == This word "lord" can be used of both the Most High, as well as men. If a person was bowing before a king and saying, "My lord..." the word is this same (or variations of) "adonay"
Now, back to Ps22:1, where this question started: Notice in Mt27:46, Jesus does not call out "Jehovah, Elohiym or Adonay". It is a modified (Syro-Chaldaic) form of "El", which is the word we find in Ps22:1. Thus, while Jesus was hanging on the cross, in utter agony, separated from the Father, the One with the 'power' (el) for His "deliverance", He cries out to the only One who was "Mighty" (el) enough, who 'could' rescue Him, if it could have been God's plan, and still have saved sinful man.
Now, while we have referenced the "KJV" in this explanation, we're not 'bashing' on anybody here. But it should be understood that the KJV has been the 'standard' against which many translations are compared, and upon which most study tools are based. There have been many "KJ" updates and variations. KJV is somewhat the "root" from which all the rest of today's English translations have branched out. NKJV and LITV come closest to correcting many of KJV's problems, aside from the primary old-English linguistic concerns. But in the matter of God's names, I don't know of any that go nearly far enough in fixing KJV's errors. Sorry if this offends any KJ-onlyists who feel that the KJV actually 'corrects' the 'original' Heb/Grk from which it was taken; but if a person compares between the texts, facts are undeniable facts.
Some names do not roll-off-the-tongue as 'liturgically' smoothly (a la Third Millennium Bible's publishers' stated goals) as "Lord" and "God" do...maybe that's why they did it? I don't know. But in doing so, they are not 'faithful' to God's Word; to God's -names-. They have robbed Bible readers of the full richness of God's essence in many places, and God of His full honor and glory. Ps22:1 is merely one of many, many, -MANY- such instances. That's why the VW-Edition is being compiled.
Let me say it this way...where major important doctrines are concerned, there is no question as to word 'choices'. The words are quite clear when searched out with an honest heart. Yes, there are places that pop up where I do a bit of head-scratching, and searching...but I have yet to have any of those be a situation where a primary doctrine was involved. It had more to do with non-critical things...but in my desire to have things as they should be, I spend the time to try to ferret the matter out carefully.
PHILIPPIANS 2:6 (Not Clinging?)
The VW-translation reads that Jesus "being in the form of God, did not consider clinging, to be equal with God". I am not sure of the meaning of this. Please explain.
But to be honest, the NIV reads a bit strangely as well - saying that Jesus "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped".
The NIV and NASB mix around, grammatically, what things belong to what. They have the infinitive "to be" associated with "grasped", whereas it is actually associated with "equal with God". The word for "robbery/grasped/clinging" is nominative, which they have made verbal. The VW-edition took a verbal word "cling" and added an "ing" to make it into a gerund, which is a verbal-noun, thus retaining the proper grammatical order of things.
Yes, I recall having spent a good deal of time on that spot with the VW-edition, and I figured some might wonder about the word "clinging"... but it just seemed like the closest word to the correct meaning there.
I suspect the word "grasping" could equally be fitting. However, to grasp suggests reaching out for something one doesn't yet possess; whereas to cling is the act of, well... clinging to something one does possess; which is what the case was with Jesus...by the context within that verse. Thus, the word "robbery" is not correct there, either, because by definition, to rob indicates the taking of something not belonging to the thief. But the context is quite clear: "..being in the form of God.." He -already- was there, He already possessed; He said: "the Father and I are One" (Jn10:30); but did not 'cling' to that position, in order that He could humble Himself to man-hood, to effect our redemption.
GENESIS 24:27 (In vs On?)
Most translations say "I BEING IN THE WAY" and yet, in the VW Edition, it is "BEING ON THE WAY."
There is a volume of difference in meaning by just one preposition here, and I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly.
The difference you are noticing is 'old' English vs 'modern' usage. If you read other places in the KJV and others, it has people going up "into" the mountains, too. Or "in" the mountains. Old English often used "in" somewhat synonymously to the way we use "on". And as I think on this, this likely comes from English's (Romance) Latin ancestry...if one remembers singing "O Come all ye faithful" in Latin, there is the phrase "venite, venite in Bethlehem"; where "in" is what we sing in English as "to".
However, for the Genesis passage, if Abraham's servant had been "in" the way, the way we use English, would that not indicated a "hindrance" to God....you know, like being "in the way"....so the person says, "get out of the way....and let me...." The way we speak English today, we go "on" journeys, not "in" them. We travel "on" paths, not "in" them. The servant was "on" his way, in obedience to Abraham.
1Samuel 13:3 (Saul was forty years old)
This is a passage where the Hebrew text is missing the actual number. Some translations leave it blank. Some word it that Saul reigned "one year" and -then- when he had reigned "two years" he did thus-and-so. NASB says "forty", and NIV "thirty".
There is enough in the text to know that it is about "how old" Saul was; NOT how long he reigned before he reigned -another- "two years". The word for "reign" is one that means "take to the throne, begin to reign" etc. And the word "son" (ben) is in there, which indicates the way Hebrew speaks of age. e.g. "the son of so-many years" Thus, it is clear that the intent of the passage is to say, "Saul was the son of xxxx years when he began to reign" But what is missing is the "xxxx".
Inserting "forty" (in italics) is a "best guess" that scholarship might suggest to us. Certainly, David became king at 30. (2Sa5:4) But many others tended to ascend to their thrones, or begin the careers or ministries for which they were known, at 40.
PSALM 1:1 (has not vs does not)
We just purchased the VW Bible and have a question:
You write: Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor has stood in the way of sinners, nor has sat in the seat of the scornful. (Ps1:1)
Question: Why the passed [sic] tense? Has not vs does not?
The way most render it in 'present' tense: "does not walk" is doctrinally troublesome in a 'subtle' sense. Remember what Jesus said about "relaxes one of the least of these commandments" (Mt5:19) Not just "breaking" the commandments, but also "relaxing" them. Let us take one example from David to illustrate what is taking me extra words here to introduce and get into. (I have the thoughts, but can I put them properly to words?)
When David sinned with Bathsheba and then orchestrated the murder of her husband, when he confessed and repented (Ps51) the prophet says, "Jehovah also has put away your sin; you shall not die" (2Sa12:13) That was a 'present tense' extension of God's grace upon David. His kingdom continued. But as the prophet explained, in the context, David's family would be wracked by scandal; which happened with Absalom, Adonijah, Amnon and Tamar, etc.
When David dies, notice his epitaph:
The division of the kingdom happened with Rehoboam. He was the son of Solomon. If David had not sinned, Solomon would not have reigned, nor would Rehoboam. Solomon came through a 'loose' woman who enticed David with her nakedness, and then became the queen-mother under Solomon, given her own throne next to Solomon. Solomon, living the life he did with a thousand wives and mistresses, many of them being pagan, raised up the kind of son that Rehoboam became.
If David -had- not sinned, would the kingdom have been divided later, when it was? People other than Solomon and Rehoboam would have followed. Their reigns would have been different.
Yes, David was forgiven... 'present tense'. But he -HAD- SINNED. If he HAD NOT SINNED as he did, what 'blessing' might have come to the nation, instead of the judgment of it being divided as it was?
In past years many were the testimonies of those who grew up in lives of drugs, sex, rebellion, gambling, drunkenness, gangs and violence... who then claim to have been -miraculously- 'saved'. In so many cases the testimonies almost seem like a 'glorification' of those past lives in sin; in some cases movies were also made of their stories. Audiences became enamored by the horrific past and praise the -individual-. But what of the "sheltered" person who grows up in ministry minded families, is saved, and goes on to do things faithfully for the Lord. Nobody notices them. But like the one person whose mailings I read some years ago, allegedly saved 'out of the occult', but in his ministry could never seem to be able to pull himself away from his old occult mentality, as he proclaimed what he alleged was God's message, through the lenses of his occult past. What would his message have been without the occult past?
Remember: Solomon might have been great, and built the first temple in Jerusalem. But he also built the two sacred pillars next to the temple (1Ki7:21), something which God had proclaimed, "You shall not set up a sacred pillar, which Jehovah your God hates." (De16:22) And even today, some of the primary satanic orders and cults claim their lineage back to Solomon and those sacred pillars. If David -had- not sinned, would those particular specific secret societies exist today? There would probably be others, but they would not be able to allege that their origins were based in Solomon, the temple or his two pillars... and thus, ultimately, alleging that their organizations (in some cases) are "christian".
If a person, in sin, does things by which the body gets busted up, bones broken, flesh scarred up, and deformities, to where the person is crippled... they get saved and serve God faithfully. They go to Heaven. But they are still crippled. But think of the "blessing" -had- they not lived that prior life as they did.
Thus, to simplify...
Indeed, we "know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." (Ro8:28) My own life is testimony to that... those 20 years I participated in the apostasy, on the platforms of churches and crusades; and now that I haven't been on any platform for nearly another 20 years, having been there, I know what I'm talking about when I proclaim -against- Babylon's ways. (The critics are silenced, who might taunt: If you haven't experienced it, you don't know what you're talking about, don't criticize it! Well, I -was- there. I -did- it! No, I did not become "spirit-filled" and jabber, but I compromised in other things and participated in the "gray areas"...and yes, used 'soft' rock accompaniment tapes when I would sing) If it had not been for the years in apostasy, I would not be exactly where I am today, in the center of God's will in the -way- I am. But could God have brought me to today by some other means than the apostasy? God's grace put me where I am now. Thus... "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Let it not be! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? ... Shall we sin because we are not under Law but under grace? Let it not be!" (Rom6:1-2,15) See? God's grace brought forth Solomon, who built the temple and was a great king. But the temple was not Solomon's. He might have directed the building of it, but the designs were given to David. (1Ch28:11-12,19) It was really David's temple. Had David not sinned, somebody besides Solomon would have been born to him, succeeded him and could have built the temple. It didn't -require- "Solomon" -existing- in order for the temple to be built.
In a couple of weeks we address tattoos and hair. A comparison is made between somebody who had let their hair grow, and me who did not. I was never a hippy. I did not try marijuana. I not only "did not inhale", but was never anywhere near it. I HAVE NOT been a hippy, and can look back at that fact as a "blessed" situation.
Yes...God saves sinners "of whom I am chief" (1Ti1:15); but is it not better to...
"Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven." (Mt19:14)
MATTHEW 28:1 (Sabbath)
But in looking at such a passage, one must also understand how words and concepts have been twisted and distorted. The word "sabbath" means, literally, "rest". The fact that God "rested the seventh day" (Gen2:2) as Israel balked and rebelled against God, they also distorted God's Laws and made "sabbath" into meaning "seventh day". True, they were to "rest" on the last day of the week. But by definition, "sabbath" does not -mean- "seven" or "seventh". They also had other non-Saturday holy days during which they were to rest/sabbath.
The other evening I was browsing the website of a particular denomination, having just gotten better acquainted with a neighbor (several houses away from where I live, with whom we have been waving back and forth as we drive by each others' yards the past couple years) who belongs to it, to have a better idea of 'where' they stand on various things, for next time we might find ourselves chatting; and the website spoke of "sabbath principle"; which is something I have gravitated towards, myself. Sabbath ("rest") for me might occur on Saturday; it might occur on Sunday. Or if it is a holiday, perhaps another day.
But back to this passage: what sense is it to say, essentially: 'As sabbath was ending, sabbath was dawning' ..? Since they had made "sabbath" to mean "seventh", it was not only the last day of the week when they 'rested', but had also come to mean a week of seven days. In our English, western, non-Jewish vernacular we keep time by means of the "week". Thus, when "sabbath" refers to the 7-day week, does it not make better sense to translate it "week" when doing so in western English?
Yes, their 'rest'-day of the "sabbath" (which for them was Saturday) was at an end, and the new week was beginning... when Jesus rose from the dead.
LUKE 23:34 (forgive them)
And how would such a "forgiveness" agree with Jesus' comment to Pilate about the "greater sin". (Jn19:11) and His comment, "... but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he was never born." (Mt26:24) Those are not words of (unconditional) forgiveness; especially also considering how that false doctrine is taught by so many, specifically using that verse with that insertion.
Certainly also, Scripture must agree with Scripture. Do we know of any other passage that agrees?
"He has been oppressed, and He was afflicted; yet He OPENS NOT HIS MOUTH. He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before its shearers is MUTE, SO HE OPENS NOT HIS MOUTH." (Is53:7)
If Jesus had been talking while He was being crucified (which is what the immediate context is), it would have made Isaiah a false prophet.
"Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life, and not be written with the righteous" (Ps69:25-28) Again: opposite of "Lord forgive them"
This matter of copyist additions raises a question about other places like Mt24:15b also: "(whoever reads, let him understand)" That was left in because the Lord didn't send along an 'alert' regarding it. But then, too, it is a more benign sentence; no doctrine, prophecy or truth hinges on it.
This is why I don't like "study" Bibles, and why the VW-edition was produced in "plain jane" format, with no page headers, paragraph marks, chapter headers, etc of any kind. As "helpful" as some people find such things, there are also people who look at those added 'labels' almost more than they do the text. Instead of reading the text, they read what the label and inline commentary says -about- the text. Just like those who read umpteen zillion different commentaries and suppose that, as a result of all their reading, they know all -about- the Bible.
But they do not know God's Word.
JOHN 3:16 ("loved" verb tenses)
Why did you not change loved to loves as you did in John 15:9?
To use "love" without any indication of tense, about the only way to do so in English is to use "love"....period... and whatever word endings that are appropriate grammatically in -English-. In English we would not say, "the Father love me". Thus, when an "s" is added, it makes it seem like "present" tense. "I also love you" in English could be rendered in many ways: I am loving you (now), I (always) love you, etc. But to simply say, "I also -love- you" can leave it open for various 'hints'. It can mean I (have) loved you in the past, I (am) loving you now, and always (will) love you. But in order to keep it more word-for-word 'literal', simply the word "love" is used.
However, in Jn3:16....one must also observe the surrounding 'context'. Is it appropriate to say, "God loves....that He gives...His...Son"? Well...that "has been finished" (Jn19:30) it is obviously some sort of "past" tense. Both "love" and "give" are the same...aorist tense. So, if "love" is to be "loves", then "give" needs to be "gives"....in order to be consistent. But Jesus -died- (past tense)....and the matter was done "once for all" (Heb7:27)....He is not "ever (continually) bleeding" on the cross, as the catholics proclaim. So, if it needs to be "gave", then for consistency it also needs to be "loved". Make sense?
However, this question brings up another aspect (parameter) of Jn3:16 that we don't usually associate with it. God says to Israel, "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jer31:3) Notice the past-perfect tense of "have loved". That is something God has been doing since way-back-when. But the love is also "everlasting". That goes on into the future, on-and-on-and-on, forever and ever and ever. Is that not the definition of "eternal"? Without beginning and without end. Time-LESS-ness. Is that not an "aorist" kind of thing...it is never 'completed', as it continues on.
We know that, while Jesus di[ed] (past tense) at a certain point in time in history, around 2000 years ago; His crucifixion is said to be "..slain from the foundation of the world.." (Rev13:8) Those who are saved were chosen "before the foundation of the world" (Eph1:4) Jesus' shed blood was "foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1Pet1:18-20) and eternal life was "promised before the beginning of time" (Tit1:2)
Thus, in a very real sense, John3:16 cannot be translated fully -literally-, to get its full meaning. Here is a case where -paraphrasing- might be more appropriate...? (Any of you who have been fluent in more than one language understand what we are getting at here. Some grammatical forms in one language simply do not carry over -directly- to another, without some amount of 'manipulation', to convey the meaning and full intent.)
Perhaps Jn3:16 should sound more like: "God's boundless (eternal) love for the world provides the gift of His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish but have eternal life."
Believe -INTO- Christ?
This is one of those situations of a preposition that can have a broad range of -shadings- of meaning. In OLB the lexicon includes: into, unto, to, towards, for, among. In the KJV the spread of its use includes: into 573, to 281, unto 207, for 140, in 138, on 58, toward 29, against 26, misc 322; A person can go "into" a house, or "to" it, or "in" it, etc. And it doesn't matter, a person can use -any- of those, and the meaning is not ambiguous that they went -to- somebody's house and are now likely -in- the house. But if they went "into" the house, you know they went there, and they are (definitely) now -in- the house
As a person thinks about "in" vs "into", and as one believes in/to Jesus, or puts their trust in/to Jesus....is not "into" a more "intimate" expression than merely "in" or "on"? "into" indicates an engulfing. As I look it up now I notice that all these instances occur in John, and one each in Acts and Galatians. John is a special book, different from the other three gospels....it is the one where Jesus also speaks of "abiding" in the Vine, etc. It is the one where Jesus prays, "I in them and You in Me..."etc. It is a book of being "one" with Christ.
you use the word "defined" to be the son of God. is that the best word to use concerning the Saviour?
The greek means:
1) to define 1a) to mark out the boundaries or limits (of any place or thing) 1b) to determine, appoint 1b1) that which has been determined, acc. to appointment, decree 1b2) to ordain, determine, appointThe Greek word is "horizo"...I suspect from where our "horizon" comes. The horizon marks the boundary between the visible and non-visible...light and dark. In marking a "boundary" is that not the gist of what it is to "define" something.
ALT says designated
What is the 'definition' of Jesus Christ (if one were to look Him up in a heavenly 'dictionary')? the "Son of God with power"
This is a case where there are several different words that can serve the same function. However, to say "designated" sounds like a "pick/choose" situation. Certainly, John pointed out, "Behold the Lamb of God..." (Jn1:29) To "mark out" to my mind sounds like a cross between the two. But when one is sorting out the "boundaries", it is a matter of 'territory' and of 'definitions'. If a person has a deed for property, how is that property defined? By its boundaries. -This- is what 'encompasses' who Jesus Christ is....He is the "Son of God". It just seemed to my mind/heart that "defined" does that a little better...besides which, the definition of the Greek begins with the word "to define". But then, I realize this gets into "English" a little beyond the lower-common vernacular of stuff like "Yo, dude! W'zup?" sort of mentality. A person needs to know what words 'mean' to understand it. -smile-
2TIMOTHY 2:15 (study)
as presented in KJ3
But that's not what the greek says. From an interlinear, word-for-word in Greek word-order we would see: "hurry yourself unadulterated to God"
And according to the lexicons the various words that agree with 'spoudazo' include: hasten, make haste, exert one's self, endeavor, give diligence. Nothing about "study", the way "study" is used in current English. The word means to "work hard at it", not: "open some text books and do some homework for school"
Perhaps in 200-400 year old English the word "study" might have included such notions as "really working at it"?
According to the 1828 Webster's, study starts out with a definition: "setting of the mind or thoughts upon a subject" With such a definition, "study" might be OK
The Tyndale (1525) uses "study" As does the Geneva (1599)
But the Wycliffe (1384) says " Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God" or.... "busily keep to you thyself"
From the more current American Heritage dictionary: 1) "act or process of studying, pursuit of knowledge" 2) attentive scrutiny While the "attentive" part fits, "scrutiny" is usually thought of in terms of studying something 'else'....not one's own 'diligence' in any given matter.
Apparently, it's a matter of how the English language -usage- has changed over time.
For current modern English, the way we understand and use the words, "study" is a wrong word there.
And when the KJ3 says -both- "eager" -and- "study", Green has doubled a word that is not doubled in the Greek. Ditto for the concept of "study diligently". The meaning of the word is not to 'crack-the-books', but of giving something one's "best efforts"; in this case: being presentable to God.
I'm just writing with a question about the translation in 1John 2:14 I am just wondering why you have just put evil rather than evil one. Every other tranlation I have looked at bar the LITV has the one on the end, and even the greek to english interlinair has it in brackets?
Doctrinally....what is it that sends the sinner to hell? Satan? or sin? Yes, we are to be on guard against the evil 'forces' in the heavenlies. (Eph6, 1Pe5:8) But the "soul that sins shall die" (Ezk18:4,20) the wages of "sin" is death (Rom6:23) We are enticed into sin by our own lusts. (Ja1:14-15) The serpent might have made contact with Eve, but it was her own lust for more knowledge and what she thought was (withheld) wisdom. (Gen3:6) The serpent did not force-feed them.
Did "the devil make me do it"? ....or does our own lust for evil?
Books | Q/A -Letters | Walk-thru | Portions | Bible Text | Morsels | Morsel-Xtras
Trivia | Tidbits | Song Book | Other Links | Subscribe | E-mail | Contact | Home