Articles
Commentary
Library
Walk-thru
Portions
Q/A -Letters
Trivia
~ Books ~
Discernment
- Search -
Study Aids
~ Bible ~
Morsels
MorselXtras
Tidbits
Other Links
Song Book
Subscribe
Home

E-mail correspondence
A Voice in the Wilderness

VW-edition
Holy Scriptures
" About this Edition "
Preface:

"Forever, O Jehovah, Your Word stands firm in the heavens." (Ps119:89) "Every Word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His Words, that He not judge you, and you be found a liar." (Pr30:5-6) because "..all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Rev21:8)

What is our perspective of the Scriptures? Many theologies proclaim that they "interpret" (view) the Scriptures through the 'lens' of X, Y, or Z "viewpoint". Even if one reads 2Pet1:20 as it has been mistranslated in most Bibles all these years, anyone who "names the name of Christ" (2Tim2:19) should know better than to maintain any "private interpretation". Which comes first? Theological prospectus, or the Scriptures? If a person boasts of viewing the Scriptures through any kind of "lens", for them, their theology comes first, and the Scriptures must then often be "twisted" (2Pt3:16) in order to support their viewpoint. When such entities produce translations, the translations are also often tainted by their personal prospectus.

According to the Scriptures, Paul says "..the Holy Scriptures" are that "which are able to make you wise for salvation.." (2Tim3:15) Wisdom comes, not from seminaries, great men of God and theological viewpoints, but from Scripture. Scripture is "profitable for doctrine". (vs16) But if a person leans on the historical "great men" or the "church fathers", they are basing their faith on man's wisdom, not God.

However, the Scriptures did not originate from human scholarship. "..knowing this first, that not any of the prophecies of Scripture came into being from personal exposition, for prophecy was not formerly brought forth by man's choice, but holy men of God spoke as they were propelled along by the Holy Spirit." (2Pt1:20-21)

The trouble is, the English translations that have existed to date were done under the shadows of "theological viewpoints"; Alexandria, Rome, Reformation, the Ecumenical movement, etc. As this VW-edition is coming into being, the process that has brought it about has been rather illuminating in terms of how utterly clear some things are in God's Word, but the English translations we have become accustomed to have not given us God's clear Word regarding certain issues and doctrines. The questions are not regarding linguistic scholarship, nor of 'subtleties'. Some of the errors appear to be 'blatant'; things seemingly changed 'deliberately'. As such, the so-called "scholars" who produced them are due God's promised judgments. (Rev22:18-19, Pr30:6, 2Pt3:16b) As Jesus pronounced, "Woe to you lawyers! (The scholars who know and wrangle about precise words) For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering." (Lk11:52) When Scripture has been deliberately mistranslated, those passages become a source of stumbling. "It is impossible but that stumbling blocks will come, but woe to him through whom they do come!" (Lk17:1)

What is the VW-edition?

First of all, one thing that it is 'not' is a "new translation". No new translation work has been done. No new manuscripts have been found. No new scholarship has been invented. No new theories on textual criticism have been laid out.

What it 'is' is a concerted, diligent effort to provide an English edition that actually says 'what' God said. It is compiled from out of the NKJV, LITV and KJV texts, Proof-Reading, CORRECTING the ERRORS the unGodly have put into the English versions, with the aid of the tools that scholarship has already provided to anyone who desires to use them. In some cases all three of these versions are in error. How often have you heard a Bible teacher proclaim something like, "Our Bibles say X, Y or Z, but in the Hebrew/Greek it REALLY MEANS, A, B or C"? My question has always been, "If the Hebrew/Greek REALLY MEAN something else, then 'why' don't our English versions say so?" Thus, the VW-Edition seeks to provide a work that presents "A, B & C". Other than some cases where some words can have many optional meanings, or subtle shadings of means such that a word-study might enhance one's understanding; for the most part, if one reads from the VW-Edition, word-studies into the Hebrew/Greek should not be necessary.

The method by which the VW-Edition has been compiled is that of Proof-Reading. Reading from the English texts in parallel, comparing word-by-word to the linguistic study tools to verify whether or not the English says what it is supposed to; and when errors are found, correcting them. Scrutinizing: Is that the best word to convey the correct meaning? And, accounting for the complexities in going from an eastern language to western, is the verb tense the closest possible for correct understanding? As anyone who knows more than their own native tongue is aware, translating from one tongue to another is not always an 'exact' science, and the VW-Edition is not an "amplified" version, where all the various options are presented. But it has been the diligent goal to present the MOST CORRECT words; current English words that are "closest" in meaning to the texts.

Where the NKJV and KJV supporters usually boast of the academic credentials of their scholarship, this editor does not have ties to any denomination or theological militance, whether the church of Rome, or any of the splinters that Protested against Rome. This editor is "with Jesus" (Acts4:13) and the same Holy Spirit who "propelled along" the original "holy men of God" who wrote, is the same One who has guided this edition.

Description:

The KJV is of Rome. NKJV is of Rome, plus the modern liberal apostasy. LITV is of Calvinism and Reformed theology. But these have been the 'best' available today, coming from the proper Masoretic and Textus Receptus texts. And they are available in print.

But for those who like to read from their computer, or are of a mind to print this out on their own printers (now also available in print); the VW-edition basically maintains the KJV/NKJV verbal, grammatical compositional structure. In other words, if the reader is used to the KJV/NKJV/MKJV family of translations, the VW-edition will have a similar 'feel'; and in many cases the reader will be able to find what they are looking for while doing word/phrase searches by remembering quotes from the KJV/NKJV. Thus, if accuracy could be maintained by retaining KJV/NKJV-type word orders, things were left unchanged. But when errors were found, words were changed in whatever manner was necessary to make the VW-edition say what God's Word says.

Generic Global Corrections:

In addition to some serious doctrinal issues which were corrected (which will be addressed further into this Preface), many 'smaller' generic, global issues are being addressed.

Since there is such widespread misunderstanding regarding "tribulation", this has been changed to "affliction", which more closely represents modern understanding of its actual definition and meaning. Scripture nowhere teaches a doctrine of a 'seven year' period called, "Tribulation". Tribulation (affliction) is not a "period of time", but a definition of suffering... 'whenever' it occurs; past, present, or future.

In the N.T. there are about four different words used for different kinds of sexual issues. But the KJV/LITV tend to call them all, "fornication". And others, "immorality" or "sexual immorality". The VW-edition distinguishes between 1) sexual perversion (which includes adultery, fornication, sodomy, bestiality, incest, etc), 2) prostitution, 3) adultery, 4) immorality.

Many instances of "lest" have been changed to variations of "that.. not". Many cases where the exhortation is so that a person "not" commit sin and stray from God; "Lest" softens such injunctions into an idea like, "perhaps it would be best if you didn't sin..hmmm..maybe??"

Many things have been capitalized, including: Word, Law, Prophets, Heaven, Hosts; where they refer to the Word/Law of God, Heaven as God's habitat, and Jehovah of Hosts (God's name).

Baptism/Baptize has been corrected to "immersion/immerse". "Immerse" corrects away from the Roman notions of 'baptism' being the dabbing of some water on one's head, or other pagan practices of flinging water outwards upon congregations of people, to its true meaning: To "dip, immerse, submerge". When the Believer has been "immersed into Christ" (Rom6:3, Gal3:27) it is a 'total' sacrifice of ourselves to Christ. Even the way the world speaks of things, a person who is totally committed to their career is not spoken of as being "baptized in their work". No, they are "immersed" in their work. And, "immerse" helps complete the connection from the O.T. water-washing cleansing rituals, to the symbolism of Christ's fulfillment of the Law (Mt5:17), where salvation is "the washing of regeneration.." (Tit3:5) And also: just as Peter was not the "first pope", neither was John the first "baptist". He was "John the Immerser"

Distinction has been made in the O.T. between Trumpet, Ram's Horn and Shofar. Many translations just render them all as "trumpet". In Numbers ch10 they specifically made 'trumpets' out of 'silver'. These 'trumpets' were used to direct the encampment of the Children of Israel as they traveled. But when Joshua led Israel in conquering Jericho they blew the "shofar". (Joshua ch6) And the 300 who followed Gideon blew "shofars". (Judges ch7) The typical Sunday school stories and pictures have had Gideon's men carrying cavalry-type "bugle" looking devices. But if you know the sound of a brass trumpet/bugle, and then have heard a shofar, you know the sounds are totally different, and completely changes our aural imagery of these O.T. accounts. And in many cases, mentions of "shofar" are couched in the phrase, "SOUND of the shofar" (e.g. Jer4:19); because the shofar has one of the most unique sounds in existence. And to illustrate the difference between trumpet and shofar, they are both listed together as different instruments in 1Chr15:28, 2Chr15:14, Ps98:6. When KJV says "cornet" (e.g. Ps98:6), that is in error. A trumpet and cornet are very similar to each other (and an untrained ear might not tell them apart); but a silver trumpet, and (ram's horn) shofar are NOT; they are VERY different, sonically not even in the same class with each other.

A few names have been corrected. In the N.T. James has been corrected to Jacob, and Jude to Judas.

And in the O.T. the Hebrew "YHWH" has been distinguished from "Adonay", and rendered as "Jehovah". Most translations render both YHWH and Adonay as "Lord". Some render YHWH as all-caps; "LORD". Others get them mixed up and are not consistent. And in cases where the text says, "YHWH Adonay", they will render YHWH as "GOD". But they are different Hebrew words.

A brief explanation of this might be in order. As many will be aware, at one time the VW website hosted online Jay Green's LITV (Literal), and I was helping him update and proofread it. There were many objections from several quarters to its use of "Jehovah". The more fundamentalist folk thought it seemed awfully "cultish" like from the JWs. And those from the more Hebrew Roots persuasions complained that it wasn't something like "YHWH", as their correspondence would also blank out "G-D" and "L-RD". Thinking of these things, I had considered the possibility of going with "Yahweh", the closest English equivalent to "YHWH". However, the very morning of the day I was to implement this change, the Lord made it -quite- clear that it should be "Jehovah". Jehovah is the 'classic' English understanding of His name. There are classical choral works that proclaim, "Great is Jehovah, the Lord!" And fundamentalists have had in their hymnals for decades the song, "Guide me O Thou great Jehovah". If this were a Jewish work, then "Yahweh" might be appropriate. But it is an English work, for predominantly Gentile English-speaking people. God's classical name in English has been, "Jehovah". And, thus it is in this edition. The fact that today's apostasy has been swooningly mantracizing "Jesus, Jesus, Jeeeezzzus" at the expense of any recognition of the Father, does not render the Father's name obsolete. It is high time we got back to knowing who our Father in Heaven is! He is the "Existing One", the "I AM" (Ex3:14), "Jehovah of Hosts". He proclaims, "I am Jehovah, that is My name.." (Is42:8)

There is also another form of God's name that KJV uses scarcely once in Ps68:4, but it is all over the place, particularly in the Psalms; His name "YAH". Most versions simply render it as "Lord". e.g. Ps150:6 ends with, "Praise YAH!" This name has been restored every place it exists.

Also, "God" has two different Hebrew words, "Elohyim" and "El". Pretty much all translations lump these together as "God". But again, they are different. Elohyim is the basic word for "God". But El also includes the meanings, "mighty, strength, power", as illustrated in the context of passages like Ps18:2 where Jehovah is a fortress, rock wall and stronghold; the word "God" there is "El". It is the "Mighty God" who "avenges" and "brings down". (2Sam22:48) Thus, to differentiate the two, El is being rendered as "Mighty God".

FAQ: "Names of God"

Many translations lump Save, Deliver and Rescue into the one word, "save". The VW-Edition seeks to sort out those differences, too. While Paul quotes Joel2:32 regarding "calling upon the name of Jehovah" for salvation (Rom10:13), the actual word used in Joel means "escape"; which, in the context of the earth shuddering under earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroid bombardments, "escape" suggests a 'physical' security and refuge from all that is happening. David cries out to God much for "deliverance" from his enemies. (Ps7:1) Many people often confuse David's prayers in the Psalms as being "salvation" passages; but when he was on the run from Saul, he was crying out to God for safety/deliverance from physical death at the hand of Saul. Hopefully these distinctions will help sort out those confusions.

In keeping with God's 'eternal' character, in the typical O.T. expression "for His mercy endures forever", the word "endures" is not in the texts; and "forever" is more accurately rendered, "eternal"; thus, it is being corrected to, "for His mercy is eternal".

Throughout the Psalms there are the typical verses like Ps147:7 where one wonders, How does one "sing praise upon the harp"? One doesn't. One 'plays' instruments, and indeed, the text is different there; and is thus being rendered, "make music upon the harp".

2Sam22:50 properly says, "I will give thanks..." and yet, in many places in the Psalms the traditional translators have changed those very same words into, "I will praise You..." Those types of things are being corrected from "praise" to "thanks"

The words "Sheol", "Hades" and "Tartarus" are likely to cause consternation for some, as being from 'pagan mythology'; and "Gehenna", the reference to the garbage dump outside Jerusalem whose flame burned continually; as having removed mentions of "hell". While we know from Scripture that the death of a Believer is blessed in God's presence and the unbeliever is damned; exactly where/what is "Abraham's bosom" or "Hades" (Lk16:22-23)? For all the speculations by many, this is one of those 'mysteries' that God doesn't reveal to us, until we travel that path. There are some cases where the context makes it clear that the 'body' is in relationship to the "grave". (Ps141:7) But in so many more places where it speaks of the person's essence, their soul, departing this life; rather than make the Scripture say something that we don't really know, and thus inserting our own interpretation, the actual Hebrew and Greek words are being transliterated. When Jesus spoke of the flames of Gehenna, that was a different context from those in Tartarus. Using the (blanket) "hell" for everything does not render the proper distinctions the speakers and writers used. We may not yet fully understand them (1Co13:9,12), but we should at least acknowledge that they -are- 'different' words.

In the O.T. levitical worship, most translations speak of "showbread". However, there are actually three different renderings of those 12 loaves, arranged into two rows. The "Bread of the Presence" (Ex25:30), the "Bread in Rows" (1Chr9:32); and the N.T. reference to it, the "Bread of Presentation". (Mt12:4) These have been distinguished in each place they appear, as appropriate.

Often, there are doubled words, which have been traditionally rendered, "unto all generations" (Ex3:15), but the text actually has the word "generations" twice. Such places are being rendered, "from generation to generation". Other places that have "die die" (Jer26:8) typically rendered, "You shall surely die"; are being rendered "You shall die the death", "shall be executed to death", etc. as appropriate. This type of thing also appears with "daily" (Ps68:19), when it really should be more like, "day by day". Where KJV says, "will abundantly bless" (Ps132:15), the double word is more correctly rendered, "will bless, will bless..." And many other things like these...

In the O.T. commands regarding animal sacrifices in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and the end of Ezekiel the phrase "without blemish" is the typical expression we have been used to. Indeed, it is used of Christ's fulfillment of those sacrifices as He is called the Lamb/sacrifice who was "without blemish" and "without spot". (Heb9:14, 1Pet1:19) But in the O.T. the word actually means: "complete, whole, entire, sound, healthy, having integrity". The word does not contain a definitional element of being "without" something, nor any reference to "blemish". While a person could examine something that was "complete" and "whole" and deduce that it was "without" any flaws, the word itself is not such a word. In fact, the KJV translators, when faced with a verse that has both this word and one that actually speaks of "blemish" (Num19:2) in the same verse, changed "without blemish" to "without spot", to accommodate the word that actually means "without blemish". The actual word "blemish" appears in other places (Job11:15, 2Sam14:25, Dan1:4, Pr9:7) where it has nothing to do with sacrifices. Thus, the former expression "without blemish" is being rendered, "that is whole".

In the O.T. there are distinctions that have typically been mangled regarding the tabernacle. In Ex25:9 "tabernacle" in the Hebrew speaks of "dwelling place"; and in Ex27:21 "tent of meeting", "tent" by definition is a "nomad's tent". And also in Ex26:7 there was the "tent over the tabernacle". Two 'different' words, that often both get rendered as "tabernacle". Also, the typical expression has been "tabernacle of congregation". The word "congregation" is typically understood as being a "group of people", whereas, in "tent of meeting", "meeting" (which is more correct) is the communion between God and man; the place where God's presence was represented, as He would speak with Moses, and others. The whole 'congregation' did not meet in the "tent of meeting". Only Moses and the priests did so; those properly consecrated.

Many things about the levitical service has traditionally been called "most holy". (Ex29:37) This is another case of a 'doubled' word, "holy, holy". In many instances it is being rendered, "set apart, holy" when addressing objects or places other than the "Holy of Holies" where the ark resided.

Many of the levitical burnt offerings are typically rendered as "burnt sacrifice" where the Hebrew word actually indicates that they should "smoke it" or to "make it smoke" (Lev1:9,13,etc)... like -incense-. To accommodate the fact that the word "smoke" needs to be there, and also keep it grammatically English, the expression "with smoke" is being included where appropriate. Perhaps this will help explain how those burnt offerings were a "soothing aroma" to God.

Traditionally, the word "worship" proliferates the Scriptures in other English translations. However, in Hebrew the word thus-rendered actually means "to bow down" and/or "bow down and prostrate". In the Greek, it is more correctly rendered, "do homage". This matter is addressed in detail in an online commentary:

Worship? No. Bow Down - Do Homage

Just a word about "Aram" vs "Syria". Throughout the O.T. the most technically correct name is Aram/Aramean, which is how the NASB renders it throughout. The KJV renders it Syria/Syrian. Most people who are not scholars would not know who the "Arameans" are, but readily recognize "Syria". But the language they speak is commonly known as Aramaic, from its ancient roots; it is not usually referred to as the "Syrian" language. Thus, to try to maintain a sense of literal and historical accuracy, the VW-Edition has rendered it as Aram/Aramean throughout the Pentateuch, where it is more 'ancient' history. And then beginning with Joshua, where Israel begins having interaction with its surrounding nations as a national entity, the more familiar Syria/Syrian is used. But the language is rendered as "Aramaic".

And then, there are so many hundreds/thousands of other more minor corrections that it would be unnecessarily exhaustive to try to document them all. Most of them have to do with articles, prepositions, conjunctions, etc. like: in, unto, and, by, through, etc. But there are also more significant words/phrases that have been adjusted to seek to be as more exactly precise as possible.

Catholic Errors Corrected:

There are some pivotal passages upon which the church of Rome hangs all their doctrine regarding apostolic succession and the authority of "the church". (And for that matter, charismania hangs on these, too) Mt16:19 & 18:18, Jn20:23 If you compare the VW-edition (similar to the LITV) to what you have been used to, you will notice how the proper verb tenses and punctuation change their meanings entirely. What a Believer does, when led by the Holy Spirit, 'is' from Heaven. It is not that the Believer 'decides' something, and now as a result of man's 'edict', God is now complying with man. But rather, when a Believer makes some earthly decision, if he does so by the Holy Spirit, that decision was "already" made in Heaven first. Decisions originate in Heaven and come 'to' the Believer through the Holy Spirit (Jn16:13-14), not the other way around. Remember that Jesus said, "I will build My church". We do not build, and 'then' ask God to bless 'our' endeavors after we are already underway by our own wisdom. We order our lives by "Lord, what do You have in mind for me to do?" (Ac9:6)

And also, in Ac12:4 "Easter" has been corrected to "Passover". And Lk11:28 corrects the seeds of Marialotry.

Protestant Errors Corrected:

This becomes more complex, but again, involves mostly verb tense issues.

"..but was raised.." (Lk24:6 LITV) -compared-to- "..but is risen.." (KJV/VW) If Jesus' resurrection is only a past-tense event, the Jewish rulers would not have been so upset that the early Church proclaimed Christ's resurrection. (Acts4:2) But His resurrection was a 'present' reality to the Believers, and it was observed that they were "with Jesus". (Acts4:13)

"..as the Father LOVED Me, I also LOVED you.." (Jn15:9 LIT) KJV adds "hath/have" to the tenses. The tenses here are "aorist/active". By definition, according to American Heritage Dictionary, aorist is: A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek, that expresses action without indicating its completion or continuation. In other words: "without regard for past, present or future time" and is something that English doesn't have. But quoting Online Bible, is "generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations." However, I believe that what has been, as OLB says, "generally rendered" has been in error when rendered as a "blanket" application, without any thought to context. ("Active" means that the 'subject' is performing the action) Thus, think about this a minute... Jesus is sitting in the upper room with His disciples and says, 'the Father love[ED] Me... (but doesn't anymore?), as I lov[ED] you... (but I don't anymore?)'. God's love can best be explained with, "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jer31:3). Notice how He lov[ED] (paste tense), but the love also is "everlasting" (going on into the future). There is no past, present, future, because it is "eternally" existing, as is God's essence, "I AM" (Ex3:14) Thus, "..as the Father loves Me, I also love you.." (Jn15:9 VW)

This same issue can be found in Mary's "Magnificat" (Lk1:46-55) and many other passages. And if you see how this affects Romans ch1, you see how the sinful state of the world is not for "them" way-back-when, in 'ancient times', but is also for "today", for "present" humanity. God's Word is not a set of some "ancient writings" and fairy tales, but is "timeless", and is for TODAY's lost humanity.

"..having believed.." (Eph1:13 NKJV) "..since you believed.." (Ac19:2 KJV) "..who believed.." (Ac11:17 KJV) "..they believed.." (Jn17:8 LITV) While there are many places that speak of a certain "time" at which a person repented and converted, and such a time might be in the past tense (historically); the Christian faith is not in the "past tense". It is continuing and ongoing. It is the fountain of the Water of Life "..springing up.." (Jn4:14) It is praying "without ceasing". (1Th5:17)

And so, let's finish this last reference, "..springing up into eternal life." (Jn4:14 VW) Others (including LITV and KJV) say, "everlasting" life. And the most 'famous' verse of all: "..but have everlasting life.." (Jn3:16 NKJV/KJV/LITV) The word rendered over and over as "everlasting", while containing components of "never to cease"; it's definition is actually, "without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be". "Everlasting" conveys a notion that there was some 'starting point', but now, from now on, there will never be any end to it. But if "this life is in His Son" (1Jn5:11), and God is the eternal "I AM", His life is also "eternal". If God is without beginning or ending, then, the life which He gives is also without beginning or ending. Eternal. That which we contemplate is "..eternal in Heaven." (2Cor5:1)

If all a person has is "everlasting" life, it is not God's life...it is something else. (Let us not misunderstand. Eternal includes Everlasting, but is so much more.) And so we see the seeds of some of the theologies which state things on the order of: God provid[ED] salvation, and at some time in the past I can verify some date/time in which I came to God in repentance, and so now, because of that past event, I am guaranteed of a future life that continues on and on like the Eveready "Energizer" bunny. But it misses the 'timelessness' of God's existence, love, and salvation, etc. Thus, OSAS is a different doctrine, and is based on God "lovED" us and we "believED". God lovED us some time in the past, and I "-got- saved" at some time I can mark on the calendar (July 13, 1954), and because of that "past" event, I am now 'charged up' and Salvation will now "keep going, and going, and going", no-matter-what. Yes, we can look at a past event when we "first" believed (Acts8:12), but Salvation is a -state- of "believing" (Eph1:13). Israel is a prime example of how a "one-time-faith" does not work. Their one-time-faith killed the Passover lamb and got them out of Egypt with Moses. (1Cor10:1-4) But "most of them" (vs5) ended up scattered in the wilderness, and they did not receive the promise due to "unbelief". (Heb3:19)

Thus, "..everyone believing into Him should not perish but have eternal life" (Jn3:16)

Thus, while these are merely a few examples, and there are many many more, every effort is being made to ascertain correct verb tenses and other word choices, where doctrine is under consideration.

Other Verb Tense Issues:

However, there are some issues that are being left well-enough alone. Within the parameters of this edition "correcting errors", but also remaining as much as possible in the form we have been used to in the KJV/NKJV family tradition due to familiarity, the historical facts are not altered if the passage says, alternately, 1) "And leaving all, rising up he followed Him." (Lk5:28 LITV), or, 2) "So he left all, rose up, and followed Him." (KJV/NKJV/VW) The historical fact is that Levi got up, left everything behind, and followed Jesus; and both of these renderings say the same thing. In this case, and many like it, the VW-edition has kept the KJV and/or NKJV renditions.

Just a note: Even though the NKJV/MKJV are 'updates' to the KJV, there are many things within them that are identical to the KJV. And thus, this VW-edition also has many things that are identical to the NKJV/KJV. When the Word, originally, is God's Word, and we are merely seeking to have an English translation of it, there is much for which there is no better way to say it, than has already been said. Such things are not being changed, just for the sake of 'change'.

Literalness:

Every effort has been made to be sure that the English words actually mean what the original texts mean. Great pains have been taken to find the "just right" word to convey subtle differences to complete the context correctly. While smoothness of reading has been one of the considerations, there are some places where there is simply no exact English equivalent, and rather than pick one of several renderings where a lot of words would need to be added, sometimes the words may be left as a "dangler", and not necessarily rendered grammatically correctly. e.g. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh does not profit; not a thing." (Jn6:63) Notice how "not a thing", being an emphasis-providing phrase, sort of dangles off the end, after the semicolon.

Also, a lot of little things have been 'tweaked'. e.g. "as you please" really means "good in your eyes" (Gen16:6) "at his instruction" is really "at his mouth" (Jer36:17) "..without first telling me.." should be "..will disclose it in my ear.." (1Sam20:2) There's a whole host of these kinds of things where the RICH COLOR and CHARACTER of the original languages has been lost by those 'generalizing' God's Word into 'smooth' English; which are being restored.

Italics:

In some places italicized words have been added when exact literalness leaves a 'hole' in proper English understanding. e.g. "She hath done what she could" (Mk14:8 KJV). A precisely 'literal' rendering would give us something like, "What this one held, she did." (LITV) But, "She has done what she was in a position to do" (VW), conveys a little better the meaning of what LITV renders with the word, "held"; or KJV with "could".

In some cases italics are used to help differentiate and give a fuller meaning of a word. e.g. 1Tim6:20 the word "knowledge" (gnosis) means, "general intelligence or knowledge". But 2Pt1:8 is rendered "full true knowledge" The word "knowledge" (epignosis) there means, "precise, correct, thorough knowledge..to know well". Thus, while the Greek in each case is one word, for proper understanding in English the second has "true" to indicate the "precise/correct" aspects, and "full" to indicate the "thorough" aspect.

In other cases the 'literal' word, while being accurate, might not be properly understood in today's world and culture, and an added italicized word will explain the literal word, such as in Pr16:11 where the literal word is "stones"; but from the times and culture it must be understood in the context of weighing scales, where selected stones were used as scale weights. Thus, the word "weight" is included to define "stones". (e.g. "..all the weight stones of the bag are His work.")

Closing Thoughts:

This edition will not be for everyone. If this editor's lack of 'proper' scholarship bothers you, then, perhaps it's not for you. The early scribes and synagogue rulers looked down upon the early Church "fathers", too, that they were "uneducated and untrained". (Acts4:13) But they were some of God's "holy men of God" (2Pt1:21) who were vessels for the Holy Spirit.

To repeat: No 'new' scholarship is needed. What is needed is to rightly sort out what the scholars have already provided. "..rightly dividing.." (2Tm2:15); in this case meaning, "to proceed on straight paths", and not "twist". (2Pt3:16) Any of the scholars, who are either unbelievers, or of various theological viewpoints; when they see things they either don't like, or don't agree with, have 'changed' what God gave. NO WONDER the Roman paternity didn't want the common folk to be reading the Scriptures all those years! But when they began to allow it, by then, they had changed some key passages to reflect their teaching; and if anyone were to point out the mistranslations, they could be taunted for their lack of mastering linguistic scholarship... after all, "this is what the 'scholars' say it means" (so therefore it must be so!). Thus also, NO WONDER there were complaints when it was announced that this VW-edition was going to be produced. When we know what God actually said, not hiding behind twisted translations, the various doctrinal errors become exposed. They, the 'scholars', become exposed.

This VW-edition is only merely seeking, through the Holy Spirit, to correct/unravel ("straighten") what they have done.

After all, that was one of the ministries of the original "voice in the wilderness" as John proclaimed, "Make His paths straight". (Mt3:3)

Amen!


Go to: [VW-Edition] -Frames (with chapter select interface)
Go to: [VW-Edition] -No Frames
Go to: [VW-Edition] -PDA-friendly

Contact Information:
    A Voice in the Wilderness
    P.O.Box 9531
    Spokane, WA 99209 USA
    Website: www.a-voice.org

Authenticity and Permissions