Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC) Posts: 3,537
|
This past week, I sat down with the Pastor of a local non-denominational Protestant church to discuss the possibility of starting a "Torah for Christians" class. The discussion very quickly expanded and lasted almost 3 hours. The primary topics were various alleged "corruptions" within the Christianity and the validity of the scholarship of Yada Yahweh. After my initial response to the Pastor and, in turn, his to me - I forwarded the exchange to Yada for his comments. I have tried to piece together the several e-mail exchanges that Yada and I exchanged below. Hopefully, Pastor 'D' will also respond here on the thread. Quote:-----Original Message----- From: 'Yada' Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 10:21 PM To: 'D' Subject: References and Sources Hello Pastor 'D,' Just to follow-up on our earlier conversation and the question you posed to me - the following extract is taken from the prologue to "Yada Yahweh:" "At their best, translations are a compromise between attempts at word-for-word literalism and loose thought-for-thought interpolations. Either way, much of the intended message is lost or misrepresented for the sake of readability, brevity, or familiarity. So we will dig for truth the hard way. We’re going to work for it. The key words in most passages will be amplified from the original languages. Amplification is a process whereby many words are used to properly convey the full meaning and nuances of the original term as it was known and used in its time, context, and culture. If a Hebrew or Greek word requires a paragraph to adequately communicate its meaning, as histemi does for example, you will find the required background, etymology, and shadings. In other words, we are going to scratch well below the surface. This will require you to read most Scripture passages several times to fully appreciate what Yahweh is saying. To understand God’s perspective, you are going to have to want to know it. Therefore, we will not rely upon the KJV, NKJV, ASB, NASB, IV, NIV, or any other popular Scriptural rendition. All English translations vary from poor to horrible. There isn’t any worth recommending. The reason they are all errant and inadequate is that they all come from the same polluted well and familiarity sells. The Textus Receptus serves as the foundation of all English translations of the Renewed Covenant and yet it was an intellectual fraud and financial hoax. In October of 1515 CE a Dutch secular humanist, Desiderius Erasmus, and Johann Froben, a publisher of low repute, took five months to mark up, adding and taking away from, a highly flawed 12th century Medieval Greek manuscript and set type directly from those arbitrary scribbles. Then in the places where they didn’t have possession of a Greek text, they filled in the blanks by translating the Latin Vulgate. Worse, when Roman Catholics protested that some of their pet passages weren’t included, Erasmus and Froben added them without any Scriptural basis to quiet their critics. In the absence of a viable competitor, the highly errant rendering was said to be “a text received by all in which we have nothing changed or corrupted.” Rubbish was thus rendered “the Textus Receptus.” And from this trash, the King James was printed in 1609 CE for purely political reasons. The KJV in turn became so popular, no English translation has yet been offered which dares to correct its familiar phrasing. It wasn’t until 1707 that the Textus Receptus was challenged—effectively undermining the basis of the Reformation and Protestantism. John Mill, a fellow of Queens College in Oxford, invested 30 years comparing the Textus Receptus to some one hundred Greek manuscripts in his possession. In so doing, he discovered and documented 30,000 variations between them. And even this was just the tip of the iceberg. Known variations between the oldest manuscripts of the Renewed Covenant, and that which serves as the basis for every English translation, exceed 300,000. While Christian pastors hold up their favorite English translation of the Bible and proclaim that it is “the inerrant word of God,” factually, the book they are touting isn’t even remotely consistent with the earliest witnesses. This same issue exists with the “Old Covenant.” All English translations claim to be based upon the Masoretic, an 11th century vocalization of Babylonian Hebrew composed by politically and religiously minded, and very misguided, rabbis. Their copyedits of Yahweh’s Word are now legend, revealed for all to see courtesy of the 3rd century BCE Dead Sea Scrolls. For example, in the Great Isaiah Scroll in which the entire text has been preserved, we find that the oldest witness and the Masoretic differ by 14% with regard to the consonant root of the words alone. To this we must add errant vocalization which significantly alters the meaning of the words God chose. As with the 69 first-, second-, and third-century manuscripts which have been discovered of the Renewed Covenant, translators have universally ignored what the Qumran Scrolls reveal because they are bad for business. As every good marketing person knows, profits are a function of familiarity. And truth has seldom been popular. You wouldn’t be able to get a publisher to print an accurate rendering of Scripture because, as businessmen, they recognize something this unfamiliar wouldn’t sell. While God’s words were inspired, while most of them have been preserved and are known, translations are strictly human affairs. As such, I do not claim that my Scriptural presentations are perfect, only that they are as accurate and complete as I can render them using the oldest manuscripts and best research tools. For this purpose I have relied upon: The Dead Seas Scrolls Bible Enhanced Brown-Drive-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Hebrew Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon Englishman’s Concordance Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament The Complete Word Study Guide of the Old Testament The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; Werkgroep Informatica, Vrije Morphology Zondervan’s Hebrew-English Old Testament Interlinear Logos Scholar’s Edition Software The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament The Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Revised Edition The New American Standard Greek Dictionary The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament The Complete Word Study Guide of the New Testament Synonyms of the New Testament Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament The New International Greek Testament Commentary Word Studies in the New Testament The ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament The NRSV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, with McReynolds English Interlinear Marshall’s Parallel New Testament in Greek and English Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Therefore, in Yada Yahweh, you will find an accurate and complete translation of each Hebrew and Greek word, all rendered in accordance with the definitions and synonyms provided by the world’s most distinguished linguistic scholars. I most always have a dozen or more scholastic tomes open, surrounding me on revolving Jeffersonian carousels, and another score of research tools electronically linked to the text via Logos interactive software. It’s a lot of information, so recognize that in the quest to be thorough and accurate, fluidity will suffer. Scripture will not roll off the tongue in familiar word patterns. But you will know the truth—as God revealed it. The complete web site is at www.yadayahweh.com The following is Pastor 'D's" response to me: Quote:-----Original Message----- From: 'D' Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:07 AM To: 'Yada' Subject: RE: References and Sources
Dear 'Yada,'
Thank you for taking the trouble to meet with me today and for a lively discussion. As I continue to study the Word and grow in my relationship with the Lord, I will keep in mind your comments about the use of the Name YHWH and about the issue of the Sabbath. These issues have been widely discussed in the church for centuries, but they remain real issues of discussion and have never been fully resolved. These are good issues for further study. However, I feel that such study has to include an effort to understand the reasons why the church as a whole has arrived where it is today. To make blanket accusations of wrongdoing against hundreds of scholars and church leaders without knowing why they made the decisions they made is simply wrong.
As for the extract from "Yada Yahweh" that you sent, I am sorry, but it is full of inaccurate statements and lacks any credibility at all. In Missouri we would say, it is simply hogwash. The author mixes a few true statements in with a lot of nonsense and comes to the self-serving conclusion that his personal efforts to translate the Scriptures are superior to the efforts of dozens of experts from many different branches and denominations of the church. Pride and arrogance - that is what it is. Of course, it is entirely possible that he means well and that he actually believes the stuff that he is saying, so I would not want to judge him as a person or his heart, but I will say that his statements about Bible translations are hogwash. Yes, he does give a long list of resources that he says he studies, but it is easy to make a long list of references, that by itself doesn't count for much.
His whole argument starts with his assertion that,"The Textus Receptus serves as the foundation of all English translations of the Renewed Covenant ..." But this is incorrect. Newer translations do not use the Textus Receptus as their source. For example, the NIV New Testament translation is based primarily on the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament - the same Greek New Testament that he lists in his references. As for the Old Testament source documents, the NIV uses, "the Biblia Hebraica Masoretic Hebrew Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. " as sources. Do you see that, "Biblia Hebraica" listed first? The "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia." listed in the Yada Yahweh resource list is simply the newest edition of the Biblia Hebraica.
But the Yada Yahweh author ignores the facts and states, "All English translations claim to be based upon the Masoretic, an 11th century vocalization of Babylonian Hebrew ..." Wrong! It is likely that all modern translations list the Masoretic as one of their sources, but I am not aware of any modern translation that relies on the Masoretic as a sole source. He continues and says, " As with the 69 first-, second-, and third-century manuscripts which have been discovered of the Renewed Covenant, translators have universally ignored what the Qumran Scrolls reveal because they are bad for business" Once again, this is simply wrong. The Qumran Scrolls are the same Dead Sea Scrolls that the NIV translators include in their list of source documents and they are definitely not ignored by modern translators. The, "first- second, and third-century" New Testament manuscripts are not ignored either. Far from being ignored, all such manuscripts are carefully evaluated and any useful information from them is included in updates to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. This is a continuous process because new manuscripts are found quite often, and this is why the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is now in its 27th edition.
For both the Old and New Testaments, the Yada Yahweh author is claiming to use superior source documents than other translators. But in fact, he is using a subset of the source documents the NIV translators used. Actually, if you take a closer look at his reference list, you see that his reference list is dependent on the same Bible translation teams that he slams as being, "poor to horrible."
He lists: New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries - that is the people who did the NAS Bible. The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament - the people who did the English Standard Version(ESV) Bible Zondervan’s Hebrew-English Old Testament Interlinear - Zondervan - that is the main NIV publisher The New American Standard Greek Dictionary - that is the people who did the NAS Bible, again. The ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - English Standard Version (ESV) Bible people, again The NRSV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Bible people.
These are examples that are obvious from the titles, but chances are a lot more of his references are also coming from the very same scholars and Bible translators that he slams as being incompetent. What does this mean? It means his translation is based on the same Greek and Hebrew sources and the same pool of translation scholarship that all modern translations are based on. So he relies on all of their resources and then claims that he is a better translator than the guys who wrote the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries he is using. He stands on their shoulders for his work and then calls them incompetent. Hogwash.
He also says, "If a Hebrew or Greek word requires a paragraph to adequately communicate its meaning, as histemi does for example, you will find the required background, etymology, and shadings..." Okay, but when you do that, it is called a Bible commentary, not a Bible translation. And there are lots of excellent commentaries available.
Bottom line, Yada Yahweh definitely has a gift of gab and a knack for turning out impressive-sounding phrases. But I see no signs of any actual credible scholarship. Instead, I see a sleight-of-hand attempt to discredit hundreds of excellent Greek and Hebrew scholars by slamming their Bible translations, while at the very same time relying on the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries they wrote for his own translation attempt.
That is my opinion. What do you think?
In Jesus' love,
'D' Below is Yada's response to the e-mail I forwarded him: Quote:'Yada,'
I read the few to paragraphs of this and had more than my fill. This guy represents the established church position. He is convinced what he was taught is right, and that’s all he can handle. The first paragraph is more than sufficient to understand where he is coming form. Contrary to his position, it doesn’t matter how or why the church went wrong with regard to the Sabbath or Yahweh’s name, only that the issue is fully resolved in favor of God and in conflict with religion.
Fundamentalist Christian pastors are all taught, and all proclaim, their Bible is the inerrant word of God because it’s good for business. The history of translations, and the basis of them, isn’t something they study, or are comfortable dealing with. They can’t even deal with the fact that it is impossible for Jesus to be the Savior’s name.
There is no significant difference between the TR and the NAGNT, and despite what some translations claim, there is no evidence with any of them that they actually made ANY changes based upon the 70 pre-Constantine RC MSS or the DSS. They make the claim because it adds to their credibility, but that’s the end of it. As for the OC, the Masoretic still provides the overwhelming preponderance of the textual basis of today’s translations. This fellow would do well to read a half dozen books on the history of translations and the errors inherent in the most relied upon MSS.
Yada I responded to Yada, quoting from pastor 'D's' email (my text appears in black type, pastor 'D's' in green, with Yada's responses in red. I inserted the closing paragraph of Yada's response here from another short e-mail in the interest of readability): Quote:From: Yada Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:53 AM To: 'Yada' Subject: "Pretending to be Paul"
Hello Yada - thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Yes, when we talked about the origins of the name "Jesus," I actually quoted directly from YY about how it was changed in 1629. He was obviously uncomfortable with this and just said something to the effect, "it doesn't really matter because of what the word (name) means NOW!"
This is the kind of justification and lack of judgment and reason which permeates the minds of those who continue to promote the pagan aspects of Christianity. His entire letter to you demonstrated a reluctance to deal with evidence contrary to his religion. And like all religious clerics, he relies upon half truths. This is how counterfeits are built and are sold.
Obviously, I think this is, to borrow the word he chose, "hogwash,"but there is one portion of his response and the claim that he made that I'd like to understand better. Your e-mail response does address it, but hoping to get a more detailed direct response to the specific assertion he made: "he is using a subset of the source documents the NIV translators used." What does this mean? It means his translation is based on the same Greek and Hebrew sources and the same pool of translation scholarship that all modern translations are based on. So he relies on all of their resources and then claims that he is a better translator than the guys who wrote the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries he is using. He stands on their shoulders for his work and then calls them incompetent."
I answered this question. Like all current English translations, the NIV claims something which isn’t actually true—not at least in any meaningful way. They do so because it enhances sales. But when you read the NIV you’ll notice that other than modernizing the English, there are very few if any substantive changes based upon older manuscript evidence or based upon more accurate renderings of the words. Not once, for example, do they deal with the fact that the seven most used names and titles aren’t written out in any of the pre-Constantine MSS. If you are going to claim that you relied upon these texts, then you have to convey what they convey to be truthful. They don’t.
The second part of this is addressed in the book. I don’t claim to be a better translator, only that I provide a more comprehensive and complete rendering of each word. Doing so is amplification, not a commentary as this fellow alleges. Then I provide the Greek or Hebrew basis for each word so that you can look it up for yourself.
There are many Hebrew and Greek lexicons, interlinears, and old manuscripts, and I use scores of them. So, it is true, and I readily admit that I am able to do this because of what they have done. That’s why I list them and credit them, encouraging others to buy them and use them. But here’s the rub: since familiar sells, following in the footsteps of the KJV, most all popular English translations choose the same English word to represent the Greek or Hebrew, even if it is inconsistent with Yahweh’s message, and even if other choices are consistent.
If you want to understand why the amplified translations I use are different that the group think of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV, you’ll need to buy and read a half dozen books on the history of bible translations. And then to see for yourself how much of what they say is wrong, and to learn for yourself why what I’ve presented is usually more accurate, you’ll have to follow my advice: buy and use the same tools.
This is what the pastor is missing. There is no scholarly dispute, by way of example, that the basis of cross isn’t in any of the Greek manuscripts, or that the Greek word errantly changed to cross, actually means “upright pole.” There is no scholarly dispute that ekklesia means “called out,” not church. So, since every modern translation says otherwise, you have to deal with the issue this man doesn’t want to address. Why is there so much consistency in error when the evidence is universally inconsistent with the universal choices? When you know this answer, you’ll understand the justifications for Sunday worship, Christmas and Easter.
Lexicons and dictionaries bear the names of the most popular translations or publishers because it gets them distributed and sold, nothing more. But, here is what the pastor is missing. When you look up most words in these tools you will quickly see that they differ from the translations which bear their name. That’s the problem.
Quoting from his e-mail:
For both the Old and New Testaments, the Yada Yahweh author is claiming to use superior source documents than other translators. But in fact, he is using a subset of the source documents the NIV translators used. Actually, if you take a closer look at his reference list, you see that his reference list is dependent on the same Bible translation teams that he slams as being, "poor to horrible."
He lists: New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries - that is the people who did the NAS Bible. The ESV English-Hebrew Reverse Interlinear Old Testament - the people who did the English Standard Version (ESV) Bible Zondervan’s Hebrew-English Old Testament Interlinear - Zondervan - that is the main NIV publisher The New American Standard Greek Dictionary - that is the people who did the NAS Bible, again. The ESV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - English Standard Version (ESV) Bible people, again The NRSV English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Bible people.
These are examples that are obvious from the titles, but chances are a lot more of his references are also coming from the very same scholars and Bible translators that he slams as being incompetent. What does this mean? It means his translation is based on the same Greek and Hebrew sources and the same pool of translation scholarship that all modern translations are based on. So he relies on all of their resources and then claims that he is a better translator than the guys who wrote the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries he is using. He stands on their shoulders for his work and then calls them incompetent. Hogwash.
I am sure that there are others out there who have had or will have the same conversation with those representing "the established church." I plan to start a thread under "Translations & Resources" but wanted to include your input.
The reason I provide the Greek and Hebrew words and the full list of sources, is so that you can look them up for yourself. I don’t claim to have everything right, but I claim that Yahweh does and that far too often, most translators don’t. All I have done is to provide a more complete and accurate rendering of each word based on the best tools and then have brought things together so that the big picture is in perspective and is better focused. When this is done, the pagan corruptions of Christianity and those who promote it and profit from it, are exposed.
Thanks Yada. -Yada (By the way, at one point during our conversation, he accussed me of trying to act like Paul - to which I replied, "there are two of us sitting at this table, but only one of us has pinned a religious title to themselves." There was dead silence.)
Since he couldn’t refute your position, he attacked you. But, there is no shame in “trying to act like Paul.”
The reason people like this pastor can get way with dubious arguments is that they are usually presented to an uninformed audience. For example, very few people know that the lexicons published by the bible translation corporations define a high percentage of the words found in Scripture differently in their dictionaries than they do in their translations. So it’s not an issue of knowing what the correct definition of a word is, but instead, choosing to use it. And thus the conflict isn’t between me and the scholars who composed the lexicons, but instead between the lexicons and the translations.
Yada Yada then followed-up with: Quote:'Yada'
When you talk to the pastor, focus on two things. First, ask him how it is possible for the definitions found in the Hebrew and Greek lexicons published by his favorite bible versions to differ so substantially from the words selected in these same translations? Doesn’t that imply that the linguistic scholars were errant in one of the two places? And since it does, especially with words like church, holy, cross, and gospel, which one is right?
Second, since none of the 70 pre-Constantine MSS write out Yahweh’s names and titles, why isn’t this reflected in the translations which claim to be based upon them? Since the DSS has Yahweh’s name 7000, how can the NIV honestly say that it relied upon the DSS since it doesn’t include it a single time? And since the NIV, NASB, and NKJV didn’t alter their text to reflect many of the differences between the Masoretic and the DSS, isn’t is disingenuous to infer reliance on older sources?
Third, say my amplified translations which were based entirely upon the most respected linguistic sources were errant, would that not mean that the most respected linguistic sources are unreliable? And if that is the case, how can the most respected translations be accurate?
Fourth, if my amplified translations were inaccurate, how does that effect the realization that pastors preach Lord instead of Yahweh, Jesus as a replacement for Yahushua, Christ, not Messiyah or Anointed Implement of Yah, Holy and Saint rather than Set-Apart, Church rather than Called Out, Cross instead of Upright Pole, a call to Sunday worship rather than reflecting on the Sabbath, celebrating Easter Sunday instead of answering Yahweh’s call to observe Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, why Pentecost, not Sevens, and Christmas rather than Reconciliations and Tabernacles? Who gave man the authority to contradict God?
Yada Finally, this is an excerpt from an e-mail I just received from Yada. I have underlined the portion that I think is central: Quote:'Yada,'
It’s possible, and even likely, that I have erred with some of the amplified translations. And I don’t have access to any original autographs. So, all I can claim is that my translations are as accurate as the oldest MSS and best lexicons allow. But thankfully, Yah’s revelation is presented so many different ways, all of which are consistent, it’s pretty easy to know who He is and what He wants when you make the effort. And as you have said, all you have to do is read His words and you know that the Scriptures are inspired. The story God has presented is far too magnificent and majestic to be human.
Yada Edited by user Monday, February 11, 2008 12:17:37 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |