01.05. A Modest Translation

A Modest Translation by Clint Branham clint@AwakenedChurch.com http://AwakenedChurch.com The year is 1238 A.A. (After Annihilation) it is estimated that the year reckoned the old way would be 3250 A.D. (Anno Domini) An excerpt of an Ancient American text was recently discovered outside the capital, and was given to a professor at the university for analysis, translation, and publication. American texts were extremely rare since the annihilation. Ancient America was a place that was filled with bizarre rituals (worshiping strange gods; electronics, sporting events, vocations, clothes, and religion). They exported drug use to the entire world, killed unborn babies to placate their gods, and their culture that was replete with charlatans, con-men, liars, thieves, and war-monger. Thankfully, the holocaust against the Ancient American way of life had been swift, and extremely successful.

Very little information on the culture was known to exist, other than the reasons for the holocaust that everyone learned early in life. However a treasure trove of documents had been discovered about 60 years ago. They have been locked away deep inside the world archives. Access to those documents has been extremely difficult to obtain. The professor had hoped to turn the excerpt over to the team at the world archives, but the timeframe just didn’t work out.

Because the text made so little sense to the professor he had his top English grammar expert translate it and glean as much information as possible from the text. The Scholar was the perfect choice; he had scored perfect scores on all 3 of his university entrance examinations. He had graduated top in his class at the University where he majored in Ancient American Language. His only exposure to the language was strictly an academic one. Since English had been considered a dead language for 1000 years, he had never actually spoken English to a native English speaker. This is The Scholar’s introduction and translation of the paragraph: This is a story of terror, mayhem, drug use, cover-up involving Bill and Mary-Jane that takes place in New England in approximately 1835 A.D (177 P.A. - Pre-Annihilation)

Bill was on a bizarre restricted diet; he was hallucinating and realized instead of adding additional boards to the dining room table, he was mutilating a horse. Mary-Jane wanted them to stop mutilating the horse and set fire to some nearby road bridges. Bill’s only concern was hiding the weapon by burying it and consuming a hot liquid drug to calm his nerves. Bill worshiped the mutilated horse by offering a two wheeled wagon in front of it and while he was offering the wagon he fell down to worship, and so that he could tie a rope to the spring of the wagon and complete the ceremony.

Here is the original Ancient American text:

Bill had already eaten supper and was as full as a tick. He was fixing to leave the table when he realized, he was beating a dead horse. He didn’t want to burn any bridges with Mary-Jane, he wanted to bury the hatchet and just get a cup of coffee. Bill was putting the cart before the horse; he realized that he should just go ahead and fall for her, so that they could tie the knot in the spring. The Scholar was confronted by the World Archive researchers that had immersed themselves in Ancient American culture, customs, and idioms. Their contention was that the paragraph should be interpreted quite differently. The paragraph was full of idioms and probably was not from the 1835 A.D. but could have been written, even last week, and pretty much from any location where these idioms are understood. It had a simple interpretation that had nothing to do with any religious practice; after a particularly filling meal, John, a love sick man, was getting up from the table, when he began to contemplate his feelings for Jane, and decided that he should propose to her so that they could be married in the spring time. This was absolutely insulting. The Scholar was incredulous that anyone would question his translation, with such a simple fanciful tale. This was obviously opposite the real meaning, Love and romance vs. Mayhem and cover-up. 1835 A.D. vs. last week, New England vs. anywhere, indeed… this was absolutely infuriating to The Scholar. He would publish his research to lay this nonsense to rest:

Timeframe: The origins of this story are unclear but by examining the context we can date the story. Cart – a two wheeled wagon, this placed the time of the story before the invention of the automobile, around 1900. The second clue is in the phrase “burn any bridges”. Shortly after the invention of the automobile bridges began to be constructed out of steel and concrete this dates the paragraph to before 1900. Carts were in use from the 1500’s until the late 1800’s. However Carts with springs were an invention of the early 1800’s. It is not likely that we will know the exact date this story was written, but with a great deal of certainty we can ascertain that the date was approximately 1835.

Location: Within the context of the story two facts give us a clue as to the region of America that these events took place. Mary-Jane wanted to “burn some bridges” this lets us know that more than one bridge was within walking distance. The only place in America that this could have taken place is a region known as New England. This is also verified by the fact that the dining room table had “leaves” (extensions made of wood to make a table larger) during the 1830’s this technology was also primarily available in the New England area as well.

Theme: This is a dark, bizarre tale of a reign of terror of two Ancient Americans Bill and Mary-Jane in the 1830’s. Their exploits include the mutilation of horses, sabotaging the bridges and a schizophrenic attempt at cover up. The names Bill, and Mary-Jane also point to the drug culture and a drug deal gone bad. Bill – a document stating an amount of money owed for a debt. Mary Jane was another name for Marihuana, like Coffee another drug of the era. The choice of these names points to a drug deal gone awry. Even though the exploits of this notorious couple are not verified within the history of the 1830’s they very probably happen in the climate of New England in the 1830’s.

Spiritual Content: This practice that is so bizarre to us - was more than likely very common to the Ancients. Mutilation, mayhem, and sacrifice were all very consistent with Ancient American worship practices. The one glaring inconsistency is that the sacrifice involved an animal. For all the detestable faults the Ancients, they had an extreme reverence for animals, above that of their own offspring. It is unclear why a horse and not a child was chosen for mutilated.

Phrase by Phrase comparison:

The Scholar was steadfast in his translation and these claims of hidden idiomatic meanings should not be believed or even tolerated. The “Revelation” of the World Archive researchers goes against the plain reading of the text and against what has been taught about the Ancient American Culture since the Annihilation. For over 1000 years it has been an established fact, that all Ancient Americans were liars, swindlers, thieves, and could never be trusted. Perhaps the researchers have also adopted those aspects of the Ancient American Culture as well.

What were some of the pre-conceived ideas that The Scholar had about Ancient Americans?

They were charlatans, con-men, liars, swindlers, thieves, and war-mongers that practiced bizarre rituals and worshiped strange gods: electronics, sporting events, vocations, clothes, and religion. Did the Scholar accept those pre-conceptions as fact? Yes, “For over 1000 years it has been an established fact…” Did the pre-conceived ideas affect the translation? Yes! Did the Scholar make the story fit his distorted set of “facts”? Absolutely! The Scholar had definite pre-conceived ideas. He had no concept of American culture or idioms, and only had the raw meanings of the words to use for translation. Given these facts would you or I have come to a different translation? I dare say no, we wouldn’t! Was the translated version definitionally correct? Yes. Did he take liberties with content to make it make sense? Yes. The Scholar took the fact of burying the hatchet and made the logical leap that the beating instrument must have been the hatchet, and because it was being buried it was a conspiracy to hide the events. This idiotic confusion was because the Scholar had not actually spent any time talking to native English speakers, or studying the American Culture and understanding that a great deal of English conversation is in the form of idioms. This is not a literary anomaly that is unique to English; every language has idioms. So, what exactly is an idiom? An idiom refers to a grammatical construction unique to a certain people, region, or class that cannot be translated literally into another language.

It is interesting that a similar situation to the above story happened with the translators and modern readers of the English Bible.

What were some of the pre-conceived ideas that a modern reader of the New Testament might have?

·Gentiles superseded the Jews in the early church, by God’s design ·The Church is the Bride of Christ ·Worship is on Sunday, Sabbath was changed. Because Jesus rose on Sunday, ·The religion of the Jews was what the Old Testament was about

·    The Law is done away with therefore we are free from the “Old Testament Stuff”

·Jews shouldn’t be trusted, (they killed Jesus) ·Only the Jews, and those saved after the rapture will be here during the tribulation.

None of these ideas have ever been presented as pre-conceived ideas or bias, they are just “Right”. They have been taught for several hundred years, we trust those that pass down this information. They would not willingly deceive anyone. They are not ever questioned, because they are so deeply engrained on all aspects of Bible study and worship. Where do these pre-conceptions originate? To a great extent they are rooted in our English bible, and those that controlled the Church. From the early 2^nd century on, all understanding of the Hebrew and Jewish culture was vilified and made to be treated as a cancerous plague. The translators of the King James Bible were not exempted from this view of the Hebrew culture, it had been taught as fact for over 1,000 years. Their world view was shaped by the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the breakaway of the Church of England from the Catholic Church. Not particularly glorious times in Church history, especially concerning Jewish and Hebrew culture. But, even thse events were spoken of by Jesus:

John 16:1-2 KJV These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. The translators had dictionary knowledge of the Hebrew language but not cultural and idiomatic knowledge. They had access to Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and other translations of the scriptures; but, they translated the New Testament from a Greco-Roman perspective that did not recognize a Hebrew mindset or Hebrew idioms. Even though the Text was penned using Koine Greek, the culture being described was definitely Hebrew. When persons with an understanding of the Hebrew Language and culture read the New Testament they were amazed at the Hebrew grammatical structure and the amount of Hebraisms in a Greek text. There are two types of Greek: Classical and Koine. In order for the 70 scholars that translated the Septuagint to have the Greek translation maintain some of the Hebraic intent of the original scriptures the resulting Greek grammar was so poor that the term Koine Greek or common Greek was “coined”. Most other Greek works were in Classic Greek. Through this type of analysis has convinced many leading linguistic scholars that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew, Translated to Greek (the common language of the time) then, from a Greek translation into English.

Examples of some of the Hebrew idioms in the New Testament:

Matthew 6:22-23 NIV "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!”

There are two Hebrew idioms in these verses. “Eyes are good” is an idiom for generosity, and “eyes are bad” is an idiom for stinginess. This also fits into the explanation given in the very next verse.

Matthew 6:24 NIV "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

Another idiom in Matthew

Matthew 5:17-20 KJV Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

“Jesus quoted a Hebrew idiom when He said He came not to destroy the Law or the prophets.  He was using a familiar phrase easily understood during Biblical times.  Jesus had been accused of misinterpreting the Torah, yet He said that He was actually rightly and correctly teaching it.  Traditional Jewish writings support this idiom, "Should all the nations of the world unite to uproot one word of the Law, they would be unable to do it," Leviticus Rabbah 19:2.  To understand the meaning of this verse, everything hinges on the meaning of the words "destroy" and "fulfill" in verse 17. What does Jesus mean by "destroy the Law" and "fulfill the Law"? "Destroy" and "fulfill" are technical terms used in rabbinic argumentation. When a sage felt that a colleague had misinterpreted a passage of Scripture, he would say, "You are destroying the Law!" Needless to say, in most cases, his colleagues strongly disagreed. What was "destroying the Law" for one sage was "fulfilling the Law" (correctly interpreting Scripture) for another," wrote Bivin and Blizzard in their book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus (Yahshua).

“There are many of these Hebraisms, one of the most common of them being "Son of man." What does "Son of man" mean in English, Spanish, German, or any other language? Absolutely nothing -- except in Hebrew. The expression "Ben Adam" means literally "son of Adam" and by extension "son of man," and "man," Adam being of course the first man alive. In any street corner in Israel you may hear, "Here comes this Ben Adam," meaning, "Here comes this man." This example, which occurs no less than 92 times in the Tanak (the Jewish Scripture) and 43 times in the New Covenant (Cruden’s Concordance) is obviously the same Hebrew idiom.

It is said that the New Covenant was written in Koine Greek, common Greek, because it is found to be a poor kind of Greek. When we find these many Hebraisms as there are there, we begin to understand that it is not Koine Greek lying there, in the substratum of the text, but a Hebrew original. Since the Hebrew original was almost literally translated into Greek, the text sounds like poor Greek.

Let us take another example, the idiom "Peace be to you," appearing twelve times in the New Covenant. What kind of a greeting is "Peace be to you" in English, Spanish, French, or any other language -- except Hebrew? It is meaningless, again. Only in Hebrew does it make any real sense. This is the most common, everyday greeting in Israel today, the world-famous "shalom." It literally means "peace," but it is used as an everyday greeting meaning anything from "Hi" to "How are you?" according to the intonation and the mood of the speaker” Julio Dam - Beit Shalom Messianic Congregation in Asuncion, Paraguay Did Jesus ever instruct others to participate in Sacrifice? Yes.

Matthew 8:3-4 KJV And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. The entire 14^th Chapter of Leviticus outlines all the sacrifices that are to be offered after leprosy has been cured. Why did they choose to use the word gift instead of sacrifice? I believe that this is a direct result of the translators’ biases creeping into interpretation.

If we do not at least investigate the possibility of the idiomatic meaning and cultural context in scripture “we have our blinders on” and are “like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand”. You may seem “out of your element” even to consider this, because the implications will cause you to “go back to square one” and “start from scratch.”

Blindly following because of tradition is not scriptural!

Acts 17:10-11 KJV And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. The Prophet Elijah told the children of Israel to follow truth and the true God no matter who it was.

1 Kings 18:21 KJV And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. Not because he told them, not because he was the God of their Fathers. They had to determine this for themselves that He was the True God! Faith comes from a changed heart, not from superior intellect.

Php 2:11-12 KJV And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

John 17:3 KJV And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Am I saying that I believe that all English Bibles are completely wrong? No, But I don’t believe that there are any inspired translations or translators.

Excerpts from The Original Preface To The King James (Authorized) Version 1611

• Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way.

• Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings.

• Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptism, and Congregation instead of Church:

• He removeth the scales from our eyes, the vail from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may love it to the end. Ye are brought unto fountains of living water which ye digged not; do not cast earth into them with the Philistines, neither prefer broken pits before them with the wicked Jews.

• …the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps.

•Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch;

Rules of the King James Translators:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly (meaning commonly) used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the ancient fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the Faith.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

Speaking specifically of the King James Version; Were the translators good men? Yes. Were they eminent scholars? Yes. Did they have a common set of worship practices, traditions and doctrines? Yes. Would the King have allowed them to go against his established practices, traditions and doctrines? No. Did the translation shape the translators doctrine, or did their doctrine shape the translation? Their doctrine definitely shaped the translation. Did the Translators understand the cultural and idiomatic nature of scripture? Apparently not… Is the King James Version the best translation for the English Language? Yes, I believe it is, when it is understood that it is a translation - not the original, it has doctrinal biases that creep in from time to time (some slight - others major), and the cultural practices, historical context and idioms couldn’t necessarily be translated. When a person relies solely on a translator to provide the basis for doctrine (by only reading the text - without studying culture, context and idioms), there is no telling the number doctrines that can be created. The fact that there are 38,000 different Christian Denominations world-wide testifies to that fact.

Romans 16:17-20 KJV Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Let me be clear: Paul is speaking of the same doctrine that is in John 7:16-19 and 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It is not the doctrine that is prevalent in the 38,000 different Christian Denominations. http://www.search.com/reference/Christian_denominations

John 7:16-19 KJV Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him. Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

2 Timothy 3:15-17 KJV And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Was the New Testament “the Scripture” that Paul was talking about? Emphatically, Un-categorically, and Absolutely Not! The Holy Scripture referred to by Paul was the Hebrew Tanach; the Old Testament! Jesus Christ was, and is, the Hebrew Messiah, the Hebrew Messiah, not a Greco/Roman/Gentile Messiah. The coming of the Messiah was first prophesied in Genesis. Since the entire Bible is built on a foundation of the Torah, the Law, was the abolition or nullification of the Law prophesied? If, in fact, that was the pre-determined will of the Father, it would have been prophesied! But it wasn’t. Did you catch that? The abolition of the Law was never prophesied! In fact Moses prophesied about those that come and speak against the Law:

Deuteronomy 18:17-20 KJV And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Jesus Christ did not start a new religion; he “fulfilled” the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because, thru his Grace HE Saved us from the penalty of the Law. Grace doesn’t replace the Law, supersede the Law, negate the Law, and isn’t liberty from the Law.

1 John 3:4 KJV Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin is transgression of the law. Transgress;offend,infract, violate, go against, breach, break(act in disregard of laws, rules, contracts, or promises) Deeper insight to 1 John 3:5-9 (and the entire question of Law vs. Grace) can be gained by substituting that definition to restate what sin is: no sin – doesn’t break God’s Laws sinneth not - doesn’t continually violate God’s Laws sinneth - continually break God’s Lawsdoth not commit sin - doesn’t break God’s Laws

1 John 3:5-9 KJV [emphasis mine] And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins [breaking of the Laws of God]; and in him is no sin [doesn’t break God’s Laws]. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: [doesn’t continually break God’s Laws] whosoever sinneth [continually breaks God’s Laws] hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin [breaks God’s Laws] is of the devil; for the devil sinneth [continually broke God’s Laws] from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin [doesn’t break God’s Laws]; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin [break God’s Law], because he is born of God.

Grace is the only mechanism to save us from the penalty for breaking God’s Laws - death and eternal separation from Him. This is an extremely sobering passage: “whosoever sinneth [continually breaks God’s Laws] hath not seen him, neither known him.”

Romans 6:1-2 KJV What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? The vast majority of Christian religions must deal honestly with 1 John 4:1-9, and accept what it teaches. When they do it will make the books of the Apostles, Acts, and the writings of Paul make perfect sense!

There are hidden gems within scripture that can actually bring the scriptures to life! These gems can only be unlocked when we understand, accept, and embrace the Hebrew origins and roots of our faith. Nothing would better suit Satan than to perpetrate a massive deception to rob “the saved” of the blessings that God has promised his children. I am convinced that this deception is so well established and deeply rooted, that to even suggest that the New Testament should be interpreted from a Hebrew perspective is viewed as blasphemy. My salvation and that of my family has been questioned, because of my belief that following the Law and the Saving Grace of the Messiah are not mutually exclusive, and Grace should not be preached as a “get out of hell free card”.

I hope this story “doesn’t get your nose out of joint”. I don’t mean “to rock the boat” And please realize that I have “gone out on a limb” to share this with you. It is time for you to “hit the books” and “put your nose to the grindstone”. “Make no bones about it”, “don’t turn a blind eye” to this because “the ball is in your court”.