Curious About ISR---The Scriptures Bible

[MarsHill]

Actually, they like looking at it differently than the majority of language scholars do. The problem being, that they do not list the translator/translators of their version and their credentials. I personally feel that the 'translation' is theologically biased, and incorrect contextually in reference to the original languages.

I agree. I recently purchased a copy. Initially I was quite excited about receiving it but now that I have it I'm not quite sure what to think about it. Much of it seems fine. But I want to keep my guard up when reading it.

The fact that they do not answer questions, list their translators, Biblical interpretation view, etc. is quite suspicious. It does not necessarily indicate that the translation is wrong but it seems that if I were going to write and publically release a translation I would be more than happy to publicize the reason I have translated in a certain manner.

Obviously I am not a Messianic but I am very interested in Messianic studies. I plan on studying with a Messianic congregation soon. It's amazing that a well known scholar has not come forward with a legitimate translation that is both scholarly and represents the Messianic viewpoint as well.

 

[MarsHill]

Is this online somewhere?

www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/

 

[Bon]

I notice that a congregation in the Oregon uses this translation. This being their reasoning:

We use them because they, at least in our opinion, more accurately portray some of the idioms, figures of speech, and nuances of the culture in which both the Tanakh, (frequently called the Old Testament) and the Brit Chadasha, (frequently called the New Testament) were transmitted to mankind.

We also recommend and use those translations because they are remarkably free of some of the latent anti-Semitism that has been injected into or left in other translations by either the ignorance or bias of the translators.

The King James Version of Act 12:4 Makes this statement - "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. The Koine Greek word translated "Easter" is PASCHA, which should have been translated as either PESACH or Passover. Why, other than to validate the substitution of the Holy Day of the Almighty with a Pagan replacement, was this done?

Why would we, in seeking to present Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah, use an anti-semitic error born out of hatred for our ancestors?

Bon

 

[MarsHill]

I notice that a congregation in the Oregon uses this translation. This being their reasoning:



Bon

My question is did they go too far by adopting The Scriptures as their translation choice? Do they know for a fact that The Scriptures properly uses trends, idioms, phrases, etc that are found in the Hebrew Tanakh or is this just speculation based upon what the Institute for Scripture Research publishes concerning their translation?

This brings me back to my original question? Is it scholarly and a fair representation of the intent of the text or has it just been accepted blindly because it is advertised as being for Messianics?

If the King James "wrong use" of the word Easter prompted them to use this translation then why not use any other mainstream English translation that does not use the word "Easter" in the text of Acts?

I still say that "if" The Scriptures is not a scholarly and accurate work then there is a great need for scholars in Messianic circles to develop a translation that is well received and acceptable. One which reflects the truth of the cultural setting and manuscript evidence.

 

[Bon]

I still say that "if" The Scriptures is not a scholarly and accurate work then there is a great need for scholars in Messianic circles to develop a translation that is well received and acceptable. One which reflects the truth of the cultural setting and manuscript evidence.

Define Messianic?
There are as many variances under the Messianic banner as there are within Christianity.

Bon

 

[Sephania]

My question is did they go too far by adopting The Scriptures as their translation choice? Do they know for a fact that The Scriptures properly uses trends, idioms, phrases, etc that are found in the Hebrew Tanakh or is this just speculation based upon what the Institute for Scripture Research publishes concerning their translation?

This brings me back to my original question? Is it scholarly and a fair representation of the intent of the text or has it just been accepted blindly because it is advertised as being for Messianics?

If the King James "wrong use" of the word Easter prompted them to use this translation then why not use any other mainstream English translation that does not use the word "Easter" in the text of Acts?

I still say that "if" The Scriptures is not a scholarly and accurate work then there is a great need for scholars in Messianic circles to develop a translation that is well received and acceptable. One which reflects the truth of the cultural setting and manuscript evidence.

With their reasoning one wonders why they would reject Stern Complete Jewish Bible.

I think because of translational problem a true student should have a variety of translations and learn as much about the original language as possible, and pray for true revelation of what is truth in the word.

 

[Bon]

I think because of translational problem a true student should have a variety of translations and learn as much about the original language as possible, and pray for true revelation of what is truth in the word.

I agree.....

With open heart and mind.

 

[thetruthremains]

I was told a while back that C.J Koster was the original 'translator'. C.J. Koster wrote the book "Come out of her my people" , which in my opinion was filled with error. There are also a lot of bias issues in my opinion. Secondly, they referenced the Shem Tov Matthew in the 'translation' process. That thing is all over the map.

 

[MarsHill]

Define Messianic?
There are as many variances under the Messianic banner as there are within Christianity.

Bon

Perhaps the Messianics should define what it means to be Messianic as much as the Christians should define what it means to be Christian. But that seems to be an impossible task.

The umbrella is much too large in my opinion.

 

[MarsHill]

I agree.....

With open heart and mind.

Being too open minded might be dangerous. Evidence, justification for translation, and the desire to refrain from being a blind follower should be considered when it comes to translations.

By the way............are you following me around in here?

 

[Bon]

Perhaps the Messianics should define what it means to be Messianic as much as the Christians should define what it means to be Christian.

The umbrella is much too large in my opinion.

Yes, and each one would give a different definintion.
The foundation may be the same or similar....but from there, we tend to go off in different directions.

Of course the umbrella is too large...we are fallible humans.

Bon

 

[Bon]

Being too open minded might be dangerous. Evidence, justification for translation, and the desire to refrain from being a blind follower should be considered when it comes to translations.

By the way............are you following me around in here?

hehe! I might be!

I didn't say open-minded but mean an open mind and heart to the voice of God. Now that can't be dangerous?

Yes, you are right. Perhaps it is those who put all their faith in and focus on one translation who might be considered blind followers. Especially if they accept it merely on recommendation from another.

Bon

 

[Wezo777]

That is puzzling. Thanks for pointing this out. I noticed that in their footnote on page 1167 they have this written----Messiah is called the Mediator of the New (Renewed) Covenant in Hebrews, in three places. 8:6, 9:15, 12:24.

That note seems to indicate in a confusing way that new somehow = renewed.

Notice in 12:24 they have "and to Yeshua the Mediator of a new covenant....." I wonder why they did not change new to renewed in this context?

from my understanding off being a messianic believer is there is no NEW so to speak , Jesus came to renew all things not to make new , also the Messiah came to renew the old not make new , in other words restore whats already there to bring both jew and gentile as one

so Messiah did'nt change the law or preach something new but he renewed it or pointed it how it should be John 1:1 makes cleare , Jesus/Yeshua is the word , he became the living word in the flesh to show us how walk out the torah or the word

i have not read the scriptures bible

 

[visionary]

All the misapplications of God's instructions over the centuries has voided the very purpose of God's law. It is not to be a burden but to bring righteous structure in one's life. It, in its self, embodies the very character of God which we are to emulate.

 

[LoAnn]

In my opinion, it restores the original perspective that every person should have. Someone replied here and says that it takes away from Doctrine, but I believe that restores Doctrine. It allows us to understand and step away from the conformities and adoptions that Christianity has brought to believers. I truly believe Christianity is now a Pagan religion, and we are called not to conform but to be set apart. These scriptures try to restore what translations now have taken away. Such as great names of our King, perspectives that were written with Hebrew meanings can now be fully understood.

 

[CherubRam]

What are the doctrines of the Holy Namers? I tried a search but all I saw was lies from other people. Do the Holy Namers have a website?

 

[visionary]

It is always best to pray for God's guidance in all matters even scriptures, especially scriptures. We are living in the generation of every wind of doctrine, and only the Holy Spirit can confirm His signature upon any work.