Believer's Home Page


All Content is Copyright ©

Hal Dekker


All Rights Reserved






My Statement of Belief



Contact Info






A Literal Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament



Why We, Sons Of God And Disciples Of Christ Jesus, Are To Keep Ourselves Holy



"No temple roofs, none whatsoever!"



God's Desired True "Tent", His "Domed-roof House"!



2 Pet. 1:20-21 - Private Interpretation?



We are Commanded to Think for Ourselves!



How "Pure" Is Modern Christianity?



Modern "Christianity" - The Retailing Of God's Word



Agency and Jesus Christ, The Father's Agent



Jesus Christ Was an Icon!



Hebrews 1:2 - Through whom He also made the ages...



The "Cross" That Jesus Christ Lifted and Carried



"Eat my flesh... drink my blood"



Jesus' Genealogy



Titus 2:13 - Does it really say that Jesus Christ is God?  



How to Receive Answers to Prayer



Belief & Discipleship - How To Be A Disciple Of Jesus Christ



Angel or Messenger?



The "I AM ..." Christian Fable



The Gifts of God



Communion - Our Daily "Bread"



Is Salvation "Wholeness"?



Truly I say to you TODAY, ...



The Passion of the Christ - Were the Jewish Religious Leaders Responsible?  Absolutely!  But more than they, the devil.



We Wrestle Not Against Flesh and Blood!



The Symbiotic Union



Christian Denominationalism Is Not Approved In The Holy Scriptures!



The "First" Shall be "Last"



Parable of the Lost Things - Luke 15 



Jesus Christ and his oxygen bottle?



Jesus' Figurative Usage Axiom!



Genesis 1 & 2, The Original Creation, or the Recreation of It?




Earthquake Frequency

Updated: 2012/04/24



Southlawn Lessons

Judges 4

Jeremiah 23



The Birth of Americanism & Thanksgiving



 The "Federal Reserve" is NOT a part of the US Federal government!



Invest In CDs And Lose?







Home of the Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT) of the

New Testament of the Bible. 


This page updated on: 2014/04/17


Welcome to you.  My name is Hal Dekker.

I am the translator of the Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT), which is based upon the UBS4 eclectic Greek text of the new testament of the Bible. 


What's unique about the LIT is that it has no triune godhead-based theology fudged into it as do virtually all other English translations.  It simply quotes the ancient writers of the new testament Greek texts of the Bible.  The LIT isn't designed or intended to prove or disprove any theological theories, but to simply show in English exactly what did the ancient writers actually write, through quoting them.  If while quoting the ancient writers of the Bible the LIT can't produce any special terminology favored by any given theological theory, that's simply coincidental.  The "theology" favored by the ancient writers was their own!    


One big, and apparently invented (since there is no scriptural proof of it) theological theory of the 4th century, the triune godhead theory, has already set itself up for contradiction by the ancient writers of the new testament books of the Bible.  Triune godhead-associated terminology and ideas have long been fudged into virtually all English translations, through the use of countless paraphrases and creative "synonyms".  This has been done to deliberately make the ancient writers sound like they already thought, spoke and wrote with a triune godhead theory or belief in mind when they wrote the new testament Greek texts of the Bible.  But they didn't have a triune godhead mindset, and never did.  This is why the LIT, which simply quotes the ancient writers, is completely devoid of any triune godhead references and terminology whatsoever. 


There is no "three in one", "triune", "co-equal", "god the son", "incarnation" and so on, terminology used by any of the new testament writers, nor are there any references to triune godhead ideas.  If there was any of this kind of terminology in the Greek texts I would quote it in the LIT.  But the ancient writers all wrote about their own belief in the God and His son Christ Jesus using the terminology they understood was associated with that belief, as they were taught it.  What "theological" belief they wrote about, using its associated terminology, is now considered the "old orthodoxy" with the adoption of the fourth century "new orthodoxy" - the invented triune godhead theory. 


The terminology the scriptural writers used is the terminology they were taught, which as far as we know, was taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles, which was initially taught to Jesus Christ himself by his heavenly Father, the God almighty.  This is the terminology of the "old orthodoxy", which orthodoxy the pagan emperor Constantine abandoned in the fourth century.  The terminology of the "old orthodoxy" is what is revealed in the LIT.


If for the first three plus centuries of the history of the Christian church the "new orthodoxy" didn't exist, at least in the minds of the ancient scriptural writers, then what exactly was preached and taught as the "old orthodoxy", for a believer's belief and practice?  Exactly what were, or still are, the theological contents, down into minute detail, of the "old orthodoxy"?  This is the soul of Christianity for which I am searching.  And this is what I'm discovering with the production of the LIT!  I'm discovering the soul of true Christianity, the Christianity taught in the first century through Christ Jesus and his apostles, discovering it word by word and line by line as I produce the LIT, through simply quoting the ancient writers of the new testament Greek texts of the Bible!


The ancient writers of the Greek texts of the Bible didn't use any terminology associated with any particular theological theory, especially the triune godhead theory.  Some of the "old orthodoxy" terminology the ancient scriptural writers used has since been hijacked by denominationalism, which has redefined the meanings of many of those terms.  The ancient writers used terminology which presented and explained the Evangelism of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1), which evangelism was spread throughout the world through the Ministry of Reconciliation, as apostle Paul refers to it (2 Cor. 5:18-19).  The terminology the ancient writers used to describe their belief in Christ Jesus and his Father, the one true God almighty, has nothing in common whatsoever with the invented triune godhead-associated terminology of the 4th century, but in fact contradicts it over and over.


The textual evidence shows that the ancient writers of the new testament of the Bible didn't think, speak or write using any triune godhead-associated terminology.  It's simply not in any of their writings in the copies of the ancient Greek texts.  So then how does that terminology get into English Bible translations?  That's a very good question!  The ugly answer is, it's fudged into them using paraphrases, creative "synonyms", and through using a number of other "translation" techniques, examples of which I show below, and throughout this website.  Hundreds of examples can be seen through simply comparing your favorite translation to the LIT for any given passages.


With the invention of the triune godhead theological theory in the 4th century, subsequently a framework of triune godhead terminology has been designed to replace the "old orthodoxy" terminology used by the ancient writers of the holy scriptures.  And paraphrases and creative "synonyms" have been developed to be overlaid over what the ancient writers actually wrote, to ultimately theologically re-characterize what the ancient writers wrote, and thereby meant.  I consider that to be post-history revision, and lying, on a grand scale.  Who did Christ Jesus say is the father of lies (John 8:44)?  Read it!


What modern triune godhead "Christianity" now calls heresy, the "old orthodoxy", apostle Paul says he was taught it from Christ Jesus himself!


Gal. 1:7 (LIT/UBS4) There are (eisin) some (tines), if (ei) not (mē) the ones (hoi) troubling (tarassontes) you (humas), desiring (thelontes) also (kai) to twist together (metastrepsai) the (to) evangelism (euangelion) of the (tou) Christ (Christou).


Gal. 1:8 (LIT/UBS4) BUT (alla), if perhaps (ean) we (hēmeis) also (kai), or (ē) a messenger (angelos) out (ex) of heaven (ouranou) may cause itself to evangelize (euangelizētai) to you (humin) [anything] beside (parí) that which (ho) we caused ourselves to evangelize (euēngelisametha) to you (humin), let him be (estō) a cursed-up one (anathema)!


Gal. 1:9 (LIT/UBS4) As (hōs) we said before (proeirēkamen), and (kai) at this time (arti) again (palin) I say (legō), if (ei) anyone (tis) is causing himself to evangelize (euangelizetai) to you (humas) [anything] beside (parí) that which (ho) you received alongside (parelabete) [of us], let him be (estō) a cursed-up one (anathema)!


Gal. 1:10 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) at this time (arti) do I persuade (peithō) mortals (anthrōpous), or (ē) the (ton) God (theon)?


Or (ē) do I seek (zētō) to be agreeable (areskein) to mortals (anthrōpois)?


If (ei) yet (eti) I am being agreeable (ēreskon) to mortals (anthrōpois), perhaps (an) I am absolutely not still causing myself to be (ouk ēmēn) a slave (doulos) of Christ (Christou)!?


Gal. 1:11 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) I make known (gnōrizō) to you (humin), brothers (adelphoi), the (to) evangelism (euangelion), the one (to) having been evangelized (euangelisthen) under (hupí) me (emou), that (hoti) it is absolutely not (ouk estin) down according to (kata) mortals (anthrōpon)!


Gal. 1:12 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) but absolutely not (oude) did I receive (egō parelabon) it (auto) alongside (para) of mortals (anthrōpou), and absolutely neither (oute) was I taught (edidachthēn) [it], BUT (alla), through (dií) a revelation (apokalupseōs) of Jesus (Iēsous) Christ (Christou)!


The devil will always make sure that there is a "good" reason, or two, or more, for the truth of God's revelation to mortalkind, the "old orthodoxy", to be labeled as a heresy (Acts 24:14), like he managed to have it labeled in the first century, and then have it re-labeled again in the fourth century!  The warnings about this were given (Mat. 15:9; John 8:31-47; Rom. 1:21-22; 2 Cor. 10:5-6; 11:13-15; Eph. 5:6-12; *Col. 2:8; 2 Tim. 3:1-15, 4:3-4; Tit. 1:10-14)!



"Christianity's" Big Ugly Secret


In the late third and early fourth centuries a new liberal theological theory was invented, which later became ratified by those claiming to have the omniscience to do it, thereby making it the new "orthodoxy", one that mimicked the three-headed godhead concept that was popular with most all pagan religions on earth at that time.  That's when the one true almighty God became three-headed.  Jesus Christ and his apostles had already put in place the true orthodoxy, the "old orthodoxy", which absolutely did not need any appendixes, improvements, or to be replaced!  And so beginning in the fourth century this new orthodoxy began to be imposed upon the Christian world by bloody spear point.  I can't find anywhere in the ancient texts where Jesus Christ and his disciples and apostles forced anyone to believe what they were preaching and teaching by holding a spear point to people's throats!  In fact, they did just the opposite, they delivered and healed people who believed upon the name of Jesus, thereby demonstrating the God's love a grace to all who also may desire to believe God's Word, the evangelism of Jesus Christ! 


Maybe not believing that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the one true God almighty (instead of Him having two other equal Gods beside Him), is the reason why people are not receiving deliverances and healing in their lives today (Ex. 20:3; )!  Modern "Christians" worship the ancient fertility goddess Ishtar (Easter!) once every year (Ex. 23:13; Judges 10:13) into which their leaders lead them.  Maybe the believers and followers of the triune godhead theory have actually been led into idolatry, and that's why people aren't commonly seeing signs, miracles and wonders in their lives.  God says He hasn't changed (Mal. 3:6), when the children of Israel didn't keep the old covenant.  Under the new orthodoxy people aren't keeping the new covenant!  The new covenant isn't taught under the new orthodoxy!  Its only alluded to in passing here and there. 


The centerpiece of the old orthodoxy is God's new covenant through Jesus' shed blood, and how those new covenant truths illuminate the meaning and understanding of so many old testament prophecies.  The centerpiece of the new orthodoxy is not God's new covenant in Jesus' shed blood, but the ever-expanding multi-faceted "illuminations" of wisdom coming out of the triune godhead theory! 


When is the last time you even heard the words "new covenant" at your place of worship?  Modern new orthodoxy Christianity has encumbered itself in such a sea of invented theological terminology that it can't even talk about the old orthodoxy using the plain and simple terminology used by all of the new testament writers!  The worldly theological wisdom and its barn full of associated terminology can't be equated to the scriptural terminology used by all of the ancient writers!  The three so-called covenants, the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace, which are called "theological covenants" are absolutely not explicitly or implicitly presented as such in the Greek texts of the Bible!  That's all a pile of goo pucky laying on the barn floor, invented in the minds of omniscient scholars and theologians.  There's only one new covenant, and it's referred to by apostle Paul as the Law of Belief (Rom. 3:27), comparing it to the old Mosaic law covenant, the Law of Works.  The new covenant is referred to by a few other phrases also (Rom. 8:2; Gal. 6:2; James 2:8, 12), but it's the one and the same new covenant.


The introduction of this new orthodoxy is a big, complicated, and ugly part of "Christian" history.  But to sum it up, from my reading of various records of that very devilish time in history, it suggests to me that those "church leaders" wanted to draw the pagan worshippers into their enclaves so they could gather into their own coffers some of the vast amount of wealth of those pagan worshippers.  They wanted to pass their plates to pagan worshippers also!  These are the kind of men who brought to the world the "Christian" new orthodoxy in the fourth century.  Under the old orthodoxy Jesus Christ and his apostles gave away everything they had to the poor people, the crippled-up ones, the blind ones, and the lame ones.  Under the new orthodoxy "church leaders" are trying to collect as much as they can from people for "God's work", and by the way, to make a paycheck out of it for themselves, like the old covenant Levites.


An Example of Greek Text Forgery


When, where, and to what extent did aspects of the new Christian triune godhead theory begin to be fudged into the ancient Greek texts of the Bible is difficult to ascertain.  For example, one of the triune godhead "proof" texts, the only passage in the entire Bible which Trinitarian scholars believe explicitly describes the foundational orthodoxy of the triune godhead theology, 1 John 5:7-8, to which scholars refer as the Johannine Comma, doesn't appear in any of the ancient Greek texts of the Bible until sometime in the 1600s!  In the following quote of that passage, the words in parentheses are the actual words in some very late Greek texts.  Six of the seven infamous textual critics, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth believe the words in green to have been forged into those Greek texts.


1 John 5:7 (LIT/UBS4) Because (hoti) the ones (hoi) witnessing (marturountes) are (eisin) three (treis), in (en) the (tō) heaven (ourano): the (ho) Father (patēr), the (ho) Word (logos), and (kai) the (to) holy (hagion) Spirit (pneuma).  


And (kai) these (outoi) which (hoi) three (treis), are (eisin) one (en) [witness]. 


1 John 5:8  And (kai) there are (eisin) three (treis) which (hoi) are witnessing (marturountes) in (en) the (tē) land (gē), the (to) Spirit (pneuma), and (kai) the (to) water (hudōr), and (kai) the (to) blood (haima).  


And (kai) the (hoi) three (treis) are (eisin) into (eis) the (to) one (hen) [witness].


This is only one example of many of how the Greek texts of the Bible have been forged over the centuries to include references to the later invented theological theories.  Those forgeries in the ancient texts are then passed-off in Modern Bibles (even though the publishers know about the forgeries) as being written by the original authors!  Is anything beginning to smell foul to you?


This is why I believe the scholars of the UBS4 eclectic text leave this forgery out of their text.  The corruption of the ancient Greek texts of the Bible is an important subject of church history which I'll not say much about here.  The explanation of the history of that subject is better left to scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman, and others.  But to whatever extent this kind of fudging has been done to the ancient Greek texts of the Bible, the same kind of fudging has been done, and is still being done, to English translations of those texts.  It's still going on!  Those who are omniscient can't keep their hands off of what the ancient writers of the biblical texts wrote! 


With the creation of the Literal Idiomatic Translation what's becoming made more clear is to what extent modern translators, or translation committees, have fudged aspects of that triune godhead theory into English "translations", such as in Php. 2:5-6, of which I'll show how in a few moments.  Virtually all Bible translators are adding, changing, and deleting parts of what the ancient writers wrote to make their Bibles appear to show that the ancient writers wrote about the triune godhead theory!  Yes, this is what is going, on and has been going on, for about 1,700 years. 


For some reason modern Bible translators have the need to make the new "orthodoxy" appear to have already been on the minds of the ancient biblical writers at the time the first century writers wrote their witnesses of the evangelism of Christ, in spite of the fact that the mortal-made triune godhead theory of Christianity wasn't invented until about 300 years later, after the new testament books of the Bible were already written!  And then they pass-off those Bibles, KJV, ASV, NASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, etc., chocked full of theological paraphrases and creative "synonyms" as if they were actually written by the ancient writers!  


If it's a "version", I haven't seen a version yet that tells the purchaser / reader, right up front in plain language, that they've chocked full their Bible version with endless paraphrases and creative synonyming which wasn't actually written by the original author!  Isn't that a good and reasonable question to ask?  Why not have transparency in Bible translation, full disclosure, since it is a rather important subject matter, to some of us?  Why don't they identify all of their own adds, changes, and deletions from what the original authors wrote?  Why hide those very numerous adds, changes and deletions from the reader?  Why don't they clearly define what was written by the original authors, and what was added, changed, and deleted by them?  Maybe these religious people have a ego-maniacal, self-omniscience issue going on?


The dishonest altering of the ancient Greek texts of the Bible, and to a greater extent the dishonest altering of English translations from what those texts actually say, along with all of the triune godhead preaching and teaching, is how that theory has grown, and is still growing.  It's growing through the use of dishonesty.  Dishonesty is the only reason it started growing, and is still growing.  It has now become common for "Christian" church leadership to dictate that it is impossible for anyone to be saved who does not believe in that triune godhead theory invented in the fourth century, in spite of the records in God's Word, especially of the salvation/wholeness of about 3,000 believers on the day of Pentecost in about 30 AD (Acts. 2), through simply believing upon the name of Jesus


The two main methods used to fudge triune godhead theory into English translations are the needless use of paraphrasing, and the needless creative use of "synonyms".  There are many other methods used as well, such as the capitalization of adjectives to cause the reader to think they are part of a name, the insertion of definite articles, punctuation, the division of chapters and verses, ignoring syntax, ignoring other rules of Greek grammar, changing verbs to nouns and nouns to verbs, and the list goes on.  There is no capitalization or punctuation in the copies of the original Greek texts of the Bible, which need to be determined by examining the writer's deliberate use of various parts of speech, and then their proper assembly into sentence structures according to common rules of grammar, without any adding, changing, and deletions of the text for reasons of theological omniscience.   


All of these "legitimate" translation methods are used to make certain biblical passages appear to the reader to depict the idea that the ancient writers actually thought, talked, and wrote about the coming redeemer in the context of their supposedly already existing belief in a triune godhead.  Fudging English translations, through the use of the excuse that paraphrases and creative synonyms are an absolutely necessary part of the translation process, is blatant post history revision.  Paraphrases and creative synonyms are the disguises used to facilitate translator's injection of other's omniscient private interpretations into English translations (Mat. 7:15-20; John 8:44)!


A straight quote of the surviving copies of the Greek texts of the ancient writers reveals a much different message and context of the evangelism of Christ Jesus than what the invented 4th century sacred cow theological theory about God portrays.  Simply quoting the ancient writers reveals their unanimity that there is only one one-headed almighty God, who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 


The ancient writers believed and wrote that God's first-produced son (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15; Heb. 12:23), who in the beginning was the Word, an angel/messenger, who was already in a god-like form from a human point of view, it already being a spirit-based being, (John 1:1; Heb. 1:1-5), eventually became a son of the one true God, the God almighty (2 Sam. 7:14; Psalm 2:7; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 11:20; Mat. 3:16-17, 17:5; Mark 1:9-11, 9:7; Luke 3:21-22; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5, 5:5, 8:10; 2 Pet. 1:16-18; Rev. 21:3, 7), he, an angelic being, having received the genus of the one true God almighty (John 1:14).  There's no other record in all of God's Word showing the God almighty making a created being, specifically a created messenger of Him, into a son of Him.  This genus of God Christ Jesus received at the river Jordan is the same one mortals receive when they receive a new birth above in God's gift of His holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:23), when they believe upon the name of Jesus. 


That God's son, the Word which became Christ Jesus, wasn't the God Himself from the beginning is what the proponents of the new orthodoxy wish to cover up.  A straight quote translation of the ancient texts reveals, over and over, that the mortal-made triune godhead theory was absolutely not in the minds of the ancient biblical writers at the time they wrote their witnesses, or at any subsequent time, as the paraphrasing and creative "synonyming" of English translations attempts to portray. 


Humanistically, the importance of what secular fictional writers wrote is worthy enough to be quoted with nary a forbidden variance.  But the words of Spirit and life (John 6:63), and the words which mortals being brought under holy Spirit of God spoke (2 Pet. 1:21), the words of God's prophets, the words upon which some of us base our belief and salvation, our eternal life, are apparently not worthy enough to be quoted, in virtually all Bible translations?


Translation Methodology


I would like to address a false conception many people have about how successful translation is achieved, especially the widespread misconception about the achievability of a literal "word for word" translation from the ancient Greek texts of the Bible.  Of course a "word for word" translation is not only possible, but it's required, or else the multitude of extraneous words starts creating privately interpreted paraphrases, instead of simply quoting what the ancient writer wrote.


I take the idiom "word for word" as a saying which does not in reality always literally or exactly mean one Greek word translated into one English word, and in the syntactic sequence of the Greek words in the text, period.  But I take it to refer to the goal of adequate and explicit translation, which goal is to strictly limit the number and meaning of English words used for any given Greek words' translation to be confined within the parameters of that Greek words' root meaning, and within the parameters of its defining inherent morphological structure.  First and foremost a Greek words' root meaning, and then its exact morphological structure, must both be preserved in the translation process, adding nothing, changing nothing, and deleting nothing. 


The general rules of thumb I follow to make an English translation as comprehensive in meaning as possible, but yet as concise as possible, is as follows:


1. The inherent root meaning of an English word must be spot on in agreement with the inherent meaning of the Greek word.


2. The exact morphology of the Greek word must be preserved in the translation, which means preserving a verbs type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender, person, and number into English, and likewise for nouns, their case, gender, person, and number, and likewise for all other parts of speech.


3. The level of specificity of a word must be preserved.  For example, if an ancient writer wrote "Oldsmobile", the English word "car", a word which many may consider as being an adequate "synonym", would be much too general in its level of specificity.  Therefore "car" would not be a good synonym because it does not preserve the level of specificity of the word "Oldsmobile".  And in addition, "Oldsmobile" is a proper noun, "car" is not.  Why not let the translation simply say "Oldsmobile"? 


All English translations known to me I consider as having a HUGE problems in even coming close to adequately following all three of these rules.  To me, to do anything else but follow these rules, exactly, would be dishonesty, and by necessity that would mean that the translator is willfully injecting, his own, her own, somebody's own, omniscient private interpretations into the translation.


Using the LIT, which I translate following the three rules above, I randomly selected Rom. 1:1-5 to use to roughly infer ratios of Greek words to English words necessary, by part of speech, to adequately and explicitly translate those word's meanings into English, which ratios will give us a good ball park idea about how achievable, in reality, is a "word for word" translation, without unnecessary paraphrasing. 


In Koine Greek the meanings of individual words, especially of verbs, are often more comprehensive than the way their meanings are expressed in English.  In order of conciseness, Greek verbs, on account of their complex morphological structures, are much more concise than English verbs, by a ratio of about 1:4.4, meaning that on average any given Greek verb requires approximately four English words to adequately and explicitly express its meaning in English. Greek nouns are more concise in their meanings than English nouns by a ratio of about 1:1.8, and Greek language's use of indefinite and definite articles with nouns, pronouns and adjectives is more concise by a ratio of about 1:1.7.

The number of English conjunctions needed to adequately and explicitly express the meaning of a Greek single word conjunction is a ratio of about 1:1. For adjectives it's a ratio of about 1:1.2, and for prepositions it's a ratio of about 1:1.3



That Greek single word nouns on average require about two (1:1.8) English words to adequately and explicitly express their meanings is primarily for three reasons:

1. Many single word nouns in Greek often require the addition of a definite or indefinite article in English to explicitly represent its meaning.  In these instances two English words, the article and the noun itself, are needed to replace one Greek word.

2. Greek cases often require the addition of another word in English to express the Greek case explicitly.

For example:

The accusative and genitive Greek cases often require the addition of the word "of" in English.  The one Greek word autou must often be translated as "of him" in English.

The dative Greek case often requires the addition of the words "to" or "for" in English.  The one Greek word autois must often be translated as "to them" or "for them" in English.

3. The Greek writers of the holy scriptures wrote with great brevity and conciseness.  Jesus spoke with brevity and conciseness mostly because his sentence structures were simple, and he used many short sentences.  Jesus' most preferred communication style was to enunciate most all of the things he said, both publicly, and privately to his disciples.  Apostle Paul spoke with great brevity and conciseness also, but for different reasons.  Apostle Paul wrote using many words with complex compound structures, in order to say the most with as few words as possible, and he used the figure of speech Ellipsis more than any other new testament writer.  This is why apostle Paul's letters are the most difficult to translate of all of the new covenant writings.  If his many various complex compound words don't slow a translator down, then figuring out which previously used noun, pronoun, verb, or preposition to use to fill in an apparent ellipsis, surely will. 


The skillful use of brevity and conciseness, no matter how it was done, was a sign of an educated communicator, and those who were talented at it were customarily held in high regard and respect. Of course Paul's use of brevity and conciseness, pardon me if I seem too critical for a moment, put the burden upon the listener to listen much more closely for the depth and nuances of meaning in his chosen grammatical structures.

One of the most popular methods in Koine Greek at that time, to keep communications as brief and concise as possible, was the use of the figure of speech Ellipsis. The use of Ellipsis is achieved through the omission of a word or words, nouns, pronouns, verbs and participles, which are to be supplied from the 1) nature of the subject, or 2) from a cognate word in the context, or 3) from a preceding or succeeding clause in the immediate context of the subject.  Ellipsis is widely used in English today, and the ones who are using it virtually have no idea that they are using that ancient figure of speech.

These are the three greatest reasons for why nouns and pronouns in the Greek holy scriptures often require the use of two words in English to explicitly express their meanings.




Verbs, on account of their eight morphological components, and therefore the increased number of their unique combinations, are more difficult to translate into English.  Like a noun, a verb's inherent root meaning must be made explicit in English, in consideration of its unique inherent morphological components.  Here's an excerpt from my personal lexicon, using a verb for an example, which shows why the number of English words necessary to accurately reproduce a Greek verb into English is based upon its morphological structure:



Using the number of necessary English words to reproduce into English a Greek words' inflected morphological components is obviously not paraphrasing.  Ignoring a verb's root meaning, and/or ignoring a verbs morphological inflections in translation, would be paraphrasing, and therefore fudging as well.  From the rules I've given above you can begin to see what I consider to be paraphrasing, or shall I say fudging. 


Virtually all English translations pay very little, if any attention at all, to the morphological components of Greek verbs, opting to ignore them to produce paraphrases instead, which lack of attention includes ignoring morphological components of nouns as well.  The best way I can think of to describe the popular but woefully inadequate translation methodology that is still in use is that it is a sort of sense-for-sense translation.  The translator or translation committee decides for themselves what is the sense of the meaning they believe the writer is trying to convey, (of course that sense will be related in some way or another to the ever growing and expanding triune godhead theory), and then they rephrase that to the reader in English, instead of simply quoting the ancient writer.  They hop, skip and jump over the morphological components of words like and Easter (Mesopotamian fertility goddess Ishtar) bunny, a bunny who lays eggs by the way!  Both bunnies and eggs were regarded by pagans as fertility foods, which they ate in combination with praying to the fertility goddess Ishtar, for things like impotence, inability to conceive, and many things like this.


The huge problem with this sense-for-sense translation methodology is the sense part of it.  What a translator's or translation committee's sense is, is no more than their own opinion, or private interpretation, of what they think the writer may mean.  But since those translators and translation committees already have bought into the pagan three-headed god concept, now they see that concept in some form or another in every scriptural passage they look at, and subsequently create their paraphrases to accommodate it, and thereby that 4th century theological invention becomes translated into their Bibles, through paraphrases to say the least, as we'll see in this next example, an example of fudging English translations.


An Example Of English Translation Forgery


Php. 2:5 (KJV) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Php. 2:6 (KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Here's what apostle Paul actually wrote:


Php. 2:5 (LIT/UBS4) Have thoughts (phroneite) of this (touto) in (en) you (humin), which (ho) [were] in (en) Christ (Christō) Jesus (Iēsou) also (kai);


Php. 2:6 (LIT/UBS4) who (hos), beginning to be a subordinate one (huparchōn) in (en) a form (morphē) of a god (theou), he absolutely did not lead himself (ouch hēgēsato) of a thing snatched (harpagmon), of the (to) [thought] to be (einai) equal (isa) to a god (theō)!


Do you see anything different in these verses between the KJV translation and the LIT translation?


The difference in meaning between what these two translations say couldn't be any greater, since one translation says something completely opposite to the other.  Which translation is correct?  Is either translation correct compared to exactly what the ancient writer, apostle Paul, wrote?


In this example the KJV is a very good example of a very bad translation.  Let's walk through these two verses word by word, following the words in the UBS4 Greek text, to see each word's inherent meaning, and then how that meaning is affected by the word's morphological components.  I'm not going to dissect each and every word of these verses, but show you the most important places where the supposedly trained and vetted translators of the KJV, or the translation committee, ignored the Greek text! 


The Greek texts read left to right as English does.  However, syntax is totally different.  But Greek syntax is usually obvious, since as in English, adverbs modify verbs, and adjectives modify nouns and pronouns, and the subject (nominative case) performs the action of the verb, and its obvious if a verb is transitive or intransitive from the presence of a direct object in the accusative, and the context, and so on.  And so it's usually not difficult for a translator to reconstruct Greek syntax into the proper word order in English to make good sense.


Often, but not always, when reading the Greek texts, the second word in word order where there is an apparent beginning of a sentence in the Greek text,  is the word we would use in English to start that sentence in English syntax. 


touto - In Php. 2:5 in the Greek text the first word is touto, a demonstrative pronominal adjective in the accusative case, meaning this, or of this.  It's in the accusative case which tells me a verb must come before it in English syntax.  So where's the verb?  In the Greek text it's the very next word, phroneite.


phroneite - It's a verb in the imperative mood (a command), present tense, active voice, 2nd person, plural.  The KJV translators translated this verb as a noun, mind.  It's not a noun, it's a verb!  And in addition to this mistake, the Greek word for mind is nous, an entirely different word not used here by apostle Paul!  Paul used the verb phroneite which means have thoughts.  The noun form of this verb is phronēma, which means thought.  Apostle Paul is not talking about having a mind, he's talking specifically about the thoughts (plural) we have in out mind.  He's talking about thoughts, thoughts, thoughts, what we think about in our mind, but not our mind per se.  With his first two words in verse 5, apostle Paul literally says, and I quote, "Have thoughts (phroneite) of this (touto)".  To what his demonstrative "this" refers is to his narrative in the following verses 6-9, which describes thoughts Jesus Christ didn't think, and did think, in his own mind.  Apostle Paul is going to tell us exactly what those thoughts were. 


Have thoughts of this... - All through the new covenant books of the Bible all of the writers stress how so important it is for us to control our thoughts to think what God's Word says we should think in any situation in life.  Learning to control out thoughts is the beginning point of our own self discipline, and especially of discipleship to Christ Jesus.  Controlling our thoughts is absolutely vital in defeating the devil and/or any demon spirits in any spiritual battle they may bring to us.  Unless a disciple can learn to run God's Word through his own mind when confronted in any and every situation in life, then what he says or does in reaction to those situations may not be pleasing in God's sight. 


Everything we say and do is preceded and determined by what we first think in our minds.  Jesus Christ controlled what he subsequently said and did, to be pleasing in God's sight and to always do the Father's will, according to what he thought about in his own mind, running his knowledge of God's Word through his mind.  This is why preserving what apostle Paul actually wrote, "Have thoughts of this" is so important in this verse in Php. 2:5.  This passage is about teaching us to think, and especially about what thoughts to think.  Therefore this passage is about discipleship to Christ Jesus.


The translators ignored the inherent meaning of Paul's verb phroneite, meaning "have thoughts", and that its spelling showed a plural morphology, substituting the noun "mind" in the singular in place of "have thoughts" in the plural.  And they added the to be verb "be" which is not in the Greek text.  And so they used a paraphrase, "Let this mind be" instead of simply quoting Paul, "Have thoughts of this" as he actually wrote! 


Why did they invent a paraphrase to replace "Have thoughts of this"?  For what good reason did they flush down the toilet what apostle Paul actually wrote, to replace it with a paraphrase they invented?  There is no good reason, none whatsoever!  What their paraphrase does is destroy the veracity of God's Word, and especially its continuity of the subject matter of us controlling our thoughts to be like Christ's thoughts. 


Did those translators think they were pleasing in God's sight for destroying what Christ taught apostle Paul to write?


Now look at this in the next verse, verse 6.


Php. 2:6 (KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Php. 2:6 (LIT/UBS4) who (hos), beginning to be a subordinate one (huparchōn) in (en) a form (morphē) of a god (theou), he absolutely did not lead himself (ouch hēgēsato) of a thing snatched (harpagmon), of the (to) [thought] to be (einai) equal (isa) to a god (theō)!


The very first thing the KJV translators, or the translation committee, does with this verse is deny the meaning of the word huparchōn, and then totally ignore it in the Greek text!  Huparchōn is a participle verb, in the present tense, active voice, nominative case, masculine gender, and singular in number.  This is a very important word in this verse, and in God's Word, but virtually all Trinitarian-based Bibles ignore it in their "translations".  Can you guess why?  


Huparchōn is a two-part compound word constructed from the verb archomai, meaning to begin, with the preposition hupo, meaning under,  prefixed to it.  The raw meaning of huparchōn, apart from any context, is to begin under.  Its lexical root verb is huparchō, which is used in the new covenant writings 48 times in about 15 various morphological forms.  The actions portrayed by all of those usages are about people and things being subordinate to other people and things.  Most all of those usages are about people being subordinate to other people, or to the God as here in Php. 2:6, or of people being under the control of, and thereby subordinate to, various things, such as illnesses and diseases.


beginning to be a subordinate one - Apostle Paul actually wrote that Christ Jesus was beginning to be a subordinate one under the control and authority of the God.  This unequivocally contradicts a claim made by the triune godhead theory that Jesus Christ was co-equal to the Father, the God!  Apostle Paul writes about the "form" Christ Jesus had before he became flesh and tented among us, writing that Christ Jesus, who was called and known as the Word then, was "in a form of a god".


to a god - There is no definite or indefinite article in the Greek text, and the capitalization of the word "God" is private interpretation as well.  But I chose to use an indefinite article in my translation of theō, "to a god" for several reasons, based upon empirical evidence in the holy scriptures themselves:


1. Hos, the pronominal adjective at the beginning of verse 6 is in the nominative case, meaning it is the subject, a reference back to Christ Jesus in verse 5, and theō is not in the nominative case, but in the dative caseThe difference in case indicates that apostle Paul is absolutely not implying that Christ Jesus is God in another form or "person", but indicates Paul is simply making a comparison between soul-based forms, bodies of flesh and bone, and spirit-based forms, bodies which heavenly beings have. 


2. In 1 Cor. 15:35-49 apostle Paul writes about the "form" of heavenly beings in general, that they have a spirit-based (pneumatikon) "body" of some kind. 


3. In Col. 1:15 Apostle Paul writes that what became the God's first-born son, which we know was the Word in the beginning, was the very first thing the God produced (prōtotokos) of all of his creation.  Apostle Paul writes that the Word was a created being of some kind, because he was produced, which indicates the Word had a beginning, and that it did not exist before the God produced it.  That's a relatively simple verse to translate.  But since that verse also contradicts the triune godhead theology, it's fudged in all Trinitarian translations as well.  The verse was word-smithed to replace the meaning of prōtotokos, first-produced, with the word "first-born", to make the verse sound like apostle Paul wrote about Jesus being born as a son of God, which new birth Jesus received at the Jordan river (Mat. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11), instead of writing about God's production, His creation of the being known as the Word, in the beginning of God's creation.  These are two very distinctly different events as recorded in the holy scriptures, which events occurred at two very distinctly different times in history.


4. In Heb. 1:1-4 the writer of Hebrews gives us more details about what was this first created being the God produced, that it was a heavenly messenger, an angel as many people call it. 


For at least these four scriptural reasons I believe apostle Paul wrote comparatively in Php. 2:6 about Christ Jesus, the Word in the beginning, as having a spirit-based body of some kind, a spirit-based body of the kind the heavenly messengers have, which he volunteered to give up for a soul-based body of flesh and bone.  I see no scriptural evidence to indicate that apostle wrote in Php. 2:6 about the specific form of the specific being the God.    


Php. 2:6 (KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Php. 2:6 (LIT/UBS4) who (hos), beginning to be a subordinate one (huparchōn) in (en) a form (morphē) of a god (theou), he absolutely did not lead himself (ouch hēgēsato) of a thing snatched (harpagmon), of the (to) [thought] to be (einai) equal (isa) to a god (theō)!


he absolutely did not lead himself - The KJV translators paraphrase their Bible to say, "though it not robbery", completely ignoring the verb hēgēsato in the Greek text.  Hēgēsato is a verb in the indicative mood, aorist tense, middle voice, third person, and singular in number.  The root verb's intrinsic meaning "to lead", along with the consideration which must be given to the verbs morphological components, makes the raw meaning of hēgēsato to mean he did lead himself.


The idea of to lead in this deliberate choice of verb by apostle Paul, is an indicator of the fact that thoughts proceed before, or they lead before words are spoken, or actions are taken, at least that's the way it is supposed to work.  Paul's use of this verb indicates that what Jesus said and did was preceded by, or led by, what he thought, by his thoughts.  The specific thoughts Jesus thought in this entire context are the thoughts were are to think to govern our own words and actions.  But the KJV translators totally ignored this verb as though this concept in the holy scriptures is not valuable enough for us to learn.  The ignorance of this verb in the KJV translation removes and obliterates the idea that Jesus was a distinct and autonomous being, thinking on his own and using his own volition to subordinate himself to his producer, his creator, the God.  This verb is obliterated in the KJV translation because it suggests and describes a concept about how Christ Jesus thought, spoke, and acted which disagrees with the triune godhead theology.


In this important passage apostle Paul writes that Christ Jesus chose not to think a certain thought, but chose to think other thoughts.  So what was the thought Christ Jesus chose not to think, which thought would have led him

into making the same mistake the devil made (2 Thes. 2:1-4)?  Apostle Paul uses the emphatic particle of negation, ouch, to emphatically state that Christ Jesus absolutely did not, no way, no how, lead himself into thinking something. 


of a thing snatched - Harpagmon means something stolen, ripped-off, heisted, pilfered, absconded, shoplifted.  "Snatched" is its intrinsic and literal meaning, which meaning doesn't need to be fixed or replaced with any other synonyms.  So what was the thought that Christ Jesus absolutely did not think, which thought could have led him into saying or doing something which would not have been pleasing in God's sight?  At the time Christ Jesus was the Word that the God produced, created, the first thing He created out of all of His creation, a heavenly messenger in a form, a body, of a spirit-based being, in a form / body which soul-based beings consider to be a form of a god, the Word absolutely did not think about stealing from the God His unique singularly significant position as the one, true, highest God (Luke 1:32).  The Word, and when it became Christ Jesus, he absolutely did not think about being equal to a god, even though at that time in the beginning he had a spirit-based form, a body like a god.  The Word who became Christ Jesus was not led by the thought to be equal to a god.


As we can see through actually looking at the Greek text, what the KJV says in Php. 2:5-6 is the complete opposite to what apostle Paul actually wrote!  Why?  Because those who believe the invented triune godhead theory can't keep their hands off from what the ancient writers actually wrote because it disagrees with their own omniscient private interpretation, and contradicts the triune godhead theory invented about 1,700 years ago.  The KJV translators, and/or translation committee, has the audacity to fudge the holy scriptures to force them to agree with an invented mortal-made theory, and then to pass their paraphrases and creative "synonyming" in their Bibles as though its what the ancient writers thought, spoke and wrote!  How dishonest is that?


The Trinitarian KJV Bible says, "...thought it not robbery to be equal with God", the complete opposite of what apostle Paul wrote.  Christ Jesus absolutely did not think of himself as being equal to a god, let alone equal to his producer, his creator, the the one, true, highest God, his heavenly Father!  But think for a minute, if you can, isn't that the huge mistake the devil made, his desire to usurp the God's position as the one, true, highest God?


2 Thess. 2:3 (LIT/UBS4) May not (mē) anyone (tis) fake you out (exapatēsē humas), down (kata) not one (mēdena) way (tropon);


because (hoti) [the day of the Lord shall not stand] if perhaps (ean) first (prōton) the (hē) apostasy (apostasia) may not come (mē elthē), and (kai) the (ho) mortal (anthrōpos) of the (tēs) lawlessness (anomias) may be revealed (apokaluphthē), the (ho) son (huios) of the (tēs) lost one (apōleias);


2 Thess. 2:4 (LIT/UBS4) the one (ho) causing himself to lay opposed (antikeimenos), and (kai) exalting himself (huperairomenos) over (epi) all (panta) being said (legomenon) [to be] of God (theon), or (ē) a thing reverenced (sebasma);


and so (hōste) [for] him (auton) to sit down (kathisai) into (eis) the (ton) holy place (naon) of the (tou) God (theou), appointing (apodeiknunta) himself (heauton), that (hoti) [he] is (estin) a god (theos)!


Why not start seeing the substantial differences between liberal theological English "translations" and exactly what the ancient writers of the new covenant books of the Bible actually wrote?  And why not start seeing some of the startling differences by comparing John 1:1-3, Php. 2:6, Col. 1:1-20 and Heb. 1:1-14 in the LIT to any other English translation?


I'm not saying that the meaning of each and every word in those Bibles is fudged in its English rendering, but I'm saying that about 40-50% of them are!  That's HUGE!  And there is absolutely no need for it, except to pay homage to sacred cow mortal-made theological theories invented at sometime or another.  We were warned about this, the corruption of the communication of God's Word, and that the corruption of the communication of it would remain, by and large, the status quo in the world into the future, as it was in the days of Jesus' earthly ministry (See Mat. 15:9; Rom. 1:21-22; 2 Cor. 10:5-6; 11:13-15; Eph. 5:6-12; Col. 2:8; 2 Tim. 3:13; Tit. 1:10-14).


I believe all of this theological fudging in English translations has produced an entirely different kind of "Christianity" than Jesus and his apostles preached and taught in the first century Ministry of Reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19).  To find out what the ancient writers actually wrote, to find out what is the real Christianity Jesus and his apostles preached and taught two millenniums ago is why I started the LIT.  Going back to the Greek texts was the only way I could begin to discover exactly what did the ancient writers of the Bible exactly write, say, and mean. 


I invite you, and anyone, to compare the LIT to your favorite "translation(s)".  If you do, and when you may see differences in wording and/or meanings between the two, then compare those verses to the UBS4/NA27 Greek texts using study tools like the ones I recommend at this website, ones which virtually all Christian religious institutions use, and see for yourself which translation is true to the texts of the ancient writers, through quoting them.  And see for yourself how much the triune godhead theory has been paraphrased and creatively "synonymed" into virtually Bible translations except the LIT.



Brother Hal Dekker