Believer's Home Page

All Content is Copyright © Hal Dekker and BelieversHomePage.com All Rights Reserved
 
Home


My Statement Of Belief

Contact Info

Fundamentals

The Literal Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament

The Literal Idiomatic Translation Glossary

About How The LIT Was Produced

STRIPPED OF POWER!

True Salvation

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

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

"Christianity's" Big Ugly Secret

God's Desired True "Tent", his "Domed-Roof House"!

The Trinitarian Influence On Bible Translations

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

We Are Commanded To Think For Ourselves

Jesus Christ was An Icon!

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 Is The God?

How To Receive Answers To Prayers

Why Choose A Homosexual Lifestyle?

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

Angel Or Messenger?

The Gifts Of God

Communion - Our Daily "Bread"

Is Salvation Wholeness?

We Wrestle Not Against Flesh And Blood

Denominationalism Is Not Approved In The Holy Scriptures

Luke 15 - Parable Of The Lost Things

Jesus Christ And his Oxygen Bottle?

Genesis 1-2, The Original Creation Or The Re-creation Of It?

Prophecy: Earthquake Frequency

Southlawn Lessons - Judges 4 And Jeremiah 23

Bible Publishers - Of The Most Popular Bibles

The Birth Of Americanism And Thanksgiving

The "Federal" Reserve Is Not A Part Of The Federal Government Of The US

Invest In CDs And Lose?

Sunset Hills Miniature Golf And Driving Range - Pittsburgh's South Hills

Links

Home of the Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT) of the

New Testament of the Bible

 

Last LIT update: 2019.11.27

Last LITG (Glossary) update: 2019.11.27  

Last LITAGL (Analytical Greek Lexicon) update: 2019.11.27

Last update to this page: 2019.08.05

 

 

Welcome to the LIT!

 

 

Please refresh your device to see the latest changes to this page.

 

The Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT) is based upon the United Bible Societies v4 (UBS4) Eclectic Greek Text of the new covenant texts of the Bible.  The UBS4 collection of Greek texts is one of the most widely used in colleges, universities and seminaries. 

 

The LIT is basically a concordant translation, and is produced using a new unique kind of Formal Equivalence translation methodology which I have developed.  This process, which follows the Greek texts much more closely, produces a very literal translation of what the apostles of Jesus Christ wrote.  Subsequently the LIT quotes exactly what the apostles wrote without using paraphrases. 

 

Contrary to the belief of some, a translation based upon a Formal Equivalence methodology doesn't automatically render idioms, colloquialisms, and other figures of speech indistinguishable.  But just the opposite occurs; idioms, colloquialisms and other figures of speech floating in a sea of literalism tend to stand out even more.  I argue that the over abundant, and actually needless, use of paraphrases and creative "synonyms" destroys the various biblical authors' writing styles, and their deliberate use of idioms, colloquialisms and figures of speech.  Paraphrases destroy what and how biblical authors wrote, and thereby destroy a reader's choice to personally decide what a biblical writer may have meant by what and how they wrote. 

 

Creative paraphrases and "synonyms" invented by translation committees actually create grammatical constructions and figures of speech which don't actually appear in the Greek texts. This is what is known as private interpretation.  It is usually done for theological reasons, and sad to say, but it's true, is used heavily in most all Bible translations having been produced. This is the most important reason why I began to produce the LIT in 1993. 

 

 I absolutely don't want to read someone's theological theories, opinions or imaginations "translated" into a Bible translation.  I want to see and read, first-hand, exactly what the apostles and prophets wrote, both what and how they wrote what they wrote.  If I want to read any translator's, or translation committee's, theological theories, opinions and beliefs I'll read biblical commentaries, where they should be writing them instead of into Bible translations.

 

Contrary to the belief of some translators, Greek words have definite meanings, and those definite meanings can be strung together to form phrases, clauses and sentences which, most of the time, have definite meanings for readers. The phrases, clauses and sentences the biblical writers strung together had definite meanings for them.  Translating figures of speech and colloquialisms are challenging for any translator, but are absolutely not excuses to throw out the text and replace them with paraphrases of something not in the text, and/or something imagined.  Apparent ambiguities are always opportunities for further study, discovery and definition.  This is where searching through the old testament for associated subject matter, and reading commentaries and books about customs and cultural practices come in.

 

I produced the LIT for me, because I still want to know exactly what the biblical writers wrote without any translator's or translation committee's theological private interpretations and bias fudged-in through the use of paraphrases. Many people have questions about spiritually-based things, maybe some questions like I've had, and some like I still have.  For me, looking up each and every word in every verse of every book of holy scripture in the new testament helped me get off of the merry go round of experts and scholars contradicting one another.  It helped me exit the house of mirrors of dozens of Bible translations which all secretly use paraphrases to supposedly reflect God's Word to readers. 

 

If some like my translation, I hope it may help them somehow in their own spiritual growth. If some don't like it, they always have the option to read other translations which are less shockingly literal, and with which they may feel less challenged and more comfortable.  And even if no one liked my translation, I now feel 100% confident that I have a translation which with minute accuracy reflects into English exactly what the Biblical authors wrote and meant.  First and foremost know this, the biblical writers absolutely did not write to be entertaining, but to be challenging and accosting to readers about the things which are the most personal and dear to someone, the beliefs in one's own heart. 

 

Are The Biblical Greek Texts Literary Art Forms?

 

I believe the biblical Greek texts, as well as the ancient Hebrew texts of God's Word, are literary art forms of the most important subject matter in the world, God's Word.  If any biblical scholar has shown this to be true through presenting to us scriptural evidence within the texts themselves, E. W. Bullinger must certainly be recognized at the top somewhere.  He should be recognized for two reasons: First, through his work published in his Companion Bible, among many personal studies he shows us broad structural outlines of the subject matters of each book of the old and new covenant books.  And secondly, through his exhaustive work in compiling a list of figures of speech used throughout the biblical texts, we can see that the biblical writers were deliberately writing within a great organizational framework with great grammatical, figurative and stylistic sophistication. This is not out of the biblical writers themselves, but out of God's Spirit working in and through the prophets and apostles, to show and tell them what and how to write his Word.

 

To what can we attribute this?  The Judean leadership noticed that Jesus and his apostles achieved no formal education (Mat. 13:54-57; John 7:15-18; Acts 4:13).  But we do know this, that God's gift of his paternal holy Spirit was working in and through them according to his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:19-21).  To whatever extent God's Spirit was working in and through the minds and mouths of his old covenant prophets, likewise under his new covenant how much more could God's Spirit be working in and through Jesus and his apostles to reveal what was only hinted at under God's old covenant?

 

As with God's old covenant prophets, his Spirit working within Jesus Christ, and his apostles, must have had an effect upon what and how they also spoke and wrote, like his Spirit did upon his old covenant prophets!  God can't be removed from what, when, and how he has given his Word to us (Heb. 1:1-3), without hijacking and changing it to be used for other purposes.  But much of God's Word has been hijacked in many Bible translations, through the unnecessary abundance of paraphrasing and the use of creative "synonyming", to theologically twist and slant various passages throughout God's Word.  If anyone may wish to become "awake" on the very real topic of truth in translation, please begin your introduction to yourself by reading Truth In Translation by Jason David BeDuhn for new testament translations, and by A. Francis Werner for old testament translations.

 

Contrary to some biblical and Greek scholars, I believe the letters which the biblical authors wrote should be highly esteemed, and considered, at the least, to be Spiritually-based literary art forms. They reveal the inner workings of the mind of the almighty God. In the production of the LIT I deliberately chose not to try to twist the biblical Greek texts into creative English language literary art forms, because that would not be true to the biblical authors.  It's God's Word, not mine.  And it was produced through God's use of his agents, not me.  They don't need anyone to assume the roll, through one's own self-omniscience, of becoming their's, or the God's, managing editor. 

 

Paraphrasing and creative "synonyming" is deliberately not used in the LIT in order to allow the inherent beauty, whether some can "see" it or not, of what and how the biblical authors wrote under the influence of God's Spirit working in and through them, to come through into the English translation. Anyone attempting to translate the God's Word should pay attention to the full gravity and weight of that responsibility, the weighty responsibility of handling the thoughts of the mind of the God to present them to others, unaltered by one's own sin nature-based self-omniscient ego.

 

It is an imperative from Christ Jesus himself that we work hard to preserve his heavenly Father's Word, exactly what he said and how he said it (Rev. 22:18-19), which is exactly what the God's prophets and Christ Jesus' apostles wrote, so that it can come through wholly and intact into English, right before any reader's eyes.

The following is a brief introduction to some of the most important grammatical and stylistic methods the biblical writers used in the biblical Greek texts, which are preserved and can be seen in the LIT English translation.  For  much more detailed explanations of these grammatical and stylistic tools please see my pages, About How I Produced The LIT.   

Ellipses

 

One of the most important aspects of the biblical authors' literary art forms is their use of ellipses.  An Ellipsis is the deliberate omission of a word in a phrase, clause, or sentence, to keep a reader's attention drawn-in very close to the context, to thereby stay on track with the progression of an author's thoughts and meanings.  In the biblical Greek language two thousand years ago people thought and spoke very much differently than we with our English language do today, two thousand years later on the opposite side of the planet.  For a translator to try and "purify" the biblical Greek for the sake of accommodating sacred cow elements of English grammar, styles, and syntax, would by necessity destroy the beauty of the grammar, styles and generative syntax used by the biblical authors, not to mention destroying their explicit and implicit nuanced meanings as well, which are all up to the readers to determine for themselves!

 

Zero Copulas

 

Another one of the most important aspects of the biblical authors' literary art forms is their deliberately restrictive use of to be verbs.  The scholarly community calls these deliberate omissions zero copulas.  Zero copulas are the authors' occasional and deliberate omissions of to be verbs for the sake of brevity.  From the more than abundant evidence in the biblical Greek texts, to be verbs are often omitted by writers and are expected to be assumed by readers.  Yes, this does place a little more burden upon us readers to remain conscious, and pay a little more attention to the texts during our drive-by readings.

 

Inflected Forms Of Words

 

Another one of the most important aspects of the biblical authors' literary art forms is their deliberate choice of inflected forms of words to be used, specific morphologies of words to be used to best express to the reader the meanings they wish to impart in their phrases, clauses and sentences.  A Greek verb has eight points of inflection, type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender, person, and number, and a noun has only the last four, case, gender, person, and number.  Paying attention in translation to these points of inflection of a Greek word removes ambiguity, obfuscation and implicitness of meaning in an English translation, and produces explicitness of meaning.  Liberal paraphrasing, which is the use of a form of the Dynamic Equivalency translation methodology, mostly ignores the biblical authors' deliberate use of inflected forms.  I consider preserving a Greek word's inflected form into English as being one of the most important parts of my Formal Equivalence kind of translation methodology used to produce the LIT. 

 

How Does It All Come Together?

 

If a translator has determined a word's lexical meaning and its inflected form, and then has arranged the words of a phrase, clause, or sentence into their grammatical order based upon English sentence structure, then the places where a biblical author has used ellipses and zero copulas become fairly visible.  Elliptical words deliberately omitted typically follow definite articles pointing to apparently missing nouns, and transitive verbs pointing to apparently missing direct objects.  Other kinds of ellipses are fashioned by biblical writers creating the need for the necessary restatements of preceding nouns for succeeding clauses, and by the use of prepositions pointing to implicit conditions which may be understood in Greek, but which conditions should be made explicit to become visible in English.  And there are other various methods which biblical writers use to create ellipses. 

 

The LIT is the first and only bible translation, which I know of, which recognizes and accommodates the various biblical writers' abundant use of both ellipses and zero copulas.   This reality must affect a translation methodology, which methodology should justifiably account for it, other than to simply ignore biblical writers' patterns in their use of ellipses and zero copulas.  Ignoring this reality only attempts to legitimatize an excuse to use theologically biased paraphrasing to overlay and sculpt the texts into saying something, and/or meaning something, more palatable to sin nature-based mortalkind's sensitivities and desires. 

 

A translation methodology which employs strict safeguards against the status quo liberal translation methodologies, such as "sense for sense", and dynamic equivalence methodologies, is a methodology which in and of itself is offensive to sin nature-based mortalkind.  In the history of Bible translations I've discovered, from close examination of various Bible translations, there are some translation committees being heavily influenced by certain biblical scholars, which scholars, experts and committees cannot resist the temptation to take control of what the God has said.  They replace God's Words with their own paraphrases and creative "synonyming" because they don't agree with, and they don't like, some of the things written by his prophets and Christ Jesus' apostles.  Here the wolves are at work!

 

The translation methodology used to produce the LIT doesn't allow the wording of the biblical writers to be slopped around and twisted into meaning almost anything theologically, through the injection of insinuation and ambiguity via theologically-based paraphrases.  The LIT translation methodology is based upon Formal Equivalence, but is much more strict in paying attention to the grammatical and stylistic elements mentioned above, and especially in paying very close attention to Greek word morphologies, all of which are virtually ignored in paraphrases.  

 

Translated Literary Art Forms

 

Since the LIT actually quotes the biblical writers, the amalgamation of both Greek and English into LIT "English" is practically unavoidable.  It should be unavoidable in any translation.  LIT "English" is a combination of both biblical Greek and English grammar and syntax, but the LIT style is mostly driven by the grammatical structures laid down by the biblical writers in the Greek texts.  The English words are there only to reflect meaning, but pay little attention to "sacred cow" grammar, styles and syntax of "proper" English, as if there ever was such a thing.  I believe the grammar, styles and syntax should be driven by the biblical Greek texts.  What the biblical writers actually wrote in the original language texts is by far much closer to the mind of God than endless paraphrases which account for endless translations.

 

In the LIT a reader can actually see and experience the ancient Greek language first-hand, its grammar, styles and syntax, see and hear the difference between how the various apostles spoke and wrote, their different speech and thought patterns, their pet words and phrases, and especially those of Jesus Christ.  The LIT is fresh and unique, and one of a kind, absolutely not homogenous, but heterogeneous, based upon the various communication styles between the apostles, and especially that of Jesus Christ. 

 

For example, apostle Paul has no aversion whatsoever to using lengthy and complex sentence structures; which semi colons in some parts of his letters are almost as populous as periods in letters of other apostles.  In contrast, Jesus Christ most often spoke in short, much simpler, sentence structures, assuming that what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote are quotes of him.

 

Examples In The Texts

 

1 Cor. 13:1 (LIT/UBS4) If perhaps (ean) I may speak (lalō) the (tais) tongues (glōssais) of the (tōn) mortals (anthrōpōn), and (kai) of the (tōn) messengers (angelōn), but (de) I may not hold (mē echō) love (agapēn), I have become (gegona) [an] echoing (ēchōn) piece of copper (chalkos), or (ē) [a] wailing (alalazon) cymbal (kumbalon).

 

1 Cor. 13:2 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) if perhaps (ean) I may hold (echō) prophecy (prophēteian), and (kai) I may have seen (eidō) all (panta) of the (ta) mysteries (mustēria) and (kai) all (pasan) of the (tēn) knowledge (gnōsin), and (kai) if perhaps (ean) I may hold (echō) all (pasan) of the (tēn) belief (pistin) and so (hōste) to stand together with (methistanai) mountains (orē), but (de) I may not hold (mē echō) love (agapēn), I am (eimi) absolutely not one thing (outhen)!

 

1 Cor. 13:3 (LIT/UBS4) And if perhaps (kan) I may give [a] morsel (psōmisō) of all (panta) of the (ta) things being under control (huparchonta) of me (mou), and (kai) if perhaps (ean) I may pass aside (paradō) the (to) body (sōma) of me (mou) in order that (hina) I may cause myself to boast (kauchēsōmai), but (de) I may not hold (mē echō) love (agapēn), I am caused to profit (ōpheloumai) absolutely not one thing (ouden)!

 

I believe some translators have failed to notice that in verses 1-3 apostle Paul was presenting himself as a person who hypothetically may not hold love in his heart, and what those consequences to him would be, to set up a dichotomy of further comparisons in verses 4-13 of another person who hypothetically may hold love in his heart, and what those benefits to him would be. 

 

In 1 Cor. 13:4, in virtually all Bible translations, at least as far back as the 1611 KJV, the word love (agapē) is metaphorically assigned to be a personification of anthropomorphic characteristics through paraphrasing it, love is patient, love is not jealous, love does not boast, etc.. I suggest that because of Paul's apparent use of a dichotomy in this passage, the assumption of Paul metaphorically assigning anthropomorphic characteristics to the word love (agapē) is more likely to be a translation committee reading too much into the text.

 

Starting in verse 4 apostle Paul now explains the second half of his dichotomy, about a person who may have love in his heart.

 

1 Cor. 13:4 (LIT/UBS4) The (hē) loving one (agapē) is patient (makrothumei), he causes himself to be benevolent (chrēsteuetai).

 

The (hē) loving one (agapē) is absolutely not jealous (ou zēloi)!

 

The (hē) loving one (agapē) absolutely does not cause himself to boast (ou perpereuetai);

 

is absolutely not puffed up (ou phusioutai);

 

1 Cor. 13:5 (LIT/UBS4) absolutely does not behave indecently (ouk aschēmonei);

 

absolutely does not search (ou zētei) for the things (ta) of himself (heautēs);

 

is absolutely not incited (ou paroxunetai);

 

absolutely does not cause himself to keep count (ou logizetai) of the (to) malicious thing (kakon);

 

1 Cor. 13:6 (LIT/UBS4) absolutely does not rejoice (ou chairei) over (epi) the (tē) unrighteousness (adikia), but (de) rejoices together with (sunchairei) the (tē) Truth (alētheia);

 

1 Cor. 13:7 (LIT/UBS4) covers (stegei) [the cost, AE] of all things (panta);

 

believes (pisteuei) all things (panta);

 

hopes (elpizei) all things (panta);

 

endures (hupomenei) all things (panta)!

 

1 Cor. 13:8a (LIT/UBS4) The (hē) loving one (agapē) fails (piptei) but absolutely not at any time (oudepote)!

 

1 Cor. 13:13 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) now at this moment (nuni) the (ta) three (tria), belief (pistis), hope (elpis), love (agapē), these (tauta) remain (menei).

 

But (de) the (hē) loving one (agapē) [is] [a/the] greater one (meizōn) of those (toutōn) [not holding, v1-3, RE] [love, v3, RE].

  

This is one feature that's so unique about the LIT, it presents apparent ellipses and zero copulas transparently, without paraphrasing, ultimately rendering a translation which simply quotes the biblical writers.  What the biblical writers wrote in Greek, with God's holy Spirit working in and through them, is for the most part so clear already when the ellipses and zero copulas are identified and supplied.  So no paraphrasing is needed. 

 

Virtually all Bible translations are more or less paraphrases of what is actually said in the Greek texts.  This is because in the production of previous Bible translations the translation methodology most often used was some kind of a Dynamic Equivalence-based methodology, which pays no attention to the biblical authors' frequent use of ellipses and zero copulas, and at best little attention to inflected forms, to render them correctly in English.  Using paraphrases takes the load of hard work out of doing translation work; but greatly sacrifices accuracy,  and allows the injection of theological theories and opinions.  God's Word demands respect, and specifically what and how the biblical authors wrote must be respected as well.

 

In the LIT all ellipses and zero copulas are placed within brackets like [this], so the reader can identify the biblical authors' use of those frequent and clever omissions.  If a reader believes that a supplied ellipsis or copula is erroneous, then the reader can dismiss it.  Unlike paraphrases which very abundantly add, change, and delete words in the Greek texts from appearing in an English translation, the LIT shows all additions for ellipses and copulas in brackets, so readers can see the transparency, and decide for themselves. For ellipses, I have labeled them as either an absolute ellipsis [AE], a relative ellipsis (RE], or an ellipsis of repetition [ER].  Please see Bullinger's "Figures of Speech Used In The Bible."  Baker's Book House carries it.

 

For example:

 

Luke 1:10 And (kai) there was being (ēn) everyone (pan), the (to) plethora (plēthos) of the (tou) people (laou), outside (exō) at the (tē) hour (hōra) of the (tou) incense (thumiamatos), causing itself to be well-thankful to4336 (proseuchomenon) [God, AE].

 

Luke 1:11 But (de) [a] messenger (angelos) of [the] Lord (kuriou) was caused to gaze (ōphthē) at him (autō), it having stood (hestōs) out (ek) right (dexiōn) of the (tou) altar (thusiastēriou) of the (tou) incense (thumiamatos).

 

Luke 1:12 And (kai) he having seen (idōn) [[the] messenger, v11, RE], Zacharias (Zacharias) was troubled (etarachthē), and (kai) fear (phobos) fell (epepesen) upon (ep’) him (auton).

 

Luke 1:13 But (de) the (ho) messenger (angelos) enunciated (eipen) to (pros) him (auton), “Do not be made fearful (mē phobou), Zacharias (Zacharia), through the reason that (dioti) the (hē) prayer of need (deēsis) of you (sou) was heard (eisēkousthē), and (kai) the (hē) female (gunē) of you (sou), Elisabeth (Elisabet), she shall generate (gennēsei) [a] son (huion) for you (soi)

 

And (kai) you shall call aloud (kaleseis) the (to) name (onama) of him (autou), John (Iōannēn).

 

Luke 1:14 And (kai) joy (chara) shall cause itself to be (estai) to you (soi), and (kai) jumping for joy (agalliasis)

 

And (kai) many (polloi) shall cause themselves to rejoice (charēsontai) over (epi) the (tē) genesis (genesei) of him (autou).

 

In verse 10 the verb causing itself to be well-thankful to4336 (proseuchomenon) seems to me to be a transitive verb, since it's prefixed with the preposition pros which is directing the action of the verb toward an apparently missing direct object, [God, AE].

 

In verse 11 you can see where I supplied an indefinite and a definite article, to help the sentence be comparably understandable to our English (proper or improper?).  In order to supply them context is all-important.

 

For those of you who have just joined me, I'm talking about a translation methodology to accommodate biblical authors' use of ellipses and zero copulas.  This is exciting stuff!

 

In verse 12, I considered he having seen (idōn) as another transitive verb expecting a direct object.  Luke's, apparent omission of the verb's direct object I considered as an ellipsis, and so I supplied the missing direct object from the previous immediate context of verse 11.  When an apparent omission can be supplied from an immediate or local context I consider that kind of omission as a relative ellipsis (RE).

 

Definite and Indefinite Articles

 

Another feature more or less unique to the LIT is the identification of the use of definite [the] and indefinite [a, an] articles within brackets in the translation when none are in the text, but are usually required in English.   In the biblical Greek it appears to me that an indefinite article was simply assumed, all-importantly based upon the context.  The biblical Greek has no indefinite article, a, an, but in English indefinite articles supply an important function.  So when I've determined their need to render the text's specific meaning into English I show them in brackets as well, [a, an] or [a/the].  The thorough use of brackets in the LIT English translation to identify ellipses, zero copulas, and definite and indefinite articles, clearly shows and demonstrates to the reader theological transparency.  This level of theological transparency is abundantly lacking in virtually all other Bible translations. 

 

No Paraphrasing

 

Paraphrases ignore and obliterate a biblical author's style, as if it has no consequence in helping to impart an author's idea, concept and intended meaning.  They also tend to steer readers into the limited and/or desired scope of theological meaning of those omniscient translation committees who are calling for the paraphrasing. 

 

Virtually all English Bible translations are based upon a Dynamic Equivalence (DE) translation methodology, [with the exception of some known as literal translations], in which DE process the Greek texts are examined, and then the phrases, clauses and sentences are paraphrased into saying something like what the biblical author supposedly meant, according to other's opinions.  From my experience of closely examining and translating about 18,500 unique Greek inflected forms into English, I believe some paraphrasing is done to deliberately hide some things which the apostles wrote.  There are many biblical passages in the Greek texts which patently disagree with many aspects of some popular mortal-made theological theories, even popular "Christian" teachings.  The LIT doesn't paraphrase these passages into ambiguity or oblivion.

 

Other paraphrasing is claimed to be done in an attempt to make a Bible translation more like a fast food drive-through restaurant, to supposedly make it easier to read and understand.  This is counter intuitive to biblical content, God's Word, which is absolutely not all milk, but mostly strong meat.  Milk is quickly and easily swallowed.  Those biblical passages are already self-evident, and don't need to be "fixed".  Strong meat requires patient chewing, and a longer digestive process.  God's Word intrinsically requires slow and patient reading, one word at a time, and frequent re-reading of previous passages, to make sure a reader is still on track in following and understanding an author's progressive thought process in his development of ideas, concepts, and meanings.

 

If you've read Jason David BeDuhn's "Truth In Translation" then you have seen many examples of the underlying theological biases "translated" into most all popular Bible translations using paraphrases.  A sister book by another author, "Truth In Translation, Accuracy and Surprising Bias in the Old Testament" by A. Frances Werner, shows many more examples of theological bias "translated" into Bible translations using paraphrases.  What the LIT effectively does is eliminate mortal-made theological biases from appearing in it, while ensuring that exactly what the apostles wrote, verbatim, word for word, is set before a reader's eyes, with no additions, changes, or deletions to the text's words or meanings.  The elimination of paraphrases guarantees the best outcome toward the goal of  truth in translation. 

 

God's Word and Words are Spirit and Life (John 6:63)

 

If a reader does not have God's gift of his holy Spirit dwelling within the reader, the reader is not able to know and understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14-15).

 

The LIT preserves Jesus Christ's assertion that any given reader, especially one having God's Spirit working within his or her heart, already has an adequate ability to understand what he spoke, and what his apostles wrote, the way they wrote it, without it needing to be paraphrased to accommodate an assumed challenged or dumbed-down readership.  A reader's ability to understand spiritual things isn't simply a matter of paraphrasing God's Word.  From close comparison of some parts of Bible translations to the biblical Greek texts, I believe the adoption of the assumption of dumbed-down readership as a need for paraphrasing serves to some extent to be a ploy.  I believe paraphrasing is done to destroy God's Word, and to confuse those who do have God's Spirit dwelling within them.

 

Jesus spoke to the people in parables for an important reason, so that the hearers would be required to go to work in their own minds to try and figure out what were their meanings.  God's Word challenges those who read or hear it, which is why Jesus Christ challenged his listeners to hear and understand his parables.  If a hearer didn't understand a meaning or meanings of a parable, they were to pray to the God to ask, seek, and knock on his "door" to receive God's gift of his holy Spirit (Mat. 7:7)  Those with God's Spirit working in their hearts would come to understand what Jesus meant.  Those who did not have God's Spirit working in their hearts either had to believe to obtain it, or smugly and proudly remain in the dark (Mat. 13:10-18). 

 

The LIT coincidentally presents a truth-in-translation challenge to previous English Bible translation methodologies.  Wouldn't you rather read for yourself what the apostles of Jesus Christ actually wrote, and then decide for yourself what they mean, allowing God's Spirit to work in and through you, as Jesus Christ required from his listeners?

 

Lastly, I don't sell God's Word to people through Bibles, to make money off of the things of God, especially off of his Word.  The LIT, which is simply a non-paraphrased quote of what the apostles of Jesus Christ wrote, will always be free, right here at this website, for anyone who desires to see what the apostles wrote, and how they wrote God's Word.  I believe that what and how the apostles wrote God's Word, exactly what they wrote and meant, under inspiration of God's Spirit working in and through them, deserves to be witnessed by everyone for themselves, at no charge, following the examples of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and all of the ancient prophets!

 

For much more detailed explanations on how I produced the Literal Idiomatic Translation, please read my "About How I Produced the LIT" pages. 

 

In the LIT you will read and understand many passages about spiritual ideas and concepts, Truth, which you have not seen and understood before.  I hope you are as blessed and excited by God's Word as I am. 

 

Brother Hal Dekker