Literal Idiomatic Translation
    Home   Translation Page  


Page 1  2  3


About How The LIT Was Produced



By Hal Dekker


Last page update: 2021.03.27





The LIT - A Literal And Idiomatic Translation

- What Does Literal Mean?

- What Does Word-for-Word Mean?

- What Does Idiomatic Mean?


What Is The Literal Idiomatic Translation Glossary?


Translation Methodologies

- What Is Dynamic Equivalence (DE)?

- What Is Formal Equivalence (FE)?


Comparing Translation Methodologies


What Is An Honest Translation Methodology?


Standardization Of Translation


Who Is The "General Readership" Of A Bible Translation?

- God's Spirit In A Believer Teaches That Believer


Truth In Translation, Accuracy, Readability And Elegance

- Truth In Translation - The Translator Is Responsible For This

- Accuracy - The Translator Is Responsible For This

- Grammatical Accuracy

- Inflected Form Accuracy

- Contextual Accuracy

- Figurative Accuracy

- Cultural Accuracy

- Readability - Both The Author And The Translator Are Responsible For This

- Elegance - The Author Is Responsible For This


Biblical Literary Contexts

- Grammatical Contexts

- Situational Contexts

- Cultural

- Historical

- Discrete Topics and Unique Events

- What is the Whole Truth?

- What is the Forum of the Whole Truth?

- What is a Biblical Literary Context?

- An Example of a Biblical Literary Context

- Local Context

- Remote Context


----- : -----



Hello, and welcome.


On this page I would like to explain many details about how I produced the LIT.  Most Bible readers are probably not knowledgeable about the many translation processes which constitute a journalistically honest translation methodology, which methodology is constituted by the steps which must be taken in order to render an accurate English Bible translation.  "Journalistically honest" maybe fast becoming an oxymoron, but I use it in the sense of meaning which refers to a translation methodology which simply quotes the writers/apostles who wrote the 27 new testament books of a Bible.  Quoting an author means absolutely not using paraphrases or creative "synonyming", which methods are abundantly used in virtually all existing English Bible translations, mostly 4th century Trinitarian theology-based Bible translations. 


Another element of journalistic honesty in translation is about rendering the words in the Greek texts with their specific English counterparts, which English words and phrases mean exactly what the authors wrote, right down to the level of the inflected form of a word, adding absolutely not one thing, changing absolutely not one thing, and deleting absolutely not one thing, into the English translation. 


When I accidentally began the LIT in about 1993, I began it for me, because I wanted to know exactly what the prophets and apostles wrote without any denominational theological aberrations amalgamated into a Bible translation.  Have you ever noticed how many English Bible translations have piled up over the last two or three hundred years?  I guess about well over two hundred, from my own internet searches.  Have you ever compared Bible translations to see the differences between them in what they say?  That's how I accidentally began the LIT, by going back to the Greek texts to see what the apostles actually wrote and meant.  Next thing I know I found myself making translations of verses of the biblical Greek texts, which I kept on doing because the Greek texts were saying things much different than most Bible translations, which repeated verification steps eventually started to become a Bible translation, the LIT. 


I haven't yet found one translation, not one, which simply quotes the apostles.  They're all more or less paraphrases, which amount of the text I estimate on average to be between 50 - 80%.  What are referred to as "literal" translations are usually less saturated with highly creative "paraphrasing" and "synonyming", which is done to sculpt the apostles' biblical texts into making them say things which agree with the mortal-made/invented Triune godhead theory invented in the 4th century, to replace what Jesus Christ and his apostles preached and taught before, and up to that time.  The Constantinian "Christianity" invented in the 4th century featured a triune-godhead concept, which was adopted to replace Jesus' and his apostles' mono-godhead preaching and teaching, and thusly the preaching and teaching of the original Word of God, of Jesus Christ and his apostles, has almost become lost to history - replaced by paraphrasing and creative "synonyms".


I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, and never have been.  In fact, I don't have much of a clue about what is that organization's specific denominational doctrine.  But I can tell you a fact which may surprise you.  If anyone was to take any Bible translation and compare it word for word to the UBS4 or NA27 sets of Greek texts to see how accurately and consistently the New World Bible Translation (NWT) Committee translated Greek words into their English counterparts, as I and many others have done, he or she would discover that the NWT is most likely the second most accurate and precise Bible translation in the world, with the exception of my own LIT.  I may be biased, but I just spent 29 years looking up and researching, again and again, about 18,400 unique inflected forms of the Koine Greek language, to make certain my LIT is very highly precise in its accuracy. 


My only criticism of the NWT is that the approach of the translators appears to be too cautious, not bold enough in allowing the rude, bold Truth of God's Word, inherent in the Greek texts, to fully come out into the NWT translation.  Were they too afraid of ruffling the feathers of the triune-godhead proponents?  The LIT doesn't attenuate, or tone down, any biblical texts for politically correct purposes, or for any purposes.  If someone doesn't like what an apostle wrote, how he wrote it, and exactly what he means, because it may sound too accosting to someone's tender feelings, or it doesn't agree with the triune-godhead invention, then that person can put it down and walk away.  It's not a translator's job to position himself as the managing editor of Jesus Christ and his apostles, as if the meanings of what they said and wrote needs the final approval of theologically biased translators and translation committees.


Anyone even thinking about over-riding what the apostles wrote, and meant, must have some self-omniscience issues.  Yes, I believe, from seeing for myself how bad some English translations are shredded to pieces with paraphrasing and creative "synonyming", that some of those who produced those translations must have, or had, self-omniscience, self-greatness issues.  The LIT dramatically proves that there is no need whatsoever for paraphrasing and creative "synonyming" in the production of a Bible translation from the Greek UBS4 text(s), or from any of the biblical Greek texts. 


If anyone dares to momentarily leave their denominational nest to pop his head up and look around a bit, I recommend you read "Truth In Translation - Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" by Jason David BeDuhn.  For the old covenant texts you should read another book based upon the same analytical model, but by a different author, "Truth In Translation - Accuracy and Surprising Bias in the Old Testament" by A. Frances Werner.  These books, without getting into biblical Greek, present many eye-opening examples of translators mishandling the biblical texts.  If anyone wishes to risk exposing their mind to the facts and truth about the quality of Bible translations, which risk means probably flushing erroneous preconceived ideas, false beliefs and hogwash out of your mind, then these two books are a great place for you to start learning; about how most all Bible translations are erroneously sculpted in many places to cause readers to conclude/believe that Jesus and his apostles had a triune-godhead mindset of some kind.


Some other books I recommend:


Charles Freeman, "A.D. 381", and "The Closing Of The Western Mind"


Philip Jenkins, "Jesus Wars"


Richard E. Rubenstein, "When Jesus Became God"


Patrick Navas, "Divine Truth Or Human Tradition"


Robert L. George, "The Trinity's Weak Links Revealed"


Bart D, Ehrman, Ph.D., I highly recommend all of his works, especially his book titled "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture - The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament".


Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, "The Doctrine of the Trinity"


----- : -----



The LIT - A Literal and Idiomatic Translation


Some who are uninformed about translation issues, commenting on translation issues, claim that a literal translation cannot simultaneously be an idiomatic translation. They claim that language idioms/colloquialisms and figures of speech cannot be literally reproduced word for word into another language.  Yes, they absolutely can, as I demonstrate throughout the Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT).  A companion work I produced to assist a reader through supplying related notes about a passage or verse, or about an authors use of specific words, is primarily the Literal Idiomatic Translation Glossary (LITG). 


As a reader practices becoming familiar with the "feel" of the LIT, with the way the ancient writers of God's Word actually thought and subsequently spoke and wrote, a reader, through simply reading and becoming familiar with what the ancient biblical writers wrote, will quickly learn to recognize and understand many of their common colloquialisms, idioms, and figures of speech, on sight, the very same way that a little baby, who hasn't yet earned a Ph.D. can learn to communicate through close interaction with it parents and others. 


I believe the majority of occurrences of Greek idioms can be immediately understood by most all readers whose native language is English. This is because many of our modern English colloquialisms, idioms and figures of speech have come down to us from the Greek language; and not only millenniums ago, but in many cases millenniums ago before that, from the ancient Hebrew language, and other languages.  


- What Does Literal Mean?


Let's first look at a few examples of the English definition of the meaning of literal, as the meaning relates to the usage of English words for communications.  The Webster's New World College Dictionary Fourth Edition says:


"1 of, involving , or expressed by a letter or letters of the alphabet [literal notation],


2 following or representing the exact words of the original; word-for-word [a literal translation],


3a based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning; not figurative or symbolic [the literal meaning of a passage],


3b giving the actual denotation of the word (said of the senses of words),


3c giving the original or earlier meaning of a word; etymological [the literal meaning of ponder is "to weigh"],


4a habitually interpreting statements or words according to their actual denotation; prosaic; matter-of-fact [a literal mind],


4b having a literal mind; lacking imagination,


5 real; not going beyond the actual facts; accurate; unvarnished [the literal truth],


6 being so in fact but not in name; virtual [the chairperson is a literal dictator]" - "Literal." Def. 1-6. Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition. 2002, Print. Cleveland: Wiley, 2002.


The LIT satisfies all of these criteria for literalness.  How?  Please allow me to explain how a literal translation process is absolutely not a myth, as some "experts" claim:


1 of, involving , or expressed by a letter or letters of the alphabet [literal notation],


According to definition 1 of literal, it seems obvious; the LIT uses English words to reproduce the exact meanings of words in the UBS4 Greek text, from which the LIT is reproduced.  The English renderings are based upon a Greek word's lexical meaning, and then upon the type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender, person, and number of  the inflected forms of verbs, and likewise for the inflected forms of all other parts of speech.  Translating the biblical Greek texts to make them say in English exactly what they say in Greek, is the heart of a Formal Equivalence (FE) translation process/methodology.


2 following or representing the exact words of the original; word-for-word [a literal translation],


According to definition 2 of literal, the LIT uses no more words than necessary to reproduce the exact meaning of its Greek source word or words. Sometimes a single Greek word can't possibly be translated into English with only one single English word, and may require a phrase.  But likewise sometimes, but not often, a Greek phrase can accurately be translated into English using a single English word.  And given the differences in the meanings ascribed to the words in the two different languages, this is as close as anyone can get to a word-for-word translation. But I believe this explanation adequately suffices for the definition of a word-for-word translation.  Likewise, I believe this explanation adequately suffices for the definition of a Formal Equivalence-based translation methodology as well.  The term word-for-word should not be abandoned, and likewise the term literal as in "literal translation" should not be abandoned as well.


3a based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning; not figurative or symbolic [the literal meaning of a passage],


According to definition 3a of literal, a translator is reminded not to consider using paraphrases and creative "synonyming" based upon pre-exegetical imaginations, their own or someone else's, as legitimate practices of a translation methodology.  Greek words have lexical root meanings, often best expressed by the verb forms, usually from which the other parts of speech are derived.  That along with a word's inflected form, and the context in which it sits, are all sacred, and must be respected.  Imagining theological ideas beyond what is explicitly written in the biblical texts has no place being connoted into a translation.


According to this definition of literal, translators are now challenged to determine for themselves whether they are agreeable to preserve both  the explicit meanings of a biblical author's choice of words, and then the style of writing in which those words were used to introduce an author's discrete subject matters. 


Both an apostle's style of writing, and his exact choice of wording, inextricably combine together to present to a reader the best chance for a reader's accurate understanding of a translator's intended meanings.  The apostles weren't writing unconsciously, but accurately, precisely, with God's Spirit working in and through them, to preach and teach the Evangelism of Christ Jesus, which 1st century orthodoxy is sacred.


3b giving the actual denotation of the word (said of the senses of words),


According to definition 3b of literal, Webster's introduces us to the concept of denotation in English wording. 


Any other translation methodology other than the strict Formal Equivalence methodology used to produce the LIT, must begin to compromise on all of the above aforementioned definitions which define literalness.   


Denotation means "the literal or primary meaning of a word, in contrast to the feelings or ideas that the word suggests; beyond their immediate denotation, the words have a connotative power." - Apple


Among some in the Greek scholarly community what a biblical Greek word may "suggest" to someone is considered an acceptable basis to begin creating paraphrases and using creative "synonyming" to depart from simply quoting a biblical author.  This begins the Dynamic Equivalence (DE) translation process.  Dynamic Equivalence abandons a Greek word's denoted meaning, and a connoted meaning generated by a translator or translation committee is used in place of it in the form of a substitute word or phrase, i.e., paraphrasing and creative "synonyming". 


This raises the question of who's interest is being put first in the faulty DE translation process: is it the interest of the translator or translation committee, which may have/has pre-conceived theological ideas, who's ideas are maybe being held above the importance of what a prophet or apostle actually wrote?  If Bibles are all paraphrases of what people/translators think the apostles may have meant, then that is precisely what throws the "needle" into the haystack. But when a reader can actually see exactly what an apostle wrote, that absolutely eliminates the potential theological bias usually inherent in paraphrases.  A translation which quotes the biblical authors allows a reader the best chance to see what are the real "needles", and to actually see them, instead of being miss-directed through paraphrases.  


Any reader must ask this question: if paraphrases are absolutely not necessary in a Bible translation, then why are they used?  It is because a translator or translation committee has assumed itself to be smarter and wiser than the apostle who wrote what they wrote, and what an apostle wrote needs to be repaired and/or fixed.  But a paraphrase means more than that.  It means that the translator or translation committee assumes the reader is to ignorant or stupid to be able to determine an apostle's meaning by simply what they wrote, even though the reader is likely to have God's Spirit working in him or her; which is likely the reason why a reader is even reading God's Word in the first place!  It's God's job, through his gift of holy Spirit in a believer, to teach a believer what his Word means, as it was written by his prophets and apostles.  It's the Father's/God's job to teach his children his Word (John 6:45).


It's not left to translators and translation committees to play God, by changing God's Word to suit them and their fanciful theological ideas, as if God needs their help; as if what God has said through his prophets and apostles was in error!  Now listen to this: Jesus Christ spoke of God's Word being a life or death proposition for a believer to believe it, the importance of his Word being important down to the level of an iota and a little horn (Mat. 5:17-20). An iota is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and a little horn is a small curved extremity of any Hebrew letter.  Jesus Christ draws our attention, the attention of at least for some, to paying attention to God's Word down to this minute level of detail of the accuracy of God's Word; not just to a letter of a word, but to the actual formation of a letter!  Ladies and gentlemen, paraphrasing destroys iotas and little horns, to say the least!  As soon as any point of inflection of a word is dismissed, a point of inflection being the type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender, person, or number of a word, that's when paraphrasing begins!


3c giving the original or earlier meaning of a word; etymological [the literal meaning of ponder is "to weigh"],


According to definition 3c of literal, Dynamic Equivalence enthusiasts protest against the literalness of Formal Equivalence because it leaves no wiggle room for theological imagination.  Some who are unhappy with God's Word may question: "How dare the biblical writers be so precise and specific in the way they wrote God's Word?"  I believe the devil encourages the production of a smorgasbord of connoted bible translations so that the Truth of God's Word can't actually be pinpointed and found in the hay stacks he's produced. Bible translations which do not simply quote what the apostles wrote create a "house of mirrors", in which readers must stumble around trying to determine which "translation" is correct, thusly postponing or delaying (maybe for ever!) certain biblical truths and beliefs from forming in people's hearts.


4a habitually interpreting statements or words according to their actual denotation; prosaic; matter-of-fact [a literal mind],


According to definition 4a of literal, literalness incorporates into a translation process the concept of habitually, and may I add systematically, interpreting/determining and then reproducing in the translation process statements or words according to their actual denotation.  This must at least mean not ignoring root word lexical meanings when translating inflected forms of it; and then which must mean not ignoring a word's type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender person, or number for verbs, and likewise for the other grammatical parts of speech, which lexical meaning and points of inflection are a word's actual denotation.


4b having a literal mind; lacking imagination,


According to definition 4b of literal, translators must assume that the biblical authors literally meant what they wrote, with the exception of the obvious use of figures of speech. 


5 real; not going beyond the actual facts; accurate; unvarnished [the literal truth],


According to definition 5 of literal, a literal translation does not embellish or varnish what a biblical author wrote.  Literalness can be defined by reality, factuality, accuracy and truthfulness in the translation process, which process must at least be Formal Equivalence, if not even a stricter systematic form of it. 


6 being so in fact but not in name; virtual [the chairperson is a literal dictator]


In a real, factual, accurate and truthful Bible translation, in a literal translation, there is no place for theological-based or -biased paraphrasing and creative "synonyming", in order to cover up what was actually written in order to sculpt a translation into appearing to support or not support any theological ideas of any kind.  The goal of anyone quoting any famous writer or speaker is to literally quote them for what they actually wrote or said; what they said, how they said it, when they said it, to whom they said it, why they said it, and so on, else the reporter, or a translator or translation committee, is disingenuous, to say the least. 


So there you have it, the concept of literal in any form of communications, which adherence to is especially important in biblical translation, is absolutely not a myth which some Greek scholars claim, to try to hide their own theological paraphrasing and creative "synonyming" work while working in Bible translation!  Using literalness in Bible translation is at the highest level of importance, to insure accuracy, because God's Word is Truth, and it is sacred!


- What Does Word-For-Word Mean?


Most of the time, as you shall see when reading the LIT, one single Greek word can accurately be translated into one single English word.  But sometimes translation may require several English words to accurately represent the meaning of one single Greek word.  And likewise, some double and triple compound words in Greek can be translated into one single English word.  So in actuality when translating the biblical Greek texts into English all three kinds of renderings are used:


-  word-for-word, one English word rendered for one Greek word,


- words-for-word, two or more English words rendered for one Greek word,


- word-for-words, one English word rendered for a Greek double or triple compound word.


Seldom is one English word rendered for two or more Greek words.


Examples of Greek compound words:


In the biblical Greek texts through taking various words like prepositions and verbs, and then sticking them together, another word is formed, such as apostellō; from apo meaning away from, and stellō meaning to set apart, which words form a double compound verb which means to send away, or simply to send


For another example, Greeks words are built from taking conjunctions and pronouns and sticking them together to make another word, such as kagō; from kai meaning and, and from egō meaning I, which Greeks words compound together into the meaning of and I


For another example, Greek words are built from taking conjunctions and nouns and sticking them together to make another word, such as paraklēsis; from para meaning beside, or alongside, and from kaleō meaning to call for, or to call for aloud, which Greeks words compound together into the meaning of to console, or to call alongside


For another example, Greek triple compound words can be built from double compounds.  Akatastasia (a-kata-stasia) Strong's # 181, is a triple compound made from a double of the preposition kata, meaning down, and histēmi, meaning to stand, which Greeks words compound together into kathistēmi, meaning of to appoint.  A triple compound new word is made from this through prefixing a particle of negation, a, which means un- in English, which new word, akatastasia, means instability.  This is how a-kata-histēmi is built together into the meaning instability.  So sometimes a Greek double or triple compound can have the meaning of a single English word, and likewise, a single compound Greek word may need to be rendered into two or three English words, which may be necessary to render the full Greek meaning into English. 


In the Greek language there are many various combinations of how words are stuck together to form new words with new meanings.  Instead of building blocks with a letter of the alphabet on it, with which we played as children to learn the alphabet and learn words, the Greek language is very similar, with each word being a building block which can be assembled with other words to form new words with new unique meanings.


So as you can see, since many, many Greek words are compounds.  Translating a single Greek compound word into two or three English words, if necessary, or if two or three Greek words can be accurately translated into one English word, either way, a literal word for words, or words for word translation can be produced, and legitimately be considered to be a literal translation, which kind of translation is much more accurate in conveying a writer's meaning.  Word for word translation is absolutely not paraphrasing, but it is simply quoting what an author wrote.  I'll bet you would be surprised to learn about how many "literal" translations there are, which word "literal" is in the name of the translation, but which translations are still chucked full of paraphrases!  The word for word quoting style of the LIT is uniquely suited to making very explicit, in English, the exact meanings which the authors expressed in the Greek texts of the new testament. 


Paraphrasing is rewording what a speaker said, or a writer wrote, instead of using a speaker's own, or a writer's own words.  It's a lie when people say that what the apostles wrote needs to be reworded!  What the apostles wrote, while being under direction of God's holy Spirit working in and through them as his agents, is already correct and without error, and therefore doesn't need to be "fixed" through paraphrasing.  Paraphrasing the apostles is based upon the falsehood that the apostles often didn't or couldn't make themselves clear.  You know from where lies come (John 8:44)!  The excuse for using paraphrases is that the use of different words are necessary to achieve greater clarity.  Clarity of what?  Clarity of someone's theological theory?  Translating the biblical texts exactly as they are written is about as "clear" as clarity can get.  Paraphrasers, Bible forgers, want to make it "clear" that what the apostles wrote was based upon, or somehow related to, a possible triune godhead concept in their minds?  That's the big lie, right there!  Jesus' apostles absolutely did not write having a triune godhead concept in their minds.  That triune godhead mortal-made theological theory wasn't invented until the late 3rd to early 4th centuries, which gave the devil hundreds of years to come up with a plan for a close counterfeit God's Word, which was shoved down people's throats at bloody spear points, with threats of death and torture from Constantine and his armies if people did not believe accept it.  That's how the triune godhead theory became the new Christianity in the 4th century, Constantine gave them a choice, "believe it or die"!  Is that how Jesus Christ and his apostles worked with people, using strong-arming, intimidation and fear?  Did Jesus Christ and his apostles kill people who didn't believe their message?  Absolutely not!  But Constantine's armies, under direction of he and his bishops, have been torturing, maiming and killing people every century for about the last 1,600 years, if they refuse to do as Constantine, in the 4th century, has instructed everyone to do.


Just because the non-triune godhead orthodoxy about which Jesus Christ preached and taught, and about which the apostles wrote, is confusing to a Trinitarian, doesn't mean that the meaning of what the apostles wrote is confusing to everyone else.  If the people being Trinitarians now would have had a chance to learn the God's orthodoxy before having the triune godhead concept crammed down their throats first, they would have had a chance of learning, understanding and believing it.  Only Trinitarians believe that what the apostles wrote is wrong in many places, and needs to be "fixed" somehow, to reflect features of Constantine's triune godhead concept.  Biblical paraphrasing of what the prophets and apostles wrote is based upon Trinitarian private interpretations.  The Trinitarian desire to substantiate their false claim that Jesus Christ and his apostles secretly had a triune godhead concept in their minds, or that the orthodoxy that the one true highest God taught to his son Christ Jesus was wrong and needed to be fixed, is the overwhelming driver for some of the "need" for paraphrasing. 


Apart from accommodating preconceived theological ideas, there is no need for paraphrasing whatsoever.  Anyone can read the LIT from Mat. 1:1 to Rev. 22:21, and see that there is no paraphrasing whatsoever, because none is necessary.  The apostles can be quoted word for word, and the meanings of the words they wrote are crystal clear, just the way they wrote it!  If someone doesn't understand what they meant, or doesn't agree with the apostle's abundant contradictions of features of the triune godhead invention, slapping Trinitarian-based paraphrased lies over those many passages may satisfy your preconceived ideas and beliefs, but that's not honest translation, that's lying for the devil.  Certainly the devil pays wages, notoriety, a well-paying job creating biblical paraphrases to replace what Jesus' apostles wrote, a nice big home, cars, travel, all of the things one may want out of life, accept it's through working for the devil!!!


The truth is this: the use of paraphrases in Bible "translations" is done so that the triune godhead theology of the religious cartel sponsoring a Bible translation can be sculpted/fudged into a Bible in such a way as to make the apostles sound like they wrote based upon having a triune godhead theology.  That is post-history revision, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is lying!  The rewording of exactly what apostles wrote is done to opportunistically use certain biblical passages, into which aspects of a triune godhead concept can somehow be imagined, to make them more "clearly" sound like the authors who wrote them wrote based upon having a triune godhead concept of some kind.  To paraphrasers, many things Jesus Christ said, and many things the apostles wrote, sharply contradict many aspects of a triune godhead concept, and they can't allow that to stand unaltered, because they grew up from a baby being taught the Trinity by their parents, before they had a chance to study the unaltered biblical texts for themselves.  And the reason why virtually all English Bible translations are 50-80 % paraphrases,  is because virtually all English Bible translations, or maybe all Bible translations in any language, are produced by Trinitarian denominational cartels. 


In paraphrased translations, which is virtually all translations, in which "synonyms" are heavily used, paraphrases literally disassociate various passages from one another in which the writers are writing about the same subjects.  In heavily paraphrased translations, in many passages in which the same Greek word or words, phrases, and sentence structures are used, what appear to be off the cuff paraphrases isolate those passages from one another, as if the destruction of subject matter continuity between those passages was and is deliberate.  This is the huge problem associated with sense for sense-based translations, which is just another way of making an excuse for using paraphrases, which again are what constitute virtually all Bible translations having been produced. 


Contrary to a literal translation, I believe sense for sense Bible translations are products designed to more abundantly glorify various aspects of the triune godhead invention, and are much less about honoring the God and his Truth, and about honoring Christ Jesus and his apostles.  Sense for sense translations are like gold settings, in which the gem of the triune godhead concept must be showcased.  A gem needs to be viewed in its proper setting, and under the correct "light", so that as many features as possible are given an opportunity to glimmer and shine.  And so a feature of sense for sense translations is the use of mortalkind-invented elements of style and elegance incorporated into the endless paraphrases, where none such words and elements exist in the Greek texts.  What Jesus Christ spoke, and his apostles wrote, was absolutely not meant to entertain, but to seriously inform.  That's one of the reasons the religious leaders of the children of Israel killed all of their prophets, they were too serious, and not entertaining enough.


These kinds of Bible translations support the notion that no one can really ever know and understand exactly what any given biblical passage truly means, since the lying insinuation is that the apostles couldn't write sentences and passages that conveyed clear and unambiguous meanings, passages which stated unadulterated spiritual facts and truths.  A literal quote translation completely removes this kind of systematic theologically-based error and subsequently produced obfuscations, to show exactly what the ancient writers actually wrote through standardization of translation.  A Bible translation which literally quotes exactly what the ancient writers wrote is a very bright light of Truth, which when compared to paraphrased Bibles reveals the extent to which they have been erroneously altered.


A huge false belief about translation methodology is based upon a false dichotomy often uttered by those who know nothing about translation.  The false belief is that a word for word translation is bound to mistranslate idioms.  Whereas in a paraphrased Bible, where liberties are taken to carefully sculpt wordage into specific meanings, idioms can be made clearer.  That belief is so much goopucky on the barn floor!  The truth is that careful attention to idioms, colloquialisms, and other figures of speech, is generally ignored in virtually all Bible translations, and replaced with paraphrases of what the Bible producers want people to read and believe.  Trinitarian Bible translators want to push the 4th century CE triune godhead invention down your throat, and so paying close attention to exactly what and how a biblical writer wrote something, like paying close attention to inflected forms of verbs, is too trivial of a detail to get in the way of good paraphrasing.  The greatest critic of "good" paraphrasing is probably E. W. Bullinger himself, judging from the contents of his comprehensive book on figures of speech used in the Bible, and all of the marginal notes in his Companion Bible correcting so many paraphrases, so readers can actually see and understand what the biblical authors actually wrote and meant. 


In Bullinger's work on figures of speech, from cover to cover he's constantly correcting paraphrased biblical passages in which the translators either missed recognizing a figure, or ignored it.  Either way, apparently the use of paraphrases doesn't seem to insure the proper attention and respect due to an author's use of words figuratively.  One of the issues about figures of speech related to paraphrasing, which Bullinger doesn't address in his book, is the fabrication of figures of speech in translation which don't exist in the Hebrew or Greek texts.  For example the figure idiom:  In Mat. 10:29 the author used the emphatic particle of negation ou twice.  But which grammatical part of speech did the author intend it to modify?  From my experiential knowledge of personally examining all 1,537 occurrences throughout all of the new covenant texts, a general rule could be observed that ou is intended to modify the word or phrase which it immediately precedes.


Mat. 10:29a (LIT/UBS4) [Are] absolutely not (ouchi) two (duo) little birds (strouthia) sold (pōleitai) for [a] tenth of [a] drachma (assariou)?  


As in the Greek text, in 29a the LIT shows ouchi (an inflected form of ou) joined with duo (the cardinal number 2) used as an adjective to modify little birds, the predicate. 


The author's use of ou in 29a puts the emphasis on exactly two little birds, no more and no less, are equivalent in value to a tenth of a drachma.


Mat. 10:29b (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) one (hen) out (ex) of them (autōn) shall absolutely not cause itself to fall (ou peseitai) upon (epi) the (tēn) land (gēn) without (aneu) [the knowledge] of the (tou) Father (patros) of you (humōn)!


 In 29b, as in the Greek text, ou is joined to the verb peseitai to give it a more emphatic meaning.  One out of them, worth so little value as even a twentieth of a drachma, one apparently worthless and valueless sinner (my interpretation), shall absolutely not cause himself to fall... without [the knowledge] of the Father.  The use of ou in 29b puts the emphasis on a reader, a "little bird", causing itself to fall through practicing sin.


29a, according to E. W. Bullinger, follows the Hebrew idiom of joining a particle of negative to a numeral.


29b follows the Greek idiom of joining a particle of negation to a verb.


For Mat. 10:29, which verse I randomly selected, let's see how well several translations notice and preserve the writers use of the emphatic particle of negation ou, to specifically identify for the reader which word or phrase is the emphatic focal point within each sentence.  This is precisely the reason for why figures of speech are used, and how they are used, to identify for the reader the most important word or phrase in a sentence, to guide a reader into its proper understanding, so the reader absolutely gets the point.


The following analysis I did for the ASV, I did for all of the following translations.


In the ASV 29a is lightly paraphrased (penny?), but joins ouchi correctly.


In the ASV 29b is heavily paraphrased ("and not (ou) one of them shall fall...").  The unnecessary paraphrase erroneously joins ou to the numeral one (hen) instead of the verb, thusly doubling up on the Hebrew idiomatic usage but ignoring the Greek idiomatic usage, and the ASV completely ignores the middle voice of the verb peseitai.  Through ignoring the author's switch of idioms, and ignoring the use of the middle voiced verb, the paraphrase destroys the writer's emphasis in the sentence, which emphasis is upon us, we, each little almost worthless bird, causing ourselves to fall, when we don't continue to cause ourselves to become as the teacher of us (context, Mat. 10:25)


All of the following translations lightly paraphrase 29a, substituting in place of "a tenth of a drachma", the words penny, farthing, cent, halfpenny and assar, except the ICB, which very heavily paraphrases it, and ignores ou altogether.  (ASV, BBE, Darby, GW, HCSB, ICB, KJV, NASB77, NASB, NIV, NJB, WesleyNT, WEY, WuestNT, YLT).


 All of the following translations heavily, erroneously, paraphrase 29b. All of them incorrectly join ou to the numeral one (hen), instead of to the verb peseitai.  All of them ignore the middle voice of the verb peseitai.  Through all of the following translations ignoring the author's switch of idioms, and ignoring the use of the middle voiced verb, their paraphrases destroy the writer's emphasis in the sentence, which emphasis is upon we cause ourselves to fall.  We do it to ourselves.  (ASV, BBE, Darby, GW, HCSB, ICB, KJV, NASB77, NASB, NIV, NJB, WesleyNT, WEY, WuestNT, YLT).


When this was written a silver drachma weighing about .11 oz. is worth about 65 cents US.  So a tenth of a drachma is worth about 6.5 cents US, and a twentieth of a drachma is worth about 3.25 cents US.  Even those of us who feel we might be worth only about 3.25 cents, our heavenly Father will know about it if we cause ourselves to fall.  And he will warn you several times on your way down, of how to get yourselves back on track with his Word.  The God's holy Spirit working in and through a believer will give a word of knowledge, a word of wisdom, or discerning of spirits (1 Cor. 12) to a believer/son of God, so he or she can remain victorious over the devil and demon spirits.


What I've done here is to give you one example among thousands in a Bible translation, to demonstrate to you that the use of paraphrases in Bible translations is not intended to bring clarity to what the biblical authors wrote, but just the opposite, to destroy it!  Paraphrases, in general, are not used to give special consideration to figures of speech, but paraphrases destroy them, just like they are used to destroy biblical passages which contradict the triune godhead theory invented in the late 3rd to early 4th century CE. 


In the LIT a word for word literal translation methodology is used throughout, which quoting of the writers is exactly what brings out and illuminates those colorful figures of speech.  The LIT is faithful to God's Word, and to the writer's of the biblical texts, right down to the microscopic level of a Greek word's specific inflected form, to insure a writer is quoted correctly.  The LIT superscripts key English words to direct a reader's attention to the LITG, where in the texts colloquialisms, idioms, or other figures of speech, or cultural references, are attempted to be explained. 


The new covenant writers/apostles didn't constantly write in figures of speech, writing one right after another.  The biblical Greek of the new covenant writings is Koiné, common street language Greek, often bold, rude, direct, indicting, and cutting to the point, sometimes sarcastically.  Highly poetic styles of writing are much more so in the Hebrew texts of the Bible.  Trying to make what the apostles wrote in the Greek texts sound like anything other than bold, rude, direct, indicting, and cutting to the point, sometimes sarcastically, absolutely does not honestly and faithfully quote the writers of the new covenant books of the Bible.  What Christ Jesus said and did demonstrated how dead serious he was about your own life and death.


The following is an excerpt from a page by Jay C. Treat:

Differences Between Classical and Hellenistic Greek

A Quick Introduction by Jay C. Treat



Robertson, A.T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

General Characterization

The sources listed above indicate ways in which Koiné (or Hellenistic) Greek differs from Classical Greek. The following is a summary of some of the main points they raise.

Robertson characterizes Koiné Greek as a later development of Classical Greek, that is, the dialect spoken in Attica (the region around Athens) during the classical period.

To all intents and purposes the vernacular κοινή is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under historical environment created by Alexander's conquests. On this base then were deposited varied influences from the other dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character of the language (Robertson, 71).

If the Koiné is an outgrowth of Classical Greek, what are the differences between the two? Robertson states the basic differences succinctly. Koiné was more practical than academic, putting the stress on clarity rather than eloquence. Its grammar was simplified, exceptions were decreased and generalized, inflections were dropped or harmonized, and sentence-construction made easier. Koiné was the language of life and not of books. -


- What Does Idiomatic Mean?


According to most dictionaries an idiom and a colloquialism are defined as more or less one and the same thing, the words being generally defined in meaning as being synonyms of one another.  But technically, and therefore really, that's not true.  An idiom is a more specific kind of figure of speech, and a colloquialism is a more general kind of figure of speech, and they are not identical.  E. W. Bullinger speaks of idioms, but nothing about colloquialisms, as if colloquialisms do not exist.


Bullinger equates the historic meaning of an idiom as being one's own privately developed saying, a saying peculiar to an individual.  Even though idioms may come into existence this way, we know that many become used by others, by friends or relatives, and thereby they become popular and their use more or less adopted by others. 


The following definitions are from the Cambridge Dictionary and others.


A figure of speech is a word, a phrase, a clause or a sentence in which the meanings of the words are not intended to be literal, but symbolic of other things.


A colloquialism is a figure of speech used in informal communication which can be a word, a phrase, a clause or a sentence used to communicate a meaning which can be deduced from the meanings of the individual words used.  A colloquialism is a more common expression used by someone in everyday conversation, as opposed to expressions that are more formal or literary in their usages.


An idiom is a figure of speech which can be a word (for single word idioms see Bullinger's work), a phrase, a clause or a sentence used to communicate a meaning which cannot be deduced from the meanings of the individual words used.  Idioms can be common expressions or formal or literary expressions.


Literary writing is designed to be poetic, artistic, dramatic, showy, entertaining, etc..  I can't recall any passages in the copies of the Greek texts of the new testament portion of the biblical texts which appears to be written primarily to be poetic, artistic, dramatic or entertaining, although in the mind of a reader any passage may appear to be so.  But if so, those characteristics and qualities can only be subsequent to the more immediate purposes of God's Word, to impart knowledge of how mortalkind can obtain salvation from its own sin and destruction (Hos. 4:6), and more specifically, that the God desires all mortals to be made whole, and to come to an experiential knowledge of Truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4).


But please bear with me on idioms for a few more minutes, since a clarification over the sake of erroneous beliefs about idioms is important.


E. W. Bullinger, in his book "Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible", recognizes at least

about a couple hundred occurrences of the use of various idioms by the authors of the new covenant texts of the Bible.  In many of these occurrences recognized by Bullinger, who by any standard must be recognized as one of the great Biblical scholars of the 20th century, the Cambridge Dictionary's definition for an idiom, "its meaning cannot be deduced from the meanings of the individual words used" doesn't hold true, else Bullinger imagines very many occurrences of idioms which should be classified as figures of another kind, or else he's imagining figures to write about in a book.


 But let's see.  Many of the idioms recognized by E. W. Bullinger in his book "Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible", can easily be understood in a word for word translation rendering, if the reader has enough knowledge of the holy scriptures and can recall what else has been written on the same subject matter in other related passages.


The first idiom listed by Bullinger in section I. Verbs In General, i. Idiomatic usage of Verbs. is in Mat. 17:11-12.


Mat. 17:11 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) the (ho) [Jesus] having been caused to make [a] decision (apokritheis), he enunciated (eipen), “Truly (men), Elijah (Hlias) is caused to come (erchetai)


(See Mal. 4:5-6; Mat. 11:7-15; Luke 1:17)


And (kai) he shall restore (apokatastēsei) all things (panta).


Mat. 17:12  (LIT/UBS4) But (de) I say (legō) to you (humin), that (hoti) Elijah (Hlias) already (ēdē) came (ēlthen), and (kai) they absolutely did not experientially know (ouk epegnōsan) him (auton)!


BUT (alla), they did (epoiēsan) in (en) him (autō) as many things as (hosa) they desired (ēthelēsan)!


Thusly (houtōs) the (ho) Son (huios) of the (tou) Mortal (anthrōpou) also (kai) is about (mellei) to suffer (paschein) under (hup’) them (autōn).”


This is a word for word translation of this passage.  Jesus in verse 11 is obviously referring to John the Baptist, about whom Jesus explains in Mat. 11:7-15 was born from the womb with the Spirit of Elijah within him, which coming was prophesied by Malachi.  But I see no idiom here at all.  Question: Which exactly are the words which can't be understood at face value, because their meaning cannot be deduced from the meanings of the individual words used


Jesus is simply, and straight forwardly, answering the question asked of him by his disciples in verse 10.  It was prophesied by the prophet Malachi that before the great and fearful day of the Lord Elijah would return (Mal. 4:5-6) (from where?) to preach and call again all the children of Israel to repentance to one another, specifically between fathers and their sons, which I believe includes the God once again reaching out to the hearts of people, to the "paths" where God searches for belief, belief in the hearts of his adopted children, the children of Israel.  The children of Israel corporately, and its leaders, failed to recognize the Spirit of Elijah working in and through John the Baptist (v, 12).  They slaughtered John the Baptist, and they are going to slaughter Jesus Christ also.


Here's Bullinger's explanation of the idiom he sees here:


"Matt. xvii. II.--' Elijah truly cometh first, and restoreth all things": i.e., shall begin to restore or design or attempt to do so, for Christ will be the real Restorer of all things.  The contrast here, however, is between Elijah and John, as brought out by the (men, v11) and the (de, v12).   "Elijah indeed (men, in one respect) cometh, and will restore all things, but (de, in another respect) I say to you that Elijah is come already,' etc." -- Bullinger, E. W.. Figures of Speech Used In The Bible. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House, 1968.


Bullinger says "truly in one respect...", and then, "but in another respect..."  The two different kinds of respects to which he is referring are clearly implicit in the LIT word for word portion of its translation, and appear explicit to any reader who knows and can recall to memory what has been written in other corresponding contexts of Mal. 4:5-6; Mat. 11:7-15; Luke 1:17.


The paraphrased KJV and KJV_2011, through at least not quoting word for word Mat. 17:11-12, especially the verb, obfuscates the meaning of what Jesus said.


 Mat. 17:11 (KJV_2011) And Jesus in answer said to them, Elijah truly will first come (erchetai), and restore all things.


Translating the verb erchetai as a future tense with an active voice, as do both KJVs, to a reader, makes Jesus sound like he was talking about something which was going to happen in the future.  But erchetai is actually in the present tense, middle or passive voice.  In the KJV the translators translated the verb wrong on two counts: wrong tense, and wrong voice.  This translator believes that the God chose the time, and then he caused the Spirit of Elijah to come, that it was sent by the God.  But the man John the Baptist caused himself (middle voice) to accept and to do the ministry of repentance for the children of Israel, for which the God called him.  It seemed more correct to me to translate the verb in the passive voice, on account of God sending John the Baptist as an agent of him.


This is just one example of how translator's paraphrasing can obfuscate and destroy a biblical author's intended meaning of what he wrote.  Did Bullinger think he saw an idiom from reading the Greek text, or from reading a paraphrased English translation?  Translators, at least must do a word for word translation initially, to begin to determine if what they are rendering into English makes good sense in the flow of the subject matter of the immediate context.  If it makes little or no good sense, then that's an indicator that what they have just translated is perhaps an idiom, or another figure of speech of some kind, which will require much further investigation and evaluation before final translation.


The erroneous belief that about 200 occurrences of idioms in the entire new covenant writings is a good enough excuse to completely abandon FE, a strict word for word translation methodology, is a belief which needs to be abandoned, not the indispensably valuable FE translation methodology.


How ancient scriptural writers expressed their thoughts in their minds, whether literally or figuratively, has much to do with determining and understanding exactly what they meant.  The best way for anyone to learn and understand what is meant in biblical passages is to very closely examine what the apostles wrote, and how they wrote it.  In an English translation, Hebrew , Aramaic and Greek figures of speech must be identified by a reader, along with any past or present textual evidence for their meanings.  Paying close attention to how an ancient writer wrote something and then presenting it that way to a reader, preserves for the reader exactly what the ancient writer wrote, which meaning must then be determined by the reader as well, whether the writer intended to express a literal or figurative meaning.  Whichever the meaning may be,  the LIT must respect exactly what the ancient writer wrote, since apostle Peter's witness to us is that the holy Spirit, the God who is Spirit (John 4:24), and there is only one Spirit (1 Cor. 6:17, 12:13; Eph. 2:18, 4:4) determined what his prophets and Christ's apostles wrote (2 Pet. 1:20-21). 


2 Pet. 1:20 (LIT/UBS4) we knowing (ginōskontes) this (touto) first (prōton), that (hoti) every (pasa) prophecy (prophēteia) of [a] writing (graphēs) is absolutely not caused to come to pass (ou ginetai) over one’s own letting loose (idias epiluseōs);


2 Pet. 1:21 (LIT/UBS4) because (gar) absolutely not (ou) for [a] desire (thelēmati) of [a] mortal (anthrōpou) was prophecy (prophēteia) brought (ēnechthē) in time past (pote)


BUT (alla), mortals (anthrōpoi) spoke (elalēsan) being brought (pheromenoi) under (hupo) [authority, AE] of holy (hagiou) Spirit (pneumatos) from (apo) God (theou)!


This is why a paraphrase, which is simply an opinionated private interpretation of someone, paraphrased into a "translation" in place of what the ancient writer actually wrote, has no place in the LIT, or in translations, unless it is deliberately set off and marked out as absolutely not being a quote of the author, but a theological belief of a translator, so the paraphrase doesn't appear to be what the author wrote.  I believe the reader has the right, and according to God's Word, has the responsibility to interpret for himself, with God's Spirit working in him, what God's Word means to him or her, based upon exactly what and how the ancient writers spoke and wrote under influence of God's Spirit working in and through them.


 Quoting the ancient writers naturally produces clarity in the meanings and subject matters about which they wrote.  And concerning the idioms and other figures of speech, and cultural references, the LITG attempts to explain what their meaning may possible be.  In most examples, through examining corresponding local and remote contexts referencing the same subject matters, a comprehensive analysis of the scriptural facts usually leads to plausible, if not compelling, conclusions.   It's up to each and every individual who desires to know God's Word whether they desire to read a quote of what the ancient writers actually wrote, the true orthodoxy of Christ Jesus, or a Bible fudged with a vast amount of Constantinian "Christian orthodoxy" paraphrases chucked into a "translation" in hundreds and hundreds of passages.


It's a reader's discipleship duty to identify, confront, and interpret for himself figurative passages, idioms, colloquialisms and other figures of speech once pointed out by the translator, instead of being only spoon-fed everything you're supposed to accept and "believe" without question (Acts 17:11).  Studying God's Word deep and hard is the work of discipleship to Christ Jesus.  This work is required to come into fellowship with God and his son Christ Jesus (1John 1:3).  It is required!  This hard work is required for one to learn how to do and keep his part in his new covenant responsibilities to God and his son Christ Jesus!


----- : -----



What Is The Literal Idiomatic Translation Glossary?


The Literal Idiomatic Translation Glossary (LITG) is a glossary of idioms and idiomatic terms used by the ancient writers of the NT texts of the Bible.  In the LIT every word of every phrase of every clause of every sentence is a quote of exactly what the ancient writers wrote, and especially of how they wrote it. This is necessary to preserve into English the vitally important figures of speech, and the colorful idioms and colloquialisms common to that ancient Middle Eastern language and culture. These figures, idioms and colloquialisms are abundant, to say the least, in the ancient texts of the Bible.  But they are virtually ignored in Western English Bible translations, which are all highly based upon paraphrasing, the creative use of "synonyms", and the unsparing and abundant alterations of the inflected forms of most all verbs.


Because the LIT quotes the ancient writers of the biblical Greek texts, figures of speech appear much more conspicuously, they not being paraphrased into obfuscation, obscurity, and into oblivion.  The value to a reader from noticing them, and subsequently pondering over them, is obvious and self-explanatory.


The LITG is designed to be used as a reference to the LIT while reading the LIT to provide background knowledge, context, definitions and explanations of the various idioms, figures of speech and colloquialisms commonly used by those ancient writers to make their points.  I believe that understanding how the ancient writers said what they said, especially in regard to God's Spirit working in and through them as his agents, is essential to understanding exactly what they witness to us that the God said and meant. 


God's use of figures of speech in and throughout his Word is for the purpose of pointing out his most important statements about any subject matter within his Word.  A figure of speech, on account of the unusual way it uses words to express a thought, an idea, a scriptural fact and/or truth, puts emphasis on that scriptural fact and/or truth through singling it out from among the others being expressed.  This kind of emphasis put on a point he makes couldn't be achieved through stating that scriptural fact and/or truth as mundanely as others around it. 


E. W. Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used In The Bible is invaluable to a disciple of Christ Jesus in learning the well over two hundred various figures of speech which Bullinger has identified throughout the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible.  The LIT Glossary of idioms used in the holy scriptures does not attempt to duplicate any of Bullinger's work.  When while translating the UBS4 I run across an ancient writer's use of what appears to me to be an idiom, I make an entry in the LITG based upon the Strong's number for the prominent word in that idiom.  In that entry I explain what I believe to be the writer's meaning based upon immediate, remote and local contexts associated to that passage's specific subject matter, and describe Western figures of speech and/or idioms which may be modern relatives to those ancient idioms. 


When cultural references are written about by the Biblical authors, which cultural practices are mostly unfamiliar to the West, I attempt to explain those as well, citing references to various authors and their books with which I'm familiar.


----- : -----



Translation Methodologies


If anyone chooses to verify English translations back to the Greek texts, one would come to a dramatic enlightenment that virtually all of the figures of speech and cultural language idioms and colloquialisms present in the Greek texts, which language methods the original authors used abundantly to convey the meanings of God's Word to us, are missing in the English translations!  Why is that?  If what the original writers of the biblical texts spoke, taught, and wrote as they were carried along under holy Spirit of God (2 Pet. 1:20-21) is important for us to know, then isn't how they spoke, taught and wrote it somewhat important in determining the exact meaning of what they spoke, taught and wrote?  My answer to that is absolutely yes!


Can any reader of an English translation of a Bible know with 100% certainty that what they're reading is exactly what the ancient writers wrote?  Of course not.  No one can know that without making word by word comparisons of that English translation to the original language Hebrew and Greek texts.  What every reader should ask themselves is whether any mortal-made, liberal or otherwise, theological theories held by a Bible's sponsoring theological cartel have been injected into their Bible in place of what the ancient writers actually wrote and meant?  Again, my answer to that is absolutely yes!


So then, are our supposed beliefs really based upon the ancient writings of the writers of the holy scriptures, or are they based upon a conglomeration of pieces and parts of mortal-made liberal theological theories injected into Bibles through paraphrasing in place of what the ancient writers wrote, whenever and wherever in those ancient texts the ancient writers disagree with those mortal-made theological theories? 


Hundreds of millions of people reading Bible translations are depending upon what they read in a Bible "translation" as being exactly what the ancient writers wrote and meant, and that it is true, that what God has promised, he shall do.  They're depending on their chosen Bible translations because probably more than 99% of them don't compare word for word, or verse by verse, what their Bible translations say compared to the copies of the Greek texts from which those translations are supposedly taken.  I actually do compare Bible translations, word for word, and verse by verse, to the UBS4 texts, exactly, down into the morphological components of the actual words themselves, verifying exactly the type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender, person and number of each verb, and likewise for each part of speech. 


I have found that in these kinds of details is where much of the systematic fudging of English translations occurs, together with the adding, changing and deleting of words from the ancient texts, which is all handily done through paraphrasing and creative "synonyming".  This paraphrasing and creative "synonyming" is supposedly justified through the adoption of a very poor translation methodology, the Dynamic Equivalence translation methodology.  Dynamic Equivalence translation methodology is nothing more than an inadequate and false methodology used as an excuse by English Bible translators to fudge their own scripturally unsubstantiated theological theories into a Bible, and ultimately to raise those mortal-made theories up, over, and above the Truth of God's Word.


- What Is Dynamic Equivalence (DE)?


It is said that the purpose of DE, which is not a literal word for word rendering into English of the Greek texts, is to present the essential meanings, concepts, and ideas present in the Greek texts of the Bible, which meanings, concepts, and ideas are supposedly stranded in a two thousand year old culture estranged from a modern Western culture, into somewhat freely worded English renderings, to accommodate their implicit and explicit meanings into an English translation.  Simply quoting the ancient writers would do that, as I have shown and proven in the LIT.  What DE really does is accommodate the injection of the adopted explicit and implicit theological theories of mortal men, scholars, experts, Roman god-man emperors, translators and translation committees into a Bible translation. 


DE is the translation methodology which is most commonly used in virtually all Bible translations.  It's a mechanism created to legitimatize the unfettered use of paraphrases and creative "synonyms" to represent the supposed meanings, concepts, and ideas present in the ancient biblical texts.   


DE is the preferred translation methodology used by those who wish to overlay the mortal-made Trinitarian theological apparatus upon the holy scriptures, to remove and re-sculpt the ancient quotations of the ancient writers to make them sound like, through carefully word-smithed paraphrases and "synonyms", that they had wrote and spoke in Trinitarian theological terms.  But, those triune godhead invented theories and dogmas, and the triune godhead invented nomenclature and its associated terminology, absolutely didn't exist until about the mid 4th century AD.  In spite of its invention about 320 years after Jesus' death and resurrection and ascension, the orthodoxy which Jesus and his apostle preached and taught managed to save about 3,000 souls on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) in about 30 AD, and for many years thereafter throughout the entire time frame of the book of Acts, before his orthodoxy was suddenly declared to be in error, and heretical by Constantine at the Counsel of Nice in A.D. 325.


DE is the created mechanism the devil has created to be used to destroy the written record of the orthodoxy of Jesus Christ and his apostles.  Fortunately we still have the copies of the ancient Biblical texts and many other texts (likely a couple hundred or so), all of which were not destroyed as being heretical under Constantine.


Almost all past and present English translations are based upon a Dynamic Equivalence (DE) translation methodology.  DE basically means, "paraphrase the text in your own opinionated words", which usually results in the discounting and/or abandoning of the original words and their grammatically exact usages in the text, thus adding, changing and/or deleting not only nuances of subject matter and meaning, but in many places the subject matter all together, through eliminating the correct statement of Jesus' orthodoxy and its associated ideas.  As a result a DE translation literally becomes not a translation, but an opinionated interpretation of what its producers think the true orthodoxy should be, which is the orthodoxy they believe, or not believe but want others to believe.  This immediately limits the scope of their "translation" to accurately reflect  no more than the limits of their own spiritual understanding, which the reader is expected to buy off on as being 100% correct, infallible, and God-breathed.  


Thusly DE translations throw before our eyes, and expect us to gaze upon with wonder, those translation cartels' egotistical and cloudy layers of opinion about what God's Word may mean to them, rather than simply allowing a reader to see a quotation of what the ancient writers actually wrote and meant, in a literal word for word interlinear style translation before a reader's own eyes.  Personally, I want my mind trained and steeped in God's unadulterated Word.  I want my mind to recall verbatim exactly what God has said through the ancient writers, not other's paraphrases of those writers.  Therefore I believe translations should be just that, translations, not paraphrased interpretations posing as translations.  I made my own translation, the LIT, because through comparing Bible translations to the Greek texts I lost all confidence in those translations.  I post my translation here at this site in an interlinear style to give other believing disciples the same opportunity to compare my English words renderings to the exact inflected forms in the copies of those ancient Greek texts, the UBS4 collection.  


- What Is Formal Equivalence (FE)?


Formal Equivalency (FE) is the term used to describe a translation methodology which attempts to render a translation into English on, as close as possible, a word for word basis, selecting the best English equivalent word or words to render the meaning of the Greek texts into English. FE employs a more strict set of translation rules to render more closely the substance of the meanings of the words, and renders what are called literal translations. FE methodology closely preserves the unique style and grammar of each of the ancient writers, to not only preserve exactly what the author wrote, but as much as possible exactly the way the writer wrote it. When we come to customs, cultural practices and language idioms in the ancient texts, FE methodology attempts to preserve both the implicit meanings of the references and the way the text referenced them.  I created the LITG to preserve my word studies, notes and comments about references to customs and cultural things, and to idioms, colloquialisms and other figures of speech.


An FE translation methodology, at least the one I began using, and then tweaked and developed its rules to be even more strict, now the LITFE, requires a translator to account for every word in the original language text. But even more, it requires logical rules of standardization of translation be followed so that not even one yot or tittle is added, changed, or deleted, or left unaccounted for in the translation process (Mat. 5:18).  the LITFE translation methodology requires stricter adherence to preserving into English exactly what was written, and how it was written, by the author of a text. 


There are plenty of opportunities presented to us among all the ancient texts, to determine which of the varied number of differences between them are the authentic Word of God which was written by the prophets, and Jesus' apostles and disciples.  Some mortals have spent much of their lives researching which of these differences between the ancient texts are authentic, such as those men among the seven popular textual critics, Alford, Elzevir, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and Wordsworth.  


In Edward P. Blair's nice work, "The Illustrated Bible Handbook", 1987, Abington Press, Nashville, he offers an explanation as to what led to the differences that appear in the ancient manuscripts:

    "Ancient copyists and editors are responsible for the differences.  The changes they introduced were of two types: unintentional and deliberate.  Often copyists saw incorrectly; they confused look-alike letters, skipped lines of text, wrote words twice, transposed letters, etc.  In commercial establishments, where several copyists wrote from one person's dictation, careless pronunciation, lack of attention, weariness, and distractions led to frequent mistakes.  Error arose also from writing passages from memory and from inaccurately judging whether marginal notes (glosses) were to be included or omitted.


    Sometimes copyists and editors deliberately altered language they regarded as rough, harmonized parallel passages where differences should have been preserved, removed discrepancies, left out or changed statements which were contrary to their theology, and filled out manuscripts that were damaged or thought incomplete."  (E. P. Blair)

Wouldn't you like the opportunity to form your own opinion based upon your own careful observation of the unaltered texts?  A text revised for the findings of the popular seven textual critics mentioned above helps us get back very closely to a text more reflective of what was written by the prophets and Jesus' apostles and disciples.  Working from these texts, a strict FE-based translation can be made which leaves the copyists and translators opinions and preconceived ideas out of the translation altogether.  Further, then presenting both the original language text's words and their equivalent English word counterparts in an interlinear style format affords the reader the best opportunity to become thrilled in their heart, mind, and soul at the wisdom and beauty of God's Word, which the prophets and Jesus' apostles and disciples wrote. 


God's Word, being mathematically exact in its form and structures (See Bullinger's work), resonates Truth, which resonance is in harmony within the structures of all things God has created, formed and made, including our brain cells.  I want my mind trained to think and resonate based upon God's pure words.  I want my thought patterns rearranged to be identical to God's patterns of thought he gives in his Word, which Jesus Christ made to be his thoughts.  This is called renewing the mind (Rom. 12:2) and putting on the new mortal (Eph. 2:24; Col. 3;10).  


FE methodology generally gives the reader a critical first-hand look at God's Word before it becomes filtered through paraphrased liberal theological opinions.  Anyone knowledgeable of how Satan the devil uses God's Word, twisting and spinning it into half-truths and lies for his own purposes, should be able to appreciate the inherent safeguarding of the integrity of God's Word in a FE-based translation.  When presenting the original language text alongside with the English translation, as I do in my translations, there is no where to hide loose and/or opinionated paraphrasing where a light cannot be shined upon it for a closer look, to compare it to the exact grammatical usage and inflected form of each word in the original language texts.  


FE translation methodology forces the elimination of unnecessary paraphrasing.  If a translator has a strong feeling, an opinion, or whatever, they should put it in separate book, a glossary, or a commentary.  But opinions don't belong translated into a Bible translation as paraphrases, because the real author of the book should be quoted, no more and no less.  


Difficulties in proper interpretation of the texts are born not out of following the accuracy of the ancient texts, but from ignoring the accuracy of those texts!  From the ignorance of the accuracy of those texts come theological propagations, obfuscations, accusations, arguments, confusion and lies.  Endless theological arguments may seem plausible to some, when compared to nothing.  Comparing arguments and theories to scriptural facts in the copies of the ancient texts means everything in discovering the true orthodoxy of Jesus Christ, which he and his apostles preached and taught.

----- : -----

Comparing Translation Methodologies


Here's a chart I found online by Brent MacDonald, which I assume is his opinion, of how Bible translations compare to one another on a methodology line ranging from Word for Word on the left to Paraphrase on the right.


I disagree with the chart entirely, since every Bible given is highly paraphrased, or should I say highly filled with mis-quotes of the ancient authors of the books within those Bible translations. 




Mr. MacDonald has included notes for each translation suggesting, in his opinion, how careful were their translators to include, or not to include, gender neutral language, and approximate overall reading grade level required to best comprehend the translator's chosen wording when not quoting the ancient authors.  In my opinion these things don't matter when a translator is supposed to be quoting, verbatim, what the original authors actually said, and the way they said it.  Changing it somehow through paraphrasing it, or creatively "synonyming" it into something else is not theologically neutral translating, but privately interpreting it for the readers through the translator's possibly biased eyes, and thinking, and beliefs.


From comparing exactly what the ancient writers wrote in the existing copies of their Greek texts (UBS4) to all of these "translations", then beginning with the Interlinear on the left and including all the translations to the right of it, they all belong under the "Paraphrase" part of the scale; because they all, more or less, inject those supposedly "nascent" triune godhead references directly out of the created theological soap opera cloud (which theological cloud has grown fairly huge over the last sixteen hundred years) right into their English "translations".  For about sixteen hundred years, or more, translators or translation committees, by and large, couldn't care less about quoting exactly what Jesus Christ and his apostles actually said and wrote, because they believe Jesus Christ's orthodoxy was in error in so many places. 


If a translation was allowed to show only exactly what the ancient writers of the NT of the Bible actually wrote, word for word, then suddenly all of the supposed nascent references to a triune godhead would no longer appear!  The LIT dramatically shows this to be true!  It adds nothing, changes nothing, and deletes nothing from the actual wording of the ancient writers of the NT of the Bible.  That means something very important about the subject of truth in translation, and about the devil trying to add, change, or delete what the witnesses of "God's Word" actually said.  I'm wondering which, or whose, "truth" are those "translations" trying to get readers to believe? 


Doesn't believing that God's (YHWH) son is equal to him have something to do with subordinating the one true highest God to no longer being the highest God (Luke 1:32-33; 1 Cor. 15:27-28; Luke 1:76)?  Doesn't worshipping another god as being an equal to the highest God break the first commandment (Exod. 20:3, 23:13)?  Please don't neglect to read Phil. 2:5-6 in the LIT, which is fudged in most all other translations, where apostle Paul clearly states that the thought of being equal to his heavenly Father, of stealing equality, never crossed Jesus' mind! 


The being whom apostle John calls the Word worked for the councils of God (Elohim) in Gen. 1:1 as their agent (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2).  But that reference in and of itself in no way implies the Word was equal to the highest God, YHWH.  That verse is not a one verse doctrine, but must be understood in light of the whole of God's Word, and especially in light of John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 1:1, 22:8-21.  The Word was a spirit-based being, an angel/messenger (angelos) (Heb. 1:1-4; Rev. 1:1, 22:8-21), as he is portrayed throughout all of the old testament books, which spirit-based "form" made him godlike compared to mortals.  But just because the Word had a spirit-based "form" didn't make him equal to the highest God, YHWH.  Please see my study, John 1:1 - Why Ignore The Nominative Case?


Ignoring erroneous additions, changes and deletions to the ancient Greek texts, ignoring verb inflections on a mass scale, rampant mistranslating of the meanings of nouns, capitalizing adjectives to magically transform them into proper nouns and parts of titles, adding articles where none exist in the texts, rampant needless use of "synonyms" and paraphrasing, ignorance of figures of speech like ellipsis, and so on and on, to fudge the mortal-made triune godhead theory into the texts of the ancient writers in English translations, is absolutely not honest translation, but bigoted and egomaniacal post-history revision! 


Through examination of the Greek texts we can see that the ancient writers are in lock step agreement with one another's writings of a totally different presentation of the mystery of Godliness, and especially in their Christological presentation of the identity of Christ Jesus, from that "new orthodoxy".  The apostles of Christ Jesus preached, taught and wrote repeatedly to the first century believers, who apparently could read, that the Word in the beginning was an angel/messenger (angelos) who had a birth of some kind (Col. 1:15)! 


The implication that "Thought for Thought" or "Paraphrase" translation methodologies have any footing in legitimacy in producing an honest translation, a translation which simply quotes the ancient writers of the holy scriptures, is simply showbiz!  Those methods are advertised to be legitimate simply to legitimatize and thereby facilitate the fudging of the ancient texts with later invented mortal-made theological theories, which theories apostle Paul defines and condemns as mortal-made wisdom, or worldly wisdom (1 Cor. 2; 3:19; 2 Cor. 1:12; James 3:14-18)


To dishonestly portray mortal-made theories as already being in the minds of the ancient writers of the Biblical texts at the time when they wrote their writings, through fudging English translations, which is at least post-history revision and falsification of God's word, can only be blasphemy of God, of his Word, and of his son Christ Jesus! From what I can see from reading and translating the ancient Greek texts of the new testament of the Bible for about three decades is that what's currently acceptable to most all scholars as honest translation methodology is actually lying on a grand scale!  Do they actually think and believe that the highest God, YHWH, is looking the other way, not to mention: where is Christ Jesus looking?  The God can see who's lying, and for those the harbor of fire is reserved.


The LIT's use of an interlinear style of presentation allows any deviations in English translation from exactly what the ancient writers wrote to be relatively quickly and easily spotted by any readers, since I show the exact inflected spelling of the Greek word next to the English word which represents it.  Then, subsequently, any reader can quickly check and substantiate the English translated word or words for both grammatical meaning and form, using an analytical Greek lexicon to the Greek New Testament, such as the LITAGL, and with the use of any number of popular word study resources, such as those of Bauer Arndt and Gingrich, AMG, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Robertson's, Strong's, Thayer's, Vincent's, Vines, Wuest's, and Zodhiates.  It is the LIT's adherence to these very tight formal equivalency translation guidelines, and presentation style, which allows me to produce a translation which quotes the ancient writers, and thereby a translation which exposes the abundance of mortal-made liberal theological bias "translated" into virtually all other existing English translations, not to mention God only knows how many "translations" in all other languages!


I am making my translation for me, and absolutely not to satisfy or substantiate any denomination's traditional mortal-made theological theories of any kind.  Whatever theological points are self-evident in the Greek texts (UBS4) of God's Word, those are the ones I shall eventually discover and learn as I continue to translate my way through it, word by word and line by line. God's big enough to make himself clear and explicit. Whatever is in God's Word I am certain to discover it, about which I have his promise (John 6:45; 1 Thes. 4:9).  I believe the eclectic UBS4 is a good text, but it's not the only textual resource, nor the last word in determining the authenticity of what the ancient writers actually wrote, since the copies of the Greek texts have been fudged in many places over the last two millenniums, very similar to and for the same reasons the English translations continue to be fudged in many places, more and more.


----- : -----



What Is An Honest Translation Methodology?


From what I've seen from comparing many popular English translations to the UBS4 Greek texts, virtually all "translations" are on average about 80% "hermeneutical" paraphrasing, if the translator's neglect of inflected forms of verbs is accounted for also. Ignoring the writer's inflected forms of verbs, ignoring the type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender, person, and number, especially ignoring the voice, to make them say something else in English, must be considered as altering/fudging the translation to make it say something different from what the writer actually wrote. Why not simply quote the Biblical writers?


Unfortunately for those searching for the God through his son Christ Jesus, reading theologically fudged "translations" makes getting to know and understand those specific subjects referred to in God's Word by the prophets, Christ Jesus and his apostles as new covenant mysteries, almost impossible tasks to accomplish. In those passages, in most all Bible translations, the needle of the Paraphrasing Detect-O-Meter stays pegged at about 100%. How much paraphrasing saturates a passage of holy scripture is determined more or less by whether those subject matters directly or indirectly contradict certain elements of mortal-made theological ideas and their subsequent "orthodoxy" dreamed up at various times in the past.  Those passages which are now fudged because they more or less disagreed with elements of mortal-made theological ideas are now referred to as "theologically sensitive" passages, only because the forgers made them "sensitive" to destroy the true orthodoxy of Christ Jesus, which he and his disciples and apostles preached and taught.


To me, the most honest translation methodology ever used is probably the one I used to produce the LIT.


-----: -----



Standardization Of Translation


The LIT stays true to the authors' wording, since the LIT meticulously quotes the ancient Biblical writers.


The LIT's wording is based upon preserving the various authors' standardization of wording into an English translation.  Mimicking into an English translation exactly what and how an ancient writer wrote necessarily requires:


- selecting an English word which matches in scope of meaning the lexical root meaning of any Greek word's inflected form,


- and then presenting that English word in the identical inflected form in which the ancient writer chose to write it.


This is the basic methodology of honest translation. And this methodology produces a translation which quotes the ancient writers.


Generally speaking, given the exceptions for a writer's use of figures of speech such as idioms in the Greek of the new testament books of the Bible, every inflected form of a word's usage has an associated lexical root form, which lexical root form sets the basic meaning for any of its associated inflected forms.


By standardization of translation I mean that in an English translation the meaning of the word or phrase used to represent the meaning of its associated Greek word's inflected form, must be within the scope of meaning of the lexical form for that inflected form.


The following excerpt is from my analytical lexicon, which example shows the lexical root ergazomai, Strong's # 2038, a verb generally meaning to cause yourself to work.  As you can see, all of the verb forms are inflected into being either middle or passive voiced forms.  Its lexical meaning, as with any lexical root, is sculpted into more precise inflected meanings depending upon the combination of any of a verbs eight points of inflection, Type, Mood, Tense, Voice, Case, Gender, Person, and Number. 


This may be a good time to briefly point out a situation in which a translator must make a determination about how to translate a verb whose voice could be either middle or passive.  This is where exhaustive research throughout the immediate, local and remote contexts for the passages in which an inflected form of a lexical root is used, is essential to make that determination.  Sometimes the voice is obvious in the immediate or local contexts.  Sometimes work all the way out into remote contexts, even old testament related passages, is necessary.





As you can see, three lexical noun forms, ergasia, ergatēs, and ergon are based upon this verb.  As you may see also, a noun has only four points of inflection, Case, Gender, Person, and Number, which can more finely sculpt a lexical form of a noun into an inflected form having a more precise meaning.


In the Infl_Form column please notice all the various inflected forms of spelling of the lexical root ergazomai.


In the Eng_trans column please notice how I translate an inflected form to have a meaning that's within the scope of meaning of its lexical root, but with that meaning finely tuned to take into consideration all of the various points of inflection, and combinations thereof, which are indicated based upon the exact spelling of the inflected form itself. On account of the comprehensive rules of Greek grammar, and on account of the thousands of examples in the Greek texts of how Christ Jesus' apostles wrote with great deliberate restraint, so that they would all preach, teach and write the same things (1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 3:16), any departure in translation from a roots lexical meaning, or from an inflected form's points of inflection, can only be considered as fudging/forging the translation with private interpretation.  And that is not only needless paraphrasing, but that is in fact lying!  But exceptions to this could be in the cases of idioms and other figures of speech. 


Keeping the meaning of an English translation of an inflected form within the scope of meaning of its lexical form, and within the parameters of its specific points of inflection, is what I mean by a standardization of translation methodology.


A translation of an inflected form of a word which ignores the lexical root meaning of that inflected form, and/or ignores any of the specific points of inflection of that inflected form, is by necessity a translation in which the exact words of the author, and their vitally important meanings, are set aside and replaced by a "translator's" or translation committee's private interpretations. This is how sponsors of Bible translations get their theologically-biased beliefs and private interpretations of those beliefs "translated" into Bibles, such as the Roman emperor god-man Constantine's triune godhead theological theory invented in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries.


The standardization of translation methodology which adheres to translating inflected forms of words to generally be within the scope of meaning of their associated lexical forms, given apparent figures of speech, and which takes into consideration all of an inflected form's vitally important points of inflection, produces the most appropriate text-driven English language word equivalents, and eliminates unnecessary theologically-based paraphrasing and creative "synonyming". 


To state it succinctly, standardization of translation methodologically produces a translation which is essentially a quote of what an ancient author wrote. This is a brief and basic description of how I produce the Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT), which simply quotes the ancient Biblical authors, the apostles of Christ Jesus.  A translator's ability to recognize an author's intended use of figures of speech, such as idioms, colloquialisms, etc., is also vitally important. The works of scholars such as E. W. Bullinger are invaluable in verifying passages of holy scripture where the grammatical structures of clauses and sentences apparently don't "add up" to make sense on initial surface inspection.


For example: Many of the new testament writers, especially apostle Paul, use a grammatical construction consisting of an article immediately followed by an adjective clause, which structure (and other similar ones) we know signals to the reader the author's deliberate omission of a head noun between the article and the clause, which omission is very often used to create the figure of speech Ellipsis. An ellipsis is a writer's use of a little word puzzle, where the author uses a blank in place of the head noun. This "fill in the blank" teaching method has apparently been used throughout all history of mankind. 


An ellipsis challenges the reader to go back through the preceding context of what the author wrote to find the author's previous obvious statement in which he used a specific noun having a vital meaning important to his point in the context. The reader must select among the nouns recently used to discover the one which seems to logically "fit" into the blank of the ellipsis, between the article and the clause. When the correct noun is selected and used to fill in the blank, bingo! Suddenly the author's main point becomes crystal clear, and his use of the little ellipsis word puzzle helps him to cement his point and/or spiritual truth into the mind and memory of the reader!  And of course, the apostle's wrote using Ellipsis with verbs as well.


Apostle Paul's letters are, as you may know, primarily about church doctrine/orthodoxy, specifically explaining in detail the true orthodoxy of Christ Jesus as he taught it to all of his disciples and apostles, and as Paul was given revelation of it from the resurrected and ascended Christ Jesus himself (Gal. 1:1-12).  In his letters apostle Paul is a master of the use of ellipsis, as we can see in the LIT, to describe and explain the new covenant mysteries of the Kingdom of God. Apostle Paul uses many figures of speech in his sophisticated style of writing, based upon his educational background (Acts 22:3), but he was especially fond of ellipsis since it helped greatly to contribute to his desired goal of brevity.  Even so, of all new testament writers, apostle Paul seems to be the greatest designer of run-on sentences.


All other Bible "translations" have fudged all of apostle Paul's passages containing his use of ellipsis with various creative "synonyms" and paraphrases, taking the opportunity to fudge-in their own theological private interpretations in all of those places. Virtually all English translations fudge-in wordage reminiscent of the mortal-made terminology invented to describe and explain the invention of Constantinian "Christianity" in the 4th century.  Apostle Paul wrote primarily about vitally important truths related to understanding the greatness of God's new covenant with his creation, truths vitally important to understanding the true orthodoxy of Christ Jesus, which the one true God, Jesus' heavenly Father, taught him. Among those truths is the spiritual truth related to the greatness of God's indwelling holy Spirit which will come into the being of anyone who dares to confess and believe upon the name of his son Christ Jesus. Apostle Paul was especially fond of making his points about all of these related spiritual truths using the figure ellipsis.


So now you may be able to begin to imagine how the destruction and obliteration of exactly what apostle Paul wrote, and how he wrote it, using ellipsis, has contributed to the destruction and obliteration of the true orthodoxy of Christ Jesus which he taught to his disciples and apostles, and which they passed on to us in the copies of the ancient Greek texts of the new testament of the Bible. In virtually all Bible translations all of apostle Paul's uses of ellipsis have been replaced with private theological interpretations using wordage reminiscent of the terminology invented to describe the Constantinian "Christianity" and its associated "orthodoxy" invented in the 4th century.


----- : -----



Who Is The "General Readership" Of A Bible Translation?


When Jesus' apostles, and Mark and Luke who were believed to be disciples, wrote the original Greek texts of the new testament of the biblical texts, in Koiné Greek, who did they consider to be their readership, their audience?  Who did they suppose would be reading their letters?  If they all wrote through inspiration, through God's Spirit working in them to teach and guide them into perhaps what to say and how to say it, which is how I believe they wrote (2 Pet. 1:19-21), then maybe the God and his son Christ Jesus also were thinking about who is the target audience to receive the God's true orthodoxy, and the evangelism of Jesus Christ.


What do the biblical texts say about who is the general readership of God's Word?  Do the biblical writers even address this question?  The answer is absolutely yes!  So then is it possible, likely, or even probable, that as God's Spirit inspired, taught and guided the biblical writers, that not only what they wrote, i.e., terminology and meaning, and how they wrote, i.e. grammar, figures of speech and other mechanics, is already predesigned by God into those Hebrew and Greek texts to produce a readability and elegance which is pleasing to him?  After all, it is his Word, and absolutely not the word of mortalkind. 


If in God's Word the form of God's Word, i.e., what was said, and how it was said, is of deliberate Spiritual design, then maybe it has been predesigned to be that way for an important purpose.  Maybe God's Word has come to us from the beginning, from when the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical writers first wrote it down under inspiration from Holy Spirit, already in the optimum form for mortalkind's eyes to behold, and for its ears to here, to optimize mortalkind's learning, understanding, and belief of it!  I believe this is true.


I believe people who don't care one way or another about the God, or any so-called gods, don't read the biblical texts very often, if ever.  I didn't say I don't believe they don't carry Bibles from time to time.  But the remainder of people, those who are searching for a supernatural reality, especially a spiritual reality in a covenant with the God, through the knowledge and understanding of his Word, these people probably read the biblical texts from time to time, and some more often than others.  And I believe that from reading the biblical texts they begin to believe God's Word, and when they do read they grow in their belief of God's Word (Rom. 10:14-17).


If this is not true, then all of the biblical writers were writing without being inspired, maybe perhaps writing unconsciously, not having any thoughts or ideas about who may be their general readership, and writing using no deliberate terminology or grammatical methods to communicate their thoughts to others in letters.  And this is exactly how most all translators and translation committees treat the veracity of God's Word in their heavily paraphrased and creatively "synonymed" Bible translations.


Almost universally across the board of all Bible translations, almost every aspect of the translation process is performed to produce an output which caters to human standards of literary appeal, while ignoring God's standards of literary appeal which he has already produced through his writers to teach mortalkind through his forms in his word.  In God's Word, the closer we look at it the more it's literary beauty becomes more astounding.  Even when discrete topics and unique events change, from chapter to chapter and from verse to verse, the forms of God's Word, especially how he said what he said, changes right along with them. 


As far as I can tell, all institutionalized translation of the biblical texts focuses on how well mortalkind can glorify himself through changing both the substance and forms in God's Word to meet more acceptable levels of mortalkind's standards for readability and eloquence, through endless paraphrasing and creative "synonyming", not to mention for theoretical theological purposes as well, to support a fourth century mortal-made theological theory.


If the biblical author's general readership can be defined out of the biblical texts, then maybe a correlation can be found between the forms in God's Word specifically designed for teaching his Spiritual Truths in those texts, and the receptability of the general readership having God's Spirit working in and through them to understand those Spiritual Truths.  Maybe this is a correlation which is of higher importance than the mortal-made correlation produced through paraphrases and creative "synonyms" manufactured into a Bible translation, so those translators and translation committees can play God and teach the general readership what and how they desire to teach them; as if what and how the prophets, apostles and disciples wrote is somewhat of a failure of some kind. 


Pre-interpreting the meanings in God's Word, and then creating paraphrases and creative "synonyming" to express those pre-interpretations while sweeping away the actual wording of the true biblical writers, and then pass them off as the verbatim words of the biblical writers, is lying.  For translators and translation committees to deliberately hide a biblical writer's actual wording and force a reader into seeing only the pre-interpretations of others, who are hiding behind a curtain somewhere, is the hijacking of the Truth of God's Word, and the hijacking of a reader's own ability to make interpretations for him or herself.  For translators and translation committees to whisk away the notion that the God's Spiritually-designed Word to his creation was not only supernaturally planned and sent, but its reception by his general readership was supernaturally planned and designed as well, is egomaniacal and pridefully self-omniscient.


The grammatical forms and terminology used by the God in his word to describe and teach spiritually-based Truths must be believed to be inerrant in it's initial delivery, with the exception of errors produced in the hand-copying of biblical texts down through the centuries, and of the deliberate forgeries into the biblical texts at various times throughout history who were egomaniacal and pridefully self-omniscient.  The words representing various grammatical parts of speech in the Greek texts can be reassembled into word orders which produce acceptable phrases, clauses and sentences in English, into a translation which simply quotes the biblical writers, without the need for paraphrases and creative "synonyming".  This kind of a translation is the only kind which can be acceptable, since it has the best chance of preserving God's spiritually-designed correlation for the completion of the cycle of the supernatural transmission and supernatural reception of his Word.  This kind of translation is not only possible, it has already been produced, which translation is the LIT.


So to whom has the God supernaturally sent his Word?  They are the ones who shall supernaturally receive it, through God's holy Spirit working in them to teach them.  He sent his Word to all mortalkind (2 Tim. 2:3-4).  But God's Word tells us that not all of mortalkind desires to receive it.  From the point of view of God's Word, this mortal self-autonomy produces two groups of mortals: a group of those who wish to believe God's Word, and a group of those who wish not to believe God's Word.  It's obvious which group is his general readership.


Those who demand of those in the believer group to "Show me God", are obviously part of the unbeliever group, else they would already have God's gift of his holy Spirit working in and through them giving them the ability to learn and understand the things of the Spirit.


1 Cor. 2:14 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) [a] soul-based (psuchikos) mortal (anthrōpos) can absolutely not cause himself to receive (ou dechetai) the things (ta) of the (tou) Spirit (pneumatos) of the (tou) God (theou), because (gar) [the Spirit of the God, RE] is (estin) moronism (mōria) to him (autō)!


And (kai) [[a] soul-based mortal, RE] can absolutely not inherently power himself (ou dunatai) to know (gnōnai) [the Spirit of the God, RE], because (hoti) it is adjudicated350 (anakrinetai) spiritually (pneumatikōs)!


So even though the God has sent his Word for all mortalkind to learn and believe, not all mortalkind has learned and believed it.  But all of the biblical writings concur that mortalkind has distinguished itself into two distinct groups or classes in response to God's Word, which two groups are those who believe God's Word, and those who do not believe God's Word.  So then why would the God so carefully design the forms of his Word, in his word, the figures of speech, grammatical constructions, specific terminology, to produce various levels of readability and elegance deliberately coupled to specific discrete topics and unique events, such, as in the Psalms, the writings of the prophets, the parables of Jesus Christ, and in the accosting and chastising letters of apostle Paul to the Corinthians, for those who desire not to read his Word, for those who choose not to believe?  Therefore I conclude that the writings of the biblical writers, who wrote consciously under inspiration of Holy Spirit, produced for us in their writings the exact forms of God's Word for believers to see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears, the various forms of what God said, and especially of how he said it.  But most importantly, God's Word was written in various styles and formats, using various figures, with varying levels of readability and elegance throughout, for believers, to see and hear, and to learn about their heavenly Father's standards of heavenly and spiritual-based literary excellence.


 - God's Spirit In A Believer Teaches That Believer


If we already look at God's Word as an instrumental teaching tool for all mortalkind who chooses to read it and believe it, why not go a step further, and after careful study and close observation of God's Word, conclude that it has been spiritually, deliberately, and specifically designed to teach all those who chose to believe God's Word.  I say this because there are obvious records throughout the biblical texts which mention certain requirements and conditions which must be met before anyone can learn God's Word, and then keep on learning God's Word.


First of all, a person must believe that the God exists, and is a payer of wages to the ones searching him out (Heb. 11:6).


Next, a person must turn to God and believe upon, and confess the name of his firstborn son, Jesus Christ  (Rom. 10:9-10).


Thirdly, a believer must thoroughly read, understand, and keep, all of Christ Jesus' injunctions to become and remain a disciple of him (Mat. 19:16-19; John 8:30-32, 15:9-10; Rev. 12:17, 14:12).


And finally, the believers must love one another to actively demonstrate their discipleship to Christ Jesus (John 13:35).


When a believer starts believing God's Word, and thereby starts to gain a commensurate amount of God's holy Spirit working in and through him or her, this is when the God can begin to personally teach that believer.


John 6:45 (LIT/UBS4) It is (estin) having been written (gegrammenon) in (en) the (tois) prophets (prophētais), ‘And (kai) they shall cause themselves to be (esontai) all (pantes) ones taught (didaktoi) of God (theou).’ 


Everyone (pas), the one (ho) having heard (akousas) alongside3844 (para) of the (tou) Father (patros) and (kai) having learned (mathōn), he causes himself to come (erchetai) to (pros) me (eme).


Here we all can see Jesus Christ's statement, that all those who believe upon Jesus' name, shall be taught by the God, personally.  Those who do not believe upon Jesus' name are not being taught by the God personally.  These are the ones who turn to mortal-made theories instead of the biblical texts, to try and figure it all out.  They do tremendously in-depth studies of mortal-made theories, but only a perfunctory surface-level study of the biblical texts.  These are the people who, more or less, believe God's Word is moronic (1 Cor. 1:18-23, 2:14).


But as we can see in John 6:45, here is a statement which identifies who is the general readership of God's Word, and who is intended to be taught by it, and who shall do the teaching.


For all those who have received a new birth above in God’s promised gift of his paternal holy Spirit (Lev. 26:11-12; John 3:3-8; Acts 1:4; 2 Cor. 6:16-18; *1 Pet. 1:23), and for those paternal sons being taught by God (YHWH) himself, see Isa. 54:13; Jer. 31:31-34; Luke 12:12; John 5:19-20, 6:45, 14:26, 15:26, 16:13-14; 1 Cor. 1:4-8, 12:8; 2 Cor. 5:19; Gal. 1:12; Eph. 4:20-21; 1 Thes. 4:9; Heb. 8:8-12, 10:16-17; 1 John 2:27, 5:20.


Most all experts and scholars believe that a believer with God's holy Spirit working in and through him or her, can't muster the ability to adequately learn God's Word without their help.  Their assertions portray the gift of holy Spirit in a believer as being a bit quadriplegic.  But the problem with them desiring to help is that most experts and scholars don't wish to simply help, they egomaniacally desire to control what a person believes, thereby ascribing a level of omniscience to themselves, believing that to a very great extent their own personal beliefs can't possibly be infallible.  This is mortalkind's sin nature-based pride coming out, the sin nature Adam received from the devil being passed down to us.  And this is why virtually all Bible translations are heavily paraphrased and creatively "synonymed" into mass confusion, because they know better into what optimal forms God's Word must be for believers to learn what they desire believers to believe is the truth.  They have no clue that the biblical writers already wrote in those spiritually guided optimal forms, and therefore they make no accommodations to preserve those forms into an English translation.  They allow the general readership to read their thousands of alterations to the texts, which alterations come out into English Bibles, and then they allow the general readership to believe that their alterations are exactly what the prophets and apostles wrote!


So who are the ones willing to believe God's Word, according to the biblical writers? 


Mat. 11:2 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) the (ho) John (Iōannēs), in (en) the (tō) place of bondage (desmōtēriō), he having heard (akousas) of the (ta) works (erga) of the (tou) Christ (Christou), he having sent (pempsas) through (dia) the (tōn) disciples (mathētōn) of him (autou),


Mat. 11:3 (LIT/UBS4) he enunciated (eipen) to him (autō), “Are (ei) you (su) the one (ho) causing yourself to come (erchomenos), or (ē) may we expect (prosdokōmen) another (heteron)?”


Mat. 11:4 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) the (ho) Jesus (Iēsous) having been caused to make [a] decision (apokritheis), he enunciated (eipen) to them (autois), “Having been caused to go (poreuthentes), report (apangeilate) to John (Iōannē) what things (ha) you hear (akouete) and (kai) you see (blepete):


Mat. 11:5 (LIT/UBS4) Blind ones (tuphloi) look up (anablepousin), and (kai) lame ones (chōloi) walk around (peripatousin).


Leprous ones (leproi) are cleansed (katharizontai), and (kai) ones made deaf (kōphoi) hear (akouousin).


And (kai) dead ones (nekroi) are awakened (egeirontai), and (kai) poor ones (ptōchoi) are evangelized (euangelizontai).


It's plain to see who are the kinds of people to which Jesus Christ was spending his time, and to whom he was giving his attention.  Jesus Christ knew how t "fish" for mortals.  These still are the kind of people who are willing to believe, who are the ones who are hungering and thirsting for righteousness (Mat. 5:6).


1 Cor. 1:24 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) to them (autois), to the (tois) ones called aloud (klētois), both (te) to Judeans (Ioudaiois) and (kai) to Hellenes (Hellēsin), [we preach, ER] Christ (Christon), [the] inherently powered work (dunamin) of God (theou), and (kai) wisdom (sophian) of God (theou);


1 Cor. 1:25 (LIT/UBS4) that (hoti) the (to) moronic one (mōron) of the (tou) God (theou) is (esti) a wiser one than (sophōteron) the (tōn) mortals (anthrōpōn);


and (kai) the (ta) disabled one (asthenes) of the (tou) God (theou) is (esti) a stronger one than (ischuroteron) the (tēn) mortals (anthrōpōn).


1 Cor. 1:26 (LIT/UBS4) Because (gar) look at (blepete) the (tēn) calling (klēsin) of you (humōn), brothers (adelphoi), that (hoti) down according to (kata) [the] flesh (sarka) [there, AE] [are] absolutely not (ou) many (polloi) wise ones (sophoi);


[there, AE] [are] absolutely not (ou) many (polloi) inherently powerful ones (dunatoi);


[there, AE] [are] absolutely not (ou) many (polloi) well-begun ones (eugeneis)!


1 Cor. 1:27 (LIT/UBS4) BUT (alla), the (ho) God (theos) caused himself to call out (exelexato) the (ta) moronic ones (mōra) of the (tou) cosmos (kosmou), in order that (hina) he may put down to shame (kataischunē) the (tous) wise ones (sophous)


And (kai) the (ho) God (theos) caused himself to call out (exelexato) the (ta) disabled ones (asthenē) of the (tou) cosmos (kosmou), in order that (hina) he may put down to shame (kataischunē) the (ta) strong ones (ischura)!


1 Cor. 1:28 (LIT/UBS4) And (kai) the (ta) unwell-begun ones (agenē) of the (tou) cosmos (kosmou), and (kai) the ones (ta) having been rejected as absolutely nothing (exouthenēmena), the (ho) God (theos) caused himself to call out (exelexato)!


And (kai) [the God caused himself to call out, RE] the ones (ta) not (mē) being (onta), in order that (hina) he may idle down2673 (katargēsē) the ones (ta) being (onta);


1 Cor. 1:29 (LIT/UBS4) so that (hopēs) not (mē) any (pasa) flesh (sarx) may cause itself to boast (kauchēsētai) in sight (enōpion) of him (autou)!


Apostle Paul spent his time evangelizing Jesus Christ to the same kinds of people as did Jesus, because they are primarily the kinds of people who are willing to believe God's Word.  These people are the kinds of people who need healing, who need a physician.  Does anyone think that trying to paraphrase and creatively "synonym" God's Word into containing some of the most grandest and rhetorically eloquent phrasing and sentencing the world has ever seen, means much to these kinds of people?  These people are suffering and need healing. These people need to learn and believe God's Word in the name of Jesus Christ so the God can heal them (Isa. 6:9-10; Mat. 13:13-17).  Maybe a much simpler words for word, or word for words, new testament translation should be made to cater to this general readership; a translation which strictly follows the wording of the biblical Greek texts of the Bible.  Maybe a translation needs to be produced for them which adds no words, changes no words, or deletes no words in translation, except to show words in brackets as not being part of the texts but needed to help complete the sense in English, or to show implied verbs, or to show implied articles which are not present in the texts, or to show ellipses, etc., so that the translation is totally transparent to the biblical writer's intended general readership.  I believe I've done it with the LIT, which is now going through its first proof reading.


I believe the present quality of the state of Bible translation is summed up well by Glen G. Scorgie in his Introduction and Overview:


"It is a familiar criticism that the disproportionately large and ever-increasing number of English Bible translations reflects both an intolerable inequity and patent Anglophone self-indulgence." - Scorgie, Glen G. The Challenge Of Bible Translation - Communicating God's Word To the World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.


----- : -----



Truth in Translation, Accuracy, Readability And Elegance


Scholars of Greek grammar and of new testament studies refer to the quality of Bible translations as being based upon at least three measures, accuracy, readability and elegance.  I recently read a blog on the net by the well known biblical scholar Daniel B. Wallace, one of whose Greek books many of us may have on our shelves or electronically, who has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and who is currently a professor of New testament Studies at his alma mater.  In his blog he answered a question, "...which version, the NIV or the ESV, has the best scholarly lineage of historical texts?" --


Dr. Wallace admitted it was a tough question, and I was impressed with his answer.  But in my opinion he really didn't get into what the fellow actually asked, about the quality of Bible translations being better or worse because they are based upon the best scholarly lineage of historical texts.  For the new testament books of a Bible the three lineages, or categories of historical Greek texts are, the Alexandrian text-type, including the 4th century Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, the Byzantine text-type (generally maximalist), and the Western text-type.  Dr. Wallace answered the fellow's question as if he meant "historical English translations", which may well be what he meant.


For the LIT I used the UBS4 eclectic Greek text, which has been assembled by many scholars working over hundreds of years to analyze many texts from these three categories above, and possibly others, and from a vast amount of other ancient texts, to try and produce a textual form which may be a form closest to the original forms of the Greek texts written by their authors.  While searching the world over for ancient Greek biblical texts, to compare and identify which parts of them my not be original to their authors, the seven popular textual critics, Elzevir (1624), Griesbach (1805), Lachmann (1842-1850), Tischendorf (1865-1872), Tregelles (1857-1872), Alford (1868, 1871, 1865, 1862, 1870), Wordsworth (1870), compiled notes with examples for those anomalies. 


These notes, and those of perhaps many other textual critics, were then applied almost in their entirety to a collection of what were believed to be the best Greek biblical texts available, and additions, changes, and deletions of parts of those texts were then made, based upon those notes, to produce the UBS4 eclectic Greek text.  Dr. Wallace apparently understood the question differently.  He answered the question by giving a short and high level summary of the history of the advancement in the quality of translation among various translations, such as what was deficient in this translation which led to this other translation, and so on.  Dr. Wallace gave a higher thumbs up to the NET translation over all the others he mentioned.


- Truth In Translation - The Translator Is Responsible For This


But since Dr. Wallace chose to answer the question the way he did, which may well be what the fellow asked, I was disappointed to not hear him give his opinion on the use of literal translations versus non-literal translations, and the advantages of literal translations over translations which are more highly infused with theologically-biased paraphrases and creative "synonyms".  The whole idea of truth in translation, which is so highly important given the subject matter, which is supposedly God's Word to mortalkind, he didn't comment upon it.  But isn't that the reason for making a new translation from the last, that the new one is a little more accurate in truthfully rendering what the author actually said, than what was translated in a previous translation?  Why should readability and elegance in a translation trump truth in translation?  But I assume he wanted to keep his answer brief. 


But I believe there is most definitely a strong link between quality of translation and truth in translation, since Truth and honesty in translation must be the intuitive and intrinsic essence of quality of a Bible translation, since supposedly the authors of the biblical books of a Bible wrote God's Word, and God states that his Word is Truth (John 17:17)!  In God's Word He emphatically calls attention to the Truth of his Word, since his writers give us a number of important scriptural facts about his Truth:


- that the God's Truth caused itself to come to pass through Jesus Christ (John 1:17);


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus come to the light through doing the Truth (John 3:21) if the Truth, their guiding light, is translated out of a Bible translation;


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus bow to their heavenly Father in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24) if the Truth about bowing in Spirit and in Truth is translated out of a Bible translation;


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus stay into the Word of God through Christ Jesus, and be made free from myths and lies by that Truth (John 8:32) if the Truth about how to be made free is translated out of a Bible translation;


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus follow him, follow the way, the Truth, and the life (John 14:6), if the Truth about the way, the Truth, and the life is translated out of a Bible translation;


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus learn about, and believe to receive from their heavenly Father, the Spirit of the Truth (John 14:17), if the Truth about the Spirit of the Truth is translated out of a Bible translation;


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus hear the witness of the Spirit of the Truth (John 15:26), if the Truth about how to receive the Spirit of the Truth is translated out of a Bible translation;


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus be led into Truth, into every part of it (John 16:13), if the Truth about how to be led into Truth is translated out of a Bible translation;


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus be made holy by the Truth (John 17:17), if the Truth about how to be made holy is translated out of a Bible translation;


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus hear his voice, his words of Truth (John 18:37), if the Truth about what Christ Jesus said is translated out of a Bible translation;


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus learn the words of Truth which apostle Paul spoke (Acts 26:25), if the Truth about what apostle Paul wrote is translated out of a Bible translation;


- and how can followers of Christ Jesus hear the Word of Truth, the Evangelism of the wholeness of them (Eph. 1:13), if the Evangelism of the wholeness of them is translated out of a Bible translation?


So which one of the generally accepted qualifiers of quality of translation do you think will trump truth in translation: accuracy, readability, or elegance?  If accuracy is compromised is truth in translation compromised or preserved? If readability is compromised is truth in translation compromised or preserved?  If elegance is compromised is truth in translation compromised or preserved?  In the definition of quality of translation, is truth in translation allowed to be compromised at all?


*** The whole Truth of any given subject matter does not need to be totally obliterated out of a Bible translation, in order to cause it to become obfuscated enough to cause the intelligibility of the meaning of the remaining parts of it to be called into question. 


This is how paraphrased and creatively "synonymed" Bible translations have destroyed the true orthodoxy of the one true God, his Word, the Truth, which orthodoxy He taught to his son Christ Jesus.  This is the true orthodoxy which Christ Jesus taught to his apostles, which is the orthodoxy Jesus' apostles taught, which is an orthodoxy based upon a one-headed God, who sent his one Spirit into the cosmos, who had a son who became the one mediator of a new covenant between God and those believing upon the name of Jesus, who became our one and only high priest of that new covenant, who became the one and only head of his one new body, the one new temple of the living God which He built with only one of his "hands"!  Where and how the subjects about the oneness of God and his Word are written, and about how under his new covenant all those who believe upon the name of Jesus Christ are now one with him, is the concept for which the followers of Christ Jesus should give their primary attention.  The scriptural subjects matters in God's Word in which He uses examples given in twos, threes, fours, fives, through to twelve's and beyond that, are subject matters of secondary to, and subordinate to the subject matter of the oneness of the God with his creation.  When quality of truth in translation suffers mostly on account of inaccuracy of translation, the oneness of God with his creation is the first Truth which is destroyed, and the one which is destroyed the most.


It's arguable that truth in translation is intrinsic in accuracy of translation.  Who would argue against that?  And who would listen to that argument?  Fools?.  Without accuracy in biblical translation there would be no proportionate Truth in a Bible translation.  Then accuracy must have something to do with a standard of quality of some kind for which a translation can be measured.  Apart from academic discussions in the halls of theological debate and exploration, accuracy mentioned in blogs isn't often defined and linked to a definite standard or benchmark of quality of translation.  Is accuracy defined by how well a translator renders the heart and soul meaning into another language of what an author wrote, without adding, changing, or deleting anything from the author's meaning?  Is accuracy defined by how well a translator can side step a language's grammatical rules for transcription to sculpt a translation which accommodates and includes aspects of theological ideas which came along hundreds of years after the authors wrote what they wrote, to "correct" the theology of the authors, and to in essence attempt to perform a post-history revision of a previous orthodoxy now considered to be heretical? 


Accuracy and truth in translation is judged by whom?  God, in his Word confers the right to each and every person individually, to read, and to judge, and to determine what is believable in his Word to enable an individual to receive salvation.  A way to destroy an individual's conferred right from God to determine one's own salvation through one's own belief of his Word, would be to establish mechanisms through which accuracy, readability and elegance in translation are falsely defined, or to supply an erroneous supposition that any one or another of the three is actually relevant.  What is actually relevant to quality of translation if not truth in translation first and foremost? 


- Accuracy - The Translator Is Responsible For This


The translator is responsible for the accuracy of a translation from one language into another.  But how can accuracy of translation be measured?  Ultimately the accuracy of translation must be measured by comparing how close does the translation come to saying exactly what the author wrote and meant in the source language.


This takes us to the next step in how to determine accuracy.  How can what the author wrote actually be determined, to establish a benchmark against which to measure?  Establishing a benchmark of meaning requires a translator to actually examine in a very detailed and systematic method what the author actually wrote.  So then in this systematic examination of a text exactly what specific parts of it are to be examined?


- Grammatical Accuracy


The next step in determining exactly what must be systematically examined in order to produce a benchmark for measuring accuracy, leads us to examining the grammatical rules of the language in which the author transcribed what he wrote.  Since all languages are governed by sets of rules for their transcription, what are the grammatical rules governing the transcription of what the author wrote, in the language in which he wrote?  In the biblical Greek we know that it contains verbs and adverbs, nouns and pronouns, prepositions, adjectives, articles, conjunctions, etc., and there are rules governing these grammatical parts of speech and how they are to be assembled together like building blocks into a sentence conveying a coherent meaning.  Adverbs modify verbs, and adjectives modify nouns, and verbs have direct and indirect objects and so on. 


- Inflected Form Accuracy


But in order to really get down to how grammatical parts of speech in the author's language are to be accurately fitted together with one another a translator must examine the specific and unique inflected forms of those parts of speech which the author deliberately chose, to sculpt his words in such a way to make coherent phrases, which in turn connect together to make coherent clauses, which in turn create a coherent sentence with a specific meaning.  For example, in the biblical Greek, verbs have a total of eight points of inflection which seem to be able to be combined into almost any combination with one another to produce a verb with a very specific meaning, which points of inflection are, type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender, person, and number.  Translators know also that sentences, like building blocks, need to be connected together to portray a thought, concept, or idea.  And so what a translator must systematically examine, before he can begin to make a translation, are all of these things. 


Now that a verb's inflected form is determined, a translator must examine the word's inherent historical root meaning.  A word's root meaning is the basis for guidance in rendering it into a English equivalent.  The root meanings of words, more or less depending upon the word, slowly change over time, or not.  The translator must look into this as well while determining a possible rendering.  Figures of speech, which are socially adopted peculiar ways of expressing thoughts, often preclude a word's root meaning, on account of a phrase, clause or sentence may be used idiomatically.  In which case its meaning isn't obvious from the correspondence of the words root meanings alone. 


- Contextual Accuracy


Another force bearing upon the meaning of a word, in addition to a word's root meaning and specifically inflected form , is the context of the meanings of other phrases, clauses and sentences around it.  In the latter part of Acts in which Luke writes about apostle Paul's latter itineraries, much of the narrative is about what happen to them while traveling by sea from one port to the next.  In the context of many of those passages is a concentration of the use of nautical words and terms.  In Acts 27:13, a noun is used as having a much greater meaning than simply the expression of its root meaning, and a verb is used likewise.  The following is an example of how context is very important in understanding a writer's intended meaning of his used of words.


Acts 27:13 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) a south wind (notou) having blown gently (hupopneusantos), they having concluded (doxantes) to have powerfully held (kekratēkenai) the (tēs) preparation (protheseōs) [feast?], they having lifted (arantes) [anchors?], they were causing themselves to course closely alongside (asson parelegonto) of the (tēn) Crete (Krētē).


preparation [feast?] - The inherent root meaning of the word preparation doesn't imply what kind of preparation is to be made, or to what occasion a preparation is to be associated.  But close attention to contexts, local and remote, often reveals a writer's full meaning intended, even though a single word is used.  In Acts 27 Luke begins his record of apostle Paul and companions sailing to Italy to appear before a Caesar.

In Acts 27:9 Luke mentions that Paul and his companions were over-eager to get somewhere, stating that this eagerness was related to a fast which has already passed.   


The most famous Hebrew fast was the one prescribed in the Mosaic Law, given in Lev. 16:29.  This was a fast which the children of Israel were to keep forever (Lev. 16:29, 34).  This fast was to be done in the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar, the month, or moon -th, of Tishrei, and on the 10th day.  Also in the month of Tishrei was a feast which the law prescribed for the children of Israel to celebrate, the Feast of Booths (Sukkoth), which purpose was to remember and celebrate the giving of the Mosaic law, and to renew the covenant the God made between the children of Israel and himself (Deut. 31:10-13), and his deliverance of them.  This feast was to be practiced once every seven years (Deut. 31:10).  This feast was to be kept every seventh year, in the seventh month, on the fifteenth day, five days after the fast was to be kept. 


In Acts 27:9, if the fast mentioned here is truly the same fast given in the Mosaic law, and it had already passed, apparently Paul and companions were anxious to reach land somewhere where they could properly prepare for and keep the Feast of Booths.  According to Acts 27:12, the ship entered a harbor on the south side of Crete, a harbor in Phoenix, where they wintered.  In Acts 27:13, at this time, they being in a harbor in Phoenix of Crete, Paul and companions were still well over one thousand nautical miles away from Rome, which is much to far to hope to make it in the next few days, before the beginning of the Feast of Booths.  If the fast Luke mentioned in verse 9 is the Mosaic Law fast, then the scriptural evidence indicates that here in Phoenix is where Paul and companions made preparations to keep the once every seventh year feast, the Feast of Booths.  On our modern calendar this fast and feast would occur between late-September to mid-October.


In Acts 27:13 Luke used the transitive verb airō, specifically its inflected form arantes, a participle type, with an aorist tense, an active voice, a masculine gender, and a plural number, which very specifically equates to "they having lifted".  But what did they lift?  Where's the direct object?  In verse 29 Luke records that the sailors threw four anchors out of the stern of the ship to stabilize it.  Next, bow anchors are mentioned in verse 30.  Again in verse 40 anchors are mentioned, "And (kai) they having taken up all around (perielontes) the (tas) anchors (ankuras) ...".  So we can see that in the immeadiate context, verses 29, 30 and 40, that in verse 13 what the sailors lifted before beginning to sail was most likely the anchors.  This is how, through close attention to context, even though the writer may use only a single word, a word can have a greater meaning implied than only the meaning of the word itself.


- Figurative Accuracy


Once a translator has examined all of these things, which parts of speech did the author use, the root meanings of those words, the author's use of specific inflected forms of words, the context in which those words were used, then a translator can begin to make a translation, which by necessity must be literal first.  Only after a literal translation is made first can a translator determine if any phrase, clause or sentence was intended by the writer to be used as a figure of speech of some kind.  This is because when figures are translated literally based upon a word's root meaning, and then its inflection is applied, that meaning often appears discordant with the flow of meaning in the immediate context.  The main problem translators face when encountering a figure of speech is in determining whether the figure is real and verifiable, or whether it is simply being imagined as a product of over-active theological speculation.


- Cultural Accuracy


In the Preface of the book by James M. Freeman, "Manners And Customs of the Bible", is a quote from the work of Rev. W, Graham, from his book "The Jordan And The Rhine", in which quote Rev. Graham sums up the challenge Westerners may have when reading Bible passages which reference Eastern customs an cultural practices:


"Though the Bible is adapted to all nations, it is in many respects an oriental book.  It represents the modes of thought and the peculiar customs of a people who, in their habits, widely differ from us.  One who lived among them for many years has graphically said: 'Modes, customs, usages, all that you can set down to the score of the national, the social, or the conventional, are precisely as different from yours as the east is different from the west. They sit when you stand; they lie when you sit; they do to the head what you do to the feet; they use fire when you use water; you shave the beard, they shave the head; you move the hat, they touch the breast; you use the lips in salutation, they touch the forehead and the cheek; your house looks outwards, their house looks inwards; you go out to take a walk, they go up to enjoy the fresh air; you drain your land, they sigh for water; you bring your daughters out, they keep their wives and daughters in; your ladies go barefaced through the streets, their ladies are always covered.'" - Freeman, James M. Manners And Customs of the Bible. Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1972.


Translating cultural practices, aside from the danger of confusing their references with figures of speech, is relatively easy, when the translation methodology used is to simply quote exactly what the apostles wrote.  Their are hundreds of books written and available which explain the meanings of Eastern cultural practices mentioned in the Bible, which cultural customs and practices, as Rev. Graham has explained to us, are essential to know and understand in order to understand the full meaning of the contexts in which they are referred.

These are some examples of the challenges which are encountered when striving for accuracy in a translation.  A translator must pay close attention to grammatical accuracy, inflected form accuracy, contextual accuracy, figurative accuracy and cultural accuracy if a translation is to accurately reflect truth in translation to a reader.  And so these elements of accuracy in a translation can serve as the fundamental elements necessary for the establishment of a benchmark for accuracy, against which a translation can be measured.


- Readability - Both The Author And The Translator Are Responsible For This


There are many opinions and proposed definitions of what exactly is readability: easy to read, legible, decipherable, enjoyable, entertaining, stimulating, captivating, and so on.  These proposed elements of readability obviously portray desired outcomes which are much more broadly based than the simple mechanical presentation of a translation on a page.  I suppose the gamut of desired outcomes of readability to a reader runs from a reader's own subjective and emotional response to what they read to an almost imperceptible hindrance by the medium to the conveyance of that information to the reader.   And so readability, to some degree, must be based upon personal preference, about what exactly does the reader want to get out of a Bible translation.  It may be all of these things, or maybe none of these things, depending upon a reader's recipe of desires at any given time they wish to read. 


I've already stated that I believe that truth in translation is the goal, the bullseye, when aiming at quality of translation from one language into another, in this case Greek into English.  This is because I give what the biblical texts have said are important about themselves preeminence in importance.  So then when we examine the readability of a translation, I propose that we must at least measure how easily does a translation present the Godly Truth within the translation, to the mind of the reader. 


But speaking now with hyperbole, if a reader believes that Bibles in general do not contain God's Word to his creation, but only myths and fairy tales cleverly invented thousands of years ago, then the God's Truth is obviously not a reason why that reader is reading a Bible translation, but that reading it for its entertainment value to him or her is more likely the reason.  So then should we establish a readability benchmark based solely upon how well does the mechanical presentation on a page maximize and present entertainment value to a reader?  I only say this to make the point that to millions of readers of Bible translations, there could be an indecipherable number of perceptions of what constitutes a Bible translation's readability.


How about if a reader cares more for how one particular translation states something than another, preferring opinionated paraphrases that sound less harsh or gritty compared to more direct quotes of what biblical authors wrote, then does what was written count as a strike for or against a translation in place of how it was mechanically presented on the page?  So then how can the possible gamut of anyone's personal subjective preferences about readability be quantified into a single "one size fits all" mechanical form of presentation on a page?  I think we can agree that that is an impossibility.  So as you can see we're starting to work down into finding a method of measuring readability of a Bible translation which can be expressed in a quantified way.


How can anyone's own personal subjective perception of a Bible translation's readability be quantified somehow?  Quantifying accuracy of translation, and how that contributes to overall quality of translation, was easy, because the elements of accuracy are objective elements.  A definition of readability can't simply be about the mechanical design presentation of biblical subject matter on a page, and much less about how a reader subjectively feels about what he or she may read, and what it may mean to him or her.  But since that is the reality, that readability is conceived and perceived in a reader's own mind, then that points us toward a characteristic which must be inherent in a page design.  An ultimate page design must be so simple that it neither promotes nor hinders a reader's own subjective perception of a bible translation's readability.


The simplest way I know of to present anything on a written page for a reader to read is the way I'm doing it right here and now for you.  I'm using no clutter; no embellishments with a plethora of fonts and font colors, no underlines, no superscripts or subscripts, no overlines, no blinking words or words in all caps, but only italics occasionally.  This presentation format uses none of those other things.  This caters to my conclusion that most Bible readers, or readers of anything, want to read formats that are as easy to read as possible.  Frankly, I believe that most readers of anything would choose to work less than work harder to learn and understand what they are reading, including Bible readers.  But the prophets of the God, and the apostles of Christ Jesus, didn't necessarily write what they wrote, the way they wrote it, to accommodate people's desire to approach God's Word like a fast food restaurant drive-through window. 


 Arguably, the prophets and apostles wrote using many grammatical mechanisms for the purpose of drawing readers into the height, width, depth and breadth of God's Word.  Most of the time, from my own experience, reading God's Word requires consciousness, and vigilance in following what an author is saying, word by word, phrase by phrase, clause by clause, and sentence by sentence, and resisting moving on until what has been read is reasonably understood in light of the whole context.  In this sense, if readability can be partially defined as understandability, then the author is in control of readability, through how what he wrote challenges the readers level of comprehension.  So how does one's own level of comprehension affect one's own perceived readability of a Bible translation?  Obviously , age, maturity, reading skills, and prior education and training in biblical issues, affect one's level of comprehension of biblical concepts and subject matters, and thereby may tend to enhance one's own perceived readability of a Bible translation.  But not only that, how well a Bible translation caters to one's own preconceived theological ideas which he or she has been orally taught from early childhood, may tend to enhance one's own perception of a Bible's readability.


But if the number one reason why most readers of Bible translations read is because they want to know exactly what the God has said, and especially what He says to them, the straight Truth, then maybe that's a good enough reason for the God to give them the gift of his paternal holy Spirit, so He can begin teaching them through it.  And then, as the apostles have stated, a reader's possession of his Spirit working within him or her gives him or her the ability to comprehend his subject matters, and assimilate them into their thinking and decision-making.  Therefore, I believe that a reader's ability to conceptualize biblical subject matters has the most to do with a reader's perceived readability of a biblical text.  I am convinced, not only from reading and believing what the apostles wrote, but through experiencing it for myself, that God's Spirit working in a disciple of Christ Jesus is required to properly understand the Word and words of the God (1 Cor. 2:9-15; John 8:43-44).  And that people are destroyed by the devil and his little demon spirits because of lack of knowledge of his Word (Hos. 4:6; John 10:9-10). 


So then how do paraphrased translations versus literal word for word translations affect one's own perception of the readability of a Bible translation?  Paraphrases tend to tell the reader what to believe, rather than what the writer actually wrote.  Paraphrases are easier to read because they usually remove the authors grammatical mechanisms deliberately used to challenge the readers decision-making.  If a reader can read without being challenged by the specific wording of an author, which wording constantly accosts the reader to stop and think, and to make a lot of decisions along the way, then that's easier reading for the reader, because the reader doesn't need to work so much, and so hard, to get at the Truth.  And that is why paraphrased Bible translations sell better, which makes Bible publishers as happy as can be.  Paraphrased Bibles obfuscate the sayings of Christ Jesus and the writings of apostle Paul the most, because those two biblical characters used the most grammatical mechanisms of all; in Jesus' sayings through removing his use of middle voiced verbs, and in most all of Paul's letters through removing his heavy uses ellipsis.


So then, should a literal word for word quote of what an apostle wrote, or how he wrote it, be altered to accommodate anyone's subjective opinion about their own preferences in a translation's readability?  If altering means paraphrasing or creative "synonyming", or adding to, or changing, or detracting from quoting the exact words which an apostle used, then I say no to any alterations.  I believe there is no excuse whatsoever for not simply quoting what an apostle wrote.  A Bible's readability can't be legitimately based upon altering the Truth of God's Word to accommodate greater readability, to accommodate greater Bible sales! 


My conclusion about readability is that what the biblical authors actually wrote, the way they wrote it, should be solely responsible for a Bible translation's readability.  In reality, a Bible reader's perceived readability of a translation changes minute by minute, sentence by sentence, and subject matter by subject matter.  In a Bible translation, which in the first place should simply quote the apostles, the subject matters which the apostles wrote about, and the words they used, and the word orders they chose, and the figures they chose to use, and the grammatical mechanisms they used to make their points, should all be allowed to factor into a reader's subjectively perceived readability of a Bible translation.  I say a Bible translation should not compromise the telling of the Truth for any reason, least of all readability.  The Truth, as the prophets and apostles witness it to us, should be allowed to accost a Bible reader's level of comprehension, so that through the challenge of God's Word for a disciple of Christ Jesus to rise of to the level of the bar in spiritual comprehension, can have its way.  Scripturally speaking, God's Word calls for readers to rise up to the level of it, to understand it, and not dumb-down the truth of God's Word.  And if a reader's heart truly wishes to understand God's Word, God's Spirit in him or her will teach him or her, and then ultimately a Bible reader's perception of a Bible's readability will be self-attenuating, as according to God's Word, it should be.


 - Elegance - The Author is Responsible For This


Most definitions of elegance boil it down to the character of being graceful and fashionable in manner or appearance.  Some may be surprised to hear me state that the aspect of elegance in the quality of a Bible translation is totally in the hands of holy Spirit, the God, working through the authors of the texts of the biblical books of a Bible.  Mortalkind's ideas of grace and fashion, and many other things mortals do among themselves for approval from themselves, are usually contrary to, and abominations to, the God's definition of grace and fashion (Luke 16:15).  If a biblical book is translated correctly, the translation will do no more, or no less, than simply quote its author.  Then whatever elegance is there or not there in the Greek texts, is subsequently either there or not there in the translations.


The challenge to a translator is to successfully resist any inclination to manufacture elegance into a translation when rendering the Greek into English.  Another challenge is to recognize whatever elegance there may be in the way the author wrote what he wrote in the Greek texts.  A translator, including the Pope, doesn't egomaniacally and omnisciently know better than the author what the author should have written, or what the author should have meant.  What the author wrote and meant should be left up to the reader to determine for himself or herself, from reading a simple straight quote of exactly what the author wrote.  For a translator to overrule anything about what an author wrote, or the way an author wrote it, demonstrates contempt for God's Word, and contempt for God's "mouthpiece", the apostle who wrote it.  And further more, it would be spiritually inelegant to manufacture mortal made elegance into a translation, if that meant abandoning exactly what the author wrote.  Simply, accurately, and thoroughly quoting a biblical author is the greatest feat of translation work that a translator can accomplish.  The following is a partial quote of Joseph Gibaldi in his book "MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers":


"The accuracy of quotations in research writing is extremely important.  They must reproduce the original sources exactly.  Unless indicated in brackets or parentheses, changes must not be made in the spelling, capitalization, or interior punctuation of the source.  You must construct a clear, grammatically correct sentence that allows you to introduce or incorporate a quotation with complete accuracy." - Gibaldi, Joseph. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. Sixth ed. New York: American Language Association of America, 2004.


This is only one example of thousands, in thousands of books about English grammar, form, and style.  but it clearly reflects the sacred rule which all writers are implored to follow, that absolutely not one thing should be changed when quoting a secular work of another.  When quoting Grimm, Milton, Cervantes or Chaucer, et al., absolutely not so much as a comma or period shall be misplaced.  But yet, from comparing English Bible translations of the new testament to the Greek texts from which they supposedly came, theologically-based paraphrases and creative "synonyming" are slam banged all over the place, as if there is a silent and unwritten addendum to this rule, which states: "...except if the author is a biblical author writing under the authority and guidance of holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:19-21), then by all means possible absolutely do not allow a clear, accurate, and thorough quote of the authors." 


----- : -----



Biblical Literary Contexts


It seems logical to arrange the presentation about Biblical Literary Contexts to come before the presentation on Ellipses, because the understanding of the various kinds of Ellipses are based upon the understanding of corresponding contexts of biblical discrete topics and/or unique events.


Biblical literary contexts have two main branches of contexts, grammatical context, and situational context. 


- Grammatical Context


The LIT is being produced while paying special attention to what some call linguistic context, and situational context.  Linguistic context I think of as grammatical context.  Grammatical is a much more descriptive word for the kind of context it describes, so I'll us it instead of the word linguistic.  The first step in translation of a Greek text, word by word, is to determine a words grammatical part of speech.  Is a word an adverb, verb, adjective, noun, conjunction, preposition, article, and so on, so a sentence can be constructed in English in the most proper word order, which order is usually much different than in a Greek text.  And then special attention must be paid to a word's morphology, to how a word is inflected in the text.  For a verb, it has eight possible points of inflection, type, mood tense, voice, case, gender, person, and number, all of which may not be simultaneously present in any given verb.  Nouns and pronouns have only case, gender, person, and number, all of which may not be simultaneously present in any given noun or pronoun.


 - Situational Context


Situational context is about the who, what, where, when, and how of the discrete topics and unique events about which a writer is writing.  Situational context includes or implies things like a time period for when the writer writing, and/or the time period in which the things being written about occurred.  It includes information also about to whom is the writer writing, his intended audience.  It includes also anaphoric words (such as a relative pronoun looking backward to its related noun), and cataphoric words (such as a relative pronoun looking forward to its related noun), and deictic words (such as here or there, which help a reader determine the location of the writer, and the demonstratives this, that, those, which words help filter out ambiguities).  Anaphoric, cataphoric, and deictic may sound a bit like grammatical terms, and I believe they are.  But those words themselves are used to tie together and to describe a whole context of a discrete topic or unique event.  And for interpretation purposes, as you may know, its very important to know when a context begins and ends.


The whole biblical context of any discrete topic or unique event contains elements of both grammatical context and situational context.  The meanings of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences are determined by both their grammatical and situational contexts surrounding them.  In a part of this section coming up I'll explain about other kinds of contexts, locational contexts such as immediate, local and remote, which describe the various locations within the biblical texts where discrete topics and/or unique events are either identical or closely related. 


Immediate context is always a single location, the very passage being read.  But the other two, local and remote contexts, deal with contexts which are separate from one another, but within the same book, or within the same body of writings of a writer, or in other books written by other biblical writers, which contexts are about the identical discrete topics and or unique events, or those very closely related.


 - Discrete Topics and Unique Events


Within grammatical and situational contexts in the biblical texts lie discrete topics and unique events.  Contexts throughout all of the biblical books, and other extra-biblical but closely related Christian literature, are all linked together, or distinguished from one another, by references to identical or closely related discrete topics and/or unique events in those contexts. 


By discrete I mean a biblical topic which can be identified in the text by the writer's use of a word or words to name, or to give a title to, or to reference a specific subject matter.  Virtually all discrete topics are sub-topics of other discrete topics in the unfolding of the hierarchy of the Truth of God's Word.


By unique I mean a biblical event which can be identified in the text by the writer's use of a word or words to name it, or to give it a title, or to characterize it as a specific event of some kind.


Examples of discrete topics are repentance, forgiveness of sin, belief, wholeness, water baptism, baptism in God's holy Spirit, old covenant feasts, new covenant benefits, etc..  Examples of unique events are Jesus' healings of people, Jesus' miracles, his death and resurrection, apostle Paul's itineraries, etc.. The list of biblical literary discrete topics and unique events can go on and on as you know.


Biblical discrete topics and unique events are usually inter-related.  For example: The discrete topic of water baptism (Mark 1:4) is directly related to the many unique baptismal events written about throughout the books of Matthew through Acts (Mat. 3; John 1:19 - 34, 4:1 - 3; Acts 8:26 - 39; many more...), which events help to define what is the meaning of the discrete topic of water baptism.   Most all biblical discrete topics are about unique events which have occurred, or which will occur at some later time from the time about which they written.


If you may be looking for a compilation of biblical topics, there are many resources available, such as Scofield's Index To the Introduction, Analyses, Notes, Definition, Summaries, and Subject References in the SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE.  Database © 2012 WORDsearch Corp.

C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Study Bible, WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "Scofield's Index".

Another good resource for a list of biblical topics would be in Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible, in his section titled Universal Subject Guide To The Bible.   Young, Robert. Young's Analytical Concordance To The Bible. Nashville, Camden, New York: Thomas Nelson, 1982.


- What is the Whole Truth?


Jesus said in a prayer to his heavenly Father (John 17:17) that the Word of his heavenly Father was Truth.  Please notice I capitalized the words Word, and Truth.  I don't normally capitalize all words in the LIT that are discrete topics.  But these words, and many others, are used in the texts as proper nouns by the writers, writing about unique entities, rather than non-unique classes of entities which are referred to as common nouns. 


One of the many discrete topics within God's Word is about this very topic, of how to recognize, pick out, and define biblical discrete topics and unique events, and their associated contexts, from another discrete topic or unique event.  How much context coming before and after the identification of a discrete topic or unique event belongs to that specific topic or event?  Confusion over which contexts belong to which topics and events can cause tremendous confusion in discovering the whole Truth about a topic or event within God's Word. 


Please notice in the following passage that Apostle Paul did not recommend that every reader of his letters have a linguistics expert at his side to interpret the nuances of meanings and forms.  BUT, Paul placed the responsibility upon the reader to take the initiative to determine within the scriptural texts where to cutoff the context belonging to a previous discrete topic or unique event from the context belonging to the next discrete topic or unique event being introduced by him in his letters.  This means that Paul believed that his readers possessed the ability to adequately distinguish between contexts, in order to cut sharply and straightly between contexts of discrete topics and unique events.  I believe this can be done by only those who have the God's Spirit working in them to teach them, as Jesus Christ taught us to believe (John 6:45-46).


Apostle Paul refers to Jesus' teaching his disciples to stand themselves up alongside (request, search, and knock, Mat. 7:7) of the Father to be taught, in his letter to Timothy:


2 Tim. 2:15 (LIT/UBS4) Make haste (spoudason) to stand yourself alongside3936 (parastēsai seauton) to the (tō) God (theō) approved (dokimon), a worker (ergatēn) unashamed (anepaischunton), cutting sharply straight3718 (orthotomounta) the (ton) Word (logon) of the (tēs) Truth (alētheias).


It's obvious that where our eyes are steered to see and discern, about where to make the cuts between the contexts within God's Word, will greatly affect how we may arrive in our search for the whole Truth about a discrete topic or unique event in God's Word.


It's obvious also that the whole scope of meaning, i.e. the whole Truth, of any discrete biblical topic or unique event, may or may not be ascertained from reading a single biblical passage about it.  Other biblical passages of context in which the identical discrete topic or unique event are presented must be carefully scrutinized also for additional scriptural facts.  Other passages of holy scripture with closely related topics and events also must be weighed-in for content of scriptural facts which can shed more light upon a related discrete topic or unique event.


There are often many passages throughout the 66 books of a Bible in which the whole Truth of any given discrete biblical topic or unique event can be found.  Some corresponding contexts can be rich with additional scriptural facts important in defining the meaning of a discrete topic or the extent of a unique event. Other corresponding contexts may be lean, revealing only one or two more important scriptural facts.  Sometimes a corresponding context can be found which can cause you to quickly realize that you've just hit the jackpot of Truth about a discrete biblical topic or unique event, and that that particular book, chapter and collection of verses must be the bullseye of Truth for that topic or event.  But even when that happens seldom does the whole Truth coalesce together in one place.   Word searches on Strong's numbers and other research techniques need to be employed to methodically track down every passage of related topic or event, and their contexts, to insure our belief is based upon the whole Truth and not upon half-truths.


So then, logically, the ground floor upon which biblical readers are to make distinctions between Truth and error, and upon which associations and correspondences between biblical passages can be realized, and upon which the dots can be connected together and followed to lead us into the whole Truth about any discrete biblical topic or unique event, across all 66 biblical books of the Bible and other acceptable historical Christian literature, is at the level of the discrete topics and/or unique events.  Discovering the Truth of God's Word begins with discovering the discrete topics of the writers of God's Word, and discovering the unique events associated with those topics.


- What is the Forum of the Whole Truth?


A disciple of Christ Jesus who is searching for the Truth, the Word of the God, has a choice of two paths to follow, according to the holy scriptures:


1.  A believer can start filling his or her head with all of the mortal-made theological theories people have imagined and/or invented about these discrete topics,




2.  A believer can begin to track these discrete topics throughout all of the texts of the sixty-six books of a Bible; through the twenty-seven new covenant books for Jesus' parables about them, and for what any of Jesus' apostles may have written about them, and in the remaining thirty-nine books, of the writings of the law, of the Psalms, and of the prophets, for what may have been written and prophesied about them in them.


(See Mat. 15:9; John 8:31-47; Rom. 1:20-25; 2 Cor. 10:4-6; 11:13-15; Eph. 5:6-12; *Col. 2:8; 2 Tim. 3:1-15, 4:3-4; Tit. 1:10-14.)


In the books, chapters and verses listed above, Jesus Christ and his apostles taught that believers are not to study the words of mortal-made religious dogmas, and other men's invented theological theories, but only the Word of the Truth, God's Word.  How's that for a delineation of a biblical context?  That's what Jesus Christ and his apostles taught, like it or not.


Comparing God's Word to mortal-made theological inventions is an attempt to interpret for yourself God's Word from the outside in.  Surveying mortal-made theological theories risks polluting your thoughts with possibly egregious puffed-up theories of men who have neglected to thoroughly study God's Word, who have neglected to discover for themselves how God's Word interprets itself from the inside out.  We are adequately warned in God's Word not to study mortal-made theological inventions.  Please examine the brief list of passages given above.


If a believer of the God and his son Christ Jesus, in his or her own discipleship to Christ Jesus, has determined to study the writings of the God's ancient prophets, and the writings of Jesus' apostles, then that believer is on the path which leads to greater enlightenment in the knowledge and understanding of the God's Word, Truth.  Jesus stated that the words of his heavenly Father are Truth.  But if a so-called follower of the God and his son Christ Jesus has determined to study mortal-made theological inventions, then that follower follows after mortal-made wisdom, and has made himself or herself to become a disciple of false believers, and of their lies (Jer. 14:14). 


There must be a forum in which the God's Truth, his true orthodoxy, can and does exist.  The exclusively defined and confined context, according to God's Word, of the forum in which a believing disciple of Christ Jesus is to confine himself to read and study for greater enlightenment in the knowledge and understanding of God's Word, Truth, is within the context of the writings of the law, and of the Psalms, and of the prophets (Luke 24:44), and in the writings of Jesus Christ's apostles, which writings are most likely not all included in the sixty-six books. 


- What is a Biblical Literary Context? 


As I've briefly mentioned already, any biblical literary context always has (at least I've never seen one that doesn't) two main branches, a grammatical context and a situational context.  Both grammatical information and situational information, by necessity, are inherent in any biblical literary context of a discrete topic or unique event.  The locational contexts, immediate, local and remote, all by necessity must have both a grammatical and situational context within them.  The cultural and historical contexts of discrete topics and unique events are parts of the situational context.


Not everyone is in agreement on what are the exact contextual terms, nor on the exact meanings of those contextual terms used to describe it.  Most all of the resources agree upon the basic kinds of locational contexts, immediate, local, and remote.  Cultural and historical contexts are described as well, as being critical in determining the overall context about any biblical discrete topic and/or unique event.


The following is a diagram of how I see all of the various kinds of biblical literary contexts relating to one another:



The large outer circle represents a biblical discrete topic or unique event.  The three inner circles represent the three biblical contextual locations where information can be found about a discrete topic or unique event.  The immediate context is always the passage being read.  The local and remote contexts are other locations in the Bible where the identical discrete topic or unique event, or those closely related, are written about, by the same writer (local context) or other biblical writer (remote context) respectfully. 


One of the better, more comprehensive, resources about biblical literary context and it's proper interpretation, which work stood out to me, was the work of Dr. Bob Utley, "You Can Understand the Bible: An Introduction to and Application of the Contextual/Textual Method of Biblical interpretation,  (Hermeneutics)", which can be found here.

In his very interesting work, in chapter 6, Dr. Utley explains three obvious historical camps of biblical interpretation (Hermeneutics), the Jewish Rabbi tradition, the Alexandrian School, and the Antiochian School.  From my own biblical studies and completion of a first draft of the LIT, through which translation process I developed my own methods of biblical interpretation, which seemed naturally logical to me given the biblical texts and their various kinds of content, I was delighted to discover that there was a camp/school of hermeneutics to which the methods I developed are very closely aligned, the Antiochian tenets of hermeneutics.


Here's a section of Dr. Utley's book of chapter 6 about the Antiochian School's Basic Tenets:


"Although the basic tenets of the Antiochian School were continued in isolated places, it burst forth again in full bloom in Martin Luther and John Calvin, as it had been in bud previously in Nicholas of Lyra. It is basically this historically and textually-focused approach to hermeneutics that this Textbook is attempting to introduce. Along with the added emphasis on application, which was one of the strengths of Origen, the Antiochian approach clearly distinguished between exegesis and application (Silva 1987, 101). Because this Textbook is primarily for non-theologically trained believers, the methodology will focus around the text of Scripture in translation rather than the original languages. Study helps will be introduced and recommended, but the obvious meaning of the original author can, in the vast majority of cases, be ascertained without extensive outside help. The work of godly, diligent scholars will help us in areas of background material, difficult passages, and seeing the big picture, but first we must struggle with the plain meaning of the Scriptures ourselves. It is our privilege, our responsibility, and our protection. The Bible, the Spirit, and you are priority! Insight into how to analyze human language on a non-technical level, along with the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, are the twin pillars of this contextual/textual approach. Your ability to be somewhat free to interpret the Bible for yourself is the primary goal of this Textbook. James W. Sire in his book Scripture Twisting makes two good points.


'The illumination comes to the minds of God’s people—not just to the spiritually elite. There is no guru class in biblical Christianity, no illuminati, no people through whom all proper interpretation must come. And, so, while the Holy Spirit gives special gifts of wisdom, knowledge, and spiritual discernment, He does not assign these gifted Christians to be the only authoritative interpreters of his Word. It is up to each of his people to learn, to judge and to discern by reference to the Bible which stands as the authority over even those to whom God has given special abilities.'


'To summarize, the assumption I am making throughout the entire book is that the Bible is God’s true revelation to all humanity, that it is our ultimate authority on all matters about which it speaks, that it is not a total mystery but can be adequately understood by ordinary people in every culture' (pp. 17-18).


We dare not naively trust any other person or denomination with the interpretation of Scripture, which affects not only life, but also the life to come. The secondary goal of this Textbook is gaining the ability to analyze the interpretations of others. This Textbook desires to provide the individual believer with a method for personal Bible study and a shield against the interpretation of others. Scholarly helps will be recommended, but must not be accepted without proper analysis and textual documentation." 


I highly recommend Dr. Utley's book to anyone who desires to seriously delve into the world of biblical interpretation.  Dr. Utley was very apostle-like not to limit his work only in a book form to subsequently hold his work hostage for money.  But he published it on the world wide web for free, for anyone to use and to learn from it!


Mr. Utley's book is on the top shelf of my electronic bookshelf!

 Utley, Bob. You Can Understand the Bible: An Introduction to and Application of the Contextual/Textual Method of Biblical interpretation (Hermeneutics). Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2017.

- An Example of a Biblical Literary Context


Inherently, a literary context is a body of flow of written thought.  Chapter and verse markings in Bibles are mostly useless in determining the logical groups of flows of written thought, since many times the immediate context of a discrete topic flows out of one chapter into the next, such as the discrete topics in 2 Cor. 4:18 through 6:18.


 Here's the flow of thought in these passages, in and out of discrete topics, as I see them:


2 Cor. 4:18 - 5:9 - the promise of our new heavenly "tent"/house

2 Cor. 5:10 - 13 - our coming judgment if we remain in the flesh

2 Cor. 5:14 - 6:2 - Christ's self-sacrifice for our reconciliation to the God

2 Cor. 6:3 - 15 - our walk as a minister of Christ

2 Cor. 6:16 - 18 our new "tent" and holy place, in the house of the God


This is how I read apostle Paul's flow of thought throughout these chapters and verses.  And so logically these chapters and verses can't be properly understood unless all of the other contexts, local and remote, of the identical discrete topics or closely related topics, are all very carefully closely examined, word by word.


Some scholars say that an important part of understanding a context is about first understanding what is the purpose of the writer.  That seems to sound good on its face, buts it's actually backwards of the way a writer's purpose is actually discovered.  Unless a writer makes a statement up front of the purpose of his writing, before a reader starts reading into the body of his writing, it's impossible to accurately pre-judge or know what is a writer's purpose for writing.  The purpose can't be discovered before thoroughly examining, from front to back, what the writer has written.  And that thorough examination must be based upon identifying discrete topics and unique events, and all of their associated contexts, including local and remote, context by context. 


It is the systematic process of tracking down all of the meanings of a writer's discrete topics and their associated unique events, context by context, which process subsequently and eventually leads a reader into seeing the writer's purpose literally unfold before a reader's eyes.  The writer's discrete topics and associated unique events, and most importantly their contexts which are systematically presented to the reader, are what assemble the writer's bodies of flow of thought, which summary meaning of all of the bodies of flow of thought lead the reader into discovering what is the writer's purpose for writing. 


Through identifying, in this small example of apostle Paul's second letter to the believers in the area of Corinth, Paul's discrete topics and their associated unique events, and reading and understanding their local and remote contexts, we can begin to see that part of Paul's purpose for writing to them was to exhort them to continue in the Word of God which he previously taught to them, through reminding them of God's promise for their personal transformation from living in an earthly "tent", into living into a new "tent", the God's new "tent", which God builds with his own hand, which, from studying local and remote contexts, is the one body of Christ (2 Cor. 4:18 - 5:9), the God's collective domed-roof house (oikodomēn).


Then he warns them about remaining to live in the flesh, which could lead to the forfeiture of them living in God's new "tent", his heavenly house, and lead them out of the forgiveness of sins through Christ Jesus' shed blood, and into the judgment of God (2 Cor. 5:10 - 13).  Apostle Paul, within a local context of his writings, reminds the believers in the area of Rome also of this possible calamitous outcome (Rom. 13:1-2).


Next apostle Paul reminds them of Jesus Christ's self-sacrifice of himself for their reconciliation to the God, suggesting to them the value of Jesus' shed blood for the value of their reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:14 - 6:2).


Next apostle Paul reminds them to walk not in the flesh, but spiritually, as ministers of the God to others, as Paul walks in his life as a minister of God to and for them (2 Cor. 6:3 - 15).


Next apostle Paul brings them back to the discrete topic of the God's new "tent", his new holy place, which they are, the God living in them (2 Cor. 6:16 - 18)!


From just these few discrete topics we can see that part of apostle Paul's purpose for writing is to exhort the Corinthian believers to continue in the teaching/orthodoxy of the God's Word, truth, which he has already taught them. However, from other contexts in apostle Paul's letters, including his first letter to the Corinthian believers, he scolds them for their various failures to continue to walk in the knowledge of the Truth of God's Word.  So this is yet another purpose for Paul writing to the Corinthian believers.  So then we can see that a writer may have several purposes for writing something, which purposes can only be accurately understood from allowing God's Word to interpret itself from the inside out; through tracking all discrete topics and unique events, and all of their local and remote contexts, to discover a summary understanding of a writer's bodies of flow of thought, which collective understanding of those flows lead the reader into discovering a writer's purpose or purposes for writing. 


As I mentioned before, the following three kinds of literary context, immediate, local, and remote, are locational in nature, because they refer to locations within the biblical texts where the identical discrete topic or unique event is written about by the same writer or other writers. 


- Immediate Context


The immediate context of a discrete topic or unique event is the collection of scriptural verses which come immediately before and after the topic or event in the text, which meanings of those verses are relevant in characterizing and defining the topic or event. 


In 2 Cor. 5, in apostle Paul's letter to the believers in the area of Corinth, he explains to them about the important discrete biblical topic of the Ministry of Reconciliation.


2 Cor. 5:18 (LIT/UBS4) But (de) all (panta) the things (ta) [are] out (ek) of the (tou) God (theou),


[out] of the one (tou) having reconciled (katallaxantos) us (hēmas) to himself (heautō) through (dia) [the sake, AE] of Christ (Christou), and (kai) he having given (dontos) to us (hēmin) the (tēn) Ministry (diakonian) of the (tēs) Reconciliation (katallagēs)


Here in verse 18 apostle Paul names the topic, Ministry of Reconciliation.  But what does he mean by using the word ministry, and what does he mean by using the word reconciliation?  The scriptural facts in at least the immediate context are necessary to explain the meanings of these words, which together explain the meaning of the topic.  But more definition may be needed to ascertain the full meaning of what Paul says when he mentions a ministry, or a reconciliation.  Seldom does an immediate context of a discrete topic fully define the topic.  So then the next part of our investigation would be to look up all of Paul's other usages of the words ministry and reconciliation in the same letter/book, which usages come both before and after chapter 5.  But first, let's examine the immediate context.


Arguably, apostle Paul's contextual definition of both ministry and reconciliation begins in verses 13 - 15, in which context he begins to explain that out of Christ's love for all he ministered to all, through sacrificing his life for all.  These verses characterize Christ as God's instrumental agent needed for the reconciliation of the cosmos back to God, while verse 18 characterizes the God as the author, instigator of that agency, and the giver of the Ministry of Reconciliation to apostle Paul.


In verse 19 apostle Paul states how the God reconciled the cosmos to himself, through dwelling within Jesus Christ, and working through Christ.  Jesus Christ states, in several remote contexts directly related to the discrete topic of the Ministry of Reconciliation, that he could do nothing on his own.  But that is was his Father dwelling within him doing the works of him through him, because his heavenly Father was greater than he (John 5:19, 10:38, 14:10 - 11, 28), stating that he is an instrumental agent working for his heavenly Father for the reconciliation of the cosmos. 


In verse 20 apostle Paul states that the God is now working in and through himself, Paul, and his companions, for them to minister the reconciliation to the Corinthian believers, for the God to reconcile them also to himself.


In verse 21 apostle Paul states more fact/Truth about how the God reconciled us back to himself through his son/agent, Christ Jesus.


Although there is an unfortunate chapter break made by someone, the immediate context of the discrete topic of the Ministry of Reconciliation appears to continue with 2 Cor. 6:1 - 13, in which apostle Paul speaks more specifically about the dangers and perils associated with administering the Ministry of Reconciliation which he and his companions have been given from the God.


- Local Context


The local context of a discrete topic or unique event is a closely related topic or event within an writer's same book, or in other books by the same writer.


There are other passages and contexts in apostle Paul's second letter to the Corinthian believers which are directly related to the discrete topic of the Ministry of Reconciliation about which he wrote in 2 Cor. 5:18.  In a prior context of closely related discrete topic, in 2 Cor. 3, and in verse 8, apostle Paul writes about the topic of the Ministry of the Spirit, speaking specifically about a new covenant being made between God and those whom He has reconciled back to himself, about a new covenant with the sons of Israel, which covenant shall be a covenant with other ethnic groups as well, based upon his Spirit being placed within them (Ezek. 36:24 - 29; Joel 2:28-29).


It's obvious in the holy scriptures that a believer can't receive the Ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:8) until he or she has first repented from his or her sin, and he or she has first been reconciled back to God through the Ministry of Reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18).  So then in the first part of Paul's letter he writes to the believers about what's available, a covenant with the God of Israel, and then next how to receive it.  The entire chapter 3 appears to be explanation about things related to God's new covenant.  Then, beginning in chapter 4, Paul appears to begin his preamble and buildup to his introduction of the Ministry of Reconciliation in chapter 5, the means through which believers can receive the Ministry of the Spirit in chapter 3.  So then, on account of the close relationship between the Ministry of the Spirit and its prerequisite the Ministry of Reconciliation, each of these closely related discrete topics are within one another's local context, because each topic is written about within the same letter/book. 


But how broad in meaning should be the meaning of the word local as in local context?  Should passages of discrete topics and unique events in Paul's second letter to the Corinthian believers be local contexts to topics and events in Paul's first letter to the Corinthian believers?  How about the discrete topics and unique events in any and all books of a biblical writer, such as Paul's letters, should they all be local contexts to one another when the topics and events within them are identical or closely related?  I say absolutely yes!  So then when should/does a discrete topic or a unique event and their immediate contexts become a remote context to something else? 


- Remote Context


A remote context is a context about an identical or closely related discrete topic or unique event in any other biblical book written by another biblical writer, and contexts in other acceptable Christian writings by other writers.


For an example let's continue using the previous discrete topic of the Ministry of Reconciliation in 2 Cor. 5:18.


The first study tool I use to begin to track down all of the biblical passages which are identical to, or closely relate to, the Ministry of Reconciliation is to a word study, through tracking a word's Strong's # throughout the new covenant texts, in this case for the Greek word for reconciliation, which is katallagēs, which Strong's # is 2643, and which word is a lexical root.  And now, from popping up on my screen a handy electronic analytical lexicon, I immediately notice it is a common noun used four times in the new covenant texts.  Two inflected forms of it appear in a local context of 2 Cor. 5:18, in apostle Paul's letter to the believers in the area of Rome (Rom. 5:11, 15), and the other two usages appear in the immediate context (2 Cor. 5:18, 19).


But the common noun katallagēs is derived from its verb form katallassō, Strong's # 2644, used 6 times in the new covenant texts of the Bible.  So let's search for any forms of the verb  katallassō in a remote context.  From doing a search on # 2644 for all of the places it's used in the new covenant texts, I find that it's used three times in local contexts (Rom. 5:10; 1 Cor. 7:11), and three times in the immediate context (2 Cor. 5:18 - 20).  So far for this verb and its common noun, their are no remote contexts by other new covenant writers.  So far Apostle is the only new covenant writer using this verb and its common noun. 


But searching the texts very carefully we can find three more usages of the verb katallassō, but this time with the preposition apo, meaning from, prefixed to the verb, which dual compound apokatallassō in essence means to reconcile from.  But all three usages (Eph. 2:16, Col. 1:20, 22) are by apostle Paul also in the local context of two other of his letters/books.


But searching the texts very carefully we can find another usage of katallassō, but this time with the preposition dia, meaning through, prefixed to it, which dual compound in essence means to be thoroughly reconciled (Mat. 5:24).  Finally, we found a form of katallassō, meaning reconciliation, in a remote context, in a biblical book not authored by apostle Paul, but by Matthew.  In the immediate context of Ministry of Reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18), and all of the local contexts of it, the reconciliation was always about those who needed to repent to the God, to receive forgiveness of their sins from him, in order for God to reconcile them to himself.  But in Mat. 5:24 Jesus speaks of another kind of reconciliation which we need, and that is to be reconciled with our fellow man if they have any opposition to the righteousness of us, in order for us to stay well clear of any subsequent trouble which could occur.


But if we search very, very carefully through the texts, there is still one more word used twice in new covenant texts, hilastērios, which means a reconciler, one who reconciles (Rom. 3:25), and a place of reconciliation (Heb. 9:5).  Apostle Paul wrote about Jesus Christ as the agent of the God, the instrument in which the God, the planner of our reconciliation (Rom. 3:22 - 26), worked in and through (John 5:19, 10:38, 14:10 - 11, 28) to reconcile us back to himself.  In the second usage, in Heb. 9:5, the writer, whom I believe is apostle Paul as well, wrote about the place of our reconciliation back to, or with the God, which was the place upon which the Cherubims on the Ark of the Covenant shadowed down over, which was the mercy seat.  That is the exact place where we were reconciled to the God through the shed blood of Christ Jesus.


For you maybe Heb. 9:5 is a remote context.  For me it's another local context to 2 Cor. 5:18, because I'm convinces apostle Paul wrote it.  It is chucked full of apostle Paul's characteristic style and vocabulary.


So now you may ask, "Is that it?  Is there nothing else written in the new covenant Greek texts about the need for mortalkind to become reconciled to the God, in order to receive the Ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:8)?"  I say no, that's not all there is.  Reconciliation is a process which has largely occurred in the past, with Jesus' self-sacrifice, shed blood, death, and resurrection, and which process partly occurs ongoing, when any believer believes upon the meaning of Jesus' shed blood.  This ongoing part of the process leads to an event, a believer's reconciliation.  The place of that reconciliation occurred upon the mercy seat just above the Ark of the Covenant. 


There are other new covenant terms which refer to the results produced by a reconciliation event, and subsequent Ministry of the Spirit, which is to become one with Christ Jesus in his new body, and thereby one with the God almighty in his Spirit!  Now suddenly we become led to the numeral one, heis, Strong's # 1520, which is a huge discrete topic in God's Word (Eph. 4:3 - 6, one body, one Spirit, one hope, one lord, one belief, one baptism, and one God the father), which indicates that both the Ministry of Reconciliation and the Ministry of the Spirit are both subordinate topics to it!  A thorough knowledge and understanding of the discrete topic of oneness in the Greek new covenant texts, and in the Hebrew texts, places the three-in-one concept into a vary disparaging light.


For example, the Ministry of Reconciliation leads a believer to the Ministry of the Spirit, which leads a believer to becoming one with the God and his firstborn son, Christ Jesus, or oneness.  Becoming one in Spirit with the God is referred to also in the new covenant texts as the result of being born above with the God's paternal Spirit.  Becoming one with the God, and being born above in the God's paternal Spirit are also referred to as being made whole, or being in the state of wholeness.  All of these discrete topics are very closely related to one another.  So then, this means that the discrete topics of the Ministry of Reconciliation and the Ministry of the Spirit, which ministries both are necessary to lead a believer into oneness and wholeness, are also both subordinate discrete topics to them.  Through the process of comparing discrete topics with other discrete topics, and comparing unique events with other unique events, paying close attention to all of their identical or closely related contexts, a vision of a hierarchy of discrete topics in God's Word, and their associated events, begins to come into a more cohesive view.


So as anyone can see, there are plenty of discrete topics and unique events in the Greek new covenant texts which can be explored and compared with one another for correlation and correspondence between them, which contexts of each provide more or less a bearing on the knowledge and proper interpretation and understanding of all of the others.


The big prize awaiting anyone who desires to follow the tenets of interpretation of the Antiochian school, or the Historical-Grammatical-Lexical Method of interpretation, which Utley calls the Contextual/Textual Method of interpretation in his work, is that it leads to the deciphering and explanation of the prophecies in the Hebrew texts of the Bible, and the understanding of many things done under the Mosaic Law (yes, another discrete topic).  I guess that you've heard that the writings in new covenant texts of God's Word make known the meanings of the writings in the Hebrew texts of God's Word.  Once a believer understands the Ministry of Reconciliation introduced by apostle Paul through his revelation from Christ Jesus, the great discrete topic of atonement in the Hebrew texts becomes bright and shiny, hard to miss, much easier to see and understand. 


As you may now ascertain, the contexts of the discrete topic of atonement in the Hebrew texts, under the old covenant of the Mosaic Law, are remote contexts to 2 Cor. 5:18, on account of the various sacrificial animals and their shed bloods were types of the promised coming redeemer, Jesus Christ, the final, once and for all, sacrificial lamb/first born son of God.  The old Mosaic Law covenant with its monthly provision for the pardoning of sin through the shedding of the blood of various animals, suddenly became antiquated with the coming to pass of the shedding of the blood of God's promised redeemer, Jesus Christ, his blood being shed once for the sins of all (Heb. 8:7 - 13).  Jesus Christ's death officially began God's promised new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; 2 Cor. 3:2-3; Heb. 8:8-12, 10:16-17).


To summarize the three biblical literary contexts:


Immediate Context - The immediate context of a discrete topic or unique event is the collection of scriptural verses which come immediately before and after the topic or event in the text, which meanings of those verses are relevant in characterizing and defining the topic or event. 


Local Context - The local context of a discrete topic or unique event is a closely related topic or event within a writer's same book, or in other books by the same writer.


Remote Context - A remote context is a context about an identical or closely related discrete topic or unique event in any other biblical book written by another biblical writer, and contexts in other acceptable Christian writings by other writers.


----- : -----


Other Important Biblical Contexts


- Cultural and Historical Contexts


The Hebrew and Greek biblical texts from which Bible translations are made are copies of ancient eastern texts.  All of the events recorded throughout the biblical texts, beginning from Gen. 2:7 and going forward, with the exception of some future events recorded in the book of Revelation, occurred in the ancient Middle East.  The Middle East is an expansive area comprised of southwestern Asia and northern Africa, and reaching from the Mediterranean Sea to Pakistan, and includes the Arabian peninsula.  Throughout the Middle East many nations practice similar cultural customs, although regional customs vary.  Some cultural practices of the neighbors of the children of Israel are mentioned through the biblical records.  So the cultural practices among those people in those nations of the ancient Middle East can be considered to be, more or less, important related cultural contexts of the biblical texts. 


Many biblical events describe the God interacting with both the children of Israel as well as with the pharaohs, kings and peoples of other neighboring nations.  And so on account of this the historical events which occurred among the peoples and nations of the ancient Middle East can be considered to be important related historical contexts as well for the biblical texts.


As I mentioned before, cultural and historical contexts are about our situation, about the circumstances in which we live, which this next section will describe and explain. 


Although the God dealt with the kings and peoples of other nations surrounding Israel, the nation which stands out from the others on account of its many unique cultural customs, and the amount of its historical events which so many are recorded in the texts of the Bible, is the nation of Israel.  During the ages of the biblical records the God caused himself to have special relationships with certain individuals and their families, which relationships became cemented with covenants of reciprocity.  These covenants caused those people to begin to practice new covenant-related cultural practices, especially with the imposition of the Mosaic Law for the children of Israel.  Likewise, the God's intervention in the corporate affairs of the nation of Israel, and in the affairs so many biblical characters, is responsible for so many history-changing events for the nation and its people.


For example:


The one true God, the creator of the heavens and the earth and all the things therein, chose a man called Abram while he lived in the city of Haran, an important trade route city believed to be in the land of northern Mesopotamia (Gen. 11:31 - 12:4).  The God said to Abram in Haran that He would make a great nation from him.  On account of the God made a covenant with Abram/Abraham, and then with Isaac, and then with Jacob, whom God renamed Israel, He subsequently made a covenant with the children of Israel as well.  Under these covenants Abraham's posterity was to revere only the God of Abraham, the one true God.  But from biblical records we are shown that monotheism wasn't always practiced by the children of Israel. 


But beginning with Abraham a new nation came into being, with a culture heavily influenced through its covenant relationship with the one true God.  Maybe the first big cultural change to occur for those in covenant relationships with the God was the cessation of idolatry in their lives.  The cultural practices of those in covenant relationships with the God were to be free from idolatry.  An idolatry-free cultural environment was unique in the ancient Middle East when surrounded on all sides by other tribes and nations which heavily practiced idolatry.  For those in covenant relationships with the God, they were to put the God first in all things in their lives, and recognize and honor him as the one and only true God.


When the God gave the children of Israel the Mosaic Law, in the wilderness of their exodus from Egypt, from that time on the people became introduced to various injunctions of that law which the people were to follow.  Those various injunctions caused the imbedding of new law-related cultural practices, which various injunctions and how they affected the culture of the children of Israel are recorded throughout all of the biblical texts.  The religious leaders during the time of Jesus' earthly ministry, having become drunk with demon spirit possessions (John 8), invented their own unlawful injunctions which they used to place heavy burdens upon the people, burdens which affected and oppressed lawful cultural practices (Mat. 23; Luke 11).


Howard F. Vos, in his well researched book titled New Illustrated Bible Manners & Customs - How the People of the Bible Really Lived (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), within his table of contents provides a handy outline structure of nine broad topical categories of the historical and cultural settings in which God's people lived.  The explanations of the following categories do not necessarily reflect the explanations Vos presents in his book, but are my suggestions of various aspects which had an influence on the lives of God's people.  In Vos' book you will find very comprehensive explanations based upon scriptural historical facts and secular historical writings which are well represented.


- Land - How were the lives of the people affected by their geography, the land, the climate, the conditions under which agriculture activities could be pursued, crops could be grown and animals could be herded?  How did droughts and flooding affect the economy?


- Government - How were the lives of the people affected by their own internal theocracy, united monarchy, and/or by external Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman governmental oppressions?  How did external oppression affect the economy?


- Religion - How were the lives of the people affected by their religious injunctions and beliefs, in the pre-Mosaic Law period, in the Mosaic Law old covenant period, and in the post-Mosaic Law new covenant period?  What religious practices were types to coming new covenant spiritual Truths?  What are the most important typologies?


- Warfare - How were the lives of the people affected by the role the God played or did not play in times of warfare?  What effects did periods of internal rebellion and external warfare have on the economy, theocratic and united monarchy rule?


- Housing and Furniture - What kinds of housing were common for people living in a city environment, versus and urban environment, versus a desolate environment?  In a city environment, what was typical housing for upper, middle and lower income classes of

people?  What were typical building materials?  What are the most important typologies?


- Diet and Foodstuffs - What was that food God's people ate in the desert for forty years?  What was the food the religious leaders at during the seven feasts?  Which foods were important types to spiritual Truths which must be learned and understood, "ate"?  What are the most important typologies?


- Dress - What were typical dress practices for upper, middle, and lower income classes of

people?  What were typical materials used to make clothing?  What were the significant spiritual Truths behind the various kinds of special attire which the God commanded the religious leaders to wear?  What are the most important dress typologies?


- Family Life - What were common cultural practices for child births, child education, weddings, divorces, funerals and burials? 


- Work, Travel, and Commerce - What was the most common kind of work for the children of Israel living in Palestine, farming?  What were the most important crops grown?  What were the systems and methods of taxation before and during the Roman occupation? How did people travel from place to place?  How did Jesus travel, and what were his itineraries?


Here are some other suggested reference materials to help explain many of the biblical cultural practices and historical events:


Vos, Howard F. New Illustrated Bible Manners & Customs - How The People of the Bible Really Lived. Thomas Nelson Press: Nashville, 1999


Gower, Ralph. The New Manners and Customs of Bible Times. Moody: Chicago, 1987


Freeman, James M. Manners And Customs of the Bible - A complete Guide to the Origin and Significance of Our Time-Honored Biblical Tradition. Logos International. Plainfield, 1972


Lamsa, George M. Gospel Light - From Aramaic On The Teachings Of Jesus. A. J. Holman. Philadelphia, 1967


Lamsa, George M. New testament Commentary - Companion Volume to Gospel Light. A. J. Holman. Philadelphia, 1973


Bowen, Barbara M. Strange Scriptures That Perplex the Western Mind. WM. B. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids, 1992


Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. A. J. Holman. Nashville, 2003


Zondervan Handbook To The Bible. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, 1999


Whiston, William. Josephus - Complete Works. Kregel. Grand Rapids, 1977


Beitzel, Barry J. The New Moody Atlas of The Bible. moody. Chicago, 2009


Brisco, Thomas V. Holman Bible Atlas - A Complete Guide to the Expansive Geography of Biblical History. Holman. Nashville, 1998


----- : -----