Viewed 3319 times
Hebraic Roots Bible (PDF and e-Sword module)
|possible-san||posted Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:21:00 GMT(12/16/2011)|
Post 1470 of 1485
Hebraic Roots Bible:
Well, what do you think?
|moggy lover||posted Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:11:00 GMT(12/16/2011)|
Post 704 of 767
Thanks for this valuable resource. I have the HRV [Hebrew Roots Version] as part of my eSword set up, but I have downloaded the pdf version, because I feel this is a better asset when attempting to gain an insight into the context of the translator, rather than just consulting isolated texts as in eSword. This is not to say that eSword is defective in any way. Far from it. It is invaluable and almost superlative in its construction and the way it presents God's Word to the people. I use it everyday.
The HRV was translated by one James Scott Trimm, a member of the Society of Nazarene Judaism. He is evidently either a Jew by ethnicity or conviction, who has accepted Jesus [whom he calls Yahshua] as the promised Messiah. A sub-text in all this, is that he is one of several Bible translators who belong to a wider community of believers who advocate the use of the Sacred Name for the God of the OT in liturgy and worship. Hence the title of this group: The Sacred Name Movement. [SNM]
Like the Watchtower Bible, the HRV uses the OT name for God in the NT, with the improvement being that it uses the more logical form of Yahweh, [in capitals] rather than the antiquated and possibly mongerlized form Jehovah used by the Watchtower. Apart from Yahweh, the HRV also personalizes the noun "Elohim" implying that it is also a name for the OT God.
John 1:1 is made to read "The word was with Elohim, and the word was Elohim", while 1 Cor 12:2 reads, "no one is able to say Yahshua is YAHWEH except by Holy Spirit". The argument against the use of Yahweh in the NT as done by the HRV is the same as that for the NW"T", and that is that no emendation of the original text is justifiable without any direct proof.
There are several other emendations which do not appear to be justified. For instance the Hebrew of Ps 40:6 has "My ears you have opened", but the Greek LXX, evidently on the basis of a different source text, has "A body you have prepared for me". The writer of Hebrews, quoting the LXX gives this Psalm a Messianic fulfillment, [Hebs 10:5] a reference which is not apparent in the Hebrew original. All Christian commentators must argue their case on an objective analysis of both texts, without slanting one or the other by emendation.
Having said that, there seems a better case for arguing that the HRV has improved on the Hebrew Masoretic text at Deut 32:8. The text reads as if referring to "the sons of Israel", but both the LXX and the Dead Sea scrolls edition of this text have "angels of God" HRV has "Cherubims of Elohim"
If one accepts the presumptions on which this translation was made, that Christianity is actually a Jewish sect that accepted Gentiles only on condition of transmuting themselves into a Jewish mould, then this translation can be considered very good.
The HRV is however not within the mainstream descent of Gentile Christianity and hence can be confusing, if not ambiguous in certain crucial places. For this reason its value lies in its ability to convey to a Gentile Christian, steeped in the Hellenic grid in which Christianity was nurtured and developed, what it must be to be both Jewish and Christian.
It is a translation that I would recommend for study, and is certainly preferable to the NW"T".
|EntirelyPossible||posted Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:21:00 GMT(12/16/2011)|
Post 1259 of 5633
It's bullshit. First mistake was to say that the original bible was restored after 2000 years. There is NO original Bible from 2000 years ago. Second, they boast about how Hebrew has no vowels and then declare that they know the correct words to use every time. Since they don't even know what the Bible is, I have zero faith that these knuckleheads could translate it.