THE
TANAHK
Which Tanahk is used in the
EVIDENCE FOR
TRUTH?
Which English Translation
of the Tanahk (the Hebrew Bible) was used in
the EVIDENCE for
TRUTH?
The 1917 JPS? The
Stone Edition? The answer is neither. They were both
rejected.
Why? Because both the JPS
and the Stone Edition are copywritten manuscripts. So?
Copywritten material are "man's laws" that protect "man's
words" (not G_d's Words).
Both the JPS and the
Stone Edition are understood by the Jewish Community to be
the most accurate English translation of the original Hebrew
manuscripts. If this were true, then the English
Translation of the Tanahk with both the JPS and the Stone
Edition would be word for word identical, in which case both
the JPS and the Stone Edition would be sueing each other
because of copyright violations ["man's laws" protecting
"man's words" (not G_d's Word)].
Copyrighted material in
of itself FORCES alteration to words, phrases and sentences;
hence preventing an exact likeness in English by the various
publishers, and so what your really getting with each "new
version or translation" of the Tanahk is a watered down
version of the Jewish Holy Scripture.
There is however ONE (and
only ONE) scripture that is written in English who's text is
NOT copywritten, nor shall it ever be; and therefore it
CANNOT become watered down because the various publishers
shall never have any fear of copyright violations. (In
otherwords, the publishers don't have any fear of violating
"man's laws" that protects "man's words").
The Scripture I speak of
is the 1611 KJV Holy Bible. In 1998 I wrote to the Thomas
Nelson publishing company and inquired about whether or not
the KJV was copy written (as I had heard it was not). They
replied in
a
Oct.
23, 1998 letter
stating that
KJV
"is in the public
domain"
and
"that no entity owns
the rights to this text".
[Well of course
no one owns the rights to these words - they are God's Words
taken right from the Hebrew Text and put into
English].
Granted my own copies of
the KJV Bible does show they are "copywritten" but Thomas
Nelson publishing goes on to explain this in the next
paragraph of the very same letter stating -
what is copywritten
are all those other things such as study
notes (commentaries,
maps, concordance, references, etc. etc).
The KJV text
itself is NOT copywritten.
Having said all this, you
can now understand why we chose to go with the untainted
English translation of the Word of God as taken directly
from the original Hebrew text (what the Christians call the
Old Testament, and what the Jewish people call the
Tanahk).
|