A start for learning the Hebrew language

shalom = שלום

דוגמא לגופן "פרנק-ריהל" הגופן ששימש לדוגמא: Frank-Ruehl, של קולמוס. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

+ 

For those who would like to read the Torah and siddurs (prayer books) in Hebrew or compare the Hebrew text with the translation in their language, they shall have to learn the language. Perhaps a place to start with > jewfaq

Ten letters in less than ten minutes! See the first ten letters of the Hebrew alphabet, learn how they are pronounced in synagogues in the northeastern U.S., and see an example of the letter in a useful Hebrew word.

Related articles

• In Hebrew: 'My Name Is'
• The Shape of Things to Come
• Shaaray Torah Cantor being feted for his service
• Barcode printout non-unicode language
• Rock formations, the Greek Bible, and the Vetus Latina
• Teen dedicates Torah to Long Beach community
• #Checkout# : The Koren Classic Shabbat Humash: Hebrew Five Books of Torah with Shabbat Prayers, Ashkenaz (Hebrew Edition)
• #Shopping# : The Koren Classic Siddur: A Hebrew Prayerbook, Pocket size Ashkenaz (Hebrew Edition)

Accuracy, Word-for-Word Translation Preferred by most Bible Readers

Survey: Bible Readers want Accuracy, Word-for-Word Translation

A new study from LifeWay Research reveals some key findings on what distinctives Bible readers desire for their Bible. A total of 2,000 Bible readers participated through a demographically representative online panel, but to qualify, participants had to read the Bible in a typical month either by themselves or as part of a family activity and not merely in a church or corporate group setting.

Most American Bible readers prefer word-for-word translations of the original Greek and Hebrew over thought-for-thought translations and value accuracy over readability.
That is the finding of a new LifeWay Research study of a total of 2,000 Bible readers who participated through a demographically representative online panel. To qualify, participants had to read the Bible in a typical month either by themselves or as part of a family activity and not merely in a church or corporate group setting.
When asked whether they prefer “word-for-word translations, where the original words are translated as exactly as possible” or “thought-for-thought translations, where the translators attempt to reproduce the intent of the original thought rather than translating the exact words,” 61 percent chose word-for-word.
That includes 33 percent who strongly prefer word-for-word translation and 28 percent who somewhat prefer it. In contrast, 20 percent prefer thought-for-thought, including 6 percent with a strong preference and 14 percent who somewhat prefer it. Fourteen percent say both translation philosophies are equally fine, and 5 percent are not sure.
Regarding accuracy, respondents were asked, “In general, what is more important to you in a Bible: total accuracy to the original words, or easy readability?” Three out of four (75 percent) opt for total accuracy, with 43 percent saying accuracy is much more important and 32 percent saying it is somewhat more important.
Fourteen percent say easy readability is somewhat more important, and 8 percent say it is much more important. Three percent are not sure.
“It is interesting to note that Bible sales do not necessarily follow these preferences,” said Scott McConnell, director of LifeWay Research. “Those reading the Bible each month represent only a portion of all Bible purchasers.
“Bible readers can share their preferences for different translation principles but may not be aware of which characteristics are present in specific translations – even the ones that they own. Without specific instruction most readers will not notice when a translation moves away from a literal or word-for-word translation.”
Respondents hold a variety of opinions regarding the style of language they prefer in a Bible translation for personal reading. Among them:
– 68 percent want language to be simpler to understand while 7 percent want it to be more difficult to understand.
– 81 percent say it should be more enjoyable to read while 4 percent prefer it to be more of a chore to read.
– 27 percent favor contemporary language while 46 percent want traditional language.
– 36 percent want more modern language while 37 percent favor more old-fashioned language.
– 19 percent feel understanding the language should require a higher level of education while 49 percent say it should not require a higher level of education.
– 63 percent believe it should be simple for anyone to understand while 14 percent say the language should be meant more for people who have a lot of experience with the Bible.
– 40 percent prefer more formal language while 26 percent say should be more informal.
– 22 percent want language more for casual reading while 44 percent say it should be designed more for in-depth study.
“In the same way drivers want big, powerful, fuel-efficient vehicles, Bible readers want word-for-word translations that are easy to understand,” said McConnell. “As translators try to cross the globe and two millennia, fully accomplishing both is not always possible.”
The survey also asked about translation of God’s name. Though many Bible versions translate God’s name in the Old Testament as “the LORD,” others prefer using what is believed to be the original pronunciation, “Yahweh.”
Nearly eight in 10 Bible readers (79 percent) prefer the traditional translation “the LORD” over the original pronunciation “Yahweh.” That includes 51 percent who strongly prefer “the LORD” and 27 percent who somewhat prefer it. Seven percent somewhat prefer “Yahweh” while 6 percent strongly prefer it. Eight percent are not sure which they favor.
The vast majority of Bible readers do not prefer gender-inclusive translation approaches. A full 82 percent prefer a literal translation of masculine words that describe people in general rather than a more inclusive translation like “humankind” or “person.”
Study participants were told: “Bible translators have to make choices regarding gender issues. For example, the original Greek and Hebrew often uses masculine words such as those literally meaning ‘man’ to describe people in general. Some translators think these should be translated literally as ‘man’ while others think they should be translated into gender-inclusive terms such as ‘humankind,’ ‘human being,’ ‘person’ or ‘one.’ Which do you prefer?”
A majority (53 percent) strongly prefer literal translation while 29 percent somewhat prefer the literal rendering. Only 9 percent somewhat prefer gender-inclusive translation, and 3 percent strongly prefer it. Six percent are not sure.
Bible readers are even more adamant about not making references to God gender-inclusive.
They were told, “Another issue Bible translators face relates to references to God as ‘father’ in the Greek and Hebrew. Some translators think these should be translated literally as ‘father’ while others think they should be translated into gender-inclusive terms such as ‘parent.’ Do you prefer the literal or more gender-inclusive?”
In response, 89 percent want a literal translation of gender-specific references to God, including 68 percent who strongly prefer literal translation and 21 percent who somewhat prefer literal translation. Five percent somewhat prefer gender-inclusive translation, and 2 percent strongly prefer gender-inclusive translation. Four percent are not sure.
“The places in the Bible in which the inspired writers used masculine words for God, a large majority of Bible readers want translators to use masculine words as well,” noted McConnell. “This is true regardless of whether the reader describes their own spiritual beliefs as liberal or conservative.”
Methodology: The LifeWay Research survey was conducted in August 2011 via online panel. A representative sample of U.S. adult population was invited to participate. Two thousand people who read the Bible once a month or more qualified for the study. Only people who read the Bible personally (outside of group activities) or as part of a family activity were included. The sample of 2,000 provides 95 percent confidence that the sampling error does not exceed + 2.2 percent.
- Nashville, Tenn. - PRWEB -  October 03, 2011

Hebrew, Aramaic and Bibletranslation

Every academic year we do like to swap Bibletranslation to keep our minds alert to what is written and meant in the Holy Scriptures.

Most of us do not speak Hebrew or even do not know to speak or read the language. Having no knowledge of the language in which most of the Books of the Bible are written does not make it easy to come to the full understanding of those Hebrew words.

We do have to depend on translations which can be very strict in their translation or take a lot of freedom to translate what is written with a few words but gives a whole (long) meaning. Having no vowels or "the" "a" or "an" at certain places can create a certain confusion.


The Hebrew language  (/ˈhiːbruː/) (עִבְרִית, Ivrit,  Hebrew pronunciation (help·info)) is a Semitic language of the Northern Central (also called Northwestern) group or Afroasiatic language family, closely related to Phoenician and Moabite, with which it is often placed by scholars in a Canaanite subgroup.
Culturally, is it considered by Jews and other religious groups as the language of the Jewish people, though other Jewish languages had originated among diaspora Jews, and the Hebrew language is also used by non-Jewish groups, such as the Samaritans. Most of the Samaritans went to use modern Hebrew or Arabic as their vernacular.

Spoken in ancient times in Palestine, Hebrew was sup­planted by the western dialect of Aramaic which Jeshua (Jesus) also spoke, during the 3rd century BCE; the language con­tinued to be used as a liturgical and literary language, however. It was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries CE and is the official language of Israel.

The history of the Hebrew language is usually divided into three major periods:
 1.Biblical Hebrew is often looked at as a dialetic form of Classical Hebrew The Biblical Hebrew according to scholars flourished around the 6th century BCE, around the time of the Babylonian exile. Classical Hebrew was used until c. 3rd century BCE, in which most of the core of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) or Old Testament is written. For this reason, Hebrew has been referred to by Jews as Leshon HaKodesh (לשון הקודש), "The Holy Language", since ancient times.
 2. Mishnaic or rabbinic Hebrew, the language of the Mishna (a collection of Jewish traditions), written c. CE 200 (this form of Hebrew was never used among the people as a spoken language);
 and 3. Modern Hebrew, derived from the word "ʕibri" (plural "ʕibrim") one of several names for the Jewish people, the language of Israel in modern times.

In the Bible, the Hebrew language is called Yәhudit (יהודית) because Judah (Yәhuda) was the surviving kingdom at the time of the quotation, late 8th century BCE (Isaiah 36, 2 Kings 18). In Isaiah 19:18, it is also called the "Language of Canaan" (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן).

Scholars generally agree that the oldest form of He­brew is that of some of the Old Testament po­ems, especially the "Song of Deborah" in chapter 5 of Judges. The sources of borrowed words first appearing during this period include the other Canaanite languages, as well as Akkadian and Aramaic. Hebrew also con­tains a small number of Sumerian words borrowed from an Akkadian source. Few traces of dialects exist in Biblical Hebrew, but scholars believe this to be the result of Masoretic editing of the text. In addition to the Old Tes­tament, a small number of inscriptions in He­brew of the biblical period are extant; the earliest of these is a short inscription in Phoenician characters dating from the 9th century BC. During the early Mishnaic period, some of the guttural consonants of Biblical Hebrew were combined or confused with one another, and many words, among them a number of adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions, were borrowed from Aramaic. Hebrew also borrowed a number of Greek, Latin, and Persian words. Use of the language declined from the 9th century until the 18th century. Modern Hebrew, based on the biblical lan­guage, contains many innovations designed to meet modern needs; it is the only colloquial speech based on a written language. The pronunciation is a modification of that used by Jhe Sefardic (Hispano-Portuguese) Jews rather than that of the Ashkenazic (East European) Jews. The old guttural consonants are' not clearly distinguished or are lost, except by Oriental Jews. The syntax is based on that of the Mishna. Characteristic of Hebrew of all stages is the use of word roots consisting of three consonants, to which vowels are added to derive words of different parts of speech and meaning. The language is written from right to left in a Semitic script of 22 letters.

Hebrew alphabet, either of two distinct Semitic alphabets-the Early Hebrew and the Classical, or Square, Hebrew. Early Hebrew was the alphabet used by the Jewish nation in the period before the Babylonian Exile -i.e., prior to the 6th century BCE - although some inscriptions in this alphabet may be of a later date.

Several hundred inscriptions exist. As is usual in early alphabets, Early Hebrew exists in a variety of local variants and also shows development over time; the oldest example of Early Hebrew writing, the Gezer Calendar, dates from the 10th century BCE, and the writing used varies little from the earliest North Semitic alphabets. The Early Hebrew alphabet, like the modern Hebrew variety, had 22 letters, with only consonants represented, and was written from right to left; but the early alphabet is more closely related in letter form to the Phoenician than to the modern Hebrew. Its only surviving descendant is the Samaritan alphabet, still used by a few hundred Samaritan Jews.

Between the 6th and 2nd centuries BCE, Classi­cal, or Square, Hebrew gradually displaced the Aramaic alphabet, which had replaced Early Hebrew in Palestine. Square Hebrew became established in the 2nd-1st centuries BCE and developed into the modern Hebrew al­phabet over the next 1,500 years. It was ap­parently derived from the Aramaic alphabet rather than from Early Hebrew but was nonetheless strongly influenced by the Early Hebrew script.

Classical Hebrew showed three distinct forms by the 10th century CE: Square Hebrew, a formal or book hand; rabbinical or "Rashi-writing," employed by medieval Jewish scholars; and various local cur­sive scripts, of which the Polish-German type became the modern cursive form.

Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE, corresponding to the Hellenistic and Roman Periods before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and represented by the Qumran Scrolls that form most (but not all) of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Commonly abbreviated as DSS Hebrew, also called Qumran Hebrew. The Imperial Aramaic script of the earlier scrolls in the 3rd century BCE evolved into the Hebrew square script of the later scrolls in the 1st century CE, also known as ketav Ashuri (Assyrian script), still in use today.

The son of Myriam (Mary/Maria) and Joseph (Josef/Jozef) from the tribe of Daniel, also known as Jeshua, Jesus Christ the Messiah, spoke the Aramaic language which also belongs to the Semitic languages of the Northern Central or Northwestern group or to the Afroasiatic language phylum.The name of the language is based on the name of Aram,  an ancient region in central Syria.(Oxford English dictionary, http://oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/10127)

During its 3,000-year written history, Aramaic has served variously as a language of administration of empires and as a language of divine worship. It was the day-to-day language of Israel in the Second Temple period (539 BCE – 70 CE) The difficulty with this language is that Aramaic's long history and diverse and widespread use has led to the development of many divergent varieties which are sometimes called as dialects, though they are quite distinct languages. Therefore, there is no one singular Aramaic language.

In the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, it gradually supplanted Akkadian as the lingua franca of the Near East and later became the official language of the Persian Empire. Aramaic replaced Hebrew as the language of the Jews; portions of the Old Testament books of Dan­iel and Ezra are written in Aramaic, as are the Babylonian and, Jerusalem Talmuds.

Jesus and the Apostles also spoke this language. Its period of greatest influence extended from c. 300 BC until c. AD 650; it was supplanted by Arabic.

In the early Christian era, Aramaic divided into East and West varieties. West Aramaic dialects include Nabataean (formerly spoken in parts of Arabia), Palmyrene (spoken in Palmyra, which was northeast of Damascus), Palestinian-Christian, and Judeo-Aramaic. West Aramaic is still spoken in a small number of villages in Lebanon. East Aramaic includes Syriac, Mandaean, Eastern Neo-Assyrian, and the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud.

One of the most important of these is Syriac, which was the language of an extensive literature between the 3rd and 7th centuries. Mandaean was the dialect of a Gnostic sect centred in lower Mesopotamia. East Aramaic is still spoken by a few small groups of Jacobite and Nestorian Christians in the Middle East.

Modern Aramaic is spoken today as a first language by many scattered, predominantly small, and largely isolated communities of differing Christian, Jewish and Mandean ethnic groups of West Asia. (Heinrichs 1990: xi–xv; Beyer 1986: 53.)
Today we can find it by the Assyrians (also known as Chaldo-Assyrians) in the form of Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Chaldean Neo-Aramaic.

Looking into those ancient languages we do want to follow their way of thinking, understanding how the thoughts are blended into words and phrases full of verbatim and proverbs which we do have to try to see and understand in the light of the way of thinking at that time.

To give a simple example, a few weeks ago when somebody said he was "mad about his apartment" the American listener thought he had become crazy or out of mind because of his apartment. Though the speaker meant just the opposite, namely that he was in love with his apartment. He did not detest it in such a way that he became insane of it, but he came into the clouds living there. (Not meaning that he really went up into the clouds, high in sky.) I use this simple example in the hope everyone can understand how we have to follow the way of saying and have to be careful not to take a proverb literally. Because that happens a lot today when folks read the Bible. As Bible readers we have to transpose ourselves in the time when it was written and how the people thought at that time.

Further we have to take into account how we are going to or how Bible-translators did  translate the The Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: אָלֶף־בֵּית עִבְרִי‎‎, Alephbet 'Ivri).

By using the Jewish script, square script, block script, or more historically, the Assyrian script, it has to be taken into account how it is spoken out and how one word is written against an other. Best it can be compared to other Jewish languages, most notably Yiddish, Ladino, and Judeo-Arabic.

There have been two script forms in use. The original old Hebrew script is known as the paleo-Hebrew script (which has been largely preserved, in an altered form, in the Samaritan script), while the present "square" form of the Hebrew alphabet is a stylized form of the Aramaic script, which has its alphabet adapted from the Phoenician alphabet and became distinctive from it by the 8th century BCE. The letters all represent consonants, some of which are matres lectionis, which also indicate long vowels.
The Aramaic alphabet is historically significant, since virtually all modern Middle Eastern writing systems use a script that can be traced back to it, as well as numerous Altaic writing systems of Central and East Asia. This is primarily due to the widespread usage of the Aramaic language as both a lingua franca and the official language of the Neo-Assyrian, and its successor, the Achaemenid Empire. Among the scripts in modern use, the Hebrew alphabet bears the closest relation to the Imperial Aramaic script of the 5th century BCE, with an identical letter inventory and, for the most part, nearly identical letter shapes.
Aramaic alphabet, major writing system in the Near East in the latter half of the 1st mil­lennium BC. Derived from the North Semitic script, the Aramaic alphabet was developed in the 10th and 9th centuries BC and rose into prominence after the conquest of the Aramaean states by Assyria in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. The Aramaic language and script were used as a lingua franca over all of the Near East, and documents and inscriptions in the Aramaic alphabet have been found in Greece, Afghanistan, India, northern Arabia, and Egypt. The oldest inscription in Aramaic script yet discovered dates from approximately 850 BC.
The Aramaic alphabet is a writing system of 22 letters, all indicating consonants, and it is written from right to left. It is ancestral to Square Hebrew and the modern Hebrew al­phabet, the Nabataean and modern Arabic scripts, the Palmyrene alphabet, and the Syriac, as well as hundreds of other writing sys­tems used at some time in Asia east of Syria. Aramaic also has been influential in the devel­opment of such alphabets as the Georgian, Armenian, and Glagolitic.
Various "styles" (in current terms, "fonts") of representation of the letters exist. There is also a cursive Hebrew script, which has also varied over time and place.

When we want to use names of persons and places we should carefully look how they are written and spoken. When we transfer certain letters into our language into a consonant we should do that for all the words the same way. In English translations we can often find irregularities in that. For example do we not find Yona, but Jonah, Joshua, and Jeruzalem for Yerusalem, but for Yeshua they write Jesus and for Yahuhwah they suddenly go from three syllables to two syllable and write for the Yod an Ypsolom giving God the Name Yahweh instead of the better translation, keeping to the three original syllables, Jehovah and speaking it better not as Americans with an "Dzee" but with an "Yea".

This year we shall become more confronted with those Aramaic names and also will see that in the original writings of the Scriptures they used different words for slightly different things. In such a way we shall wonder if we not better take those different meanings also in our language as different words so that we clearly shall be able to see if there is been spoken off of a direct pupil of Jeshua (Jesus),  or one of the many disciples or the special pupils or sent ones (Shlichim) or one of the seventy.

By checking if the Beth, Daleth, Gimel Heth, Kaf, Qof and the vowels tërë and bireq are translated into the other languages we shall see where there was no consistency and which one we better should follow.

We do know that within a Hebrew name the aleph represents a smooth breathing, and for practical purposes may be considerd a 'silent' letter, but because it gives a softer sound than without putting the 'h' on top of it we do prefer to use the 'h' as well in Dutch, though the Language Commision gives it without an 'h'. The Governemental Dutch language regulation, by the Dutch Language Union and the Spellingraad (Spelling Committee and Dutch Spelling Council) indicate that we should write Jehova in Dutch for the Hebrew Name of God, but there we prefer to use the International used form of Jehovah to have uniformity on our websites in the different languages (and giving more possibilities to have it spoken out as in Hebrew with the soft h-ending. )

For this article is made use of the Encyclopaedia Britannica where you can find more:

Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia: Major re/. 1:621 b ·alphabetical order antiquity 1:619d . Semitic calligraphy development 3:662b . signs and English equivalent, table 3 8:594 . vowel indication methods 19: 1038c; table 1035 . Yiddish adaptation 8:26c

 alphabet origins and standardization 1:621 b; table 620 . alphabet and English equivalent, table 3 8:594 'alphabetical order antiquity 1:619d ·English vocabulary borrowings 6:879a ·Hamito-Semitic languages map 8:590 ·Israel's revival of common language 9: 105ge ·Jewish liturgical use and status 10:297c . Karaite impetus to 9th-century studies 10:318f ·medieval belief in aboriginality 10:643h ·naming patterns 12: 818f ·origins, development, and literary use 10: 196d 'preservation and educational respect 6: 322f 'punctuation and pointing since 800s 15:276g 'relationships, writing, and phonology 8:592d passim to 595c . sacral status as biblical language 7:60h 'U.S. parochial education curriculum 6:42ge ·Yiddish formative influences 8:25h
 
See also Syriac language. 'ancient spread and influence 17:942g +
 Major re/. 1:619h . calligraphy style and development 3:662b ·Iranian varieties and adaptations 9:456d . origins, spread, and influence 17:942g ·vowel indication methods 19: 1038c; table 1035

RELATED ENTRIES in the Ready Reference and Index: Armenian alphabet; Brahml; Georgian alphabets; Greek alphabet; Hebrew alphabet; Kharo~!l; Klik Turki alphabet; Nabataean alphabet; Pahlavi alphabet; Palmyric alphabet; Samaritan alphabet; Syriac alphabet

Spelling Yahshuah (יהשע) vs Hebrew using Yehoshuah (יהושע)

For centuries, Bible translators around the world did not transliterate or copy the tetragrammaton in their translations. For example, English Bible translators (Christian and Jewish) used "LORD" to represent it. Many authors on Bible translation have explicitly called for translating it with a vernacular word or phrase that would be locally meaningful.

The spelling Yahshuah (יהשע), first documented during the early days of the Sacred Name movement in the 1930s, is not found in Hebrew texts. The Hebrew Bible uses Yehoshuah (יהושע), and later Yeshua, for Joshua, which means "Yah is Salvation." Christians, historians, and linguists outside the sacred name movement for the most part reject the term Yahshua in favor of Yeshua (ישוע) as the original pronunciation written in Germanic languages like Dutch as in English with a J for the Yod = Jeshua.

Critics say that in their labor to get the pronunciation "Yahshua" out of יהושע, they are ignoring Hebrew linguistics that do not allow the waw to be silent, so "Yahshua" is a questioned translation. Furthermore, it is argued by some that this pronunciation is not attested in antiquity, unlike the pronunciation "Yehoshua".

Those who really love the One and Only God and his son, should consider them as part of their family and use the sounds of the names of those persons.
We should consider it appropriate to use Semitic names in our translations of both the Old and New Testament.
- Bible scholars and translators such as Eusebius and Jerome (translator of the Latin Vulgate) consulted the Hexapla, but did not attempt to preserve sacred names in Semitic forms. Justin Martyr (second century) argued that YHWH is not a personal name, writing of the “namelessness of God”.  - (Justin Martyr, Hortatory Address, ch. 21)

Good christians should transliterate (“bring over the sound”) into their own language, e.g. English and Dutch. We can wonder if we not have to go to the phonetic use of the name, or should we write it phonetically right but let it pronounced in the tongue of the speaker?

But we should not give preference to go for the popular version like the translator Joseph Bryant Rotherham lamented not making his work in to a Sacred Name Bible by using the Yod in English as well and not keeping to the three Hebrew vowels when he choose for the English favourite in his translation.
Some Restored Names Bibles therefore keep using the populist form Yahweh and even go to base there version on the King James Version (where in the old edition was used Jehovah) and just change the names of the Father to Yahweh and His Son into Yahshua in both Testaments.

From the beginning of the 20th century many people became more aware of the importance of the use of Gods Name, but like several Sacred Name groups they clanged to the English "Yahweh" and "Yahshua" instead for opting for the Hebrew conversion of hte sound for Yehowah wich would sound as "Yea-Hovwhah" and could best be written as Jehovah in Latin and Germanic languages. also for the wrong name of the Nazarene son of Joseph and Myriam (Mary/Maria) from the tribe of David who became generally known as Jesus (from the Greek "Iesous", which means 'Hail Zeus') Christ (= the "Christos"), the Messiah. Bringing over the Hebrew sounds it would be Yahushua ("Jehovah Saves" or Salvation is from Jehovah), Yehoshua, Yeshua ('Jeh saves", Jehoshua or Jeshua (the short form for "Jehovah Saves")

"‘Jesus’ is a transliteration of a Latin name Ioesus, pronounced heysus - which means NOTHING in Hebrew, but in Latin it means ‘Hail Zeus’. If Yahshua’s name had been
transliterated into our language, it would have been closer to Joshua (or Jehoshua).." (

Read more: Why can Jesus be translated to mean "hail Zeus" | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/893344#ixzz1aM6x2mmE)

Originally, the name of the Messiah was , pronounced Yahushua or (Yehoshua). This is the Messiah's original name. The correct pronouncement would be "Yahushua" or spoken out as "Yea- Hu- Shua" (In Dutch "Je-hoe-shoewha") and could be written down as Jehushua. While the short form for "Ya-Saves" or better "Jeh-Saves" also often used in the scrolls would be Jeshua.

Biblequotes from Restored Name Bible "The Scriptures" >

God about His name “יהוה“ + Creator of heaven and earth and everything around יהוהThe Only One Elohim who creates and gives all

in the Dutch Translation "De Geschriften":
God over zijn Naam  + יהוה Schepper van hemel en aarde en alles er op en eraan

Read more:

• The Messiah's Hebrew Name: "Yeshua" or "Yahshua"? - Daniel Botkin argues against "Yahshua" in favor of "Yeshua".

• Yahshua or Yeshua- What Is the Correct Pronunciation? - Bob Wirl, a Sacred Name minister, argues in favor of the name "Yahshua over Yeshua."

Related articles:

• Lord or Yahuwah, Yeshua or Yahushua
• The Bible and names in it
• Yeshua a man with a special personality
• The Divine name of the Creator
• A series on the anxiety to use the real name of God: Some one or something to fear #1 Many sorts of fear
• The wrong hero

In Dutch

About the change of the son of God for the sake of keeping the piece (in the 4° Century CE): Naamsverandering voor het behoud van vrede

• Heil tot de gezondene van God of Zeus About the relation of the imposed name for the son of God early in our Common Era
• Heer, Yahuwah, Yeshua of Yahushua

New American Bible Revised Edition

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has announced it has canonically approved the publication of New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE).
The first edition of the New American Bible (NAB), published in 1970, immediately became familiar to Catholics in the United States because of its use in the lectionary at Mass.
A revised translation of the New Testament, which appeared in the NAB’s second edition (1986), included more traditional diction (“blessed” replaced “happy” in the Beatitudes) but made concessions to horizontal and vertical inclusive language (the Holy Spirit in places was referred to as “it,” rather than “he”).
In the third edition (1991), a revised translation of the Psalms appeared that systematically introduced inclusive language to the Psalter. Thus, “blessed the man” (Ps. 1:1)-- a literal translation of the Hebrew-- was replaced by “happy those.” In 1994, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments rejected the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ request to include the new edition of the Psalter in a revised lectionary.
Under the Congregation’s direction, a committee of bishops and scholars made changes to the revised New Testament before its use was permitted in the revised lectionary. The Holy Spirit, for instance, is rendered as “he” in the revised lectionary; “rejoice, O highly favored daughter” (Lk. 1:28, 1970 edition), which had become “hail, favored one” (1986 edition), in turn became “hail, full of grace” (revised lectionary). The revised lectionary appeared in two stages (1998 and 2002).
The forthcoming fourth edition, according to the USCCB, aims

at making use of the best manuscript traditions available, translating as accurately as possible, and rendering the result in good contemporary English. In many ways it is a more literal translation than the original New American Bible and has attempted to be more consistent in rendering Hebrew (or Greek) words and idioms, especially in technical contexts, such as regulations for sacrifices. In translating the Psalter special effort was made to provide a smooth, rhythmic translation for easy singing or recitation and to retain the concrete imagery of the Hebrew. The NABRE is approved for private use and study. It will not be used for the Mass.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

• Revised Edition of New American Bible Approved for Publication, Will Be Available in Variety of Formats March 9 (USCCB)
• Bibles and Lectionaries (Adoremus Bulletin)
• Lectionary - New Edition for U.S. (EWTN)

Preexistence in the Divine purpose and Trinity

There is one God, the Father (1 Cor. 8:6), the one God of the creed of Israel affirmed by Jesus Christ (Mark 12:28ff).There is one Lord Messiah, Jesus (1 Cor. 8:6), who was supernaturally conceived as the Son of God (Luke 1:35), and foreordained from the foundation of the world (1 Pet. 1:20).

Many Christians are unaware that philosophical, mystical ideas invaded the church from the second century onwards via the "Church Fathers," who were steeped in pagan philosophy and laid the foundation of the creeds now called "orthodox." In several articles you from the Belgian Biblestudents you shall be able to read more about it. There and on a.o. the writing of Anthony Buzzard you shall be able to find that 'The seed of Trinitarian doctrine' was planted in the thinking of Justin Martyr, the second century Christian apologist who "found in Platonism the nearest approach to Christianity and felt that no break was required with its spirit and principles to pass into the greater light of Christian revelation."

The New Testament never suggests that the phrase ‘Son of God’ just means ‘God.’ [Yet evangelicalism and certain major groups insists on that equation if one is to be considered a Christian!]

But in the world we do find lots of serious lovers of God who accept the Nazarene Jew Yeshua or Jesus as the promissed Saviour. For them however he is the "man Messiah," the one Mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). As for the apostle Paul those believers in only One God take it that "To us Christians there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Messiah" (1 Cor. 8:4-6). (Note carefully Paul’s definition of the One God.)

Human beings in Hebrew thought do not exist consciously before they are born.  In the Holy Scriptures we do also find no preexistence of souls. The notion that Jesus was really alive and conscious before his birth in Bethlehem is also a very unJewish idea.

As you could already find in our other writings on the understanding of Hebrew writings, we do have to take that language as our guide and not our modern thinking or the Greek philosophy. E.C. Dewick rightly notes in his Primitive Christian Eschatology, The Hulsean Prize Essay for 1908, Cambridge University Press, 1912: "When the Jew said something was ‘predestined,’ he thought of it as already ‘existing’ in a higher sphere of life. The world’s history is thus predestined because it is already, in a sense, preexisting and consequently fixed. This typically Jewish conception of predestination may be distinguished from the Greek idea of preexistence by the predominance of the thought of ‘preexistence’ in the Divine purpose."

All is foreordained in God’s great Plan and so did God created the opportunity to get a Saviour out of the tribe of David. It is not becaus God knows everything already before hand that because  Jesus who came up in the thought of God before the world was created, that Jesus actually really came into existence before everything was created. The Messiah himself was foreknown, not just his death for our sins but the person Messiah himself (1 Pet. 1:20). Peter uses the same word to describe the "existence" of the Son of God in God’s plan as he did to describe the "existence" of the Christian church (v. 2).

All Jews who looked forward to the Messiah expected a human person, not an angel, much less God Himself! Though the Jews had not understood that the Messiah was to be born supernaturally, even this miraculous begetting was in fact predicted (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23). A "pre-human" Messiah, however, is nowhere suggested. The Son of God "came into existence" from a woman and from the seed of David (Rom. 1:4; Gal. 4:4).(Note that for Arians and Trinitarians, who think that Jesus was begotten in eternity long before his conception/begetting in Mary, that would have been a second begetting.)

Read more about Foreordination Rather than Literal Preexistence : The Nature of Preexistence in the New Testament by Anthony Buzzard

Colossians 1:15-20: Preexistence or Preeminence? by William WachtelThe Nature of Preexistence in the New Testament  or Preexistensens natur i Nya testamentet (Swedish)Who Is Jesus? God, or Unique Man? or Wie is Jesus? God, of Unieke Mens? (Afrikaans)

NWT and what other scholars have to say to its critics

Example of appendix from New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures, study edition, Danish Dansk: Eksempel på tillæg i Ny-Verden Oversættelsen af De Hellige Skrifter, studieudgaven, dansk (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The NWT has its many critics, but time and again, these criticisms by biased opposers, who propagate half baked truths and even resort to out right lies at times, have been silenced many times, but they keep on coming back, as it there is absolutely no one who supports the NWT! To silence these lies, here below is a short list of scholars to recognise the truth worth of the NWT!
Below is a list of well qualified professionals, that the critics of the NWT will not show or admit to or show their flocks...!

Prof. Jason David BeDuhn:

"While it is difficult to quantify this sort of analysis, it can be said the NWT emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared."

-Greek Scholar in his book: "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament"

Steven T. Byington:

Of the NWT, "If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines."

-Christian Century, "Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures"

Frederick Danker:

"Not to be snubbed is the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rendered from the Original by the New World Bible Translation Committee"

-"Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study"

Alan S. Duthie:

The "Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT,. .is certainly not 'filled with the heretical doctrines'...even though a few aberrations can be found...but the percentage of the whole Bible thus affected... does not reach even 0.1% of the whole, which is very far from 'full'.

-"How To Choose Your Bible Wisely"

Prof. Rolf Furuli:

"I read the English text of the NWT against the Hebrew text, word for word...the translators of the NWT have been extremely faithful both to their own translation principles and to the Hebrew text"

-lecturer in Semitic Languages at Oslo University

S. Maclean Gilmore:

"The New Testament edition was made by a committee...that possessed an unusual competence in Greek." -Andover Newton Quarterly

Edgar Goodspeed:

"I am...much pleased with the free, frank, and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify." -Scholar and Bible Translator

Samuel Haas:

"This work indicates a great deal of effort and thought as well as considerable scholarship."

-Bible Scholar in "Journal of Biblical Literature"

C. Houtman:

"The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism."

-"Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrifl", [Dutch Theological Magazines]

Prof. Benjamin Kedar:

"I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that [the OT] reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible... Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language. .1 have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

-Professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has a Phd from Yale

Robert M. McCoy:
"The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation."

-"Andover Newton Quarterly"

Dr. [Prof.] Bruce Metzger:

"On the whole, one gains a tolerably good impression of the scholarly equipment of the translators."

-Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Scholar in Greek, OT Studies and NT Studies in "The Bible Translator"

James Parkinson:

"The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation otters a relatively accurate translation from a different theological perspective." -Author of "How To Choose a Bible Translation"

J. D Phillips:

"Last week I purchased a copy of your New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an owner. You have done a marvelous work...but you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!"

-J D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister who knew Hebrew and Koine Greek

Charles Francis Potter:

In "the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen."

-The Faith Men Live By

William Carey Taylor:

The NT of the NWT contains "considerable scholarship"

-"The New Bible Pro and Con"

Alexander Thomson:

"The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing."

-in "The Differentiator" (a private, published journal)

Prof. Allen Wikgren:

It is "independent reading of merit."

-Scholar on the NRSV committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text

Thomas N. Winter:

"The translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate,..ln sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order." -Professor of Koine Greek at the University of Nebraska.

+++

2016 update (placement of related articles)

Related articles

• Written and translated by different men over thousands of years
• John 10:30 is the Best Verse Ever
• Can we trust the Gospel of John?
• The Jewish Messiah is the Antichrist (i.e. Satan)
• My life in cults
• Dissident, Not Devout, Catholic Tim Kaine Rejects the Revealed Truth About Marriage
• Old and newer King James Versions and other translations #4 Steps to the women’s bibles
• Old and newer King James Versions and other translations #5 Further steps to women’s bibles
• Authority from the One God to one mediator between God and men

Russell and his beliefs

Often we hear it mentioned that Russell found the non-trinitarian group which is known as the "Jehovah's Witnesses."  Russell, of course, did not found an organization called "Jehovah's Witnesses." He never heard of such an organization; he did not believe in such an organization, and he preached against the formation of such an organization until the day he died. Russell refused to allow himself or the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to become a "central authority" over the local congregations, although, individually, and as congregations, many of the Bible Students had come to view him as such.

Russell learned the Biblical truths about hell, the condition of the dead, and about the trinity, as well as "the ransom for all," from others who had become before him. His understanding of these matters did not originate from out of the blue, nor were they simply his own thoughts. It was the proper Biblical understand ing of these matters that led him to reaffirm his faith in the Bible, in the God of the Bible, and in Jesus as the Son of God who gave himself a ransom for all.

Russell had, through his own self-study educated himself along many lines. The fact that he did not receive his education at the hands of humanly-recognized sectarian theological schools does not mean that he did not understand what he was writing about. That Russell did correctly present the usage of Hebrew and Greek words was confirmed, with some few minor exceptions, by Paul S. L. Johnson, who was well-educated and who was a thoroughly trained scholar in both Hebrew and Greek.

Russell gave a summation of his beliefs, what he stood for, in the January 15, 1912 issue of the Watch Tower, page 28:
>What Did Charles Taze Russell Stand For?

+ >

• For more information of the condition of the dead, hell, hades, sheol, lake of fire, eternal torment, etc., see:
  http://hereafter.reslight.net
  
• For more information about the "ransom for all," see:
  http://atonement.reslight.net
  
• For more information about the "trinity," see:
  http://godanson.reslight.net
  
  

• Russell Questioned His Faith
  

Read also: A small company of Jesus' footstep follower