The Natural Congregation of Yahweh is what the secular world, modern traditional 'Christians',

and the modern 'Jews', would phrase as, "The Natural Church of God"

The Bible

The word Bible is derived from Biblia or the books, and is commonly used to signify the “Holy Scriptures”, or the written Word of Yahweh. The word scriptures is derived from the Latin language.

The 1611 version of the Bible was translated under the auspices of King James. The Douay Version (1609-10) was the first Roman Catholic Bible in English. The King James Version was the culmination of earlier translations and revisions, and is deemed by most theologians and scholars as being a highly accurate version in terms of word for word translation.

The Bible will interpret itself if allowed to be read with an open mind to the whole truth and not to the narrow interpretations of others. The best rule of interpretation is to follow the Author’s - Yahweh’s instruction, which is to let His Holy Spirit do the teaching. To do otherwise is to risk times entrenchment in whatever delusions that drives one, and in that respect, to become your own truth and way, taking upon yourself the many forms of false deity and becoming false Messiahs.

The Bible has been misinterpreted throughout history and there are those that still use these misinterpretations to bring forth further misconceptions, misunderstandings and a dissection of the true word of Yahweh. To be true to scripture, we must go to the original texts; the word of Yahweh, and understand its historical context before we can understand and teach others. Christians must take the words of Paul to heart when he asked Timothy to (2:15): “Study to show thyself approved unto Yahweh, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." It has been said that "the sacred page is not meant to be the end, but only the means toward the end, which is knowing Yahweh himself."

The terms Rhema and Logos come into the discussion as to what the Word is, and we must look to their Greek meanings and their historical context. First of all, the Logos, or "Word" became flesh when it was spoken by Yahweh, by which He "made" His only "begotten" son who dwelt among us. The Bible is not Yahweh, it is the expressed written Word of Yahweh. The Rhema is the spoken word of Yahweh and is best understood as the prophetic word. The Bible is the "Word" of Yahweh which also includes the “inspired” and “prophetic” words from Yahweh through those Yahweh chooses to “hear” His "word" for inclusion in His Bible. This is the true “two-edged sword” of His Spirit; the Word of Yahweh as inspired and written by His chosen writers.

Yahweh inspires us regardless of biblical inspiration and certainly no differently than He inspired the biblical writers. Yahweh has spoken through His prophets throughout history whether it is recorded in a canonical book or not. Progressive revelation shall never cease in the hearts of His people except in those that do not have the faith to believe it. TOP ^

Yahweh’s New Covenant Originally Written in Hebrew

 Every language possesses an inner structure, a specific flavor, and unique idioms reflecting a cultural background. These elements shape the way of thinking of those speaking or reading it. A language's idioms are only fully comprehended by people learned in that language. To translate language idioms directly into another language often makes it absurd and reveals the foreign origins of it.

Take the problem of idioms, for instance. What does "taking my hair" mean in English? Nothing at all, since it is from an idiom in Spanish, "tomar el pelo", meaning "to pull one's leg." In order to translate it dynamically, then, one must first know it was an idiom of speech, originally written in Spanish. Only then one may try to find an equivalent idiom in English.

On the other hand, what would happen if we assumed "tomar el pelo" was taken from the French? We would be at a loss to find in French anything such as "prenez les cheveaux." We would conclude, erroneously, that the original came from a poor French, or some assumption like this. For this is exactly what happened with the New Covenant language, as we shall demonstrate.

The New Covenant's original language was neither Greek nor Aramaic, as popular wisdom goes, but Hebrew. The same Hebrew as the Tanach; the "Old" Covenant was written in. It is only natural that it should be Hebrew, since we are dealing with the same country, only in a latter period of its history. Furthermore, Yah’shua was living in Judea, surrounded by Hebrew disciples, who had as their sacred text, a Tanach written almost entirely (except for a few chapters in Daniel (2:4-7), in Hebrew).

Internal proofs for Hebrew being the original language spoken by Yah’shua are direct and convincing. We can take the New Covenant and prove this right away, in our own native language, be it English or Spanish or any other. There is no need for “experts” to tell us what to believe.
        First, Scripture itself says the language of Yah’shua and His disciples was Hebrew - not Greek, nor Aramaic/Aramit. Luke 23:38: “And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE HEBREWS.” If “Yah’shua spoke Aramaic” as many have been led to believe, why does it not list Aramaic here in Holy Scripture itself, since the sign was to the common folk, the vast majority of whom were Hebrew speaking Israelites?

John 5:2: “Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.” Notice that the Greek says here, as in every one of the quotations below, “hebraisti,” (obviously), “Hebrew.”
         John 19:13: “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Yah’shua forth, and sat down on the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.”
         John 19:17: “And He bearing his stake went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha.”

John 19:20:” Many of the Hebrews then read this title: for the place where Yah’shua was nailed was near to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.”
         Acts 21:40: “And when he had given him permission, Saul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand to the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spoke to  them in the Hebrew language, saying...”
         Acts 22:2: “ (And when they heard that he spoke to them in the Hebrew language, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)”
         Acts 26:14: “ And when we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking to me, and saying in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goads.”
         Revelation 9:11: “And they had a king over them, who is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew language is Abaddon, but in the Greek language he hath his name Apollyon.”
         Revelation 16:16: “And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Har Meguido (Mount Meguido)/’Armageddon’.”

Whom will we trust: man or Yah’shua Himself? Yah'shua spoke in Hebrew to Paul. Paul said so! These verses state directly that Hebrew was the spoken language. What did Yah’shua refer to when He said in Mat. 5:18: “...not a jot/“yoot” nor a tittle (the little “crown” on top of the yoot) will pass...” Both refer to the Hebrew alphabet. Would He have referred to aspects of the Hebrew alphabet with an audience who spoke Aramaic or Greek, and thus would not have understood Him? If I would try to tell an English speaking audience for example, that “Yah’shua” should be “accented” on the “u,” very few people would understand since accents are almost non existent in English, except for a very few words like “attaché case” which are borrowed from other languages.

Despite this ample scriptural proof, various translations, especially the NIV, have falsified the original “Hebraisti” (which does not require one to be a Greek scholar to understand it says "Hebrew") substituting it with "Aramaic."

Why? Is it the same reason they have changed the name of Yah’shua´s half-brother Yaakov to “Saint James”? In honor of England’s King James, who was about to supply the monies for the translation of the Bible, and finally did not. Prior to this time in history, the letter “J” did not even exist.

Notwithstanding the internal proofs in the New Covenant itself, those from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Talmud and those of Josephus, there are coins and inscriptions from the time of Yah’shua that nail "the Aramaic coffin" shut once and for all, for those who are after facts, and not biased, anti-Semitic-laden opinions.  "The evidence provided by coins is also important in trying to evaluate the linguistic situation in the time of the Messiah. Yaakov Meshorer, curator of the Numismatic Department of the Israel Museum, and its numismatic expert, has listed 215 Jewish coins in his catalogue. Of these, 99 have Hebrew inscriptions, only one has an Aramaic inscription! From the fourth century B.C. (later Persian Period) until the end of the Bar-Cochba Revolt in 135 A.D., the entire history of Jewish coinage, only one Jewish coin, minted during the reign of Alexander Jannaeous (103-76 B.C.) is inscribed in Aramaic." (Our emphasis)

"At Masada, Herod`s stronghold overlooking the Dead Sea, archaeologists excavated from 1963 to 1965 under the direction of Professor Yigael Yadin. The epigraphical evidence is staggering: fragments of 14 scrolls, over 4,000 coins, and more than 700 ostraka (inscribed pottery fragments) in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Here too, the ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic is overwhelming."

1. Bivin and Blizzard Jr., op cit. pp. 55-56, 59-60.

In addition, there are over 5366 manuscripts of the New Covenant in Greek, each differing from the other and containing several hundred variants. However, in each one of these manuscripts there are idioms which are almost meaningless in Greek or Aramaic or in any language except in Hebrew! How can such a thing be explained unless it is because the original language was indeed Hebrew?

There are many of these Hebraisms, one of the most common of them being "Son of man". What does "Son of man" mean in English, Spanish, German, in any language? Absolutely nothing! The expression "Ben Adam" means literally "son of Adam" and by extension "son of man", and "man", Adam being of course the first of mankind. In any street corner in Israel you may hear "here comes this Ben Adam", meaning "here comes this man." This example, which occurs no less than 92 times in the Tanak (the Hebrew Scripture) and 43 times in the New Covenant (Cruden's Concordance) is obviously the same Hebrew idiom.

It is said that the New Covenant was written in Koine Greek, “common Greek,” because it is found to be a poor or inferior kind of Greek. When we find as many of these Hebraisms as there are there, we begin to understand that it is not Koine Greek written in the substratum of the text, but a Hebrew original which was almost literally translated into Greek, a process resulting in making it sound like some poor or inferior form of Greek.

Let us take another example, the idiom "Peace be to you", appearing twelve times in the New Covenant. What kind of a greeting is "Peace be to you" in English, Spanish, French, or any other language? It is meaningless, again. Only in Hebrew does it make any real sense. This is the most common, everyday greeting in Israel today. The world famous "shalom", meaning literally "peace", is really an everyday greeting meaning anything from "Hi", to "How are you?" according to the intonation and the mood of the speaker.

The third and last internal proof of the Hebrew character of the New Covenant is the use of two very Hebrew ways of speaking: that of repeating things twice, and the answering of a question with another question. Yah’shua did both quite often. In Matthew 27:46: "...My Elohim, my Elohim, why hast thou forsaken me?" and in Luke 20:2-3: "And spake unto him, saying, Tell me, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing and answer me..." What is important to stress is that these two characteristics, especially the former, comes uniquely with the Hebrew. It does not appear in English, or in any European language, for instance.

There are several external sources, i.e., outside of Scripture, pointing to Hebrew as the written language of the New Covenant, as many outstanding scholars have most eloquently attested. These sources are: the testimony of the Church fathers and the Dead Sea Scrolls. We will examine these two external sources, albeit briefly.

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, c. 150 A.D. said: "Matthew put down the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated them, each as best he could." Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) Bishop of Lions, France.  "Matthew, indeed, produced his Gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect."

Origen (c. 225 A.D.) said: "The first Gospel composed in the Hebrew language, was written by Matthew...for those who came to faith from Judaism." Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (c. 325 A.D.) "Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was about to go to others also, he transmitted his Gospel in writing in his native [Hebrew] language" (Ecclesiastical History III 24, 6). And, also, Ephiphanius, Jerome, translator of the Scripture into Latin, the so-called Vulgata version, said the same.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered by an Arab shepherd boy in the caves of Qumran, in the Judean wilderness in 1947, contain a treasure load of Scripture: some 40,000 fragments of rolls, with 600 partial manuscripts, both scriptural as well as non-scriptural. "Of the ten major non-biblical scrolls published to date, only one, the Genesis Apocryphon, is in Aramaic. The most recently published scroll, and the longest to date (28 feet, equivalent to over 80 Old Covenant chapters), is the now famous Temple Scroll, also written in Hebrew. If we compare the total number of pages in these ten sectarian scrolls, we again find an overwhelming ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic (179 pages in the nine Hebrew scrolls to 22 pages of Aramaic in the Genesis Apocryphon)."1

In a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the authors state: “Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the dominant view of the Semitic languages of Palestine in this period was essentially as follows: Hebrew had died; it was no longer learned at mother’s knee. It was known only by the educated classes through study, as educated medieval Europeans knew Latin. Rabbinic Hebrew...was considered a sort of scholarly invention...artificial, not the language of life put to the page. The spoken language of the Jews had in fact become Aramaic....

“The discovery of the Scrolls swept these false linguistic notions into the trash bin...the vast majority of the scrolls were Hebrew texts. Hebrew was manifestly the principal literary language for the Jews of this period. The new discoveries underlined the still living, breathing, even supple character of that language...proving that late Second-Temple Jews used various dialects of Hebrew.”2 (Our emphasis)
Says a noted Jewish scholar—with no ax to grind: “What was the language of ordinary life of educated native Jews in Jerusalem and Judea in the period from 400 BCE to 150 CE? The evidence presented by Mishnaic Hebrew and its literature leaves no doubt that that language was Mishnaic Hebrew.” (Our emphasis)

The Dead Sea Scrolls were so determinant and the evidence so overwhelming that no less an authority than The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, in its first edition, in 1958, stated that “Hebrew had ceased to be a spoken language around the fourth century B.C.”3 However, in its third edition, in 1997 that had changed completely to: “Hebrew continued to be used as a spoken and written language...in the New Covenant period.

 “To the Jewish people, it was Hebrew that was the ‘Holy Tongue’ whereas Aramaic was seen as ‘the language of the Evil Force.’”2 The Talmud states: “Four languages are of value: Greek for song, Latin for war, Aramaic for dirges, and Hebrew for speaking”.3 Thus, HEBREW WAS FOR SPEAKING, just as the New Covenant says in over a dozen verses above.

“A father was to speak to his sons in Hebrew and to teach him the Torah. Not to do so, would be “as if he had buried him.”4 “Whoever makes personal requests (in prayer) in Aramaic, the ministering angels pay no attention, since angels do not understand Aramaic.”5 The same Rabbi Gamaliel who was spoken of in Maasim ha Shlichim/Acts of the Sent ones/”Acts” 5:34-40, is quoted in the Talmud. When shown an Aramaic translation of Yov/”Job” he told the person who brought it: “bury it under the rubble.”6 Such was the low opinion of Jewish scholars of Aramaic vis-à-vis Hebrew.

As a witness to the Second Temple period, the historian Josephus says that when news of the death of Tiberius is given to Aggrippa, the news is given “in the Hebrew tongue” (glosse te Hebraion (Gr.). (Antiquities 18, 228).

In another part he writes: “Adam...in Hebrew means...” Ant. 1:34) and “Israel...in the Hebrew tongue...”7  In sum, as far as the external evidence is concerned, both the Church Fathers as well as the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls state quite clearly and without any subtlety that Hebrew WAS the language spoken and written at the time of Yah’shua. If this is so, you will ask yourself, how did it come about that it is "known" by alleged Christian theologians that the New Covenant was originally written in Greek or Aramaic?

There are many false assumptions and prejudices leading to both the Greek and Aramaic theories. First of all, let us say that the issue of the New Covenant being written in Greek or Aramaic was non-existent prior to the Fourth or Fifth Century A.D. It has been a rather modern theory.

The question is: What basis does the "Aramaic theory" have? What are its external and internal proofs? The answer, quite un-believably is: Almost none! There are a few, isolated borrowed words in Aramaic present in the New Covenant, which are far outweighed by its Hebrew words. It is like I would go about claiming that in Paraguay, the historically Spanish Speaking country in South America, that English is in fact the main language, simply because they have adopted or borrowed the English expressions of “weekend,” and “O.K.”!

 “Aramaisms” were exaggerated and still are, as noted Jewish lexicographer Moses Segal states: “Aramaic influence on the Mishnaic Hebrew vocabulary has been exaggerated...it has been the fashion among writers on the subject to brand as an Aramaism any infrequent Hebrew word...Must of the ‘Aramaisms’ are as native in Hebrew as they are in Aramaic.”1 1. Segal, Moses, Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar, p. 8.    

 J. Lee demolished the so-called “Aramaism” in Luke 6:7, maintained by scholars like black, Fitzmayer and Wilcox to be an “Aramaic construction,” quoting “23 parallel constructions in Greek literature of the period!” as author Brent Minge tells it. Time and again the Aramaic assumption has turned out to be a lemon, prompting Semitist Kenneth Kitchen to observe that “some ‘Aramaisms’ are actually Hebraisms in Aramaic.”

 “What is more, merely because a word does not appear in the Old Covenant Hebrew Bible, does not automatically make it a candidate for the Aramaic club. ‘Hosanna’ and ‘gehenna’ are words not found in that form in the Hebrew Old Covenant. Yet both occur in Mishnaic Hebrew, and are found, in identical form, in the modern Hebrew dictionary. Yet they were once erroneously claimed to be ‘Aramaic.’”1

Finally, the in-famous “”Talitha cumi!” in Mark 5:41. “Kumi” is the imperative form of the Hebrew verb “laakum.” “Talitha” has nothing in itself that makes it “Aramaic”!

The late Professor David Flusser says, regarding Aramaic, in David Stern´s commentary on this expression: “On this subject Professor David Flusser, an Orthodox Jewish scholar in Jerusalem, writes: “Until recently, it was believed by numerous scholars that the language spoken by Jesus’ disciples was Aramaic. It is possible that Jesus did, from time to time, make some small use of the Aramaic language. But during that period Hebrew was both the daily language and the language of study. The Gospel of Mark contains a few Aramaic words, and this was what misled early scholars. Today, after the discovery of the Hebrew Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) [a book of the Apocrypha], of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and of the Bar Kokhba Letters, and in the light of more profound studies of the language of the Jewish Sages, it is accepted that most people were fluent in Hebrew.” 2 (Our emphasis) 2. Minge, Brent, Jesus spoke Hebrew (Busting the “Aramaic” Myth).

It can even be argued that what Yah’shua actually meant by that expression is: “Taalít, Talitha, takumi!” (Get up, Talitha, arise!) in Hebrew in the imperative tense and with a certain sense of urgency, hence the repetitious nature of the words.)

 As far as the "Greek theory" is concerned, the only basis one can think of is the fact that the written versions we have left to us, are in that language, and not one single copy remains of its Hebrew originals. One of the last ones (of Matthew) was burned publicly in Tours, France, in the mid-fifteenth century. This is admittedly a good enough basis, provided all we have said above would not exist, i.e, the above statements by the church fathers, the Hebraisms, the idioms, the discovering from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, etc.

In sum, what we have are a series of false assumptions by theologians, assumptions and, what is more, assumptions very probably based upon ugly, anti-Semitic prejudices. Historically, the great false Church has had a consistent record of being very anti-Semitic. Consider the Inquisition, with hundreds of thousands of “Jews” (and professing Christians) tortured and slaughtered simply because of their being followers of the Hebrew faith.

Consider the anti-Semitic statements by the fathers of the Church, such as Chrysosthom, Eusebius, Origen, Cyril, Hyppolitus, and, yes, Martin Luther, the father of the Reform. "The Jews deserve the most severe penalties. Their synagogues should be razed to the ground, their homes destroyed. They themselves should be exiled to living in tents, like the gypsies. Their religious writings [the Old Covenant and the Talmud] should be taken away from them. The Rabbis should be forbidden to teach the Torah (the Torah). They should be forbidden to do any profession. Only the hardest, most strenuous work should be allowed to them. Their fortunes should be confiscated from them..." "A Jewish heart is as hard as a stick, a stone, as iron, as a devil." [Eric W. Gritsch, Was Luther an Anti-Semite? Christian History Magazine, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 38-39.

The famous historian, the late William Schirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, in page 294, says one of the two factors explaining the behavior of the German Church towards the Jews during the Holocaust is Luther's influence.

Throughout the centuries there has been a satan-led motion away from anything Jewish. In this spirit, the Church was forbidden to celebrate Passover on the "Jewish", i.e., scriptural dates set for it, and had to do it on any other date EXCEPT the Jewish one. Even today the Church celebrates "Easter," not Passover.

Those who insisted on celebrating Pessakh on the correct date were called "quatorcediman", an expression taken from the words meaning "fourteenth day of the first month", where Passover was ordained by Yahweh to be celebrated. The Jewish sages' wisdom in the many-volumed Talmud, from where Yah’shua drew countless parables and examples was condemned by all within the Church, including Luther, as we just quoted; not merely condemned but burned and their owners with it. A sustained campaign of dejudaization began which continues to this day. We can only offer some brief highlights here:

*Statements by almost all of the Fathers of the Church like Chrysosthom, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyril, Eusebius ("Abraham was a Christian, he was not a Jew".), Bishop Agobard, Luther.

*The Jews were accused for twenty centuries of kidnapping Christian children and drinking their blood for Passover meals. (The last time this accusation surfaced--would you believe it?-- was in 1992 in the Soviet Union.)

*Jews were accused of murdering Yahweh. [Can you murder Yahweh!] *All sorts of doctrines were made judenrein (free of Jews), as if the New Covenant was never made with "the House of Israel and the House of Judah" but with the Church.

*The appropriate name for the land of Israel was obliterated for the last 2,000 years at the bidding of Emperor Julius Caesar who swore to wipe the name of Judea from the face of the earth-- and he succeeded. Even Christian authors of today, still erroneously call Israel "Palestine"! Check the maps at the end of your Bible and see for yourself! Go to a Christian or Roman Catholic map inside an encyclopedia and check whether the name “Israel” or “Judea” exists. IT DOES NOT! It will say—ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY—“PALESTINE”, although that name was imposed by Emperor Hadrian after the year 70 a.M (“after Messiah”), and should, therefore, not be valid for the period when Yah’shua was living in Israel and Judea.

*The true name of our Lord was “Yah’shua”. According to any Hebrew-English dictionary, “Yah’shua” means: “Yah’s salvation, [victory, deliverance].”

 What we have is a very Gentile-sounding "Jesus". What does “Jesus” mean? Nothing at all! You will say: “It is a translation.” Then, how does Matitiahu/Mat. 1:21 come to mean anything: “And they will call His name Jesus, because he came for salvation of his people.” THAT VERSE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE, unless you write “Yah’shua” there!

*The name of Yah’shua´s half-brother was Jacob--apparently too Jewish for them--although there is a Jacob in every known language--so the anti-Semites gentilized it to "James", as in the book of "James" [Where in Greek it says quite clearly EPISTOLE IAKOBUS.]

Marcion, a historically recognized heretic within the Church created two Elohims: A Jewish Elohim, the Elohim of the "Old" Covenant, "Yahweh", a small deity, severe, specifically for the Jews; and a Gentile God-Elohim, Jesus, the God of Love. [How many Elohim are there?] However, the spirit of Marcion lives on in the Church to this day.

*There are several references to Yah’shua speaking Hebrew in Scripture and Saul speaking Hebrew. Westcott and Hort, two New Age occultists (See "New Age Versions of the Bible by G. Riplinger, A.V. Publications, 1993.) substituted the word *hebraisti* with Aramaic, besides 5000-8000 other alterations on the Greek text from which modern translated versions are made.

The above shows us the "Aramaic" and "Greek" theories were not isolated mistakes or misconceptions, but very definitely, they have been and continue to be part of a worldwide, centuries-old campaign by the Satanic, anti-Semites within the Church. TOP ^

 “Oracles” of Yahweh entrusted to tribe of Judah - NOT to “Jews”

 A statement is commonly made by Christians, and even by many Israelites who should know better, "that we owe a debt to the Jews, for we got our Bible and our religion from them". While many people have been deceived into believing this, it is completely false. Part of the mistake comes from the complete confusion in the minds of nearly all people as to just what they mean by “Jew”. Are they referring to people of a certain race, or referring to a people of a certain religion, for the two are not the same. There are in Africa today, some pure blooded negroes who are Jews by religion and there are in China today, some pure blooded Mongolians who are Jews by religion. Likewise, there are some people today who are racially of the stock we know as Jews, but who have been converted to other religions.

First let's consider the claim that we got our Bible and our religion from the Jews, as meaning Jews by religion. It is certain we didn't get the New Covenant from them, for it condemns the Jewish religion throughout all of the New Covenant. But did we get the Old Covenant from them? No, for several reasons: in the first place, no Jew by religion existed before the return from the Babylonian captivity, shortly after 536 B.C. Their great historian Josephus writes, "So the Jews prepared the work. Jew is the name they are called by from the day that they came up from Babylon."

The only books of the Old Covenant that were written after the return from Babylon are, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (all of them historical, rather than doctrinal) Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. In none of these do the Jews receive anything but rebuke for their wickedness, for their apostasy from the religion of the Old Covenant. The late Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, formerly the Chief Rabbi of the United States said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism."

The learned Rabbi was correct in distinguishing the true religion of the Old Covenant as Hebrewism for it was the religion of the real Hebrews, who were not Jews at all. Judaism, the religion of the Jews, is as the learned Rabbi says, based upon the Babylonian Talmud, which contains the supposed oral law. It was never reduced to writing as part of the Bible. This oral law gradually gained greater force among the Jews than the written law in the Bible, with which it often conflicted in Yah’shua's day, and this Babylonian Talmud was known as the “Tradition of the Elders” which the Messiah rebuked them for.

This is why Yah’shua told the Jews: "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit, in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men. For laying aside the commandments of Yahweh that ye may keep your own tradition, ye make the Word of Yahweh of none effect through your tradition which ye have delivered" (Mark 7:6-13). "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of Yahweh" (Matthew 22:29).

"Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites! for ye pay tithes of mint, anise and cumin and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith"  (Matthew 23:23).

This was the religion of the Jews. As the learned Rabbi Stephen F. Wise said, Judaism was distinguished from Hebrewism, the real religion of the Old Covenant. Certainly Christianity took nothing from any Israelite religion for it never took any part of its self-defined religion from the Talmud, but rather adopted many Jewish fables.

Well then, can it be said we got our Bible or our the religion of this Christianity from men of the Jewish race? No, it cannot. It can be clearly proven, both out of the historical books of the Bible and out of the only thorough history of the times written by one living when the facts were still well known. Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews," tells that the Jews were a people distinct and separate from Yahweh's people of the tribes of Israel, although living among them. The Jew were the Canaanite people who lived in Palestine, before Israel entered the promised land and who were not driven out. These Canaanite people, and the mixed offspring from intermarriage with the Israelites, were allowed to remain in the land while paying heavy tribute taxes – to the true Israelites!

The prophets who wrote the books of the Old Covenant, were all of pure Israelite stock, from one or another of the 12 tribes of Israel. Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, Haggai and Zechariah were of the tribe of Levi. Joshua and Samuel were of the tribe of Ephraim. Isaiah, Daniel and Zephaniah were of the house of David, Jonah was of the tribe of Zebulun. Hosea was of the tribe of Issachar.

When the Assyrians conquered and deported the people of the ten northern tribes, the Bible records that the Assyrians brought other people in from the Assyrian empire and settled them in Samaria, in place of the Israelites they had deported. Samaria is only the southern half of the territory occupied by these ten northern tribes. The northern half was Galilee and this was left vacant. When the kingdom of Judah was later deported to Babylon, for their seventy years captivity, their land was left with very little population. While they were gone, the Khazars who were descendants of Esau, mixed with Canaanite people, were forced out of their own land by pressure of invading Arab tribes, and moved westward into the vacant lands of Judah, occupying the southern half of the former kingdom of Judah.

Therefore, when a portion of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned from the Babylonian captivity, they were too few in numbers to drive out the warlike Khazars and had to try to squeeze into the very little territory they had left. It was too small for them, so what was left of the tribe of Judah took the little territory remaining around Jerusalem while Benjamin was pushed to the north. They could not move next door into Samaria, as this area was occupied by the peoples settled there by the Assyrians. Benjamin had to leapfrog over them into the vacant territory of Galilee.

That the apostles and the majority of early Congregation converts came from the Benjaminites should not surprise us. When the kingdom was split in two upon the death of Solomon, Yahweh said He would leave Benjamin with Judah so that the house of David should have a light before them. In Yah’shua's time the people of Benjamin were still the light bearers. In the New Covenant all of the apostles were of the tribe of Benjamin except Judas Iscariot, the only Jew among them. Judas came from the village of Kerioth in southern Judea. Iscariot is a corruption of Ish Kerioth, man of Kerioth. Paul tells us that he (Paul) was of the tribe of Benjamin and that the other apostles except Judas Iscariot were from Galilee, where the tribe of Benjamin settled after the return from Babylon.

This is confirmed by Yah’shua. In Matthew 15:24 He said, "I am not sent but unto the sheep of the house of Israel." In John chapter 10 Yah’shua tells the Jews, "I am the good Shepherd and know My sheep and am known of Mine. But ye [Jews] believe not because ye are not of My sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear My voice and I know them and they follow Me." From the Savior's own lips we have the proof that the Jews are not of the tribes of Israel. Note carefully that He does not say that their unbelief keeps them from being of His sheep. He says the exact opposite, that the reason why they do not believe is that they are not of His sheep, the house of Israel.

Hebrewism of the true Israelites of Yahweh, and Judaism are completely and irreconcilably inconsistent. Whichever one is right, the other must be wrong for they mutually repudiate each other. A great part of Yah’shua's reported Words are His denunciation of the Jews for their religion, which He tells them is not that of the Old Covenant. In John 5:46 Yah’shua told them, "Had ye believed in Moses, ye would have believed Me: for he wrote of Me." In Luke 16:31 Yah’shua said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded through one rose from the dead." He was right, He did rise from the dead, but to this day they are not persuaded.

It is therefore clear, we got neither our Bible nor the true Israelite religion, either in whole or in part from those who were Jews, either by religion or by race. We owe them no debt, for they gave us nothing.

Supplementary Comments:

Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser wrote, "This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. . . Judaism is not the religion of the Bible" (Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, p. 59).

Rabbi Moshe M. Maggal, President, National Jewish Information Service wrote: ". . . you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and Israelite religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other. . . we emphasized that there is no such thing as [an Israelite Jew or] a Judeo-Christian religion. . . . There is not any similarity between the two concepts" (Letter of August 21, 1961).

The London Jewish World of March 15, 1923 declared: "Fundamentally, Judaism is [anti-Israelite and] anti-Christian."

Rabbi Martin Siegel: "I am devoting my lecture in this seminar to a discussion of the possibility that we are now entering a Jewish century, a time when the spirit of the community, the non-idealogical blend of the emotional and rational and the resistance to categories and forms will emerge through the forces of anti-nationalism to provide us with a new kind of society. I call this process the Judaization of Christianity because Christianity will be the vehicle through which this society becomes Jewish [meaning anti-Israelite]." (New York Magazine, January 18, 1972). TOP ^

Has the Bible Been Tampered With?

Part I

It is very revealing and interesting to study the supplemental foot-notes to the Catholic Encyclopaedia as entered by the Monks over the years (and others). Not because of any respect for the Catholic "doctrine", but because of the many instances of deliberate Bible tampering that the Monks admit to and why they did it during their 4th Century translation of the early Latin Vulgate! More recent discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls add confirming proof. 

Unlike the various Popes that gave the instructions for this activity, the Monks appear at least to have had sufficient conscience to have written down almost everything they were told to do in terms of "translation directives". A fairly well known example is in 1 John 5:7-8; "For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: His Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one".  

In this case, the 4th century Monks make note that they were instructed by the then Pope to add the underlined words, and that it was their [Papal] furtherance of the false Trinity doctrine as well as further support of their [Catholic] dogma surrounding their fear-driven myth of heaven and hell that instigated the "amendment" to Scripture. This man-made alteration to our Scripture is only one of many examples that have survived almost all subsequent translations, including the KJ and NKJ.  

Thankfully, the Messiah confirmed that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). But this does NOT mean that no one will try to break it! What it means is that we must expect such malicious Bible tampering attempts to occur and that we must be prepared and know how to deal with them. For example, we are instructed to; "not be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or letter, as if from us [the true apostles]... let no one deceive you by any means... for the mystery of lawlessness is already at work... and for this reason Yahweh will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie" (2 Thess. 2:1-12). 

"For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Matt. 24:24). And in verse 25, the Messiah continues with, "see, I have told you beforehand". There are more warnings written by the apostles in the New Covenant concerning such attempts at deception by false apostles using false doctrine, than any other subject! Yet when you ask many the simple question of how one is to KNOW whether they are the elect, and therefore not deceived in their beliefs, the answer alludes most. 

The Monks also admit to being "directed" to use the word "natural" as opposed to the more correct translation of "carnal" in many instances, as an attempt to make man feel incapable on his own, and thus dependent upon the Catholic church to save him, as it is expressed in the opening pages of their encyclopaedia, that, Yahweh's Word, the “Bible is not a sufficient guide to heaven”! Seeing that they KNEW they had altered it, the seemingly arrogant statement could then be made with some amount of certainty! 

And a few others of the many such Bible tampering directives that the Monks admit to having followed are:

- translate three different original words with three different meanings into the one (English) word “Hell”; (In recent years the Pope put out a “Papal Bull” effectively admitting that the entire concept of “Hell” was a misleading and unfortunate “error” made by early translators!)

- use Holy Ghost which should have been Holy Spirit, to support the false personification of Yahweh's will; 

- When referring to Holy Spirit, they were to personify it by the use of "he" rather than the correct "it", to support the false “Trinity" doctrine; 

- use "fornication" or "fornicators" to replace the correct "adultery" or "adulterers", which was an attempt to have people think the subject was about their carnal behaviour when in fact it was referring to "spiritual" disobedience or obedience to other gods.;

- use "natural" to replace correct "carnal", causing people to believe that on their own, in their "natural" state as designed by Yahweh, they were evil and hopeless without the aid of their false church;

- use "soul" which is rooted in the Greek word "nephesh" which actually means "body", rather than using the word "spirit", which is something separate and distinct from the body, to instil false belief in the "immortal soul" or immortal body, thus contributing to their confused and fear-driven doctrine of life after death involving heaven and hell; 

- And there are literally dozens more, including the big "justification", being that the "Pope" is divinely appointed and thus carries the authority to amend Yahweh's Word by his "Decree".  

Another passage of Scripture that has been bastardized by improper punctuation, leads many to conclude that there is a transition at death such that death is not the end of life but rather the beginning of a new existence, is found in Luke 23:43, further contributing to the false doctrine of the “eternal soul”. Yah'shua, speaking to the thief on the stake just before His death, said,

Luke 23:43, "...Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

However, the correct reading of this verse should be:

Luke 23:43, "... Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise."

If the Messiah went to Paradise that same day, He would have been in the very presence of Yahweh. But Yah'shua did not go to his Father that day, for He said to Mary three days later, after He had been raised from the dead, "…I have not yet ascended to My Father…" (John 20:17). The Messiah was resurrected for 40 days (Acts 1:3) and ascended to the Father only after his 40 days were fulfilled (Acts 1:9-11). Therefore, the thief and the Messiah were not together anywhere that day, except on the stake.  

Did the Messiah contradict Himself? Notice the punctuation of Luke 23:43. The whole meaning of this verse revolves around the placement of the comma. The use of punctuation in the Bible is a relatively recent phenomenon. The early manuscripts of the scriptures did not use the comma. There was no punctuation used in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The comma was not introduced until the 15th century, by Manutius, a learned printer, who lived in Venice.  

Worldly translators of the Bible placed the punctuation marks we now have in our Bibles. Words were inspired by Yahweh, punctuation was not.  

The change of a comma can make a great difference in the meaning of a sentence. If you write, "The teacher says my boy is no good," you mean one thing. You mean something very different, if you add two commas. "The teacher, says my boy, is no good." The words are the same, but the meaning is not. 

Yah'shua did not promise that the thief would be with Him in Paradise that day. Yah'shua Himself did not go to Paradise that day but slept in the tomb. But on the day of the crucifixion, the promise was given. "Today" while dying upon the stake, the Messiah promises the poor sinner, "…you will be with Me in Paradise." Instead of losing any meaning, the word “today” takes on a real significance. The comma belongs after the word "today."  

A similar sentence construction is found in Zechariah. "Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even today do I declare that I will render double unto thee" (Zechariah 9:12). The context shows that the rendering of "double" was not to take place on that "today" but was a future event. It is evident that "today" qualifies "declare." Likewise, if the "today" of Luke 23:43, which is a parallel to the language of Zechariah, is allowed to modify "say," there is no contradiction between the message to the thief and the words of Yah'shua to Mary.  

When Yah'shua made this statement to the thief, it was in a reply to what the thief said to Yah'shua:

Luke 23:42-43, "Then he said to Yah'shua, “Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And Yah'shua said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise."

Notice, the thief said "Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom." He did not say "when you go." He didn't go anywhere except the grave to go to sleep on that day. It is evident that the thief understood the Messiah to have taught that He would come again.  

These accidental and deliberate alterations are examples of man’s arrogance at work. So too, are other obvious misunderstandings such as defining the “Mark of the Beast” through total reliance on current English translations. The identity of the “Beast” as well as its “Mark” are revealed in a childishly simple riddle when you go back and investigate from the perspective of the original words as originally written in their original language.   

Now all of these examples are not to say that all of the translators have been wrong! That would be arrogant to the extreme! The translators have correctly translated the wrong words which were spuriously substituted for the original words by the 4th century Monks. If the translators would have had access to the original words when they conducted their translations, they undoubtedly would have made different choices.  

That is also why the Catholics have tried so hard over the years to destroy and/or control all old original manuscripts, including their big fight over possession of the Dead Sea Scrolls found more recently. As it is, the established religions have fought tooth and nail to maintain what the current translations say, in order to prop up their story that our current Bibles are accurate in spite of these word substitutions by the Monks. It is like they will not admit to their prior mistakes even in spite of the overwhelming evidence now available.

We have only found one translation of the New Covenant (Old Covenant is in process) that has these words translated properly, and the translation is simply a direct translation of the original words from the Byzantine Greek Bible. (The translation is being conducted by Fred Coulter of the Christian Biblical Church of God.) We are informed that the translators are intending to use the original words from the Masoretic Text for translating the Old Covenant and have already confirmed their position on the words in question, plus others, all of which concur with our findings. Apparently these translators have been working on this new version for some time now and are finding all kinds of opposition from people that refuse to look past their existing belief systems. 

The key here is not whether or not any current Bible translations are right or wrong translations of what they translated, but whether or not they translated the original words, or the spuriously substituted ones. The traditional Christian ministries seem to be overwhelmingly in support of maintaining the status quo in spite of it being incorrect! After so many years of propagating false doctrines based upon misleading translations, it is like they feel too overwhelmed by the challenge to correct their obvious errors. Apparently they would rather hold on to their cherished, but known to be false beliefs! 

Unfortunately, these arrogant Catholics have influenced the content of literally every version of the Bible currently in existence. The 4th Century Latin Vulgate (Catholic), which almost all current translations stem from (because for many years it was believed to be the oldest and a reliable version), contains the first historical use of such terms as “hell” and “soul”. Earlier transcripts that have been more recently discovered, clearly evidence no such words as these.  

Thankfully, "the Word of Yahweh endures forever" (1 Peter 1:25). But nowhere in what we refer to as our Bibles, does it say or even imply that it would endure in perfect form and content in one place called a Bible! In fact the Apostles warn us of this very deception more times that they warn us of any other subject in the New Covenant!  

Centuries ago, after the Babylon captivity, a few of the Israelites, led by Zerubbabel, returned to Jerusalem, eager to rebuild the temple and return to the true worship of Yahweh. Ezra, who was a "ready scribe in the law of Moses" set about to collect and set forth a correct copy of the Scriptures. He "got together as many copies of the sacred writings as he could, and out of them all to set forth a correct edition...he took care of the following particulars: first he corrected [by comparisons] all the errors that had crept into these copies...Secondly, he...disposed them [the books] in their proper order; and settled the canon of Scripture for his time" (Clarke's Commentary). 

You see, all of our current Bibles have been and are continuing to be edited by self-appointed authoritarian bodies of men, primarily from the Latin Vulgate. Those bodies of men that have taken it upon themselves to be responsible for our current Bible translations are firstly, not appointed by Yahweh and therefore not infallible, and secondly, they have in many instances, even admitted to deliberate alterations, amendments, additions and omissions, all purposed for furtherance of their own misguided objectives! "...for the mystery of lawlessness is already at work".  

We do no longer have the luxury of Ezra's presence to ensure that on its own, our Bible remains an accurate, correct canonization of Yahweh's authentic Word. We do have the promise of Yahweh that His Word endures forever, so we may have faith in the fact that He will enable those that diligently seek His authentic Word, to find it! We must recognize that we are to seek the original "intent" behind those words of Yahweh that we can prove are authentically His.  

In our time, in order to do this; in order to "prove all things" as we are instructed to do, we must attempt by whatever possible means to discover any and all deliberate and known, as well as accidental alterations, amendments to, or omissions from of Yahweh's authentic Words, BEFORE we conclude the intent behind the meaning of the words written in our Bible - those words that we can simply and easily read in a book that has been edited, punctuated, re-edited and canonized by men. Otherwise we are of all people, the easiest targets for deception that Satan could hope for!  

A Common Traditional Christian Commentary and supporting “Bible” Quote is:

“That one's body and soul do not remain united in death is clear in Genesis 35:18 relative to the death of Rachel: "And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni:..."” End Quote: 

The "body" and "soul" spoken of is an apparent mistranslation of the single Hebrew word "nephesh" or the Greek word “Soma”, each sharing one identical meaning, into the two English words "body" and "soul" with two distinctly different meanings. The Hebrew word "nephesh" is the word used in the above quote, and it literally means "physical body" or “bodily object” or “living body” in English. The Greek word “Soma” means the same as nephesh, or "physical body" or “living body” in English. 

Worldly translators, mislead in part by the Catholic word substitutions, have mistakenly translated the words "nephesh" and “Soma” which both mean physical body, into the two words "soul" and "body" in many instances where it should have simply been "body", or in some cases "body" and "spirit". However, when the English word spirit would have been the proper translation, the Hebrew word "ruah" was originally used, or the Greek word "pnuema" was originally used, both of which are completely different in meaning and context to that of "nephesh" or “Soma”.  

"Ruah" was not used in this verse, "nephesh" was, hence the phrase is simply referring to the physical body. In other words you cannot separate the body from the body [soul] because it is one and the same. Thus it does remain united, and this verse simply says that Rachel’s body was departing, or dying. This mistranslation is a furtherance of the deliberate confusion orchestrated by the Catholics concerning the "spirit". They originally alleged that because the Hebrew word "ruah" literally meant "spirit", and also literally meant "wind", and also literally meant “breath”, that they chose in some instances to use "soul" as the English equivalent to avoid confusion.  

However, this reasoning is lame and falls apart, in that it would only have been proper if they were to have used the word "soul" as an alternative to "ruah", meaning spirit or wind, or breath, but they did not. They often used it as an alternative to the Hebrew "nephesh" or "physical body", as well as an alternative to the Greek “Soma” or "physical body". This is totally out of context and dramatically affects the meaning of the entire subject matter being presented. The only way to reconcile the intent of the original writers is to ensure an understanding of their original language. These translations of the words that were originally intended to mean only the physical body, into a "soul" are nowhere near the original intent. 

The mis-applications of the improper translations of these specific words are abundant. Without fail, the word soul is improperly used in place of the physical body or in some cases, in place of the word "spirit". To gain a full understanding of what was originally written in our Scriptures we must read these verses as they were written, not as they were translated from the substituted words placed into the Latin Vulgate by the Catholics. 

When the word "soul" is used in our Bibles, it is always an improper translation, stemming back to early Platonism that was subsequently adopted by Rome. If the original Hebrew word was "ruah", or the original Greek word was "pneuma", then the English should say "spirit". If the original Hebrew was "nephesh" or the Greek was “Soma”, then the English should be read as "body", specifically as the physical body. 

For example, if read properly the Bible does not ever say "body and soul", rather it says "body and spirit". And there are a great many instances when the word "body" should be used rather than "soul", which cannot but help change one’s perspective on many passages.  

Many of the early theologians and scholars of the professing Christian religion - including such men as Origen, Tertullian and Augustine - were closely associated with Platonism. Tertullian (A.D. 155-220), for example, wrote: "For some things are known even by nature: the immortality of the soul, for instance, is held by many...I may use, Therefore, the opinion of Plato, when he declares: `Every soul is immortal'" (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III). 

Notice, it is the opinion of Plato that is cited! Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) - held to be the greatest thinker of Christian antiquity - also taught the immaterial and spiritual nature of the human soul. But notice the source of his teachings. The Encyclopedia Britannica admits: "He (Augustine) fused the religion of the New Covenant with the Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy". 

Why should those early professing Christian scholars have resorted to the opinions of a pagan Greek philosopher? The deep-seated teachings of centuries were not to be easily dislodged, even by Protestant reformers. Theologians and churchgoers alike persisted, for the most part, in their unquestioning embrace of the ideas passed down from the ancient pagan philosophers. As the Encyclopedia Britannica summarizes: "Traditional Western Philosophy, starting with the ancient Greeks...shaped the basic Western concepts of the soul".  

Notice the warning of the apostle Paul, who once personally confronted Greek thinkers on Mars' Hill in ancient Athens (Acts 17:15-34). To the Greeks in Colosse in Asia Minor he wrote: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after the Messiah" (Colossians 2:8). 

Many well-intentioned people point out that they have relied totally and unquestionably upon the accuracy of their Bible to enable them to prove all things to their satisfaction. We are convinced that their efforts have indeed allowed them to reconcile a proof of all things so as to be consistent with their Bible translation, which translation has been conducted so as to be consistent with ancient pagan philosophy, but not consistent with Yahweh’s originally inspired intent. 

We are further convinced that it would be much more profitable for many, if their current beliefs were reconciled with an understanding of the intent of what was originally written in Yahweh's word as opposed to what it has been translated into. 

We may also take comfort in these things. This task of discernment is not burdensome, as it is our duty to come to the full knowledge of Yahweh. Our Lord has promised us His Helper for this very cause! And He has promised that if we seek, we shall find, and if we ask, we shall receive! We are instructed to be faithful stewards of Yahweh's Word, which goes far beyond simply holding dearly to a man-made, man-edited, man-altered, printed version of it that can be "purchased" at our convenience!  

Now we should all ask ourselves an original question: “Where have we sought, who have we asked, what have we found, what have we received, that we may KNOW that we have not been deceived? And then we might ask two more: “Have we been good stewards of Yahweh’s authentic Word, or have we been guarding a man-made version of it?” And; "Have we been good and diligent students of Yahweh’s authentic Word, or of that Word that we have found to be conveniently at our disposal?”  

Yahweh inspires us regardless of biblical inspiration and certainly no differently than He inspired the Biblical writers. Yahweh has spoken through His prophets throughout history whether it is recorded in a canonical book or not. Progressive revelation shall never cease in the hearts of His people except in those that do not have the faith to believe it. TOP ^

Has the Bible Been Tampered With?

Addendum; Bibles are only Milk

When Yah'shua told the Pharisees, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39), he was not talking about the King James Bible, the NIV, or any version of any bible, for bibles were not in existence at this time. The "scriptures" Yah'shua was referring to were the original Hebrew Old Covenant and the Greek Old Covenant (the Septuagint).

Copyright Yahweh's Word??? The mere fact that most bible translations are copyrighted proves the true motives of the Revision Committees of those particular translations (240 and counting); To change Yahweh's Word!

"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." --The Derivative Copyright Law (partial).

Did you read that? In order for a bible to be copyrighted, it must be "substantially different" from the original texts! No wonder there are so many different doctrines going around today. No wonder there are so many contradictions in bibles! No wonder copyrighted bibles are so different from one another and say completely different things! They must be substantially different from one another in order to be copyrighted! Dear reader, the copyrighted bible you have in your possession is not the Holy Scripture, it is a translation which is substantially different from the original scripture!

Copyright: "The legal protection given to authors and artists to prevent reproduction of their work without their consent. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, copy and sell the material covered by the copyright." The New Standard Encyclopedia, volume 3, page 565.

First of all, who is the "owner" of Yahweh's Word? Well obviously, the one who created it; Yahweh. Certainly, not mere man. So how can any man copyright Yahweh's Word? The answer is he can't and he doesn't, because man can only copyright "their own words," and not the words of another. Therefore, copyrighted bibles contain the words of man and not the words of Yahweh.  

Second, did you know if you quote from, or copy from, or preach from, one of these copyrighted bibles, without the written permission of the "author" of that work, you can be fined, imprisoned, and penalized for doing so? In other words, whoever owns the copyright to a bible is preventing you from repeating what is contained in that bible! Does mere man have the authority to prevent someone from sharing Yahweh's Word with others? No, he doesn't. But since copyrighted bibles contain the words of men; only some man's personal interpretation of the words of Yahweh, then this they can prevent others from using.  

And think about this, if you have to get the bible "author's" permission, then obviously this work is "created" by some man who believes he himself is the "author" of this bible. He is basically saying, “Before you can preach Yahweh's Word, you must go through me and ask my permission!” This is basically what copyrighted bibles demand!

Look at any copyrighted bible for proof of this. Here is the copyright notice to the New International Version (the NIV Bible):

The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

In other words, we must ask permission from the NIV bible publishers to use more than 25% of any book of the bible, or more than 500 verses. The NIV bible is preventing you from preaching over 500 verses of their bible, and is also preventing you from repeating an entire book of the bible! For example, if you wanted to read the entire book of Jude (which contains only a total of 25 verses) to a congregation, you are forbidden to do so from the NIV bible!!! You will be persecuted if you do, because you would be quoting a "complete book" from their bible. The most you can quote from the book of Jude would be 25% of this book, which would you cannot read, print, or duplicate more than 6 verses from this book! You cannot read more than 25% of any book of their bible!  

We must ask ourselves these questions, "Why are the publishers of copyrighted bibles threatening to persecute us if we quote from their bibles? Is this the character of someone who wants Yahweh's Word spread abroad to others? Or is this the character of someone who is preventing Yahweh's Word from being spread to others?"  

How would you feel if some man said you could not preach Yahweh's Word unless you asked them for permission? Well, this is exactly what copyrighted bibles demand, on pain of being fined, imprisoned, and penalized for preaching from their bibles. So, why give power to the beast? Why use some man's bible if he is threatening you? Why not go to scripture instead, where you will receive blessings and not cursings. Why not use scripture instead, where you need not worry about being persecuted from some man who thinks he owns the words you are quoting from?  

How serious of an offense can copyright infringement be? According to the Copyright Law itself, from Title 17, Chapter 12, of the U.S.Code, Section 1204, the criminal offenses and penalties of someone who violates a copyright shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.  

You might ask, "Why are bibles copyrighted?" The answer is because merchants want to make money, and the only way for them to make a buck off of Yahweh's Word is to substantially change it and pass it off as the real thing!

Hosea 12:7, "He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress."

Revelation 18:23, "...the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies...for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived."

Ecclesiasticus 26:29, "A merchant shall hardly keep himself from doing wrong; and an huckster shall not be freed from sin."

Now, to clarify, bibles do contain a lot of Yahweh's Truth, but they are also mixed with man's opinions and personal interpretations. It is possible to understand the True meaning of Yahweh's Word through some bibles, but it is a lot more difficult to do than Yahweh intended. For example, one can understand the meaning of certain words by reading verses in context, and by comparing the use of those same words in other passages. Also, by studying the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, one can understand more accurately certain words. So, even though words and meanings have been changed in bibles, it is possible to understand their true meaning, but it will take a lot more effort on the part of the reader.

We do use the King James bible, because it is not copyrighted. And it's New Covenant is taken from the Majority Text Manuscripts. But there are words in this bible that are watered down, and we must go to the original Greek, or at least a word for word translation, to really understand what it's saying.  

Is it Possible to be Saved through Bibles? Well, yes, the facts surrounding the gospel of Yah'shua the Messiah, and the simplicity of salvation, are found intact even in the grossest perversions of bibles. It must be remembered, though, that the scriptures are a weapon in the hands of the servants of Yahweh (Hebrews 4:12, Ephesians 6:17, 2 Timothy 3:16,). It is also food that we may grow properly (I Peter 2:2, Hebrews 5:13-14). It is in these areas, and many others, that bibles are weakened and corrupted. In fact, the very verses given above are altered in many new bible versions, thus weakening scripture. It is, therefore, possible to get saved through bibles, but you will never be a threat to the devil.

Hebrews 5:13-14, "For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

If you flip on a religious TV station, for example, or walk into a Church, you watch and listen to these guys expound on their theories of who Yahweh is, and all you're getting is the milk. You can't survive on milk. And if all you get is milk, you end up dying in the end, spiritually. This is why we fail to see the fruits of His Spirit being manifest in people today; the love, the peace, the joy, and the other fruits of His Spirit. If you look around the world today, there is no joy. The abundant life is gone. And it's all due to the fact that they haven't matured in the Word; they've stayed on the milk and have not eaten more solid food. If you keep someone on milk forever, they'll wind up dying on you. You have to move on to more solid food.  

The same thing happens when you read from the Bible for instance. If you don't move on from its milk, and get into a more meatier substance (i.e. Brenton's Edition of The Septuagint, and George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek English New Covenant), you will end up dying, your bones start to get soft, your muscles start to wither; you're no longer exercising.  

A soldier is always out there exercising so that he may be ready and useful for battle. But if you're going to use inferior tools, or if you're not going to be fully exercised, or you're only going to go through the motions but never really do them, then all you're ending up with is a fat, lazy military who, when the order is given to march, they sit back and say, "Well, according to my interpretation of this passage of the order, it doesn't mean this", and so the order is never executed.

Then another order comes down. Now you've got a second order when the first order hasn't even been executed yet, because we've re-interpreted the first order. When the second order comes down, we re-interpret that, and that one doesn't get executed. And this is what we have today, many "soldiers of the Messiah" who do not exercise His commands.  

Then where can we read Yahweh's Word? Basically, for the Old Covenant books, the Septuagint is the scripture cited by the Messiah and by the Apostles. As far as the New Covenant books are concerned, we should use the Interlinear Greek English New Covenant, because it is a transcription, not a translation. A transcription is done word for word as close to the original as possible. But as soon as you start translating to a bible, you are interjection your own knowledge and your own opinions.  

For those who would like to get a copy of these scriptures, you can order them from most any book store. The following texts are not copyrighted, and are in the Public Domain. Here's more info for you about these books:

"The Septuagint with Apocrypha" Brenton's edition (Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton), by Hendrickson Publishers. Originally published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1851.

"Interlinear Greek-English New Covenant" (King James Version) with a Greek-English Lexicon and New Covenant Synonyms, by George Ricker Berry, published by Baker Books. Originally published by Handy Book Company, Reading Pennsylvania, 1897.

The Brenton Edition of the Septuagint is the most accurate. It has the Greek translation on one side of the page, and the English on the other. There are corrupted Septuagint manuscripts as well, so make sure you get the Brenton Edition.           The Berry's Interlinear is the most accurate. It has the Greek text, and under each Greek word is the English equivalent. It also has the King James Version text in the columns on the same page, so you can compare the differences side by side. Be aware, there are Interlinear bibles based upon the minority texts (based upon mainly 2 out of the 5,000 manuscripts found) which are corrupted, so make sure you get the Berry's edition.  

Note: Both of the above books are in the Public Domain. The 1897 Copyright notice on the George Ricker Berry is not in reference to the text itself, but only the added material, such as the introduction, index, glossary, and lexicon. The United States Public Domain and Copyright Rules state:

Works first published before January 1, 1923 with proper copyright notice entered the public domain no later than 75 years from the date copyright was first secured. Hence, all works whose copyrights were secured before 1923 are now in the public domain. TOP ^

Communications and Proving the Bible Part 1:

Communication:

It is fascinating, that virtually every one of the many millions of deceived traditional Christians are deceived over misunderstandings of Yahweh's word based on issues of language translations. In essence we are a world full of illiterate peoples; and that is speaking of people attempting to use their native language, not the more difficult attempt to interpret some other's interpretation of a foreign one, as is the requirement when reading any Bible. Of course that near illiterate rate that most enjoy is further compounded by natural human laziness. For example, a friend answered a relatively simple question recently about a phrase in the Bible, by simply pointing out the context that the same phrase was used in several other places in the Bible. The answer garnered the following response, "Wow, thanks a lot for searching out all of those references. I never would have thought of doing all that. Guess I'm just lazy!"

Well you can see that at least this friend is honest! The point can also be magnified like this. Have you ever had a conversation with someone, perhaps a friend, or spouse, and partly through the conversation, that person says something like, "Well, that's not what you said!" and you were tempted, or maybe even you said in response, "Well that is exactly what I said!" There is a fascinating commonality to these words in terms of their involvement in minor misunderstandings, or serious arguments that sometimes even lead to dissolution of friendships or marriages. You see, even when speaking to one of our contemporaries, who supposedly understands our language and its subtle nuances just as well as we do, we find this common impetus for arguments; "Well, that's not what you said!"

It seems that very few people truly understand the impact of this remark: ""Well, that's not what you said!" The reality of this remark is better translated and expressed by wiser men as follows: "That's not what I heard!", or "That's not what I understood". And, a wise man will know this; he will be forgiving in advance of his response, and he will not respond to that remark with the typical defensive posture: "Well that is exactly what I said!", but will rather properly interpret the first response as meaning either "That's not what I heard!", or "That's not what I understood", and return his remark as: "Sorry, that was what I was attempting to say, apparently I didn't do a very good job".

What the wise man has done by this is quite simple, and by so doing he simply avoids an argument. Friendships and relationships with such a communicator are strengthened rather than threatened by the common argument over "words". For example, in response to an implied assertion regarding the reality of life after death, which was made thusly: "The Bible says Enoch was translated and did not see death;" well a typical response might be: "Enoch did die, and that is not what it says", which would have been followed quite likely, by the very normal response, "Well I read it and that IS what it says". You see, this would be an "argument" over what "it" says, not much different than having an "argument" over what “I” heard "you" say, or what “you” thought you heard "me" say, etc., which invariably prompts the response: "well that is what I said," or “no it isn’t!”

This is a long winded manner of expressing what is unfortunately a very normal aspect of our limited communication skills as human beings in general. It seems many, in fact most people are all too ready to jump in and say "That's not what you said", or "That's not what it says". And all too few are prepared to set aside the ego-attachment of what they "actually said" or what they think "it actually says" (referring to "words" they write) to offer one of the following admissions: firstly, that perhaps they did not say clearly with the proper words for the listener, the meaning that they had intended to relay, or alternatively, perhaps they interrupted the speaker (or the author of written material) by imposing their own thoughts because they were not being a proper listener to the words being used.

In other words, just because you understand precisely what it is you are trying to express with certain words, does not mean that every time you attempt it, you have immediate and perfect comprehension by your audience. Likewise, just because you “think” you understand perfectly well what someone else is trying to say, does not necessarily mean you interpreted his words the same way as he meant them to be. This goes for the written word just as well as the spoken word. Have you ever written something out in "simple" terms, yet were still baffled by the fact that others did not understand your intent? That's because the "words" mean something different to EVERYONE, based on their own cultural and personal experiences!

This is not profound by any stretch, an