. . . Interpreting Holy Scripture – Uprightly-cutting it and not altering it . . . .

Scripture is a living monster.
Scripture is a witness to help free men's minds.
It also guides us to use a pattern of healthy words in our lives.

As we walk with God, the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit guide us into all truth. We need God's love to point out the relevance value of any portion of scripture (or anything else) to our current situation, duty and necessity.

God Who inspired the scripture also interprets it - enabling you to distinguish faulty human words from God's Word. Although Job and Ecclesiastes are honest accounts of open debate about suffering and purpose, they do not in all parts present true arguments or doctrine, but in their conclusions they are faithful - demonstrating how sincere perseverance in debate yields the truth. The Holy Spirit confirms or denies how much of something is from God or otherwise so that it can be included or excluded from holy scripture.
    God's Holy Spirit is continuously guiding the believers into ALL truth so scripture continually grows with time's progression and keeps on developing new parts - old parts may lose their relative importance as they become relegated in their relevance towards past temporary periods of time (Like Israel's old name Jacob). New scriptures may find more importance as they become more relevant to the present period of time in the newer areas of understanding-revelation-knowledge (1Cor 13:8-10, 2Pt 1:19). Any scribe made a disciple in the Kingdom can write new scripture as well as old. Scripture 'cannot be broken'/'is not annulled' and yet it should be 'uprightly-cut' to avoid controversy (Jn 10:35, 2Tim 2:14-15) and it is being continually extended.
    All truth - may mean selecting true words from amongst error such as when Jude quotes from Hebrew writings not accepted as entirely reliable, regarding Enoch's prophecy of Christ's second coming and the end of millenium judgement. All truth - includes knowing when a book is finished and should not be altered. All truth - includes discerning a canonical from a corrupt translation. Much philosophy, mathematics and science is just as canonical as the book of Revelation to John and contains greater revelatory power than the book of Ecclesiastes to someone who can identify/apprehend it...
    The book of the Revelation to John has a quality similar to a mathematical proof - It entirely fulfils a completely unique specific purpose. No part is unnecessary. Nothing should negate its logic unless you want to lose life. If you add conditions to its logic you'll have stuff added to you that you may or may not enjoy. Words can be added to it to improve it and extend its blessing. Once the original proof is ready to be communicated and translated meaning-for-meaning then according to how the original was written it would help to generally convey the same developmental order as the original - - Yet the Revelation story line jumps back through its chronology and adds details originally omitted in the earlier sections. Similarly the account of the creation of Adam presumably is recapping when it describes him as being formed (after the seven days are decribed) from the ground stemming back through the millions of years in the 'days' of the creation to the formation of the first cells from ground and water.

A common feature of discerning bible interpretation is that words such as 'love' and 'hate' can be used categorically to indicate the overall meaning as in 'love more than hate' or 'hate more than love', or, hate can be used to mean a specific component of what is love overall, and likewise someone who, overall, is exercising hate may yet have a degree of love in their hatred (CLV Lv 19:17 - You shall not hate your brother in your heart. CLV Ps 139:21 - Do I not hate those hating You, O Iyehuweh). The form of a statement and the context can be crucial to distinguishing the logic implied whether generalising or specifying a less than complete measure of something and so is fundamental to apprehending the scripture. Other instances of this are 'good' as a title implying blameless goodness, or 'good' as a categorising label implying more good than bad, or 'good' as a feature of the lives of those who are infact bad overall. Some terms like sinner imply more sin than righteousness, and saint or holy one means more holy than unholy... The terms that descibe these qualities in more relative terms are sinfulness and holiness...

In 1Jn 2:15 John indicates that love of God (for the people of the world) must replace the love for the world-system of evil which is debased/blind. In John 3:16 Jesus says that God loves 'the world' - here the usage indicates 'the people' under the world's dominion - God does not the love the world-system of evil (viewed as an object) but is doing away with it.

Christ builds His Church on all of the twelve original apostles (including Matthias instead of Judas Iscariot who was disqualified). Here is a biased view of the twelve's status as foundation rocks... God made the primary start on the foundation of God's building, the Church through Simon Peter, or Simon the 'rock' or 'pebble' (Matt 16:18), and what is more is that the rockface or collective of foundation stones mentioned together with Peter the Pebble is the other eleven foundation stones of God's city (Rev 21:14) - the other eleven apostles. It might seem that John was the greatest of the twelve - since he was the one that Jesus especially loved (Jn 21:15-24) - so although John was literally witnessed to be a foundational stone just slightly later in the scripture accounts than Peter - he was a greater living stone in God's building (1Pt 2:4-7) than Peter - as he was more of a pillar in the Church than Peter - holding a greater capability to love in those times, and so being trusted with a greater position of responsibility than Peter and the other ten apostles. Seems that Peter was second greatest and then James in gospel times - but disciples overtake and are overtaken by each other continually.

According to Mt 23:8-10 no one except God should be entitled (given title before name) as 'Father' as in 'Father-God' - obviously it was appropriate to say to your earthly father 'father' or 'Richard - father' as the rest of scripture demonstrates but you shouldn't say 'Father Abraham', 'Father Smith' or the like. Likewise only God should be called to as a fore-title 'Master' as in 'Master Iyehuweh' and only God should be entitled 'Director ...' (-YLT). Scripture teaches that Christian leadership is by servants (or deacons), overseers (or bishops), teachers, shepherds (or pastors), evangelists, prophets and apostles (sent-ones). So we might infer not to address any teachers or directors as teacher so-and-so, director so-and-so as this would be an inappropriately excessive entitling of their role compared to the Ideal Veda Lord God who experiences all. This sort of issue of entitling people is dealt with when Jesus questions a man who has called him 'Good teacher' - Jesus says that this form of address should be reserved for God because only He is currently good. After all, currently, the Universe = God + the Enemy.

Col 1:19 states that the entire complement - or filling part of God dwells in Christ, many translations innacurately write the 'fulness' of God - which might lead people to think that the Son is a great an aspect of God as the Father (since when does Father MEAN Son?). Likewise Eph 1:23 states that the BODY of Christ, the Church, is the COMPLEMENT of the Son of God - that which completes Him - not the 'fulness' of Christ.

1Tim 2:5 states, 'For God is One, and there is one Mediator between God and humanity - the human Christ Jesus also...' yet many translators have started this verse with the incorrect statement 'For there is One God,...' Jesus once said that humans are gods (Jn 10:34) and Paul wrote that there are many Gods and many Lords (1Cor 8:5). 'God is One' describes God as being a Unity (not a unit) of happiness, will and potency even if He is three Personas; Sister-Mother-Daughter - with many Persons of Gods (how many do you think?) in each category.

Col 4:1 - 'Masters, tender the just and the equality to your slaves...' means: - perhaps let them change employment as they choose if you were them.

Revelation 13:8 contain words that have often been mistranslated as 'everyone whose name is not written in the scroll of life of the Lambkin slain from the foundation of the world.'. Yet by a reading in Hebrews (Heb 9:25-28) this logic is refuted - and we can appreciate that the Lamb was not slain back then but recently as the book of Hebrews makes plain. The translaters then, can understand that the phrase should read 'everyone whose name is not written - from the foundation of the world, in the scroll of life of the slain Lambkin.'. So, the names of the chosen are written in the Lamb's book of life from before the foundation of the world. And Christ came to die later near the conclusion of the eons to die for the chosen and secure their fate. Although, yes, some of Jesus was infact slain also from the foundation of the world - but messing with the word order of the book of revelation might unreveal what the greek traditional word-order script-logic was making obvious to the original readers/hearers.

The execution of Jesus was as prophesied by Moses on a single wooden pole something signifying the 'cross' between 'right' and 'left' - there was no horizontal beam (Num 21:8-9). Peter's letter talks of the cross as a pole. Yet Christ's pole also had a cross beam - so it can signify reconciliation horizontally between earthly kingdoms and also reconciliation vertically between heaven's kingdom governed by God and the earthly kingdoms of the world governed by the Enemy Satan in as much as she bases her throne in the universe on earth.


The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is quite a consistent resource for the Old Testament - and easy for reading.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT) quite accurately indicates with the word 'age' the ancient words for 'eon'; in the Hebrew 'OLAM', and as equivalently with the Greek word 'AIUWN'. It is useful to compare this version with the Concordant Bible (CLV).

The Concordant Literal Version's Concordant Literal New Testament (CLNT) is mostly very accurate (and easily checkable) and the best English New Testament to date for simple-systematic analysis of original sense of the greek. It uses the word 'celestial' to denote the important Greek word 'on-the-heavens' (found in John 3:12, Eph 1:3)...

CLV's NT concordance is so easy to use and gets straightforwardly to the indexing of the original greek words rather than varying and obscured preferences for which english words to translate the greek words with. The version is careful to keep original word order throughout...

    ...Also the Concordant Literal Old Testament is largely complete (which can be a bit complicated to read), in which 'OLAM' is properly translated as 'eon' - The name of God is partially translated as IEUE, to reflect the original four Hebrew letters whereas the fuller IY-EH-UW-EH shows more how the original fulness of actual pronunciation might go (Ancient Hebrew didn't distinguish between the closely-knit sounds I&Y, E&H, U&W). The CLV Old Testament is fairly well translated yet it has some rather unusual ways of interpreting phrases - I know that Hebrew is a much greater challenge to translation and I am unsure as to exactly how accurate the Concordant Old Testament is.

The *current* version of the   CLV NewTestament   allows room for the following   comments.

— The last verse of the Revelation of Christ in the CLNT contains the words 'the saints' which is not the reading of the majority of manuscripts, infact only one ancient manuscript has it - but the verse originally simply reads 'The grace of the Lord Jesus be with 'all''.
— The concordance definition of nature is misleading, portraying it as limited to mankind and entirely good - scripture shows it as a mixture of bad and good (Eph 2:3, Rom 2:14).
— In Php 3:20 Paul wrote that 'our' 'citizenship' is in the heavens. This version uses the word 'realm' - this might be interpreted to mean 'zone' which would attempt to confine 'us' to heaven rather than 'anchor' us in heaven. But hey! that was his view then, and this is now ;) and then, huh.
— There is an error at Lk 2:14 (this verse does not proclaim 'peace, now, for all'), - it systematically reads 'Glory to God among the Highest! And on earth peace among men delighting [in this]'.
— Paul notices in 1Cor 14:33 that God is not a God of instability (sometimes) - so the translation puts 'a God of turbulence' - since God's turbulence MAY be stable. Likewise elsewhere 'turbulent' is used instead of the Greek for unstable - for instance in the letter of James the tongue is called turbulent - which is not necessarily wrong - the inference which may be wrong is that it is unstable.
— In 1Cor 6:18 CLNT mis-translates sin's effect as sin's penalty.
— The word lenient/lenience in the CLNT should usually be more accurately translated as tolerant/tolerance, since lenient is used to decribe a judgment and the scripture warns us to leave all judgement to those who are qualified. So scripture tells us ALL to be tolerant - and judges need to be lenient or severe also in the tolerance of their judgements.
— The CLNT very interestingly translates the Greek for 'casting down a foundation' as 'disruption' - this word is used frequently to refer to the 'founding' of the 'world/system-(lit. cosmos)' - used in NT to mean sin's system, that was introduced into the universe early in its history over which the Enemy still rules.
— A curiosity in the CLV is where it translates Matthew, Mark and Luke to say that; the women went to the tomb on the sabbath -- however the greek usage and consensus of the witness seems to say that they rested on the sabbath and at dawn on the first day of the week they arrived to find it empty. To fulfil the 3 'days' and 3 'nights' JC prophesied (friday had an extra night and day in it).
— Mt 10:16, Rom 18:19 and Php 2:15 translate the Greek word meaning unblended as 'artless' as if to say it were inherently good for doves and men to lack artfulness - however the concordance gives a literal interpretation - 'unblended',.. with (bad) impurity.
— In the CLNT version of Acts 16:18 - we have 'Paul, being exasperated...' whereas another reading is 'being grieved, Paul...'.

I think people will agree that quite a few of these points are critical to a clear understanding of important issues - and that, inspite of this, the CNLT really doesn't need much more adjustment to make it fully reach its goal of a being a completely accurate meaning-for-meaning and word-for-word translation which retains sense of original word order where possible, and is very easy to and search and analyse through its accompanying concordance...

With some adjustments according to these comments - and other word-choices amended; either over-specific, or over-generalised, - the CLNT would be even better - unfortunately many translations contain misleading language in places but God's grace lets weeds and wheat sharpen each other and overcomes human scribes.

Here is a quote from the Old Testament Concordant Version with an adjustment in brackets:

Isaiah 53:2-5   ...And He is coming up as a layer-plant before Him, and as a root sprout from earth that is arid. No shape has he nor honor [as] we shall see him, and no appearance nor loveliness that we will covet Him. Despised is He, and shunned by men, a man of pains and knowing illness. And, as One concealing His face from us, He is despised, and we don't take Him into account. Surely our illnesses has He borne, and our pains--He was burdened with them. And we account him touched, smitten by the God and humbled. And He was wounded because of our transgressions, and crushed because of our depravities. The discipline for our welfare was on Him, and by His welts there is healing for us...

(The Concordant Version of the New Testament has grammatically 'smoother' English.)

back to homepage