Towards A More Welcoming And Inclusive Church - The Institute For: Fill & Download for Free

Wow! I wasn’t going to write an answer since I’m not “right” wing, but reading these answers, from what I presume to be left-wingers, describe the conservative movement as racists who support “white supremacy” really irritated me.Not because I want to defend conservatism, but because I’m tired of my country being divided by these self-righteous mountebanks.First things first:“American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values, moral universalism, business (which lead them to support free trade when it is good for business), anti-communism, individualism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism.” Conservatism in the United States - WikipediaSpare me the Wikipedia ad hominem. Everyone and their grandmother knows you use it too.Now compare that to American liberalism:“Liberalism in the United States is a broad political philosophy centered on what many see as the unalienable rights of the individual. The fundamental liberal ideals of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion for all belief systems, and the separation of church and state, right to due process, and equality under the law are widely accepted as common foundation across the spectrum of liberal thought.” Liberalism in the United States - WikipediaI recommend, at the LEAST, reading both of these Wikipedia web pages to get a better idea of the history and the differences of the two main systems of political thought in the United States.Political parties like the Republicans (associated with the color red, an elephant, and the right-wing) or the Democrats (associated with the color blue, a donkey, and the left-wing ) want the average citizen of the United States (you can’t even call yourself American without triggering half the world nowadays) to believe they are static creatures that can go up and down the political spectrum.The reality is we are multifaceted individuals that can swing to either side depending on the situation.These situations are based on self-interest and self-preservation.Two terms you should be familiar with to understand each end of this spectrum is radical and reactionary.A radical, in the politically minded sense of the word, is someone who wants to change society in a fundamental, perhaps extreme way.Maybe toppling a current political power or creating a new party. American abolitionism is a radical shift from laissez-faire, let do, keep all the slaves because it is good for the economy mindset.Let’s put our Wikipedia scholar hats back on for a more textbook definition of the word:“The term political radicalism (in political science known as radicalism denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary or other means and changing value systems in fundamental ways.” Political radicalism - WikipediaEnding slavery in the United States is a textbook definition of radicalism because not only did it fuel a civil war, but it altered social structures that still exist today with Jim Crow Laws that “enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States,” indentured servitude, and perhaps even the Great Northward Migration when “six million African-Americans” moved out of “rural Southern United States to the urban Northeast, Midwest, and West that occurred between 1916 and 1970.”[1]The origin story of the Republican party is a radical movement to stop the spread of slavery, to promote abolitionism in the United States.“The Republican Party began as a coalition of anti-slavery Conscience Whigs such as Zachariah Chandler and Free Soil Democrats such as Salmon P. Chase, who were opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act…The act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus implicitly repealing the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36°, 30′ latitude which had been part of the Missouri Compromise.” History of the United States Republican Party - WikipediaCheck out this map and notice the green line indicating the 36°, 30′ latitude; all that land above the green line would be opened to slavery if the people in those territories wanted it.Figure 1. “Map of the United States c. 1849 (modern state borders), with the parallel 36°30′ north – slave states in red, free states in blue” [2]This put the new Republicans in direct opposition to those on the other side of the spectrum—the reactionaries.A reactionary, again in the politically minded sense, is an individual who wants to return to the good ol’ days, the status quo.The Kansas-Nebraska act is an example of a reactionary policy that returns to a previous political mindset by overthrowing the radical policy of The Missouri Compromise.Here’s another Wiki definition for your reading pleasure:“In political science, a reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (economic prosperity, justice, individual ownership, discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.” Reactionary - WikipediaDo you want to ban abortion in America? Then you can consider yourself a reactionary because you want to go back to a previous political policy that made terminating unwanted fetuses illegal.Do you support presidential candidate Andrew Yang on his Freedom Dividend of giving one-thousand U.S. dollars to all American citizens? Then you can consider yourself a radical because you want to alter a social structure in a fundamental way.Now you understand the two spectrums of the American political system: radical on the left, reactionary on the right.Figure 2: French Revolution Political Spectrum It says French because Americans take everything from the French: Statues of Liberty, French fries, and Political Spectrums ;)An easy way to remember which R is on which side is by reminding yourself of Radicals are blue because they want to change you and Reactionaries are red because they can’t make their beds. Stupid but it works for me.Some argue that this is a simplistic view of politics and that it doesn’t include for all the “existing variations.”“Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left-right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and often include other axes.” Political spectrum - WikipediaI don’t know. I’m not a political scientist. I just know it is easier to understand complicated material by simplifying it first then complicating it to scale to develop a further understanding that encompasses all the nitty-gritty bits.Are you going to study female biology before you ask the cute girl out? No! So let’s move on.With the abortion and Freedom Dividend examples above, you might think if you fall on one side of the spectrum for one issue you’ll keep falling for the same side for other issues.Let’s see.Do you believe universities should create areas where a person or a “category of people” don’t have to worry about being emotionally or physically harmed?“A place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm.” Google FeedbackIf you think yes, then you’re a radical on the issue of safe spaces.Do you believe the United States should have a responsibility to open their borders to allow less privileged citizens from other countries in?If you think yes, then you might be considered a reactionary wanting to go back before the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 that limited immigrants, mainly Jews, in the U.S.“The Emergency Quota Act, also known as the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921… was actually formulated mainly in response to the large influx of Jews fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe and thus successfully restricted their immigration and that of other ‘undesirables’ into the United States…. it added two new features to American immigration law: numerical limits on immigration and the use of a quota system for establishing those limits.” Emergency Quota Act - WikipediaNow a right-winger is someone with a static political ideology cemented in conservatism.Perhaps they want to go back to defining marriage between a man and a woman and make abortion illegal again. But for the most part, they want to preserve the status quo not revert back to a previous status quo.Alt-righters are people with a political ideology cemented in reactionary policies: re-establishing a “whites” only nation, closed borders, zero intervention in other countries disputes, and racial purity except for Asians.The big take away is that alt-righters want to make their own country for only white people, similar to the black nationalist that want a country for only the descendants of former slaves with the difference being the black nationalist calling for a radical policy and white nationalists asking to go back to a previous reactionary one.Which brings us to the left and their tactics of polarizing political rivals to gain the upper hand.The United States is 60.7 % White out of a population of 327,167, 434 according to the 2018 United States Census Bureau.Figure 3: U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: UNITED STATESFor white liberals to gain an upper hand they have to convince the rest of the population that the white conservatives are these racist, sexist, horrible people.Don’t believe me? Look below this post and read for yourself some of the comments.“The Alt-Right says aloud what the Right-Wing is afraid to say, but more than willing to support.”Notice how this attack has no concrete examples only superfluous virtue signaling meant to demonize conservative people.Here’s a quote Richard Spencer said in July of 2014 at the Metrapolitics of America, “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created unequal.”This popular Quoran should be ashamed of himself for trying to link conservatives who don’t want to be made to feel ashamed of their American culture to this man holding racist thoughts.Answer me this if other countries can be proud of their culture, then why can’t Americans feel proud of theirs without triggering those who feel a constant need to remind us that Canadians and Latinos are American too?What racist systemic policies are Republicans passing? Tight border patrol policies that detain parents crossing the country separating them from children? Okay, maybe insensitive, but most liberals AND conservatives didn’t agree with Trump hence, “President Trump signed an executive order reversing his policy of separating families — and replacing it with a policy of detaining entire families together, including children, but ignoring legal time limits on the detention of minors.”[3]But here’s a racist systemic policy left-wingers at Harvard passed to limit the amount of Asians at their institution.“The basic claim by the plaintiffs, a group representing Asian-American students rejected by Harvard, is that the university has systematically discriminated against Asian-Americans by holding them to a higher standard than other applicants. Harvard argues that in trying to compose a diverse class, it considers each applicant as an individual and does not discriminate.” The Harvard Bias Suit by Asian-Americans: 5 Key IssuesAll fair in love and diversity, right left-wingers? Keep in mind that Asians make up 5.8% of the population in America. Talk about attacking a tiny minority group.Left-wingers like the popular Quorans attacking popular right-winging Quorans completely ignore Blacks and Hispanics that either identify as Republican or lean towards Republican, convincing themselves that only white “racist” men voted for Trump. The reality is left-wingers only care about “minorities” in so much as they can get them to vote for their liberal amigos into office.How about Homophobic? Liberals accuse conservatives all the time of fearing members of the LGTBQ+, for example, Trump banning transgenders from serving in the military.They forget to mention many Republicans were against this decision including “John McCain, Susan Collins and Orrin Hatch have criticized the policy and more than 50 retired generals and admirals signed a letter saying the ban would degrade military readiness.”[4]Not to mention this passed the Supreme Court 5–4, so plenty of opposition to it. But is the issue hatred for a group or is Trump banning trans people from serving because he doesn’t want to spend money on trans-inclusive medical services?“Trump would effectively return to the pre-2016 era in which trans troops could not serve openly. It would also ban the military from paying for gender-affirming surgeries, with some exceptions to ‘protect the health’ of someone who had already begun transitioning.” Trump’s ban on transgender troops, explainedThis reactionary policy seems, to me, to be about paying for the medical cost of trans people, not some inherent hatred for them. But let’s see what Big Red has to say for himself:Do those 366 thousand people who liked his tweets all hate trans-people or do they simply not want to spend their tax dollars on gender-affirming care?Hey, I don’t agree with it and I think if we can spend more than a half a trillion dollars each year on the Department of Defense then surely we can spend a meager “$2.4 million and $8.4 million annually”[5] for gender-affirming surgeries.Call Trump and those who support his decision cheap bastards if you like but demonizing him as a bigot against trans because he doesn’t want the taxpayer to pay for their transitioning is a different issue altogether.You don’t turn those you disagree with into villains unless you’re looking for someone to fight.And let us not forget which side passed The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA):“The Defense of Marriage Act enacted September 21, 1996 was a United States federal law that, prior to being ruled unconstitutional, defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states… Initially introduced in May 1996, DOMA passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September 1996.” Defense of Marriage Act - WikipediaDenying homosexuals the right to marry seems to me more indicative of prejudice.Perhaps you say that Republicans had a house majority and it didn’t matter if Bill signed it because it would have passed anyway. But I would argue that even if the Dems held the house it would still pass since 118 Dems supported the bill with only 65 against.http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xmlBut no, only the right-wingers are capable of discrimination.Here’s another quote demonizing the right by another popular Quoran:“The American right embraces neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Popular conservatives on Quora and elsewhere may say they aren’t racist, but they still vote for white supremacists, defend white supremacists, openly embrace white supremacists as part of their political party, and advocate for people who promote white supremacist ideology.”No, sir, the only bigot is you who is generalizing an entire group of people based on their ideology.This is what the left, or better yet said, the left with a platform to express their views, do to those they disagree with: a sweeping statement without facts to back them up.How long have I been writing this answer with quotes supporting what I’m saying and footnotes to point where I got my material from? It’s already been 12 hours composing this post! Why? Because radical leaning individuals can’t stop objectifying the opposing side into their symbols of hate the left love fetishizing over.Excuse me, mister, and I only call you mister out of respect for civility, something ideologues like you know nothing about—conservatives have real fears, okay. They are not Islamophobes. They’re scared of bringing people from a culture into their country that have a track record of forcing their women into symbols of oppression called a hijab, burka, niqab, chador, shayla, Al-Amira, and Khimar.And I say symbol of oppression because women don’t have a choice.“Although the Taliban regime ended in 2001, some women continue to wear it out of security concerns or as a cultural practice.” Hijab by country - WikipediaHow can you have peace in the world when women are afraid to show their hair in public? That’s not being an Islamophobe. It’s called loving your sisters from other misters.I, and a lot of conservatives, don’t want any American, regardless of race or ethnicity, to be forced into marriage by an Imam leader thinking he’s quoting the Prophet.“Among some Muslim faith communities, early marriage is sometimes justified by citing the example of the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) marriage to his youngest wife Ayesha bint Abu Bakr. This is despite the fact that her exact age at the time of marriage is unknown and Islam requires that all males and females reach puberty before they are married.”https://www.islamic-relief.org/wp-content/.../03/FORCED-MARRIAGE-CSW62.pdfI criticize the Catholic church for not turning over evidence of their priests and nuns molesting little boys and I criticize Islam leaders forcing girls into marriage. Neither is bashing or speaking badly about the religion as a whole but condemning evil practices.Guess what, I DESPISE the cultural practice of slashing a girl’s clitoris. It’s disgusting and should be outlawed, but here we go again with one more example of religion-inspired customs spreading evil.“The decision, in the first federal case to involve FGM [female genital multilage], dismissed the main charges in a case against Jumiana Nargarwala, a doctor who performed the procedure on nine girls, aged 7–13, from Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota at another doctor’s clinic in Livonia, on the outskirts of Detroit. The prosecution said she may have performed the procedure on as many as 100 girls. Four of the eight defendants, including three of the four mothers accused of subjecting their daughters to the procedure, were dismissed in the case. The defendants are members of a small Muslim Dawoodi Bohra community.” ‘US is moving backwards’: female genital mutilation ruling a blow to girls at riskWhile the left are concerned about microaggressions, manspreading, and creating enough space spaces for the hypersensitive, little girls around the world in Muslim communities are having their clitorises mutilated.Wave your virtue signaling flag again. Let the world see how righteous you are by calling conservatives who speak against these atrocities Islamophobes because they don’t want to bring these crimes to their neighborhoods.Conservatives are tough on immigration not because they hate other countries but they hate certain evil practices that those countries practice like forced marriages, FGM, bride prices, machismo (aggressive masculine pride), censorship (not believing in freedom of speech), and the list goes on.When you bring people to your country, they bring their country with them, the good and the bad. It’s the responsibility of those in power to protect us from the bad that put their citizens in jeopardy, not sell their citizens well-being for a couple million cheap votes masquerading as righteousness. It’s not about bashing other countries, something you and your ad hominem team of logical fallacies love feigning ignorance about.Right-wingers worry about their daughters walking home and encountering an immigrant male from an Islamic country used to seeing women fully clothed in a burka or other attire.You call right-wingers racist and prejudice, completely dismissing their fears since you’re rich off book sales that let you live in a posh neighborhood.Here’s what they are afraid of that your rich gated community protects you against:“Authorities now think that on New Year’s Eve, more than 1,200 women were sexually assaulted in various German cities, including more than 600 in Cologne and about 400 in Hamburg. More than 2,000 men were allegedly involved, and 120 suspects — about half of them foreign nationals who had only recently arrived in Germany — have been identified.”[6]They don’t want this to happen to their hometowns. It’s not hate. It’s called protecting your daughters, something you probably don’t know anything about with your lifestyle.It’s incidences like these that made mothers and fathers vote Trump in over Hillary, not being racist, sexist, bigoted, or any other popular buzz words you want to use to overinflate your gigantic self-righteous ego.Leftist like you condemn girls [7]for embracing other cultures by labeling something beautiful as ugly. It is the racist individuals that want nothing to do with other cultures.The truth is when you visit another country the people of that country want to dress you up in their clothes, they want to feed you their food, they want you to speak their language, they want to share their traditions and cultures with you because they want to welcome you into their world. That’s how you create peace and harmony.So far I’ve been to 16 countries and what I just said proved true in all of them except the United States of America.Looks nice, I know ;) The people of South Korean couldn’t wait to dress us all up in their traditional clothes.Political correctness, identity politics, race baiting, demonizing political opponents, threatening violence against those you disagree with, all these tactics need to end now if we want to build a better world for the next generations.Footnotes[1] Great Migration (African-American) - Wikipedia[2] Parallel 36°30′ north - Wikipedia[3] What We Know: Family Separation And 'Zero Tolerance' At The Border[4] White House announces ban on transgender people serving in military[5] Trump’s ban on transgender troops, explained[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve/?utm_term=.176041c9d51a[7] People are furious at teen for wearing a traditional Chinese dress to prom

I agree to an extent that there is likely an amount of re-interpretation occurring (that is, religious reinterpretation with a modern western, socially liberal bent), with regards to homosexuality, in "gay-friendly" churches. But in truth on the other hand we really don't have any solid material from, or directly attributed to, Jesus himself with regards to that topic...or many other topics, unfortunately.Thus all we're left with really is the tradition that we know he himself was a part of, which was Judaism, and his time and place which was the Middle East around what we would now call the year 0- to about the 30's or so, CE, or AD. We can only deduce from what we know of Judaism in that time period and social environment, to try to guess at what the man may have likely thought about something like this. If he was at all a remotely typical religious Jew of his time and society, that is.Usually, traditionally, Christians have fallen back therefore on the Jewish Bible's proscription against homosexual behavior as found in Leviticus, and also on items like the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. Some cite a couple of New Testament verses as well such as Romans 1:27.Some on the other hand, may wish to interpret Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, in a different way than it was thought of more commonly in the past. So that's a reinterpretation.Even rethinking that particular tale however, still leaves us with the clear (indeed threatening, violent; kill them both, their blood is on their own heads... Lev.20:13) prohibitions in the Leviticus section which, one way or the other, it's pretty hard to reinterpret in any modern-day friendly-sounding way.So basically it all depends on the Christians in question; how or if they want to apply or pay attention to this kind of thing.To an extent then, it can be argued that where there are Christian, or Jewish, branches taking up new interpretations and understandings (or just basically ignoring the Levitical or other proscriptions against it in the Bible), being more welcoming to homosexuals in general, then they already kind of are creating new, more inclusive traditions. As much as possible, at least.Because if they were sticking to the more traditional ways in which these religions were probably arguably meant to be applied, then really in essence there would need be no excessive friendliness towards alternative-lifestyle people. Except perhaps as potential subjects of ministry, "conversion therapy", prayer, and so forth.Where there is a sort of "remade" Christianity, some type like Presbyterianism for instance, which is gay-friendly, or reformed Judaism (which could also then be called "remade" Judaism, in a sense) we could argue that these already are essentially new traditions in and of themselves.It's next to impossible to start a viable new religion entirely, as well as institute a wholly new socio-cultural framework. And it's definitely not possible to entirely uproot and replace 2,000 +/- years of prior framework and tradition with something manufactured today or in recent times. You can only really build off of, or change, the existing religious institutions, in my view. Rather than starting entirely new faiths (ones which you can expect large numbers of people to follow, that is).

Shalom,I humbly submit for review consideration testing and sharpening.(Q) Is there a translation of the Old Testament that uses the anglicized original Hebrew names of God like Elohim, El Shaddai, etc.?■ Berĕshith (Genesis) 28:3 And Ěl Shaddai bless you, and make you fruitful and increase you, and you shall become an assembly of peoples,”■ Berĕshith (Genesis) 35:11 And Elohim said to him, “I am Ěl Shaddai. Be fruitful and increase, a nation and a company of nations shall be from you, and sovereigns come from your body.■ Ḥazon (Revelation) 14:12 Here is the endurance of the set-apart ones, here are those guarding the commands of Elohim and the belief of יהושע.■ Ḥazon (Revelation) 16:7 And I heard another out of the slaughter-place saying, “Yes, יהוה Ěl Shaddai, true and righteous are Your judgments.”(A) The Scriptures 2009Copyright© 1993 – 2015 by the Institute for Scripture Research (ISR). All rights reserved.● Examine:WHY ANOTHER TRANSLATION?There have been many fine translations of the Scriptures which, over the years, have been such a wonderful source of blessing to so many. Yet the multitude of choices between available translations is in itself a source of confusion for many. Which translation is truly the Word of the Most High? Don’t some translations appear to outrightly contradict the reading of certain other translations? Is it really necessary, one may ask, to add yet another one?The reality is that the inspired Word of the Almighty is not represented adequately in any translation or version made by human beings (including this one!), for the best translation only represents the sincere and prayerful attempt by human beings to render the Word of the Creator into a receptor language which ultimately has its origins at the Tower of Baḇel, and words in one language do not have a one-to-one correspondence with words in any other language. The Scriptures are, after all, those words which were originally breathed out by the very Creator Himself. While we definitely believe in the overriding hand of Providence in the transmission of the Scriptures (Rom. 3:2; 9:4,5), no sincere translator (or board of translators) would ever be so pompous as to assert that his or her translation is the very Word of the Almighty himself!Approaching the task of Scripture translation from different backgrounds, environments, cultural mindsets, etc. inevitably affects the end result. Those with no access to the original language of Scripture become entirely dependent on whichever translations are in their hands. Apart from taking steps to get to grips with the original languages of the Scriptures (something that we would earnestly encourage every genuine student of the Scriptures to do), the only other recourse they have is to acquire and compare as many translations/versions of the Scriptures as possible. This way something, however small, may be grasped, of the multifaceted depth of the original. Thus there remains a real need for further translations which will help to bring forth yet further elements from the original tongue that are not adequately reflected in other translations.This is precisely where “The Scriptures - 2009 Edition (ISR)” comes into the picture. This edition of the Scriptures, while attempting to be an accurate translation, seeks at the same time to introduce the reader to something of the Hebraic mindset and culture which are very much a part of the original. Indeed, we see this is as absolutely necessary for the serious student of Scripture. The events of Scripture did not occur in the modern western world, with its Anglo-Hellenist mindset, but within the very different world of the ancient middle-east, and the Semitic mindset of the People of Yisra’ĕl. While we have sought to accurately translate rather than to interpret, aiming at producing a literal translation rather than a paraphrase, we have tried to provide the student of Scripture with a tool which in some way helps him or her to “experience” the Scriptures as Semitic rather than Hellenistic. In so doing we have taken much further the work of the 1993 and 1998 editions of the ISR “Scriptures” toward this end.As in the earlier editions, our aims have included:“A translation of the Scriptures which:To this may be added:THE ORDER AND TITLES OF THE BOOKSIn accordance with our aim to affirm the Hebraic roots of our Belief we have:The Tanaḵ ( Torah, Neḇi’im, Kethuḇim)First, The Torah- LawWe have rendered it by the Hebrew word itself, Torah, i.e. the five books of Mosheh (Moses), also known as the Ḥumash, or (The Pentateuch), Law or Teaching. They consist of the following 5 books:Berĕshith (Genesis)Shemoth (Exodus)Wayyiqra (Leviticus)Bemiḏbar (Numbers)Deḇarim (Deuteronomy)Then, The Neḇi’im- ProphetsThese books are known as The Prophets, not because of the element of prediction (a considerable amount of their content is historical rather than predictive!), but because of being written by prophets. They are divided into two categories, the Former Prophets, and the Latter Prophets, referring to their time of writing. The Latter Prophets were further divided into Major Prophets, and Minor Prophets (known as Shnĕm Asar, i.e. The Twelve).Please note that we have restored the book of Dani’ĕl to its rightful place among the Prophets*, as also did Josephus. We have placed it between Yeḥezqĕl / Ezekiel (the third of the Latter Prophets), and Shnĕm Asar / The Twelve (the fourth of the Latter Prophets), instead of including it among The Kethuḇim (Writings), as is usually done. They consist of the following 9 books, i.e. 8 books, plus* Dani’ĕl:The Former Prophets (4 books)Yehoshua (Joshua)Shophetim (Judges)Shemu’ĕl (Aleph & Bĕt) (Samuel)Melaḵim (Aleph & Bĕt) (Kings)The Latter Prophets (4 books, plus Dani’ĕl)Yeshayah (Isaiah)Yirmeyahu (Jeremiah)Yehezqĕl (Ezekiel)Shnĕm Asar (The Twelve)*Dani’ĕl (Daniel)[ Shnĕm Asaris one book, containing the works of twelve prophets:Hoshĕa (Hosea)Yo’ĕl (Joel)Amos (Amos)Oḇaḏyah (Obadiah)Yonah (Jonah)Miḵah (Micah)Naḥum (Nahum)Ḥaḇaqquq (Habakkuk)Tsephanyah (Zephaniah)ḤaggaiZeḵaryah (Zechariah)Mal’aḵi (Malachi)]Then, The Kethuḇim- WritingsThey are the remaining books of the Tanaḵ, (10 books, i.e. 11 less Dani’ĕl)Tehillim (Psalms)Mishlĕ (Proverbs)Iyoḇ (Job)Shir haShirim (Song of Songs)RuthĚḵah (Lamentations)Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes, Convener)Estĕr (Esther)Ezra - Neḥemyah (Nehemiah)Diḇre haYamim (Aleph & Bĕt) (Chronicles, Annals)Thus, the Torah, Neḇi’im and Kethuḇim go to make up the Tanaḵ, which is commonly known as the “Old Testament”. There are 24 books in all, according to the Hebraic reckoning (as given above), although the same books are reckoned by others to add up to 39, by counting the individual segments (such as Shemu’ĕl Aleph, Shemu’ĕl Bĕt, Ezra, Neḥemyah, etc.)THE SECOND WRITINGS (variously called The Netzarim Writings, The Messianic Writings, The New Covenant, haBrit haḤadasha, The New Testament, etc.)The ‘correct’ order of the books has been debated by some. The traditional order since Jerome is a roughly chronologiocal arrangement, and there is much to be said for this approach.in Domain Name Is Available To Buy | Buy brandable Domain Names At DaaZ. Western Christianity since the time of Jerome the letters of Ya’aqoḇ, Kĕpha, Yoḥanan and Yehuḏah have been placed after those of Sha’ul/Paul. An earlier arrangement (still preferred by Eastern Christianity) is to place these letters before Sha’ul/Paul. Others contend that a more consistent approach is to follow a topical arrangement, as in the traditional Hebraic arrangement of the Tanaḵ.Each arrangement have its merits, but the reality is that there is no ‘original’ arrangement for the simple but obvious reason that the Second writings were not written as one book! Instead, they came about over time through the careful collation of those documents which had been preserved by various persons and congregations of individual ‘books’, letters, etc. written by those whom יהושע Rabbeinu appointed as his ‘personal representatives’ (shliḥim = ‘apostles’.)These writings of men inspired by יהוה had been written under different circumstances in different places, at different times, yet were regarded all along as inspired documents because of the anointing on their authors. Each shaliaḥ / ‘apostle’ was writing as a personal representative of יהושע, and therefore also of יהוה, the anointing was on the very Writings themselves, from the vey beginning.However, they still had to be collected into a single collection, before they became what we today know as the Second Writings (or ‘New Testament’), and that took place over time, with many collations of these Writings not having all the books we have today, and as could be expected, differing in their ordering of the books. Let us not forget that the original “Second-Writings-Believers” had no copy of the Second Writings. They wrote it! Naturally then, different ones in different places had only parts of the Second Writings until all those parts which we now have had been collected, and bound together. Thus, there is no ‘correct’ order of the books of the Second Writings.Are the Second Writings then really necessary? Absolutely! That is why יהוה Eloheinu inspired them to be written, and anointed the Shliḥim (personal representatives) of יהושע to the task. These works are unique in their guidance concerning how those who follow יהושע the Messiah are to apply יהוה’s Torah to their lives. Truly, we are to live by “every Word of יהוה“, as Torah and יהושע Rabbeinu both exhort us to do (Deḇ. 8:3; Mt. 4:4), and that includes all of the Second Writings Kĕpha Bĕt 3:15, 16; Tim. Bĕt 3:16, 17).Since there is no correct order of the books, we have decided to stay with the traditional Western order that we have followed in previous editions of The Scriptures until further consideration more strongly motivates our change to a different order of books. Thus there is a total of 27 books in all, or if reckoned Hebraically (e.g. counting Kĕpha Aleph & Kĕpha Bĕt as one book consisting of two letters, etc.), a total of 21.THE RESTORATION OF THE NAMEThe restoration of the Name of the Almighty to any translation of the Scriptures should require no justification. After all it was the Almighty Himself who originally placed His name in the Scriptures at least 6 823 times! It was human beings who decided, for reasons that made sense to them, to delete His Name and to replace it with something “more appropriate” in their view. This, in spite of the Creator’s own statement to and through Mosheh (Moses) that: “This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all generations.” (Shemoth / Exodus 3:15, The Scriptures - 2009 Edition (ISR).The reference in this passage is to the Name which, in Hebrew, consists of four letters Yod, Hey, Waw, Hey, and which is frequently referred to as ‘The Tetragrammaton’. These letters are often brought across into English characters by the use of the four letters, YHWH (or as YHVH). This has been variously pronounced as YaHWeH, YaHoWeH, YaHuWeH, YaHVeH, etc. We have chosen not to enter the pronunciation debate, but rather give the Name exactly as it appears in the unpointed Hebrew text, i.e. יהוה.While there has been some debate over what is the most accurate and precise pronunciation, three things are clear however:Firstly, the word Jehovah is definitely an erroneous pronunciation. This is so because it derives from a combination of the letters JHVH and Hebrew vowel points belonging to an altogether different word. Incidentally, the J was originally pronounced as a capital I (or Y), and thus the term Jehovah would have been read by early readers of the King James Version as Iehovah (or Yehovah.)Secondly, any one of the various attempts to pronounce the Name is infinitely superior to the actual removal of the Name, and its substitution by an altogether different term! Substitution by a ‘good’ term does not alter the fact that it is a substitution, a replacement word. Further, some of the terms traditionally substituted for the Name are actually the names of pagan deities! This is true, not only in English, but also in the other languages of the world!Thirdly, in spite of the above facts, many translations perpetuate a “tradition” of substituting “LORD” or “GOD”, all in capital letters, for our heavenly Father’s chosen Name, יהוה. Why? Many, and varied are the reasons which have been given, amongst both Christian and Jewish communities, for this serious error. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a translation purporting to be literal, yet resorting to the “device”, however well intentioned, of adding and subtracting from our heavenly Father’s own choice of Personal Name, would be doing a grave disservice to His cause. At best it would display ignorance, but at worst would show disrespect, or blatant disregard for the plain Word of the Almighty Himself!This is a matter that the ISR has taken seriously from the very beginning. In the 1993 edition of “The Scriptures” we stated: “The Scriptures differs radically from most other translations in that it does not continue in the tradition of substituting the Name of the Father and of the Son with names ascribed to gentile (pagan) deities. All the names of deities which in the past have been ascribed to the Father, the Son, and even used when engaged in worship, have been avoided”. Our position has NOT changed. But surely He has many Names, one may ask? Not so! Men have called Him by many names, and indeed there are many titles by which He is known in Scripture (mistakenly called ‘names’ by some), but there is only ONE Name by which He urges us to remember Him to all generations! That is the Name יהוה! You may be surprised to find that the expression “I AM”, quoted by so many people from Shemoth /Ex. 3:14 as THE Name of the Almighty is NOT used even ONCE more in the Tanaḵ (Old Testament) after this verse. However, the Name יהוה is not only used in Shemoth /Ex. 3:15, but throughout the Tanaḵ, both before and after this passage, a total of 6 823 times in the Masoretic text of the Tanaḵ Alone. A rose, by any other name may smell just as sweet, but clearly this is not the case with יהוה! One may not simply substitute His Name with that of a pagan deity, be it God, Gott, Zeus, Theos, Pan, Allah, Lord, Lordo, Lard, Hlafweard, or any other. Nor can we refer to Him by even a generic Lord, referencing Krishna, Vishnu, or any other “Lord” of choice. Doing so is to attribute to another the work, power, esteem and wisdom which belongs only to יהוה Elohim (Yeshayahu /Is. 42:8). By His Name יהוה, He is to be distinguished from all “other deities”.Many misguided individuals are under the false impression that, for instance, the words “Lord, LORD, God, GOD, Adonai or HaShem are “translations” of the Name of the Almighty. Nothing could be further from the truth! Consider once more the passage quoted above (Shemoth / Ex. 3:15) in which the ELOHIM (Heb. = “Mighty One”) of Aḇraham, Yitsḥaq and Ya’aqoḇ declares that his Name is יהוה and that this Name is to be His remembrance to all generations. Should this not then be the case in this generation also?While names, especially in the Scriptures, frequently do have meanings, it is erroneous to think that we should call anyone or refer to anyone by the “translation” of his or her name. And the same holds true in Scripture. Giuseppe in Italian corresponds to Joseph in English; however, Giuseppe Verdi cannot be translated as Joseph Green in English, even if that is what it means in English! The proper name of any individual is not translated; it is always transliterated or transcribed in order to approximate its original pronunciation. We repeat: the proper name of any individual is simply not translated, more especially when we are dealing with the most important Ones: the Most High (יהוה) and His Son (יהושע)!For all of these reasons, we have returned these Most Set Apart Names to their rightful place in our translation of the Scriptures, and have done so by using the Hebrew characters rather than any English rendering. Such a rendering has solid historical precedent in the earliest copies of the Septuagint (LXX), and has the merit of being true to the text, neither adding nor subtracting by means of substitutions (however well-intended).It has also the additional merit of allowing the individual reader to progress in his own quest for accuracy of pronunciation, as he seeks to obey the scriptural injunctions to call on the Name (Shemoth / Ex. 3:15; Yeshayahu / Isa.12:4; Yirmeyahu / Jer. 10:25; Tehillim / Ps. 105:1,3), to make it known (Shemoth / Ex. 9:16; Yeshayahu / Is. 64:1,2; Yeḥezqĕl / Ez. 39:7), and to not obliterate or forget it (Deḇarim / Dt. 12:3,4; Yeshayahu / Isa. 65:11; Yirmeyahu / Jer. 23:27; Tehillim / Ps. 44:20)!In the same way the Messiah’s Name in Hebrew, יהושע, was chosen in order to avoid controversy. All the available authoritative sources and references are in agreement and clearly admit that our Messiah’s Name was יהושע (see for instance Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, under Iesous). While the short form “Yeshua” (ישוע) is popular with many (indeed the Shem Toḇ Hebrew text of Mattithyahu renders it as such, as also the Hebrew translation of the “New Testament” by F. Delitzch), Dr. Solomon Zeitlin refutes this form as the Name of our Messiah, favouring instead the form יהושע (see The Jewish Quarterly Review, Jan. 1970, p.195). At this stage we need to explain the word “Elohim” used in this translation. English translations have traditionally rendered it as “God” or as “god(s)” in most instances. However, the Hebrew word “elohim” is the plural form of “eloah”, which has the basic meaning of “mighty one”. This word is not only used for deity, but is used in Scripture for judges, angels and idols (Shemoth / Ex. 7:1; 9:28; 12:12; 22:8, 9; Tehillim / Ps. 8:5; 82:1, 6) besides being used frequently for the Almighty. The shorter forms, “el” and “elim” have the same basic meaning and similar usage. (Needless to say, the same would apply to the Aramaic equivalents, such as “elah” and “elahin”). By transliterating these expressions instead of translating them as “Mighty One” something of the richness of the Hebrew is communicated, and we therefore retained them, with the exception of a few instances, such as Bereshith / Gen. 10:8; 31:30,32; 35:2,4; Shemoth / Ex. 12:12; 15:11; 18:11; 20:3,23; 23:13,24, where the translation of “mighty one” or “mighty ones” seemed more appropriate.THE TEXT OF THE TANAḴ AND SECOND WRITINGSTHE Tanaḵ (Pre-Second Writings Scripture, commonly called The Old Testament):The Tanaḵ in this translation is based on the Masoretic Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Scriptures, printed in the 1937 edition of Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. This is based on the ben Asher text of Leningrad, B 19a. Generally speaking, there are few problems with the Masoretic text, because the Masoretes copied the Scriptures in great fear of making mistakes and altering the text. They used the device of the Kethuḇim and Qerĕ by means of which they indicated in the margins their preferred readings. However, they did make a few changes in the text itself which have been recorded for us, but unfortunately not all in one manuscript. In 134 places the Sopherim (Scribes) removed the Name יהוה and substituted the term Adonai. In a further 8 places the Name יהוה was substituted by the term Elohim. These have been collected by Dr. C.D. Ginsberg in his Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, (Ktav Publishing House Inc. New York).We have accordingly restored the text to its original readings in these 142 places, and have also restored the text in accordance with the “Eighteen emendations of the Sopherim”, which are also recorded for us by Dr. C.D. Ginsberg. A list of these 160 places is provided in the Explanatory Notes for your convenience.THE SECOND WRITINGS(variously called The Netzarim Writings, The Messianic Writings, The New Covenant, haBrit haḤadasha, The New Testament, etc.):THE ISSUES:An issue that presents itself to anyone wanting to get to the “original” words behind those of the various translations available in any language is the matter of Primacy. In other words, in what language were the words of the Second Writings originally inspired? Unfortunately, we do not have the original text. Only very old copies are currently available, until the archaeologists give us something more. The oldest, but not necessarily the ‘best’ copies currently available are in Greek. Were these (ultimately) copies of Greek or Semitic (i.e. Hebrew / Aramaic) originals?Positions vary on the matter of Primacy, most scholars opting for the more traditional view of Western Christianity, that they were originally written in Greek. However, there are various scholars who dispute this intensely, maintaining that at least part, if not all of the Second Writings are of Semitic origin. Indeed, this represents the position of Eastern Christianity, where for example, the ‘authorized version’ of the Church of the East is the Peshitta, in which the Second Writings are entirely in Aramaic. The Peshitta in its current form does not go back beyond the fourth century, but its advocates strongly maintain that it rests firmly upon Aramaic originals.We are not going to go argue the case here, beyond stating that we believe that there is a very strong case to be made for the view that the originals were inspired in a Semitic language and not in Greek, as is commonly supposed. The Institute for Scripture Research is firmly of the persuasion that the originals were written in a Semitic tongue, and that they are intended by יהוה our Elohim to find their natural place in the Tanaḵ (Torah, Neḇi’im, Kethuḇim) as part of the Kethuḇim (Writings). This view, that the Scriptures in their entirety, consist of Semitic Writings, originally given to Semitic people, within a Semitic religious and cultural context should not seem so strange, against the background of Paul / Sha’ul’s statement concerning the Yehuḏim (Jews) that “they were entrusted with the Words of Elohim” (Rom.3:2). This is in no way to be seen as contradicting the commission of יהושע Rabbeinu, our Master the Messiah, to make talmidim (taught ones) of all the nations ( Mattityahu / Mat. 28:19,20; Luqas / Luke. 24:47; Ma`asei / Acts 1:8), for was it not He who taught that “deliverance/ salvation is of the Yehuḏim” (Yoḥanan / Jn. 4:22)?In addition to the above, there is the matter of substituting the Name of the Father and the Son with other terms, especially in light of the scriptural prohibition against adding to or diminishing from the words of the Most High (Deḇarim / Dt. 4:2;12:32; Mishlĕ / Pr.30:4-6). And if it be further admitted (see for example, Explanatory Notes, under Jesus) that the Greek text uses terms that come direct from pagan deities for both the Father and the Son, then it becomes abundantly clear from Scripture itself (Shemoth / Ex. 23:13; Yehoshua / Jos. 23:7; etc.) that such texts could not possibly be the inspired originals, but rather they are translations, ultimately descending from the Semitic originals. This means of course, for the ISR, that we have to attempt to put before the reader an English text that truthfully and accurately reflects the inspired Semitic originals, when in fact the oldest and vast majority of texts we have available are Greek! A daunting task indeed. To the extent that we have succeeded in this, we can only give praise to the Most High. However we are well aware of our shortcomings, and the possibility, even the probability that we have fallen far short of our goal. In this respect, let it be said that we do not view our work as in any way final or definitive. Rather, we hope that it will encourage others to re-examine what they may have always taken for granted, and to research these matters for themselves. (We extend an ongoing invitation to any who can give input that will improve future editions of The Scriptures, especially in regard to the matter of Semitic originals).WHICH TEXT?What text then were we to use? Since the originals are no longer extant, there was no alternative but to make use of the existing Greek manuscripts, carefully considering the additional testimony of Semitic texts such as the Peshitta (Aramaic), the Shem Toḇ (Hebrew), etc. Even here, however there are problems, in that for each of the main streams of textual types (e.g. Byzantine / Textus Receptus vs. Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus) there are those who contend that a particular type and that one alone represents the true original.We determined however, not to become embroiled in such controversies, since our position advocates a Semitic original, true to the Tanaḵ / Old Testament.Hence whatever readings we have adopted will inevitably offend those contending for any one of the main textual types as the true original. We cannot therefore claim that our text represents a translation of any particular underlying text.As a modus operandi then, we have started out using the Textus Receptus, modifying our rendering as seemed appropriate in light of those other texts which we consulted, such as the Nestle-Aland text and the Shem Toḇ Text, noting certain differences in the footnotes, where necessary.In harmony therefore with the above principles, we restored the Names of the Father and of the Son, and the names of all the Hebrew individuals, in accordance with the Hebrew, especially as found in the Tanaḵ / Old Testament.We also restored the names of the places in Yisra’ĕl, for after all, we are dealing with a Jewish worship; we are dealing with the Elohim of Yisra’ĕl; we are dealing with יהושע haMashiach (the Messiah), Rabbeinu (our Rabbi - Mt.23:8), the Sovereign of the Yehuḏim - as He is called in no less than 23 places in the Second Writings (Messianic Writings, New Testament).TRANSLITERATIONIn rendering Hebrew names we tried to be as exact as possible. However, with a few names there was a problem, e.g. the name Dani’ĕl is spelled in three different ways, but all three of these spellings result in the same pronunciation. Therefore it was decided to strive for consistency and render such names according to a single spelling, in order to retain the original pronunciation as best we could. We departed from this, however, in two cases, viz. in those names containing part of the Name יהוה, where we felt compelled to add the suffix -yah or - yahu, exactly as it appears in the Hebrew text, and in the case of certain terms such as Ělohim, where we opted to use the form, Elohim, instead.CONCLUSIONAs in previous editions of The Scriptures, we stand in awe and fear before the Most High, knowing that account shall be given for every word rendered in this version, The Scriptures - 2009 Edition (ISR). Much is going to be required from those to whom much has been given (Luqas / Lk. 12:48). As previously stated, we do not offer our labours to the public as the “last word” on these matters, and welcome feedback and useful input from any who have insight or information relevant to the improvement of this translation.With this new edition of The Scriptures, we continue to reach out a hand of love toward all Scripture-believers of all backgrounds, pleading that we join hands and turn back to יהוה who will then turn back to us (Zeḵaryah / Zec. 1:3 and Hoshĕa 6:1-3). Let us do so by turning to His Torah. This will lead to belief in יהושע and His Word (Yoḥanan / Jn. 5:45-47), and for those who come into the (re-)new(-d) covenant, this will result in reconciliation to his Father.PRONUNCIATION TABLEEnglish letter- Ḇ and ḇHebrew- בHebrew name- Bĕt(h)Pronunciation- bh, as - vin viewEnglish letter- Ḏ and ḏHebrew- דHebrew name- Dalet(h)Pronunciation- dh, as - thin thisand thatEnglish letter- Ḡ and ḡHebrew- גHebrew name- GimelPronunciation- gh, a soft gEnglish letter- Ḥ and ḥHebrew- חHebrew name- Ḥet(h)Pronunciation- ḥ as -chin the Scottish lochEnglish letter- Ḳ and ḳHebrew- כHebrew name- KafPronunciation- kh, as -chin the Scottish lochor gin Afrikaans geeEnglish letter- Q and qHebrew- קHebrew name- QofPronunciation- kin kittenEnglish letter- Ě and ĕHebrew name- The vowel tsĕrĕPronunciation- eyas in theyEnglish letter- I and iHebrew name- The vowel ḇireqPronunciation- Ias - eein treePlease note that the ’ within a Hebrew name represents an aleph, a smooth breathing, and for practical purposes may be considered a ‘silent’ letter.Similarly, the ‛ represents the letter ayin, a rough breathing, and it too, may for practical purposes be considered a ‘silent’ letter. So ‛ Amorah (Gomorrah) may be read as Amorah, and in fact we have rendered it as such. Thus alephand ayintake on the sound of the vowel that they ‘carry’.OtherWords in italics are not found in the original text but were added for context and/or readability.Text in bold type face in the Second Writings (Messianic) reference allusions or quotations from the Tanaḵ.In connection with The Scripturesor Appendices thereto, any reference to copyright holders other than the Institute for Scripture Research, is not to be construed as endorsement of any views held by such copyright holders.CopyrightPortions from The Scriptures could be quoted freely in any format, provided that:The text of The Scriptures may be quoted at any one time up to and inclusive of one hundred (100) verses without express written permission from the Institute for Scripture Research, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of The Scriptures nor do the verses quoted account for more than 10% of the total work in which they are quoted.Notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page of the work as follows:"Scripture taken from The Scriptures, Copyright by Institute for Scripture Research. Used by permission".When quotations from The Scriptures are used in media, such as bulletins, orders of service, posters, transparencies or similar media, the abbreviation The Scriptures (ISR) may be used at the end of the quotation.The following conditions apply when quoting from The Scriptures:* No change whatsoever is made to the text.* The quotation from The Scriptures is quoted in context.Quotations in excess of the above limitations, or other permission requests, must be directed to and approved in writing byInstitute for Scripture ResearchP. O. Box 1830Northriding 2162Republic of South [email protected]● Respectfully SubmittedP.ost S.cript■ Yoḥanan (John) 1:1-‬5 TS2009In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim. He was in the beginning with Elohim. All came to be through Him, and without Him not even one came to be that came to be. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.■ SCRIPTURES SHARED FROM:The Scriptures 2009Copyright© 1993 – 2015 by the Institute for Scripture Research (ISR). All rights reserved