The Fruits of Research
From the first appearance of the Bible until today a constant stream of criticism has been directed against it. Initially, attacks were made against its moral teaching but these failed to discredit the Bible. With the coming of the modern era of scientific research, opponents of the Bible found what they thought was an irrefutable way to show the Bible’s alleged fallibility. Its cosmogony, cosmology, history, geography, biology anthropology, and natural history seemed to such critics to be crude, primitive, self-contradictory, and opposed to the laws of observed phenomena. The account of the creation of the world and of man in particular, seemed to make no sense to them. The Bible’s defenders were forced, they thought, to seek allegorical interpretations in order to reconcile the discoveries of science with the principles of “religion”; for them the Bible is only a religious book. Defenders hadn’t usually claimed that the Bible is also scientific. Yet as we will soon see, it is.
Biblical critics have tried to refute such non-scientific explanations. They have said: “Look at this book. You say that G‑d inspired it. We, however, are able to show that it is full of errors. Is it conceivable that G‑d could have inspired a book which contains so much crudity?” After denying the divine inspiration of the Bible with the claim that it was full of such scientific errors, it was a short step to denying the inspiration of its moral teachings. This attack upon its teachings was successful until very recently, as critics scoffed at it more and more, or dismissed the spiritual lessons it taught as insignificant. Its defenders were helpless, and wherever they turned their opponents pointed out what appeared to be inconsistencies, irrelevancies, passages that made no sense, contradictions, even immoralities.
The present volume is a purely rational treatise on the Bible and does not address the supernatural. We offer a clear reply to those critics of the Bible. We present a study into the original Hebrew text of the Bible, including the first eleven chapters of Genesis fully and scientifically translated. The reader will find that the Bible cannot be understood from a literal translation, common to known versions. No matter how literal the translation, there is an enormous gulf between the original and the translation; the true meaning is irretrievably lost. There exists no accurate translation of the Bible though there are many precise ones. Hence, past Bible criticism has been based upon a work that is not the true Bible.
As the real content of the Bible differs greatly from the common translation, so too does the Biblical account of the creation in the original; a correct translation reveals that the real Bible has yet to be understood by the world. For what we think to be the first time in the 2,200 years since the Bible was first disclosed to the non-Hebrew speaking world, we attempt to give the original text of the Book in accurate translation. Past views of the Bible contain errors ranging from mistaken conception to gross libel. An accurate translation of the underlying content makes apologia unnecessary for such past, mistaken versions.
Those who have knowledge of old Hebrew and its Biblical literature will see that this new translation is correct and true to the original; indeed, they will realize that it is the first accurate translation that has been made. Those without proper access to the original text—for whose benefit this book is written—will find this volume to give a taste of the real Bible for the first time. It will reveal that the Bible is quite different than has usually been understood.
Two common notions about the Bible are both amazing and disastrous misconceptions: first, that the Bible can be literally translated and fully understood from this; second, that there exists an accurately translated Bible. Past critics and defenders of the Bible usually refer either to translations or to misinterpretations of the underlying Hebrew, which have little to do with the real Bible.
The Wrong Defendant
Readers will soon understand that the attacks and defenses of the Bible address the wrong defendant. It is the translations that have been under fire. The real Bible has not been criticized because it has not been understood.
One can choose not to believe what the Bible says, but he cannot prove from the translated Bible that he knows what the Bible says. He mistakenly chooses to reject the Bible because of erroneous translations. Equally wrong-headed is a defense of the Bible on grounds of infallibility of Divine inspiration. Such praise is perhaps more damaging than mistaken criticism for it denies the omnipotence of G‑d, assuming that G‑d could be responsible for inspiring a work vulnerable to human criticism. A reasonable man will see the ludicrousness of attempting to argue: “The Bible is infallible because G‑d inspired it”; if G‑d truly inspired it, it would self-evidently be beyond criticism. An accurate translation, as we will see, makes the divine revelation obvious on its face.
The true Bible has thus been obscured, and its truth hidden under the heap of indiscriminate and undiscriminating abuse and praise. So deeply has it been buried by inaccurate translation that to establish its infallibility has been thought impossible. This, too, is a misconception deriving from the notion that the translations are the same as the original in word, matter, form, content, and spirit. It is a case of mistaken identity: bringing the wrong defendant to the bar of justice.
The “Bible” and its Translations
Both Misnomers
A major cause of the circumstances described above is the conception of the Bible as a book. Except in the formal sense, it is not what we usually think of as a book. Books are the product of human knowledge and imagination, written or printed on paper, and bound between covers. Although in form the Bible is a book, because we have no other word with which to describe such a physical object, it is not the form but the content that matters here. We will soon see that we are not justified in calling the Bible a book, or even the “Book of Books”.
One of the reasons a human work cannot measure up to the exacting standard of the Bible is that human books are limited by local conditions, the extent of the author’s knowledge, time, and circumstances. The Bible is not thus limited; it knows of no historical, geographical, or temporal conditions; it is absolute and unvarying, eternal and unchanging, unaffected by worldly conditions, and always powerful enough to bend the world to itself, instead of being bent to the world. It forecasts exactly all that is or will be. It is this quality of its written matter that compels the conclusion that the Bible was Divinely inspired, for no human mind or group of minds could be so omniscient. The real question is thus not the Bible’s infallibility, but its very origin. “Is it a human book, or the work of G‑d Himself?” If it is only a human work, why could it not be replicated or improved?
The information, knowledge, science, and prophecies, and especially the style of writing and combination of words and phrases, stamp the Bible as a work inspired by G‑d. As we will see, this aspect of the Bible cannot be imitated or conveyed through a literal translation. As we will learn, the combination of letters in each Biblical word and of the words in each phrase of the original text is like a raw natural force—multi-faceted and changeable, expressing one or another aspect according to slight changes in the combination. As water is changed in form between the salt oceans, sweet freshet, frozen ice, or hot steam, so too do Biblical words and phrases change according to the combinations and context to which they belong.
Jews have never spoken of reading the Bible, but only of studying it because one cannot understand it through mere perusal. Its major content is hidden in the combinations of the words in each phrase, not in the single words themselves.
Only Biblical Hebrew could lend itself to such combinations creating such variety of meanings; no other language has words with such cosmic meanings; no writer could duplicate the Bible’s style, even in Modern Hebrew. These are the reasons a literal translation of the Bible becomes a gross misrepresentation.
Existing literal translations of the Bible render it as a book with a fallible and partly intelligible text; in no way do they represent the true Bible.
The Gain and Loss of the Translations
Bible translators took great care to make their versions beautiful in language, imitating as best they could the form of the original. Some created classics of literature whose beauty enchants even today. This beauty was achieved at the cost of the spiritual values and true content of the Bible: the reason for the Bible’s existence is hardly to be found in the translations. It is evident that if the book can be criticized; if its defenders are forced to irrational means of defense, the Bible cannot serve as the guide for human conduct that its adherents assert.
It is more fashionable to deny the Bible than to accept it. Ever-growing numbers take the Bible as a piece of antique literature in which one may find bits of curious information and philosophy chiefly characteristic of the childhood of man. The form of the book and its manner of expression are said to be useful as models of literary composition; certain of its ideas, particularly those of the later books, may be accepted as worth heeding. Yet as a whole it is declared by many to be fallible, and in parts totally worthless. This perversion of the true value of the Bible lies entirely with the translations. Translators have won for the Bible the position of a respected literary classic, but in so doing have relegated it to the limbo of early attempts at philosophy and morality.
It may seem to be good literature, beautifully expressed (and it is somewhat true, literally), to read the translated verse: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at thy door. And unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him” (Gen. 4:7). What wisdom or sense is there in this verse? Did Cain and the rest of us not know that if one does well he will be accepted, and if he does not well, sin lieth at his door? Is the explanation that doing evil is caused by “sin” who seduced the evil-doer, or does it imply that after one commits an evil, “sin” comes to lie at his door having desire unto him ever after? These are only a few of the innumerable questions arising from the vague translation of the verse. Yet that is not what the original says, this is: “Is it not for the purpose to test thee whether thou doest well or doest not well that sin croucheth at the door passionate to subdue thee. But it is for thee to rule over it!” The original clearly gives the philosophy of sin: that it lies at the door of every man tempting him to misbehavior, but man is tested thereby as to whether or not he will do well and rule over sin.
In contrast, what does one understand from the usual translation? Since the Bible ascribes this verse to the mouth of G‑d Himself, are we to suppose that He spoke so incoherently and meaninglessly as in the Authorized Version, or instead that He revealed the philosophy of sin clearly and concisely in the second form?
The same is true of ninety percent of the common translation; often words of prophecy are rendered meaningless and unintelligible, as for instance in: “Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel; according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What has G‑d wrought?” (Numbers 23:23). This is surely gibberish! What Balaam actually said was: “For there is no sorcery in Jacob, no witchcraft in Israel”, referring to the previous verse “G‑d brought them out from Egypt” hence they did not go out by sorcery or witchcraft. He continues: “there will yet be asked of Jacob and Israel, ‘what does G‑d do?’” because they alone will know the true answer to that question. Whatever the truth of this prophecy, there can be no disputing that this is what the verse actually says.
And what shall be said of quoting the Biblical law: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” etc. (Ex. 21:24 and Lev. 24:20), when the verse is distinctly marked by the punctuation to be read: “Eye—for an eye, tooth—for a tooth”, meaning equivalent damages for them? It refers to the sense of the previous verse: “And he that killeth a beast shall pay for it in money; beast—the price for a beast”; hence the shorthand style continues, eye—for an eye, tooth—for a tooth, etc., each meaning to make good the injury in money. The words of the original text mean actually, “he shall pay for it in money” (although the A.V. incorrectly renders it “he shall make it good”). The ancient Hebrew law books were designed to take this in no other way, and it was not practiced in any other way.
Truly, no more effective mode of securing the degradation of the Bible could have been found than by such supposedly literal translation. This has resulted in giving the world a beautiful but soulless Bible. Instead of having the Bible G‑d must surely have inspired, the world has a fallible book full of meaningless phrases and discrepancies meriting all the criticism given.
A Sample of the True Bible
Everything that the critics say about the translated Bible is thus correct. Yet the true Bible has little to do with the critics and their criticism. The situation would be comical if not for the cost in pain and blood the confusion has caused. For centuries disputes have raged over the meaning of this word or that, over methods of interpretation, over every jot and title of the translated texts. Such disputes have led to the burning alive of men and women for daring to differ from the interpretations of religious despots. Tragically the quarrels have been about a shadow distorted out of all semblance of its substance.
A noted Biblical scholar said some years ago: “We have done everything that is possible with the Bible: overlaid it, clause by clause, with exhaustive commentaries; we have translated it, and revised the translations; quarreled over the revisions; discussed authenticity and inspiration; and we have mechanically divided it into chapters and verses...There is yet one thing left to do with the Bible; simply to read it.”
That is correct except for the conclusion. Everything was done to the Bible in a way that the only thing yet left to do with it is simply NOT to read it—the true situation. Millions of people have never read the Bible, do not know what it contains, and do not care to know. They have heard of Bible criticism and have the false idea that the Bible in itself is full of incredible, primitive, literary trash; that one must believe it to be infallible only because it is a divinely inspired religious text. But just as they do not know the true Bible and the true meaning of religion, they make little place for such real religion. Why should they read a book that depends for its value upon something that is worthless to them? What would they gain by reading it? They would merely confirm their belief that what they know of the Bible from hearsay is true.
The first eleven chapters of Genesis, the creation of the world and of man, given here in accurate translation, will serve as proof of the world’s need for the true Bible. These chapters address the most profound problems challenging the human mind, without demanding blind faith in what they say, and without challenging modern science and philosophy. The Bible thus can no longer be scoffed at, nor does it need special pleading for its acceptance on the weak ground that ‘G‑d inspired it’—weak because unproved by the text of the translations. More importantly it will be impossible for unscrupulous or misled men to found new religions, as they constantly do using misinterpretations of the Bible as the basis for their preachments.
The Bible is a work of sublime science, philosophy, and the most practical guidance in life for man, with everything that it maintains proven beyond doubt. To call the Bible a book of religion, suggesting that its teachings depend on blind faith, is a monstrous libel upon this great work. Morality and belief in G‑d might be called ‘religion’, but in the Bible they are subjects of scientific truth; there is nothing in the Bible that must be accepted without direct or logical proof. The original text leaves no room for blind belief; on the contrary it sternly warns against it.
This volume is intended to demonstrate the truth of the above assertions. It is the aim and trust of the author that the truths disclosed in this volume will create an unquenchable thirst for the entire Bible to be translated in the manner of the portion included in this volume.
H. MOOSE
