# Just got an e-mail from Jay Green Sr. KJV3 literal translation



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2005)

Here is what Grandpa Jay sent me.


> We are now getting ready to print a new version called the "KJ3 -- The Literal Translaton." It shares a lot with my LITV, but there aree some 10,000 differences because it finally penetrated my brain that God does not allow any word to be accredited to Him except the very words He wrote. We have now done this. And every word is backed by the lexicons. For the first time in history, so far as I can discover, no one has ever given the literal, word-for-word transation of the Received Text to the public.Now we are going to shock the world by exposing to them what God actually wrote. For instance,God's name, Jehovah, appears 6,000+ times in the Scriptures, No Bible has ever done this except the Jewish Publication Society, yet their wording is not literal. LORD, incidentally, is a "title", not a "name." God condemns the adding to His words to be lying (Prov. 30:6). Also, God never wrote the words "church" nor "Gentile."


----------



## nonconformist (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Here is what Grandpa Jay sent me.
> 
> 
> > We are now getting ready to print a new version called the "KJ3 -- The Literal Translaton." It shares a lot with my LITV, but there aree some 10,000 differences because it finally penetrated my brain that God does not allow any word to be accredited to Him except the very words He wrote. We have now done this. And every word is backed by the lexicons. For the first time in history, so far as I can discover, no one has ever given the literal, word-for-word transation of the Received Text to the public.Now we are going to shock the world by exposing to them what God actually wrote. For instance,God's name, Jehovah, appears 6,000+ times in the Scriptures, No Bible has ever done this except the Jewish Publication Society, yet their wording is not literal. LORD, incidentally, is a "title", not a "name." God condemns the adding to His words to be lying (Prov. 30:6). Also, God never wrote the words "church" nor "Gentile."


 I have one on order, I cannot believe more people do not know about this, I suppose accuracy doesnt mean to much anymore.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 7, 2005)

I am no prophet but I forsee  on the horizon...

Sounds like a useful version to have. I have never understood why the KJV and its children did not use Jehovah...

JH


----------



## pastorway (Sep 7, 2005)

> God does not allow any word to be accredited to Him except the very words He wrote



BUT, God did not write in English did He???


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 7, 2005)

Hopefully the financing of this project was not from ill gotten gains.


----------



## pastorway (Sep 7, 2005)

> For the *first time in history*, so far as I can discover, *no one has eve* given the literal, word-for-word transation of the Received Text to the public.Now we are going to shock the world by exposing to them *what God actually wrote*.



Thinking more about this, how pathetic a view of God is this that we have all gone so long without knowing what He actuallly said???


----------



## rgrove (Sep 7, 2005)

Why not just get an interlinear with English words below the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic? Get one, read it, and then you'll thank people for doing translations... There are so many differences between languages it's unbelievable (I was a Russian and Serbo-Croatian translator for five years in the Army and spoke German as well). Also, every time you choose one word over another word, you're making a decision about what God was saying. 

If it's that important to a person, then they should learn to be an expert in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Good luck with that...


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > For the *first time in history*, so far as I can discover, *no one has eve* given the literal, word-for-word transation of the Received Text to the public.Now we are going to shock the world by exposing to them *what God actually wrote*.
> ...



I agree Phillip. This is ridiculous. I am a Received Text guy and against dynamic equivalency, but what Green is offering here is demagoguery.

Does he realize that the "name" "Jehovah" does not even exist? That not only did God not write "Jehovah" not even once (let alone 6,000 times) but that it is a lie that perpetuates a false interpretation of the 3rd commandment?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 7, 2005)

This is getting ridiculous ppl.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> I am no prophet but I forsee  on the horizon...



When I had just gotten down to this post, I was going to  it, but that seems to be an incredible redundancy at this point.


----------



## heartoflesh (Sep 7, 2005)

> Also, God never wrote the words "church" nor "Gentile."



What's up with this?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 7, 2005)

It shouldn't even be Jehovah. That's a bad translation!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 7, 2005)

Old age may be coming into play. Most of his contemporaries are dead. Gerstner being one of them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> Why not just get an interlinear with English words below the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic? Get one, read it, and then you'll thank people for doing translations... There are so many differences between languages it's unbelievable (I was a Russian and Serbo-Croatian translator for five years in the Army and spoke German as well). Also, every time you choose one word over another word, you're making a decision about what God was saying.
> 
> If it's that important to a person, then they should learn to be an expert in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Good luck with that...



Jay did an Interlinear. His is one of the few that includes both testaments. It is what his literal translation comes from. 

Dispite what you may think of his message to me. He is the person who we owe a great deal of thanks to. He is the person who started republishing the Reformers and Puritans. I have heard Pastors tell me how important his work has been even if they didn't agree with him about manuscripts and such.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by rgrove_
> ...



Randy,

That is what is so disconcerting to me. I have enjoyed his NT interlinear. His literal version is a helpful translation. I also have not seen this kind of polemic from him previously.


----------



## rgrove (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by rgrove_
> ...


I'm not familiar with the name, so I wasn't addressing him personally. I was reacting more to the polemic in the note as well as the idea that any literal word for word translation will help an English speaker more than reading one of the good translations available to us. His literal translation doesn't end the problem was my ultimate point. I spent five years in the Army and translating was all I did. Trust me, if you want to understand the original intent then a wooden translation won't help. I'll give an example of what I mean in Russian when I have a moment.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> It shouldn't even be Jehovah. That's a bad translation!



Your suggestion for an alternative? I'm okay with Yah'weh.... especially the way Professor Jim Grier of Grand Rapids pronounces it in the pulpit. I love his accent!

JH


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 7, 2005)

> I have never understood why the KJV and its children did not use Jehovah...



Surely your tongue is sprained from impacting the side of your jaw so sharply.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 7, 2005)

I once read a scholarly essay (it was in one of these "festschrifts" for some other ? guy) by Laird Harris that offered that our familiar "Jehovah" was at least as close a guess as any other for JHWH.

OK, JPG, we'll all buy one, but only if the rest of the proper names are properly translated!

Khizkiyahu = Hezekiah
Yirmeyahu = Jeremiah
Iakwbou = James
Iwannhn = John
etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I don't see why it isn't pronounced Yah'Veh in English. Vav = V. I don't understand why it is rendered as a W in translation.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 7, 2005)

Am I wrong or isnt the first hebrew letter in the word rendered (Jehovah or Yahweh) a 'Yod'? Transliterated to english that is a 'Y'. German language made it to a 'J'. The words for John and Jacob in greek start with an iota or 'I', and in Hebrew they also start with a 'Yod' (Y).


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 7, 2005)

I think Latin made the Y of Yod into a J (well, an I first, right? and then translated into English from Latin as a "J"?).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



You don't have to give me an example Ron. The main point for Jay is that Verbal Plenary means just that. The original words are God breathed. He probably just wants to leave something behind in translation that is as close as he can get it. It has been his life work.


----------



## nonconformist (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by rgrove_
> ...


 Looks like his lifes work dont mean jack crap on this board. I was hopeful I was actually waiting on a good translation since I dont read hebrew.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 8, 2005)

I don't think anyone was meaning to down him...BUT, there is the constant "this is a better translation, this is more accurate, this is the most direct translation" and quite honestly, it gets old after awhile. He claims his will be most direct and others will claim theirs is. Also, the question remains, will it be understandable. I know that reading the Bible in German and directly translating into English, it reads a bit "childlike" to us. In some languages they don't use many of the words we pad our sentences with. I don't have a "blue yacht", instead "me blue boat". I know this is a very basic example...but if your mind can stretch it into the possibilities you might have an idea of the complication this could be for some. However, this doesn't mean it's a horrible idea either, for the right ppl. Also, I think someone made the point that he made a questionable claim.

BTW, Chet...could you please refrain from attempting expressions as was censored above. Just knowing what you were saying was not something I wanted in my mind as far as vocabulary goes. It's really not necessary.

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## rgrove (Sep 8, 2005)

> Looks like his lifes work dont mean jack <b>[Censored]</b> on this board. I was hopeful I was actually waiting on a good translation since I dont read hebrew.


Uncalled for... 

And again, for the record, I have no idea what his life's work is. I'm not a Greek or Hebrew scholar of any stripe, so if this is where he's spent his life's work then I'm completely in the dark about it. I'm sure this work will be useful for those it's intended for. My comments were based soley on my knowledge of languages in general as it's been either my occupation or a hobby of mine for almost fifteen years now. As I look at my bookshelf there are piles of books on almost all slavic languages, germanic languages, latin languages, the Biblical languages and a smattering of others just because I like reading about linguistics and grammar (yes, I know, extremely odd, my wife let's me know all the time...). That's not to brag at all, but only to say that when I was expressing my skepticism about the utility of a word for word translation it's based on years of working with many languages and my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew grammar. I haven't even gotten into what happens to expressions in translation. My wife told a Russian coworker of mine that something she ate "didn't agree with her". Needless to say, he had no idea what the heck she was talking about and he came to this country when he was in grade school and speaks English well. He stumps me almost daily without even trying. I can only give him a blank, glossy eyed look as I'm translating it in my head and thinking, that makes no sense whatsoever.

That all being said, Youngs Literal Translation has been used for many, many years by countless people and if this one's better, then that's great. I'm sure he's a better linguist for all the work he's done as well.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> 
> 
> > I have never understood why the KJV and its children did not use Jehovah...
> ...



Uhhh no...



Ever get the feeling that you've said something really stupid and everyone is mocking you?

I think I could have better phrased it 'I've never understood why the KJV and its children used LORD for the name of God'...


[Edited on 9-8-2005 by JonathanHunt]


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 8, 2005)

Jonathan,
Truly, I wasn't trying to mock you. I assumed that you knew that Jehovah is a word that does not exist in the original languages. It is a compilation of the Hebrew consonants YHWH and the pointing for Adonai. Here's how we got it: Out of respect, as we know, the Hebrews would not speak the name of God (Frankly, we don't really know what it would sound like Yahweh is just a guess.) In reading the text rather than speaking his name they would say 'Adonai', which is translated 'Lord'. In time when pointing became a part of Hebrew writing the scribes would write 'YHWH' and then put the pointing for 'Adonai' on the consonants. This was turned into a 'hybrid' name in other languages (eg. Latin, English) by those doing tranlsation work. Actually, using the caps 'LORD' is much closer to viewing the text as the Jews did.

This also really throws a monkey wrench into the JW's line of reasoning.


----------



## nonconformist (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rgrove_
> 
> 
> > Looks like his lifes work dont mean jack <b>[Censored]</b> on this board. I was hopeful I was actually waiting on a good translation since I dont read hebrew.
> ...


 I understand your point, I just got ticked because I have been waiting for months to receive a translation that I thought was more accurate to the original. I have been using the free e-sword version and yes it is a bit harder reading but I got so sick of other versions and there innacuracies that I decided to go literal. Maybe I will have to learn the original laguages for better accuracy. I have gotten my theology so messed up over 1 mistranslated word it drove me nuts.

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by nonconformist]


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by nonconformist_
> Looks like his lifes work dont mean jack <b>[Censored]</b> on this board. I was hopeful I was actually waiting on a good translation since I dont read hebrew.



Chet,

It is the fact that his life's work does have value to me that this is so disturbing. It will likely mean that others will ignore his earlier good work.


----------



## nonconformist (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I don't think anyone was meaning to down him...BUT, there is the constant "this is a better translation, this is more accurate, this is the most direct translation" and quite honestly, it gets old after awhile. He claims his will be most direct and others will claim theirs is. Also, the question remains, will it be understandable. I know that reading the Bible in German and directly translating into English, it reads a bit "childlike" to us. In some languages they don't use many of the words we pad our sentences with. I don't have a "blue yacht", instead "me blue boat". I know this is a very basic example...but if your mind can stretch it into the possibilities you might have an idea of the complication this could be for some. However, this doesn't mean it's a horrible idea either, for the right ppl. Also, I think someone made the point that he made a questionable claim.
> 
> BTW, Chet...could you please refrain from attempting expressions as was censored above. Just knowing what you were saying was not something I wanted in my mind as far as vocabulary goes. It's really not necessary.
> ...


 I have been reading this version without any problem with it being literal. So far but I havent read it through yet. Maybe I will run in to problems but I am going to give it a try. Sorry if I offended.


----------



## nonconformist (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by nonconformist_
> ...


What do you mean Fred? Are you talking about his dogmatic attitude turning people off?

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by nonconformist]


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Jonathan,
> Truly, I wasn't trying to mock you.



I never thought you were. I know you better than that Sir.



> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> I assumed that you knew that Jehovah is a word that does not exist in the original languages.



Yes. I did - as I said, I phrased myself badly. 



> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_Actually, using the caps 'LORD' is much closer to viewing the text as the Jews did.



Indeed.

JH


----------



## nonconformist (Sep 8, 2005)

As far as his polemic is concerned, I am a newly recovering charismatic so that type of hardcore attitude excites me, but if it is bull maybe my inexperience has decieved me again So you guys really know Jehova is not in the original hebrew? How do you guys view the accuracy compared to what you consider the most accurate? Readability is not my concern, I can struggle through it, only accuracy to the original?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by nonconformist_
> I understand your point, I just got ticked because I have been waiting for months to receive a translation that I thought was more accurate to the original. I have been using the free e-sword version and yes it is a bit harder reading but I got so sick of other versions and there innacuracies that I decided to go literal. Maybe I will have to learn the original laguages for better accuracy. I have gotten my theology so messed up over 1 mistranslated word it drove me nuts.



Chet,
You can download Jays Literal Translation and his Modern KJV translation at E-Sword for free. After you download the initial set up go to Bible downloads and you will find them there.

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## nonconformist (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by nonconformist_
> ...


 Thanks brother, I have already got it, and I like it. I was just waiting for the new one to come out since they said he corrected some things!


----------

