Why “Ministry” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

In English, the word “ministry” means a Church program or parachurch program. The Greek word generally translated ministry is diakonia (Strong’s G1248). Diakonia, however, does not mean ministry; it means service. It is related to G1249 diakonos “server” which is alternately translated as “minister” or “deacon” (see my post about “deacon”).

Check out: Acts 1:17, 25; 6:4; 12:25; 20:24; 21:19; 1Cor. 16:15 2Cor. 4:1; 5:18; 6:3; Col. 4:17; 2Tim. 4:5. These are all the verses that translate diakonia as “ministry” in both the King James and New American Standard Bible. Read them, but replace “service” for “ministry.” I think you’ll see the difference. Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Lord” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

There are three problems I intend to cover in this post:

1. Lord as a translation of adonia
2. Lord as a translation of kurios
3. Lord as a substitute for Yahweh
4. Adonai and Yahweh as substitutes for kurios

The words translated as “Lord” are Adonai (Strong’s H136), Yahweh (Strong’s H3068), and kurios (Strong’s G2962). “Lord” is an archaic word and should never be used in an English Bible. It also carries the connotation of an owner, as opposed to a ruler. This connotation is not the one given by either adonai or kurios.

How often do you hear “lord” used in every day speech? If you don’t hear a word used, it does not have any meaning. The only use for Lord in English anymore is for God, but the Greek and Hebrew words thus translated did not have a specifically religious connotation. Lord is a poor translation for either adonai or kurios; master is a far better word for both. It is a word that is still used in contemporary English; it has a connotation of ruler as opposed to owner, and it doesn’t have a solely religious meaning.

A far worse err in Bible translation is the changing of Yahweh to Lord. This is a bizarre Christian holdover of a silly Jewish superstition. They for centuries have refused to utter God’s name (Yahweh). Replacing it with adonai (and occasionally elohim). Christianity carried over this silly Jewish practice by substituting Lord (a translation of adonai) for the name Yahweh. 1) why should Christians keep old Jewish rules 2)why not translate the text for what it says? It’s not as if Yahweh means Lord, it means “he who exists” or “I AM.” Please don’t edit the Bible.

One last mistake is substituting adonai and Yahweh for kurios. Some think they have solved the problems that Church tradition has created by inserting Hebrew words into the New Testament. The problem is Hebrew words have no meaning in English! How many people know what adonai means? There is also a problem with inserting Yahweh into the New Testament: it isn’t there! We have no extant copies of the New Testament with the name Yahweh in them. If some originals did have it, they have not been found. Please translate what the text says, not what it meant to say.

Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Kill” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

There are six different words translated as “kill” in the OT, but they all have shades of meaning. While most of them can mean kill in at least some instances, I want to examine Deuteronomy 5:17. In the KJV, it is translated as “thou shalt not kill.” The word translated as “kill” here is ratsakh (Strong’s H7523). ratsakh does not, as some have said, mean “murder,” for in Deuteronomy 19:4 ratsakh is clearly referring to accidental killing, which definitely is not what the English word “murder” means. However, kill is also not a good translation, as using kill in Deuteronomy 5:17 implies any ending of life is immoral (even accidents or capital punishment). This meaning would clearly contradict other laws.

English majors have a saying: “there are no synonyms.” Excuse the hyperbole of the saying, but if Hebrew uses six words for ending life, then there must be six different connotations. As an analogy, why would an author in English use “hit,” “struck,” “smacked,” or “punched,” when they mean the same thing? Kill is such a broad term, that it cannot be useful for ratsakh; whatever word is used has to fit the context of both the blanket law against ratsakh, and the safeguard for accidental ratsakh. One thing that helps is that Deuteronomy 19:4 and other similar passages clearly indicate contextually with examples that an accident is the exception to the rule, so “murder” is probably better than “kill,” because the context of Deuteronomy 9 explains the exception, whereas Deuteronomy 5 gives no context (so an over specific word can make sense in either one).

If you look at cognate words and also the context of uses of ratsakh it is clear that the connotation is one of violence. Whether it be a lion devouring, or an ax blade flying, ratsakh is a very strong word. Perhaps a comparable word in English is “slay.” Unfortunately, it is becoming archaic, so it isn’t a very good choice either. When working between languages, there is rarely a perfect choice. Perhaps a slang or informal word would work? Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!



Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “J” names shouldn’t Be in the Bible

OK, this one’s not a big deal, and many people over do their hatred of the “j,” but accuracy is important to me.

Neither Hebrew nor Greek have the “j” sound. “J” was developed in Latin as a stylized form of “i,” and later came to acquire the sound of a consonantal “y” (as in yes). English didn’t acquire the modern “j” sound (as in jet) until recently. Originally, using “j” for yod, or iota would have been quite accurate, but as always, English Bibles like tradition over accuracy.

Names should not be Anglicized to make them more palatable, they should be kept original, because John Doe wouldn’t want me changing his name to Yokhanan Da. It's one thing to call Him “Jesus,” (it means the same), but it’s another thing to say His name is/was Jesus (that’s historically inaccurate). Besides that, translators aren’t even consistent in rendering names. Names will be Anglicized several ways, or transcribed accurately, or sometimes translated for their meanings. The most accurate transcription of yod and iota is the "y" or "i." Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Iniquity” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

What is iniquity? Do you even know. You probably said something like “sin,” but then why not just say sin? Who says iniquity? How often do you hear that outside of Bible reading? Ask a friend who doesn’t go to Church what iniquity is. I’ll bet you get a blank expression. Not only is iniquity archaic, but it doesn’t mean what the bible says. “Iniquity” means inequality it’s just an old word for the same thing. The words most often translated as “iniquity” in the Bible are: avon (Strong’s H5771) in Hebrew, and anomia (Strong’s G458), and adikia (Strong’s G93)in Greek.

Avon means literally crooked, or twisted. Since when do crooked or twisted mean inequity (or sin)? All the descriptiveness of the language has been lost in a religious jargon word. How much more powerful is it to confess being crooked or twisted than having “iniquity.” Words must be translated for what they mean!
Adikia is a legal word meaning literally “unjust” (not “uneven”, but “unjust”). If the author had meant to say “sin,” he would have; he meant to say “injustice.” Words must be translated for what they mean! Anomia is also a legal word, but it means “lawless.” It is breaking a specific written law (in a Biblical context it would usually be referring to God’s laws). I don’t know how “lawlessness” and “injustice” both got to be watered down as the same “inequality,” but they shouldn’t. Words must be translated for what they mean! Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!



Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Heaven” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

The words translated as “heaven” are shamayim (Strong’s H8064) and ouranos (Strong’s G3772) and mean “sky.” They do not mean the abode of the dead or a happy afterlife, as “heaven” does. Ask anyone what “heaven” means and you will probably nor hear “the sky.” It fact, as recently as noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary the primary definition of “heaven” was “the sky.” Dictionary.com however, lists “sky” as the quinary (fifth) definition. Clearly this archaic word has lost its true meaning, but back to Hebrew and Greek. The words translated as “heaven” actually mean sky, so why not translate them as sky? Why does the Church establishment always see the need to replace biblical meanings with religious and archaic words? Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Gospel” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

Gospel is from old English “godspel” meaning “good news.” The fact that “gospel” is archaic and has lost all of its meaning should be enough reason to drop it from translations. The word it is translated from in Greek is GStrong’s 2098 euaggélion wich has no religious meaning whatsoever; It is used to describe the story of Jesus, but it does not mean any such thing. It simply means a good message or report. Why use a traditional substitute that has no meaning to almost anyone? Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Fish” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

Okay, so this one’s basically the same as my post on birds. The word translated as “fish” in Hebrew dag (H Strong’s 1709) means something like “swimmer”, not “fish.” Fish has a very specific English usage, and things like whales and clams are not fish, but they are dag. This mistranslation has cause so many silly debates over whether Jonah’s creature was w fish or a whale, and if the Bible is wrong and unscientific. The ancients used a different taxonomic system than we do and the idea behind dag is anything in the water. Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Elohim” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

Some Bible translations think they have the solution to the Anglicization of the Bible. They say we should restore the missing holy names from the Bible. “God” is pagan, they will explain. Elohim should be used instead. Restoration. What they don’t mention, is that elohim is also a pagan deity.

I’m all for literalness and transparency in the Bible, but what does it mean when says in Deuteronomy 5:6-7: “I am יהרה thy Elohim, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other elohim before me.” (Restored Name King James Version)”
What is an “elohim”? To whom will that make any sense? The original audience would have understood that to mean something like the all-powerful One (and all of His facets). There is no reason to change His name to Lord, but neither elohim, nor adonai is His name; they are titles. Please stop trying to make Christianity Jewish; it has enough problems without that. Elohim is a Semitic word meaning “a deity”, or more literally “all powerful.” So why not, translate it as either “god,” or “almighty.” Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Deacon” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

Acording to dictionary.com deacon means:

1. (in hierarchical churches) a member of the clerical order next below that of a priest.
2. (in other churches) an appointed or elected officer having variously defined duties.
3. (in Freemasonry) either of two officers in a masonic lodge.

However, “deacon” comes from Greek diakonos (Strong’s G1249) which actually means a server (as at a restaurant) or errand runner. It is otherwise translated as servant (cf Matthew 23:11), yet somehow in cases regarding Church hierarchy, it must become a jargon word for a leadership position.

Diakonos should be translated as server. To do otherwise is dishonest and confounding, becaused that is what it means; it has no religious connotation in Greek. If the author had intended to use a religious word, he would have done so. Let me know what you think…

Sola Scriptura!

See also: Why “Ministry” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible



Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Church” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

The word “church” has three meanings: a building for worship, an institution or social structure, and the body of all Christians. It probably comes from the Greek phrase kuriakē oikia “Lord’s house,” but the Greek word from which “church” is translated is ekklēsía “out-called” (G1577) (there is no Hebrew word that is translated as church, even though ekklēsía is used in the LXX). Ekklēsía could be used of any crowd of people, from the political assembly, to an angry mob (cf. Acts 29:28-41). Ekklēsía had none of the religious or Christian connotations that “church” has.

Because of this difference in meaning, “church” is a misleading word choice. The reader has to guess whether “church” is supposed to mean a building, an institution, or Christianity, yet none of these things is suggested by ekklēsía. If context does prove one of thoses meanings, then the text is clear without changing it.

Adding “church” to the Bible has been the fuel of many doctrines of men and many infantile fights, fights over a word that shouldn’t be used anyway. Please let me know your thoughts on this subject.

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Bird” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

“Birds? Birds!?? Are you nuts? There’s no Papal conspiracy here.”
Your right, but “bird” is an English word. The words in Hebrew “tsippor” (Strong’s H6833) and Greek “orneon” (Strong’s G3732) both mean “flyer.”
“Isn’t that what bird means?”
Nope. Birds have feathers. Bats are not birds; they are mammals. Bees are not birds; they are insects. But both “tsippor” and “orneon” can be used of anything that flies. The translation of these words as “bird” has contributed to many people’s belief that the Bible is unscientific. The fact is however, the the modern Linean System is not the system the ancients used. It is not unscientific to say that bats are flyers, though they are not birds, because they do fly. It is unnecessary to change flyer to “bird” as anyone can understand what a flyer is, and it is simply inaccurate. Please let me know your thoughts on this subject.

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Why “Angel” Shouldn’t Be in the Bible

What is an angel? In English the word means a supernatural being with wings. By contrast, the words translated as “angel” in the Bible are “mal’ak” (Strong’s H4397) in Hebrew and “angelos” (Strong’s G32) in Greek, and both of these words have the same meaning: they mean messenger. What’s the difference? An angel is a messenger from heaven, right? Wrong. Both “mal’ak” and “angelos” are used of both human and divine messengers. Anyone from an envoy to a prophet can be one of these “angels.” The problem is neither of the original words had any spiritual or supernatural connotation; to add this connotation by use of a word such as “angel” is to add to the meaning of the text something never intended. In those places where the author means a human messenger, “angel” changes the meaning; In places where a divine messenger is clearly intended, context is enough for the reader, and the meaning is still changed, since not all biblical “angels” have wings and halos. Another problem is that using “angel” sometimes and “messenger” only in cases where a human is absolutely unequivocal is confusing and dishonest to the text. I say this because I would like to see more transparency in Bible translations, so more people could take responsibility and learn more. Please let me know your thoughts on this subject.

Sola Scriptura!


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Words That Should't Be in an English Bible

I'll be discusing each of these following words in it's own post and explaining why I believe they are misleading, ambiguous, or otherwise useless, so keep checking back. Here is the incomplete list:
Angel
Bird
Church
Deacon
Elohim
Fish
Gospel
Heaven
Iniquity
"J" names
Kill
Lord
Ministry
Nation
Ordain
Pastor
Quicken
Rebuke
Sabbath
Thee, thou, thine, thy
Unclean
Virgin
Wretched
Xerxes
Ye
"Z" names


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Ecclesiastes 1:2-11

Here is my first very rough draft of Ecclesiastes. I am not a Bible scholar, nor do I know Greek or Hebrew. I simply used an interlinear Bible and a Strong's Dictionary, and compared several english translations. What this may lack in accuracy it will more than make up for in poetry, and transparency. Please let me know what you think about it, (especialy if you are a Bible scholar):

Vanity

by Solomon

“Vanity of vanities,” he says, the Preacher,
     “Vanity of vanities! All vanity.”
What profit is to man in all his toil
     Which he is toiling under the sun?
Generation coming and generation going,
     But the earth for ages standing.
And he shines, the sun, and he goes, the sun;
     And to his place panting, shining, he’s there.
Walking to south,
     And turning to north,
     The wind circling, circling along;
     And on around him returns the wind.
All the rivers walk to the sea,
     Yet the sea, he’s not full.
     To the place where the rivers walk,
There they walk again.
All words are wearisome;
     He is not able, man, to arrange it.
     She is not satisfied, the eye, to see,
Nor is she filled, the ear, to hear.
What he became, he’ll become,
     And what he’s done, he’ll do.
     And there’s nothing new under the sun.
There is something which he says,
     “See this, it’s new”?
     Already it existed for ages
     Which were before us.
There is no memorial of the former ones;
     And also of the later ones who shall be,
     None there shall be for them memorial
     Among those who shall come later.


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.

Bible Translations

English Bible translation is in the same state as politics is. A select few make the decisions and the rest of us get what we can. Those of us who are concerned generaly can't agree on how to fix the problems. The debates usualy center on whether a translation should be "literal" or paraphrased, but neither of these styles solves the problem. "literal" translations generaly are dificult to read, and sound very eggheadish (if you didn't know it, the books of the Bible, were mostly writen by poets, and probably did not sound like thesis papers until english came along), while paraphrases replace the original text with english idioms and cultural ideas non-existant in the original. English translations bury the original text under the english language in order to help us understands it, but this anglicizing only makes the text more obscure.

I like what one translator called a "transparent" style – neither "literal," nor paraphrased, so, I'm proposing a solution to the problem: translated the bible literaly, actualy make it literal, or rather transparent to the text. This will actualy make it easier to understand, not harder.

As an example, I will for the next post include my first very rough draft of Ecclesiastes. I am not a Bible scholar, nor do I know Greek or Hebrew. I simply used an interlinear Bible and a Strong's Dictionary, and compared several english translations. What this may lack in accuracy it will more than make up for in poetry, and transparency. Please let me know what you think about it, (especialy if you are a Bible scholar).


Copyright © 2011 David S. Robinson. Any part of this work may be transmitted, reprinted, or otherwise used in any form, so long as 1) I am clearly identified as the author, and 2) a link or URL to this site is included.