Believer's Home Page

All Content is Copyright © Hal Dekker and BelieversHomePage.com All Rights Reserved
 
Home


My Statement Of Belief

Contact Info

Fundamentals

The Literal Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament

The Literal Idiomatic Translation Glossary

About How The LIT Was Produced

STRIPPED OF POWER!

John 1:1 - Why Ignore The Nominative Case?

True Salvation

Modern "Christianity" - The Selling Of God's Word

Why We, Sons Of God And Disciples Of Christ Jesus, Are To Keep Ourselves Holy

"Christianity's" Big Ugly Secret

God's Desired True "Tent", His "Domed-Roof House"!

The Trinitarian Influence On Bible Translations

2 Pet. 1:20-21 - Private Interpretation?

We Are Commanded To Think For Ourselves

Agency And Jesus Christ, The Father's Agent

Jesus Christ was An Icon!

The "Cross" That Jesus Christ "Lifted" And "Carried"

"Eat" my "flesh", "drink" my "blood"...

Jesus' Genealogy

Titus 2:13, Does It really Say That Jesus Is The God?

How To Receive Answers To Prayers

Why Choose A Homosexual Lifestyle?

Belief And Discipleship - How To Be A Disciple Of Christ Jesus

Angel Or Messenger?

The Gifts Of God

Communion - Our Daily "Bread"

Is Salvation Wholeness?

We Wrestle Not Against Flesh And Blood

Denominationalism Is Not Approved In The Holy Scriptures

Luke 15 - Parable Of The Lost Things

Jesus Christ And His Oxygen Bottle?

Genesis 1-2, The Original Creation Or The Re-creation Of It?

Prophecy: Earthquake Frequency

Southlawn Lessons - Judges 4 And Jeremiah 23

Bible Publishers - Of The Most Popular Bibles

The Birth Of Americanism And Thanksgiving

The "Federal" Reserve Is Not A Part Of The Federal Government Of The US

Invest In CDs And Lose?

Links

Home of the Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT) of the

New Testament of the Bible

 

Last LIT update: 2018.11.20

Last LITG (Glossary) update: 2018.11.16  

Last LITAGL (Analytical Greek Lexicon) update: 2018.11.20

Last update to this page: 2018.09.02

 

 

Welcome to the LIT!

 

 

Please refresh your device to see the latest changes to this page.

 

The Literal Idiomatic Translation (LIT) is based upon the United Bible Societies v4 (UBS4) Eclectic Greek Text of the new covenant texts of the Bible.  The UBS4 collection of Greek texts is one of the most widely used in colleges, universities and seminaries. 

 

The LIT is basically a concordant translation, and was produced using a new unique kind of Formal Equivalence translation methodology which I have developed.  This process produces a literal translation of what the apostles of Jesus Christ wrote, which follows the Greek texts much more closely.  Subsequently the LIT quotes exactly what the apostles wrote without using paraphrases.  Contrary to the belief of some, a literal translation, or Formally Equivalent  produced translation, doesn't automatically render idioms, colloquialisms and other figures of speech indistinguishable.  But just the opposite occurs; idioms, colloquialisms and other figures of speech floating in a sea of literalism tend to stand out even more.  I argue that the over abundant use of paraphrases and creative synonyms destroy biblical authors' styles, their idioms, colloquialisms and figures of speech, and their nuanced meanings in phrases, clauses and sentences, and actually create grammatical constructions and figures of speech which don't appear in the Greek texts. 

 

The following example may be to deep for some, but I include it anyway for those familiar with translation work.  For example, in 1 Cor. chapter 13, in virtually all Bible translations the word love (agapē) is metaphorically assigned anthropomorphic characteristics, which mortal-made grammar style is not supported here by the Greek text.  The text does support apostle Paul's multiple use of an ellipsis of reptition (ER).  I believe translators have failed to notice that in verses 1-3 apostle Paul was presenting himself as a person not holding love in his heart, and what those consequences would be, to set up dichotomy, further comparisons in verses 4-13 of others who may hold love in their hearts, and what those benefits would be. 

 

In verse 4 there are three uses of the definite article hē, which are in the nominative case, and therefore could/should be translated as "The one".  Friberg morphology suggests that the word love (agapē) is in the nominative case as well.  I don't agree, but believe it's in the Dative case on account of the strong evidence in verses 1-3 for Paul's subsequently coming use of an ellipsis of repetition.  Therefore recognizing Paul's ellipsis starting in verse 4, causes the verse to say this: 1 Cor. (LIT/UBS4) 13:4a The one (hē) [who may hold, v1-2, ER] love (agapē) is patient (makrothumei), he causes himself to be benevolent (chrēsteuetai)."  I believe this ellipsis should be applied in verses 4a, 4b, 4c, 8, and 13. 

 

In verse 13 I believe belief, hope and love are godly values, values to say the least, which values need vehicles to bring them into manifestation to benefit others as well as ourselves, and to please God.  Values need vehicles to transport them around, for mutual benefit.  Those intended vehicles are us, people, godly people, people who manifest those values to God and others according God's Word, and his desire.

 

This is one feature that's so unique about the LIT, it presents apparent ellipses transparently, without paraphrasing, ultimately rendering a translation which simply quotes Jesus' apostles, who are believed to have written the new covenant texts of the Bible.  What they wrote in Greek, with God's holy Spirit working in and through them is, for the most part, so clear already that it needs no paraphrasing whatsoever.  Virtually all Bible translations are more or less paraphrases of what is actually said in the Greek texts.  This is because in the production of previous Bible translations the translation methodologies used, mostly Dynamic Equivalence methodology, paid no attention to Biblical authors' frequent use of ellipses and zero copulas.  An Ellipsis is the deliberate omission of a word in a phrase, clause or sentence, to keep a reader's attention drawn-in very close to the context, to thereby stay on track with the progression of an author's thoughts and meanings.  Zero copulas are the authors' deliberate omissions of to be verbs intended to reduce redundancy.

 

The key for a translator to notice either of these deliberate omissions is to pay very close attention to every word's exact inflected form, to render it correctly into English.  If a translator has determined a word's lexical meaning, and has determined a word's inflected form, and then has arranged the words of a phrase, clause, or sentence into their grammatical order based upon English sentence structure, then the places where a biblical author has omitted words and copulas become fairly visible.  The LIT is the first and only Bible translation which has ever been produced using this translation methodology.  Apparently the translator of the LIT (i.e., me) is the first one to discover the frequent and abundant use of ellipses and zero copulas used by the writers of the biblical Greek texts, and the first translator to develop a methodology which incorporates and employs those apparent omissions into a Bible translation. 

 

This is why paraphrasing is absolutely not necessary in the production of a Bible translation.  Supplying the omissions in ellipses from the immediate and local contexts, and noticing the omissions of to be verbs and supplying them, completely eliminates the assumed need for paraphrasing.  In the LIT all ellipses and zero copulas are placed within brackets so the reader can identify the biblical authors' use of those frequent and clever omissions.  For ellipses, I have labeled them as either an absolute ellipsis [AE], a relative ellipsis (RE], or an ellipsis of repetition [ER].  For example:

 

Luke 1:10 And (kai) there was being (ēn) everyone (pan), the (to) plethora (plēthos) of the (tou) people (laou), outside (exō) at the (tē) hour (hōra) of the (tou) incense (thumiamatos) causing itself to be well-thankful toward4336 (proseuchomenon) [God, AE].

 

Luke 1:11 But (de) [a] messenger (angelos) of [the] Lord (kuriou) was gazed at (ōphthē) [by, AE] him (autō), it having stood (hestōs) out (ek) right (dexiōn) of the (tou) altar (thusiastēriou) of the (tou) incense (thumiamatos).

 

Luke 1:12 And (kai) having seen (idōn) [[the] messenger, v11, RE], Zacharias (Zacharias) was troubled (etarachthē), and (kai) fear (phobos) fell (epepesen) upon (ep’) him (auton).

 

Luke 1:13 But (de) the (ho) messenger (angelos) enunciated (eipen) to (pros) him (auton), “Do not be made fearful (mē phobou), Zacharias (Zacharia), through the reason that (dioti) the (hē) prayer of need (deēsis) of you (sou) was heard (eisēkousthē), and (kai) the (hē) female (gunē) of you (sou), Elisabeth (Elisabet), she shall generate (gennēsei) [a] son (huion) for you (soi)

 

And (kai) you shall call aloud (kaleseis) the (to) name (onama) of him (autou), John (Iōannēn).

 

Luke 1:14 And (kai) joy (chara) shall cause itself to be (estai) to you (soi), and (kai) jumping for joy (agalliasis)

 

And (kai) many (polloi) shall cause themselves to rejoice (charēsontai) over (epi) the (tē) genesis (genesei) of him (autou).

 

In verse 10 the verb causing itself to be well-thankful toward4336 (proseuchomenon) seems to me to be a transitive verb, since it's prefixed with the preposition pros which is directing the action of the verb toward an apparently missing direct object, [God, AE].

 

In verse 11 you can see where I supplied an indefinite and a definite article.

 

In verse 12, I considered having seen (idōn) as another transitive verb expecting a direct object.  Luke's, apparent omission of the verb's direct object I considered as an ellipsis, and so I supplied the missing direct object from the previous immediate context of verse 11.  When an apparent omission can be supplied from an immediate or local context I consider that kind of omission as a relative ellipsis.  Please see Bullinger's "Figures of Speech Used In The Bible."  In the biblical Greek it may be that an indefinite article was simply assumed, unless a definite article was explicitly used.

 

Another feature more or less unique to the LIT is the identification of the use of definite articles within brackets, [the], in the translation when none are in the text, but are usually required in English.   The biblical Greek has no indefinite article, a, an, but in English indefinite articles supply an important function.  So when I've determined their need to render the text's specific meaning into English I show them in brackets as well, [a, an].  The thorough use of brackets in the LIT English translation to identify ellipses, zero copulas, and definite and indefinite articles, clearly shows and demonstrates to the reader theological transparency.  This level of transparency is frequently lacking in virtually all other Bible translations. 

 

One of the huge problems with paraphrases is that they tend to ignore what a biblical author actually wrote, and especially how a biblical author wrote something.  Paraphrases ignore and obliterate a biblical author's style, as if it has no consequence in helping to impart an author's idea, concept and intended meaning.  How something is written has as much to do with its meaning as the lexical meanings of words and their inflected forms.  Paraphrases tend to steer readers into the limited and/or desired scope of theological meaning of those who are doing the paraphrasing. 

 

Virtually all English Bible translations are based upon a Dynamic Equivalence (DE) translation methodology, [with the exception of some known as literal translations], in which DE process the Greek texts are examined, and then the phrases, clauses and sentences are paraphrased into saying something like what the biblical author supposedly meant, according to other's opinions.  From my experience of closely examining and translating about 18,500 unique Greek inflected forms into English, I believe some paraphrasing is done to deliberately hide some things which the apostles wrote.  There are many biblical passages in the Greek texts which patently disagree with aspects of some popular mortal-made theological theories. 

 

Other paraphrasing is claimed to be done in an attempt to make a Bible translation more like a fast food drive-through restaurant, to be easier to read and understand.  This is counter intuitive to biblical content, God's Word, which is absolutely not all milk, but mostly strong meat.  Milk is quickly and easily swallowed.  Those biblical passages are already self-evident, and don't need to be "fixed".  Strong meat requires patient chewing, and a longer digestive process.  God's Word intrinsically requires slow and patient reading, one word at a time, and frequent re-reading of previous passages, to make sure a reader is still on track in following and understanding an author's progressive thought process in the development of ideas, concepts and meanings.

 

If you've read Jason David BeDuhn's "Truth In Translation" then you have seen many examples of the underlying theological biases "translated" into most all popular Bible translations using paraphrases.  A sister book by another author, "Truth In Translation, Accuracy and Surprising Bias in the Old Testament" by A. Frances Werner, shows many more examples of theological bias "translated" into Bible translations using paraphrases.  What the LIT effectively does is eliminate mortal-made theological biases from appearing in it, while ensuring that exactly what the apostles wrote, verbatim, word for word, is set before a reader's eyes, with no additions, changes, or deletions to the text's words or meanings.  The elimination of paraphrases guarantees the best outcome toward the goal of  truth in translation. 

 

But more importantly, the LIT preserves Jesus Christ's assertion that any given reader, especially one having God's Spirit working within his or her heart, already has an adequate ability to understand what he spoke, and what his apostles wrote, the way they wrote it, without it needing to be paraphrased to accommodate an assumed dumbed-down readership.  From close comparison of some parts of Bible translations to the biblical Greek texts, I believe the adoption of the assumption of dumbed-down readership as a need for paraphrasing serves to some extent to be a ploy.  It's a fact that there's a certain number of self-omniscient egos out there in the biblical scholarly community who demand to be heard, and unfortunately some of their theological bias has ended up in Bible translations, replacing the truth of God's Word.

 

Jesus spoke to the people in parables for an important reason, so that the hearers would be required to go to work in their own minds to try and figure out what were their meanings.  God's Word challenges those who read or hear it, which is why Jesus Christ challenged his listeners to hear and understand his parables.  Those with God's Spirit working in their hearts would come to understand what Jesus meant.  Those who did not have God's Spirit working in their hearts either had to believe to obtain it, or smugly and proudly remain in the dark (Mat. 13:10-18). 

 

What do you want in a Bible translation, quoted scriptural facts from Christ Jesus and his apostles, or paraphrased-in theological bias?  I decided 25 years ago what I wanted, which is why I produced the LIT.  The LIT coincidentally presents a Truth-in-translation challenge to virtually all other English Bible translations.  Wouldn't you rather read for yourself what the apostles of Jesus Christ actually wrote, and then decide for yourself what they mean, allowing God's Spirit to work in and through you, as Jesus Christ required from his listeners?

 

Lastly, I don't sell God's Word to people through Bibles, to make money off of the things of God, especially off of his Word.  The LIT, which is simply a non-paraphrased quote of what the apostles of Jesus Christ wrote, will always be free, right here at this website, for anyone who desires to see what the apostles wrote, and how they wrote God's Word.  I believe that what and how the apostles wrote God's Word, exactly what they wrote and meant, under inspiration of God's Spirit working in and through them, deserves to be witnessed by everyone for themselves, at no charge, following the examples of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and all of the ancient prophets!

 

For much more detailed explanations on how I produced the Literal Idiomatic Translation, please read my "About How I Produced the LIT" pages. 

 

In the LIT you will read and understand many passages about spiritual ideas and concepts, Truth, which you have not seen and understood before.  I hope you are as blessed and excited by God's Word as I am. 

 

Brother Hal Dekker