Translation Principles

Copyright ©2016, Lay Bible Commission Worldwide Inc.  All rights reserved


Preface and Translation Principles to the First Edition of the Inspired Bible

The Inspired Bible (also called the Lay Bible in the English Language) is an authentic and highly authoritative translation from the original Hebrew text of the Holy Scriptures, that captures the dignity of the Sacred language, and retains the vigour of the word, the beauty of the scriptures, the excellence of its texts, the vividness of its characters, and the purpose, plan and provision of salvation of man and mankind that permeates it in its entirety.

It combines the best qualities of exact rendition of the meaning of the original texts, clarity of expression, ease of reading and understanding in mind, as well as a strong desire to capture the word and spirit of the scriptures, so that the faithful, as well as the unlearned, can dwell on them and have good success and eternal life which all those [both men and nations] who give themselves to them in study and in daily life practice, are bound to attain.

This translation took advantage of centuries of scholarship in the field of biblical translation, cross-references, bible lexicons and dictionaries [especially the Ancient Bible Lexicon of the Bible and Strong’s Concordance], numerous other English translations, and commentaries by notable bible scholars.

It could also be said that every Bible translation worth reading, went through the rigours of crosscheck and criticism: both self-criticism and professional criticism; and so did this effort with extensive reviews made by scholars, bible text specialists, ministers as well as lay believers.

All these contributed to making the Lay Bible Versions: the Inspired Bible, the Verseless Bible and The Lay Bible Vintage Version, the authentic and reliable Bible for the family, the bible student, and for reading and use in church worship service and liturgy.

It is an awesome responsibility to be bestowed with any task by Elshaddai[a]; and an act of extreme grace and honour to be chosen by the one who is known eternally by the name Elyon [the Most High]; the Elohim[b] of ancient times, who in the book of the beginning revealed to us how he made the worlds: by the ever living Word; who upholds all things by the word of his power; who in the very first line of the Holy Scriptures is revealed as the aleph and the tav; the first and the last; the beginning and the end.

The one who gathered them[c] strove to find excellent words, and wrote [in the end] memorable words that foster truth. 

Ecclesiastes 12:10 [LBV]

The translators work is simple and complex, involving gathering or identifying original texts and capable personnel, seeking and finding intelligent and excellent words to use to covey the semantic and context of the text, writing these memorable words in ways that would foster the truth and the faith.

It is astonishingly a precious, almost unbelievable but real wonder, to be anointed and to actually translate on behalf of the one and only God who before the world began, systematically predesigned all that we see, and know and all that we do not see or know; and all that is yet to be. King David spoke for all mankind: It is written of him:

My wrapped but unfinished parts, you see with your eyes; and in your book, all of them were written out [and designed], not in the day [when] I was formed; but [long before then] when there was nothing [and no one] at all[d].Psalm 139:16 [LBV]

 The Inspired Bible [IB or TIB] or The Inspired Lay Bible Express Version in English [ILBX], The Verseless Bible [TVB], The Chapterless Bible and The Book of Psalms are the first in a series of translations by the Lay Bible Commission envisioned as we pursue the divine mandate to translate the bible into all languages, especially the remaining bibleless languages of the world.

We believed it took God barely a moment to create the numerous tongues and languages of the world as the Tower of Babel account reveal. In the same vein, we believe that the work of translation is the work of man, while the work of revelation is the work of God; and the work of manifestation is a joint work between God and Man. It would therefore not take God but a moment to translate the Holy Scriptures into any or all language, if he so wishes. But not only has he not done so, he has never done so; choosing rather to delegate that responsibility to man.  It is our belief that this task reveals God’s high regard for man in his abilities, which he has put within him. It is also a great honour that we have also been mandated to participate in this task.

For those who he knew beforehand, even them he determined in advance[e] to conform with[f] the perfect nature [or form] [g] of the likeness [h] of himself: [which is] his Son, who himself is the first born among many brothers. Moreover also, [those] who he predetermined to appoint, these he also called: and [those] who he called, these he also caused to be justified, and [those] who he caused to become justified, these he also glorified.  Romans 8:30-31 [LBV]


The task of translation has been on-going for five thousand years and we count ourselves privileged to be called to this onerous and honourable task that impact on personal, ecumenical, national, generational and historical dimensions, spiritual transformation and salvation of men and nations and bringing many to the saving grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have therefore, to the best of our abilities, always called to our help, the countless wealth of scholarship and resource at our disposal; all that had preceded us and this generation for thousands of years, thereby we carried the work of translation, which is the work of man, as faithfully, faultlessly and finally as possible, with all the fidelity, integrity and sense of responsibility and truth as the word of truth deserves.


The primary reasons for translating the Holy Scriptures in this effort are two-fold. Firstly, it is done in direct obedience to divine command and commission to translate a Lay Bible, and to mobilise lay believers worldwide for the translation of the scriptures to fast track the completion of bible translation into all languages of the world.

For over five thousand years, only less than 8%[i] out of 6909 ethnologically indexed languages of the world by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (now SIL International) have a complete Bible, while a total of 13.2%[j] worldwide have either a full or partial part of the Bible; this is beside the fact that some obscure parts of the world like the Amazon and nations like Nigeria have not been ethnologically mapped thoroughly and completely with the same diligence as was done for other places: Papua Guinea for example.

The Lay Bible Commission is a divine Commission, a call for lay believers worldwide to arise and speedily, accurately and zealously complete the unfinished work of translation of the Holy Bible into all languages of the world.

Why has this become necessary? The Bible translation work performance in total, without prejudice to the great work which translators and translating organisations and foundations have accomplished over the ages, is regrettably dismal and one is tempted to believe that it depicts the passionless indifference and half-hearted tepidity that Rev. 3:15-22 portrays has that afflicted the church for centuries.

Since the translations of the Hebrew Pentateuch from the original Hebrew text into the Greek Septuagint [LXX] in Third Century BCE, the combined efforts towards translating the Holy Bible by bible scholars, Christian philanthropists, ecclesiastical councils, ministers, business men and Kings, Queens and Emperors of nations such as Constantine, King James, Queen Elizabeth I etc., and of equal honorary mention, lay translators, have attained dismal results. According to the Wycliffe Global Alliance Reports, November 2015,

“the full bible was available in 554 different languages… the New Testament in another 1,333 languages … and at least one book of the Bible in a further 1,045 other languages.”

This result and summation of all translation work after over 5000 years of the revelation of the Holy Scriptures, is a disappointing, dismal and depressing unsatisfactory, unacceptable, miserable, and disheartening accomplishment by any standard for humanity. This statistic and the increase of 23 full languages translation [from 531 to 554] between Nov 2014 and Nov 2015, is not good enough as the collective work of Christendom for over 2,000 years.

There may yet be those who would question the propriety, relevance and even integrity of yet another translation of the Holy Scriptures. Why would God or man need another translation? While sincerely, that may appear an academic question to us, as the obedience imperative compels us, we also believe that various logical, grammatical, semantic, physical and well as spiritual reasons makes it relevant, especially in these last days when the Word ad work of God is under assault from satanic forces.

Other reasons may include etymological and other linguistic developments in language, non-translation of the Bible into a language; discovery of areas of translated scriptures whose translation need to be improved and made more precise, textually, contextually and semantically equivalent with the original, to remove ambiguities, errors recently discovered or observed by credible scholars, the necessity for an authentic translation of ours that we can call our own, that allow us unrestricted use and ownership, without any copyright issues, restrictions and other associated distractions that may arise from them, even though we know some alternative copyright notices of Bibles such as the 1611 King James Version which we could use, have expired.

Above all, the command of God to translate the scriptures and our willingness to obey to the utmost, provided us with the greatest rationale for this work. Hence, devoid of ego, and free from any form of doctrinal motivation to do so, except the zeal and enthusiasm to promote the gospel in good conscience, this translation was undertaken in direct obedience to the command of God to do so in furtherance of his end time global translation agenda[k].

There may be many who believed that the translation of the Holy Scriptures ended with the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate or when the King James Version was released; thereby apparently forgetting or glossing over the fact that the emergence of the Authorised Version itself is a fundamental function of the divinely orchestrated constant refinement of the translated word until its meaning and exactitude; and its absolute equivalence with the original text and God’s purpose is achieved or attained. 60% of the King James Version is a direct copy of the works of previous translations and translators; and it would be uncharitable for anyone to condemn the works of those who have gone before or those who come after, purely on non-objective criteria and lack of appreciation of the historical instrumentality of knowledge and tradition of refinement and consolidation, even in the Holy Scriptures.

All translations done by man is perfect to an extent and defective to the degree of imperfection which may visit the work of man. The Holy Scriptures is the immutable word of God, the unfailing and sure word of prophecy; while translation is the work of man in partnership with God. While God is perfect, and His word is perfect; the various work of man for God have been touched by some degree of imperfection either in the preaching of it, interpreting of it, or translating of it. Anyone who holds views to the contrary, is merely oblivious or ignorant to truths which God himself affirm throughout scriptures. He made man perfect, but man lives in imperfection. I have said you are gods, but you shall die like men.

What shall we say then regarding this translation? Only that any who walks in the Spirit will know that it is the work of God, that we have done it at his word.

Jesus answered them, and said, my doctrine[l] are not mine, but of him that sent me. If anyone is determined[m] to do His will, he shall know [and understand for sure] about this doctrine, that it has its origin from God, rather than I who speak of myself.

John 7:17 [LBV][n]


The Lay Bible Standard Version follows the established tradition of dividing Holy Bible into books, chapters and verses, and contains 66 canon books. The Verseless [Novel] Bible (VNB), presents the Holy Scriptures without the Apocrypha, without verses as in the original texts, and with a novel flow. The Clarified Bible (also called The Layman’s Amplified Bible or LAMB’s Bible] and The Vintage Lay Bible, an archaic English Bible – The Book of Books Version. All these would have the anglicised or International and the Americanised Versions. In addition, wherever it deems essential such as in the Psalms, it renders same in structured prose and poetry, thereby capturing the beauty and vigour of the original ancient texts and format of the Holy Scriptures for the modern and future reader.

Beside the above, the Verseless Bible Portal would deliver Verseless versions of bibles in the Public domain including a Verseless King James Version (VKJV) and thirty other versions.

To seek God, his kingdom and his righteousness first, knowing him, fellowshipping and developing a deep relationship and walk with him is the cardinal purpose and most important experience of any man. The Holy Scriptures is our number one need for living, for global peace, for the evangelisation of the world, salvation of souls, for our dominion over nations, and for ‘fashioning them into shape like the potter’s vessel’ as Psalm 2:9 [LBV] enjoins us to do.

It is desired by this translation that the teaching, exposition and the work of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ are furthered; that biblical truths are placed at the disposal of all as a light upon a hill; that where it can, it should aid in shaping and strengthening the modern language.


Noah Webster is attributed to have said that ‘education is useless without the Bible’. It has always been proved among us that reading the Bible remains one of the interesting means to obtain an unusual command of a language, and those who made the Holy Scriptures their companion, those associates who are close to them, would no less find to their astonishment, the profundity and clarity with which they speak, and count themselves honoured to be on friendly terms with such eloquence.

In translation, the translator(s) must detail with the nature, syntax, linguistic, semantics, grammar and range of words of a particular language, its limitations, and conventions. He or She is confronted with possibilities in the original language that are non-translatable in the language of translation because of the linguistic deficiency existing in that language. For example,

… ‘Hebrew distinguishes gender for both second and third person pronouns, singular and plural; also Hebrew distinguishes gender for the singular demonstrative pronouns. These also convey information that may obscure the full meaning of the text. Yet neither King James English nor Modern English is capable of translating this important information. Clearly the problem is with English, not with translations.[o]


One of the cardinal principles of translation applied to this work is the principle of phonetic equivalence especially to the translation of names of biblical personalities, as past failures in this regard has imposed an intolerable weight on future translators too high to bear. Examples range from the transcription of the name of God YHVH, of the name of our Lord the Messiah from Hebrew to Greek and then to English, resulting in raging controversies for the past 2000 years.

As a body, which makes its business the business of biblical translation to many languages, we believe that mere alphabetic equivalence rather than phonetic equivalence of names would result in further distortions in addition to historical ones which are still unresolved, or whose resolution are too costly.

To achieve the demands of this principle, it is essential that meaning be placed at the top of the translation principle pyramid. To achieve this, it was recognised earlier in this translation effort that a literal translation would be most essential to fulfilling the demands of this semantic equivalence. Not only is this a common sense approach, it also is the wisest and most scientific approach to adopt. This was clear at the onset of the translation, and was arrived at without any influence from any previous translation or translator. However, it could be said that the desire for accurate translation by the faithful and in the translator, imposes this imperative on every translator. As Martin Luther aver in his ‘Defence of the Translation of the Psalms’,

‘On the other hand, I have not just gone ahead anyway and disregarded altogether the exact wordings of the original. Rather, with my helpers, I have been very careful to see that where anything turns on a single passage, I have kept to the original quite literally and have not departed from it… I preferred to do violence to the German language rather than depart from the word.’[p]


‘Is any cheerful, let him sing psalms.’ James 5:12b [LBV]

 The Psalms is one of the most beautiful renditions known to man and in the scriptures. The Apostle Paul by the Sprit admonishes us to speak to one another in Psalms and spiritual songs. David enjoins us to praise God with the Psalms.

‘… of the composition itself, I have the highest opinion: it is sublime beyond all comparison; it is constructed with an art truly admirable; it possesses all the dignity of the sacred language’ wrote Simon De Muis in his Commentary to Psalm 68[q].

The Psalms as scriptures is a work of power and beauty; as a literary rendition is a work of art; as a reservoir of divine revelation, it is a sea of endless revival and rest. As the dew of the morning and as the dew of Harmon, as cold waters to a thirsty soul, so has the Psalm been to those who resort to it, be they by the rivers of Babylon, or at the Mountain of Tziyon, it is better than good news from a far country; than new wine in the feast of the nobles.

The Psalms is a multidimensional, multi-author work with uncanny spiritual potency, which in diverse ways, display the rich vein of the Holy Scriptures. Some are difficult to discern while others are easy to comprehend. Some are like precipices, and some are labyrinths; some are the torture of critics, some the reproach of commentators, and some the agony of translators; and there are as many of these as there are verses and words.

The Psalms of the Inspired Bible Version (also Called the Inspired Lay Bible Version) of the Holy Bible, captures the diverse nature of the Holy Scriptures, and the unity and centrality of its message on God’s love and salvation for man.


In this translation of the Holy Scriptures, this Inspired Bible Version of the Lay Bible, we standardised our translation given to several names of God from the Hebrew to the English Language. The tetragramaton YHVH [Yahovah, Yahavoh or Jehovah] is rendered in this translation as The Lord of All Life. Other translations render it as Lord [which actually is a translation of Adonai].  The following is an alphabetical list of name conventions used in this translation of the Psalms.

Adonai                                          –      Lord

Adonai Elohim                          –      Lord God

Adonai Yahavoh Tsavaot               –      Lord God of Our Armies

Elohim                                         –      God

Elohim Adonai                          –      Lord God

Elohim Tsavaot                         –      God of Our Armies

Yahavoh Adonai                               –      Everlasting Lord

Yahavoh Elohei Tsavaoth             –      everlasting God Mighty with Our Armies[r]

Yahavoh Elohim Tsavaot              –      Everlasting God of Our Armies

Yahavoh Elohim                               –      Everlasting God

Yahavoh Tsavaot                              –      Living God With Our Armies

Yahovah, Jehovah, Yahavoh        –      Lord of All Life

YHVH Adonai                            –      Everlasting Lord


Although the four-letter name of God YHVH [transliterated commonly as Yahovah, Jehovah and Yahavoh in this work,] is the most preponderous name of God in the Holy Scriptures and occurs 6,828 times in the Holy Scriptures [Old Testament] of the Hebrew Bible, it is only retained in eight places in the King James Version, which renders it as Lord and as Lord God when combined with Elohim, while most English translation completely replaces it with Lord.

The reader should note that while we have used capitalisation for nouns referring to God, there is no such practice in the original ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and as such we have done so in exercise of wise discretion in the bid to covey our interpretation in a way that makes the reader aware of the sanctity, dignity and reverence for the name of God.


Every translator and translation of the Holy Scriptures agonises over the actual translation [or transliteration] of the four letter name of God YHVH, sometimes called the Tetragrammaton’. It is the prime challenge confronting every bible translation, not only because of its preponderance in scripture [6,828 times], but because of the pre-eminence as the name by which God revealed himself, and sentiments [or even opposition] that surrounds its transcription, translation and proclamation.

In the very first verse or paragraph of Genesis, an introduction was made of God through the first name[s] of God used in the Holy Scriptures of the Pentateuch: ELHM[t]

‘At the very origin[u], God created the entities[v] of the heavens and the earth.’ Genesis 1:1 [LBV]

The Hebrew theonymn YHVH is the second name of God revealed in Genesis 2:4 together with the first revealed name in Genesis 1.1 as YHVH ELHM[w].  While there are many variants, the most popular translations draw from transliterations as YHVH and YHWH.

The defacto authoritative translation in the English Language, the Original King James Version of 1611, used Iehouah[x] [pronounced Yehovah] influenced by the authentic Masoretic text of the Ben Chayyim Codex,  the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate. This was changed to Jehovah for the 1762-1769 King James and subsequent revisions of the version to Jehovah influenced by the German transliteration without phonetic equivalence as the German ‘J’ is pronounced ‘Y’ unlike the English ‘J’.

The eminent Hebrew scholar Gesenius [1786 – 1842], is credited with the suggestion of the name Yahweh as the pronunciation of YHVH substituting the Hebrew the Vaw [V] alphabet with Waw [W to transliterate it as YHWH into English; which he made, based on his study of early Greek transcriptions, theophoric names and the reported pronunciations of the name in the Samaritan tradition. Yahweh has commanded some level of acceptance.

The correctness of this translation has been seriously called to question by some eminent Hebrew Scholars who contend that the alphabet W is unknown to the Hebrew Language, astutely pointing out that the Hebrew vav is pronounced as a V not W. The error came about due to the misreading of German Hebrew grammars, which use W for the English V as the German V is pronounced as the English F.

‘It always puzzled me, [wrote John Hinton], to hear atheistic scholars at Harvard pronounce the name as ‘Yahweh’ when the same scholars would always pronounce the vav as a V in every other [place that they use it. Apparently the perversion of his name has become so well established within the bible-scoffing  and Bible correcting communities that even those who know  better mispronounce even the perverted variation of his name[y]

John Hinton in ‘Ridiculous Corrections: Who is Yahweh’ averred that there is a popular movement to replace Jehovah with Yahweh promoted by identity and Christian patriot movements, the alternative news community prominent on the shock waves, bible scoffing atheists who have dominated the academic field of biblical studies since the mid-nineteenth century, who derive their perverted interpretation from the equally perverted Hebrew text (the Biblia Hebraica) of Rudolf Kittel, who he branded a Nazi and atheist, whose text is equally promoted by atheists.

‘This movement to alter God’s name with absolutely nothing that resembles scriptural, textual or linguistic support, has misled huge numbers of Christians into denying the Bible and accepting the work of Bible-scoffing atheists who have dominated the academic field of biblical studies since the mid nineteenth century.’

His conclusions include a refutation of the assertion [that there are no vowels expressed in the Hebrew text]; a claim he called ‘a convenient line of nonsense[z] and a dishonest line only used by those who want to change the text to fit their own views, he and others believe that elaborate diacritic marks called pointing by Hebrew speaking Hebrew scholars, doubled letters, stops and other phonological features are either ignored or they pretend that they do not exist. They aver that,

‘… in no verse [of the original Hebrew Text of the Holy Scriptures] can the diacritics be claimed to spell out Yahweh’[aa]

However, there are scholars who vouch for the authenticity of the Rudolf Kittel text[bb], the text has undergone some recent revision in the attempt to rectify anomalies observed by scholars. However, these revisions have not affected the name convention which critics posit are inconsistent in the text in its treatment of the theonymn[cc], YHVH.

The Preface to the New American Standard Bible of 1997 proclaims that, ‘It is known that for many years, YHVH [spelt YAWH] has been transliterated as YAHWEH, however, no complete certainty attaches to this pronunciation’.[dd]

However, critics of this view, such as Riplinger dismiss outright the later part of the statement, as they believe that in no verse of the Hebrew scriptural text can the diacritics be claimed to spell out ‘Yahweh’ rather the authentic text of the Ben Chayyim Ibn Adonijah which is drawn from a history of Masoretic tradition of safeguarding biblical textual integrity, spells the name of God consistently and accurately as Yehovah. They contend that to say that the pointing to the name of God [YHVH] is not known with utmost certainty, is a myth and complete nonsense, which only come from those who seek licence and occasion to corrupt the word of God, and to weaken basis of faith in the Bible which they see as mere mythology.

There appears to be a fascination among modern scholars and those of the critical text group for Yahweh even though it a known fact that the alphabet ‘w’ is alien to and does not exist in the ancient Hebrew lingo. This fact does not deter most of them as it could be remedied by a sudden mysterious discovery anywhere in the Arabian Desert. Some have tried to make historic linkage of this name with paganism in apparent scorn of our faith.

Whatever its origins notwithstanding, Yahweh is now an acceptable transcription honoured by God himself in churches around the world that sometimes, the controversy by scholars could be considered as academic and even irrelevant; and the heated quarrels over them as completely uncalled for and even amusing. God is prepared to accept the direct consequence of his mixing up men’s languages at the Tower of Babel, and is not perturbed by being called Theos, Elohim, Aleim, Chineke or any other vernacular name for God which correct, poor or inadequate transliteration or limitations of each language may impose or contrive. What he hates is to ascribe any of his names or glory to man, idols or graven images, or any god who are no gods at all.

However, It is pitiable to find that many in their zeal to display knowledge, and in the passion to support one divide against the other, have fallen to levels of irreverence to such an extent that Jim Searcy[ee], while excellently highlighting the weaknesses, errors, misleading additions to the text, evasions, obscurantisms and alteration of texts in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures by the Jehovah Witness, went down the road of irreverence for the Almighty when he called ‘Jehovah’ a nonsense word and even the mere mention of this misdemeanour here is irksome. The word of God warns us about this:

If any man teach differently, and consent not to the sound words from our Lord Jesus Christ, and the doctrine which is according to holiness[ff]; He is self-conceited, comprehending[gg] nothing; [who] nonetheless sickly harps about questions and strifes of words, out of which arise spite[hh], quarrels, blasphemies, harmful conjectures[ii], perverse criticisms by men of rotten minds, lacking in the truth, accustomed to profiteering from religion[jj]: from this sort keep yourself away.

I Timothy 6:4-5 [LBV]

Likewise also, these [filthy][kk] dreamers, defile the flesh, and in fact despise [and reject] governments, and often revile [and speak evil] of dignities. But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil about the body of Moses, ventured not to bring against him a calumnious  accusation, but rather said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’ 10. But these speak evil of all those things which they know not naturally, but as irrational beasts, in those things they corrupt [and ruin] themselves. Woe to them!

Jude 1:4, 8-11a [LBV]

The opponents of the transcription of JHVH as Jehovah contend that it ‘does not accurately represent any form of the name ever used in Hebrew’[ll]; that the reconstruction of Jehovah was based on a mistake[mm]; was erroneously translated, is a philological impossibility[nn]; grammatically impossible; is a mispronunciation introduced by Christian theologians but most entirely disregarded by Jews. Scholars and commentators such have questioned and refuted all these and consider it as part of the satanic onslaught to discredit the fundamental basis of scripture, and weaken the faith of many in God’s unfailing word.

Gail Riplinger aver that something as clear and meaningful as the name of God has been stripped of its significance by the generic word ‘Lord’ or ‘God’. ‘Now we are seeing a parallel more within the new bible versions where it is not Jehovah anymore, it’s just Lord. It’s not Jesus Christ, it is just ‘Christ’[oo]. John Hinton PhD assert that ‘If the vowels added later in Hebrew text around 200 – 700 AD by the Massoretes are not the way to pronounce the name of God, then there is nowhere that we can find the correct pronunciation’.

Jehovah [YHVH] in contrast to Yehovah, Yahavoh, Yahweh, Yahve, Yahovah, Yahoveh, has remarkably a larger support and wider usage, and was correctly transposed from Hebrew into German where the Hebrew Y was translated to the German J [Ye] as phonetic equivalents. This equivalence was lost when a wholesome transposition to English was made, as the English ‘J’ is not a phonetic equivalent to the German J or of the ancient Hebrew Y, especially as the letter J is alien to the ancient Hebrew lingo. We have endeavoured to return to the original Yah component in the name as against Jah, although we recognise that at this moment, and for hundreds of years, it has become customary and acceptable to translate Y for J in English translations of the Holy bible.

There is consensus of this among scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures that the first component in the name YHVH is Yah. The form Jehovah which took effect around 1278 and 1303 and was adopted in early bible translations first in the Greek Septuagint in 200 BCE, and adopted by Wycliffe’s Bible [the first Bible handwritten translation to English published in 1382], and protestant translations such as Tyndale’s Bible [the first English Bible printed with the modern press].

The ‘Jehovah’ transcription has become something of a standard, and the most popular translation of the YHVH the name of God, perhaps because it was [and still is] in the oldest known transcription, having existed in the Greek Septuagint, and therefore, has been with us since 250 BC for nearly two thousand five hundred years. This tradition has continued into the modern era because of the long history of the usage of the form. The Inspired Bible, The Lay bible in English and The Verseless Bible provides multiple versions to cater for everyone as we believe that the most important thing is to preach the word in season and out of season, when comfortable and when injurious.

There are those who indeed, preach Christ with intrigue [and strife], and not with sincerity; supposing to further add pressure, [persecution and trouble] to my bonds. But, others [preach Christ] because of[pp] love, with the understanding that I am appointed for the purpose of defending [and advocating for] the gospel. Therefore, no doubt, I would rather that in all manner of ways, whether by[qq] pretext or by sincerity, Christ is [intensely] proclaimed; therefore in this, I rejoice; other things notwithstanding, even then, I [will still] rejoice. Because I know that this shall turn[rr] out to my salvation [rescue, deliverance] through your prayers, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.  Philippians 1:15-19 [LBV]

One of the reasons which translators give in explaining their use of ‘Jehovah’ instead of ‘Yahweh’ in their biblical translations was because they wanted to employ ‘a form of the name familiar and perfectly [more] acceptable to the general Bible-reading public. Also, over two thousand two hundred years usage of Jehovah from the time of the Greek Septuagint, has made it the most visible and familiar form of the name of God to readers, and the fear of disturbing sentiments which its usage has created in the readers mind, have scared most translators from further making any change or using any other form of the name, such as Yahaveh, Yahavah, which research has indicated is a better representation of YHVH.

While the translation history of YHVH[ss] has many twists, it is a derivative of the contraction of hayah havah[tt] [I am Life, I am the Living One, I am Life myself, Self existing, The One who Is, Who Was and Is to Come, The One who is what he has been]. This contraction of hayah[uu] to Yah resulted in Yah havah[vv] or Ya’havah [pronounced yah haw vaw]. This is what is used in this translation: Yahavoh [the Lord of All Life].

Dele Israel [the Chief Translator of the Lay Bible Group considered Leviticus 4:22 [iow] and Rev 1:8, 11; 21:6 and 22:13 where the Lord Jesus reiterated that ‘I am the alpha [a] and Omega [o]’ and believe they may be an interpretation and transliteration code from the Lord to supply the missing letters of the theonym [YHVH] as well as their position in the tetragramaton, which supports the ‘Yahavoh’ transcription. The first letter is ‘a’ and the next or last letter is ‘o’ to give ‘Yahavoh’ [or Yahvoh] if a phonetic application is made rather than an alphabetical application which gives Yahavho [or Yahvho]. In fact the phonetic application result is the same with the alphabetic application. However, preference to the seven lettered word than the six lettered word which retains the structure of the root havah [hvh] which sounds the same as havho and is in fact the spelling of it. This agrees with the phonetic sounds of the words hayah havah ([pronounced haw-yaw haw vaw] from which the name was derived, considering that these phonetic sounds are also supported by the authentic Ben Chayyim [or Hayim] Codex [BCH] which upholds the Masoretic tradition of precision in vowelisation. If the ‘a’ is the first letter to the first character of the first part ‘Y’ and o is the first letter to the last word [This gives Yhao-vhao or  Ya-HO-VA-HO. Applying the bigramatic code to the two name component in the theonym Yh and HVH would give Yaho vaho i.e Yahovah or Yehovaho which is the same as Jehovah in German. If we consider the Y is Yah and HVH is Havah it will be YaoHaoVaohao. So there is a strong case for Yehovah.

While the above suggestion and application of the bigram: alpha and omega as a ‘bigramatonic code’[ww] to the Tetragrammaton is bound to introduce more heat to the discussion among scholars and the lay, and the consideration of the variations and arguments that would generate up a storm regarding where to place the last ‘o’ – after ‘v’ or h  – in the YHVH(even though this makes no difference to the results which are only two outcomes).  We believe in a practical and realistic solution based on the doctrine of use and acceptance which is a principle in linguistics, etymology and semantics of words; we can use whatever is backed by authentic texts, as well as stick with what is in use and what God himself has confirmed through signs and wonders in crusades, churches, homes and lives of believers around the world, even [all the variations in fact] with its variations in transcription in various languages.

Modern grammarians argue that [the name of God written in ancient Hebrew יהוה [transcribed in English as YHVH], ought to be read Yahweh or Yahaveh; but since the Greek Septuagint, JEHOVAH seems firmly rooted in the Latin based languages, and the really important point is not the exact pronunciation, but the recognition that it is a Proper Name, not merely an appellative title like ‘Lord’. Many may disagree.

But I can say that you can inoculate people from a whole body of writing by casting aspersion on character. Aspersions have been cast on the correctness of the translation of the name of God and this has hampered the faith of many. In fact, the connection made to idols, storm gods etc. have been not only annoying but have made many to examine their faith and the originality basis and faith or otherwise of textual critics of the scriptures, and being men, some of one faith or another, some atheists of no faith at all, diverse results have emerged.

We have in this translation, maintained the tradition of using Jehovah for YHVH in the Restored Name Edition of the Inspired Lay Bible Version, while also using the more correct form ‘Yahavoh’ in the YHVH Edition together with its English meaning translated as [The Lord of All Life] as our rendition of the proper name of God. In the Verseless Bible Version, we have the Standard Edition and the YHVH Editions. This is to give the more correct translation a footing to grow its visibility and acceptance with the public, just as Yahweh has done since Gesenius suggested it after nearly 400 years of translation of YHVH as Jehovah. Today, Yahweh [YHWH] is a familiar and acceptable form of the name of God in nearly 2% of the bibles and Christian songs in circulation, and we hope, such acceptance would come to the more correct translation ‘Yahavah’ or Yahavoh in time.

It is believed that the uproar that may accompany its wholesome introduction of any new transliteration of the name, may as a result of unfamiliarity, ignorance, ingrained prejudice and other negative sentiments and reactions to it, give way with education, promotion and discovery that it is after all, a more accurate name of the name of God, much more than the English Jehovah and that the German Jehovah is actually written ‘Yahovah’ but should phonetically be pronounced ‘Yah haw vaw’. Etymological authority makes Jehovah as good as any and even more[?] authentic than any actual correct translation that may be discovered.



In carrying out this translation, we deliberately did not go into the black hole of philosophical pedagogy or discourse of trying to humanly discern the true God through exegesis, logic or science. Rather, by faith in the letter of the Holy Scriptures as God’s inspired word of truth and in the Holy Spirit who inspired them, the principle of truth compelled us to truly and sincerely translate exactly as possible every word and content from the original text, using all the skill, scholarship and tools at our disposal.

We agree with Matthew Arnold’s (1870) remark that ‘the English version [of the holy bible] has created certain sentiments in the readers mind and these sentiments must not be disturbed if the new version is to have the power of the old.[xx]’ In this, as in previous translations, much effort has been put to avoiding this [stirring of the sentimental waters or hornets], but it cannot but be so, if we must do the work of God, as thoroughly as it must be done, as past deficiencies are discovered and rectified, after they have become internalised truths or forms; and better and more credible sources and understanding continue to emerge. The written word says,

We must also continue to improve the translated biblical texts with utmost faith, skill and sincerity whenever and wherever it is found; not only to accurately convey the word and spirit of the original text, but principally because the Holy Scriptures is the word of God, and translation of it is the work of man. As such, we must do all in our power to ensure its purity, integrity and accuracy at all times.

‘How forcible are right words. What are you correcting?[yy]  Correct me [of it] from hence’ Job 6:25 [LBV].

However, the truth is that every translation, no matter how excellent, skilfully executed and well intentioned it may be, almost always and invariably touches some nerves, and disturbs some sentiments both good and evil. The common history of this reality has acquired almost the status of a historic tradition. From the Septuagint to the Vulgate, Wycliff, Tyndale, Martin Luther’s German Bible to the forerunners of the Authorised [King James] Version such as the Bishop, Geneva, Coverdale Bibles; and even the King James Version itself.

Modern translations are not exempt; rather, they are to expect that they would be subjected to greater criticism and scrutiny. It is therefore not surprising that they are even subject to much criticism, not only in the name of scholarship, but also for many other reasons too numerous to exhaust here. A careful reading of the Preface of virtually every translation of the holy bible including the Preface of the King James Version of 1611 would reveal each translation’s own attempt at justification, and its rebuttal of critics of their translative effort.

James D. Price, former executive editor of the New King James Version Old Testament in his Letter dated February 15, 1994 in his response to Gail Riplinger’s criticism in her publication, New Age Bible Versions of the New King James Version as a corrupt translation, wrote:

“Now if it is proper to criticize and condemn the new versions as corrupt …  because some of their readings are supported by only a minority of manuscripts [or differ from the King James of 1611], is it not also proper to condemn the KJV when its readings come from a minority, a handful, or from no Greek manuscripts.’[zz]

But no doubt, the King James Bible is a fantastic and king of bibles. To many it is anathema to even mention let along suggest that any fundamental error exist in the King James Version. To others, it is the Latin Vulgate; and many have consigned the Greek Septuagint and ancient manuscripts to history, and even those who insist on them are yet to convince many of the necessity for a wholesome reliance on learning the language of the ancient texts, and many of them would argue against going back to the era when reading only the Latin Vulgate was the only ‘right’ thing to do. Today, that is unthinkable.

Time and space would fail us to recount the injuries and horrors, which befell pious men like Tyndale, Martin Luther, Wycliffe[aaa], John Hus[bbb] and many others, who suffered unwritable cruelties, sometimes at the hand of those, who presumably, were the leaders of the faith at their times; because they sought to make the word of God more accessible and available to their nations, peoples and generation. But those injuries did not deter them, neither will it deter us, for such persecution must come in various guises.  To us in this age of democracy, the battle against evil is not relenting. As Apostle Paul wrote:

We are in a violent combat[ccc], not against human beings with[ddd] blood[eee], but [rather with other beings[fff]]: with principalities[ggg], with superhuman forces[hhh], with world rulers of the darkness from[iii] the[jjj] ages[kkk], with spiritual strategists and plotters of wickedness in positions above[lll] the sky.’[mmm]  

Ephesians 6:12 [LBV]

The human faces of this spiritual war would always manifest. Some pious among them would be ignorant that they are being used as David was when he was moved by Satan to number Israel against the commands of God. All we must do is to put on the whole armour of God: the Word of God, which is the sword of the spirit, truth, faith, we must put on the whole lot of them.

In addition, we would not only arm ourselves. Translation is preparation of the gospel of peace and seeks to arm others with the living word by which the flaming missiles of the diabolical devil would be overcome and destroyed.


Every translator establishes global and specific as well as high and low principles that guide their translations endeavour. These principles are determined at the onset, while some others evolve as the translator(s) carries on the work of translation.

As clearly and precisely as possible, we have endeavoured to articulate as follows, the principles that governed this translation of the Holy Scriptures, to remove any form of speculation, which sometimes scholarship is wont or guilty of, especially in the absence of well-documented evidence by the author(s) whose doctrine they seek to divine. It is our aim to make such speculative efforts irrelevant by clarifying and documenting the how of this translation.

The principles imposed themselves. A translator is a servant, a slave; and though he is the master of his work, his translation, while the translation is being done, shall faithfully as a slave carry out dutifully, the desires and demands of his master. It is when this is done with mastery, with the highest available skill at his disposal, and also, always calling to his help, the help of the highest, the Holy Spirit himself, who inspired them; as well as the assistance of others so inclined, who have established a reputation of sound scholarship; and having done all, to be at peace with his conscience that he has done his part well.

Today’s technology and internet makes it possible that all the masters and great shcolars are available and accessible in an instant. All the original text of the various Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek biblical texts, all the translations and all the classic commentaries on the scriptures are available and accessible on the internet in their digital originality, and it is our responsibility to locate them, and to make use of them in carrying out the task of ‘putting God’s word into every hand, so that it can reach every mind and transform every spirit, every soul and every part of the world.’


The highest principle that guided this translation is the principle of the fear of the Lord of All Life. It was the fear of God, which is the foundation of wisdom {and dare say, even in translation of the Bible}, that was the most unique, foremost and highest principle. It was on this high principle based on Revelation 22:18-19 and Deuteronomy 4:2 that all others that evolved revolved.

You shall not add to[nnn] the word which I command you; neither shall you remove [one bit] from it. Take heed to the commandments of the Everlasting God[ooo] which I set before you.

Deuteronomy 4:2 [LBV]

In translating, we have neither added nor removed from God’s word. We were guided by an understanding of the difference between addition and sound articulation which the scriptures call ‘correctly dissecting [and expounding] the word of truth’ 2 Tim 2:15 [LBV].

Addition is the evil act of bringing in what is extraneous and contradictory not only to the text, or context, but to the whole body of gospel truth. Articulation is the attempt and skilful and correct act to aptly explain [or translate] with explanation using words that covey the meaning and context. It also means not to say something is in a passage of scripture that is not there.

Nevertheless, we have renounced the concealed things of dishonesty, not walking around in trickery, not adulterating the word of God. But by manifestation of the truth, commend[ppp] ourselves to every man’s conscience before[qqq] God. 2 Cor 4:2 [LBV]


In carrying out this translation, we adopted the Principle of Backward and Forward Compatibility where any translated text must be compatible and translatable back to the original language without loss in meaning and forward to another language, without loss of meaning. This is crucial considering the fact that as a translation based organisation, the Lay Bible would require that translated texts in one language could be used as original basis for translation into another language and as such literal choice of words as against explanatory and long phrases are preferred.

We also decided in this translation, to correct known errors and misleading translations present in other translations where we observed that they had been mentioned in commentaries and comments by scholars, and where our independent research and examination of the original text, concur with their positions. If translations is not done properly, it becomes misleading when faith is placed on them; faith is also weakened and confidence is shaken when men cannot say with utmost certainty that these are true representation of God’s word, and man’s confidence on them; both in conception and perception of them as the inspired, unadulterated and unequalled word of God are endangered. Should we allow but one iota of doubt on as much as one verse or word of scripture, we may expose the whole to odium, as a little leaven is used or seen by those who seek occasion and those who are mischievous, or by the ignorant, as having leavened and corrupted the whole lump. But as Dr. James D. Price puts it succinctly:


One does not correct the Word of God which was ‘settled in Heaven’ (Psa. 119:89) ‘since the world began.’ (Luke 1:70) But one may correct a man-made translation of God’s Word when it departs from the inspired Hebrew and Greek text. … A translation error in one verse of Scripture does not negate the validity of the entire translation but makes us aware that translations are not perfect—even the AV—and need to be checked against the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts.[rrr]

The scriptures says the word of God is strong enough to defend itself having been the principal instrument and personality by which all things were made and upheld. The word of God is not bound[sss]. He watches over his words…

There may be few passages where this translation may differ from other translations including the cerebral Authorised King James Version. However, we have painstakingly researched and cross-checked the original texts, and the various translations, read commentaries by biblical authorities on them, and convince ourselves and our conscience that going by the integrity of the original texts, by principles of translation to which we hold ourselves, by the application of knowledge and  skill, and going by the rules of grammar and the peculiarities of the language which is the medium of our translation, we have done justice to the said passage. In such cases, we have made the effort to make notes presenting our rationale, and the reader is free to consult the original text to see if our rendition captures the spirit and truth of the original text.

We do not go beyond ourselves to seek to ruffle minds and sentiments; neither do we imprison ourselves with conformism when the letter and spirit of the Word is before us as clear as the sun and command us to make a more accurate translation. By the thoroughness with which we pursued the task, we have left little room for error in our work; but where we are wrong, we would be humble enough to make amends: where our attention are drawn to them. If there are merits to change any, we would gladly make them so that the word will stand in its glory and not be diminished by any one word or phrase.

Also, we believe it is the responsibility of today’s biblical translators to improve on the work of those who have gone before, and that of those who will come after us to improve on what we have done. We prefer to do violence neither to the language nor to the Word.

Going through biblical commentaries, certain passages were observed to be ambiguous, absurd or meaningless. Our duty and that of every translator of the Holy Bible is to through retranslation, ensure that such ambiguities, meaningless translations and even misleading ones are removed from the word of truth. For example in Exodus 13:18, ‘Yam suf[ttt]’ [literally the Sea of Reeds], is translated in many translations as the ‘Red Sea’ perhaps influenced by the Latin Septuagint [LXX] which translated as ‘Red Sea’. While there may be many reasons including its proximity to the Red Sea, historic affinity, printer error, or even ignorance or its consideration as an arm of the Red Sea may be responsible. The fact is that the literal words of scriptures makes it clear[uuu] and imposes on us the responsibility and onus to state and translate ‘Yan Suf’, or any other word in the original text, as it is, and not as we would want it to be, or as anyone else would, either to defend or condemn a doctrine or sect, or to support an intellectual or critical position, or any other reason other than the fidelity of the word. The Sea of Reeds is a less misleading and textually accurate translation than the Red Sea, and its import and change is important by moving it from the footnote back to the main text as Wycliffe had in his first English Bible translation of 1382.

We do not use the word of God deceitfully; neither do we follow cunningly devised fables. Our duty is to ensure that the voice of God and the voice of the Holy Spirit who inspired the scriptures are echoed as true oracles of God. It is not for us or anyone to act in any way or manner that will turn the word of God into fables: They are the power of God to salvation; the sword of Spirit for effective use in the spiritual struggle that daily confront us.

In translating, we must toe the path of precision, giving no room for error, nor for any man to speak reproachfully, providing as much as within our power, no occasion for men to perish because of words we wrongly translate. Biblical translation to be translation and not speculation, must be based on the grammar and syntax of the Greek or Hebrew text, and not on theological preferences, as such, due diligence must be in place, ensuring that good texts are used, as the integrity of the translation can be undermined by use of faulty manuscripts. The task becomes more complex with the preponderance of manuscripts and the critical text scholarship that has tended to obfuscation.

The principle of uncompromising accuracy focuses on translating the words of the Holy Scriptures from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts; translating the word and spirit of each word, {each verse, each chapter}, each book until the entire scriptures is covered. At the disposal of the translator in digital formats, in the vast reservoir we call the internet, were all the principal original text of the scriptures: Old and new testaments: in scanned format or in text format including: The Masoretic Texts, Textus Receptus – Editio Regia, the Aleppo Codex, the Byzantine Original Greek text, Westminster Leningrad Codex, The Ben Chayim Codex, The Septuagint, Tanakh+, The Old and new Vulgate, The Syriac Peshitta, Samaritan Pentateuch, The Hebrew Interpolated Study Bible, The Analytic Septuagint [ALXX], The Apostolic Bible Polyglot, Tischedorf Greek NT 1872, Westcott Hort with NA27/UBS4 variants (1881), Nestle and Alaud, and 37 English translations including Wycliffe’s 1382 Bible, Tydale 1534 Bible, Coverdale 1535 Bible for reference. A full list of these is an annex to this edition.

There are various criteria used for judging authenticity of texts, and one of them is numerical. The numerical fallacy that the more a text is contained in more texts the more originality is ascertained falls because the counterfeit historically are usually more than the original at any given time. If we apply the numeracy criteria solely to determine which God is the true God, the God of the Bible would be terribly outnumbered. Yet the many there are, are not just counterfeits, they are satanic counterfeits.

The translator chooses whatever material from available originals to translate. Where there are conflicting materials or areas in the contending original texts, he must exercise due diligence and judgement to discern the true text, and in doing so, must avail himself of the scholarly works of those before him, who had extensively researched the subject. Where he can, he should consider those for and against; and once he has made up his mind, rise and fall on the basis of his decision, so help him God.


It is important to consider the faith of the translator while evaluating the integrity of a translation as this in all respects affects the sanctity and respect accorded the translation as a sacred text, and to avert or avoid subversion through textual or interpretative corruption. Where a translator of biblical text is an atheist or a believer in another faith, the integrity with which he or she would carry out the translation would be suspect, and the faithfulness and objectivity of the outcome of his translation also. This is because whatever the translation comes out with, not only in the inconsequential verses, but in the fundamental scriptures supporting essential doctrines and beliefs of the Christian faith, such could be subversive. Moreover, the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit, so it is material that a man of the Holy Spirit, a believer in the biblical faith translate the biblical text. However, it could not be removed the possibility that God can use even stones to achieve his objective, and that individuals who have no belief at all could be used to objectively by him translate the scriptures accurately. This though, I am yet to see. Throughout the ages, virtually all authentic translators have been men of the faith.


The Principle of Clarity means clearness, purity as well as ease in communication. It signifies that what a verse says must not be ambiguous, subject to any vagueness of any type and only one thing, which agree with the original. For the sake of clarity, word order may slightly be reordered. The translator’s duty is to be true to the letter and true to the spirit of whatever he is translating, and such those whom the letter kills have their blood on their own heads, and those whom the spirit enlivens would enjoy the renewal and transformative power, which only the word of God mixed with faith and spirit can give.

Clarity presupposes also, the ease with which those who read and are basic and literate enough understand the translated text. This translation is made with readability, simplicity rather than obscurity in mind. While a vast vocabulary may be at the translator’s disposal, either from study, mind or from our rich access to lexicons, some of which are exhaustive, like the 13 Volume New Oxford English Dictionary of over 50,00 pages, and online repositories and dictionaries, translators should let their translation speak in a language which a the individual, especially the lay and ordinary man of the street can understand, for such is the kingdom of God.

The principle of speaking in the language which the lay and ordinary man of the street can understand is fundamental to biblical translation and is a fundamental principle of every credible translation across the ages, hence in these translation, simple words are chosen over high sounding or obscure words.

Martin Luther enjoins us in his Open Letter on Translation that ‘We must inquire about this (i.e. the vernacular) of the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. That way they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking [their language] to them.’

Samuel Mather[vvv] wrote that ‘From Respect to the Reader, who are not versed in the Hebrew and Greek Languages, I have thought it advisable, not to insert the Hebrew and Greek Words, recited ¡n the following attempt in their proper  Characters; because I had no desire to puzzle and perplex them, and interrupt their reading; any more than was just necessary: But I have written these Hebrew and Greek Words in such Letters as they know, and  may be a little more grateful and satisfying to them, as they may in a manner read them.’

The Principle of Due Diligence involved translating from the right source document, and using acceptable lexicons and meanings of the relevant words in the original text, as well as following established rules of grammar. This was fundamental to ensuring accuracy in translation, removing any dual meaning or vagueness in any translative expression.

The principle of accuracy, which imposes commitment to translate as an original and authoritative work. It was envisioned that this be done with so much diligence, accuracy, integrity and distinctiveness as to imbue the work with its own originality. The integrity of a translation lies in its ability to exactly, accurately covey and translate as literal as possible, the word and spirit of any text, in this instance, the original text of the Holy Scriptures.


Translating is the art of solely pandering to the words and meanings of the original contextual text and the true rendering of the original by maintaining its fidelity into the translated text or language without regard to past or prevailing doctrines, sentiments, prejudice of sects or persons, or the tenets of theologians, even though it is essential that your beliefs and translation principles, provide a guide in the effort, as the absence of a compass may result in a ship not only roaming away, but getting itself shipwrecked. But those who look up to God for divine guidance,

he shall guide them to the harbour of their desire.

Psalm 107:22-30 [LBV]

Although it could be argued that the current beliefs of the translator cannot be divorced from him, nor can he be able to extricate himself from being influenced by the doctrines to which he subscribes; the translation would come out with fidelity and integrity, provided the translator is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit

Be that as it may, a translator, using tools at his disposal, will fairly bring out in a literal translation, justifiable texts to which all can attest to be devoid of doctrinal inducements or corruption with material alien to the text itself. Where a text has in its semantics a doctrinal force, the translator cannot but give vein to whatever truths there are therein; he should not manufacture what is not there, neither should he subtract from what is [there]; fidelity in content and context compels him. If he decides to fabricate or distort deliberately any part of the text, the whole effort becomes vulnerable to the charge of lack of integrity.

Deliberate falsification is not the same as erroneous translation, even though both may have likely outcomes. In deliberate falsifications, the translator in bad conscience and bad faith is aware that the translation is false; it may just be in a verse out of the entire scriptures, which is inserted or perverted for usually, an evil purpose. In wrong translation, the translator out of ignorance or mere human error, or through being misled by a corrupt text or lexicon on which he bases his translation, especially the strange etymological connections with alien and idolatrous roots being made by modern scholarship; such a translator acting in good faith and good spirit,  may make errors, and the errors so made in certain respect of his translation may be misleading, but his work would be judged on the quality of it and those that are wrong would be discarded or ignored for what they are [1 Cor. 3: 13-15].

What is particularly different is that while the fabricators would be eternally judged and punished, the other would obtain divine mercy and his good work is bound to shine and be built upon by future generation. Besides, the eternal vigilance of the righteous against satanic assault, and God’s commitment that the gates of hell shall not prevail, provide us with added conviction that no matter what, the word will prevail with its purity intact.

The word of God is purified and refined seven times. God is still in the business of refining his translated word. Extreneousities would not survive his fires. They will be expunged by his translation ministers who he has made flaming fires to burn those errors out.

‘The dry and withering grasses drop down and the flowers blooming [fall] also; but the spoken word of our God shall rise, stand, endure and be confirmed for ever. Isaiah 40:8



This translation is packaged in two principal forms: The Inspired Lay Bible [LBV] and the Verseless Bible [TVB]. These are translations and not explanations or expositions. There is a difference between these. Translation is the skilful and apt capturing of meaning of one text in one language to another language in such a way that word for word, order and meaning are carried into the language to which translation is made. Explanations have no conformity to this order and can choose either to marginally maintain word order and meaning order as well as phonetic integrity, or jettison this [textual as well as structural significance] altogether.

Translation has no such luxury or discretion. It must maintain strict order:  the words must as much as the language of translation allows, follow the order of the original text from which translation is being made. It must as much as possible, capture the meaning of the original text by using word equivalents as much as possible rather than phrases] in the language of translation, that best captures the meaning of the word in the translated from language; and where no such word exist, to borrow by domesticating and localising the original word from the original text in the translation language or in any other language of his choosing using his translators licence, enhancing the language thereby. This is how the English language gave us angels from the Greek ‘aggelos’ differentiating it from messenger which is the meaning of ‘malak’ and aggelos, and how baptize from Greek ‘baptizo’ entered the English lingo thereby enhancing the English language vocabulary.

It is true that most languages are not endowed with a vast vocabulary as the English language. However, where words cannot be found to articulate in totality the meaning, nuance and concepts and spirit of the one word being translated as contained in the original text, at least to the translator, phrases should be used, and new words coined or borrowed from nearby languages as replacement, but with high regard for compactness, the fewer the words say two or three, the better.


It cannot be gainsaying to say that the literary style of the writers of the Holy Scriptures influence the textual outcomes of translations, and their nuances and that of the words used to translate them in the language counterpart also imbue them with peculiarities of their own, some of which are derived from their etymology and practical purposes.

In carrying out the translation, the principle of textual equivalence was adopted. This involves the process of selecting the word in the translation language that best covey the meaning, letter and spirit of the word in the original biblical text being translated.  Translating with exactitude and with textual integrity the original text as it is and not fabricate into it words and meanings that are alien, neither integral or implied, is fundamental to translation originality and integrity. The work of a translator is not to translate what is implied or imply what is contained, but to fairly and accurately in exactitude mirror or reproduce the meaning of the original into a new original.

A good translation will capture the word, spirit and aura of the original. It cannot better it. Where it appears that it does, they are incidental, perhaps arising or derived from the semantic and or poetic attributes in the words in the translated form, and in their prosaic quality. In that sense, better is only linguistic, a function of mere form; an accident; perhaps it is the translators intention to be poetic, to imbue the translation with poetic dignity, applying poetic devices and principles not only at the translator’s command or disposal, but at his demand; devices the translator has chosen to be principles, as we did when we translated Psalm 23 with metric patterns, or as John Milton is said to have done at the age of 15 in the translation of Psalm 114.

Many have put their poetic skills to working out the Psalms in line with the English metrical structure of diverse nature or fancy. These have sought to capture the words of the Psalms in prose and poetry, with unsatisfactory result. Though some attained acceptability status and usage in the church as part of liturgy such as The Bay Psalms, its distinctive precursor: Henry Ainsworth’s Book of Psalms[www], Sternhold and Hopkin’s Psalms which was bound together with the Geneva Bible, was criticised; ‘Tho’ they blessed God for the religious endeavours of them who translated the Psalms into the Metre and annexed at the end of the Bible, yet they beheld in the translation so many detractions from, additions to, and variations of not only the text, but the very sense of the Psalmist, that it was an offence unto them.’  It was variously pillowed as ‘hopelessly unpoetical [in] character’, ‘fault lay largely in the excess of reverence for the subject’; while Milton’s works was described as being harsh as anything in the Bay Psalm Book.[xxx]

“It is not unknown to the godly leaned that they have rather presented a paraphrase than the words of David translated according to the rule 2 Chron. 29:30 and that their addition to the words, detractions from the words are not seldom and rare, but very frequent and many times needless, (which we suppose would not be approved of if the Psalms were so translated into prose) and that their variations of the sense, and alterations to the sacred text too frequently, may justly minister matter of offense to them that are able to compare the translation with the text; of which failings, some judicious have often complained, others have been grieved whereupon it had been generally desired that as we do enjoy the other…”[yyy]

Also, it is worthy of note that the Bay Psalms, reputed to be with distinction, as the first book printed in North America in 1640 and adopted by nearly every congregation in the Massachusetts Colony in the United States and preferred in some parts England also for liturgical service. The Bay Psalms was used for upwards of a century before giving way to newer versions of Tate and Brady after the churches voted for the change from 1751.


In carrying out translation from one language to another, certain peculiar character of a language are non-translatable; either because there is no semantic equivalent word or the apparatus of the language have no capacity to handle the structure. For example, Greek and Hebrew make gender distinctions in the pronouns that is not found in the English language. Modern English does not distinguish between the singular and plural of the second person pronoun you.

According to Dr. D Price

‘the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible also make certain distinctions of gender in the pronouns that are not found in either King James English or Modern English. So for example Greek has feminine third person plural pronouns. Likewise, Greek has feminine reflexive pronouns for all persons, singular and plural; and feminine reciprocal pronouns. The same is true for the demonstrative, interrogative, and relative pronouns. Similarly, Hebrew distinguishes gender for both second and third person pronouns, singular and plural; also Hebrew distinguishes gender for the singular demonstrative pronouns. These also convey information that may obscure the full meaning of the text.’[zzz]

It is pertinent to mention here that in carrying out our translation, some poetic devices, which were only possible in the Hebrew or language of the original text, are lost and perhaps irredeemable. For example, in the Hebrew Bible text, Psalms 9, 10, 25, 37, 111, 112, 119 and 145 are alphabetical Psalms. Each of the 22 or so verses begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, with verse 1 beginning with Aleph [A]. Can this be replicated in English and in any language? Yes and No. We tried for example to do so in Psalm 119, even though we found none of the available translations replicated this form. While a Psalm Translation with metrical structure is contemplated, it is currently in an infant stage considering the various obstacles to such an endeavour; form must serve function and not the reverse. Structure must follow meaning, and reason must master rhythm and not the other way.

In our own experiment and practice or attempt at replication of form, we found that semantic dissonance as the alphabetic word in the English language usually has no bearing or equivalence with the Hebrew word serving the alphabetic device in the original text. Finding an equivalent word with the same meaning as the original text is a search in futility. As a result there is dissonance and lack of alphabetic affinity between the original and translated languages. The respective alphabets with phonetic equivalence were not in the same position in their alphabetic sequence, potentially giving room to alphabetic, semantic and contextual dissonance. Where this is ignored for equivalence, we observed that even where alphabetic integrity or correctness to Hebrew is achieved, doubtful and perhaps not dubious as it may appear; its implication would be lost in translation, as the alphabetical order would be unrecognisable in the new language whose alphabetical order is distinct: as the words available, both to the language and to the translator, agonises to bring out the essence of the passage translated, thereby causing semantic distortions at times, hence their discontinuance.

The question arose: Do we translate to the alphabetical order of the language of the original text (in this case ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic or Greek), or in that of the language of translation, (in this case English)? As at the moment, with regard to biblical translation, we are not aware of any that is practiced and to the best of our knowledge, none has been achieved.  It is unlikely that attempts have not been made, considering the nature of man. However, since we do not have any evidence to the contrary, it appears and we may submit that they have been unfruitful.

From our efforts or attempts to enforce or replicate alphabetical integrity and semantic equivalence in this translation, we encountered what we deemed unnecessary rigour; and even distortions began to enforce themselves on the translation, threatening textual integrity and essence itself. It became apparent after a while that in a bid to maintain form, substance was lost; in a bid to enforce function, notions are imposed; in a bid to enforce alphabetical equivalence and integrity, textual integrity is compromised. It is for these reasons that virtually all translations in English, we believe, jettisoned some of the forms and structures in the original text, strictly for equivalence in meaning, and placed form as secondary to substance. This is pragmatic and we have approached this translation with the same spirit.

At the moment, and from evidence before us, the alphabetical Psalm have in this translation, been rendered in free verses  (not in the classic sense), but in the generic sense in virtually all English Translation of the Holy bible at our disposal, which are about 40 in number. Where we have conformed to the alphabetical form of the Psalm, we endeavoured to ensure that form does not overthrow substance, nor did we allow structure and semantics to devalue or corrupt the integrity and fidelity of the word.


In the Hebrew Bible, there is a superscription which is the first verse of the Psalm. In the English Bible traditionally since Wycliffe, the superscription and the first verse of the Psalm are combined unlike in the Hebrew Bible or made to stand on its own without a number, as a result English Translations of the Holy Scriptures one less verse than the Hebrew in the Psalms. In fact from our study of reading habits, many do not even know that these are part of the scriptures and were asking where it came from. To avoid confusion, we have separated them from the first verse as sub-titles or superscriptions or used italics or lesser sized font sizes to draw attention to them.


Each language is imbued with its own linguistics grammar, character, structure and lexis as well as semantics and idioms; and this impact materially on translation. Semantics is the study of meaning that focuses on the signification and relationship between words, phrases, signs and symbols and what they stand for (their denotation).

The Principle of contextual relevance in determining the semantics of the words, examined their relevance to the context. Equivalence in the semantics of words and texts is the whole essence of translations of whatever kind. Capturing in the translated text the semantic equivalence of the original document is the dream of every translator.

Almost when the whole of the Psalms had been translated and after we had articulated our cardinal translation principles, I came across Martin Luther’s Translation Principles, which reinforced some of the principles we already had. Luther was emphatic. ‘… Words serve and follow the meaning, not meaning the words.’[bbbb] It is possible that some scholars’ can make these simple words of Luther to serve diverse and differing views.

For us, we believe that translating the words and the meaning will follow only if and when the meaning is understood as the translation is done, more so, with Hebrew which has gaps in the words themselves as well as gaps in the sentence structure; a shocking statement that is not shocking at all, and have occupied many for centuries with devices such as pointers invented.  One writer on Hebrew Grammar remarked that ‘Pointing, under the pretence of giving sound to the words, and supplying the defects in grammar, hath burdened us with a tedious, almost insupportable multiplicity of rules, and misled us in the construction of most material parts of scripture, and made the whole, the most vague, uncertain writing in the world.


Names are not supposed to be translated per se, rather they are supposed to be transliterated by replicating the phonetic sounds of an individual’s name in the equivalent phonetic alphabet, rather than equivalent alphabet since the same alphabet in different languages have different phonetic sounds.

Names carry with them a permanent identity that does not change throughout the life of a person. However, if in a particular lingo, there is an established historical name for the same person, such could be used as an equivalent; however, for the sake of accuracy, it is essential that names are transliterated using phonetic equivalence in the translated language. This makes it possible to get a near pronunciation of a name rather than some that are altogether abstract and far. The non-application of this principle by English translation resulted in names such as Yahovah becoming Jehovah with direct transposition from German to English; and Yeshua becoming Ieosus in Greek and then Jesus in English; Hebrew Moshe becoming Moses in Greek and English and Hebrew ‘Khavah’ becoming ‘Eua’ [yoo ah] or Eva in Greek, and ‘Eve’ in English without phonetic equivalency and due diligence being done.

Modern translators are therefore compelled to conform to tradition, thereby continuing the cycle of wrong or poor translation, which has become right by virtue of long and customary historic usage. Some of these, God himself has accommodated for the time being, like the divorce rule in the time of Moshe [or Moses]. However, in the beginning it was not so. Yahweh, Jehovah and all others are acceptable because he knows who we are, and with what Spirit those mentioning the names, are mentioning the name, and who they mean. He does not answer those serving on the tables of devils and demons, who ascribe his name to any other.


Authentic translation of the Holy Scriptures requires first and foremost,due diligence in ensuring that the correct original is used, as over the years, sponsored and inspired corruption and adulteration by ‘principal initiators, superhuman authorities and masters, world rulers of the darkness from ancient times, and spiritual strategists and plotters of wickedness in positions above the sky’ [Ephesians 6: 12 LBV], have influenced and entered their human agents in their onslaught to frustrate the divine plan of salvation and truth.

Corrupting the original had been at the centrality of this evil agenda, and this has been ongoing for ages.

Another way through which corruption and adulteration of the original text is done is through conjecture.

The Principle of Zero Conjecture applies the principle of ‘do not assume, infer, guess, speculate or suppose in translation.’ What counts is precision, equivalence in context, semantics, meaning and textual integrity. Where the text used as the original is corrupted, the translation will come out corrupt to the extent with which the original is adulterated and corrupted. This is particularly one of the times that it is particularly important to use the proper Hebrew text[cccc].


There are certain places of the Holy Scriptures in the original where the actual meaning of the texts are uncertain. For example, Matthew Henry in his commentary wrote that, ‘The critics have had their hands full to find out the true signification of the Hebrew words used’ [in Leviticus 11:18, Psalm 106:2 to mention but a few].

There are verses as Adam Clarke observed in his commentary, to Psalm 68, where ‘to attempt anything new on it would be dangerous; and to say what has been so often said would be unsatisfactory. I am truly afraid to fall over one of those precipices, or be endlessly entangled and lost in one of these labyrinths. There are customs here referred to which I do not fully understand; there are words whose meaning I cannot, to my own satisfaction, ascertain; and allusions which are to me inexplicable. Yet of the composition itself I have the highest opinion: it is sublime beyond all comparison; it is constructed with an art truly admirable; it possesses all the dignity of the sacred language ….’

What we have done was to do as much research as we can, and pray for the inspirer of the original words of scripture, the Holy Spirit himself, to shine his light. Revelation would come to those who like Daniel seek for divine help for mysteries to be unfolded.

For who stood in the council of the Lord, to see or hear the[dddd] Word?  Who had marked his word to hear It? If ever they had stood at my council [or on my counsel], and [if] this people [had ever] heard my words, they should[eeee] have turned from their evil ways, and from doing evil.

Jeremiah 23:18, 22 [LBV][ffff]


Consistency in style and in terms is essential. For example, in the original text the word is ‘Mitzrayim’, but it is understood to represent ancient Egypt which is more attuned to the modern audience. However, where a translator chooses to use Mitzrayim, which is the ancient name of Egypt, or chooses to use Egypt either alone or combined with its ancient historic equivalent (which was Egypt in Greek and English) as we have done thus: ‘Mitzrayim [Egypt]’, the translator must endeavour to be consistent throughout the translated Bible in the usage of terms, punctuations, abbreviations and style.

The essence of harmonisation is to give the translation a unity. Also, as a translator carries out his work, his initial work are less principled and less in quality than his later works as during those period, they principles are evolving, are being tested; but later in the translation, the translator’s grasp of his craft is approaching that of mastery. After the translation of drafts, the translator because of pragmatism adopts certain principles, which towards the end differ from those applied at the onset or earlier stages. Having attained maturity or at a mature stage, the translator revisits his earliest translations and revise them in the light of his maturity as a translator, with the benefit of better knowledge and his maturity principles. This we have done. The earlier translations were harmonised. Names of persons and places were harmonised to ensure that they are consistent throughout the translated text.   There may be instances where this is not followed, but this must be dictated by the peculiarities of the original text contents. For example, the name of Elijah at some places read Elias.


Translation must be done with textual integrity, semantic fidelity, contextual dignity and structural sublimeness. There is no room for the introduction of conjectures, neither should anything be done that will adulterate or corrupt the word of God. We have not followed cunningly devised fables, neither should we device them (2 Pet. 1:16) as these turn many away from the truth (1 Tim 1:14).

We submit that we have done our best to the utmost, and believe that God and man would be pleased. Of any other, they are not our concern, neither their views nor their concerns. Like the Sower of the precious seed of the word, we let loose these word of translation of the word of God, to fulfil its purpose for which the Lord God himself called us and tasked us with this work as a mark of his love for mankind and for their deliverance.

The word must be presented with majesty, because his word is majestic, the one speaking is majestic [Psalm 29:4] and the inspirer is majestic. Translation must endeavour to capture this majesty. When choosing words and building textual phrases, majestic rendition must always be chosen in preference over pedantic and mundane ones without sacrificing simplicity, aptness and truth.

In the old English, ‘thou’,’ thee’ and ‘ye’ and the ‘ests’ made this majesty easy to imbue in the text, With modern rendition excising this word on ground of archaism, some translations look ordinary, not worthy of divine speech, because they appear to have been stripped of their charisma. As a result, the translator must use other means, other linguistic mechanisms to achieve this majestic imperative. This we have done in this translation. Whether we successfully achieved this everywhere throughout the translation, is left for others to judge.

We have used ‘we’ throughout this preface because we acknowledge the Holy Spirit as a co-worker in this translation of his inspired word; and also to acknowledge the efforts and contribution of many before me, whose works have been an inspiration, whose research have pointed a beam of light in a dark tunnel, whose hand had been comforting on the task. Also, those who raised issues or made comments which were considered resulting in the revision of some translations to make them less ambiguous, more accurate and more in tune with the dignity of the sacred text. It is all of you that I acknowledge in ‘we’ and ‘us’, as together we have done this, and every man will receive his reward from our Lord and Master, for every man shall be rewarded according as his work shall be.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen. Halleluyah!

Dele-Israel Ikeorha

President, Lay Bible Translation Group

30 April 2016



[a] Almighty God or God Almighty

[b] God who is above all

[c] convocator

[d] Psalm 139:16 Alternative Rendering:  My wrapped but unfinished parts, you see with your eyes; and in your book, all of them were written out [and designed], not in the day [when] I was formed; but [long before then] when there was nothing [and no one] altogether [not at all.

[e] Predestinate, predetermine

[f] to

[g] nature of perfection

[h] image, replica, representation

[i]  x/y where x = languages with full bibles, y = total  languages indexed by SIL i.e. 554/6909

[j] 554 full language translations, 1,333 with New Testament only, and 1,045 with at least a chapter or book of the Bible resulting in {[554/6909] + [1333/6909 x(7959/31173)] + [(1045/6909) x (1/66)]  = {0.80185 + (0.119294 x 0.2553) + (0.151252 x 0.0151516)] = 13.16%. Formula used {[x/y] + [(p/y) x (v/t)] + [(s/y) x (1/t)] Where x = languages with full bibles, y = total  languages indexed by SIL, p = languages with full new testament bibles, v = total verses in New Testament, and t = total  verses in 66 books of the old and new testaments. Language percentage coverage 13.16%; Population percentage Coverage 80%, Literacy quotient 60%

[k] Details of this are available at the and website.

[l] message, teachings

[m] will, prefers, seeks, wishes, desires, chooses, gladly

[n] If anyone is determined[n] to do His will, he shall know [and understand for sure] about this doctrine, that it has its origin from God, even though I speak of myself. John 7:17 [LBV]


[o] Book Review of D. K. Madden. Remarks on the New King James Version. Tasmania, Australia: D. K. Madden, 1989. 43. pp. Reviewed by James D. Price, Ph.D.Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, Temple Baptist Seminary, Chattanooga, TN


[p] M. Luther, ‘Defence of the Translation of the Psalms’ in E.T. Bachmann, ed. Luther’s Works’ Vol. 35 (Philadelphia, 1960), 213-214

[q] Quoted in Adams Clarke’s Commentary on Psalm 68

[r] Hebrew, ‘Yahavoh Elohei Tsavaoth, or ‘Yahavoh Elohei Tsabaoth ’

[s] Exodus 3:15 states Elohim [or Aleim] as his name and not just a title.

[t] Or ALHM, Aleim

[u] Or Originally

[v] entities of the [visible and invincible]

[w] Or Yahavoh Elohim or Jehovah Elohim [pronounced Yahovah Elohim] means Everlasting God. Note the ‘J’ in Jehovah should be pronounced as the German J which is a ‘Y’ from which it is derived and adopted into the English lingo.

[x] These used ancient English alphabets before the evolution of Y and J. The letter I was used to denote both alphabets while the letter ‘u’ was used for both ‘u’ and ‘v’.

[y] John Hinton, Ph.D ‘Ridiculous KJV Corrections: Who Is Yahweh

[z] There is a popular movement to replace the name of Jehovah with Yahweh. This is being pushed especially hard among those in the identity and Christian patriot movement, and especially among the alternative news community prominent on the shortwave which are  [nothing but] commercialised. This movement to alter with absolutely nothing that resembles scriptural, textual or linguistic support, has misled huge numbers of Christians into denying the Bible and accepting the work of Bible scoffing atheists who have dominated  the academic field of biblical studies since the mid-nineteenth century… This is particularly one of the times that it is particularly important to use the proper Hebrew text. The perverted Hebrew text of Rudolf Kittel, derived from the Ben Asher Text with Kittel’s amendments, which is known as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), may mislead any Hebraicist who tries to follow my argument if he looks at the wrong verses. The better Ben Hayim text, which is what the KJV and earlier translators utilized, should be used to understand the issue properly. The BHS is inconsistent in its vowel markings for YHVH [Yehovah], while the Ben Hayim text is consistent… It is better not to use the text that was derived from the work of a Nazi and atheist, which is promoted by atheists, and instead use the unaltered text that was traditionally used before the great falling away of the modern era. If the reader does choose to use the faulty text, the results will be the same, but he may be confused by inconsistency of the diacritics, although in no verse can the diacritics be claimed to spell out Yahweh’

[aa] John Hinton, Ph.D ‘Ridiculous KJV Corrections: Who Is Yahweh

[bb] Writing on the authenticity of the Rudolph Kittel Text, in a letter to Geil Ripplinger, (downloadable from,_1994.doc available online at Dr. D. Price’s official website at Dr. Price aver that

‘Rudolph Kittel did not corrupt the Biblia Hebraica Leningrad Ms B 19a, as your statement asserts. The Leningrad manuscript (Ms) B 19a is a complete manuscript of the ben Asher Masoretic Text dated about A.D. 1008. It is regarded as perhaps the most faithful copy of the Masoretic Text, the Textus Receptus of the Hebrew Bible. Kittel’s 1937 edition of Biblia Hebraica was a faithful printed reproduction of the Leningrad B 19a manuscript. Far from corrupting B 19a, as you wrote, he made its text available. The more recent Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1966/77) is an improved edition of B 19a, making it more faithful to B 19a in all of its microscopic minutia.

[cc] God’s name from greek ‘theos’

[dd] Principles of Translation from the Preface to the New American Standard Bible, 1997

[ee] See

[ff] Or, godliness

[gg] knowing and understanding nothing

[hh] Ill-will, envy, jealousy

[ii] presumptions, conclusions, deductions

[jj] Or, godliness, piety.

[kk] See Jude 1:4

[ll] The Preface to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible p. 6-7,

[mm] The Columbia Electronic Encyclopaedia 1994 3rd Edition, Columbia University Press

[nn] Jewish Encyclopaedia p. 277

[oo] Gail Riplinger (1997) In Awe of Your Word

[pp] Or, out of

[qq] Or, with

[rr] result

[ss] YHVH, Also translated as Yahavah, Yehovah, Jehovah, Jahve, YHWH, Yahweh, Yahve. It is derived from Yah  [the One, Lord or God] and havah [ life, existence, I AM, Eternal, been, be, who is, become].

[tt] ahyah [asher] ayvah.

[uu] Or ehyah

[vv] Or Yehovah

[ww] This refers to the two Greek letters alpha [ᾶ] and Omega [Ω] and their positions as first letters to be added and last letter to be added, first letter to be added to the first letter and last letter to be added to the last letter.

[xx] Matthew Arnold Isaiah XL-LXVI with Shorter Principles To It. Arranged and Edited with notes. (London: Macmillan and Co. 1875], Introduction pp. 12-14.

[yy] What do you want me to make right?

[zz] See page 16 of the letter downloadable from,_1994.doc available online at Dr. D. Price;s official website at and

[aaa] The Pope is said to have been infuriated by Wycliff’s translation of the Holy Scriptures from the Latin vulgate into English language in 1382, and the subsequent production and distribution of dozens of handwritten Bibles of his translation that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, the Pope ordered Wycliffe’s bones dug up from the grave, crushed to powder, and scattered into the river.

[bbb] Hus Promoted Wycliffe’s Bible and the right of everyone to read the bible in his language. Hus was burned at the stake in 1415 with Wycliffe’s Bible used to kindle the flames. He is recorded as prophesying that in 100 years  God will raise up a man whose calls for reform  cannot be suppress.’ A prophesy fulfilled  in 1517 with the emergence of Martin Luther

[ccc] struggle

[ddd] that have

[eee] flesh and blood

[fff] things

[ggg] rulers, initiators, principal initiators

[hhh] authorities, powers

[iii] of

[jjj] this

[kkk] ancient times, generations

[lll] Celestial, heavenly places

[mmm] Ephesians 6:12 alternative reading (AR): ‘We are in a [violent] struggle, not against human beings with blood, but [rather with other beings]: with principal initiators, with superhuman authorities [and masters] , with world rulers of the darkness from  ancient times, with spiritual strategists and plotters [of wickedness] in positions above  the sky.’  Ephesians 6:10 [LBV]

[nnn] upon

[ooo] Hebrew, ‘Yahavoh Adonai’

[ppp] approve

[qqq] in the sight

[rrr] James D. Price Response to Pastor Robert J. Sargent’s Is The “New King James Bible” The Word of God?

[sss] 2 Tim 2:9

[ttt] Alternative translation is ‘Yan Sof’ (Sea End or End of the Sea). This is a better translation than Red Sea as it captures the historic fact that the Israelites passed through the end part of the sea.

[uuu] Changing the Red Sea to the Sea of Reeds or Reed Sea in the English translation as part of the main body is essential to remove the misleading charge of some that the size and distance of the Red Sea makes it impossible for a million people on foot and moving their properties in chariots, would cross an expanse of a sea in a day. It is no more a secret the path through which the Israelites took to the Promised Land

[vvv] Quoted in ‘Dissertation Concerning The Most Venerable Name of  Jehov1h.’

[www] Henry Ainsworth’s Book of Psalms: Englished Both In Prose And In Prose And Metre. With Annotations, Opening The Words And Sentences With Other Scriptures. By H. A [with the music]. Amsterdam: Giles Thorp, 1612

[xxx] Memorial Exercises at Newton, Wlliot anniversary, 1646 – 1896, Newston 1896, p. 75

[yyy] Preface to The Whole Book of Psalms, Stephen Daye, Cambridge, New England, 1640, p. 29

[zzz] Book Review of D. K. Madden. Remarks on the New King James Version. Tasmania, Australia: D. K. Madden, 1989. 43. pp. Reviewed by James D. Price, Ph.D.Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, Temple Baptist Seminary, Chattanooga, TN,_1994.doc available online at Dr. D. Price;s official website at

[aaaa] I must appreciate my friend Stan Onyime, CEO, Acadar Technologies ( for his suggestion of the highly apt term semantic equivalence during our brainstorming sessions and discussions on principles of this translation.

[bbbb] M. Luther, ‘Defence of the Translation of the Psalms’ in E.T. Bachmann, ed. Luther’s Works’ Vol. 35 (Philadelphia, 1960), 213-214

[cccc] John Hinton, Ph.D ‘Ridiculous KJV Corrections: Who Is Yahweh

[dddd] Or, his word?

[eeee] Or would have

[ffff] Jeremiah 23:18, 22 [LBV] Alternative rendition: For who stood in the council of the Lord, to see or hear the[ffff] Word?  Who had marked his word to hear It? If ever they had stood at my council [or on my counsel], and [if] this people [had ever] heard my words, they should[ffff] have turned [them] from their evil ways, and from doing evil.


Translation Principles

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s