Worst. Version. Ever!

This has to be the worst version of the Bible ever. It is a KJV with the Hebrew words for God inserted instead of the usual English, making it a "Hebrew Names Version," but there is a lot more to it than that. Check it out: www.cepher.net.

A friend at our church asked my son and me to evaluate it and we came up with 4 pages of notes about the errors without even trying. Here are just a few thoughts:

1. They believe the Bible has errors, since they list not only Hebrews but six of Paul's letters as "pseudepigrapha," or fake. This out liberals the liberals, since even liberal scholars accept most of these as genuine! Their article explaining this is so absurd it would take a whole 'nother thread to debunk.

2. They have no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. For example, they make a big deal of the "aleph tav," saying it was left out of all Bibles, so their's will have it all 9837 times. However, the "aleph tav" is simply a marker for the direct object in Hebrew. It has no independent meaning that needs to be translated.

3. They show no knowledge of the difference between a divine name and simply a title. They lump all such together. For example, Elohim is not a personal name, but simply a word for God which the Hebrew OT uses for false Gods as well as the true God.

4. They want $95 for their Bible. Looks like a hefty profit margin to me. Save the money and just use the KJV, looking up the names of God on your Bible software as they come up in the text, and you're good to go.

5. It includes the Acts 29 forgery, a transparent attempt to produce Biblical support for British-Israelism for which there is no Greek text. They say, “Chapter 29 (in reliance on the Suninni (sic; Soninni) Manuscript and the Muratorian fragment).” However, the Muratorian fragment specifically says that Acts omits Paul’s trip to Spain.

6. They say on the website, “Matthew 23:1-2 has been another continuing error, using the word “they” where the word ‘he’ belongs.” I looked at the Greek and there is nothing there remotely resembling this.

7. There is a vast ignorance on the site about textual criticism. For example, the website says that the four oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are Alexandrius, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But we have various much earlier manuscripts, such as p22, p37, p45 and p53 from the 3rd century, and even some from the 2nd century such as p52 and p64.

And on and on.

 

Happy to help. :wavey:

This is a brand new development, but the editor appears to want to start some kind of following, which has negative potential, if you know what I mean.

 

What makes this one worse is that it both adds to Scripture (Acts 9 and the Apocrypha) and takes from Scripture (calls six books pseudepigrapha). Even the JW Bible doesn't do that.

 

This should have said "Acts 29."