A bad translation brings a bad interpretation, a bad interpretation brings a bad teaching, a bad teaching brings a bad doctrine, a bad doctrine brings a heresy and a heresy separate us from the true body of Messiah.

For My people are foolish, They know Me not; They are stupid children and have no understanding. They are shrewd to do evil, but to do good they do not know." How do you say, We are wise, and the Torah of Yahuah is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

Is there a perfect version?

To defend the truth we must agree that we "only" have translations. There is only one true version, unfortunately, the ONE nobody has. There are many translations with their own merit and also their own flaws, they have had many revisions, unfortunately, corrections are limited to denominational doctrines and are not widely accepted. Translations are not inspired and erros exist by the tens of thousands.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND is nothing BUT a CATHOLIC ROMAN CHURCH influenced with the corrupt touch of the Protestant Reform, they remained Sunday keepers, did away with the Commandments replacing them with rituals and liturgies, they appointed 47 "scholars' and produced the flawed "King James Bible".

King James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopalstructure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The KJV replaced the "Bishops Bible" which was only to be read by the priest to the filigree, a practice imposed by Constantine in 325 A.D.

The word "Bible" does not exist anywhere in the Scriptures, yet people refer to the oracles of Yahuah by the pagan deity, "Biblia" a Phoenician goddess. The Phoenician city of Gebal was named Byblos by the Greeks, because it was thru Gebal the Egyptian papyrus was imported into Greece. Hence the "Bible" word is derived from " Byblos". Yahusha referred to it as the Turah and the (Nebilim) Prophets.

Let’s look at some Basic Criteria

1. Language:

Languages have evolved into new expressions, we have old English, middle age English and modern English, i.e, the wordperzactly (exactly or prescisely) or, elsewhither (some other place).

Here is the Old English version of Matthew 6:9-13), as given in the West Saxon Gospels.

-- Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, Si þin nama gehalgod. to becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. soþlice--. Now we shouldn't try reading this version of Matthew 6:9-13 in 2010! The English language has evolved!

The original profound Hebrew language has been severely changed to mask the Name of the Father, The Covenant and The People, it's original beauty remains. Hebrew was, is and will be the heavenly spoken language, that is why we should strive to learn it and have writings as colse as possible to the original Hebrew texts to compare and learn. When we read the Scriptures with a Hebrew mindset, it will take us to a different level.

2. Loyalty to the Text:

This concept is somehow related to the first point, some translators consider that a literal translation is closer to the original, some translators consider that the meaning of a sentence is much better, both are right to a point, however, some passages in the New Covenant if translated literally would not be understood because they have roots in the customs of the people, if we told some person from another country that just started learning English 'it’s water under the bridge' it is most likely that he would not understand us, in this case 'let’s forget the matter’ would be more suitable.

3. Loyalty to the Hebrew Names:

If two translators were to translate to Spanish the book "Tales of John Freeman" and one would call it "Cuentos de Juan Hombrelibre" and the other would call it " Cuentos de Jon Freeman" which one is correct? "Cuentos de Juan Hombrelibre" is very good Spanish, while "Cuentos de Jon Freeman" is correct because the person in this book is an American boy and his name should remain original throughout the whole book! It should retain the name "Jon Freeman" in any language of the world this book is translated to. This is a problem with today’s translations, names are translated and not transliterated, to be fair, this rule should apply in its entirety throughout Scripture, for example, Matthew 1: 1-25, all names are transliteraded but one name, jesus, it should be rendered Joshua. Is this fair to the rule?

4. Loyalty to textual content:

The translations from the 12 Century and on, including the KJV from the Textus Receptus contain many words, phrases and complete verses that have been added to the original Hebrew/Aramiac late 1 and 2 Century.

One out of many is Mark 16:15-20, these verses have been added. This not to be alarmed when the Textus Receptus has been proven inaccurate, on the other hand, the most dangerous manuscripts is the Vatican Text ( Used in the NIV) which removes and adds according to ecclesiastic convenience.

How can we know this information?

There are records of the historian Eusebius of Caesarea, 263–339 heirs of the extensive Pamphilus library, who perhaps kept a copy of the original gospel of Matthew.

We can also compare with the Peshita Aramaic, nothing less than the oldest text as of today of the New Covenant going back to the beginning of the 2nd century. This also proves the enormous influence of the Aramaic dialect that still resonates in the translations we have today, i.e; Talita Cumi, Eli Eli Lama sabactani, Ephata, Gorban, Golgotha and more! What is quite important is that where these words are in the Greek(textus receptus) it states directly after the phrase "which is being translated", this indicates that the Aramaic came first.

There are many clues in Greek manuscripts where the translators rendered Aramaic phrases into a Greek copy with a transliterated word that never existed in Greek. One example is in Mark 3:17 where Yahusha nicknames two of his disciples as "B’nai Ragshee"(sons of thunder) this phrase is transliterated into Greek as Boanerges (Aramaic) which is not a word nor phrase in Greek. When we put all these facts to the test, the Peshita Aramaic seems to be the older text over the Greek and other Aramaic manuscripts.

Where are we and what should we do?

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Isa 8:20 To the Torah and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yahuah your Elohim which I command you.

Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, Yahuah shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Acts17:30 Truly then, in times passed, Yahuah overlooked our ignorance’s, but now, strictly commands men everywhere to repent.

Hebrews 10: 26 For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.