A Living and Active Language
A Baptist might “steer” a word in the direction of baptist theology. The Methodist in the direction of Methodist theology. A Mormon might reign in a word to fit theirs. A Catholic, a Muslim, even a Hebrew professor might do it. Different Jewish sects have done it for ages. Even the Greek Septuagint, used by Jesus and the Apostles, contains translation bias and even paraphrasing. This tendency to shape interpretations is a reflection of human bias and the desire to find meaning that aligns with one’s beliefs. It is essential to recognize bias in translation methodology because what we are ultimately after is life and peace.
The RBT Project is a philological endeavor to uncover the long-hidden language of Heaven, of the Angels, through true mastery of the language.
For centuries scholars have been perplexed at the undecipherable “accusative of space and time” within the language of Hebrew. This is because they have presupposed it as an earthly language of men. An earthly language of men like Greek has obvious syntax for the accusative of space and time. But how does the language of Heaven speak in the accusative of space and time, when heaven is beyond time and beyond space?
The RBT understands that everything–the syntactics, markups, etymological meanings, and lexicographical particles, as well as “untranslatable words” found in the sacred texts are, by design, from above. Through this understanding, it minimizes human bias.
It is predicated on the belief that the Hebrew language itself is heavenly, that is, living and active beyond space-time constraints.
Tokens of Meaning
A concerted effort has been made to consistently translate Hebrew words in a way that keeps them distinct from one another, thus preserving the unique Hebrew tokens of meaning. A token represents a constructed sequence of letters that conveys a specific meaning (also known as “a word”). For example, miqneh (#4735), behemah (#929), and beir (#1165) are often inconsistently translated with similar terms (livestock, cattle, herd, beast, wild beast, etc.). Such translation practices assume that token words are chosen without careful consideration or serve little literary purpose in their own right. Take the Hebrew token word nephesh, for instance, which means “breath” but is translated in various ways in the NASB, most notably as “soul.”
any (1), anyone (2), anyone* (1), appetite (7), being (1), beings (3), body (1), breath (1), corpse (2), creature (6), creatures (3), dead (1), dead person (2), deadly (1), death (1), defenseless* (1), desire (12), desire* (2), discontented* (1), endure* (1), feelings (1), fierce* (2), greedy* (1), heart (5), heart’s (2), herself (12), Himself (4), himself (19), human (1), human being (1), hunger (1), life (146), life* (1), lifeblood* (2), lives (34), living creature (1), longing* (1), man (4), man’s (1), men* (2), mind (2), Myself (3), myself (2), number (1), ones (1), others (1), ourselves (3), own (1), passion* (1), people (2), people* (1), perfume* (1), person (68), person* (1), persons (19), slave (1), some (1), soul (238), soul’s (1), souls (12), strength (1), themselves (6), thirst (1), throat (2), will (1), wish (1), wishes (1), yourself (11), yourselves (13).
This results in roughly eighty English expressions being employed to represent a single Hebrew term. Translators often presume that “breath” can encompass a multitude of meanings and have generally favored broader, more figurative definitions over retaining the original Hebrew token itself, such as “nephesh.” However, this methodology presumes the Hebrew language is merely an ancient earthly language that evolved over time from pictorial glyphs like any other. It overlooks the fact that through Moses a new “language from heaven” was inaugurated utilizing ancient Phonician elements.
The RBT translation minimizes the inclusion of fill words. It’s worth noting that the Hebrew Scriptures comprise approximately 420,000 words, while the King James translation of the Hebrew Scriptures contains around 622,000 words. This constitutes an addition of over 200,000 words. Modern translations often introduce even more additional words.
Words in italics are supplied words to help readability and flow of the sentence. These are used as sparingly as possible so as not to force the reading of the passage in any particular way.
A Book of Dark(ened) Sayings, Brought to Light
Rather than distancing from or concealing the cryptic intricacies within the language, this translation immerses the reader in the enigmatic, heavenly thought pattern of “all in one” as simply as possible, that, being from heaven, ought to engender heavenly light—he who has an ear to hear, let him hear.
The primary aim is to eliminate the “bias of the flesh”—earthly preconception, agenda, speculation, and interpretation—from the translation process, preserving the etymological or lexicographical meanings as they are known. This allows readers a chance to understand dark texts for themselves. Let the reader understand (Matt. 24:15). Biblical Hebrew fundamentally challenges modern theoretical notions of linguistics and authorship. For example, what is the purpose of writing a letter in reverse?
נ ׆
“The primary set of inverted nuns is found surrounding the text of Numbers 10:35–36.” Are they a textual-critical mark? An editorial annotation? Are they brackets denoting a separate “lost” book and thus signifying that there are actually seven books of the Torah as the Talmud states? The dispute over the meaning is an interesting one. Cf. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_nun)
Perhaps the inverted nun speaks of something heavenly? A dark mystery? In essence, this translation doesn’t rely on individuals “figuring it out” through contextual reasoning. Instead, akin to Jesus eluding the crowd, it skillfully avoids attempts by modern scribes to manipulate the text to serve an agenda. Instead, it seeks to present the text in its raw, unfiltered form, revealing the narratives to be far more profound than previously believed. Many translations over the past two millennia have been marred by presuppositions and traditions. Reading these concretely translated words allows readers to place themselves more closely into a “heavenly context” to determine the intended message, eliminating authoritarian bias that has pervaded many translations.
The Greek New Testament has also been subject to agendas, traditions, and religious interpretations. Key words like “face of genesis,” “new woman,” “up-born,” “deep-knowledge,” “enigma,” and “wheel of genesis,” “zoe-life,” “psyche,” “throw-down” are not translated as such. The RBT adheres closely to concrete definitions, using classical Greek definitions rather than “contextualized,” “extended,” “tropical,” or “elliptical” definitions.
Importance of Hebrew Syntax: Ishmael and Isaac as a Seed of One
Take another look at Galatians 4:28-29 in the unfiltered literal translation, and you’ll notice that the distinctions between Isaac and Ishmael might not be as clear as previously believed:
“and you brothers, according to Isaac [whose name means He Laughs], are children of a promise. But just as at that time the one who was generated according to flesh was chasing the one according to the spirit, in this manner also now.” Galatians 4:28-29 RBT
“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its voice, but you know not where it comes from or where it goes forth, thus is the whole of those begotten from the Spirit.” John 3:8 literal
Genesis 21:12-13 poignantly describes the promises to both Isaac and Ishmael:
“…for in He-Laughs [Isaac] a seed is being called to-you. And also, אֶת-the son of the Slavewoman to a nation I am placing [Ishmael] him, for your seed is him [Ishmael].” Genesis 21:12-13 RBT
Notice how the text points to Ishmael as being the seed of Abraham, while Isaac is also the seed of Abraham.
“And to Abraham were spoken the promises and to his seed. It does not say ‘And to the seeds, as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your seed’ which is Christ.” Galatians 3:16 RBT
Is Paul here saying that Ishmael and Isaac are an allegory of one and the same seed? No commentator or scholar has ever understood how Ishmael “persecuted” Isaac because there is no mention of such an event in the Genesis narrative. In fact, the mystery becomes even stranger when we read Genesis 21:9 (the textual basis of the assumption of Ishmael “persecuting” Isaac) in the literal:
“And Noblewoman [Sarah] is seeing אֶת-the son of Hagar of Dual-Siege [Egypt], whom she has borne to Father-of-Multitude [Abraham], is he-who-laughs.”
The author is referring to Ishmael in the participle “he who laughs,” which happens to also be the meaning of the name Isaac. Could it be that Paul sees Ishmael as an allegory of the body of Christ and seed of Abraham, and sees Isaac as an allegory of the heavenly Christ, the same seed as of one? In any case, it is important to recognize here that the Apostle Paul is pointing to seemingly minute Hebrew syntax to reveal deeper knowledge.
Hebrew as Beyond Time and Place: To become, First, Last, Beginning, End
One of the most profound mysteries lies in how the ancient Hebrew language approaches the accusative of time and space. The existing scholarship on this topic is sorely lacking and remains inconclusive. It’s worth noting that even today, astrophysicists grapple with understanding space-time, and theories proposed by brilliant minds since Einstein are truly mind-boggling.
One of the most often overlooked aspects by translators is the absence of distinct past, present, or future tenses in Hebrew verbs. Instead, Hebrew employs “complete” and “incomplete” forms. Translators have traditionally assumed that these forms were merely linguistic limitations and that the ancient writers used them to convey a past, present, or future “sense.” Interpreting the precise sense was left to context and educated guesses. However, it is uncertain to them whether the ancients even conceptualized time in a past-present-future framework. This is because the design of Hebrew was meant to be, as the very definition of ‘Hebrew’ signifies, from beyond.
In the case of the “Complete/Incomplete” forms presented in the RBT translation, we aim to emphasize, rather than obscure, the distinction between them as much as English allows. This approach helps to vividly differentiate between a finished or complete action and an ongoing or incomplete one. Traditionally, modern tenses have been ascribed to Hebrew verbs based on contextual factors like prepositions, adverbs, dialogue, etc., rather than the verb conjugation itself.
The Hebrew language seems to perceive heavenly time as a singular unit—both “before” and “after.” A more fitting analogy might be to envision time as encompassing us from both the front and behind, akin to two horizons or as a continuous, circular flow of water. This concept could be likened to a ring of water flowing in opposite directions from a single source. The Hebrew text subtly alludes to these images and patterns repeatedly. This perspective differs significantly from our Western linear notion of plotting points from left to right. It’s evident that Hebrew thought was fundamentally different from ours. They saw Genesis as the past and future, and their concept of “now” and “today” held profound significance. Time was perceived in terms of completeness or incompleteness, a notion which is challenging to grasp in lieu of our conventional understanding of time. Consequently, comprehending and translating the Hebrew accusative of time and space has consistently posed a conundrum for scholars and translators because it doesn’t align with Western notions of time.*
Likewise, the Hebrew Scriptures appear to offer durations of time when we, in our modern context, seek specific points in time. This also extends to place versus direction, such as north, west, east, and south. Even Sheol (commonly referred to as Hell) is not depicted as a precise or terminative point or location but rather as a terminative direction (see note at Genesis 37:35 in RBT).
The Hebrew Scriptures may have been written from right to left for a purpose. What we perceive as moving forward may, in the Hebrew mindset, be akin to moving backward. Throughout the scriptures, a conspicuous literary “game” or cryptic element is discernible, involving inverse thought, opposites, reflection, type and antitype, doubles, pairs, and twins. The question, and perhaps the hidden truth, remains: What did we miss? Many words are found in the enigmatic dual or pair form, signifying that they are neither singular nor plural. These words include “eyes,” “waters,” “heavens,” “loins,” “breasts,” “feet,” “double,” “nostrils,” “footsteps,” “wings,” and more. Even words like “stones” and “Jerusalem” occasionally appear in the dual form, adding to the enigmatic “dual” nature of the language.
Time and space seem to be subject to this intricate literary enigma of heaven, as exemplified by the words in Ecclesiastes 3:15: “Who is he who has become? He is long ago. And who is to become? He has become long ago. And the Elohim is seeking him who is chased [persecuted].” (Ecclesiastes 3:15 RBT)
A statement like this gains coherence if we envision time as a wheel with heaven “above” it. This three-part, time-defying enigma is also evident in Jesus’ words regarding John: “he is Elijah, who was, who is about to come” (Matt. 11:14). On the surface, it appears that Jesus is suggesting that John occupies two (or even three) points in time simultaneously.
To grasp this ancient Hebrew concept of space-time, we must entertain the idea of a circular continuum, and even then, it remains a challenging concept to fully grasp. Scholars and translators have struggled to comprehend these Hebrew notions, resulting in translations that often miss these subtleties of syntax. Robert
The Law as a “mirror”
Young is a notable exception, as he attempted to preserve this aspect in the Young’s Literal Translation (YLT). However, throughout history, many Christian scholars have regarded a transition from Hebrew to a Greek New Testament as grounds for deeming Hebrew thought outdated or irrelevant for contemporary understanding. Consequently, they replaced the enigmatic writing style of the Bible with a “watered down” message.
Yet the Hebrew writers seemed to have viewed the beginning as also the end. From the heavenly vantage point, the beginning of earth is also the end of earth. Jesus is the beginning and the end not because he was there and will be there. But because he is in both places at once. This concept appears to be illustrated through various picture-parables in Ecclesiastes 1:1-11, in the words of Hagar, and even in the organized arrangement of Jacob’s family as they crossed a torrent-valley in Genesis 33. Ecclesiastes was intended to be read quite literally, as the author skillfully crafted riddle-like sayings throughout the text:
Vapor[Abel #1892] of vapors[abels], the gatherer has said, vapor of vapors: the Whole is vapor.
What is the profit to the Red-one in the whole of his labor who labors underneath the Sun?
A revolution walking, and a revolution coming in, and the Earth to the age is she-who-stands-firm.
And the Sun has broken forth, and the Sun has come in. And toward his standing-place he is panting [running the race, Ps. 19:5, Heb. 12:1], he-who-breaks-forth is himself there.
He-who-walks toward freedom [south/right] and he-who-circles-around towards hidden [north/left], he-who-circles, he-who-circles, he-who-walks is the Wind, and upon his circuit the Wind is he-who-turns-back [cf. John 3:8].
The whole of the Brooks are those-who-walk toward the Sea, and the Sea is not full [satiated]. Toward a standing-place which the Brooks are those-who-walk there, they are those-turning-back to walk.
The whole of the Words are tired. A man is not able to speak [mute]. An eye is not satisfied to see [blind]. An ear is not filled to hear [deaf].Who is he who HAS BECOME? He who IS BECOMING. And who is he who has been made? He who is being made. And nothing of the whole is new underneath the sun.
Is there a word of whom he is saying, ‘See, this one is new’? Himself HAS BECOME long-ago to the ages, whom HAS BECOME from-to our faces [from our faces to our faces, 1 Cor. 13:12]. There is no remembrance [foresight] to the First Ones; and also to the Last Ones WHO ARE BECOMING. HE IS BECOMING not to them a remembrance with those WHO ARE BECOMING to the Last One.”Ecclesiastes 1:2-11 RBT
Notice how Ecclesiastes 1 is full of participle verbs which speak of actions with specific pronominal suffixes (he/she/them), but without any definite indication of time or place. The participle form in Hebrew is absent of any accusative of time or space. The Hebrew participle is often called a “non-finite” verb form. In other words, it carries the timeless sense.
Accordingly, each circuit would be considered a “remembrance” just like each day is a called a memory. Imagine yourself walking into a memory. We call such an experience déjà vu. It has happened “before”. The whole Hebrew Bible is structured in this manner. What is becoming, and about to become, and has already become “long ago”. That is the essence of Heaven, and those born of Heaven. The wind is he-who-makes his circuit, the words are recorded in “history,” and then they are fulfilled, exactly, for what has been made is he who is being made, i.e what is complete is yet being completed. From his face, to his face. The thinking of the Hebrew Scriptures is not based on then, but now as the Sabbath Day is called “Today” and “Today, if you hear his voice” (Heb. 3:7,15 4:7, Ps. 95:7). And the idea of Heaven is such that then and now are one and the same. Behold, now is the time of favor [a bending down]; behold, now is the day of salvation.
A Language from Heaven or from Man?
A fundamental characteristic of biblical Hebrew is its binary-gendered nature, as the language predominantly employs masculine or feminine constructs throughout, encompassing nouns and verbs alike. It lacks gender-neutral nouns, save for a few “common noun” constructs that are not always straightforward. Hebrew lacks equivalent words for “it” or “that.” This stands in contrast to several Asian languages, such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Persian, and Austronesian languages, which are “genderless.” In between, we find the ternary (three-part) Indo-European languages, which include masculine, feminine, and neuter genders. These languages encompass biblical Greek, Old English, German, Czech, Old Irish, and Slavic languages. Some languages have more than three noun classes, like Swahili, which has eighteen. Modern English has shed the grammatical gender of Old English and now employs only three gendered pronouns.
Translating a binary language into a ternary one poses a challenge. How does one translate a feminine plural verb into an English verb? The challenge becomes even more complex when translating a binary-gendered language into a genderless language.
Throughout history, Bible texts have been subject to agenda-driven translation practices and cover-ups. In 2007, a new Bible translation called The Inclusive Bible was introduced, adding to the already crowded world of Bible translations. In its introduction, this translation openly declared its agenda to “refresh” the language by “cleansing” it of male pronouns, claiming that the Bible needed to conform to the standards of political correctness in our era. They mentioned retranslating “a few passages based on scholars and activists.” Their Hebrew translation, they wrote, was “carefully crafted to let the power and poetry of the language shine forth.” But did they truly grasp the essence of the “power and poetry” of the language? This “careful crafting” led to substantial changes in the text, such as altering “Kingdom of God” to “Kindom of God” to reflect collectivist political theory and to oppose the perceived “classist” connotations of “kingdom.” “Father God” was changed to “Abba God” or “Loving God” to challenge “the patriarchy.” These are significant alterations to the original text.
“And don’t call anyone on earth your ‘Mother’ or ‘Father.’ You have only one Parent—our loving God in heaven.” (Matthew 29:3, Inclusive Bible)
An anti-family agenda appears to overshadow any notion of “power and poetry.” How did such openly deceptive practices by scholars come to be published? Why would these “scholars” spend a decade hijacking and recreating an ancient text in this manner? Is it because today’s “scholars” have assumed the roles of modern-day soothsayers and prophets in a new collectivist religion? Even those driven by similar agendas cannot seem to agree on the essence of the Hebrew language. In “Good News For Women,” a widely circulated Christian evangelical book from the late 1990s, the “power and poetry” of the Hebrew language was far from being viewed as radiant heavenly language but as oppressive:
We should note that the ancient Hebrew language was an expression of the patriarchal culture.
These agenda-driven “scholars” believe that the ancient text should be adapted or reworked to align with their modern progressive thinking, essentially “making it relevant” or “refreshed.” This only serves to obscure the true text and manipulate people into blindness. The author seems to both affirm and deny divine inspiration simultaneously, stating:
We cannot conclude, simply because the Bible was written under divine inspiration, that the languages in which the Bible was written were themselves created under divine inspiration. These languages were as male-centered as the cultures they reflected and by which they were created.
According to this view, not only is it not a language of Heaven transcending time as living and active, but a language that should be discarded, and a more “relevant message” somehow adapted from it. This approach is not only unacademic but also fraudulent. However, this practice of agenda-driven translation fraud did not originate with the Left in the 1980s. Every single translation since the canonization of the scriptures by the early Nicene councils under Emperor Constantine has been tainted by some level of agenda-driven malpractice. These agendas gave rise to tradition, and these traditions became the gold standard for translation methodology and practice ever since.
Notes:
*See Meek, Theophile James. “The Hebrew Accusative of Time and Place.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 60, no. 2 (1940): 224-33. doi:10.2307/594010.