The Living Word is a FREE, Easy Reading, Ultra Literal Bible Translation.
It seeks to translate God's Word as literally as possible,
But it does so in simple conversational English.

As a young Christian, in 1976, I began to do Biblical Word Studies using a Greek New Testament Interlinear and a Strong Concordance: and I was amazed by how many words were not translated as literally as they could have been in the King James Version.

Over the years, and decades that followed, I bought every new translation I could find; hoping to find a version that was truly literal and easy to read. But I have noticed a sad trend in the last few decades, even good translations, like the 1977 New American Standard Version, have become less literal, like the new New American Standard Bible; and the other translations, instead of becoming more literal, have more or less became Paraphrased Bibles.

But over the years I have found so much richness in the Original Greek and Hebrew Words; that now in the latter years of my life, I have decided to make a translation like the one I was always trying to find: one that brings out the rich root meanings of Greek and Hebrew words, but does so in simple conversational English.

In the LOVE of Christ! Jim

For more about this translation and the Greek Text behind it: See “About TLW Bible” below.

Plus it would be nice to hear from you, because Bible Translators don't get many emails.  Email: jim@tlwbible.com or Text (530) 364-0333

The Living Word seeks to translate God's Word as literally as possible: because we are not dealing with the words of mere humans, but ‘The Words of the Creator of the Universe’: Who declares “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”  (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Someone once said, “I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” Nowhere is this more true than when it comes to the Bible: for God often speaks in allegories, dark sayings, and sayings with multiple meanings. (See Matthew 13:10-16, 34-35 & 2 Peter 3:16) Therefore as mere humans we need to translate God's word as literally as possible, for as Scripture reminds us “We know in part.” (1 Corinthians 13:9) So, “If anyone thinks that they know anything, they know nothing yet as they should know it.” (1 Corinthians 8:2) “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is of anyone's private interpretation, for prophecy never came through human will, but holy people of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Peter 1:20-21)

So, if we try to interpret and explain what we don't fully understand, we will corrupt God’s Word; by adding our own thoughts and interpatations to it, or by leaving out words that we think are not important. Like so many translations and paraphrased versions do today. For example: the Greek word for “donkey” in Luke 17:2 is “onikos”, and it is in all of the Greek Manuscripts. Yet as of today’s date, I have yet to find even one translation that translates that word. But God warns that He will not hold those who “take away” or “add to” His Word guiltless.

“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to them the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away their part from the Book of Life.” (Revelation 22:18-19)  So GOD takes HIS WORD seriously.

And I do not believe that we need to paraphrase God's Word to make it understandable. And that is one of the things I'm attempting to prove with this translation: for although 'The Living Word' is an easy reading translation, it's also very literal.

The 3 Phases of this Translation:

Phase 1 - The First edit: Was a rather extensive revision of the King James New Testament; to make it easier to read and understand, and also more literal. (All of the Books of the New Testament have completed this Phase: but whenever I read through the New Testament, I always try to make it even more literal and read a little smother. So for this reason I'm always updating it: at the top of you will see the date of the most recent 'Completed Version'.) Now I'm starting on the Old Testament; but to save some time, the Old Testament is a Revision of the public domain version of the World English Bible.)

Phase 2 - The The King James Version is already (pretty much) a word-for-word translation, but sometimes it does paraphrase a sentence, or use dynamic equivalents that were used by people in 1611 AD; because of this the King James Version isn't always as literal as it could be. So in phase 2, I am going back and reviewing the Greek text word by word, in an attempt to translate every word as literally as possible from the Textus Receptus. (Above the book's title, if it reads, "The Living Word (Completed Version)" the translation of this book has been completed; if it still reads, "The Living Word (First edit)" it is still in this Final Phase.)

Phase 3 - The Restored Text Version: This Future Version will involve the creation of a 'Restored Received Text' of the Greek New Testament; and the updating of 'The Living Word' according to it. For more about this future version: See (New Rules for “Orthodox Textual Criticism”) at the end of the next article.

The Living Word Seeks To Restore God's Pure Word To His People!

"A good tree can't produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
Every tree that doesn't produce good fruit is chopped down, and thrown into the fire.
Therefore you will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:18-20)

Are the Codex Vaticanus & Sinaiticus Truly the 2 Best Manuscripts we have?

Other than the New King James Version and Modern Engish Version, most modern translations are translated from what is called "The Critical Text." But as bereanpatriot.com points out, "The modern Critical Text is based primarily on [these] two flawed documents [the Codex Vaticanus & Sinaiticus], without the benefit of the findings of the last ~140 years.  If you could alter the rules – or simply remove the bias against the Byzantine text type – Reasoned Eclecticism stands a very good chance of producing the best results." (Later, at the end of this article, I will go into the changes that I believe NEED to be made in "Reasoned Eclecticism" to make it a good theory.)

Those who embrace the current "Critical Text" always site "the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus" as being "the TWO BEST MANUSCRIPTS we have." So let's first take a look at the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, and see just how "good" they really are? (The following quotations are from the bereanpatriot.com article “Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101”. I quote him here because he did an EXCELLENT JOB on laying out the FACTS in a way that is easy for anyone to UNDERSTAND.)

Codex Vaticanus – Aka Codex “B”

Dean Burgon describes the quality of the scribal work in Vaticanus: "Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence." The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, “It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS. in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”...

Codex Sinaiticus – Aka Codex “א”

Now, about the quality of Codex Sinaiticus: Even those who love the manuscript will admit it has serious quality problems. Even the official Codex Sinaiticus Project website admits this: "No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences." (Codex Sinaiticus Project website) They aren’t the only ones to say this either. The manuscript’s finder Tischendorf – who reckoned it as the greatest find of his life...said he: “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.”  He goes on to say: "The New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words, even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." By any conceivable metric (except age), Codex Sinaiticus is one of the worst manuscripts that we’ve found. You probably couldn’t find a scholar who would praise the scribal work in Sinaiticus, and it’s easy to find those who deride it as the worst scribal work among the manuscripts we’ve found.

Comparing Vaticanus & Sinaiticus

As we’ve just seen, Codex Vaticanus is a mediocre-to-poor quality manuscript. Codex Sinaiticus is among the worst manuscripts we have. Now, let’s look at how they compare to each other, and how much they agree with each other. (Note: the “He” in the quote below is Dean Burgon) "He also checked these manuscripts for particular readings, or readings that are found ONLY in that manuscript [of all the manuscripts we have]. In the Gospels alone, Vaticanus has 197 particular readings, while Sinaiticus has 443. A particular reading signifies one that is most definitely false. Manuscripts repeatedly proven to have incorrect readings loose respectability. Thus, manuscripts boasting significant numbers of particular readings cannot be relied upon." (Source) The Textual Variants between them are numerous: According to Herman C. Hoskier, "There are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone." According to Dean Burgon: “It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree." Despite the numerous Textual Variants between them, there’s an interesting theory about their origin. "The [Vaticanus] manuscript is believed to have been housed in Caesarea in the 6th century, together with the Codex Sinaiticus, as they have the same unique divisions of chapters in Acts." (End of quotes.) But whether or not they were "housed in Caesarea" really doesn't matter: what matters is the FACT that out of ALL the New Testament we have, only these two manuscripts share this "unique" characteristic!  Proving that this was a localized text, coming from a specific geographical area, rather than the Accepted Text of all Christendom! For of the 5,300+ Manuscripts we have, only these 2 Manuscripts share this characteristic! So the reliability of these 2 manuscripts is extremely questionable at best!

Were the Codex Vaticanus & Sinaiticus Cultic Texts?

Both of these manuscripts trace their origin to Alexandria Egypt, and both are the 4th Century manuscripts; therefore (for the following reasons) I believe both are most likely Arian manuscripts! ~ Because (historical speaking) in the 4th Century an off shoot of Gnosticism, known as Arianism, flourished throughout Egypt, and its headquarters was in Alexandria. A FACT attested to by Foxe's Book of Martyrs, under the heading, "Persecutions under the Arian Heretics”

“The author of the Arian heresy was Arius, a native of Lybia, and a priest of Alexandria, who, in A.D. 318, began to publish his errors. He was condemned by a council of Lybian and Egyptian bishops, and that sentence was confirmed by the Council of Nice, A.D. 325. After the death of Constantine the Great, the Arians found means to ingratiate themselves into the favor of the emperor Constantinus, his son and successor in the east; and hence a persecution was raised against the orthodox bishops and clergy. The celebrated Athanasius, and other bishops, were banished, and their sees filled with Arians. In Egypt and Lybia, thirty bishops were martyred, and many other Christians cruelly tormented; and, A.D. 386, George, the Arian bishop of Alexandria, under the authority of the emperor, began a persecution in that city and its environs, and carried it on with the most infernal severity. He was assisted in his diabolical malice by Catophonius, governor of Egypt; Sebastian, general of the Egyptian forces; Faustinus, the treasurer; and Heraclius, a Roman officer. The persecutions now raged in such a manner that the clergy were driven from Alexandria, their churches were shut, and the severities practiced by the Arian heretics were as great as those that had been practiced by the pagan idolaters. If a man, accused of being a Christian, made his escape, then his whole family were massacred...”

So the very fact that these manuscripts survived such intense persecution in the 4th Century: suggests to me that these 2 costly manuscripts were most likely owned by Rich and Powerful Arians!

Which would also explain why 1 Timothy 3:16 reads in these 2 Arian Manuscripts, “He was revealed in the flesh” instead of “God was revealed in the flesh” ~ because the Arians didn’t believe in the Deity of Christ! For all these reasons, I believe it is wise to REJECT all readings that are FOUND ONLY IN the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, or in their 19 or so offspring. For more on this listen to the teaching of the late Pastor Chuck Smith, of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, as he teaches on

“The Foundation of the WORD”

TLWbible.com/foundation1.mp3
TLWbible.com/foundation2.mp3

 Can 'Reasoned Eclecticism' be Redeemed?

The Modern 'Critical Text' is based upon Westcott & Hort's Theory

As quoted earlier, "The modern Critical Text is based primarily on two flawed documents, without the benefit of the findings of the last ~140 years.  If you could alter the rules – or simply remove the bias against the Byzantine text type – Reasoned Eclecticism stands a very good chance of producing the best results." And I would partially agree; but you would have to first remove Westcott & Hort's unfounded rejection of all Byzantine readings, and their unquestioned reliance on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

As bereanpatriot.com points out, "In 1881, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort published "The New Testament in the Original Greek", which is the grandfather of the Greek Critical Text that most modern Bibles are translated from. Westcott and Hort believed the Byzantine text type was a combination of the Alexandrian and Western text types, and therefore later. Therefore, they ignored all Byzantine readings and rejected them as being later and not worth looking at. In their own words: "All distinctively Syrian (Byzantine) readings must be at once rejected." (Westcott & Hort) But, in the last 100+ years we've found manuscripts that prove the Byzantine text type isn't a combination of the Western and Alexandrian text types. Unfortunately, this bias against the Byzantine still exists. Kurt Aland, was the primary editor of the Modern Critical Text, which is the basis for nearly all modern translations. Like Westcott & Hort, Kurt believed all "purely or predominately Byzantine" reading are "irrelevant for textual criticism." (Source)

However, Westcott and Hort were mistaken as nearly all major textual variants had appeared before the year 200 AD. In the 1900's, eminent scholars such as E. C. Colwell, G. D. Kilpatrick, and Kurt and Barbara Aland maintained, respectively, that "The overwhelming majority of readings," "almost all variants," and "practically all the substantive variants in the text of the New Testament existed before the year 200.” Nevertheless the Hortian Text has not been overthrown. (Source)

There still remains a persistent bias against the Byzantine Text type in Reasoned Eclecticism. Here's what Dan Wallace (arguably the most respected New Testament textual critic alive today) had to say about one of our oldest manuscripts, the Codex Alexandrius, "Codex Alexandrius is a very interesting manuscript in that in the Gospels, it's a Byzantine text largely, which means it agrees with the majority of manuscripts most of the time. While as, in the rest of the New Testament, it is largely Alexandrian. These are the two most competing textual forms, textual families, text types if you want to call them that, which we have for our New Testament manuscripts.  So when you get outside the Gospels, Alexandrius becomes very important manuscript." (Dan Wallace) Source: YouTube (Only 1:35 long, starting at about 0:53) Notice the casual dismissal of the Byzantine Text type by one of the most respected textual critics of our age. I'm honestly not sure why it's dismissed so easily. Codex Alexandrius is the third oldest (nearly) complete manuscript, dating from the early 400s. Why dismiss the Gospels just because they are primarily a Byzantine Text type?” ~ This is Un-Reasoned Reasoned Eclecticism!

 Codex Alexandrius is an unreliable manuscript because of its many Arian Readings: yet in its Gospels it does prove one thing, the Byzantine Text existed before the 4th Century! (Because the Scribe who compiled the Codex Alexandrias had to be working from an older Byzantine copy of the Gospels when he made his copy of the Gospels; though he chose to alter the Gospels somewhat!)

Important things to note from the quotation above:

1.   In the late 3rd Century: Lucian of Antioch compiled a Pure Text of the Received Text, because of the Corrupting Influence that the Gnostics had had on some of the manuscripts even in this area of the ancient world. (Because his work was faithful to the Original Text, it was widely received.)

2.   During the Diocletian Persecution many of the Old Byzantine Manuscripts where Destroyed, and possibly some of the Original Manuscripts with them.

3.   After Constantine became Emperor: the Church sent Bishops throughout the eastern empire to retrieve faithful copies of the Received Text, so that they could make sure that the copies they were making were true to the Original Text.

4.   Only in this area of the ancient world was there a concerted effort to make sure the Text of the New Testament Text remained Pure.

During the remainder of the 4th Century many Byzantine Manuscripts were again destroyed and Christians Martyred: because the Arians desired to erase all traces of Orthodox Christianity from the face of the earth! As we read earlier in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, Chapter 3 "Persecutions under the Arian Heretics …If a man, accused of being a Christian, made his escape, then his whole family were massacred...” So during the 4th Century: Christians endured Intense Persecution, not at the hand of Pagan Emperors, but at the hands of those who claimed to be Christians! Remember Jesus’ words: “A good tree can't produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn't produce good fruit is chopped down, and thrown into the fire. Therefore you will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:18-20) Therefore this Bible Version doesn’t follow the Arian/Alexandrian Text of those who were killing their brothers and sisters, but the Text of those who gave their lives for their Faith!

Once again, in the 5th Century, after the Arian Persecution, the Greek speaking people of the Byzantine Empire found the faithful Receive Text manuscripts that had survived this Persecution, and began making FAITHFUL COPIES of them.  And that is why it can only be said of the 5,300 Byzantine Manuscripts we have, “Pick up any 2 of them, at random, and they will agree with each other over 99% of the time!” (Compare that with Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, where "There are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone." Herman C. Hoskier )

Also since Greek was their Mother Tongue, this part of the ancient world alone was best equipped to maintain the purity of the Greek New Testament: because pastors studied the Scriptures in Greek and read from the Greek Scriptures in their weekly Church services, and because all the people spoke Greek; any changes in the Scriptures, would have been quickly detected and corrected!

New Rules for “Orthodox Textual Criticism”

1. The Byzantine Manuscripts should be given Higher Priority over all other Text Families; because they have demonstrated the highest level of agreement within all the Text Families: Showing that in this area of the ancient world alone did the Scribes take the utmost care to make sure they were copying the Text ~ word for word.
   

2. The Majority Reading is Normally the Best Reading: For during the few instances when the reading differs slightly within the Byzantine Text Family, Number of manuscripts should first be taken into account: for example, if 90% agree on a certain reading, but 10% have a different ready: it is pretty safe to assume that the reading in the 90% of the manuscripts is correct: because more copies would have been made from the Original Text and fewer from one manuscript containing an the error. (This is known as the Majority Text Theory.) And most of the time this settles the question. (But when there are 2 readings that both have good support: Steps 3 & 4 should be applied.)
   

3. The Quotations of the Early Orthodox Church Fathers Should be Considered when a reading is in question.
   

4. Early New Testament Translations (from areas which were not heavily influenced by Arianism) should be Considered when a reading is in question. (Such as the Old Latin & Ethiopian Texts.)