The Scriptures 2009 edition

“The ISR Scriptures is a good version. And yes, it has done a great job with restoring the Names of our Creator, His Son, and most others found in the Scriptures. It has amended the English text to conform to a more Hebraic writing style, which is always nice. It also handles translated words and phrases better than most English Bibles out there. However, there are some notable differences. Primarily the differences being the base. The ISR Scriptures is essentially an extensive revision of the KJV. It retains some British English word order and spelling, and has a similar flow to the NKJV. It claims to use Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica as the source for the Tanakh (OT) and the Textus Receptus as the source for the NT. This is the major point of diversion. The largest disagreement [for some is] with this translation is its arbitrary use of source texts.

We say arbitrary because when a translation is being made, a source texts must be selected. ISR chose to use the Textus Receptus. They did this because, as they state in the Preface of the ISR Scriptures, “As a modus operandi then, we have started out using the Textus Receptus, modifying our rendering as seemed appropriate in light of those other texts which we consulted, such as the Nestle-Aland text and the Shem Tob text, noting certain differences in the footnotes, where necessary.” [emphasis added]

The major issue here is that these texts are not consistent on a Text-Critical level, nor are they consistent on a historical level. What the statement above essentially means is that readings were cherry picked from different source texts. Why would they do this? And at what point would they choose one reading over another? This shows that bias and personally-held theology drove the selection, and therefore influenced the translation. This is not consistent. They have created an eclectic text, with readings chosen from here and there. This is not uncommon, as the NIV translators did the same. However, one must wonder what lead the translators of ISR to choose one reading over another. If you are familiar with the translator and/or the organization, then you may already know the biases held by those individuals. And if you do, you can clearly see WHY these different readings were selected.

Another alarming fact about the ISR Scriptures is that, for the book of Matthew, they diverged yet again from both the Textus Receptus AND the Nestle-Aland, in that they translated it from the Hebrew Shem Tob Matthew. This book has been proven, rather easily and numerous times, to be a late translation of the Gospel of Matthew, made from Greek and Latin sources. In fact, contained within the publication which was published alongside the Shem Tob Matthew is an appendix which lists numerous objections to ישוע being the Messiah. Yet again we found it strikingly odd that ISR would diverge so far from their otherwise textually consistent translation. Even in this, ISR has not been completely faithful in their translation in sticking with their source texts when it comes to the New Testament” (