The Book of Yahweh (Assorted Colors) [Paperback]

The House of Yahweh (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 996 pages
• Publisher: H.O.Y. & Sons; 10th edition (February 15, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 189096722X
• ISBN-13: 978-1890967222
• Product Dimensions: 10.8 x 8.6 x 1.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (33 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #159,884 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

62 of 69 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Untrustworthy, and by no means a translation of any text, November 4, 2005

By 

Ehav Eliyahu Ever (Jerusalem, Israel) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Book of Yahweh (Assorted Colors) (Paperback)

IMPORTANT NOTE:

Before I begin, this critique comes from someone who can read and understand Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Aramaic, Modern Hebrew, and Mishnaic Hebrew. A number of years ago, starting in the 90's, I made a decision that instead of relying on translations I would put the work in and learn these languages for myself. I also read from the oldest Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) so I don't have any bias towards one translation or another. Also, as of 2007 I live in Israel near Jerusalem. I did all of this because of love for the Creator of all things, YHWH, and I wanted with all my soul to have a correct understanding of Torah.

I will also warn you that this review is long and detailed so you can have as much information as possible with which to make your own decision.

You may be asking yourself why is it important to that Hebrew and Aramaic are mentioned in relationship to loving YHWH? The reason is that the Torah (the five books of Moses) were all written in an ancient form of Hebrew from about 3,000 years ago. The prophetic texts were written in a latter form of Hebrew from between 3,000 to 2,000 years ago. The writings of Ezra/Nechumya/Daniel were written in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic from between 2,500 to 2,000 years ago.

So this means that an English text, based on these texts, would need to be grounded in a proper understanding of each era of said languages to have the proper concept of how said texts were to be understood. A person who takes the time to learn and understand said languages often does so because living by the truth of said texts makes them feel closer to both the speakers and writers of said text. Since no language is 100% literal there are times when a translator must know what is being said whether it is literal or metaphorical.

Also, the reader of a translation is not reading the original texts but an ATTEMPT by the translator to convey the ideas, imagery, concepts, and philosophy of said texts in a foreign language. Sometimes this is easy and sometimes this is hard because some languages lack the qualities to place the reader of the translation on the same ground as the reader of the original. Further, a reader of a translation must be concerned over whether those who translated are competent enough to translate correct.

Some people unintentionally or intentionally mistranslates based on mistakes, lack of knowledge, or an agenda that they have. Having a proper understanding of the original text is akin to having the right spirit and frame of mind to base one's life on said text. If a person's translation of the book of Proverbs, for example, is incorrect a person may make life decisions because they are reading from a text that doesn't explain the meaning of various proverbs correctly.

Quality translation involves the following:

1) accurate: representing the meaning of the source text as faithfully as possible;
2) natural: using the receptor language in ways appropriate to the text being translated; and,
3) communicative: expressing the meaning in an understandable way to the intended audience.

For example, if a text says an Eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, is it literal or figurative? How does a person who doesn't know Hebrew know when they have no connection to the culture? Maybe the saying is not literal and maybe it simply an example of something bigger. Having the correct translation and interpretation would be critical to living and dealing with people in a proper manner. Furthermore Isaiah 8:20 makes it clear that having a proper understanding is critical since it says there is a Torah and a Tedudah (witness, revelation, tradition) and if something doesn't speak like them then it has no dawn in it. I.e. there is the Torah and correct way for it to be understood and utilized.

For those of you who are former christians you have probably already seen how mistranslation can cause you to either follow the wrong thing or have you worshiping the wrong stuff. You should also be vigilant about trusting some other group just because they claim that they have the truth.

I am not concerned with the theology or the status of a group like the House of Yahweh and whether they are a cult, so I am not writing this out of some axe to grind with them. So essentially, what I am talking about is the text and issues about the text. I am also not relying on some scholar I have never met to tell me whether this book is accurate or not. I did my own research, using ACTUAL, EXISTING, and REAL ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

All sources that I used can be provided to anyone who wants to know. In short they are the Yemenite Tajjim (Torah Texts found amongst Yemenite Jews), the Samaritan Torah texts, and the Aleppo Codex (from Syria). All of these texts are easy to find and I am more than willing to direct anyone who wants to these texts in their original languages. Feel free to ask me to provide proof of what you find in my review. I am more than willing to provide it in a format that you can easily see and research for yourself.

Also, in my review I will transliterating things using Yemenite Jewish Hebrew and Samaritan Hebrew. These are considered two of the most ancient Hebrew dialects. I tried to include the actual Hebrew in this review but Amazon doesn't allow Hebrew characters in these reviews. Seeing it in Hebrew for yourself helps in understanding the points I make. Please note that at the end of my review I give my analysis for people looking for a good translation, though you may not find it the easiest path.

If you find a spelling mistake in my review, that is because I typed this review a few years ago. I correct things every once and a while to make things more clear. I state this because for some reason a minor spelling mistake I made in my review several years ago was being discussed in an outside forum of H.O.Y. supporters.

THE REVIEW:

For the intent Biblical student your best bet is to learn Hebrew and Aramaic, and read from the ORIGINAL texts for yourself. Relying on a text like this is definitely not the way to go. This a part of my review that I noticed some critics of my review ignore.

There are many who say this book is the most accurate translation out there. Yet, my question to them is, "As compared to what?" If you want to compare the King James Version and the House of Yahweh, they are both biased and riddled with in-accuracies in just as many places when compared to the ORIGINAL HEBREW and ARAMAIC manuscripts they both claim to be translating from.

For those who initially come across this book because they are seeking the truth, I must warn you that this is not the path you want to take for it. What I am about to write is not based upon some disdain I have for the House of Yahweh, but from experience in terms of reading the Book of Yahweh initially, thinking it was an accurate text (before I learned to read and understand Hebrew and Aramaic). Then later learning Hebrew and Aramaic and seeing how off base (just like most translations) the BOY really was when compared to the ORIGINAL Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

The biggest is that the book has a number of translation problems. By this I mean huge number of places where they [House of Yahweh] have added things that don't exist in any ancient Hebrew text. It can only concluded that they added them for their own political/theological purposes. Several theological issues, which are incorrect because the text is not based on any known Hebrew text.

The text does not give any clear indication of being translated from any reliable source. For example, there are no pictures or even clear descriptions of the source text they claim to be translating from. Thus it can't be called a translation. It would then have to be assumed that the HOY simply took an existing translation and changed a few words here and there to fit their needs.

Also, there are numerous Etymology issues that are incorrect in their book. One example is the claim that Athonai (Aleph-Dhaleth-Nun-Yod), Elohim (Aleph-Lamed-Hey-Yod-Mem) as pronounced in Yemenite Hebrew, and El (Aleph-Lamed) or (Aleph-Yod-Lamed) are all of pagan origin. First off, most Hebrew words come from three letter roots called "Shoreshim". The same root that El comes from is from a similar root that the world Il comes from. The Book of Yahweh makes the claim that El is pagan, and Il (or Yl or Ul as they sometimes spell it) are not. Yet, one of the books that the Book of Yahweh references says that Il/Yl is also the name of a pagan deity. (The reference book is the Encyclopedia of the Gods which is listed in the BOY sources)

Note: the reason is that El, Yl, Il, and Ul all come from the same Semitic root (Aleph-Yod-Lamed) or (Aleph-Waw-Lamed) which all mean "strength." Aleph-Lamed can be pronounced as El, Yl, Il, and Ul and the Semitic pagans used and knew all of them, because all basic Semitic languages have similar roots as Ancient Hebrew. (Sources for this can be found in any Hebrew Lexicon.)

The House of Yahweh also translates the name of Shet as "Seth" and the name "Seth" is the name of a pagan deity. (Encyclopedia of the Gods, page 233). This seems strange since they seem to have a thing, the HOY, against certain words or names if said names have pagan origins, yet they are willing to translate "Shet"-(Shin-Tet) as "Seth." They also translate the name Hawwah as "Eve," "Eve" is of course Latin, and is claimed by some Sacred-Namers to be of pagan origin also.

A few other problem areas are the changes that they have made to the names of people to fit their own purposes. Here are a few examples.

1) They claim that the Hebrew name of... Read more ›

51 of 60 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars What are they translating from?, August 5, 2004

By 

Brian N. (Charlotte, NC) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Book of Yahweh (Assorted Colors) (Paperback)

I can only assume that all the people who are raving about this book have no real knowledge of Biblical languages. I read exerpts of their 'translation' of the Hebrew Bible side by side with the actual Hebrew, and there are many differences. Here are some random ones I noticed:

In Gen. 4:3 they have 'YHWH's Sabbaths', which is not in the Hebrew text, which simply reads something like 'after a certain time'.

Their Gen. 6:3 is completely mangled, and they add 'My word, the Law and the Prophets', which again is not in the Hebrew.

Gen. 6:4 is another mangled translation, again with an addition ('enemies of YHWH') which is not in the Hebrew.

Proof that the translators are not very proficient with Hebrew can be seen on every page of this translation, for example on the first page of Genesis in the note at the bottom of the page (right hand column). The note states that the word 'them' in v. 28 is atam, but as any person reading the Hebrew text will tell you, the word is otam. The following comment (1b) incorrectly states that the word usually translated 'them' later in the verse is ham, but again the actual Hebrew word is hem, and it does not even appear alone in the verse being commented on. In both cases the note cites a Hebrew lexicon on these words (which are so basic that any first year Hebrew student would know them, thus there should be no need for this translator to look them up) and incorrectly assumes the verse to mean whatever the translator wants it to.

In note g on the first page of Genesis it states that the word they translate as 'have rulership' is, in Hebrew, 'yaradu', but the Hebrew word there is in fact pronounced 'yirdu'.
This note goes on to say that in the 'third person future tense' the word means, 'stewards, overseers, teachers, priests'. But these are all nouns, while 'third person future tense' is a description of a verb and the word in question is a verb, not a noun. Moveover, if you look up this verbal root in a reliable Hebrew lexicon, you will find none of these meanings.

These examples indicate that these people cannot even pronounce Hebrew correctly, much less translate it.

In note r (corresponding to Gen. 3:8) they again do not know how to pronounce the word 'kol' (a noun meaning 'voice, sound'). They go on to translate it as 'to proclaim' which is of course a verb. They cite Brown, Driver, Biggs Hebrew Lexicon in defense, but this is incorrect and this lexicon does not support such a translation. What the translators did was scan through all the possible nuances and meanings of the word (it is a very long entry) and found one that suits their purposes, regardless of whether it is appropriate or not. In this case the word 'kol' could be translated 'proclamation' (a noun) but not the verb 'to proclaim'. Furthermore this reading is only called for in places like Exodus 36:6 or 2 Chronicles 24:9, but not here in Gen. 3:8 where 'sound' is more suitable. This translation does this consistantly, scanning through all the meanings listed for a word in a variety of sources and using out of context whatever suits what the translator wants the text to say. The entire first half of verse in question (Gen. 3:8) in this translation does not even resemble in any way what the Hebrew text actually says. It has been changed, no doubt because of the blatantly anthropomorphic portrayal of God, which I'd imagine the translators were uncomfortable with.

One reviewer claimed that these additions are clearly indicated with italics, but this is untrue, the additions (which are not called for and most likely reflect the theological views of the translators) to the texts are in the same font and style as other words.

These are just a few examples randomly selcted from a few pages, but these sorts of mistranslations/ deliberate additions are found on every page of this book. They completely abuse respectable sources on Biblical languages and rely on questionable ones (for instance using Jastrow's Hebrew/ Aramaic dictionary which, while a great resource, is specifically a dictionary of Rabbinic and not Biblical Hebrew). Anyone with a passing familiarity of Biblical languages will wince both at this translation, and the annotations (which defend the translation by incorrectly citing other sources). One is left wondering whether these people actually know anything about Hebrew or Greek.

In the end, this translation reflects no existing manuscripts for either the Hebrew Bible or Christian scriptures. I have given so many specific examples above mainly because I cannot stress what an awful 'translation' (I use the word lightly) this is.

As for their supposed use of real names, I have objections to that as well. They transliterate the proper name of God, despite a long tradition which views that name as too holy to speak, a tradition which pre-dates Christianity, and which early Christians themselves kept (consider that the New Testament always uses the Greek words Theos 'God' or Kurios 'Lord' and never attempts to transliterate the name of God into Greek.). This is also true of the Septuagint translation of the Bible, which was begun around 200BC, and the group that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls also pronounced YHWH as Adonai 'Lord' out of respect for the name of God.

Additionally this group's insistance that YHWH is free of any pagan influence is simply untrue. There is evidence that YHWH was the name of one god amidst a pantheon. For example, at Kuntillat Ajrud an inscription was found saying, "May you be blessed by YHWH and his Asherah" (the name of a Canaanite deity). Another inscription was found there reading, "I have blessed you by YHWH and his Asherah." In both of these inscriptions YHWH has a consort, a wife. With these inscriptions was found a drawing of the couple together!

Similarly, El (Elohim, Eloah, etc.) despite what they claim, is not a uniquely 'pagan' word. El (in various forms) is the standard Semitic root for any divine being, and in the Hebrew Bible is used both as a generic word for other gods and most often refering to the God of Israel (just as the English word god can refer to either). Elohim, which is plural in form, is not plural in meaning when refering to the God of Israel. Many Hebrew words are plural in form, but singular in meaning (shamayim 'sky', rachamim 'mercy', panim 'face' to name a few)

Also, I thought it was common knowledge that Jesus' original Hebrew name was Yeshua or Yehoshua. Yahshua, which they claim to be the real name of Jesus is not even an actual name. They make no effort to transliterate correctly other names in the Bible, leaving, for example, Eve, which in Hebrew is Havah, or Seth, in Hebrew Shet.

What they claim to be the real names of various Biblical figures have no basis in the Hebrew language or Jewish and Christian tradition. Just look at the book's table of contents and you will encounter many names which simply do not exist. Here are some of the names as they transliterate them followed by the common English version and what they actually sound like in Hebrew: Yahshua (for Joshua, Yehoshua), Riyyah (for Ruth, Rut), Samuyl (for Samuel, Shemu'el), Ezrayah (for Ezra, Ezra), Isayah (for Isaiah, Yeshayahu), Yechetzqyah (for Ezekiel, Yehezkel), Yahyl (for Joel, Yo'el) and so on and so forth. None of these reflects what these names actually are. THEY HAVE BEEN MADE UP!! They should either use the traditional English versions of these names or faithfully transliterate the true Hebrew forms, how can you trust the rest of this translation when they can't even get the names right?

My point is, if you want to really understand the Bible, learn the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek). DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK.

P.S. One other reviewer has accused those of us who question the worth of this 'translation' by claiming that we simply do not properly understand Biblical Hebrew,(see 'People just don;t understand' by D. Hayes among the reviews). I have spent the better part of a decade studying specifically Biblical Hebrew, and it is in this respect that I and others more or equally as qualified as I judge this translation to be worthless.

12 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Why you should read this book..., November 21, 2000

By 

A servant of many - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Book of Yahweh (Assorted Colors) (Paperback)

After reading this translation for over two years, I still discover differences between the Book of Yahweh and my copy of the King James Version of the bible. Each time that I find a difference and then check the various bible reference books, like Strong's and various lexicons, the Book of Yahweh has always proven to be the most accurate translation that I have found. I would recomend this translation to any person that is seeking the Father in Heaven. The book has His name - Yahweh.