>A New Translation of the Bible: The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible

>As most biblical scholars and translators know, translating the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English or any other language is not easy. How does a translator clearly communicate the meaning of Hebrew words to English speaking people? Because the task is difficult, the result is that today we have many different translations of the Bible.

Now the problem has been solved. Let us welcome a new translation of the Bible: the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible. The aim of the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible is to solve the problem that different translations of the Bible create for the average reader.

The following press release explains the aim of the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible:

The “Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB)” is a completely new concept designed and patented by a scientist and bible-lover who asked the basic question: Why do we have to interrupt our reading of the bible to look up the original meaning of the Hebrew text in a separate book or footnote? Why don’t English bible translations match the ancient text?

Author and scientist A. Frances Werner has done her homework. She has documented exactly why you have required to have the extra (and sometimes expensive) tools such as concordances, bible dictionaries and cross-referenced study bibles to decipher most English bible translations. By counting up all the word variations in the Old Testament in over 20 bibles, Werner has demonstrated that translators have unnecessarily complicated matters by not keeping the English consistent with the original Hebrew.

A. Frances Werner designed the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB) to be 100% consistent with the ancient texts to simplify bible study. “The word “translinear” has been created to let you know that it is completely consistent between Hebrew and English. Thus, every unique English word matches every unique Hebrew word. Even thought the concept seems incredibly obvious and simple, it hasn’t been done in 1500 years of English bible translations. That’s why the ARTB is patented. Now you can save some time and money. You don’t need to stop and reach for expensive reference books to be assured you finding the accurate word of God.”

How did this translator produce a Bible that solved the problems translators have struggled for centuries to solve? How was this done? It was easy! The translator, A. Frances Werner, used Strong’s Concordance to make sure that every Hebrew word was translated in the same way in English. Here is what she says about the Strong’s words number 120 [adam] and 376 [ish]:

What you see is that there are two very distinct words in Hebrew designated by two different Strong’s numbers 120 and 376. The major versions primarily reuse the word man for both. The ARTB utilizes the word human for 120 and man for 376 because they are different words.

But the confusion goes deeper. If you look up Strong’s number 376 for the NASB, you’ll find that not only did the NASB utilize the word man in 66% of the cases, but also words like husband, one, persons, and each, to words like tiller, soldier, tradition, and father for the remaining 33% of the cases–close to 1500 references. This is typical of all modern bible translations.

The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB) began as a project to see what the Old Testament really looked like with all the missing words restored. But as they were restored, they were always applied with the rule of 1:1 correspondence to the ancient word. So in ARTB, the word human is utilized 100% of the time for Strong’s number 120 [adam] and no other Strong’s number.

Any one who has translated from Hebrew to English will agree that the approach taken by Ancient Roots Translinear Bible is very simplistic. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible was first published in 1890. Strong’s Concordance is an index of the Bible based on the translation of the King James Version. The index is designed to help students find a phrase or a word and compare how the same word was used in another section of the Bible.

The major weakness of the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible is its dependence on Strong’s Concordance:

Since Strong’s Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong’s Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context. The use of Strong’s numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds.

It seems to me that this new Bible will be consistent in translating the same Hebrew words into English, but it will be a Bible which will fail to communicate the beauty of the biblical message and the intricacies of the Hebrew language to its readers.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: , ,

Bookmark and Share var addthis_pub = ‘claude mariottini’;

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to >A New Translation of the Bible: The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible

  1. >Seems to me that this “translation” fails in all aspects. You’re absolutely right that it’s “simplistic” as from the first class of Hebrew 101/Greek 101(or Linguistics 101), students learn that there is no such thing as word-for-word correspondence from a source language to a target language. What irks me most is the arrogance I detect: “Even thought the concept seems incredibly obvious and simple, it hasn’t been done in 1500 years of English bible translations.” The weakeness goes well beyond the use of Strong’s (which in itself is a travesty). It’s just poor methodology all the way around. Yes, all bible translators wish there were a way to directly correspond aspects of the source language into the target language, but it’s simply impossible to do and yet maintain the integrity of the text/context. Sorry, but this is ridiculous . . .


  2. >Jay,Thank you for your comment. What the translator says about the aim of this new Bible reveals that her knowledge of the biblical languages is limited and that her knowledge of the theories about translating from one language to another is nonexistent. I don’t want to waste my money buying this translation, but I may do so just to check the results of her work.Claude Mariottini


  3. Blake Walter says:

    >The turgid English speaks for itself. You can bring up different passages from their web site (http://www.ancientrootsbible.com/). Genesis 1 begins:Gen 1:1 First, God created the heaven and the land. Gen 1:2 The land was a chaotic abyss, with darkness over the face of the abyss. The Spirit-wind of God fluttered over the face of the waters. Gen 1:3 God said, “Light, be!” And light was. Gen 1:4 God saw the light was-good. God separated between the light and the darkness. Gen 1:5 God called the light “Day”, and he called the darkness “Night”. Evening was and morning was; day one. Gen 1:6 God said, “Expanse, be amidst the waters! Be the separation between the ||waters||!” Gen 1:7 God made the expanse to separate between the waters with waters under the expanse and above the expanse. So it was. Gen 1:8 God called the expanse ‘Heaven’. Evening was and morning was the second day. Gen 1:9 God said, “Waters under the heaven: Wait at one place, to see the dry-land!” So it was. Gen 1:10 God called the dry-land “Land”, and the pool of waters he called “Seas”. God saw good. Gen 1:11 God said, “Land, spring-up grass! Cereals, sow seed! Fruit trees, make the kinds of fruit with seed in it over the land!” So it was.


  4. >Blake,This translation of Genesis 1 is awful. How can anyone be inspired by this kind of language? When you read in Genesis 1:10 that “God saw good,” you begin to understand that something is wrong with this new Bible.Claude Mariottini


  5. Susie Day says:

    >The style reminds me of Young’s Literal Bible .. same sort of strange contortions.I think that this type of translation (if done correctly, not based off of strong’s) would be useful to someone already familiar with hebrew idioms, and phrasing. But, anyone with that kind of knowledge should just read it in the original.Creating a translation from a word-list is great practice for a beginning student, I’ve done it – it turned out … interesting … but, I wouldn’t be so bold as to foist it off onto anyone else, as I know it is not a real translation, only an exercise in recognizing hebrew grammar.


  6. >Susie,Thank you for your comment and for visiting my blog. You are right, this kind of translation could only be done by a person who may not know Hebrew or Greek.Any person who knows Hebrew also knows that this translation is not good and that it does not reflect the true message of the text. The Hebrew text is too complicated to be explained by such a simplistic method.Claude Mariottini


  7. Anonymous says:

    >There are brilliant 6 volumes interlinear translation (5 OT and 1 NT) into German; publisher Haenssler Verlag GmbH.Decades of team work from most profound experts went into it.I just regret not having any to English of such quality.For anyone who is slightly capable to enter into this elaborate work will carry huge benefit away.It follows as INTERLINEAR TEXT also the ductus of either both, Hebrew and Greek.TOPLINE – sourceMIDLINE – phoneticENDLINE – translationSurely will anyone of them welcome questions or yet give support in the undertaking of such valuable project for English.Leading editor is OT Rita M. SteurerNT Ernst DietzfelbingerAT Rita Maria Steurer EUR Jahr 1-5 5 Bände 1. Mose – Chronik / zur Beispielseite Deuteronomium 6, 3-8 295,– 2003 Alle Bände auch einzeln lieferbar: 1 3-7751-1281-2 1. Mose – 5. Mose / zur Beispielseite Deuteronomium 6, 3-8 68,– 19932 3-7751-1274-x Josua – Könige 68,– 19933 3-7751-1275-8 Jesaja – Hesekiel 68,– 19974 3-7751-1284-7 12 kleine Propheten – Hiob – Psalmen 68,– 19995 3-7751-1585-4 Sprüche – Chronik 68,– 2003 NT 3-7751-0998-6 Ernst Dietzfelbinger / zur Beispielseite Lukas 1,77 – 2,4 52,– 1995Ameen Mann @ aol


  8. Anonymous says:

    >Sounds like the standard Concordant Literal process used by A.E. Knoch in creating the CLV Bible.


  9. >Dear Friend,Thank you for calling my attention to the CLV Bible. I was not familiar with this Bible. I will check it to see what they have done.Claude Mariottini


  10. Anonymous says:

    >The CLV is the best translation ever made. Here is an online CLNT: http://www.gtft.org/ConcordantVersion/Index.htm


  11. Caleb says:

    I own a copy, and I can honestly say that although it’s not perfect (no translation ever can be) it is an invaluable tool in study. It provides insight into word-choice and syntax that I would only otherwise be aware of were I to lookup the Hebrew phrases and study each verse myself. I don’t have time for that, so the ARTB translation is a God-send to me. Sure, this methodology results in very difficult reading, sometimes. I am prepared for that. For me, the ARTB is a study tool, not a novel – don’t expect it to read like a story.


    • Caleb,

      You are right: no translation is perfect. I am glad you are enjoying this translation as a study Bible. This is the goal of any translation: as long as this translation has helped you to become a better students of the Bible, this translation has achieved its goal. Thank you for visiting my blog.

      Claude Mariottini


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.