Contact Us

Please contact us for any questions, comments, or concerns.

Name:*
E-mail:*
Comments:*
Type the characters you see here:

68 Comments

  1. Hi Bill,
    I saw you on the May 23 Sid Roth show and enjoyed the comments you made about the original languages. I have also read much of the One New Man Bible, and I read passages from it in gatherings of believers.

    Your claim about the name “James” first appearing in the KVJ version I believe is incorrect. Here is the non-spelling corrected 1534 edition of the Tyndale New Testament (Iames 1): “Iames the seruaut of God and of the Lorde Iesus Christ sendeth gretinge to ye .xii. trybes which are scattered here and there.” The letter “I” was commonly used at this time instead of “J”. Iames was simply a morph into English of the Latin name for “Ya‘akov”. Note that if one wants to be picky about it, Jacob is not correct either. The CJB transliterates the Hebrew spelling to Ya‘akov, which indicates the correct pronunciation. This is also sourced in Wikipedia: “The name James came into the English language from the Old French variation James of the late Latin name Iacomus.” — Harper, Douglas. “James”. Online Etymological Dictionary. Douglas Harper. Retrieved 15 September 2011.

    Reply
    • Hi Dan,

      Thank you for writing and for all your comments. The Book of Ya’akov in the Vulgate is Iacobi. Latin has no “V” sound, so all the Vs are changed to B. Iacob is as close to Yakov as Latin can get. Iacobi is not close to James at all. The Tyndale must have changed Iacob to Iames for James I, He certainly did not get that by accident, did he? The I changed to J bringing in German J, which is pronounced like the Hebrew Yod. Originally I used the correct transliteration for the Hebrew names, but changed to traditional names because One New Man Bible is aimed at the Church.

      Blessings,

      Bill

      Reply
      • King James VI of Scotland and I of England was born in 1566. James was simply the English version of Iacobi just as John is the English version of Ioannis.

        Reply
        • Hi Dan

          Surely you cannot make James out of Iacobi. That does not compute. My Vulgate has Iohannnis, so you can see a relationship to John.

          Blessings, Bill

          Reply
          • I found this explanation: “The English name “James” comes from the same root as the name “Jacob”: the Hebrew name “Ya’akov” (יעקב). Ya’akov was first translated into Greek as “Ιakobos” (Iάκωβος), then Latinized as “Jacobus,” which became Jacomus, and later James.” –New World Encyclopedia, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/James_the_Just

          • Hi Dan,

            Relating B to M is a figment of someone’s imagination. James is not a translation of Ya’akov by any stretch of the imagination. Iacob was not translated, but transliterated from Yaakov. How did Jacobus become Jacomus? Is there any transliteration chart showing M as the correct transliteration B? That change to M is very suspect. By that standard Obadiah would be Omadiah.

            Blessings, Bill

  2. My name is Marilyn Lake Griffin, I direct Ministries of New Life. Anna Rountree and the late Albert Rountree have worked with me in the past. MNL host 40 days of prayer each Teshuvah. We have a Convocation prior to the 40 days of Teshuvah. We have offered your Bible for several months with excellent response. I am writing to see if you take speaking engagements, if so would you have any time between Aug. 25-27, 2016? If so I would appreciate speaking with you. My phones numbers are: 913.383,3467; cell 913.302.8275

    Reply
    • Hi Marilyn,

      Thank you for asking. I will give a call later today.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
      • Hi Bill! I posted two questions today underneath a June 20, 2015 response you made on your blog. Can you please help when you can? Thanks! Nick

        Reply
  3. Hi Bill,
    I have the 2011 edition of the ONM Bible. I was reading in Malachi and looking for the fourth chapter and its not there. Why?
    I have trusted you and your work and have enjoyed reading it but this was not a small thing for a whole chapter to be missing.

    Blessings,
    Mahnaz

    Reply
    • Hi Manhnaz,

      Have no fear! Every verse of Malachi is there. In the Masoretic text the 3rd chapter has 24 verses instead of going to a 4th chapter after the 18th verse of the 3rd chapter as in some bibles.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
    • Do you have a calender guide or a that would guide me through the One New Man Bible in one year.

      Reply
      • Hi Mary,

        Thank you for writing. I do not have a schedule to read through the bible in a year, but the publisher may have one on the way.

        Blessings, Bill

        Reply
  4. Hi Bill
    I enjoy the Hebrew feel of this Bible. I first got acquainted with this on Sid Roth’s program where you were the guest.
    If I may I would like to share my concern over the rendering of Gen 6:4.
    There seems to be a rather sharp detour from the plane Hebrew text almost like a very poor paraphrase. To say the lest I was very disappointed. The use of the word “leaders” was totally disastrous to the meaning of this verse.

    Reply
    • Hi Monte,

      In an email, you stated a preference for translating Elohim as Fallen angels, but there is no support for that anywhere. Elohim is translated false gods in Exod. 32:1 and other verses, and in Exod. 7:1 Elohim refers to Moses. In the One New Man Bible Gen. 6:4 is translated literally, not paraphrased.

      Blessings,

      Bill

      Reply
  5. Hi Bill,

    Isaiah 41:8 -“(Abraham) loves me”(ONM)
    Then, even,James is wrong?
    Read: James 2:23(ONM)   “And the Scripture was filled which says, “Aḇraham believed Elohim, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” And he was called, “Elohim’s friend.”

    Copyright 2012 by ISR (2011-12-04 19:01:14+02:00). The Scriptures 1998 (Kindle Locations 36149-36150). Institute for Scripture Research. Kindle Edition.

    Blessisngs, Sam

    Reply
    • Hi Sam,

      Abraham loves Me is correct. Jacob 2:23 is the only place in Scripture where Abraham is called a friend of God. God loves everyone equally, with no favoritism, so what makes the difference in each person’s relationship with God is how much that person loves God.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
      • Sam Kim on September 27, 2014 at 01:52
        Hi Bill,
        1. Is.41:8 – אֹהֲבִי
        You are still in error for reasons of:
        First, you said (9/3/14) “The verb is 3rd person qal conjugation, singular, present” which is incorrect.
        It is qal act PARTICIPLE, ms, ps 1cs.
        Hebrew Participle is verb- adjective behaving like noun, in this case, it is “loving” , and yod-holem pron. Suffix with noun is “my”(not “me”) as in the case of “My horse”. (Suffix for verb will be direct object of verb).
        Second, the fact that, as I pointed out before which you disagree, in the context God was clearly making a statement directly referring Abraham. Thus, the context supports above.
        Third, the fact that James (2:23) – quotes from Isaiah 41:8 and write as “called a friend of God”.,and this should be the final proof that you are in error.
        ( Beside, all the translations including Germans and English Bibles, as far as I have checked, whether liberal or conservative, have translated as “My friend”.)
        2. Incidental Questions:
        You said in your reply (9/26/14) “Jacob 2:23 is the only place in Scripture where Abraham is called a “friend of God”. Are you implying that you disapprove James’s quotation of the Isa. 41:8?
        Is there any modern scholars dare to claim a higher understanding of Hebrew Scripture than James?
        Before the change, you also had it as:.” And he was called, “Elohim’s friend” ( ONM (Kindle 1998). What prompt you to change it? Then, did you not have it all when you first published ONM?
        Blessings, Sam
        – See more at: http://onenewmanbible.com/contact-us#comment-30517

        Reply
        • Hi Sam,

          1. What I have there is correct. You need a Hebrew verb chart.
          2. “My Friend” is traditional, but incorrect.
          3. It is true that Jacob says Abraham was called a friend of God. That does not disparage Jacob. He said that, but did not say that was from Isa.41:8.
          4. There was no ONM Bible in 1998, so you are definitely not quoting ONM.

          Sam, if you will buy a complete Hebrew verb table you will see that the One New Man Bible is correct. You are using inappropriate sources.

          Blessings, Bill

          Reply
    • Hi Bill,

      1. Is.41:8 – אֹהֲבִי

      You are still in error for reasons of:

      First, you said (9/3/14) “The verb is 3rd person qal conjugation, singular, present” which is incorrect.
      It is qal act PARTICIPLE, ms, ps 1cs.

      Hebrew Participle is verb- adjective behaving like noun, in this case, it is “loving” , and yod-holem pron. Suffix with noun is “my”(not “me”) as in the case of “My horse”. (Suffix for verb will be direct object of verb).

      Second, the fact that, as I pointed out before which you disagree, in the context God was clearly making a statement directly referring Abraham. Thus, the context supports above.

      Third, the fact that James (2:23) – quotes from Isaiah 41:8 and write as “called a friend of God”.,and this should be the final proof that you are in error.

      ( Beside, all the translations including Germans and English Bibles, as far as I have checked, whether liberal or conservative, have translated as “My friend”.)

      2. Incidental Questions:

      You said in your reply (9/26/14) “Jacob 2:23 is the only place in Scripture where Abraham is called a “friend of God”. Are you implying that you disapprove James’s quotation of the Isa. 41:8?
      Is there any modern scholars dare to claim a higher understanding of Hebrew Scripture than James?

      Before the change, you also had it as:.” And he was called, “Elohim’s friend” ( ONM (Kindle 1998). What prompt you to change it? Then, did you not have it all when you first published ONM?

      Blessings, Sam

      Reply
  6. Hi Bill,

    Seems there are a few problems with you, or publisher or Kindle:
    I have several screen shots with time stamp of the missing Preface and “My friend”. If you want I can email them to you.
    Anyway, I am awaiting reply from Kindle (Amazon team):
    If Kindle is right that what I have IS authorized original ONM translation, some one has to give a good explanation.

    I will response on Is.41:8 again with more concrete evidence that your translation is incorrect!

    Blessings, Sam

    Reply
    • Hi Sam,

      I just checked my Kindle and the Preface is there. You are right on the Abraham My friend, so I will check with the publisher to see if the latest printing can be put on Kindle instead of this older one. Sam, Abraham who loves Me is the correct translation. The early printings of One New Man had My friend because even the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon has that, saying ohavi is a noun. It is a verb, meaning loves Me. The translation you say should be I love Abraham, but that verb would be ohavti – just check a chart in Hebrew Verb Tables.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  7. Hi Bill,

    I am glad that you have removed the Preface on ONM from Kindle version, at least, in which you had claimed ONM as the “most accurate and literal translation.” I wish that somehow, you would be able to retract your claims made thru other various media including Sid Roth program. Also, I noticed that you have changed Isaiah 41:8 to “(Abraham) My friend” and a few more quick changes!

    If you are considering a revision in the near future, I wish you would give a serious look at the “the Holy Spirit” renderings: The issue at hand is the distinctive usage pattern of “The Holy Spirit”, the Person and the usage of the “pneuma (hagion” and without “the” in genitive case:

    For instances: I will continue with John 20:22:

    First, I know the Imperative has aspects of “progressive, future and continues.” However, , what I have been arguing was, in John 20:22, Imperative with “aorist” active which CANNOT be the future thing.

    Also, when Jesus “breath”, and said receive (or must take-ONM) “Holy Spirit” ,was He breathing the Person, the Holy Spirit to them (John 20:22)? No. Let’s look at the verse: “και τουτο ειπων ενεφυσησεν και λεγει αυτοις λαβετε πνευμα αγιον. “ Here, “the” article is absent, and it definitely NOT the Person, rather it reminds me of Genesis 2:7 where God breathing into the nostrils of Adam.

    Are we, then, as ONM translated “take” the Holy Spirit, the Person (“the Set-apart Spirit” now?”), and seek to “must take Him continuously as your note said? No. If you believe, as you said in your previous reply, that the Holy Spirit, Person, already indwells in the believers and we are His temple, why would we need to get hold of Him again and again? And how many times?

    Another example, what Jesus refers to is NOT the Person, the Holy Spirit when He said: “ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν (Luke 11:13). The πνεῦμα ἅγιον is equated by Jesus Himself to the “good things” (Mat 7:11) and “good gift” (Luke 11:13) which our loving Heavenly Father God wants to give to His children who ask, seek and knock.

    Almost always, in the manuscript, according to an exhaustive word study available, there is a distinctive pattern of usage of πνεῦμα ἅγιον “without the definite article and genitive case” when the word used for other than The Person, Holy Spirit. For example, δε εν πνευματι βαπτισθησεσθε αγιω (Act 1:5). This εν πνευματι βαπτισθησεσθε αγιω is equated to “the promise of Father” and endued with “power from on high(Lk 24:49; Act 4,5).

    It is my wish and prayer that the traditional, theological, and doctrinal biases and influences on the translation of this πνευμα could be overcome and a correct and literal translation of the manuscript be available to the Church of Christ. We are living in an era of the Holy Spirit but the pneumatology has greatly suffered.

    Bill, are you in the Hebraic Roots movement?.

    Blessings, Sam

    Reply
    • Hi Sam,

      Your Kindle version is certainly not the one we placed on Kindle. The Preface is there and Isaiah 41:8 reads Abraham who loves Me.

      You are reading some peculiar, denominational references and not seeking what the authors actually wrote in the New Testament. Your take on the Holy Spirit is incorrect, theologically twisted. Read “Truth or Tradition” in the blog. My quest is truth, not tradition and not what what men falsely call knowledge (1 Timothy 6:20).

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  8. 1. Inversion vav noted thanks.

    2. Glad you acknowledge that the “receive” in “aorist imperative” (John 20:22) and “come out”( Mark 1:25)- in the context- is “immediate” not in the future.

    Question, then:

    -John 20:22 (ONM), you translated as – “must immediately take Holy Spirit”, but put a note: “We have to truly seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” (See my post 9/2/14). Thus, you treat it as “must continually do” (“present aorist (ref. your reply 9/3/14), not as “immediate” (aorist impr).

    (Incidentally, there is no same note for Mark 1:25. Are you going to in the future for the consistency?)

    -John 20:22(ONM) : If “He (Jesus) breathed upon them and said to them…to immediately take (the) Holy Spirit”, then:

    Did they receive “the Holy Spirit” (ONM) right there and then or are they “must continually seek” to receive?

    3. Is. 41:8: All my resources (MS,BHS,WLC and Eng.V OJB/JPS/ TS98) show and translated as: 1st person, singular, Qal, act, ptc, ms, yod suffix.
    Also, my Hebrew study references say “yod” suffix is possessive and it should be “My” not “Me”.

    Can you refer me to Hebrew study reference on “yod” suffix which support 3rd. person?

    Beside, as I pointed out (my post 9/3/14) in the context, it should be clear that God is speaker and saying: my servant Jacob, Israel, whom I have chosen, the descendants of Abraham my friend.

    What Hebrew manuscript OMN based or what English versions referenced? Do you know of any English version/s translated as “Abraham who loves me?

    Blessings, Sam

    Reply
    • Hi Sam,

      2. You have not read what I wrote. Receive is incorrect, take is right. Every imperative is for something that has not yet been done so it is future in that sense.
      3. If your sources are translating “My” they are using the verb as a noun, the traditional English translation as “My friend” but ohavi is a verb so the pronoun cannot be “My”. You sources are incorrect in using the the traditional which is from the Latin text, still in translations used today. To have God saying “I love Abraham” the verb would be ohavti, not ohavi. Check “Modern Hebrew Grammar and Composition” by Blumberg. The quote you have above has “Abraham My friend” a literal translation of the Latin text, not the Hebrew. Even Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon has ohavi as a noun, but it is a verb. God is the speaker, referring to Abraham who loves Me. A renowned Hebrew scholar gave me that translation when I asked for help on that.

      One New Man Bible used the Masoretic Text for this translation.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  9. Hi Bill,

    1. You are correct the verb in Ps23: v5 is Piel, not Qal. My bad.
    Re: sh’va in v6,”is translated future because it is under vav”, can you enlighten me?
    I know in Hebrew poetry, author uses the perfect tense as a way of emphasizing the complete status of the speaker’s affection. If that is what you refer to?

    2. John 20: 22 –“ λαβετε” (Aor, Impr) , You are ignoring that “Aorist” is a completed activity in the imperative moods, especially in the context where Jesus “breath” now (Indic, Aor, Act), which you also translated it as NOT in future in ONM: Mark 1:25(ONM) : “εξελθε” is same “aorist imperative” which you rightly translated as “ must come out of him at once!”, and as the result “it came out” (ONM) right then and there, not in the future!

    Incidentally, “MUST COME OUT” implies the devil can refuse, if so, Jesus may need to take another action. The “COME OUT” is more fitting to the Speaker, who has absolutely irresistible authority of Sovereign Creator Himself.

    3. Isa 41:8 – אֹהֲבִֽי (my beloved -> my friend)– In ONM, you translated as “who (Abraham) loves Me.” Here, God is speaker and the אֹהֲבִֽי is in Qal, act, ptc,ms, ps, 1cs. Therefore it is God who loves Abraham, not the reverse.

    Are you following Jewish tradition of “emendation of sopherim” and changed the translation the way you did?

    Thank you for your kind advice for further study, which I intend to do as long as I have breath in me, praying that the Spirit of the truth will guide me unto the truth that I may speak what I hear but not my own.

    Blessings, Sam

    Reply
    • Hi Sam,

      1. Any verb that has a vav prefix, the tense is determined by the vowel: a sh’va for future, qamats for past.
      2. An aorist imperative is to be translated “must do immediately”. The present imperative is “must continually do”. Any imperative is automatically future because it is ordering something not yet done to be done.
      3. The verb is 3rd person qal conjugation, singular, present tense, properly translated “Abraham who loves me.” The pronoun “Me” is indicated by the yod suffix. Is. 41:8 is correct while I do not know of one other bible that is. Please correct yourself before trying to find an error in One New Man Bible. I know you dislike the publisher’s claim that this is the most accurate bible, but you have yet to find one error – and all you have brought up are commonly mistranslated in other bibles.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  10. Hi Bill,

    Re-purchased Kindle version as you mention in your last reply.
    From a few days of reviewing, it looks though I will have many more questions about ONM, on its claim for “accurate and literal translation.”

    1. Re Psalm 23: here is the v6: אַ֤ךְ טֹ֤וב וָחֶ֣סֶד יִ֭רְדְּפוּנִי כָּל־יְמֵ֣י חַיָּ֑י וְשַׁבְתִּ֥י בְּבֵית־יְ֝הוָ֗ה לְאֹ֣רֶךְ יָמִֽים׃.
    The verb for “I will dwell” (you translated in the future form) is in same Qal,pf. form as the word “annointed” in v5. which you translated in the past form.

    2. John 20:22-“Receive (2pl.Impr.aor.act) the Holy Spirit”, you translated as ““You must immediately take the Holy Spirit.” And in your note, you said “We have to truly seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”

    The Verb Imp. aor. act” is punctiliar and denotes reception then and there and not a future event. Especially, with the word “breath” (3sing indc aor act).

    It is unclear from your translation wording and notes, if you suggesting this to be a future event?

    3. Could you comment on these grammatical alterations and inconsistencies in your translation? Why and is it still a “literal translation and most accurate” as you claim?

    Have you opened your translation notes on all such alteration in glossary or anywhere? I would like to have an access to it, if you have one.

    I will many have more questions for your clarification, as Lord willing.

    In His service,
    Sam

    Reply
    • Hi Sam,

      Again, my answers will be by the number for each of your comments:
      1. The verb in v. 6 is translated future because of the sh’va under the vav. The verb in v. 5 is a piel, not a Qal.
      2. The imperative is always a future, ordering something to be done. The receive is somebody’s theological stretch for a verb that means to aggressively take, to grab onto.
      3. The One New Man Bible has each of the above rendered correctly. I respectfully suggest you get back to the basics and do some more studying.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  11. Shalom of Yahweh to you. See now yourself, how Elohim today circumcised the heart of His people, that we may obey His voice at;
    http://www.prophecyofYahweh.com
    For verily verily I say unto you, ”Ye shall know them by their fruit;…”

    Reply
    • Hi Joshua,

      Thank you for writing. I looked at your interesting website. The one thing that is vague is the statement in your comment, “,,Elohim today circumcised the heart of His people..” It is each believer’s responsibility to establish relationship with God that can circumcise the believer’s heart. Only the believer himself can establish that for the circumcision of his heart.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  12. Dear Mr. Morford,
    In my search for the correct translation, I have discovered that there are two manuscripts that could have been translated. Bibles like the NIV, claim to use the older text, while the Geneva Bible was from a newer transcription. The older versions had not been discovered at the time. Which texts are you translating from?

    Daniel Erdmann

    Reply
    • Hi Daniel,

      The One New Man Bible was translated from the Masoretic Text for the Hebrew Scriptures and the 4th Edition UBS for the Greek.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  13. Hi Bill,
    Thanks for your prompt response:

    1. My question on “the” was for Holy Spirit in NT, not O.T.

    2. Anyway, It has nothing to do with multiple Holy Spirit. Rather, it is about the distinction between God the Holy Spirit(Person) and impartation of His power which He has.
    In Act 1:5, Jesus said “John baptize with water” (Dative)….”soon you will be baptize with (IN fits better?) Holy Spirit (Dative) (no def. article). Here, Jesus use the “water” in parallel to ” in Holy Spirit”(w/o article), and both “Dative” for the baptism disciples would receive in not many days. Jesus equates the “baptize in Holy Spirit” with endued with “power from on high”(Lk 24:49). For a comparison, in John 16:13, “the Spirit of the truth” (n.s. neut) used with verb “elthe”(v 3 sing subj aor).

    In O.T and NT, as you are aware of, there are many instances of the Holy Spirit being “pour out or on, filled with, receive, clothed with, etc. For the obvious reason that the Holy spirit can not be split and “pour out”,etc., the referents of these particular words in the context with grammatical consideration is not the Holy Spirit, the Person.

    3.Re Psalm 23: I meant “Yashab” (Qal,pf. 1,s). At least a note to this fact would have been much preferred.

    4.Your studies and efforts will definitely shed more lights on parables and idioms, etc. and many will benefit from it.
    While agreeing with you on “the” insertion (Gen. 1:2), however, even any harmless that fits the context such insertion should be done with extreme cares and in the fears as of old Scribe.

    Still,the best is “let the Scripture speak for it self!

    4. I have some concern and reservation, especially, when you present ONM with claims:
    -“the most accurate English translation”;
    -“the power and culture of the original Bible was hijacked by the English translator”
    -focus on “one new man” (Eph 2) and your public statement that there is a deliberate efforts by other translators to hide the “Jewish root”. It is a very serious assertion in the eyes of the already critical world. We will do well if we remind our self that we only see and understand in part, and agree with Job’s confession(Job 42:5,6).

    It is one thing to present your findings in a “another commentary’ format or as a study Bible, not as the most accurate translation, above all others.
    Our best efforts and intentions will never suffice to such claims.

    Blessings, Sam

    Reply
    • Hi Sam,

      Regarding 1. & 2. the same comment applies. Making a difference between the Person and the baptism is getting into a Greek, Western mind-set of intellectual arguments. Leave that to those who who thrive on intellectual knowledge of God, not heart relationship which is what the Lord wants.
      3. There is no “yashab” in Ps. 23.
      4. The most accurate claim is because we do not know of other translation that even translate Ts’dakah, Anokhi, mistranslates Resh Ayin, Y’reh, and uses by tradition translations of certain Latin words that have been in English bibles since the Middle Ages. There are other words that you will find if you get another E-version and read the Glossary.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  14. Dear Rev. Morford,
    First of all, my compliments for your great efforts and times you have put in.
    I bought kindle version yesterday and found a couple of issues with your translation.
    1. The major one that concerns me is that you determined to use the definite article “the” for Holy Spirit (Spirit) even where there is not in manuscripts, thus confusing, as all other versions do, the real referents: the Holy Spirit, the Person or the gifts of Holy Spirit, which He has and gives.

    2. Psalm 23: v5, you rightly translated as “anointed”, yet v6, translated the “shuv” in future tense, thus missing the David’s inner state of mind, the conviction he has been holding unto all his life. Since I returned the e-book and don’t remember if you had a foot note about it.

    3. Ephesians 6:17 & 18: In v17, the “take (receive would have been more fitting in my opinion)” is imperative and v18 begins with “dia”. Thus both verses should be in continuation, rather be disconnected. ONM, v17 ends with period, and v18 begins with capital letter T thus disconnects the flow.In my opinion, perhaps Paul is speaking that weapons mentioned in prior verses were to be received through fervent and unceasing prayer. Your translation put the v18 hanging disconnected from either v17 and v19, at least in my opinion.

    Blessings to you

    In His service,

    Sam KIm

    Reply
    • Hi Sam,

      Answering your questions in order: 1. Genesis 1:2 The definite article fits the context. How many Holy Spirits do you want? 2. There is no “shuv” and I translated the tense that is in the Hebrew. Ask David why he wrote the future tense. 3. Take is the appropriate word since we are to take a strong stand, not laze back relaxed, waiting for the Lord to supernaturally equip us. That is the point that Paul is making here.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  15. I want an app of the One New Man Bible to download on my tablet.
    Is one coming? Or is there one?

    Reply
    • Hi Martha,

      The One New Man Bible is on both Kindle and iTunes, so you should be able to download it.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  16. Mr. Morford:

    I really enjoy the One New Man Bible and am now using it as my primary bible. I find the glossary and footnotes to be especially helpful in understanding the Jewish roots of Christianity.

    Could you recommended a book or two that would provide additional information on life/culture in 1st century Israel, Hebrew idioms used at that time, and other information that would be useful in understanding Christianity in the first century.

    Thanks for your time.

    Dave

    Reply
    • Hi Dave,

      Thank you for writing. There are a number of good sources, but my favorites are The Judaic Christian Studies Center (www.jcstudies.com) and the Soncino Books of the Bible, a fourteen volume set available from Jewish sources. Keep in touch.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  17. Dear Rev. Morford

    My wife and I really enjoy the One New Man Bible.

    In 1 Cor 14.26 the One New Man Bible it is written “has a message in tongue” I do not see the “has a message” in the Greek, can you explain why it was added in the One New Man Bible?

    Blessing

    Gilbert

    Reply
    • Hi Gilbert,

      Thank you for asking. The word “message” is not in the Greek, but is understood because the Greek just says “tongue”. The one word, tongue, means that someone has a message in a tongue. The literal is “..a Psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue..” so I added in italics, “a message”, because some would be baffled without that addition.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  18. Good morning
    I have only just come across the One New Man Bible and downloaded the sample onto both iBooks and Kindle. But I found that on Kindle if I hit Genesis it would not go to Genesis, however, that link did work on iBooks. I then found that non of your notes were present either at the bottom of each page or at the end of the books. One of the major factors about our Bible is the insights that you have gleaned and that would be my reason for purchasing it. Because of these issues I did some research and the following comment was made in November 2011 on Amazon:
    “This is a review of the Kindle edition rather than the One New Man Bible itself. This edition is NOT AT ALL user-friendly. I wish I had not spent the $20 on it, and wish to alert other people to its logistical problems.

    The table of contents has page numbers, which are irrelevant because the Kindle uses locations rather than pages. In addition, there are no links in the table of contents to any of the books.

    When scrolling through the Bible, there is no way to tell which book of the Bible one is in. Instead of the name of the book being repeated in every chapter title, it is noted ONLY ONCE: at the beginning of each book, and then doesn’t appear again, except for the book of Psalms, which has the word “Psalm” in every chapter title.

    There are somewhere around 2000 pages in this Bible in the hard copy, so a little movement of the location slider takes one a long way. It is very hard to fine-tune. I try to go forward a few pages and end up in a completely different and unidentified book. It is very disorienting.

    The only links are from footnote numbers to its related footnote at the end of the volume. Touching the number again returns one to the original source, but the return trip links don’t always work for me. In addition, many of the footnotes say, “See ____ in the Glossary” – without any link to take one there.

    This would be so much better turned into an app rather than presented as an eBook. But even as an eBook it could have been more usefully designed and formatted. Other than the links to the footnotes, no efforts appear to have been made to turn this into a useful Kindle book.”
    To buy the physical book here in the UK taking into account current exchange rates and exchange rate fees and shipping and handling makes the price well over Dollars 90 – that is prohibitive for us. Apart from the fact that being able to access the book on iPad and iPhone is much more practical for our situation.

    However, if we can’t jumped to books or access the foot notes relevant to the page we are reading on the iPad or iPhone, its going to make studying it very impractical and the footnotes are so important. Please, therefore, could you advise if these issues have been resolved before we go ahead and purchase it for our iPad and iPhone.

    Thanks for your help. Kind regards, June Thomas

    Reply
    • Hi June,

      Somehow, you must have received a copy of the original bible that was just a Word file placed on Amazon. The comment you quoted about the bible is dated long before the early 2013 publication of the fully mapped Kindle and iTunes version. On those, to read any footnote you simply click on the footnote # in the text. The problems you cite should not be there. Not opening with Genesis is mysterious as I have not heard of that at all. Anyway, download the current Kindle or iTunes and you will not have those problems.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
      • Hello again
        Just so you know, I didn’t do any research, I simply downloaded the sample versions of the Bible onto my iPad directly from both Kindle and iBooks about 5 days ago – so I don’t understand what I ended up with! However, following your advice I visited Amazon UK’s web site and can confirm they have the July 2013 version, which is wonderful news. So thank you for taking the time out to answer my query I can now go and get the Bible. Every blessing, June

        Reply
        • Hi June,

          Thank you for answering. Please keep me posted on your views of One New Man Bible.

          Blessings,

          Bill

          Reply
  19. Sir,
    How can I get a copy of the 21-page paper on Matthew 28:19 that you mention in the One New Man Bible?
    Carl

    Reply
    • Hi Carl,

      A copy will be emailed within the hour.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  20. Dr. Morford,
    Could you help me understand the relevancy of the Alef Tav scripture teaching! I can’t seem to grasp the meaning and purpose of the explanations I’ve heard.

    Blessings!

    Reply
    • Hi Ann,

      Thank you for this good question. Alef and Tav are used twice, mboth times in Revelation, 1:8 and 21:6;

      21:5. Then the One Who sits on the throne said, “Behold I am making all things new,” then He said, “You must now write, because these words are faithful and true.” 6. Then He said to me, “It has been done! I AM the Alef and the Tav, the Beginning and the End. (Isa. 44:6; 48:12) I shall give freely from the fountain of the water of life to the one who thirsts.

      First He is stating that He is the first and the last, the beginning and the end, but there is an even more important meaning because in Hebrew Alef & Tav make another word, Et, that is placed before the direct object of the verb. That means that here He is saying that He is the object of God’s plan for all time. Also, Et is used only when the definite article is there, showing that He is the only One, only Redeemer, only One through Whom this redemption can take place.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  21. Bro. Morford, Do you still live in Santa Rosa Beach,Fl. I have a daugther and her family living there now. Blessings Larry

    Reply
  22. Does your Bible include the original names of God in

    The various spots throughout the Bible as well?

    Reply
    • The names are translated properly throughout with the exception of the tetragrammaton, which uses LORD*.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  23. Dear Morford I’m in Australia and I just watched you on Sid Roth’s show and I enjoyed it.It was so interesting. Can I please ask a question from you,in the new testament book of 2 Corinthians 6-14 does it really mean that we must not marry from another religion? I mean is it really talking about marriage? Thanks a lot.May God bless you sorry I mean GOD WILL BLESS YOU

    Reply
    • Hi Ann,

      That is exactly what Paul is saying. Having been in a counseling ministry years ago, I can say it is important for both spouses to be on the same page with God.

      The Lord will bless you too.

      Blessings,

      Bill

      Reply
  24. Thank you Mr. Morford, for your work on the “One New Man Bible”. I love it.

    Reply
    • Hi Billy,

      Thank you for your comment!

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  25. Hello, I’ve just watched all the way through the interview with Sid Roth. My question is: why would the apostle Paul make prayer shawls, when he so vigorously argues that there is no need for a man to cover his head? Surely this would make him a hypocrite, especially as he would then be selling his products to an exclusively Jewish market in order to finance his gospel calling?

    Reply
    • Hi Mary,

      The man has a prayer shawl and has no need for other cover. 1 Corinthians 11 is about hair length, that a man has no need to cover his head with long hair. Read the article titled Prayer Shawl in the Glossary of the One New Man Bible. Read 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in the One New Man Bible and this will become clear. The prayer shawl Paul made was not the small scarf or wrap we see today, but was a poncho-like garment with a hole cut to fit over the head. It went from wrist to wrist and down to the knees. In John 19:23 it is described as the garment for which the Roman soldiers cast lots.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
    • Mary: Paul was a tent maker. Morford is trying to change the truth under the guise of improving things. He is doing the spiritual equivalent of what gays do. They compare their choice of being gay with a person being born black. In Morford’s case, he is putting all bibles into the same box and comparing his heretical bible with them. He knows that the KJV is the authentic one and that his arguments are weak and unfounded. But, he knows the right words to say to deceive the gullible. Anyone with the slightest amount of wisdom will see through his heresy. The best news is that such pseudo versions of the bible will never win, be it the the NIV, ONM, etc.

      Reply
      • Hi April,

        You would not be making the statements made here if you had the One New Man Bible and had read the articles on Prayer Shawl and on the sources of the scriptures. My quest is for TRUTH, not for tradition.

        Blessings, Bill

        Reply
  26. Dear Bill,

    It was wonderful to watch your broadcast on ‘It’s Supernatural’ last night.

    We are a Christian family with a special love for the Jewish People. My Wife Lorna and I are sharing with all we know the special love we have for the Jewish people, our appreciation of the fact that they are the apple of God’s eye, and the sanctity of the land of Israel. We pray that we may be able to encourage others to see things the same way. It is so wonderful to see how many Jews are coming to accept Jesus as their Messiah. We are blessed to have been able to visit God’s Holy city of Jerusalem.

    We have only come to learn in the last five years or so the real significance and importance to God of the Jewish people and the state of Israel. It is interesting to mention that my wife, who is Anglo Indian and was raised a Christian, has a number of Jewish ancestors about whom we knew nothing really, but I have carried out painstaking research which has produced the family tree of Lorna’s Jewish heritage and I have also located the whereabouts of the internments of some of them in Willesden Jewish Cemetery, London, England. We have been there and taken out many pictures of the tomb stones of her ancestors and all of this was a most worthwhile experience. Blessings to you and yours in your Ministry

    Reply
    • Hi David,

      Thank you for this beautiful testimony. That took a lot of effort and true perseverance to achieve your successful outcome.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply
  27. Can you please provide me with an ebook pdf version of the one new man bible? Also I know you have put alot of work into the translation and are worthy of your wage but if you have faith in your bible why do you not provide it for free online?

    Reply
    • Hi Jared,

      The only way to get an ebook version is from either iTunes or Kindle. The publisher will likely some day have a free online version, but I have no control over that – when to do it is his decision, not mine.

      Blessings, Bill

      Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share This