It has been said that the Church has to get the Bible into the hands of the entire world so that it knows the truth.
Well, what if I told you the Bible has been doctrinalized in some translated areas to where the "truth" in English isn't exactly the "truth" in Hebrew?
-------------------
For example, Isaiah 9:6 could be translated as either titles or as phrases.
Consider "The Trinity". Now, the doctrine of the Trinity itself isn't explicitly laid out in the scriptures. Associating "this context" with "that context" causes the Trinity doctrine to come to life, and, well, some non-literal translation helps with the doctrine.
Want a firestorm or a heated controversial subject? Debating the Trinity is definitely towards the top of the list.
But please read me out for a spell (if you have some time to dive deep).
-------------------
I asked ChatGPT the following question:
ChatGPT replied:
Yes, Isaiah 9:6 can indeed be translated in two main ways:
1. As a series of titles (traditional Christian interpretation):
This is the most common rendering in English Bibles like the KJV, ESV, and NIV:
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given... and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
Here, each phrase is understood as a distinct title of the Messiah—often seen as a prophecy about Jesus in Christian theology. These are majestic, compound titles emphasizing divine and royal authority.
2. As a single long phrase or sentence (alternative Hebrew interpretation):
In Jewish interpretations, particularly those from rabbinic or scholarly traditions, the verse is sometimes rendered differently, emphasizing that the "names" are actually a descriptive sentence about God rather than a list of titles for the child.
For example:
"...and his name is called: 'A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,'"
or
"...and he (the child) will be called by the name of the Mighty God who is a wonderful counselor..."
In this reading, much of the naming refers to God rather than to the child, or is meant to be read as a long epithet with poetic structure rather than discrete titles.
Key Issue: Hebrew structure and punctuation
Biblical Hebrew lacks punctuation and capitalization, which means phrases like this can be interpreted in more than one way depending on:
How you divide the words
What role each noun or adjective is playing (title vs. description)
Whether you're reading it in a messianic, theophoric, or royal-poetic context
Summary:
| Translation Style | Phrase Example | Interpretation Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Titles | "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God..." | The child bears divine titles |
| Descriptive phrase | "God is a wonderful counselor, the mighty one..." | Describes God, not the child |
If you’re doing a study, the context (religious tradition, translation goals, etc.) heavily influences which rendering is preferred. Would you like a breakdown of the Hebrew text too?
-------------------
My go-to Interlinear Bible is the Concordant Literal Version. Yeah, well, the author is long gone and was born and initially raised in St. Louis, Missouri, and later the family moved to Los Angeles. He was born from German decent, spoke only German in the home, and learned English at school. So maybe I am biased to the home team, right? Maybe. That is just for humor. I am not biased to the home team. I am biased to truth that is faithfully presented with faithful intentions though no one is perfect.
Do I like to read the CLV? No. Not really. It is clunky. The CLV doesn't flow very well for English. It is kind of hard to read. It's kind of a bother for modern English readers. It reads like broken English instead of modern English though there is a modern (sort of) English component to it that helps it flow better in Modern English.
In taking a look at Isaiah 9:6 on Bible Gateway dot com, all of the translations appear to agree to espouse basically the same concepts and terminology (https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%209%3A6). I was quite surprised how they all agree, but they are all doctrinally influenced towards the Trinity.
Now, before we get upset with me on this study, I was raised believing in the Trinity as the evidence presented appears to support the doctrine, so like, why question it, right?
I had not questioned it much, but certain doctrines have different conclusions on who Jesus is compared to the Father, which begged of me to investigate to start to nail down what I want to teach my kids about it.
But in the last decade or so, I have taken a liking to the lowly CLV (Concordant Literal Version), which is barely or scarcely referenced in our modern doctrines afaik as a viable resource. The CLV doesn't use the same rules as the big hitters when translating because it is "literal" and "concordant" (think Strong's Concordance here, but this is not the Strong's Concordance. It is far stricter.).
For reference, the CLV is translated from the same Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament as some other well-situated and popularly-accepted translations such as:
* King James Version (KJV)
* New King James Version (NKJV)
* English Standard Version (ESV)
* New International Version (NIV)
* New American Standard Bible (NASB / NASB 2020)
* Christian Standard Bible (CSB)
* Lexham English Bible (LEB)
* Revised Standard Version (RSV)
* New Revised Standard Version (NRSV / NRSVue)
* Concordant Literal Version (CLV)
* Literal Standard Version (LSV)
Consider though, how different the translators went with their translations on the Bible Gateway link, in those translations, compared with how the CLV went with its translation from the same Masoretic Hebrew of the Old Testament (in the image on this post) ...
ChatGPT addresses this difference in this way ...
📜 Why This Stands Apart from BibleGateway Versions
Most translations on BibleGateway
* Christian doctrinally influenced (Christological reading).
* Translate for clarity and theology (e.g., “Everlasting Father” is clearly messianic and divine).
* Often harmonized with New Testament theology (i.e., this is Jesus being called “Mighty God”).
The CLV, by contrast, is:
* Not doctrinally interpretive.
* Hyper-literal even when awkward.
* Etymologically faithful — e.g., “Father-of-future” instead of “Everlasting Father.”
This isn't really a "deep dive", but theologically, the concept I present is deep because it wanders away from traditionally accepted doctrine. We can go deeper. ChatGPT surely took me deeper than snorkel territory - probably more into pressurize submarine territory to be honest.
What are your thoughts? Ideas? Revelations?
