Is The Scriptures (ISR) a Translation?
Understanding the Purpose, Method, and Role of the Explanatory Notes
There is no shortage of English Bible translations available today. Each reflects sincere efforts by scholars and translators to render the original Scriptures faithfully into another language. The Scriptures – 2009 Edition (ISR) enters this landscape with a stated goal of restoring what its editors believe has been lost through centuries of translation shaped by Western language, culture, and theology.
This raises an important and fair question: Is the ISR actually a translation, or is it something else?
The answer matters—not as a debate tactic, but as a matter of clarity for readers seeking to understand how this version functions.
Is the ISR a Translation?
Yes—The Scriptures (ISR) does translate real Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
It engages the Masoretic Text for the Tanak and Greek manuscripts for the Second Writings, and it seeks to render those texts into English.
However, the ISR is not a neutral or purely linguistic translation in the conventional sense. From its own preface onward, it openly states that translation decisions are guided by a set of theological, historical, and cultural conclusions already held by its editors.
In other words:
The ISR translates Scripture while consistently prioritizing a particular interpretive framework.
This is not hidden, nor is it denied by the editors themselves.
The Stated Aims of the ISR
According to its preface, the ISR seeks to:
- Restore the personal Name of the Almighty (יהוה) rather than using traditional substitutes
- Emphasize what it describes as the Hebraic mindset behind Scripture
- Prefer Semitic forms of names, places, and key theological terms
- Minimize what it views as later Greek, Latin, or Western theological influence
- Treat the Scriptures as originally Semitic in language, culture, and worldview
These aims are consistent throughout the translation and are applied with remarkable internal consistency.
Where the Translation Becomes an Interpretive System
The defining feature of the ISR is not its typography, its use of Hebrew forms, or its formatting.
It is the explanatory notes.
The ISR’s notes do not merely clarify vocabulary or offer background information. They:
- Argue for Semitic originals behind the Greek New Testament
- Reframe theological terms such as Torah, law, faith, and works
- Assert that the substitution of divine names represents theological corruption
- Reinterpret calendar usage, religious language, and church history through a restoration lens
- Present translation choices as acts of recovery from widespread apostasy
These notes are not optional reading. They are the interpretive engine that explains why the translation reads the way it does.
Why the Notes Matter More Than the Translation Itself
Individually, many ISR notes appear reasonable or historically interesting.
Taken together, they form a comprehensive interpretive framework.
This framework reshapes how readers understand:
- The authority of Greek vs. Semitic texts
- The relationship between Torah and faith
- The legitimacy of traditional Christian language
- The meaning of obedience, covenant, and righteousness
- The role of later church history in shaping theology
As a result, readers are not merely reading a translation—they are being invited into a system that interprets Scripture, history, and doctrine as a unified whole.
A Clarifying Distinction
Every Bible translation reflects interpretive decisions. No translation is entirely free from perspective.
The difference with the ISR is not the existence of interpretation, but the degree and direction of it.
Translation choices are consistently driven by conclusions articulated in the notes, rather than the notes simply explaining translation choices.
This is why two people can read the ISR and arrive at fundamentally different theological trajectories than they would using standard evangelical translations—even when reading familiar passages.
Why This Matters for Readers and Leaders
Understanding how the ISR functions allows readers to engage it wisely.
- The issue is not whether Hebrew names should be respected
- The issue is not whether cultural context matters
- The issue is not whether traditions should be examined
The issue is whether the reader recognizes that the ISR is designed to be read with its notes, not apart from them.
Where to Go Next
To understand the ISR fully, one must move beyond the text itself and carefully examine the explanatory notes—because that is where the translation’s theological assumptions, historical claims, and interpretive commitments are made explicit.
What follows, then, is not merely a discussion of words or names, but an exploration of how Scripture is being framed, filtered, and explained.
Leave a Reply