James Trimm

Genuinly surprised?

Sheesh

He lies, passes himself off as a Doctor with no degree. steals others work and pretends he is an authority. He pretends he did all this translation, yet he doesn't know the language.

He is hand and glove with Rood.

I only wish the internet had been around when I got involved with The Way International I would have run the other direction.

For any one who hasn't gone to those links that Wordwolf posted at the beggining of this thread ... you should

IT is informative not just about Our lovely Mr Trimm but goes into detail on Wierwille too.

THey are surprisingly alike.

"Hopefully adults know that a lot of what they read on the web is just

not right, and just not true. But kids don't know that, they read it and

think that it says it, it must be true. … There is no editor on the internet

so people can put stuff out there that is just absolutely drop dead wrong."

- Dr. Phil McGraw (Wed. 12-16-09)

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the

strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them

better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,

whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives

valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is

not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually

strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great

devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows

in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he

fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall

never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor

defeat."

- Theodore Roosevelt quotes (American 26th US President (1901-09),

1858-1919)

Don't buy into internet conspiracy theories. Don't buy into the internet equivalent of tabloids.

BTW I have never even met Michael Rood.

I have been accused of having purchased my doctorate from a diploma mill. This is totally false. I earned my degree from St. John Chrysostom Theological Seminary.

Although this was a non-accredited seminary, it is not unusual for Seminaries not to be accredited. Such important figures as Dr. Walter Martin have had doctoral degrees from non-accredited institutions. Many Seminaries choose not to be accredited, because accreditation essentially means government regulation (and the government has no business regulating Seminaries). Generally what are considered “real” accreditation agencies are those recognized by the Department of Education, and those that are not, are often labeled “accreditation mills”. This for a Seminary to be accredited, it must be regulated indirectly by the government.

St. John Chrysostom (now defunct) was not a Diploma Mill. I did not “purchase” my degree, in fact, I was on a 100% scholarship and never paid one penny to the Seminary. The Seminary ended operations in either 1995 or 1997 after its more than 20 year history.

Saint John Chrysostom Theological Seminary was exempted from the State of New Mexico Higher Education Regulations for degree granting and course requirements, due to its religious (to wit: church) status. New Mexico by virtue of exemption and the Religious-Nonprofit status did not disallow or disapprove of the Seminary to operate and function as a authentic ministry of the Catholic Apostolic Church in North America. New Mexico did not prohibit nor approve of theological degrees based on the separation of Church and State issue prevalent at that time. Contrary to claims by slanderers Saint John Chrysostom Theological Seminary never offered anything other than Theological degrees anywhere.

Maybe I've misunderstood a few things here (wouldn't be the first time). I thought your Bible was a translation from the Aramaic (the P-e-s-h-i-t-t-a). If so, how come you put your translation for the Aramaic in footnotes?

Matthew and Hebrews in the HRV are primarily translated from old Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew with Aramaic noted in footnotes.

The Aramaic of the Four Gospels is partly taken from the P-S-H-I-T-T-A.

The extra-Pedangta books of 2Peter, 2Jn, 3Jn and Jude are taken from Greek (for lack of authoritative Aramaic)

The extra-Pedangta book of Revelation is taken from the Crawford Aramaic text.

And at the ninth hour, Yeshua cried with a loud voice, and said: My

El, My El, why have you forsaken Me?

(Matt. 27:46 HRV)

A Footnote reads:

Psalm 22:2(22:1); The Hebrew of DuTillet has "forgotten" see Psalm

42:10(42:9) Shem Tob and Quinquarbos have ”forsaken me” in agreement

with Ps. 22:2(22:1). Munster and the Aramaic (Old Syriac and Pedangta)

has ”forsaken me”. Most Greek and Latin manuscripts have SABACHTHANI

(a transliteration) however Greek Codex D and the Old Latin have

“Zapthani”. See also note to Mark 15:34.

The Parallel passage in Mark 15:34 has:

And in the ninth hour, Yeshua cried out with a loud voice and said:

<El, El l’mana sh’vaktani, which is,> My Eloah, My Eloah, why have You

forsaken Me?

(Mark 14:34 HRV)

A Footnote reads:

Obviously quoting Ps. 22:1 (22:2). The Aramaic phrase l’mana sh’

vaktani could also be understood as “for this you have kept me”. See

note to Mt. 27:46.

(In the HRV <> indicate passages which appear in the Pedangta but not

in the older Old Syriac Version)

Regarding the Holocaust, I am aware of TWI's past issues, and it is an

issue near and dear to my heart. My children's grandmother (who

recently passed away) was a Holocaust survivor. WNAE is the Worldwide

Nazarene Assembly of Elohim. We are a "Messianic Jewish" group seeking

to restore the ancient sect of the Nazarenes as mentioned by the so-

called "Church Fathers". The first believers in Yeshua were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes"

or in Hebrew "Netzarim" (Acts 24:5).

The "church father" Jerome (4th Cent.) described these Nazarenes as

those "...who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to

observe the old Law." (Jerome; On. Is. 8:14).

Elsewhere he writes:

Today there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the

East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans,and which is still

condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called

'Nazarenes'; they believe that Messiah, the son of God, was born of

the Virgin Miriam, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under

Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe."

(Jerome; Letter 75 Jerome to Augustine)

The fourth century "church father" Epiphanius gives a more detailed

description:

But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians--but

"Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not

only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews

do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as

the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion-- except for their

belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the

resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and

declare that G-d is one, and that his son is Yeshua the Messiah. They

are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the

Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely

are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from

Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because

they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered

by the Law--circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in

accord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the

Goodnews according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is

clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was

originally written. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

We maintain that Yeshua came to be the Jewish Messiah of Judaism rather then to create a new religion.

Ironically Nazarene Judaism is/was also known as "The Way".

Acts 24:5 reads:

"For we have found this man to be one who is corrupt and stirs up

sedition among all the Jews in all Ha-Eretz (The Land). For he is a

leader of the teaching of the Nazarenes."

(Acts 24:5 ? HRV from the Aramaic Pedangta)

The Greek has "sect" in pace of "teaching".

Then in Acts 24:14 Paul responds to this accusation saying:

"…this I do confess, that in the same teaching about which they are

speaking, I serve [Elohim]?"

(Acts 24:14 ? HRV from the Aramaic Pedangta)

Now while book of Acts was originally written in Aramaic, the only

surviving witness to that original Aramaic text in Aramaic is the

Pedangta (and a few quotations by Syriac "Church Fathers") the more

primitive Old Syriac Aramaic text of Acts has not survived.

We do have indirect witnesses to that text through the Western type

text of Acts preserved in the Western Type Greek manuscripts, and in

the Old Latin. While the Greek is not the original language of Acts,

it can preserve original readings not preserved in the Pedangta, in

much the same way that the LXX can sometimes preserve original

readings which have not survived in the Masoretic Text. In this case

the word "The Way" (a single word in Aramaic) has been omitted from

the Aramaic Pedangta version of Acts, but it is almost certainly

original, since it appears in all other versions of Acts.

The Original Aramaic of Acts most probably read:

"…this I do confess, in this Way, the teaching about which they are

speaking, I serve [Elohim]?"

(Acts 24:14 as it must have read in the original Aramaic)

Here it is clearly stated by Paul that "The Way" is a synonym for "The

Teaching/Sect of the Nazarenes".

So if we can better understand how "The Way" is used, we will better

understand how the term "Nazarenes" was understood.

The term "The Way" is used to describe believers in Acts 9:2 and Acts

22:4 (which actually recaps the events of Acts 9:2).

Both the Qumran community, and John quoted Is. 40:3 as being a

prophecy foretelling of their work (Mt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk. 3:4; Jn

1:23; Dam. Doc. viii, 12-14; ix, 20). This verse appears in most New

Testaments as:

The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

"Prepare the way of the Lord;

make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

However, the cantor markings in the Masoretic Text give us the

understanding:

The voice of one crying

"In the wilderness prepare the way of YHWH;

make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim."

As a result of their use of this verse, both John and the Essenes of

the Qumran community referred to themselves as being "in the

wilderness" and both the Essene Qumran community and the early

believers in Yeshua called their movement "The Way". (Mt. 3:3; Mk.

1:3; Lk. 3:4; Jn 1:23; Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14 compared to Manual of

Discipline viii, 12-14; ix, 17-22).

In Acts we read about Paul just before he became a believer in Messiah:

Now Shaul was yet full of the threat and anger of murder

against the talmidim of our Adon. And he asked for letters

from the Chief Cohen to give to Darm'suk (Damascus)

to the synagogues, that if he should find any who follow in

this way, men or women, he might bind and bring them

to Yerushalayim.

(Acts 9:1-2)

Now why would Shaul want to go to Damascus to pursue the followers of

Yeshua?

Damascus was the capitol of Essene Judaism as laid out in the

"Damascus Document" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The first

Essenes "...went out of the land of Judah and dwelt in the land of

Damascus..." (Damascus Document 6, 5)

As we have demonstrated so many times before (and this is a whole

separate article) the first followers of Yeshua were from the Essenes.

Now while on his way to Damascus Paul encounters the resurrected

Yeshua and himself becomes a believer in Yeshua as the Messiah (Acts

9:3-7). As instructed by Yeshua, Paul enters Damascus and makes

contact with the followers of Yeshua there (Acts 9:8-19). In his

letter to the Galatians Paul describes these events as follows:

And I did not go to Yerushaliyim to the emissaries who

were before me, but I went to Arabia and again returned

to Darm'suk (Damascus), and after three years, I went

to Yerushalayim to seek Kefa and remained with him

fifteen days.

(Gal. 1:17-18)

Why did Paul remain for three years in Damascus? Because it took

three years to be fully admitted into the Essene community. As

Josephus writes:

"But now if any one has a mind to come over to their sect, he is not

immediately admitted, but he is prescribed the same method of living

which they use for a year, while he continues excluded'; and they give

him also a small hatchet, and the fore-mentioned girdle, and the white

garment. And when he has given evidence, during that time, that he can

observe their continence, he approaches nearer to their way of living,

and is made a partaker of the waters of purification; yet is he not

even now admitted to live with them; for after this demonstration of

his fortitude, his temper is tried two more years; and if he appear to

be worthy, they then admit him into their society."

(Wars 2:8:7)

Paul went through the entire process of learning the ins and outs of

Essene Judaism. These studies also shaped Paul's thinking. There are

several Parallels between Paul's teachings and the Essene teachings at

Qumran.

The important point I want to make here is that the term "The Way" was

originally a euphemism for Essene Judaism and became a euphemism for

Nazarene Judaism as an offshoot of Essene Judaism. Thus "Nazarene" is

clearly a designation of a Jewish sect, just as the Essenes, Pharisees

and Sadducees were also Jewish sects.

It is important to realize that the term “The Way” is drawn from the Torah itself, in which “The Way” is clearly identified as being the Torah and the commandments.

And YHWH said unto me: Arise, get you down quickly from hence, for your people

that you have brought forth out of Egypt have dealt corruptly. They are quickly turned

aside out of THE WAY which I commanded them: they have made them a molten image.

(Deut. 9:12)

For if you shall diligently keep all this commandment which I command you, to do it,

to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in all HIS WAYS and to cleave unto Him,

Then will YHWH drive out all these nations from before you, and you shall

dispossess nations greater and mightier than yourselves.

Every place whereon the sole of your foot shall tread, shall be yours: from the

wilderness and the L’vanon, from the river--the river Euphrates--even unto the hinder sea

shall be your border.

There shall no man be able to stand against you. YHWH your Elohim shall lay the

fear of you and the dread of you, upon all the land that you shall tread upon, as He has

spoken unto you.

Behold, I set before you this day, a blessing and a curse:

he blessing, if you shall hearken unto the commandments of YHWH your Elohim,

which I command you this day.

And the curse, if you shall not hearken unto the commandments of YHWH your

Elohim, but turn aside out of THE WAY which I command you this day, to go after other

gods, which you have not known.

(Deut. 11:22-28)

See, I have set before you this day, life and good, and death and evil,

In that I command you this day to love YHWH your Elohim, to walk in His WAYS,

and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His ordinances; then you shall live

and multiply. And YHWH your Elohim shall bless you, in the land where you go in to

possess it.

(Deut. 30:15-16)

Scripture also tells us that Messiah himself is “The Way” (Jn. 14:6).

To begin with we must understand that this Assembly is also known as the "Body of Messiah" as we read:

"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,

the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the

preeminence."

(Col. 1:18 - KJV)

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head

over all things to the church,

Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all."

(Eph. 1:22-23 - KJV)

Now one may ask what "Assembly" is the allegorical Messiah? To find the answer to that question lets look at Matthew 2:14-15:

"When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and

departed into Egypt:

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled

which was spoken of the Lord

by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. "

(Matthew 2:14-15 - KJV)

Now here Matthew is citing a prophecy in Hosea 11:1 and applying it to Messiah. Now let us go back and look at this prophecy in Hosea 11:1 in context:

"When Israel was a child, then I loved him,

and called my son out of Egypt."

(Hosea 11:1 - KJV)

Here Hosea is referring to Israel as the son who is called out of Egypt. This points us back to a passage in the Torah:

"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go,

behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

(Ex. 4:22-23 - KJV)

From these two passages we learn that Israel is the firstborn son of Elohim who is called out of Egypt. However in Matthew it is Yeshua the Messiah who is called up out of Egypt and in Col. 1:18 Messiah is the "firstborn". Moreover Hebrews speaks of the "church of the firstborn" (Heb. 12:23 - KJV).

Thus Israel is allegorically equivalent to the Messiah. Messiah is “The Way” and His true Assembly, the Assembly of Israel, is also “The Way”.

The Way in the Scriptures is a Torah Observant sect of Judaism known as “Nazarene” with roots in Essene Judaism.

Ironically also the Aramaic (Syriac) New Testament is originally a Nazarene Jewish document. Eusebius writes of The second century Nazarene writer Gish’fa (Heggissipus) him:

And he quotes some passages from The Gospel according to

the Hebrews and from ‘The Syriac’, and some particulars from

the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was … from the Hebrews,

and he mentions other matters as taken from the oral tradition

of the Jews.”

(Eccl. Hist. 4:22)

As for the court case I will just say that at the moment, in the interest of peacemaking we have high hopes of working out something mutually acceptable with TWI. So while we do have a case to make (concerning the HRV), I will not make it here at this time while that hope is alive.

You're not gonna be singing Kumbaya , nor working together with them on symposiums--that aint gonna happen either..

I understand your position but the way I see it you're still gonna get nailed and then be at the mercy of the court

The Way is an insulated isolated corporation that has only one real doctrinal language ($$$$$).

What are their demands? How much do they want?

Why dont you negotiate a counter offer and be done with this headache?

Everyday that it drags on it costs them more and you more. They probably dont want to deal with (pay for ) this anymore than you do.

You might get off lighter now if you negotiate a settlement than if you carry this through to the end and lose which it looks to me like you will...

"Blessed [are] the peacemakers..."

(Matt. 5:9 AEINT)

:-)

No in the 1969 case the court ruled that the courts could not hear the case.

What do I want? Well ideally TWI and WNAE could resolve our differences between the two of us outside of the court system.

If I can't have that I would like the Bill of Rights to be upheld., and the Court to recognize that it cannot hear a property dispute between two establishments of religion that would require the court to consider, weigh or interpret doctrine (including the very words of the HRV Bible as it is written) or resolve doctrinal disputes).

If the Bill of Rights is not upheld, then I want the court to find that the HRV is an independent original translation, that similarities with the AEINT are within the bounds of the legal doctrine of merger and that any use the HRV might make of the AEINT is within the four criteria of the fair use law and by virtue of an implied license.

But wouldn't it be nice if we could just get together with the TWI and resolve our problems between us. Maybe even have a community bridges of understanding event together next year at Holocaust Remembrance Day, or a joint Aramaic Studies Symposium...

And then we could all stand around together and sing Kum Ba Yah together :-)

WDYT?

No you dont seem to get it.

Nobody is going to ask you about or make a determination of what you must believe concerning the nature of Christ or any other doctrinal issue that you OR The Way hold.

You base your whole case on a logical phallacy that translating a text is interpretation of scriptural doctrine--which is not even close...Yourself and The Way may view the same text and come up with doctrine that is miles apart (and probably do).

You can twist, finagle and obfusticate anyway you like but just because you do not want to accept what you are being offered does not make it any less true.

We maintain that Elohim actually inspired the Bible and so it actually has a meaning before anyone expounds it (the meaning He intended to communicate) and that makes its very words doctrine.

You don't have to agree with our view, you just have to accept that those of us who accept the very words of the Bible as doctrine, have constitutional protection for our doctrine. That the rulings the US Supreme court have made that prevent the courts form considering, weighing and interpreting doctrine, or resolving doctrinal disputes apply to the every words of our Bible as it is wruitten as our doctrine.

You don't get it, every word of the Bible is doctrine. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious

text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.

Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just

interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness

to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.

Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation

involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and

interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as

possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves

not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of

God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most

fundamental level.

BTW you don't have to agree with those of us who regard the actual words of the Bible as doctrine, you just have to agree that those Establishments of Religion who do hold that the very words of the Bible are doctrine have a constitutionally protected doctrine.

In other words the Establishment Clause also prohibits the court from determining that the actual words of our Bible as it is written is not doctrine. Only an Establishment of Religion can determine what their own doctrine is.

No you dont seem to get it.

Nobody is going to ask you about or make a determination of what you must believe concerning the nature of Christ or any other doctrinal issue that you OR The Way hold.

You base your whole case on a logical phallacy that translating a text is interpretation of scriptural doctrine--which is not even close...Yourself and The Way may view the same text and come up with doctrine that is miles apart (and probably do).

You can twist, finagle and obfusticate anyway you like but just because you do not want to accept what you are being offered does not make it any less true.

You don't get it, every word of the Bible is doctrine. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious

text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.

Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just

interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness

to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.

Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation

involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and

interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as

possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves

not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of

God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most

fundamental level.

BTW you don't have to agree with those of us who regard the actual words of the Bible as doctrine, you just have to agree that those Establishments of Religion who do hold that the very words of the Bible are doctrine have a constitutionally protected doctrine.

1. That the court cannot hear a property dispute between two Establishments of Religion if doing so requires the court to engage in the unconstitutional activities of considering doctrine, weighting doctrine, interpreting doctrine, or resolving doctrinal issues.

I highly doubt that doctrine will play any role in this.

It's all a matter of whether one party "borrowed" from the work of another or not.

The meaning of the work in question is of little significance in relation to the decision.

You don't seem to get it.

Bible translation is Scripture interpretation

Scripture interpretation is doctrine

therefore Bible translation is doctrine

(this is a categorical sylagism)

Therefore if Bible translation plays any role in this, doctrine plays a role in it.

This is not brain surgery.

Yes I believe the court will set aside all doctrinal issues and "not rule" on any of those and view your case as a pure copyright infringement case.

In order to do so they will look at the words in question without regard to what you (or the Way) say about doctrine.

If you bring it up doctrine, the judge will simply tell you to desist, looking instead to the amount of material borrowed.

I'll assume it's enough to gain attention from the Way, so it's probably signifigant.

If you try to make doctrine a point, the Way's lawyers will object. The Judge will uphold their objection and proceed with the case.

I'd make preparations for that if I were you, and I wouldn't count on making it a doctrinal case. Maybe later on you can appeal it.

But a lower court will not allow itself to become entangled, they'll find you guilty and let you appeal.

That's quite common on any touchy cases. Let a Higher court decide.

Even if they let you speak on "Doctrine",... don't delude yourself into thinking they will decide on that basis in a Lower court.

OK you are almost there. There are really only two major points that my First Amendment jurisdiction argument turns on:

1. That the court cannot hear a property dispute between two Establishments of Religion if doing so requires the court to engage in the unconstitutional activities of considering doctrine, weighting doctrine, interpreting doctrine, or resolving doctrinal issues.

2. Bible translation is Scripture interpretation and Scripture interpretation is doctrine.

3. Therefore in resolving this property dispute the court would be required to consider Bible translation, weigh Bible Translation, interpret (translate) the Bible itself and resolve issues of Bible translation in order to determine if a copyright infringement has occurred, this the court is constitutionally barred from hearing this case.

Below is a much more in depth explanation of why Bible translation is doctrine and how the court would be in unconstitutional territory in hearing this case.

TWI refers to the AEINT as a “New Testament” which is a “translation” of the

“Aramaic text” and as “religious educational material” derived from “religious education service”

as part of TWI’s “biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry.” Clearly, “religious

education material” and “religious education services” which are part of the “teaching” of a

“ministry” are doctrine by the very definition of the word. The Bible is doctrine to a “biblical

research, teaching and fellowship ministry” by definition. If a ministry’s “teaching” and

“religious educational services/materials” are not its doctrine then the word “doctrine” can have

no meaningful definition. (The Concordance to the Pedangta Version of the Aramaic New

Testament p. 156a word no. 1262; published by TWI gives the words “teaching” and “doctrine”

as alternate translations of the same Aramaic word in the Scriptures) Moreover, “translation” is a

form of interpretation. The two words are synonyms, a “translator” is an “interpreter” because

“translation” is “interpretation.” Therefore translation of the Aramaic New Testament is by its

very nature Scripture interpretation on the most fundamental level, and thus is doctrine. Scripture

interpretation is doctrine. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), at footnote 1, the Supreme

Court identifies the Seventh-Day Adventist’s “interpretation of the Holy Bible” as doctrine and

implicating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thus by the face of TWI’s pleading, the Court’s determination of this suit hinges upon

resolving a dispute between two religious groups over how doctrine may be worded because

determination in this suit hinges upon the interpretation of Scripture and particularly the wording

of the Bible. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious

text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.

Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just

interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness

to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.

Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation

involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and

interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as

possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves

not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of

God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most

fundamental level.

Plaintiff contends that the Defendants’ translation agrees too closely with their own

translation and thus that the Defendants’ translation infringes on their copyright. Plaintiff admits

that the AEINT and the HRV are not identical when Plaintiff says the HRV contains what

Plaintiff calls “word substitutions throughout.” (Defendants maintain there are many other

differences beyond “word substitutions; however, Plaintiff’s statement admits that the two

versions are not actually identical). Plaintiff in effect contends that the copyright law would

forbid Defendants from interpreting the New Testament in a manner that is similar but not

identical to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends therefore that the copyright law may be used to prohibit

Defendants from holding to “doctrine” that is similar but not identical to Plaintiff’s doctrine.

Thus, although AEINT is property, it is also Scripture interpretation and doctrine and the Court is

barred from determining ecclesiastical questions (Scripture interpretation and doctrine) in

resolving property disputes pursuant to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and U.S.

Supreme Court case law. Thus, the Court is barred from determining if Mr. Trimm and SANJ

may interpret/translate Scripture in a given way in resolving this property dispute. Plaintiff

therefore is asking the Court to settle a dispute between two religions concerning just how a

sacred religious text may be interpreted. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear

TWI’s claims because to do so would require the court to evaluate and scrutinize, consider and

weigh interpretations of a religious text by two religions and resolve if Defendants may or may

not interpret the Bible in a given way. The Court would be asked to weigh and consider line by

line whether Defendant’s doctrine necessitates translating a given word or phrase in a given way

and even whether Defendants’ doctrine would permit translating a given word or phrase in

another way, or even whether the guidance of the Holy Spirit would allow Defendant to translate

or interpret a word or phrase in another manner. Only Defendants may determine their own

doctrine. The Aramaic text of the New Testament is doctrine, the interpretation of the Aramaic

Scripture into English is doctrine, and the guiding criteria used to choose which words and

phrases with which to interpret the Aramaic Scripture into English is doctrine. Ultimately the

decision to interpret the Aramaic Scripture in a given way is a doctrinal decision guided by the

Holy Spirit. The Court would thus be asked to weigh and consider doctrine in resolving this

property dispute. The Court would also be asked to forbid one religion from interpreting the

Bible in a given way, while allowing another religion that same interpretation, in violation of the

First Amendment.

The First Amendment requires that courts “decide church property disputes without

resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” Presbyterian Church in the United

States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440,448. The Supreme Court

has recognized three methods of accomplishing this goal, only one of which is relevant in this

case. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 396

U.S. 367.

The first method is Deference to Hierarchical Decision-Making Body. Civil courts may

follow Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13Wall.) 679 (1871), and its progeny, in deferring to the

decision making authorities of hierarchical churches. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of

Churches of God at 368. Through this approach the court avoids entanglement in religious issues

by accepting the decision of the established decision making body of the religious organization.

This method cannot be applied to the present case, because Plaintiff and Defendant have never

shared a mutually recognized Hierarchical Decision-Making Body.

The second method is to apply neutral principles of law. Id. at 370. However, the

Neutral Principle cannot be applied in this case because the property in question is itself doctrine,

i.e., the Bible. Normally a copyright case would be resolved largely by comparing and

scrutinizing the works in question. In this case, however, this would involve scrutinizing

Defendants’ Spirit led interpretation of Scripture (and therefore Defendants’ doctrine) which

would by its very nature fall outside the bounds of neutral principles of law. The U. S. Supreme

Court states in relation to this method that it may be used only “so long as it involves no

consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.”

Id. at 368. And “general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their application

requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues.” Id. at 370. The Court cannot determine by

Neutral Principles the legitimacy of Defendants’ interpretation of Scripture or his guidance by the

Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Court cannot determine through Neutral Principle if Defendants are

permitted to interpret Scripture in a given manner. Defendant’s translation choice, in each and

every instance, is by definition, Defendant’s interpretation of Scripture, and is therefore by

definition defendant’s doctrine as he was guided by the Holy Spirit. Any analysis of Defendants’

interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an analysis of Defendants’ doctrine and guidance

by the Holy Spirit, and this violates the very bounds envisioned by the First Amendment as it has

been upheld by the U. S, Supreme Court. Such an analysis would cross the line described by the

U.S. Supreme Court as “the forbidden process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine.”

Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 451. If the “Neutral Principle” could allow

the Court to consider, analyze, weigh and scrutinize doctrine and forbid one religious group from

interpreting Scripture in a given way, while permitting another to do so, then the Establishment

Clause of the First Amendment itself would become in effect nullified by “Neutral Principle.” In

this situation Neutral Principles cannot be applied, because they cannot be applied where the

would require the court to “engage in consideration of doctrinal matters”; “resolve doctrinal

disputes” or “interpreting or weighing church doctrine”. Thus the Court is prohibited from: 1)

Consideration of doctrinal matters; 2) Interpreting church doctrine; 3) Weighing church doctrine;

and 4)Resolving doctrinal disputes.

This very case is a dispute between two churches over how one church may interpret its

Scriptures and would require the court to engage in consideration of doctrinal matters. Hearing

this case would itself be “consideration of doctrinal matters” because the translation of Scripture

is the interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture is clearly a doctrinal matter.

Hearing this case would also involve the court interpreting church doctrine in that the court would

be hearing testimony and considering evidence as to other possible translation options as well as

instances where witnesses would testify that a given translation is erroneous or awkward. This

would place the Court in the situation of itself “interpreting” these Scriptures. The Court is

clearly barred from determining whether or not a Church’s Spirit led interpretation of Scripture is

erroneous or awkward, rather than Spirit led. The court would also be asked to engage in

weighing of church doctrine. ‘Weighing’ implies a judgment rooted in comparing two or more

things. In this case the court would be weighing church doctrine in that it would be comparing

two translations and therefore weighing interpretations of Scripture. Also, the court ultimately in

this case would be asked effectively to resolve doctrinal disputes because here we have a dispute

between two ministries over how the Defendant Church may interpret Scripture and render its

doctrine through the interpretation Scripture. The copyright law cannot be used to forbid one

religious group from interpreting Scripture in a specific way, while allowing another to do so

without violating the First Amendment itself. Therefore Neutral Principles cannot be used in this

case, because hearing this case would require the court to engage in the very activities which the

US Supreme Court has specifically excluded from Neutral Principles.

In Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church 393 U.S. 440 (1969) the Court unanimously (9-0) decided that the Superior Court overstepped its constitutional powers by involving itself in this dispute.

In the 1970 case ((MD. & VA. Churches v. Sharpsburg CH., 396 U.S. 367, 368-370 (1970)) the Court did rule on the property dispute, but also held that it could not have done so if doing so would have required the court to consider matters of doctrine, saying "general principles of property law may NOT be relied upon if their application requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues. For example, provisions in deeds or in a denomination's constitution for the reversion of local church property to the general church, if conditioned upon a finding of departure from doctrine, could not be civilly enforced."

The First Amendment’s mandate, “Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been consistently

recognized and upheld by the courts of this country to require the government to refrain from

interfering with religious organizations with respect to matters of their doctrine. U.S. Const.

Amend. I.

In 1872, the U.S. Supreme Court made the following observations:

In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice

any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate

the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is

conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no

dogma, the establishment of no sect. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679.

While TWI claims that the AEINT is “property” it is clear on the face of their complaint

that the AEINT is also doctrine in that it is “religious education material” of TWI’s “ministry” as

well as the translation (and therefore interpretation) of Scripture.

As the Supreme Court has observed, religious freedom encompasses the power of

religious bodies to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church

government as well as those of faith and doctrine. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94.

In 1862 the U.S. Supreme Court held in a dispute between Presbyterians and Unitarians

over title to a church meetinghouse in Boston, that there was no subject matter jurisdiction to

permit an appeal from state court. Attorney General v. Federal Street Meeting-house, 66 U.S.

262.

In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Georgia court ruling holding that Civil courts

cannot, consistently with First Amendment principles, determine ecclesiastical questions in

resolving property disputes; and since the departure-from-doctrine element of Georgia's implied

trust theory requires civil courts to weigh the significance and meaning of religious doctrines, it

can play no role in judicial proceedings. Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440.

The U.S. Supreme Court observed in Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church:

It is of course true that the State has a legitimate interest in resolving property

disputes, and that a civil court is a proper forum for that resolution. Special

problems arise, however, when these disputes implicate controversies over church

doctrine and practice. The approach of this Court in such cases was originally

developed in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872), a pre-Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

diversity decision decided before the application of the First Amendment to the

States but nonetheless informed by First Amendment considerations. (fn4) There,

as here, civil courts were asked to resolve a property dispute between a national

Presbyterian organization and local churches of that organization. There, as here,

the disputes arose out of a controversy over church doctrine. There, as here, the

Court was asked to decree the termination of an implied trust because of

departures from doctrine by the national organization. The Watson Court refused,

pointing out that it was wholly inconsistent with the American concept of the

relationship between church and state to permit civil courts to determine

ecclesiastical questions. Id. at 446.

In language which has a clear constitutional ring, the Court went on to further state:

“In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice

any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate

the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is

conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no

dogma, the establishment of no sect. . . . All who unite themselves to such a body

[the general church] do so with an implied consent to [its] government, and are

bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total

subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions

could appeal to the secular courts and have them [sic] reversed. It is of the essence

of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of

questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all

cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism

itself provides for.” 13 Wall., at 728-729.

The logic of this language leaves the courts no role in determining ecclesiastical

questions in the process of resolving property disputes. …Any decisions which

have been made by the general church about the local churches’ withdrawal have

at most a tangential relationship to the state-fashioned departure-from-doctrine

standard. A determination whether such decisions are fraudulent, collusive, or

arbitrary would therefore not answer the questions posed by the state standard. To

reach those questions would require the civil courts to engage in the forbidden

process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine. Even if the general church

had attempted to apply the state standard, the civil courts could not review and

enforce the church decision without violating the Constitution. Presbyterian

Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 446-451 (1969) [Emphasis added].

Justice Brennan further noted in the same case that:

….First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property

litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over

religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such

controversies in order to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever

present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating

secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern. . . . [T]he [First]

Amendment therefore commands civil courts to decide church property disputes

without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine. Id. at 449

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are limited ways to resolve property disputes

between religious bodies. The first is the approach of as articulated in the Watson case:

Thus the States may adopt the approach of Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872),

and enforce the property decisions made within a church of congregational polity

“by a majority of its members or by such other local organism as it may have

instituted for the purpose of ecclesiastical government,” id., at 724, and within a

church of hierarchical polity by the highest authority that has ruled on the dispute

at issue, (fn1) unless “express terms” in the “instrument by which the property is

held” condition the property's use or control in a specified manner. (fn2) Under

Watson civil courts do not inquire whether the relevant church governing body has

power under religious law to control the property in question. Such a

determination, unlike the identification of the governing body, frequently

necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous religious law and usage. To permit

civil courts to probe deeply enough into the allocation of power within a church so

as to decide where religious law places control over the use of church property

would violate the First Amendment in much the same manner as civil

determination of religious doctrine. (fn3) Similarly, where the identity of the

governing body or bodies that exercise general authority within a church is a

matter of substantial controversy, civil courts are not to make the inquiry into

religious law and usage that would be essential to the resolution of the controversy.

In other words, the use of the Watson approach is consonant with the prohibitions

of the First Amendment only if the appropriate church governing body can be

determined without the resolution of doctrinal questions and without extensive

inquiry into religious polity. (MD. & VA. Churches v. Sharpsburg CH., 396 U.S.

367, 368-370 (1970)

The Second approach is that of neutral principles of law, as the Supreme Court continued:

“[N]eutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes,”

Presbyterian Church, at 449, provide another means for resolving litigation over

religious property. Under the “formal title” doctrine, courts can determine

ownership by studying deeds, reverter clauses, and general state corporation laws.

Id. at 370.

The Supreme Court went on to state that the “Neutral Principles of law” cannot be applied

where the State would be resolving “doctrinal issues”:

Again, however, general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their

application requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues. For example,

provisions in deeds or in a denomination's constitution for the reversion of local

church property to the general church, if conditioned upon a finding of departure

from doctrine, could not be civilly enforced. Id. at 370.

Last I checked the copyright law was created by congress and therefore subject to the boundaries Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

[You're going to make an argument that the First Amendment clause of freedom of

religion means you're entitled to infringe copyright?

All I have left to say is, go for it, and let us know what happens.]

It appears you are not familiar with the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment is not a clause, it contains several clauses, two of which pertain to the freedom of religion (others pertain to free speech and free press). The two clauses pertaining to religion are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause forbids congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion.

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the individual to freely exercise religion.

[

My post was a tactical assessment. For fun, I'm an armchair tactician. I look over situations

and make an appraisal of what strategies could lead to victory, and I look over strategies and

assess what they say of the people who chose them.

I can appreciate that. I am a chess player. Anyway this could be settled soon, or it could end up dragging on for years with appeals and so on.

They can hear any plagiarism case whenever they want. Charges of plagiarism or lack thereof

are independent of the content of the plagiarized work. If that's the extent of your defense,

you're going to get spanked by the real lawyers. The LAYMEN here can apparently fry you like a fish.

My post was a tactical assessment. For fun, I'm an armchair tactician. I look over situations

and make an appraisal of what strategies could lead to victory, and I look over strategies and

assess what they say of the people who chose them.

Sun Tzu would have pointed out that tactical assessments are to be made before any conflict,

and victory or defeat should be determined before BEGINNING the conflict. Winners won first on paper,

then went to the conflict, losers went to the conflict THEN tried to win.

There's strategies for use when one is "strong" and strategies for use when one is "weak".

In this case, arguing directly from evidence is "strong" and arguing to dismiss or disregard

evidence is "weak." So far, the "weak" argument is not good enough for a judge to take it

seriously- thus it would be a LOSING argument.

Sun Tzu said that if you were unable to fight "strong" and refused to fight with a winning "weak"

strategy, you would lose. In this case, that means you're smoked meat.

Of course, you're free to ignore everything I've said, and let the judge tell you the same thing

in different words when it will cost you thousands of dollars.

That's the strategic summary. If I can see it, real lawyers and judges can see it, too.

We've had some lengthy discussions here in the past on what is allowed and what is prohibited

under US laws concerning plagiarism. The court will rule on whether your work is plagiarized or

original. If your "argument" is based on anything else, you're going to get filleted.

Actually no. Plagiarism is an academic term, not a legal term. The issue here is copyright infringement.

Plagiarism is also not a Scriptural concept. For example the Synoptic Gospels in modern terms might be accused of "plagiarizing" from one another. 2Peter might be said to have "plagiarized" from Jude. The author of 1&2 Chronicles (traditionally Ezra) might be said to have "plagiarized" from the books of Samuel and Kings. Clearly there was no concept of "plagiarism" among the Biblical authors.

Now there are a LOT of issues involved in Copyright law, that might or might not pertain to so-called "plagiarism", issues such as the legal doctrine of Merger, the Fair Use law, implied license etc.

I made the doctrine argument because first and foremost I want to protect our constitutional rights as an establishment of religion, and our independent rights in the free exercise of religion, to function without interference by the State. It is the equivalent of an innocent man refusing to allow his home or person to be searched without a warrant. I do not believe my forefathers surrendered to the Federal government our Yah given right as an Establishment of Religion and as individual persons in our free exercise of religion to interpret the Scriptures as we see fit.

But yes, we do have a very good affirmative argument that the HRV is an original literal translation made directly from the Aramaic (at times even more literal than the AEINT). We have an argument that any agreements are within the confines of the legal doctrine of merger. We have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was within the four criteria laid out in the legal definition of "Fair Use". We also have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was permitted by an implied license. And on top of this there are a number of First Amendment issued to boot.

The reality, James, is that you could have made your work say the same thing using different words, because (as you said) sometimes you went a bit more "literal" in your translation. I don't know why you went the doctrine route, unless it was a justification for plagiarizing

I made the doctrine argument because first and foremost I want to protect our constitutional rights as an establishment of religion, and our independent rights in the free exercise of religion, to function without interference by the State. It is the equivalent of an innocent man refusing to allow his home or person to be searched without a warrant. I do not believe my forefathers surrendered to the Federal government our Yah given right as an Establishment of Religion and as individual persons in our free exercise of religion to interpret the Scriptures as we see fit.

But yes, we do have a very good affirmative argument that the HRV is an original literal translation made directly from the Aramaic (at times even more literal than the AEINT). We have an argument that any agreements are within the confines of the legal doctrine of merger. We have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was within the four criteria laid out in the legal definition of "Fair Use". We also have an argument that to any degree that it may be argued that the HRV may have relied on the AEINT was permitted by an implied license. And on top of this there are a number of First Amendment issued to boot.

For everyone except James Trimm, this is very simple.

Party A (the way international, known criminal cartel)

has claimed that Party B (James Trimm)

has plagiarized a written work of theirs, and has sued over it.

Party B has 2 possible responses.

1) "I produced this work independently and I shall demonstrate how I did it!"

This indicates he honestly put in the work and can show some of it.

2) "I shall obfuscate the issues, and debate the meaning of the word 'is'."

This indicates he honestly did NOT put in the work and is trying to fog

the issues as much as possible.

Looks like we're seeing a clear example of Scenario 2.

Actually the first question is: can the court hear the case without violating a little thing called the Constitution of the United States of America.

Regardless of whether item 1 is true, its frankly none of the Governments business if its none of the Governments business constitutionally.

Your logic is like saying that only a guilty person would not want his home searched without a warrant.

Hi Shift

I hope that you stick around! Its great to remeber why I left.

They (the bible study folks) got in a hit and run accident with a neighbors car if you read the article.. as they had no parking and were creating a public nuisance ...I suppose that you wouldnt mind getting your car destroyed or your driveway blocked as long as whoever did it was at a bible study?

You can say whatever you want, but when you start being criminally negligent, bible study or no you are still subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else in your community. Your interpretation of the bible may give you some special exemption to be any kind of a-hole that you want to be, but in the real world there are requirements to at least be civil to your neighbors. You cant run a crackhouse, in many communities you cant run abusiness out of your home and in many other communities you cant have 20 cars show up at your house unless you have made legal arrangements for safe parking. THAT group didn't, was given a chance and refused---the only 'witness' that bible study gave to the community was that they were a bunch of self centered arrogant pr*cks

First of all we are not talking about civil neglect or running a crackhouse. Although there is a parallel to the crackhouse in that there was an American Indian Tribe that used an illegal hallucinogenic drug (Peyote) as part of their religion, The Supreme Court has ruled that they are not "subject to the same rules and laws as everyone else" when they use peyote in their religion.

Here the issue is itself Scripture interpretation, because Bible translation is Scripture interpretation and Scripture interpretation is doctrine. In the past the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the courts cannot hear property disputes (copyrights are property) between two religions if doing so would require the court to consider doctrine, weigh doctrine, interpret doctrine or resolve doctrinal issues. The Government cannot regulate the interpretation of the Scriptures and therefore the copyright law cannot be applied in such a way as to allow the government to regulate the interpretation of the Scriptures. The Establishment Clause forbids the government from allowing one religion to interpret Scripture in a certain way while forbidding another religion from using the same interpretation.

The Way International (“TWI”) filed this suit under the Court’s Copyright jurisdiction,

seeking recovery of damages and an injunction against James Scott Trimm and SANJ, for alleged

copyright infringement and other related causes of action in relation to the Aramaic English

Interlinear New Testament (“AEINT”).

The Way International (“TWI”) filed this suit, under the Court’s copyright law

jurisdiction, seeking recovery of damages from and injunction against The Society for the

Advancement of Nazarene Judaism (“SANJ”) and its president, James Scott Trimm. TWI claims

copyright infringement by James Scott Trimm and SANJ. TWI states in their Original

Complaint: “8. TWI is a non denominational biblical research, teaching and fellowship

ministry…. TWI has provided religious educational services… since its inception. 9. As a

provider of religious educational services, TWI has produced a wide range of religious education

materials…. 10. Among TWI’s published materials is the three-volume Aramaic-English

Interlinear New Testament (the “AEINT”)…. 13. …the AEINT shows three texts of the New

Testament side by side… The left-hand page is divided into two columns. The right column is

TWI’s word-by-word translation of its Aramaic text…. 22. Defendant Trimm has made certain

limited word substitutions throughout the HRV for the words used by TWI in the AEINT….”

Original Complaint ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 13, 22.

TWI refers to the AEINT as a “New Testament” which is a “translation” of the

“Aramaic text” and as “religious educational material” derived from “religious education service”

as part of TWI’s “biblical research, teaching and fellowship ministry.” Clearly, “religious

education material” and “religious education services” which are part of the “teaching” of a

“ministry” are doctrine by the very definition of the word. The Bible is doctrine to a “biblical

research, teaching and fellowship ministry” by definition. If a ministry’s “teaching” and

“religious educational services/materials” are not its doctrine then the word “doctrine” can have

no meaningful definition. (The Concordance to the Pedangta Version of the Aramaic New

Testament p. 156a word no. 1262; published by TWI gives the words “teaching” and “doctrine”

as alternate translations of the same Aramaic word in the Scriptures) Moreover, “translation” is a

form of interpretation. The two words are synonyms, a “translator” is an “interpreter” because

“translation” is “interpretation.” Therefore translation of the Aramaic New Testament is by its

very nature Scripture interpretation on the most fundamental level, and thus is doctrine. Scripture

interpretation is doctrine. In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), at footnote 1, the Supreme

Court identifies the Seventh-Day Adventist’s “interpretation of the Holy Bible” as doctrine and

implicating the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thus by the face of TWI’s pleading, the Court’s determination of this suit hinges upon

resolving a dispute between two religious groups over how doctrine may be worded because

determination in this suit hinges upon the interpretation of Scripture and particularly the wording

of the Bible. Translation of the Bible is by its very nature the interpretation of a sacred religious

text. At issue in this suit is the translation of the Ancient Aramaic New Testament version.

Scripture interpretation and therefore Bible translation by the Bible believer is not just

interpreting a Scripture simply by examining the text itself, but by reading the text with openness

to the mind of God and the Holy Spirit. See, 1 Cor. 2:12-16; James 1:5; and 1 John 2:27.

Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion. Bible translation

involves examining words and phrases in a biblical language (in this case Aramaic) and

interpreting these with English words and phrases that have as close to the same meaning as

possible to the source words and phrases. When the Believer engages in this process, it involves

not only an examination of the text itself, but interpreting this text with openness to the mind of

God and the Holy Spirit. The result is Scripture interpretation and therefore doctrine on the most

fundamental level.

Plaintiff contends that the Defendants’ translation agrees too closely with their own

translation and thus that the Defendants’ translation infringes on their copyright. Plaintiff admits

that the AEINT and the HRV are not identical when Plaintiff says the HRV contains what

Plaintiff calls “word substitutions throughout.” (Defendants maintain there are many other

differences beyond “word substitutions; however, Plaintiff’s statement admits that the two

versions are not actually identical). Plaintiff in effect contends that the copyright law would

forbid Defendants from interpreting the New Testament in a manner that is similar but not

identical to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends therefore that the copyright law may be used to prohibit

Defendants from holding to “doctrine” that is similar but not identical to Plaintiff’s doctrine.

Thus, although AEINT is property, it is also Scripture interpretation and doctrine and the Court is

barred from determining ecclesiastical questions (Scripture interpretation and doctrine) in

resolving property disputes pursuant to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and U.S.

Supreme Court case law. Thus, the Court is barred from determining if Mr. Trimm and SANJ

may interpret/translate Scripture in a given way in resolving this property dispute. Plaintiff

therefore is asking the Court to settle a dispute between two religions concerning just how a

sacred religious text may be interpreted. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear

TWI’s claims because to do so would require the court to evaluate and scrutinize, consider and

weigh interpretations of a religious text by two religions and resolve if Defendants may or may

not interpret the Bible in a given way. The Court would be asked to weigh and consider line by

line whether Defendant’s doctrine necessitates translating a given word or phrase in a given way

and even whether Defendants’ doctrine would permit translating a given word or phrase in

another way, or even whether the guidance of the Holy Spirit would allow Defendant to translate

or interpret a word or phrase in another manner. Only Defendants may determine their own

doctrine. The Aramaic text of the New Testament is doctrine, the interpretation of the Aramaic

Scripture into English is doctrine, and the guiding criteria used to choose which words and

phrases with which to interpret the Aramaic Scripture into English is doctrine. Ultimately the

decision to interpret the Aramaic Scripture in a given way is a doctrinal decision guided by the

Holy Spirit. The Court would thus be asked to weigh and consider doctrine in resolving this

property dispute. The Court would also be asked to forbid one religion from interpreting the

Bible in a given way, while allowing another religion that same interpretation, in violation of the

First Amendment.

The First Amendment requires that courts “decide church property disputes without

resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine.” Presbyterian Church in the United

States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440,448. The Supreme Court

has recognized three methods of accomplishing this goal, only one of which is relevant in this

case. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 396

U.S. 367.

The first method is Deference to Hierarchical Decision-Making Body. Civil courts may

follow Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13Wall.) 679 (1871), and its progeny, in deferring to the

decision making authorities of hierarchical churches. Maryland & Virginia Eldership of

Churches of God at 368. Through this approach the court avoids entanglement in religious issues

by accepting the decision of the established decision making body of the religious organization.

This method cannot be applied to the present case, because Plaintiff and Defendant have never

shared a mutually recognized Hierarchical Decision-Making Body.

The second method is to apply neutral principles of law. Id. at 370. However, the

Neutral Principle cannot be applied in this case because the property in question is itself doctrine,

i.e., the Bible. Normally a copyright case would be resolved largely by comparing and

scrutinizing the works in question. In this case, however, this would involve scrutinizing

Defendants’ Spirit led interpretation of Scripture (and therefore Defendants’ doctrine) which

would by its very nature fall outside the bounds of neutral principles of law. The U. S. Supreme

Court states in relation to this method that it may be used only “so long as it involves no

consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.”

Id. at 368. And “general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their application

requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues.” Id. at 370. The Court cannot determine by

Neutral Principles the legitimacy of Defendants’ interpretation of Scripture or his guidance by the

Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Court cannot determine through Neutral Principle if Defendants are

permitted to interpret Scripture in a given manner. Defendant’s translation choice, in each and

every instance, is by definition, Defendant’s interpretation of Scripture, and is therefore by

definition defendant’s doctrine as he was guided by the Holy Spirit. Any analysis of Defendants’

interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an analysis of Defendants’ doctrine and guidance

by the Holy Spirit, and this violates the very bounds envisioned by the First Amendment as it has

been upheld by the U. S, Supreme Court. Such an analysis would cross the line described by the

U.S. Supreme Court as “the forbidden process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine.”

Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 451. If the “Neutral Principle” could allow

the Court to consider, analyze, weigh and scrutinize doctrine and forbid one religious group from

interpreting Scripture in a given way, while permitting another to do so, then the Establishment

Clause of the First Amendment itself would become in effect nullified by “Neutral Principle.” In

this situation Neutral Principles cannot be applied, because they cannot be applied where the

would require the court to “engage in consideration of doctrinal matters”; “resolve doctrinal

disputes” or “interpreting or weighing church doctrine”. Thus the Court is prohibited from: 1)

Consideration of doctrinal matters; 2) Interpreting church doctrine; 3) Weighing church doctrine;

and 4)Resolving doctrinal disputes.

This very case is a dispute between two churches over how one church may interpret its

Scriptures and would require the court to engage in consideration of doctrinal matters. Hearing

this case would itself be “consideration of doctrinal matters” because the translation of Scripture

is the interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture is clearly a doctrinal matter.

Hearing this case would also involve the court interpreting church doctrine in that the court would

be hearing testimony and considering evidence as to other possible translation options as well as

instances where witnesses would testify that a given translation is erroneous or awkward. This

would place the Court in the situation of itself “interpreting” these Scriptures. The Court is

clearly barred from determining whether or not a Church’s Spirit led interpretation of Scripture is

erroneous or awkward, rather than Spirit led. The court would also be asked to engage in

weighing of church doctrine. ‘Weighing’ implies a judgment rooted in comparing two or more

things. In this case the court would be weighing church doctrine in that it would be comparing

two translations and therefore weighing interpretations of Scripture. Also, the court ultimately in

this case would be asked effectively to resolve doctrinal disputes because here we have a dispute

between two ministries over how the Defendant Church may interpret Scripture and render its

doctrine through the interpretation Scripture. The copyright law cannot be used to forbid one

religious group from interpreting Scripture in a specific way, while allowing another to do so

without violating the First Amendment itself. Therefore Neutral Principles cannot be used in this

case, because hearing this case would require the court to engage in the very activities which the

US Supreme Court has specifically excluded from Neutral Principles.

Should the Court find that it has jurisdiction, all of TWI’s alleged causes of action fail to

state a claim for which relief can be granted, because they are each barred by the First

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Interpretation of Scripture is by its very nature an exercise of religion and specifically in

“rightly proclaiming the word of truth.” 2 Tim. 2:15 HRV. Defendants’ Hebraic Roots Version

is a translation, and therefore an interpretation of Hebrew and Aramaic religious texts and is

therefore the product of Defendants’ free exercise of religion. This Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction to hear TWI’s claims because to do would require the Court to determine if it should

prohibit Defendants’ free exercise of religion in violation of the First Amendment. Accordingly,

all of TWI’s alleged causes of action fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted, because

they are each barred by the First Amendment.

TWI has requested that the Court grant them relief in the form of a preliminary and

permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants “manufacturing, printing, producing,

distributing, importing, exporting, transporting, circulating, selling, offering for sale, or otherwise

disposing of the HRV” and “That the court order the destruction of all copies of the HRV of all

plates, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other articles by means of which copies may be

reproduced, including but not limited to electronically stored copies.” Original Complaint, p. 21.

In effect, Plaintiff asks the Court to ban the version of the Bible used by SANJ and many other

Nazarene Jewish groups as their standard “Scriptures” and forbid the use of the HRV as

“doctrine.” Therefore, the relief sought by TWI is impermissible under the First Amendment and

TWI’s claim should be dismissed because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the

claim, or alternately, the relief TWI seeks is barred by the First Amendment and should be

dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

II. STATEMENT OF THE LAW

REGARDING ECCLESIASTICAL DOCTRINE

AND PROPERTY DISPUTES

The First Amendment’s mandate, “Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has been consistently

recognized and upheld by the courts of this country to require the government to refrain from

interfering with religious organizations with respect to matters of their doctrine. U.S. Const.

Amend. I.

In 1872, the U.S. Supreme Court made the following observations:

In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice

any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate

the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is

conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no

dogma, the establishment of no sect. Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679.

While TWI claims that the AEINT is “property” it is clear on the face of their complaint

that the AEINT is also doctrine in that it is “religious education material” of TWI’s “ministry” as

well as the translation (and therefore interpretation) of Scripture.

As the Supreme Court has observed, religious freedom encompasses the power of

religious bodies to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church

government as well as those of faith and doctrine. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94.

In 1862 the U.S. Supreme Court held in a dispute between Presbyterians and Unitarians

over title to a church meetinghouse in Boston, that there was no subject matter jurisdiction to

permit an appeal from state court. Attorney General v. Federal Street Meeting-house, 66 U.S.

262.

In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Georgia court ruling holding that Civil courts

cannot, consistently with First Amendment principles, determine ecclesiastical questions in

resolving property disputes; and since the departure-from-doctrine element of Georgia's implied

trust theory requires civil courts to weigh the significance and meaning of religious doctrines, it

can play no role in judicial proceedings. Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440.

The U.S. Supreme Court observed in Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church:

It is of course true that the State has a legitimate interest in resolving property

disputes, and that a civil court is a proper forum for that resolution. Special

problems arise, however, when these disputes implicate controversies over church

doctrine and practice. The approach of this Court in such cases was originally

developed in Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872), a pre-Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

diversity decision decided before the application of the First Amendment to the

States but nonetheless informed by First Amendment considerations. (fn4) There,

as here, civil courts were asked to resolve a property dispute between a national

Presbyterian organization and local churches of that organization. There, as here,

the disputes arose out of a controversy over church doctrine. There, as here, the

Court was asked to decree the termination of an implied trust because of

departures from doctrine by the national organization. The Watson Court refused,

pointing out that it was wholly inconsistent with the American concept of the

relationship between church and state to permit civil courts to determine

ecclesiastical questions. Id. at 446.

In language which has a clear constitutional ring, the Court went on to further state:

“In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice

any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate

the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is

conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no

dogma, the establishment of no sect. . . . All who unite themselves to such a body

[the general church] do so with an implied consent to [its] government, and are

bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to the total

subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions

could appeal to the secular courts and have them [sic] reversed. It is of the essence

of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of

questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all

cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism

itself provides for.” 13 Wall., at 728-729.

The logic of this language leaves the courts no role in determining ecclesiastical

questions in the process of resolving property disputes. …Any decisions which

have been made by the general church about the local churches’ withdrawal have

at most a tangential relationship to the state-fashioned departure-from-doctrine

standard. A determination whether such decisions are fraudulent, collusive, or

arbitrary would therefore not answer the questions posed by the state standard. To

reach those questions would require the civil courts to engage in the forbidden

process of interpreting and weighing church doctrine. Even if the general church

had attempted to apply the state standard, the civil courts could not review and

enforce the church decision without violating the Constitution. Presbyterian

Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 446-451 (1969) [Emphasis added].

Justice Brennan further noted in the same case that:

….First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property

litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over

religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such

controversies in order to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever

present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating

secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern. . . . [T]he [First]

Amendment therefore commands civil courts to decide church property disputes

without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine. Id. at 449

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there are limited ways to resolve property disputes

between religious bodies. The first is the approach of as articulated in the Watson case:

Thus the States may adopt the approach of Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679 (1872),

and enforce the property decisions made within a church of congregational polity

“by a majority of its members or by such other local organism as it may have

instituted for the purpose of ecclesiastical government,” id., at 724, and within a

church of hierarchical polity by the highest authority that has ruled on the dispute

at issue, (fn1) unless “express terms” in the “instrument by which the property is

held” condition the property's use or control in a specified manner. (fn2) Under

Watson civil courts do not inquire whether the relevant church governing body has

power under religious law to control the property in question. Such a

determination, unlike the identification of the governing body, frequently

necessitates the interpretation of ambiguous religious law and usage. To permit

civil courts to probe deeply enough into the allocation of power within a church so

as to decide where religious law places control over the use of church property

would violate the First Amendment in much the same manner as civil

determination of religious doctrine. (fn3) Similarly, where the identity of the

governing body or bodies that exercise general authority within a church is a

matter of substantial controversy, civil courts are not to make the inquiry into

religious law and usage that would be essential to the resolution of the controversy.

In other words, the use of the Watson approach is consonant with the prohibitions

of the First Amendment only if the appropriate church governing body can be

determined without the resolution of doctrinal questions and without extensive

inquiry into religious polity. (MD. & VA. Churches v. Sharpsburg CH., 396 U.S.

367, 368-370 (1970)

The Second approach is that of neutral principles of law, as the Supreme Court continued:

“[N]eutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes,”

Presbyterian Church, at 449, provide another means for resolving litigation over

religious property. Under the “formal title” doctrine, courts can determine

ownership by studying deeds, reverter clauses, and general state corporation laws.

Id. at 370.

The Supreme Court went on to state that the “Neutral Principles of law” cannot be applied

where the State would be resolving “doctrinal issues”:

Again, however, general principles of property law may not be relied upon if their

application requires civil courts to resolve doctrinal issues. For example,

provisions in deeds or in a denomination's constitution for the reversion of local

church property to the general church, if conditioned upon a finding of departure

from doctrine, could not be civilly enforced. Id. at 370.

The individual notes on a page of sheet music are not a song.

There are two differences:

1. The notes are not the incarnate "Word". Scripture tells us that Messiah is actually the Word of Elohim incarnate, that is why he is called the ALEF and the TAV (ALPHA and OMEGA in Greek). These are the first and last letters in Hebrew and Aramaic.

2. The Scripture is inspired by YHWH, it had meaning before any human being tried to read it, because YHWH gave it meaning and understood it when He inspired it. So it was already doctrine before we picked it up and tried to expound from it, not because we read, but because He inspired it.

In order for the actual words with which the Bible itself is written to be protected constitutionally as "doctrine" you don't have to believe that yourself, you just have to accept that those wh do believe it have a right to constitutional protection for their (our) beliefs.

The guy's a hoot! showed up in his other thread asking for scans of a few pages of the PFAL book. I teased him a bit - but thought - what the hell, maybe he'll go away if he gets what he wants.

He did.

He didn't say thank you, and hasn't posted since.

Cake anyone?

I apologize for not having sent a thank you, I got bogged down in all the preparations I am involved in with this case.

Your scans were VERY helpful.

I am guarded in how much I say about our arguments until those arguments have been made before the court.

True that cheranne, except for this guy getting sued by them. He seems to care a great deal >snicker<

Actually I simply want to best respond to their briefs in court, and catching them saying one thing in court and another thing in their own publications is.. helpful :-)

So if you can email those scans I would appreciate it.

James Trimm

cleartruth@yahoo.com

Please enlighten me (or anyone else).

Why don't you just sell the TWI work?

There are many differences between the two translations, not the least of which are doctrinal differences. The HRV is at times more literal that the AEINT. In some passages the HRV is more correct that the AEINT. Also the HRV at times follows Hebrew underlying texts instead of Aramaic and at times follows older Aramaic sources than the Pedangta (which the AEINT always follows).

They are two very different translations. They exhibit agreement in many passages because they are both literal translations of the Pedangta and because the Concordance to the Pedangta Version of the Aramaic New Testament (1985) was used as a lexical tool in producing both translations. There is more, but much to much to post here.

There is a place in the PFAL class where Wierwille tells the students to put aside all secular materials for a month or six weeks or something and read only the Bible. I don't recall which session it is.

Re; pages 119 and 120.

This is where Wierwille claims he hauled over 3,000 theological works to the dump and then read nothing but "The Word".

Yeah, he took them to the dump, alright. All except the ones that he later "cut and pasted" into his own "works", line by line and word for word.

He finishes page 120 but saying this:

"--the only way you are going to stand approved before God is to study and rightly divide The Word."

That is a completely disgraceful misinterpretation, misrepresentation and misapplication of II Timothy 2:15.

Great but can you scan the pages and the title page and email them to cleartruth@yahoo.com? It would help me to be able to document this.

Don't believe all of the internet conspiracy theories.

"Hopefully adults know that a lot of what they read on the web is just not right, and just not true. But kids don't know that, they read it and think that it says it, it must be true. It says its safe it must be true. This is how to do this, it must be true. There is no editor on the internet so people can put stuff out there that is just absolutely drop dead wrong."

- Dr. Phil

Wed. 12-16-09