If you read through the preface there are some issues in there - like:
Quote:
The Hebraic Roots Version (which began as the Semitic New Testament Project)
has been a ten year project to produce a new and accurate translation of the New
Testament taken primarily from old Hebrew and Aramaic sources. Unlike most
translations this edition will not be rooted in a Greek Hellenistic text. Instead this
translation will seek to understand the text of the New Testament from the languages in
which it was originally written. This is important because there are some passages in the
NT which do not make sense at all in Greek, but only begin to make sense when we look
at them in Hebrew and Aramaic.
The oldest documents we have are in Greek, there is no solid evidence that all of the books of the NT were written in Hebrew, definitely probable but until we are holding that manuscript that pre-dates the oldest we have there are going to be issues. I think the strongest candidate for this I have heard about is Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, but we know this to be a younger manuscript although there is some evidence it was copied from a Hebrew source. Any Historian will tell you that you always go to the oldest source, recorded closest to the event you can not make a language preference just because you are "Greekist" lol
The argument that we can not see what was actually written when something was quoted from the "OT" because it's in Greek is a stupid argument, because all you need to do is translate it from the Hebrew - See Swalchy's translations as well for how he does it.
Aramaic and Hebraic manuscripts are not old enough and are probably translated from Greek into Hebrew - probably with yet another agenda behind them, probably messianic.
Greek is a solid language to write in, especially when you are writing for people who speak/read Greek - The scribes got around other issues like names that could not be transliterated because of letter sounds via place-holders. Unlike the catholic church and it's Latin monopoly - the Apostles etc would have probably wanted people to have read the material instead of locking it away in what the Romans called "their barbaric language".
However much I love Hebrew, which I do, we have to look at the solid evidence we can hold in our hands, and hope one day that we can dig up more archaeological evidence for the Hebrew/Aramaic originals/copies of the NT.
BUT other than that, I think I have heard that this version isn't too bad. Compared to things like "The Book of Yahweh" which translates every reference to Yah as Yahuweh. It does transliterate Yahushua as Yeshua which I do disagree with (in my limited Hebrew studies) which I think would irritate me :D lol
I am sure Swalchy can give a much more concise response than I have given.
