Another King James Bible Believer

Today's Bible Babble Buffet Part One



Today's Bible Babel Buffet in Action  - a look at some of the hundreds of such examples of different meanings found in the multitude of conflicting bible versions on the market today. Here are just a few examples to start off this comparative study.  The meanings are often the very opposite of what is found in the King James Bible and many others when we compare what is found in many modern versions.

Here is a direct quote from a  typical 21st century professing Christian, who is a grown man, and should know better.  He said to me: "We can't know that the copies are exactly word for word from the originals. But the truth has been preserved even if some of the wording may be different."  Well, in response I told him the obvious - that when we change the words we change "the truth". Let's see if he is right or terribly wrong.



 Genesis 27:39-40

KJB thy dwelling SHALL BE the fatness of the earth

NIV Your dwelling will be AWAY FROM the earth’s richness

NASB, ESV - AWAY FROM the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling

 

Exodus  26:14  “Badger’s skins”, “porpoise”, “goats”, “violet colored skins”, “seal skins”, “dolphin”, “sea cows”, "jackal", "blue skins" or “durable leather”?

 

Exodus 26:14 KJB - "Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed RED, and a covering of BADGER'S skins".  

ESV - "And you shall make for the tent a covering of TANNED rams' skins, and a covering of GOATSKINS on top."

NIV 1978 & 1982 editions, The Voice 2012 - "Make for the tent a covering of ram skins dyed RED, and over that a covering of hides of SEA COWS."

NIV 2011 edition - "Make for the tent a covering of ram skins dyed RED, and over that a covering of OTHER DURABLE LEATHER."

ISV (International Standard Version) - "You shall make a cover for the tabernacle of ram skins dyed red and a covering of DOLPHIN SKINS above that."

ASV - " And thou shalt make a covering for the tent of rams' skins dyed red, and a covering of SEALSKINS above."

NASB - "You shall make a covering for the tent of rams' skins dyed RED and a covering of PORPOISE SKINS above."

Holman Standard - "Make a covering for the tent from rams skins dyed RED, and a covering of MANATEE SKINS on top of that."  

So called Greek Septuagint - "and BLUE SKINS as coverings above." 

Modern Greek bible -  επικαλυμμα υπερανωθεν εκ δερματων θωων. = covering on top of JACKAL skins. 

 

To see why the KJB is right, go here -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/badgersskin.htm



Leviticus 13:47 “LEPROSY” or “MILDEW” or “A GREEN OR RED AREA” or “A DEFILING MOLD” or “A CONTAGION”?




Leviticus 13:47 KJB - “The garment also that the plague of LEPROSY is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment”


NIV 1978 and 1984 editions - “If any clothing is contaminated with MILDEW”


The Message 2002 “if clothing is infected with A PATCH OF SERIOUS FUNGUS”


Also reading MILDEW are the Holman Standard 2009 and the New Living Bible 2015


NIV 2011 edition - “As for any fabric that is spoiled with A DEFILING MOLD”


International Standard Version 2014 - "When clothing becomes infected with A CONTAGION


NET 2006 - "When a garment has  A DISEASED INFECTION in it”


God’s Word Translation 1995 and Names of God bible 2011  - “if there is A GREEN OR RED AREA”


The Catholic Connection


The Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay Version 1950, Jerusalem bible 1968 and the St. Joseph New American Bible all read LEPROSY.  


BUT the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has now changed this to read: “When a piece of clothing is infected WITH MOULD”


LEPROSY 


Bible versions that says LEPROSY are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Douay-Rheims 1610,  Lesser O.T. 1835, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Rotherham bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society Tanach 1917, the RSV 1946-1971, Living Bible 1971, NKJV 1982, NRSV 1989, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the NASB 1995, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, the World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, Green’s literal 2005, Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005,  The Mebust Bible 2007, the New Heart English Bible 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the ESV 2011, The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 and the Modern English Version 2014. 


Foreign Language Bible - LEPROSY


Both the so called Greek Septuagint and Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta say LEPROSY. And the Modern Greek Bible - " Και εαν υπαρχη εις ιματιον πληγη λεπρας"


The French Martin bible 1744 and French Louis Segond 2007 - “est infecté de la plaie de la lèpre”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991- “è piaga di lebbra”,  the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1549, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1960-2015 - “una mancha de lepra”, the Portuguese Almeida 2009 - “praga de lepra” and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - “în care se a ă rana leprei”


 

1 Samuel 13:21 - “A file” or “a pim” or “two-thirds shekel" or "dullness"?

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1sam1321fileorpim.htm

 

1 Samuel 13:21 KJB - “Yet THEY HAD A FILE for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads. “

 

1 Samuel 13:21 NKJV - "AND THE CHARGE FOR SHARPENING WAS A PIM for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads."

 

1 Samuel 13:21 NIV - “THE PRICE WAS TWO THIRDS OF A SHEKEL  for sharpening plowshares and mattocks, AND A THIRD OF A SHEKEL for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads.”

 

1 Samuel 13:21 The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - “So that their shares, and their spades, and their forks, and their axes, WERE BLUNT, even to the goad, which was to be mended.”


 

 

 

2 Samuel 14:14

KJB - "NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON"

ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET - "BUT GOD WILL NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE" 

 


2 Kings 23:29 - Did the King of Egypt go up “AGAINST the king of  Assyria" or "TO THE AID OF the king of Assyria"?

 

2 Kings 23:29 KJB - "In his days Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt WENT UP AGAINST the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him."

NKJV, NIV, NET - "In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt WENT TO THE AID OF the king of Assyria, to the River Euphrates; and King Josiah went against him, And PHARAOH NECHO (Footnote - literally 'he') killed him at Megiddo when he confronted him."  

For an explanation as to why the King James Bible is right and the NKJV is wrong, See the whole article here - 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/2kings2329against.htm 


Job 16:20

KJB My friends SCORN me: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God.

NIV My intercessor IS MY FRIEND as my eyes pour out tears to God.

 


 

Job 39:13 KJB - "Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?"

 


NKJV: "The wings of the OSTRICH WAVE PROUDLY, BUT ARE HER WINGS AND PINIONS LIKE THE KINDLY STORK?"


NASB: "The ostriches' wings FLAP JOYOUSLY with the PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF LOVE."


NIV: "The wings of the ostrich flap joyously BUT THEY CANNOT COMPARE WITH the pinions and feathers OF THE STORK."


Young's "literal": "The wings OF THE RATTLING ONES EXULTETH whether the pinions of the ostrich OR HAWK."


Judaica Press Tanach - “The wing of the RENANIM REJOICED, OR THE WINGED STORK OR THE NOZAH.”


RSV, ESV 2001 - “"The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; BUT ARE THEY the pinions and plumage OF LOVE?”


NRSV : "The ostrich's wings flap wildly THOUGH ITS PINIONS LACK PLUMMAGE."


Lamsa's : "The ostrich ROUSES HERSELP UP HAUGHTILY,THEN SHE COMES AND MAKES HER NEST."


LXX "A wing of DELIGHTED ONES is the PEACOCK IF THE STORK AND THE OSTRICH CONCEIVE."


New English Bible: "The wings of the ostrich ARE STUNTED; her pinions and plummage ARE SO SCANTY."


Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - "The wings of the ostrich BEAT IDLY, HER PLUMAGE IS LACKING IN PINIONS."


Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "Can the wing of the ostrich BE COMPARED WITH THE PLUMAGE OF STORK OR FALCON?"


NET version by Daniel Wallace and company - "The wings of the ostrich FLAP WITH JOY, BUT ARE THEY THE PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF A STORK?"


Bible in Basic English: "IS the wing of the ostrich FEEBLE, OR IS IT BECAUSE SHE HAS NO FEATHERS?"


The Message - “"The OSTRICH flaps her wings FUTILELY - ALL THOSE BEAUTIFUL FEATHERS, BUT USELESS!”


 

 

Psalm 7:4 KJB "If I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me; Yea, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY."

NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman - "If I have repaid evil to him who was at peace with me, OR HAVE PLUNDERED MY ENEMY WITHOUT CAUSE"

NET -  "or have wronged my ally, OR HELPED HIS LAWLESS ENEMY".

Young's - ""If I have done my well-wisher evil, AND DRAW MINE ADVERSARY WITHOUT CAUSE."

The New Jerusalem bible - "If I repaid my ally with treachery, OR SPARED SOMEONE WHO ATTACKED ME UNPROVOKED, may an enemy hunt me down and catch me."

Greek LXX - "If I have requited with evil those who requited me with good, MAY I THEN PERISH EMPTY BY MEANS OF MY ENEMIES." 

 

 

 

Psalm 10:4, 5

KJB wicked…..His ways are always GRIEVOUS

NIV wicked…..His ways are always prosperous

NKJV wicked…..His ways are always prospering

ESV wicked…..His ways prosper at all times

HCSB wicked…..His ways are always secure

 

Psalm 29:9

KJB The voice of the LORD maketh the HINDS TO CALVE

NIV The voice of the LORD TWISTS THE OAKS

 

Proverbs 7:22 KJB - “He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, OR AS A FOOL TO THE  CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS.”  

NIV - " LIKE A DEER STEPPING INTO A NOOSE.” 

ESV -  AS A STAG IS CAUGHT FAST.”

NASB - "OR AS ONE IN FETTERS TO THE DISCIPLINE OF A FOOL."


The Judaica Press Tanach 2005 - “He follows her immediately-as an ox goes to the slaughter, and as A VIPER to the chastisement of a fool”


Catholic Public Domain Version 2009 - " LIKE A LAMB ACTING LASCIVIOUSLY, AND NOT KNOWING THAT HE IS BEING DRAWN FOOLISHLY INTO CHAINS."

 

Lamsa's 1933 - "AS A DOG TO BE MUZZLED."

 

Greek Septuagint - "AS A DOG TO BONDS, OR AS A HART SHOT IN THE LIVER WITH AN ARROW."  (See the study on this Proverb below)

 

Proverbs 18:24

KJB A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly

NASB A man of many friends COMES TO RUIN

NIV A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN

ESV A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN

HCSB A man with many friends MAY BE HARMED

 

Proverbs 22:20 "excellent things", "three times" or "thirty sayings"? 

KJB (RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV) -Have not I written unto thee EXCELLENT THINGS

NIV, ESV - Have I not written for you THIRTY SAYINGS of counsel and knowledge

Young's -  "Have I not written to thee THREE TIMES with counsels and knowledge?

 

Proverbs 25:23

KJB The north wind DRIVETH AWAY rain

NIV As a north wind BRINGS rain

NASB The north wind BRINGS forth rain

ESV The north wind BRINGS forth rain

 

Proverbs 26:22

KJB The words of a talebearer are as WOUNDS

NIV The words of a gossip are like choice morsels

NASB The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels

ESV The words of a whisperer are delicious morsels

HCSB A gossip’s words are like choice food 

 

Ecclesiastes. 2:8 "I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, and that of all sorts."

 

"Musical instruments" is the reading of the NKJV 1982, the ASV of 1901 (remember, the NASB introduction says this was the "Rock of Biblical Honesty"), Webster's 1833 translation, the Hebrew Names Version - "musical instruments, and that of all sorts.", World English Bible, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 - "musical instruments of all kinds."  

 

 

 

Other English Bibles that read "MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS" are The Word of Yah 1993, the Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the New Heart English Bible 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the English Jubilee Bible 2010, Natural Israelite Bible 2012, the World English Bible 2012 - "MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS".

 

 

 

Among Foreign language Bibles that also have "musical instruments" are Luther’s German Bible 1545 - “die Wonne der Menschen, allerlei Saitenspiel” = “the joy of all the people, ALL KINDS OF MUSIC.”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and the Nuova Diodati 1991 - "E STRUMENTI MUSICALI di ogni genere. (of every kind) ",  the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569, 1909, 1960 and 1995 INSTRUMENTOS MUSICALES, and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez bible - "y de toda clase de instrumentos de música.",  the French Martin 1744 - "une harmonie d'INSTRUMENTS DE MUSIQUE, même plusieurs harmonies de toutes sortes d'instruments", the Russian Synodal Bible of 1876 - "разные музыкальные орудия." = all kinds of musical instruments", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "e das delícias dos filhos dos homens, E DE INSTRUMENTOS DE MUSICA de toda sorte.", the Albanian bible - "dhe vegla MUZIKORE të çdo lloji.", the Czech Kralicka Bible - "a nástroje MUZICKE rozličné.", the Lithuanian bible - "MUZIKOS INSTRUMENTU.", the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - “mga sarisaring INSTRUMENTO NG MUSIKO iya'y totoong marami.”, and the Romanian Fidela Bible of 2009 - "INSTRUMENTE MUZICALE".

 

 

 

The Bible Babble Buffet in Action 

 

The NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard say: "I provided for myself male and female singers and the pleasures of men-MANY CONCUBINES."

 

The NIV says: "I acquired men and women singers, AND A HAREM AS WELL, - the delights of the heart of man." Then the NIV footnotes that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.

 

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between musical instruments and an harem. Let's see what some other translations have come up with. Remember, all these translators are "experts in the original languages".

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay Version 1950 - "...and the delights of the sons of men, CUPS AND VESSELS TO SERVE TO POUR OUT WINE."

 

Then the Catholic St. Joseph of 1970 changed this to "AND ALL HUMAN LUXURIES."

 

Then the 1985 New Jerusalem embellished this a bit more and says: "AND EVERY HUMAN LUXURY, CHEST UPON CHEST OF IT."

 

But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has gone back to the previous Douay version reading: "and the delights of the sons of men, BOWLS AND PITCHERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF POURING WINE."

 

Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “the delights of the sons of men, and I appointed for myself BUTLERS AND WAITRESSES.”

 

The Jehovah Witness NWT has: "exquisite delights of the sons of mankind, A LADY, EVEN LADIES."  

 

The Common English Bible OF 2011 (one of the latest critical text edition) has: "along with EVERY HUMAN LUXURY, TREASURE CHESTS GALORE!"  

 

The Knox Bible of 2012 says: "men-singers I had and women-singers, and all that man delights in; BEAKERS A MANY, AND JARS OF WINE TO FILL THEM."

 

The Judaica Press Tanach - "I acquired for myself various types of MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, the delight of the sons of men, WAGONS AND COACHES."

 

The Concordant Literal Version - “the delicacies of the sons of humanity, A WINE WAITER AND WINE WAITRESS.”

 

The Online Interlinear 2012 (André de Mol) - "delicacies of the sons of men, FIELD AND FIELDS."

 

New English Version 1970 - "I acquired singers, men and women, and ALL THAT MAN DELIGHTS IN."

 

The so called Greek Septuagint (LXX) actually says: "I procured me singing men and singing women, and delights of the sons of men, A BUTLER AND FEMALE CUPBEARERS."

 

Coverdale 1535 - "...I GAT ME DRINKING CUPS AND ALSO GLASSES."

 

Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587 - "I have provided me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as A WOMAN TAKEN CAPTIVE, AND WOMEN TAKEN CAPTIVES."

 

Young's - "and the luxuries of the sons of man -- A WIFE AND WIVES."

 

Easy To Read Version 2001 - " I had men and women singing for me. I HAD EVERYTHING ANYONE COULD WANT."

 

Green's "literal" says: "and the delights of the sons of men, A CONCUBINE, AND CONCUBINES." (Makes a lot of sense, huh? ;-)

 

Peterson's The Message: " and--most exquisite of all pleasures--VOLUPTUOUS MAIDENS FOR MY BED." 

 

Let's see..."musical instruments", "a harem", "everything anyone could want", "a woman taken captive", "a wife and wives", "drinking cups and glasses", "a butler and female cupbearers", "beakers and jars of wine to fill them", "every human luxury", "wagons and coaches", "field and fields" and "concubines". Yep, it must be true. The bible scholars have made great advances in their knowledge of biblical languages. All we need to do is "go to the Hebrew" to find out what God REALLY said...Don't ya think? 

 

Bible scholars are all over the board on just about any subject and any individual word. What one affirms, another absolutely denies, so my trust is NOT in any scholar but in the sovereign God of the universes who promised to give us "the book of the LORD" and to preserver His words. 

 

John Gill - "and the delights of the sons of men; as musical instruments, and that of all sorts; such as David his father invented; and to which he might add more, and indeed got all that were to be obtained; see Amos 6:5. The two last words, rendered "musical instruments, of all sorts," are differently interpreted; the Targum interprets them of hot waters and baths, having pipes to let out hot water and cold; Aben Ezra, of women taken captive; Jarchi, of chariots and covered wagons; the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions, of cup bearers, men, and women, that pour out wine and serve it; and the Vulgate Latin version, of cups and pots, to pour out wine. IT SEEMS BEST TO UNDERSTAND IT OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, or of musical compositions ; sung either with a single voice, or in concert; which, according to Bochart , were called "sidoth," from Sido, a Phoenician woman of great note, the inventor of them or rather from giving unequal sounds, which, by their grateful mixture and temperament, broke and destroyed  one another."


 

 

 

 

Ecclesiastes 8:10

KJB wicked…..were FORGOTTEN

NIV wicked…..receive praise

ESV wicked…..were praised

 

Isaiah 9:1

KJB afterward did more GRIEVOUSLY AFFLICT …….Galilee

NASB later on He shall make it glorious…….Galilee

NIV in the future he will honor Galilee

ESV in the latter time he has made glorious….Galilee

 

Isaiah 9:3

KJB NOT increased their joy

NIV, TNIV  increased the joy

NKJV  increased its joy

ESV  increased its joy

NASB  increased their gladness  

 

See my article on this verse that shows why the King James Bible is right, and the others are wrong.

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/isaiah93notjoy.htm 

 

Isaiah 32:1-2 KJB - "Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. V.2 And A MAN shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land."

 

ESV (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET) - "EACH will be like a hiding place from the wind, a shelter from the storm, like streams of water in a dry place." Then the ESV gives a false footnote saying: "Hebrew 'they'"

 

The ESV is wrong and its footnote is flat out wrong and misleading. And the ESV and these other Vatican Versions completely miss the fact that this passage refers to the Messiah, the Son of God.

 

 

See the complete article on Isaiah 32:2 here and learn why the King James Bible and the Hebrew text are right and the ESV isn't.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/isaiah322amanhiding.htm

 

 

Jeremiah 51:3

KJB LET the archer BEND his bow

ESV Let NOT the archer BEND his bow

NIV Let NOT the archer STRING his bow

NASB Let NOT him who BENDS his bow BEND it

 

 

Hosea 10:1

KJB Israel is an EMPTY vine

NASB Israel is a luxuriant vine

ESV Israel is a luxuriant vine

NIV Israel was a spreading vine

 

Hosea 11:12

KJB Judah yet RULETH WITH God

NIV Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God

NASB Judah is also UNRULY AGAINST God

 

Hosea 13:9

 

KJB - "O Israel, THOU HAST DESTROYED THYSELF: BUT IN ME IS THINE HELP."

 

ESV -  "HE destroys you, O Israel, FOR YOU ARE AGAINST ME, AGAINST YOUR HELPER."

 

The Holman Standard - "I WILL DESTROY YOU, Israel; YOU HAVE NO HELP BUT ME."  

 

Hosea 13:14

KJB -  "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."

 

ESV 2001-2011 - "SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol? SHALL I redeem them from Death? O Death, WHERE ARE your plagues? O Sheol, WHERE IS YOUR STING? COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes." 

NET version - "WILL I DELIVER THEM FROM THE POWER OF SHEOL? NO, I WILL NOT!  WILL I REDEEM THEM FROM DEATH? NO, I WILL NOT! O DEATH, BRING ON YOUR PLAGUES! O SHEOL, BRING ON YOUR DESTRUCTION! MY EYES WILL NOT SHOW ANY COMPASSION!"

 

 

Colossians 2:18

KJB things which he hath NOT seen

NIV, TNIV, ISV what he HAS seen

NASB visions he HAS seen

RSV, ESV, Holman, NET = NASB, NIV.


"NOT SEEN" or "HAS SEEN"?


 

Colossians 4:8

KJB HE might know YOUR estate

ESV YOU may know how WE ARE

HCSB YOU may know how WE ARE

NIV YOU may know about OUR CIRCUMSTANCES

TNIV YOU may know about OUR CIRCUMSTANCES

 

 


Hebrews 3:16 King James Bible -  "For SOME, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit, NOT ALL that came out of Egypt by Moses."

 

Hebrews 3:16 NKJV (NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, modern Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "For WHO, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, WAS IT NOT ALL who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?"

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/heb316someprovokenot.htm

 

 

 

Now, let's look at some of these examples in more detail. 

Genesis 27:39

 "And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept. And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, THY DWELLING SHALL BE THE FATNESS OF THE EARTH, and of the dew of heaven from above"  Genesis 27:38-39.

KJB -  thy dwelling SHALL BE the fatness of the earth

NIV - Your dwelling will be AWAY FROM the earth’s richness

NASB - AWAY FROM the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling


ESV - AWAY FROM the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be

 

Jehovah Witness NWT - "Behold, AWAY FROM THE FERTILE SOILS of the earth your dwelling will be found"

 

The first major English Bible version to reverse the meaning of this passage was the liberal RSV. Now it is found in many modern versions and the more modern Catholic versions as well, but the older Catholic versions  like the Douay Rheims of 1582 and the 1950 Douay agreed with the sense found in the KJB - "In the fat of the earth, and in the dew of heaven from above, Shall thy blessing be."

 

However the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 now say: "FAR FROM the richness of the earth and the dew of heaven above, your home will be." BUT now the latest Catholic version has come out. It's the 2009 The Sacred Scriptures Catholic Public Domain version and it once again says: "Isaac was moved, and he said to him: “In the fatness of the earth, and in the dew of heaven from above,{27:40} will your blessing be."

 

Agreeing with the reading and meaning found in the King James Bible  are the Revised Version of 1885 - "OF THE FATNESS OF THE EARTH SHALL BE THY DWELLING, And of the dew of heaven from above", the ASV 1901 (the predecessor of the NASB) - "And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, OF the fatness of the earth shall be thy dwelling, And of the dew of heaven from above." the Amplified Bible 1987, the NKJV 1982, Green's literal 2000, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "Behold, YOUR DWELLING SHALL BE IN THE FERTILE PLACES OF THE EARTH, and the dew of heaven shall fall upon you from above",  the so called Greek Septuagint, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 - "Lo! of the fat parts of the earth, shall be thy dwelling, And of the dew of the heavens, above", Darby 1890, Youngs 1898.

 

Hebrew Names Version, the 1582 Douay-Rheims, the 1950 Douay version, Wycliffe's Bible 1395 - "THI BLESSING SCHAL BE IN THE FATNESSE OF EARTHE, AND IN THE DEW OF HEVENE FRO ABOVE", the 1587 Geneva Bible  1587- "Behold, THE FATNESSE OF THE EARTH SHAL BE THY DWELLING PLACE, and thou shalt haue of the dewe of heauen from aboue.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, Coverdale 1535 - "Beholde, THOU SHALT HAVE A FAT DWELLING UPON THE EARTH, & of ye dew of heauen from aboue", the Great Bible 1540 - "THY DWELLINGE PLACE SHALL BE THE FATNESSE OF THE ERTH, and of the dewe of heauen from aboue.", Matthew's Bible 1549, The Lesser Bible 1853,  the 1917 Jewish Publication Society Bible - "Behold, OF THE FAT PLACES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE THY DWELLING, and of the dew of heaven from above", the Judiaica Press Tanach 2004, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the Spanish Reina Valera -"He aquí será tu habitación en grosuras de la tierra, Y del rocío de los cielos de arriba", to name but a few.  

 

 

Other English Bibles that read like the KJB are The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999 - "Behold your dwelling place shall have of the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above.", Context Group Version 2007 - "OF THE FATNESS OF THE LAND SHALL BE YOUR DWELLING", Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, Conservative Bible 2011 - "Look: your dwelling will be from the oils of the earth and the dew of heaven from above.", The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - “IN THE FAT OF THE EARTH, AND IN THE DEW OF HEAVEN FROM ABOVE, SHALL YOUR BLESSING BE.”, the World English Bible 2012,

 

BUT several other modern Critical text versions give THE OPPOSITE MEANING. 

 

Common English Bible 2011 (Critical text version) - “Now, you will make a home FAR AWAY FROM the olive groves of the earth, FAR AWAY FROM the showers of the sky above.”

 

Holman Standard 2009 - “Look, your dwelling place will be AWAY FROM THE RICHNESS OF THE LAND, AWAY FROM THE DEW of the sky above.”

 

Dan Wallace’s NET version - “Indeed, your home will be AWAY FROM THE RICHNESS OF THE EARTH, and AWAY FROM the dew of the sky above.”

 

Names of God Bible 2011 (Critical text version) - “The place where you live WILL LACK THE FERTILE FIELDS OF THE EARTH AND THE DEW FROM THE SKY ABOVE.”

 

 

Foreign Language Bibles

 

Genesis 27:39 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865 edition Corregida, Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1977, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2010  - “Entonces Isaac su padre habló y díjole: He aquí será tu habitación EN grosuras de la tierra, Y del rocío de los cielos de arriba” = KJB - “your dwelling will be IN the fatness of the earth”. 


BUT Reina Valera 1995 edition changed the text, and now reads: “Será tu morada LEJOS DE la tierra fértil, y del rocío que cae de los cielos.” = “Your dwelling will be FAR FROM the fertile earth”.  


So does the NIV Spanish Version - Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 - «Vivirás lejos de las riquezas de la tierra, lejos del rocío que cae del cielo” = “you will live FAR AWAY FROM (lejos de) the riches of the earth”


French Martin Bible 1744, Ostervald 1996  - “Et Isaac son père répondit, et dit : Voici, ton habitation sera EN la graisse de la terre, et en la rosée des cieux d'en haut.” = “your dwelling will be IN the fat of the earth” (Martin)


Italian Diodati 1649 - “Ecco, la tua stanza sarà IN luoghi grassi di terreno, E per la rugiada del cielo disopra.” = “your dwelling will be IN the fatness of the earth”  


BUT La Nuova Diodati 1991 changed it to the opposite - “Ecco, la tua dimora sarà PRIVA DELLA fertilità della terra e della rugiada che scenderà dall'alto dei cieli.” = “your dwelling will be DEVOID OF the fertility of the earth.” 


Portuguese Almeida 1681 = KJB - “Eis que a tua habitaçäo será nas gorduras da terra e no orvalho dos altos céus.” = Behold, thy dwelling SHALL BE THE FATNESS OF THE EARTH and the dew of heaven above.” 


 BUT the more modern Portuguese versions have reversed the meaning and now read “will be FAR FROM the fatness of the earth, and DISTANT FROM the dew of heaven. ” NIV Portuguese version 2000 - “Sua habitação será LONGE DAS terras férteis, DISTANTE DO orvalho que desce do alto céu.”


Modern Greek Bible - “η κατοικησις σου θελει εισθαι εις το παχος της γης, και εις την δροσον του ουρανου ανωθεν” = “your dwelling will be IN ( εις)  the fatness of the earth.” 


Modern Hebrew Bible = KJB - ויען יצחק אביו ויאמר אליו הנה משמני הארץ יהיה מושבך ומטל השמים מעל׃ויען יצחק אביו ויאמר אליו הנה משמני הארץ יהיה מושבך ומטל השמים מעל׃ = “your dwelling WILL BE THE FATNESS OF THE EARTH” 

 

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: "Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth--The first part is a promise of temporal prosperity, made in the same terms as Jacob's [Ge 27:28] --the second part refers to the roving life of hunting freebooters, which he and his descendants should lead.

 

John Calvin likewise translates the verse as it stands in the KJB and comments: "Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth. At length Esau obtains what he had asked. For, perceiving himself to be cast down from the rank and honor of primogeniture, he chooses rather to have prosperity in the world, separated from the holy people, than to submit to the yoke of his younger brother....Therefore, although God, with respect to his own people, banished Esau to desert mountains, he yet gave to him a land sufficiently fertile in itself to render the promise by no means nugatory. For that mountainous region both had its own natural fruitfulness, and was so watered by the dew of heaven, that it would yield sustenance to its inhabitants."

 

Critical Commentary - “Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth — The first part is A PROMISE OF TEMPORAL PROSPERITY, made in the same terms as Jacob‘s Genesis 27:28, - the second part refers to the roving life of hunting freebooters, which he and his descendants should lead." 

 

Joseph Benson’s Commentary - “The fatness of the earth — Mount Seir, the heritage of Esau, was a fertile place, refreshed with dews and showers." 

 

Matthew Henry Commentary - “It was promised him, That he should have a competent livelihood—the fatness of the earth, and the dew of heaven. Note, Those that come short of the blessings of the covenant may yet have a very good share of outward blessings. God gives good ground and good weather to many that reject his covenant, and have no part nor lot in it.”  

 

The King James Bible is always right. Accept no phony substitute.

 

 2 Samuel 14:14

KJB - "NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON"

ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET - "BUT GOD WILL NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE" 

 

2 Samuel 14:14 - Does God take away life or not? A Theological error in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman Standard versions.

Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies."

There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. One such lie is found in 2 Samuel 14:14. 

For numerous examples of false or perverted doctrines found in these modern versions see "Fake Bible versions DO teach False Doctrines" here - 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/fakebiblesdoctrine.htm 

The context is when Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

In the course of their conversation the woman finally tells king David in 2 Samuel 14: 13 -14: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

 

The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard. 

 

John Wesley briefly comments: "Respect - So far as to exempt him from this common law of dying."


John Trapp Commentary (English Puritan) - “Neither doth God respect any person. But whether king or captives, he must die; we all carry our precious souls as precious water in a brittle glass, or as a candle in a paper lantern, soon puffed out.”

 

Joseph Benson’s Commentary - “For God doth not respect any person — So far as to exempt him from this common lot of dying: but kings and their sons, in this respect, share the same fate with others.”

 

Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Webster Bible 1833, the Longman Version 1841, The Jewish Family Bible 1864 - "NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON", the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation - "NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON;  but let him devise means, that he that is banished be not an outcast from him.", The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, Young's 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON", the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2010 - "NEITHER DOES GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON; yet he does devise means that his outcasts not be expelled from him."  

 

Other Bibles that read the same way and do not create this theological error are The Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Concordant Literal Version 2009 - “and Elohim DOES NOT ACCEPT A PERSON", the Bond Slave Version 2009 - "neither does God RESPECT ANY PERSON", Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "neither doth Elohim (אלהים) RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him.", Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "neither does God RESPECT ANY PERSON"

Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "neither respect doth God person"

http://studybible.info/IHOT/2%20Samuel%2014:14 

 

The Bishops' Bible of 1568, and the Geneva Bible of 1599 and The Revised Geneva Bible 2005 have the same basic meaning as that found in the King James Bible, saying: "For we must needes dye, and we are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered vp againe: NEITHER DOTH GOD SPARE ANY PERSON, yet doeth he appoynt meanes, not to cast out from him, him that is expelled." 

 

The Boothroyd Bible 1853 says: "GOD ACCEPTETH NO PERSON" 

and Young's 1898 is similar with: "AND GOD DOTH NOT ACCEPT A PERSON"

 

The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 translation done by Rabbi Rosenburg says: "For die we must, and are as water that is spilt on the ground which cannot be gathered up again; AND GOD FAVORS NOT A SOUL, but He devises means that he that is banished be not cast from Him." 

This rendering agrees with the sense found in the King James Bible. 

The Complete Jewish Bible 1998 has the same meaning, with: "For we will all die someday; we’ll be like water spilled on the ground that can’t be gathered up again; and GOD MAKES NO EXCEPTION FOR ANYONE."


Foreign language Bible that agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - "ni Dios hace acepción de personas, mas busca la manera para no echar de si al desechado.", the Spanish Biblia Jubilee 2010, and the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez Bible 2010 - "y Dios no hace acepción de personas, sino que provee los medios para que su desterrado no quede alejado de Él." = "and God is no respecter of persons, but also provides the means for his banished not stay away from him",  the Italian Diodati 1649 - "e Iddio non ha riguardo ad lacuna persona" = "and God has no regard for any person", and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2009 - "nici Dumnezeu nu se uită la vreo persoană; totuşi plănuieşte mijloace, încât cel alungat al său să nu fie scos de la el."

However when we get to the New KJV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard, NIV 1984 edition, The Message, Green's MKJV, and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE".  Jehovah Witness NWT - "GOD WILL NOT TAKE AWAY A SOUL".  This is a lie and a contradiction.

Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David, in his adulterous affair with Bathseba, that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. 2 Samuel 12:15.

In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I KILL, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." 

In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also." 1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." 

And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ says in Luke 12:5 "But I will forwarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NET and NASB are all in error here in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.

The same Hebrew words used in 2 Samuel 14: 14 are also translated as "not RESPECT PERSONS" in other places in the NKJV, NIV and NASB. The word RESPECT is # 5375 nah-sah, and has many meanings such as "to accept, to respect, to regard, to take up, take, lift up, carry away, to pardon, to set up and to bear."

PERSONS is # 5315 nephesh and the NASB itself has translated this word as "persons" some 90 times. It also can mean spirit, soul, life, ghost, heart, breath, and himself or herself. Both words have multiple meanings and the context and sound theology must determine how they are to be translated correctly.

The NKJV has translated this same verb as "to respect" in Lamentations 4:16 "they do not respect the priests" and as "you shall not be partial to the poor" in Leviticus 19:15.

Likewise the NASB and NIV have translated the verb as "respect, accept and show partiality" many times. The NASB has "the LORD accepted Job" in Job 42:8, and in 2 Kings 5:1 says that "Naaman was a great man with his master and highly RESPECTED." The NIV has "without RESPECT for the old" Deut. 28:50 and in 2 Kings 3:14 "If I did not HAVE RESPECT for the presence of Jehoshaphat I would not look at you."

At least eight times the NIV, NKJV and NASB translate this verb as "to show partiality". For example, in Deuteronomy 10:17 the KJB, the ASV, Young's, Darby and the Jewish translations say: "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, WHICH REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, nor taketh reward." Here the NIV, NKJV and NASB say: "God..who SHOWS NO PARTIALITY."

So it is not a case of the Hebrew not being able to carry the meaning as found in the King James Bible and all the others, but the modern bible translators were blinded to an obvious truth of Scripture - "Neither doth God respect any person". God does indeed take away life. 

The "new" NIV of 2011 has now come out and, perhaps because their false and contradictory teaching was pointed out to them, they have now changed their text and the new one reads quite differently than the old NIV.

2 Samuel 14:14 NIV 1984 - “Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. BUT GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE;  INSTEAD, he devises ways so that a banished person MAY not remain ESTRANGED from him.”

2 Samuel 14:14 NIV 2011 - “Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But THAT IS NOT WHAT GOD DESIRES; RATHER, he devises ways so that a banished person DOES not remain BANISHED from him.” 

It still isn't right. God obviously willingly and deliberately does take away life, but at least it is not as bad as before. 

Commentators are not inspired. They all differ from each other. What one affirms, another denies.  Lexicons are not inspired. And any bible version that contains a falsehood is not inspired. Only the true Holy Bible providentially given to us by God Almighty is the inspired, inerrant word of God. I firmly believe all the true words of God are found in the King James Bible, and not the others. 

 

The Bible Babble Buffet

 

I thought it would be instructive to show just how the Bible Babel is going in regards to other translations of this phrase "neither doth God respect persons". 

One of the mindless mantras the bible agnostic crowd frequently tosses out is that all the bible versions say the same thing, but just with different words.  Well, let's see if this is even remotely true, OK?

The New English Bible 1979 & REB 1989 - "God WILL SPARE THE MAN WHO DOES NOT SET HIMSELF TO KEEP THE LAWLESS IN BANISHMENT." 


Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008 - “For we die as water cascading to the ground, which none can gather. GOD NEVER DEFRAUDS A SOUL, BUT CONSIDERS THOUGHTS: NO OUTCAST IS OUTCAST FROM HIM."

Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 - "and God SHALL TAKE THE LIFE, EVEN AS HE DEVISES TO THRUST FORTH FROM HIM HIS OUTCAST." (Yeah, that's pretty much the same thing, right? ;-)

Today's English Version, and the Good News Translation 1992: "We will all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which can't be gathered again. Even God DOES NOT BRING THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE". (He doesn't?)

The Translators’ Translation 2012 - “Even GOD DOES NOT CAUSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED TO BECOME ALIVE AGAIN."

The New Brenton Translation 2012 - “For we shall surely die, and be as water poured upon the earth, which shall not be gathered up, AND GOD SHALL TAKE THE LIFE, even as he devises to thrust forth from him his outcast.” (The opposite meaning to that in the NKJV, NASB, ESV)

The Greek Septuagint is little help here to the modern versionists. It says: kai leepsetai ho theos psuxen - "God receives a soul" 

*The Catholic Versions - None of which even agrees with each other in meaning!

*Douay-Rheims 1610 - "NEITHER WILL GOD HAVE A SOUL TO PERISH, but recalleth, meaning that he that is cast off should not altogether perish. "


*St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - "Yet, though GOD DOES NOT BRING BACK LIFE, HE DOES TAKE THOUGHT HOW TO BANISH ANYONE FROM HIM."


*The New Jerusalem bible 1985 -  "NOR DOES GOD RAISE UP A CORPSE; let the king therefore make plans for his banished son not to remain far away from him in exile." 


*Catholic Public Domain Version 2009 - "We are all dying, and we are all like waters that flow into the ground and do not return. GOD DOES NOT WILL TO LOSE A SOUL. INSTEAD, HE RENEWS HIS EFFORTS, THINKING THAT WHAT HAS BEEN REJECTED MIGHT NOT PERISH ALTOGETHER."


Living Bible 1971 - "But God WILL BLESS YOU WITH A LONGER LIFE IF YOU FIND A WAY TO BRING YOUR SON BACK FROM HIS EXILE."  (Huh?) 

 

Jehovah Witness New World Translation 2013 - "We will surely die and be like waters that are poured out on the ground, which cannot be recovered. BUT GOD WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY A LIFE, and he considers reasons why the banished one should not always be banished from him." 


New Living Bible -  "that is why God TRIES TO BRING US BACK when we have been separated from him."


God's Word translation 1995: "But DOESN'T GOD FORGIVE A PERSON?" 

 

The Easy To Read Version 2006 - "YOU KNOW GOD FORGIVES PEOPLE."

 

Good News Translation 1992 - "EVEN GOD DOES NOT BRING THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE."


Bible in Basic English 1961: "God WILL NOT TAKE AWAY THE LIFE OF THE MAN WHOSE PURPOSE IS THAT THAT HE WHO HAS BEEN SENT AWAY MAY NOT BE COMPLETELY CUT OFF FROM HIM." - say what?

Easy To Read Version 2001 - " No person can gather this water back from the ground. YOU KNOW GOD FORGIVES PEOPLE. God made plans for people who are forced to run away for safety--God doesn't force them to run away from him!"


Names of God Bible 2011 - "BUT DOESN'T ELOHIM FORGIVE A PERSON? He never plans to keep a banished person in exile."


The Voice 2012 - "But God WILL NOT WASTE A LIFE—He won’t allow the banished one to be exiled permanently from His presence."  

 

The Julia Smith Bible 1855 - "AND GOD WILL NOT LIFT UP A SOUL"

 

There you have it. All of these are "bibles" written by "scholars" who have gone to seminary, examined "the original languages" and given us the various fruits of their labors.

I hope this clears up everything for you. Remember the famous words of men like James White who tell us: "It is good to have a variety of translations so you can get a better understanding of what it says."

 

“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.” Jeremiah 6:16

Will Kinney

 Return to Articles -  http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm

 

 

 

Job 16:20

KJV My friends SCORN me: but mine eye poureth out tears unto God.

NIV My intercessor IS MY FRIEND as my eyes pour out tears to God.

 

These two versions obviously do not have the same meaning at all, yet both are supposedly "going to the Hebrew".  Agreeing with the King James Bible are the following: the Revised Version of 1881, the  ASV 1901, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV,  Darby, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, Berkeley Version 1969, Hebrew Names Version, Bishops' Bible, Coverdale, the Italian Diodati  1991 - "I miei amici mi deridono", the French La Bible du Semeur 1999 -"Mes amis se moquent de moi", the Spanish La Biblia de las Américas 1997 - "Mis amigos son mis escarnecedores

 

Another one that reads like  the NIV is Dan "anything but the KJB" Wallace's NET version which reads: "My intercessor is my friend as my eyes pour out tears to God." and then part of his convoluted footnote says: "The idea of “my friends are scorners” is out of place in this section, unless taken as a parenthesis." 

 

This is an absurd commentary. Has Daniel Wallace read the whole context of this verse in Job?  Job's "friends" have been mocking and scorning him for some 12 chapters up to this point and this very same chapter starts off with Job saying: "Then Job answered and said, 2. I have heard many such things: miserable comforters are ye all.  3. Shall vain words have an end? or what emboldeneth thee that thou answerest? 4. I also could speak as ye do: if your soul were in my soul's stead, I could heap up words against you, and shake mine head at you."

One has to wonder how the mind of man like Dan Wallace works when he comes out with such nonsense.

 

There are some other odd ones too like Lamsa's translation of the Syriac - "O my brethren and my neighbors! my eyes pour out tears to God!" and the latest critical text version of 2011 called the Common English bible which reads: "my go-between, my friend.  While my eyes drip tears to God."   The JPS 1917 has: "Mine inward thoughts are my intercessors, mine eye poureth out tears unto God.", the Message 2002 has: "My Champion, my Friend, while I'm weeping my eyes out before God." while the New English Bible of 1970 reads differently than them all with: "My appeal will come before God, while my eyes turn again and again to him." (Yep, that's exactly what it says and the 1989 Revised English Bible too. Check them out)  I guess James White is correct when he says we need a variety of translations to help us better understand what God's words mean, right?;-)

 

 


Job 39:13 KJB - “Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?"


This is another verse that is so mixed up in the Bible Babel versions that it is virtually unrecognizable. The KJB as well as the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the 1999 edition as well as the Reina Valera Gómez Bible of 2010 all equal the KJB word for word saying: "Diste las hermosas alas al pavo real, o alas y plumas al avestruz?" = "Have you given the beautiful wings to the peacock, or wings and feathers to the ostrich?". The reading of the King James Bible is also that found in the French Martin 1744 - "As-tu donné aux paons ce plumage qui est si brillant, ou à l'autruche les ailes et les plumes?" - = "Have you given to peacocks this plumage which is so brilliant, or ostrich wings and feathers?", Bishop's bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599 -"Hast thou giuen the pleasant wings vnto the peacockes? or winges and feathers vnto the ostriche?", Webster's translation 1833, KJV 21st Century version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 - "GAVEST THOU THE GOODLY WINGS UNTO THE PEACOCKS? OR WINGS AND FEATHERS UNTO THE OSTRICH?"


Now for a list of various translations, all of which wildly disagree with each other.


NKJV: "The wings of the OSTRICH WAVE PROUDLY, BUT ARE HER WINGS AND PINIONS LIKE THE KINDLY STORK?"


NASB: "The ostriches' wings FLAP JOYOUSLY with the PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF LOVE."


NIV: "The wings of the ostrich flap joyously BUT THEY CANNOT COMPARE WITH the pinions and feathers OF THE STORK."


Young's "literal": "The wings OF THE RATTLING ONES EXULTETH whether the pinions of the ostrich OR HAWK."


Judaica Press Tanach - “The wing of the RENANIM REJOICED, OR THE WINGED STORK OR THE NOZAH.”


RSV, ESV 2001 - “"The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; BUT ARE THEY the pinions and plumage OF LOVE?”


NRSV : "The ostrich's wings flap wildly THOUGH ITS PINIONS LACK PLUMMAGE."


Lamsa's : "The ostrich ROUSES HERSELP UP HAUGHTILY,THEN SHE COMES AND MAKES HER NEST."


LXX "A wing of DELIGHTED ONES is the PEACOCK IF THE STORK AND THE OSTRICH CONCEIVE."


New English Bible: "The wings of the ostrich ARE STUNTED; her pinions and plummage ARE SO SCANTY."


Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - "The wings of the ostrich BEAT IDLY, HER PLUMAGE IS LACKING IN PINIONS."


Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "Can the wing of the ostrich BE COMPARED WITH THE PLUMAGE OF STORK OR FALCON?"


NET version by Daniel Wallace and company - "The wings of the ostrich FLAP WITH JOY, BUT ARE THEY THE PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF A STORK?"


Bible in Basic English: "IS the wing of the ostrich FEEBLE, OR IS IT BECAUSE SHE HAS NO FEATHERS?"


The Message - “"The OSTRICH flaps her wings FUTILELY - ALL THOSE BEAUTIFUL FEATHERS, BUT USELESS!”

 

Psalm 7:4 KJB "If I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me; Yea, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY."

NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman - "If I have repaid evil to him who was at peace with me, OR HAVE PLUNDERED MY ENEMY WITHOUT CAUSE"

NET -  "or have wronged my ally, OR HELPED HIS LAWLESS ENEMY".

Young's - ""If I have done my well-wisher evil, AND DRAW MINE ADVERSARY WITHOUT CAUSE."

The New Jerusalem bible - "If I repaid my ally with treachery, OR SPARED SOMEONE WHO ATTACKED ME UNPROVOKED, may an enemy hunt me down and catch me."

Greek LXX - "If I have requited with evil those who requited me with good, MAY I THEN PERISH EMPTY BY MEANS OF MY ENEMIES."

 

The reading or meaning found in the King James Bible - "Yea, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY" is also that of the Revised Version 1881 -"(yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary)", the ASV 1901 - "(Yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary)", the Great Bible 1540 -"yee, I haue delyuered hym, that without any cause is myne enemy.", Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 "yea I haue deliuered him that vexed me without cause", Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Bible, Webster 1833, Darby 1890 "(indeed I have freed him that without cause oppressed me)",  Bible in Basic English 1969, World English Bible - "(Yes, I have delivered him who without cause was my adversary)", and the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Updated Bible Version 2004 - "(Yes, I have delivered him that without cause was my adversary;)"

Many foreign language Bibles also read like the King James Bible.  Among these are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 - "Si dí mal pago al pacífico con- migo, (hasta he libertado al que sin causa era mi enemigo;) = "I have even freed him, who without cause, was my enemy.",  Reina Valera 1909 - 1995 "(al contrario, he libertado al que sin causa era mi enemigo)", the Reina Valera Gómez 2010, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and Almeida Corregida E Fiel - "(antes, livrei ao que me oprimia sem cause) = "rather, I have freed him who without cause oppressed me", the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "(io che ho lasciato andare libero colui che mi era nemico senza region)"

 

Yet the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV all give a very different meaning. Instead of Yea, I have DELIVERED him that without cause is mine enemy", they say: "Or have PLUNDERED my enemy without cause?"

Yet the NKJV and the others translate the same Hebrew word as "delivered" in Psalms 18:19; 34:7; 50:15, 81:7 and 91:15.

 

The Catholic Connection  - Three completely different meanings

The earlier Douay-Rheims, the 1950 Douay and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version all read: "If I have rendered to them that repaid me evils, LET ME DESERVEDLY FALL EMPTY BEFORE MY ENEMIES."

But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem changed this to "If injustice has stained my hands, If I repaid my ally with treachery, OR SPARED SOMEONE WHO ATTACKED ME UNPROVOKED, may an enemy hunt me down and catch me."

While the 1970 St. Joseph NAB gives us: "If I have repaid my friend with evil, I WHO SPARED THOSE WHO WITHOUT CAUSE WERE MY FOES - Let the enemy pursue and overtake me."

Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, has written his own translation called the NET bible version. He renders Psalm 7:4 in this manner: "or have wronged my ally, OR HELPED HIS LAWLESS ENEMY".

Young's 'literal' (hah!) is different from them all, saying: "If I have done my well-wisher evil, AND DRAW MINE ADVERSARY WITHOUT CAUSE."

The Jubilee bible 2000 is unique, with: "if I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me, THEN LET MY PERSECUTOR ESCAPE WITHOUT RETRIBUTION."  Huh?

God's Word Translation 1995 and the 2012 Names of God Bible are very different still, with: "if I have paid back my friend with evil, OR RESCUED SOMEONE WHO HAS NO REASON TO ATTACK ME—"!!! Then the Names of God bible footnotes "Hebrew meaning of this line is uncertain."  Well, it certainly is NOW, huh?

The alleged Greek LXX renders verse 7:4 as: "If I have requited with evil those who requited me with good, MAY I THEN PERISH EMPTY BY MEANS OF MY ENEMIES."

So, did he Deliver his enemy or Plunder him, ask that he perish empty, or rescue someone who didn't attack him, or did he help his ally's lawless enemy?

As James White and other bible agnostics love to tell us, By comparing many different versions we can get a better understanding of the passage, right?

 The Bible Commentators    

Many Commentators agree with the KJB reading and see the phrase "(YEA, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY" as being a reference to David sparing the life of king Saul when he had the chance, and was even urged by others, to kill him in the cave.

Adam Clarke - "Yea, I have delivered him - When, in the course of thy providence, thou didst put his life in my hand in the cave, I contented myself with cutting off his skirt, merely to show him the danger he had been in, and the spirit of the man whom he accused of designs against his life"  

Coffman's Commentary - "The New English Bible's rendition of the second line in Psalms 7:4 ["or set free an enemy who attacked me without cause"] is severely condemned by Derek Kidner who affirmed that, "Their translation not only contradicts the O.T.'s demand for generosity to a personal enemy, but also David's known convictions. "Yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary." George DeHoff cited two clear examples of David's doing that very thing on behalf of King Saul in 1 Sam. 24:1-22 and in 1 Sam.26:1-25."

John Gill - "yea, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemymeaning Saul, who persecuted David without any just reason, and whom David delivered without any obligation to do it; not for any benefit and kindness he had received from him."

Matthew Henry - "I have delivered him that without cause is my enemy, Psalm 7:4. By this it appeared, beyond contradiction, that David had no design against Saul's life--that, once and again, Providence so ordered it that Saul lay at his mercy, and there were those about him that would soon have dispatched him, but David generously and conscientiously prevented it, when he cut off his skirt (1 Samuel 24:4) and afterwards when he took away his spear (1 Samuel 26:12), to attest for him what he could have done. Saul himself owned both these to be undeniable proofs of David's integrity and good affection to him."

 John Calvin - "In the second clause of the fourth verse, he proceeds farther, and states, that he had been a friend, not only to the good, but also to the bad, and had not only restrained himself from all revenge, but had even succoured his enemies, by whom he had been deeply and cruelly injured."

The King James Bible is always right.

 


Psalm 10:5

KJV wicked…..His ways are always GRIEVOUS

NIV wicked…..His ways are always prosperous

NKJV wicked…..His ways are always prospering

ESV wicked…..His ways prosper at all times

HCSB wicked…..His ways are always secure

 

The description of the wicked in verse 5 "His ways are always GRIEVOUS".

 

However the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV, ESV and the Jehovah Witness NWT in saying: "his ways are always PROSPEROUS."

 

The NKJV has translated this same word as "grieved" in  Jeremiah 5:3 and as "violent"  in  Jeremiah 23:19.  The word means "to afflict, to be in pain, to travail, anguish and to wound". It never means to be prosperous. In fact, I looked in the NIV and NASB concordances and many times they render the word with the above meanings, but only ONE time do they translate it as "prosperous", and that is here in Psalm 10:5.

 

There are many different ways the various Bible versions have translated this word, and some of them are opposites, but many of them side with the meaning found in the King James Bible. 

 

Wycliffe's translation of 1395 has "his ways BE DEFOULED in all time", Coverdale's bible of 1535 reads: "His wayes are allwaye FILTHIE". The Bishops' Bible 1568 agrees with the KJB -"His wayes are alwayes GREEVOUS".

 

The Thomson Bible 1808 reads: "His ways ARE POLLUTED on every occasion"

 

The Longman Version 1841 reads: " His ways are ALWAYS EVIL."

 

The Boothroyd Bible 1853 - "PERVERSE at all times are his ways"

 

Lamsa's translation of the Syriac has "His ways are always WEAK", but the Bible in Basic English has the opposite with "His ways ARE EVER FIXED, while the Douay-Rheims reads "his ways ARE FILTHY at all times".

 

God's First Truth 1999 says: "His ways are always FILTHY"

 

Young's 1898 says "PAIN do his ways at all times." and the Julia Smith Translation 1855 is similar with: "His way WILL BE IN PAIN in all time"

 

Green's 2000 literal and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 have "His ways ARE PERVERTED at all times"

 

The 2011 Common English Bible says "Their ways ARE ALWAYS TWISTED." and the Amplified of 1987 reads: "His ways ARE GRIEVOUS [or persist] at all times."

 

The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, A Conservative Version 2005 and The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) have: "PROFANE are his ways at all times"  

 

"His ways are always GRIEVOUS"

 

Also reading "his ways are always GRIEVOUS" are The Bill Bible 1671 - "his was are always GRIEVOUS", Webster's 1833 translation, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "his ways are always GRIEVOUS", The Amplified Version 1987 edition "His ways ARE GRIEVOUS", The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible of 1998, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the English Jubilee Bible of 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the BRG Bible 2012 .

 

Among foreign language Bibles the Spanish Antigua Versión agrees with the sense of the KJB saying: "Sus caminos son viciosos en todo tiempo" = his ways are VICIOUS. The 1960 and  1995 Reina Valera have "Sus caminos son torcidos" = his ways are twisted.  The 1569 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras has "Sus caminos atormentan en todo tiempo" = his ways cause torment at all times" and the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel both agree, saying "Os seus caminhos atormentam sempre" = his was always cause torment,  while the 1649 Italian Diodati says: "Le sue vie son profane in ogni tempo" = his ways are profane at all times .

 

The Modern Greek Bible says "his ways DEFILE at all times" -Αι οδοι αυτου μολυνονται εν παντι καιρω·

 

You can get a sense of the total confusion among scholars by seeing what the commentaries say about this verse.  John Gill mentions them all saying: "His ways are always grievous…To God and to his people; or, "his ways cause terror" , so Aben Ezra; make men fear... or, "his ways are defiled", as the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin render it; for to him is nothing pure, his mind and conscience being defiled, (Titus 1:15) ; or, "his ways always remain"; they are always the same, there is no change in them for the better: or they "prosper"  as Jarchi interprets it." 

 

Matthew Henry comments: "His ways are always grievous; he is very daring and resolute in his sinful courses; he will have his way, though ever so tiresome to himself and vexatious to others; he travails with pain in his wicked courses, and yet his pride makes him wilful and obstinate in them."


Psalm 29:9

KJV The voice of the LORD maketh the HINDS TO CALVE

NIV The voice of the LORD TWISTS THE OAKS

 



In Psalm 29:9 we read "The voice of the LORD MAKETH THE HINDS TO CALVE, and discovereth the forests: and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory." Here the NASB 1995, the NKJV, 1982, the ASV of 1901, the Revised Version 1881, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587, 1917 Hebrew-English, Darby, Complete Jewish Bible, the Amplified Bible 1987, the Italian Diodati, 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991 - "La voce dell'Eterno fa partorire le cerve Spanish  Reina Valera 1909 - "Voz de Jehová que hará estar de parto á las ciervas, the French Louis Segond - "La voix de l'Éternel fait enfanter les biches", the ESV 2001, Holman Standard 2003, and Green's literal translation of 2000 read as does the KJB. A hind is a female deer, it is not an archaic word.

However the NIV reads: "The voice of the LORD TWISTS THE OAKS, and strips the forests bare, and in his temple all cry, "Glory."

 

Now, I am not much of an expert of husbandry but I do know there is a difference between "maketh the hinds to calve" and "twists the oaks'. According to Strongs concordance, Wigrams Hebrew Lexicon and Green's interlinear the same Hebrew words are used here as in Job 39:1 "Or canst thou mark when the HINDS DO CALVE?" Here in Job the NIV has: Do you watch when THE DOE BEARS HER FAWN?", but gives a totally different meaning to the same words in Psalm 29:9.

 

Notice the RSV 1952 and the NRSV OF 1989. They both read -"The voice of the Lord CAUSES THE OAKS TO WHIRL", but then footnote "or causes the deer to calve" and then the revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV of 2001 has gone back to -"The voice of the Lord MAKES THE DEER GIVE BIRTH." 

 

Daniel Wallace and company's goofy NET version is similar to the NIV saying: "The Lord’s shout BENDS THE LARGE TREES" and then he has this absurd footnote; "Heb “the deer.” Preserving this reading, some translate the preceding verb, “causes [the deer] to give premature birth” (cf. NEB, NASB). But the Polel of חוּל/חִיל (khul/khil) means “give birth,” not “cause to give birth,” and the statement “the Lord’s shout gives birth to deer” is absurd. In light of the parallelism (note “forests” in the next line) and v. 5, it is preferable to emend אַיָּלוֹת (’ayyalot, “deer”) to אֵילוֹת (’elot, “large trees”)"

 

In other words, he acknowledges that the Hebrew text reads "deer" or "hinds" but then he says "the voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve" is, in his humble opinion, "absurd", so he "emends", that is, changes the text.  Well, I wonder if it ever occured to our seminary professor that it is by God's voice or His word that He creates ALL things, including the life of animals as well as men. 

 

John Gill comments on this verse - "The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve…Which being timorous creatures, the bringing forth of their young, which is naturally very painful and difficult, is lessened and facilitated by thunder; they being either so frightened with it that they feel not their pains; or their pains, being hastened by it, become more easy; and naturalists observe, that the time of bringing forth their young is at that season of the year when thunder is most frequent; see (Job 39:1-4)

 

Guess who else mistranslates the verse in this way. You got it! The Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 says: "The voice of the Lord TWISTS THE OAKS" and the  1985 New Jerusalem bible says: "Yahweh's voice CONVULSES TEREBINTHS"!!  But the older Douay-Rheims of 1610 as well as the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version have -"The voice of the Lord  IS PREPARING THE STAG." You gotta love this so called "science" of textual criticism, right?

 

Proverbs 7:22 KJB - “He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, OR AS A FOOL TO THE  CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS.”  

NIV - " LIKE A DEER STEPPING INTO A NOOSE.” 

ESV -  AS A STAG IS CAUGHT FAST.”

NASB - "OR AS ONE IN FETTERS TO THE DISCIPLINE OF A FOOL."

The Judaica Press Tanach 2005 - “He follows her immediately-as an ox goes to the slaughter, and as A VIPER to the chastisement of a fool”

Catholic Public Domain Version 2009 - "LIKE A LAMB ACTING LASCIVIOUSLY, AND NOT KNOWING THAT HE IS BEING DRAWN FOOLISHLY INTO CHAINS."  (It REALLY says this!)

Lamsa's 1933 - "AS A DOG TO BE MUZZLED."

 

Greek Septuagint - "AS A DOG TO BONDS, OR AS A HART SHOT IN THE LIVER WITH AN ARROW."  

 

Let's see...A FOOL.....A DEER.....ONE IN FETTERS....A VIPER.... A LASCIVIOUS LAMB...or A DOG?  

Hmmmmm....Pretty much the same things, right?  Maybe if you're a product of American Public Education in the 21st century, they are. 


Proverbs 7:22 KJB - “He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, OR AS A FOOL TO THE  CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS.”   

So read the Hebrew texts, as well as The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) Bible 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Natural Israelite Bible 2010, Coverdale 1535, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, The Revised English Bible 1877, the RV 1885, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the ASV 1901, the [NASB], Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, Green's Literal 2005, The Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The Biblos Bible 2013, the Modern English Bible 2014 - "as a fool to the correction of the stocks."  

 

Foreign Language Bibles


Foreign language Bibles that read the same as the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible are the Spanish Reina Valera’s 1909, 1960, 1995 - “o como va el necio a prisión para ser castigado”, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond  1910, Ostervald 1991 and Louis Segond 2007- “Comme un fou qu'on lie pour le châtier”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and 1991, Riveduta 2006 - “come un incatenato alla punizione dello stolto”, the Portuguese Almeida - “como o louco ao castigo das prisões”, and Luther’s German bible 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "und wie ein Gefesselter zur Bestrafung der Toren."


Other Bible Babble Buffet Versions


The NKJV reads the same as the KJB: “Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, Or AS A FOOL TO THE CORRECTION OF THE STOCKS."

 

BUT THEN, just so you won’t be too confident in what God said, it footnotes:  Septuagint, Syriac, and Targum read AS A DOG TO BONDS,  Vulgate reads AS A LAMB...TO BONDS.”


Let’s see what a confusing mess the modern versions have made out of this verse.


The NIV actually says: “All at once he followed her like an ox going to the slaughter, LIKE A DEER STEPPING INTO A NOOSE.”

 

Then the NIV footnotes: Syriac; Hebrew “fool”. And it also adds: “The meaning of the Hebrew for this line is uncertain.”


Well, even the NIV tells us that the Hebrew clearly says “fool” but they have given us A DEER instead!  


Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac says: “He went after her as a little child, as an ox that goes to the slaughter, and AS A DOG TO BE MUZZLED.”  - A DOG, not A DEER, not a FOOL.


The Holman Standard is basically like the NIV with: “He follows her impulsively like an ox going to the slaughter, like A DEER BOUNDING TOWARD A TRAP.”

 

Then it tells us in their footnote: “Text emended (That means changed!)  - like shackles for the discipline of a fool; Hebrew obscure.”!


Hey, wait a minute.  They admit they changed the text; then they give us their translation of the Hebrew, which is basically the same as what the KJB says, and then they tell us it is obscure!  You gotta luv ‘em.  These bible correctors are a kick in the head, aren’t they?


The liberal RSV 1954 has: “as an ox goes to the slaughter, or AS A STAG IS CAUGHT FAST.”


The ESV 2001 is the same with: “All at once he follows her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, or AS A STAG IS CAUGHT FAST.”

 

Then it has this amazing footnote: “Probable reading (compare Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac) Hebrew -  as an anklet for the discipline of a fool”!!! 

 

They come right out and tell us what the Hebrew reading is, (though they have given us ballpark approximations with their paraphrase) and it is what is found in the KJB and so many others. = as a fool to the correction of the stocks. "anklet = stocks", "discipline=correction" and "fool". And to think that people use these bogus bible versions then criticize the King James Bible! Just amazing.

 

It should also be noted that neither the so called Septuagint, nor the Vulgate, nor the Syriac read as does the Hebrew text they call “obscure” NOR do any one of them agree with each other! So why does the vaunted ESV change the Hebrew text; tell us to compare the Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac, and then tell us how the Hebrew reads, which is like what the King James Bible has had all along?


The Septuagint copy I have reads like no other Bible version on the face of the earth I am aware of and adds a whole bunch of words besides.  It says: “And he followed her, being gently led on, and that as an ox is led to the slaughter, AND AS A DOG TO BONDS, OR AS A HART SHOT IN THE LIVER WITH AN ARROW.”!!!  Hellooooo? 

 

And the Syriac, as we have seen, says: “He went after her as A LITTLE CHILD, as an ox that goes to the slaughter, and AS A DOG TO BE MUZZLED.”  So, in other words, their “helpful footnote” is nothing more than a confusing bunch of Baloney.


Dan Wallace and Company’s silly NET version reads: “Suddenly he went after her like an ox that goes to the slaughter, LIKE A STAG PRANCING INTO A TRAPPER’S SNARE.” (This is basically like the NIV, Holman junk)


The Lexham English Bible 2012 has something different than them all with: "He goes after her suddenly; like an ox to the slaughter he goes,  and LIKE A STAG TO THE INSTRUCTION OF A FOOL" -

(Huh?  Is a fool going to teach the stag?  I don't get it.)

 

 

The 2012 critical text Names of God Bible gives us: "like A RAM HOBBLING INTO CAPTIVITY." 

 

 The Catholic Connection


Both the Douay Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay version are translated from the Latin and they both say: “Immediately he followeth her as an ox led to be a victim, and AS A LAMB PLAYING THE WANTON, AND NOT KNOWING THAT HE IS DRAWN LIKE A FOOL TO BONDS.” (Read that again just to capture the "meaning")  

 

Then in 1968 the Jerusalem bible came out with - "Bemused, he follows her LIKE AN OX BEING LED TO THE SLAUGHER, LIKE A STAG CAUGHT IN A NOOSE."  This is like the ESV, NIV, Holman, NET versions. Surprise!

 

Then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB gave us some more innovation with: "He follows her stupidly, like an ox that is led to the slaughter, LIKE A STAG THAT MINCES TOWARD THE NET."

 

But once again Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 changed it again to now read: "Forthwith he follows her, like an ox on its way to the slaughterhouse, LIKE A MADMAN ON HIS WAY TO THE STOCKS."

 

 

And finally in 2009 they came out with the Catholic Public Domain Version and it reads differently than them all. It says: "Immediately, he follows her, like an ox being led to the sacrifice, and LIKE A LAMB ACTING LASCIVIOUSLY, AND NOT KNOWING THAT HE IS BEING DRAWN FOOLISHLY INTO CHAINS."  Well... that IS, after all, what every lascivious lamb deserves, right?

 

  

With today’s multiple Bible Babble Buffet “scholars” giving us such “an embarrassment of riches” to chose from for what God may or may not have said in His word, small wonder most Christians no longer believe “The Bible” or any bible is the complete and 100% true words of the living God.

 

Get the Bible God has has born witness to in so many ways and the only one English speaking Christians actually believe is the inerrant words of truth and life - the King James Holy Bible.

  


Proverbs 18:24

KJV A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly

NASB A man of many friends COMES TO RUIN

NIV A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN

ESV A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN

HCSB A man with many friends MAY BE HARMED

 

Proverbs 18:24 "A man that hath friends MUST SHEW HIMSELF FRIENDLY: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother."

Agreeing with the King James Bible word for word or in sense are Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "A man that hath friends, ought to shew him selfe friendly: for a friend is neerer then a brother.Barker's Bible 1615, the Italian Diodati of 1649 and  La Nuova Diodati of 1991 - "L'uomo che ha molti amici deve pure mostrarsi amico" = "A man of many friends must show himself friendly", Young's 'literal' - "man with friends is to show himself friendly",  Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - "El hombre que tiene amigos debe ser amistoso, The New Life Version 1995 -"A man who has friends must be a friend, NKJV 1982, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the English Jubilee Bible of 2000 and the Modern Greek Bible - "Ο ανθρωπος ο εχων φιλους πρεπει να φερηται φιλικως·" = A man who has many friends ought to show himself friendly."

 

The Spanish Reina Valera 1995 and the  Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 both read: "El hombre que tiene amigos ha de mostrarse amigo; Y amigo hay más unido que un hermano." (The man who has friends must show himself friendly). Likewise the 1991 New Italian Diodati reads like the KJB with: "L'uomo che ha molti amici deve pure mostrarsi amico". = "The man who has many friends ought to show himself friendly", The French Martin of 1744 agrees with the meaning found in the KJB saying: "Que l'homme qui a des intimes amis, se tienne à leur amitié ." The Portugues O Livro of 2000 has -"Quem tem muitos amigos pode dar-se por muito satisfeito." = "Who has many friends can be given for very satisfied. The Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel says the same as the KJB with - "O homem de muitos amigos deve mostrar-se amigável" = A man with many friends ought to show himself friendly." The Dutch Staten Vertaling also agrees with the KJB - "Een man, die vrienden heeft, heeft zich vriendelijk te houden" = "A man, who has friends, has to keep himself pleasant" and so does the Russian Synodal Bible.

 

The Romanian Fidela Bible of 2009 reads exactly like the King James Bible saying: "Un om care are prieteni trebuie să se arate el însuşi prietenos; şi este un prieten care se lipeşte mai aproape ca un frate. "  = "A man who has friends must show himself friendly: and is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

 

Luther's German bible of 1545 reads: "Ein treuer Freund liebet mehr und steht fester bei denn ein Bruder." = "A faithful friend love more and stand more firmly with a brother."

 

 

John Gill comments: A man that hath friends must show himself friendly…"Friendship ought to be mutual and reciprocal, as between David and Jonathan; a man that receives friendship ought to return it, or otherwise he is guilty of great ingratitude."

Adam Clarke writes: A man that hath friends must show himself friendly "Love begets love; and love requires love as its recompense. If a man do not maintain a friendly carriage, he cannot expect to retain his friends. Friendship is a good plant; but it requires cultivation to make it grow."

 

Matthew Poole comments: "A man that hath friends must shew friendly and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother. A man that hath friends - Heb. a man of friends either 1 Who desires the friendship of others Or 2 Who professes friendship to others That sticketh closer to him -  desires and needs his help who is more hearty in of all friendly offices."

 

 

Here the NKJV reads as does the KJB but it has a footnote that supports the ridiculous reading of the NIV, NASB and Darby. The NIV and NASB say "A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. " (NIV 1984 edition). The NKJV, being in partnership to destroy faith in the words of God, includes a footnote "Or MAY COME TO RUIN". You see, some of the same "scholars" who worked on the NIV also participated in the NKJV.

The 2011 "new" NIV doesn't even agree with the previous NIV of 1984. The NIV 1984 has: "A MAN of MANY friends MAY come to ruin..." but the "new" NIV now reads: "ONE WHO HAS UNRELIABLE friends SOON comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

The Holman Standard 2003 is very similar with: "A MAN WITH MANY FRIENDS MAY BE HARMED."

The Message has: "FRIENDS COME AND GO, but a true friend sticks by you like family."

 

The Amplified Bible of 1987 reads: "The man of many friends [a friend of all the world] WILL PROVE HIMSELF A BAD FRIEND"


The Judaica Press Tanach 2001 - "A MAN ACQUIRES FRIENDS WITH WHOM TO ASSOCIATE, and there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

Douay-Rheims version of 1610 reads: "A MAN AMIABLE IN SOCIETY, shall be more friendly than a brother."

Jerusalem Bible 1968  and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible (both modern Catholic versions) - "THERE ARE FRIENDS WHO LEAD ONE TO RUIN, others are closer than a brother."

 

The 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible reads much like the other new Vatican Versions with - "SOME FRIENDS BRING RUIN ON US, but a true friend is more loyal than a brother."

 

However the latest Catholic version to come out in 2009 called The Sacred Scriptures Catholic Public Domain Version has gone back to reading: "{18:24} A MAN AMIABLE TO SOCIETY shall be more friendly than a brother."  

 

RSV 1952 - "THERE ARE FRIENDS WHO PRETEND TO BE FRIENDS, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

NRSV 1989 - "SOME FRIENDS PLAY AT FRIENDSHIP but a true friend sticks closer than one's nearest kin."

 

The Contemporary English Version of 1995 reads: "SOME FRIENDS DON'T HELP" but then Footnotes: "One possible meaning for the difficult Hebrew text."

 

ESV 2001 - "A MAN OF MANY COMPANIONS MAY COME TO RUIN but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

Good News Translation 1992 - "SOME FRIENDSHIPS DO NOT LAST, but some friends are more loyal than brothers."

Easy to Read Version 2001 - "SOME FRIENDS ARE FUN TO BE WITH. But a close friend can be even better than a brother."

Lamsa's 1936 translation - "THERE ARE FRIENDS WHO ARE MERELY FRIENDS; and there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

 

The brand new Common English Bible of 2011 (a critical text version) says: "THERE ARE PERSONS FOR COMPANIONSHIP, but then there are friends who are more loyal than family."

 

 

The so called Greek Septuagint shows its usual confusion by omitting Proverbs 18:23 and 24, and also omitting 19:1, 2 and 3. By the way, instead of Proverbs 18:22 reading: "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth the favor of the LORD." (KJB and an host of others), the LXX actually says: "He that PUTS AWAY A GOOD WIFE PUTS AWAY A GOOD THING, AND HE THAT KEEPS AN ADULTERESS IS FOOLISH AND UNGODLY." Yeah..., that's pretty close, isn't it?

New English Bible 1970 - "SOME COMPANIONS ARE GOOD ONLY FOR IDLE TALK, but a friend may stick closer than a brother."

As our scholarly friend James White writes: "By comparing various Bible versions we get a better idea of what God said."

Soooo true, don't ya think? ;-)

 

Proverbs 22:20 "excellent things", "three times" or "thirty sayings"? 

KJB (RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV) -Have not I written unto thee EXCELLENT THINGS

NIV, ESV - Have I not written for you THIRTY SAYINGS of counsel and knowledge

Young's -  "Have I not written to thee THREE TIMES with counsels and knowledge?

 


Proverbs 22:20 "excellent things", "three times" or "thirty sayings"?

Proverbs 22:20-21 "Have not I written to thee EXCELLENT THINGS in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of THE WORDS OF TRUTH; that thou mightest answer THE WORDS OF TRUTH to them that send unto thee."


"Have not I written unto thee EXCELLENT THINGS" is the reading found in the Revised Version 1881, Lesser Old Testament 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, A Conservative Version, the American Standard Version of 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Jewish translations of 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society), the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the NKJV 1982, the NASB 1972-1995, Darby 1870, the Amplified bible 1987, Green's MKJV 1998, the Updated Bible version 2004 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.


NASB 1995 - Have I not written to you excellent  things Of counsels and knowledge

Darby - Have not I written to thee excellent things, in counsels and knowledge

Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - I have written you worthwhile things full of good counsel and knowledge

21st Century KJV 1994 - Have I not written to thee excellent things of counsel and knowledge

Amplified Bible 1987 - Have I not written to you long ago excellent things in counsels and knowledge

However there are several very different ways other Bible versions have translated this verse.  Here are some of them:


Young's - "Have I not written to thee three times with counsels and knowledge?


Bishops' Bible 1568 - Haue not I warned thee very oft with counsayle and learning


Geneva Bible 1587 - Haue not I written vnto thee three times in counsels and knowledge


Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 - Behold I have described it to thee three manner of ways, in thoughts and knowledge


RSV 1946 - Have I not written for you thirty sayings of admonition and knowledge

ESV - Have I not written for you thirty sayings of counsel and knowledge

NIV, NET - Have I not written thirty sayings for you, 
sayings of counsel and knowledge


New Living Translation 2007 - I have written thirty sayings for you, filled with advice and knowledge. Footnote: Or excellent sayings; the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.

Knox Bible 2012 - Not once nor twice have I warned thee and instructed thee

 J.P. Green's translation 2000 - Have I not written to you yesterday and the day before with counsels and knowledge

Holman Standard 2003 - Haven’t I written for you thirty sayings about counsel and knowledge"  Footnote: Text emended; one Hb tradition reads you previously; alt Hb tradition reads you excellent things; LXX, Syr, Vg read you three times

The Catholic versions are all over the board. The Douay says "THREE MANNER OF WAYS"; while the St. Joseph New American Bible has "Have not I written to you "The Thirty"?, and the Jerusalem Bible has "to you the THIRTY CHAPTERS?"
Foreign Language Bibles -

Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - ¿Acaso no te he escrito tres veces, con consejos y ciencia = I have written to you THREE TIMES

Spanish La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation) - ¿No te he escrito cosas excelentes de consejo y conocimiento = EXCELLENT THINGS

Spanish La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005 - ¿No te he escrito cosas excelentes De consejo y conocimiento = EXCELLENT THINGS

Spanish Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - ¿No te he escrito cosas excelentes de consejo y conocimiento = EXCELLENT THINGS

Spanish Reina Valera 2011 - ¿Acaso no te he escrito treinta dichos para impartirte consejos y conocimientos? = I have written to you THIRTY SAYINGS...

Portuguese de Almeida Atualizada - Porventura não te escrevi excelentes coisas acerca dos conselhos e do conhecimento - EXCELLENT THINGS

Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada 1681 - Porventura näo te escrevi excelentes coisas, acerca de todo conselho e conhecimento = EXCELLENT THINGS

NIV Portuguese edition 2000 - Já não lhe escrevi
conselhos e instruções = Have I not written to you counsels and instructions - (They just omit the phrase altogether!)

Portuguese O Livro 2000 - Não é verdade que te tenho escrito já coisas excelentes referentes ao conhecimento e à experiência da vida? = EXCELLENT THINGS

Italian Diodati 1649 - Non ti ho io scritto cose eccellenti In consigli e in dottrina? = EXCELLENT THINGS

John Gill
- The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible - Proverbs 22:20 - Have not I written to thee excellent things…
In the Scriptures. Some render it, "three things"; and think that Solomon refers to the three divisions of the Scriptures among the Jews, the law, the prophets, and holy writings; so Jarchi; but some of those writings then were not: or to the three books wrote by him; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Others render it, "in a threefold way", as the Targum and several versions; that is, in various ways, in different forms and styles, in order the better to inform and instruct. But it is best, with Kimchi, Gersom, and Ben Melech, to render it, "excellent things", as we do."

Matthew Henry
- they are excellent things, which concern the glory of God, the holiness and happiness of our souls, the welfare of mankind and all communities; they are princely things (so the word is), fit for kings to speak and senates to hear."


Proverbs 25:23

KJV The north wind DRIVETH AWAY rain

NIV As a north wind BRINGS rain

NASB The north wind BRINGS forth rain

ESV The north wind BRINGS forth rain

HCSB The north wind PRODUCES rain 

 

Dan Wallace's NET version also translates it this way, but pay attention to his footnote. NET - "The north wind brings forth rain" - Footnote: One difficulty here is that it is the west wind that brings rain to Israel (e.g., 1 Kgs 18:41-44). C. H. Toy suggests that the expression is general, referring to a northwest wind – unless it is an error (Proverbs [ICC], 468). J. P. M. van der Ploeg suggests that the saying originated outside the land, perhaps in Egypt (“Prov 25:23,” VT 3 [1953]: 189-92). But this would imply it was current in a place where it made no sense. R. N. Whybray suggests that the solution lies with the verb “brings forth” (תְּחוֹלֵל, tÿkholel); he suggests redefining it to mean “repels, holds back” (cf. KJV “driveth away”). Thus, the point would be that the north wind holds back the rain just as an angry look holds back slander (Proverbs [CBC], 149).  

 

John Gill goes into great explanations, and ends up agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible -

The north wind driveth away rain. So the geographer F23 says, the swift north wind drives away the moist clouds; which usually come from the opposite quarter, the south. The word used has the signification of conceiving, and begetting, and bringing forth; hence some F24 render it to a different sense, and so the Targum,

``the north wind bringeth forth rain;''and in this sense Gersom interprets it, and says,``the north wind produces rain in Jerusalem, because it brings there the vapours that ascend from the sea, which lies north unto it;''and the philosopher F25 says, that in the northern parts of the world the south wind produces rain; and in the southern parts the north wind produces it, as in Judea. But in (Job 37:22) , fair, fine, golden, serene, "weather", is said to "come out of the north"; agreeably to which, the north wind is by Homer F26 called (aiyrhgenethv) , the producer of serene weather; and by Virgil F1 "clarus aquilo", i.e. what makes serene. The Arabic version reads it, "the south wind"; and that does bring rain, and, as that version has it, excites the clouds. But the first reading and sense of the words seem best F2, and agree with what follows: so [doth] an angry countenance a backbiting tongue; drives it away, discourages and silences it. When a man puts on a stern countenance, a frowning and angry look, on such who bring him slanderous reports and idle tales of their neighbours, and reproach and backbite them, it checks them, and puts a stop to their practices."



Agreeing with the KJB = Geneva Bible 1587 - "As the Northwinde driueth away the raine, so doeth an angry countenance the slandering tongue.", Coverdale's Bible 1535 - "The north wynde dryueth awaye the rayne", Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims of 1610, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 - "El viento del norte ahuyenta la lluvia", the French Martin 1744 - "Le vent de bise chasse la pluie", the Italian Diodati of 1649- "Il vento settentrionale dissipa la pioggia", the Modern Greek translation - "Ο βορρας ανεμος εκδιωκει την βροχην·"

 

 

Proverbs18:8

KJV The words of a talebearer are as WOUNDS

NKJV - The words of a talebearer are like TASTY TRIFLES

NIV The words of a gossip are like choice morsels

NASB The words of a whisperer are like dainty morsels

ESV The words of a whisperer are delicious morsels

HCSB A gossip’s words are like choice food

 

Both this Proverb and Proverbs 26:22 are the same. The KJB says: "The words of a talebearer are as WOUNDS, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly."  The word translated as "wounds" is only found twice in the entire Hebrew Old Testament. The NKJV differs considerably from the KJB and sides with the modern versions, but footnotes "A Jewish tradition reads "wounds". As we shall soon see, it is far more than just "a Jewish tradition" but a legitimate translation of the Hebrew word.

Strong's concordance tells us the word comes from the idea of to burn or rankle.

 

John Gill comments on the passage: "they are wounds; they wound the credit and reputation of the person of whom the tale is told; they wound the person to whom it is told, and destroy his love and affection to his friend; and in the issue they wound, hurt, and ruin the talebearer himself."

 

There are many translations both in English and other languages that agree with the King James Bible here.  The 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version says "the words of the talebearer are as STROKES". The 2004 Judiaca Press Complete Jewish Tanach translates Proverbs 18:8 as: "The words of a grumbler are LIKE BLOWS, and they descend into the inmost parts."  Translations that read "as WOUNDS" are the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Bishops' Bible of 1568 - "The wordes of a slaunderer are very woundes, and go through vnto the innermost partes of the body.", the Lesser Old Testament 1853 "as wounds",  Young's literal, Webster's translation of 1833, the KJV 21st Century Version of 1994, Green's Modern KJV 1998 edition - "The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly." and the Third Millenium Bible of 1998. 

 

Among foreign language translations that read like the KJB's "words of a talebearer are as WOUNDS" are Luthers' German Bible of 1545 - "Die Worte des Verleumders sind Schläge und gehen einem durchs Herz." and the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez of 2004 has - "Las palabras del chismoso son como estocadas" = "are like stabs". 

 

The Catholic versions are in their usual disarray. The older Douay-Rheims of 1610 read: "The words of the double tongued are as if they were harmless: and they reach even to the inner parts of the bowels." But then the more modern ones like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem read like the NKJV, NIV with "dainty morsels", and then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has gone with - "The words of the double-tongued seem simple.

 

The so called Greek LXX version has a completely different meaning in Proverbs 18:8 and reads: "Fear casts down the slothful; and the souls of the effeminate shall hunger." (Yeah, that's pretty close, huh?) and in Proverbs 26 the LXX is missing all of chapters 25, 26, 27, 28, and only has one verse of chapter 29.  The Syriac translation of Lamsa says: "The words of a slothful man bring evil to him, and they cause him to go down into the inner chambers of Sheol." (Pro. 18:8) while in Proverbs 26:22 it says: "The words of the malicious stir up trouble; they go down into the innermost parts of the heart." - And that is supposedly quoting the same Proverb!


Ecclesiastes 8:10

KJV wicked…..were FORGOTTEN

NIV wicked…..receive praise

ESV wicked…..were praised



 

Ecclesiastes 8:10 - “were forgotten” or “were praised”?

King James Bible -  “And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy, and they WERE FORGOTTEN in the city where they had so done: this is also vanity.”

ESV, NIV - ” Then I saw the wicked buried. They used to go in and out of the holy place and WERE PRAISED in the city where they had done such things. This also is vanity.”

I would hope that you can see there is an obvious difference between the wicked being forgotten and the wicked being, not only not forgotten, but even praised! You can’t praise someone and have forgotten them at the same time.

Agreeing with the King James Bible in saying that the wicked were FORGOTTEN are: Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NASB 1995, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1933, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the World English Bible 2000, The New European Version 2010, The Biblos Bible 2013, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, International Standard Version 2014, Tree of Life Version 2015, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "they were forgotten", the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation, the 2004 Jewish Complete Tanach and The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "and they were FORGOTTEN".

Among foreign language translations that follow the Masorretic text and read as does the King James Bible are the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, and French Ostervald 1996 -”et sont oubliés dans la ville.”, Luther’s German Bible 1545, Spanish Reina Valera, and Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - “y ser olvidados en la ciudad donde esto hicieron. Esto también es vanidad.”, the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991, and the Portuguese de Almeida and Biblia Sagrada  - “foram esquecidos na cidade.”

The NASB - “So then, I have seen the wicked buried, those who used to go in and out from the holy place, and they are soon FORGOTTEN in the city where they did thus. This too is futility.”

Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac - “And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the holy place, and they WERE FORGOTTEN in the city where they had done such evil things; this also is vanity.”


The "ever dependable" NIVs

 
NIV - “Then too, I saw the wicked buried-those who used to come and go from the holy place and RECEIVE PRAISE in the city where they did this. This too is meaningless.”  

 

Even though the NIV English version says the wicked "RECEIVE PRAISE" yet the NIV SPANISH version, La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 says "THEY WERE FORGOTTEN".

 

It reads: "Vi también a los malvados ser sepultados —los que solían ir y venir del lugar santo—; a ellos SE LES ECHO AL OLVIDO en la ciudad donde así se condujeron. ¡Y también esto es absurdo!"  = "THEY WERE FORGOTTEN"

 

AND so too does the NIV Portuguese version, Nova Versão Internacional 2000 - "Todavia, os que haviam praticado o bem FORAM ESQUECIDOS na cidade. Isso também não faz sentido. = "THEY WERE FORGOTTEN"



 

 

So how did the NIV and the other perverted versions listed below come up with “receive praise” insteat of “were forgotten”?  Well, the NIVs own footnote tells us.  The NIV footnote says the reading of “receive praise” comes from “Some Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint (Aquila), but most Hebrew manuscripts read ‘and are forgotten’.”

The ESV also perverts this verse and says: “were praised in the city” and then footnotes: “Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint Vulgate read ‘praised’; Most Hebrew manuscripts read “forgotten”.


RSV, NRSV, ESV -” Then I saw the wicked buried. They used to go in and out of the holy place and WERE PRAISED in the city where they had done such things. This also is vanity.”

Holman Standard - “ In such circumstances, I saw the wicked buried. They came and went from the holy place, and they WERE PRAISED in the city where they did so. This too is futile.”

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Douay-Rheims Roman Catholic, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic Public Domain Version 2009 - “ I saw the wicked buried: who also when they were yet living were in the holy place, and WERE PRAISED in the city as men of just works: but this also is vanity.”

Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968 - “to honor them”

The Message tells us: “One time I saw wicked men given a solemn burial in holy ground. When the people returned to the city, THEY DELIVERED FLOWERY EULOGIES--and in the very place where wicked acts were done by those very men!”


The silly Amplified bible tells us: “and they are [praised and] forgotten in the city”.  It’s a little difficult ...No, it’s impossible to be both praised and forgotten.  

Daniel Wallace and company have gone completely over the edge of all reason and their NET translation actually reads this way in Ecclesiastes 8:10 - “ Not only that but I have seen the wicked approaching and entering the temple, and as they left the holy temple, THEY BOASTED IN THE CITY that they had done so. This also is an enigma.”

Maybe James White will tell us that they are all “reliable and trustworthy” because each of them follows their own sources. Doesn’t matter what God Himself inspired in His inerrant words; just as long as they follow “their sources” (no matter how wrong or corrupt,  James White thinks they are “reliable”.

Have these Bible critics lost their minds? (That’s a rhetorical question ;-)


Isaiah 9:1

KJV afterward did more GRIEVOUSLY AFFLICT …….Galilee

NASB later on He shall make it glorious…….Galilee

NIV in the future he will honor Galilee

ESV in the latter time he has made glorious….Galilee

 

Agreeing with the meaning found in the King James Bible's "did more grievously afflict her" are the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "nor afteward when he was more grieuous by the way of the sea beyond Iorden in Galile of the Gentiles.", Darby's translation,  the New English Bible 1970, the NKJV 1982 - "And afterward more heavily oppressed her, By the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, In Galilee of the Gentiles.", the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "but the latter hath dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea",  the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and the Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - "Aunque no será esta oscuridad tal como fue en su angustia, cuando al principio Él levemente afligió la tierra de Zabulón y la tierra de Neftalí; y después más gravemente los afligió por el camino del mar, al otro lado del Jordán, en Galilea de los gentiles.", the Judaica Press Tanach - "he dealt mildly, [exiling only] the land of Zebulun and the land of Naftali, and the last one he dealt harshly.", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

 

The so called Greek Septuagint is very weird and totally different in meaning with its: "Drink this first. Act quickly, O land of Zabulon, land of Nephthalim, and the rest inhabiting the sea coast, and the land beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles." 

 

To show the contrast in meaning, here is the ESV along with the KJB.

 

King James Bible  - "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations."

 

ESV - "But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations."

 

John Gill comments: "and afterwards did more grievously afflict her - by Shalmaneser king of Assyria, in the reign of Hoshea king of Israel, who took Samaria, and carried Israel or the ten tribes into captivity, from whence they returned not."

 

David Guzik remarks in his Commentary on the Bible - "The northern regions of the Promised Land - around the Sea of Galilee (Galilee of the Gentiles) - were most severely ravaged when the Assyrians invaded from the north." 

 

John Calvin translates the passage in the same way as the KJB has it and comments: "As if he had said, "and yet, amidst that shocking calamity which the Jews shall endure, the darkness will not be such as when the land of Israel was afflicted, first, by Tiglath-pileser, (2 Kings 15:29,) and afterwards more grievously by Shalmanezer," (2 Kings 17:6.)


Isaiah 9:3

KJV NOT increased their joy

NIV, TNIV  increased the joy

NKJV  increased its joy

ESV  increased its joy

NASB  increased their gladness

In discussing almost any verse or individual word of Scripture, once you begin to do a little research into the matter, you will find that there are as many different opinions among scholars as their different last names.

In Isaiah 9:3 we have such a case before us where most of the modern versions, including the NKJV, NIV and NASB depart from the standard Hebrew Masoretic text. In the King James Bible we read: "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and NOT increased the joy."

This is the reading found in the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the  Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599 - "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased their ioye", Green's interlinear Hebrew 2000, the Douay version of 1950, the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. - "multiplicasti gentem non magnificasti laetitiam", the Spanish Versión Antigua of 1569 and the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and the 2004 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "Aumentando la gente, no aumentaste la alegría.",  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, the ASV footnote, Webster's 1833 translation, the modern day Third Millenium Bible 1998,  the KJV 21st Century version 1994, and the Lexham English Bible of 2012 - "You have made the nation numerous; you have not made the joy great."  The Modern Hebrew Bible also reads this way - "  הרבית הגוי לא הגדלת השמחה שמחו לפניך כשמחת בקציר כאשר יגילו בחלקם שלל

 You can see this Modern Hebrew Bible here.

http://www.crosswire.org/study/passagestudy.jsp?mod=HebModern#cv

Take the text to a translation site and you will see that it says "and NOT increased the joy"

The Catholic versions do their usual trick. The older Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible of 1610 followed the Hebrew text and reads as does the KJB saying: "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and hast not increased the joy." So too does the 1950 Douay Version. However in 1968 the Jerusalem bible, and again in the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible now read like the other Vatican Versions like the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB and the NKJV and say "you have increased the joy".  But just so you don't get too confident the latest 2009 Catholic Public Doman Version has once again gone back to the Hebrew Masorretic text which reads: "You have increased the nation, but you have not increased the rejoicing."

Even Daniel Wallace, of the ever-changing NET version, admits - “The Hebrew consonantal text reads “You multiply the nation, you do NOT make great the joy.” The Spanish Reina Valera 1995 footnotes that the Hebrew text reads "and NOT increased the joy".

Most other modern day versions, including the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, the  NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB and most modern Catholic versions have all changed this to read: "You have multiplied the nation and increased its joy" - the exact opposite of the KJB.

Dr. Donald Waite Th.D., Ph.D., in his book Defending the King James Bible says "The editors of these new versions...often decide the issue on the basis of pure guesswork! But how do you know their decision is the the correct one? Just leave the Hebrew text as it is. The King James translators came along and saw what the Hebrew Masorretic text said and simply translated it right over into the English. They didn't quibble with it; they didn't try to harmonize it. For instance, you'll find in Isaiah 9:3 that there is a "not" (LO) which has been completely eliminated by the new versions. The Scripture says, "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy..."and these new versions have just taken it out because they think it makes more sense. But the Hebrew says "not" and the KING JAMES translators simply wrote it down, faithfully as they ought to have done." - quoted from page 32.

Another example from men who are by no stretch of the imagination KJB defenders say this regarding Isaiah 9:3. Jamison, Faucett and Brown's commentary: "NOT increased the joy--By a slight change in the Hebrew, its (joy) is substituted by some for NOT, because "NOT increased the joy" seems opposite to what immediately follows, "the joy," Others, "Hast thou not increased the joy?" The very difficulty of the reading, NOT, makes it less likely to be an interpolation."

John Calvin likewise translates it as "and NOT increased the joy" and then adds these very revealing comments saying: " Thou hast multiplied. This passage is somewhat obscure, both in itself, and on account of the diversity of interpretations; for it appears to be absurd to say that the joy was not increased, seeing that he immediately afterwards adds, they rejoiced. On this account the Jews interpret al (lo) not negatively, but as if w (vau) had been substituted for a (aleph); for sometimes, though rarely, it has this meaning in the Scriptures. The Jews do this, because they cannot reconcile the words of the Prophet with their opinion."

Here we see that these men do not dispute the Hebrew reading of "Not", and in fact support the idea that it is the legitimate reading just because it seems so difficult to understand. They also note that because it doesn't make sense to some, that is why they have changed it.

Let me offer one very possible explanation of the passage in its immediate and prophetic context. Going back to the last half of chapter 8 and continuing in 9 we read of the judgment God is bringing upon rebellious Israel and of the blessing to be given to the Gentile nations.

In 2-4 we read: "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. Thou hast multiplied the nation, and NOT increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian."

This section of Scripture is referred to in Matthew 4:12-16 when the Lord Jesus came into this same region and we are told "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."

So, when we go back to look at Isaiah 9:3 both historically and prophetically the part about "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy" refers to the nation of Israel. God had increased them to be a great number, but they were all far from God and had no joy in the Lord. There is even a play on words found in verse 17 where God says: "Therefore the Lord shall have NO JOY in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and and evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly."

But the THEY in "they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest" refers not to the nation of Israel but rather to "the people" that walked in darkness who have seen a great light of the previous verse -the Gentiles.

I know of two or three different ways of looking at this section of Scripture that can explain it without changing the Hebrew text or the KJB, but this one seems to me for now to be the one that makes the most sense. Just because something doesn't seem to make sense to us is no reason to assume there is a scribal error or to change the text ourselves as the NKJV and many others have done.  Here is a KJB defense site that offers a different explanation of the passage

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/not-increased-the-joy-or-increased-the-joy-in-isaiah-93


Jeremiah 51:3
KJV LET the archer BEND his bow
ESV Let NOT the archer BEND his bow
NIV Let NOT the archer STRING his bow
NASB Let NOT him who BENDS his bow BEND it
Holman Standard - Don’t let the archer string his bow;
don’t let him put on his armor.

Jeremiah 51 speaks of the judgment God brings upon the Babylonians in their destruction.  The King James Bible reads: "Against him that bendeth let the archer bend his bow, and against him that lifteth himself up in his brigandine: and spare ye not her young men; destroy ye utterly all her host."  

However versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB read the opposite and have the archers NOT bending their bows against the Babylonians and it contradicts itself in its own reading.  The ESV reads: "Let NOT the archer bend his bow, and let him NOT stand up in his armor. Spare not her young men; devote to destruction all her army. " The Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the Public Domain Catholic Bible all side with the NIV, NASB, ESV, NET versions reading: "Let no archer bend his bow! "
 

Agreeing with the sense found in the King James Bible  that the archers are to bend their bows and attack the Babylonians are the Geneva Bible 1587 -"Also to the bender that bendeth his bowe, and to him that lifteth himselfe vp in his brigandine, will I say, Spare not her yong men, but destroy all her hoste.", Webster's 1833 translation, the Hebrew Names Version - "Against him who bends let the archer bend his bow", Darby's translation - "Against him that bendeth let the archer bend his bow", the Bible in Basic English 1961, God's Word to the Nations 1995 - "Have the archers bend their bows. Have them put on their armor.", God's Word Translation, the Complete Jewish Bible - "Let the archer draw his bow", the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation - "Let the archer bend his bow against her, and let him lift himself up against her in his coat of mail; and spare ye not her young men, destroy ye utterly all her host.", the Judaica Press Tanach - "the archer shall bend his bow", the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "Against her let the archer bend his keshet, and against her let him rise up in his armor",  the ASV of 1901 - "Against him that bendeth let the archer bend his bow", the 1987 Amplified Version, the 2011 Common English Bible - "Let the archers draw their bows; let them prepare their armor", the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

Among foreign language translations that say the same thing as the KJB are the so called Greek Septuagint - "Let the archer bend his bow, and him that has armour put it on, and spare ye not her young men, but destroy ye all her host.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - "Ordenaré al flechero que tensa su arco y al que se enorgullece de su coraza" and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "Diré al arquero que entesa su arco"

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's Commentary says: "let the archer bend--that is, the Persian archer (Jer 50:4). The Chaldean version and JEROME, by changing the vowel points, read, "Let not him (the Babylonian) who bendeth his bow bend it." But the close of the verse is addressed to the Median invaders; therefore it is more likely that the first part of the verse is addressed to them, as in English Version, not to the Babylonians, to warn them against resistance as vain, as in the Chaldean version."

John Gill agrees saying: "Against him that bendeth let the archer bend his bow…These are either the words of the Lord to the Medes and Persians, to the archers among them, to bend their bows and level their arrows against the Chaldeans, who had bent their bows and shot their arrows against others; or of the Medes and Persians stirring up one another to draw their bows, and fight manfully against the enemy."

 John Calvin also is aware of the textual difficulties. He discusses them and also sides with the translation found in the King James Bible and in most Jewish translations. He concludes: "As to the main point, it is evident that the Prophet exhorts the Persians and the Medes not to spare the young men among the Chaldeans, but to destroy their whole army, so that no part of it should be left remaining."



Hosea 10:1
KJV Israel is an EMPTY vine
NASB Israel is a luxuriant vine
ESV Israel is a luxuriant vine
NIV Israel was a spreading vine

Also incorrectly reading that Israel is A LUXURIANT vine are the Catholic versions like the Jerusalem bible 1968, St. Joseph NAB 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985, the ASV, RSV, NRSV, Green's literal and Dan Wallace's NET version.

The Hebrew word correctly translated as "empty" is found only 9 times in the Old Testament and every time is means "empty" or "void". "The Lord maketh the earth EMPTY" Isaiah 24:1; "The land shall be UTTERLY EMPTIED" Isaiah 24:3; "and shall EMPTY her land" Jeremiah 51:2; "the EMPTIERS have EMPTIED them out" Nahum 2:2  Israel brought forth fruit, but it was not for God. Therefore God considered it to be empty.

Agreeing with the sense of the King James Bible are the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Israel is
an emptie vine, yet hath it brought foorth fruite vnto it selfe", Young's literal version, Webster's 1833 translation, the Lesser Old Testament 1853 - "An emptied vine is Israel", the NKJV 1982, the Judaica Press Tanach - "Israel is a vine devoid of fruit fitting for it.",  the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

 Among foreign language bibles that have the correct reading of "Israel is an EMPTY vine" are the French Martin 1744 - "Israël est une vigne déserte",  the Italian Diodati of 1649 - "Israele è stato una vigna deserta", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 - "Israel parra vacía", the Spanish Reina Valera of 1865 "La vid vacía a Israel", the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez Bible of 2010 - " Israel es una viña vacía que da fruto para sí mismo", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 - " Israel é uma vide estéril que dá fruto para si mesmo" = "Israel is a sterile vine which gives fruit for itself". It can be seen here -
http://www.baptistlink.com/creationists/acf/oseias.html

 The French La Bible du Semeur of 1999 is interesting in that it reads: "Israël est semblable à une vigne qui dégénère" = Israel is like a vine that degenerates".

John Gill comments: "Israel is an empty vine… The people of Israel are often compared to a vine, and such an one from whence fruit might be expected, being planted in a good soil, and well taken care of; see (Psalms 80:8) (Isaiah 5:1-3) (Jeremiah 2:21) ; but proved an "empty vine", empty of fruit; not of temporal good things, for a multitude of such fruit it is afterwards said to have; but of spiritual fruit, of the fruit of grace, and of good works, being destitute of the Spirit of God, and his grace; and, having no spiritual moisture, was incapable of bringing forth good fruit."

John Wesley, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown and David Guzlik all agree with the reading and the sense of the King James Bible.  John Wesley comments: "An empty vine - That hath lost its strength to bring forth fruit. Unto himself - Whatever fruit was brought forth by its remaining strength, was not brought forth to God. His fruit - When the land yielded more plentiful increase, this plenty was employed on multiplying idols."

Matthew Henry also agrees with the meaning found in the King James Bible and comments: "Israel is an empty vine. The church of God is fitly compared to a vine, weak, and of an unpromising outside, yet spreading and fruitful; believers are branches of that vine, and partake of its root and fatness. But this was the character of Israel, they were as an empty vine, a vine that had no sap or virtue in it, and therefore none of those good fruits produced by it that were expected from it, with which God and man should be honoured."

 


Hosea 11:12 - "...but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints."

 

KJB Judah yet RULETH WITH God

NIV Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God

NASB Judah is also UNRULY AGAINST God


11:12 KJB "But Judah yet RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS."

 

Those bible versions that agree with the KJB in that Judah YET RULETH WITH GOD are the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011 - " but Judah still walks with God and is faithful to the Holy One.", Darby 1890, Youngs 1898 - "And Judah again is ruling with God, And with the Holy Ones is faithful!", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "but Iudah yet ruleth with God, and is faithfull with the Saints.", the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "but Iuda yet ruleth with God, and is faithfull with the saintes.", Green's interlinear, Hebrew Publishing Company Translation 1936 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.  

 

Also agreeing with the meaning found in the KJB are The Word of Yah 1993, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "but Yehudah yet ruleth with Elohim (אלהים), and is faithful with the Kadoshim.", Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "but Judah still walks with God and is faithful with the saints.",  Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011 - "but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.", Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 and the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "Yahudah still rules with El, and is faithful with the holy ones."

 

 

But the NKJV puts a new twist here with its "But Judah still walks with God, even with the Holy One, who is faithful."

 

The NKJV says it is God who is faithful, instead of Judah "ruling with God" and it changes "with the saints" to "with the Holy One". The meaning is not the same.

 

While the NASB & NIV completely spin it around to mean the opposite with "And Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God, even against the faithful Holy One."

 

So which one is God's true word?

 

The Catholic Connection

 

 

The Catholic Versions are their usual confused mess.  The earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 as well as the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version are all basically like the KJB and read: "Ephraim has besieged me with denials, and the house of Israel with deceit. But Judah went down as a witness before God and the holy ones of faith." 

 

But the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible reads like the NIV, NASB and has "Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, the house of Israel, with deceit; Judah is STILL REBELLIOUS AGAINST GOD, AGAINST the Holy One, who is faithful." 

 

But then the 1985 New Jerusalem went back to "But Judah IS STILL ON GOD'S SIDE, HE IS FAITHFUL to the Holy One."

 

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the KJB reading are the Portuguese Almeida - "mas Judá ainda domina com Deus, e com o Santo está fiel.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - "Pero Judá aún gobierna con Dios, y es fiel con los santos.", the French Martin 1744 - "Juda dominait encore avec le Dieu Fort, et qu'il était fidèle avec les Saints."

 

and the Modern Greek translation - "αλλ' ο Ιουδας ετι εχει εξουσιαν μετα του Θεου και ειναι πιστος μετα των αγιων." = "But Judah still has power with God and IS FAITHFUL with the saints."

 

 

This time Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees in the main with the KJB saying: "But Judah still roams about with God; he remains faithful to the Holy One."


The Holman Standard has come up with a different rendering, saying: "Judah STILL WANDERS WITH EL, AND IS FAITHFUL TO HOLY ONES." Say what?!? Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure.

 

If you think the Hebrew is obscure, then the English translations are downright mind-boggling. So which, if any, of the multiple-choice bible versions is the true word of God?

 

Adam Clarke comments: "Judah yet ruleth with God - There is an allusion here to Genesis 32:24, where Jacob, having "wrestled with the Angel," had his name changed to Israel, one that rules with God. That glory the Israelites had lost by their idolatry; but Judah still retained the true worship, and alone deserved the name of Israel." 

 

John Gill comments: "but Judah yet ruleth with God - a theocracy was as yet acknowledged and supported among them; God ruled in the midst of them, and; they ruled with him; their kings ruled in the fear of God, and according to his laws, statutes, and appointment, and not their own; particularly in the days of Hezekiah, which may be here respected, the people retained and practised the true worship and service of God."

 

John Wesley tersely comments: "Judah adheres to God's holy prophets, priests, and other saints of God."

 

John Calvin likewise translated the passage as it stands in the King James Bible -"Judah autem adhuc dominatur (vel, principatum tenet) cum Deo, et cum sanctis fidelis est." and then comments: "But of Judah the Prophet speaks much otherwise, that he still ruled with God, because the posterity of David, though we know that they laboured under many vices, had not yet changed the worship prescribed by the law, except that Ahab had erected an altar like one at Damascus, as the sacred history relates, (2 Kings 16:11,12;) but yet pure religion always prevailed at Jerusalem. But the Prophet speaks comparatively, as it will be presently seen: for he does not wholly excuse the Jews, but says that in comparison with Israel they yet ruled with God; for the kingdom and the priesthood, as we have said, were joined together in Judah, and both had been divinely instituted." 


 


Hosea 11:12 - "...but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints."
 
KJB Judah yet RULETH WITH God
NIV Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God
NASB Judah is also UNRULY AGAINST God

11:12 KJB "But Judah yet RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS."
 
Those bible versions that agree with the KJB in that Judah YET RULETH WITH GOD are the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011 - " but Judah still walks with God and is faithful to the Holy One.", Darby 1890, Youngs 1898 - "And Judah again is ruling with God, And with the Holy Ones is faithful!", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "but Iudah yet ruleth with God, and is faithfull with the Saints.", the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "but Iuda yet ruleth with God, and is faithfull with the saintes.", Green's interlinear, Hebrew Publishing Company Translation 1936 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.  
 
Also agreeing with the meaning found in the KJB are The Word of Yah 1993, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "but Yehudah yet ruleth with Elohim (אלהים), and is faithful with the Kadoshim.", Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "but Judah still walks with God and is faithful with the saints.",  Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011 - "but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.", Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 and the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "Yahudah still rules with El, and is faithful with the holy ones."
 
 
But the NKJV puts a new twist here with its "But Judah still walks with God, even with the Holy One, who is faithful."
 
The NKJV says it is God who is faithful, instead of Judah "ruling with God" and it changes "with the saints" to "with the Holy One". The meaning is not the same.
 
While the NASB & NIV completely spin it around to mean the opposite with "And Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God, even against the faithful Holy One."
 
So which one is God's true word?
 
The Catholic Connection
 
 
The Catholic Versions are their usual confused mess.  The earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 as well as the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version are all basically like the KJB and read: "Ephraim has besieged me with denials, and the house of Israel with deceit. But Judah went down as a witness before God and the holy ones of faith." 
 
But the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible reads like the NIV, NASB and has "Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, the house of Israel, with deceit; Judah is STILL REBELLIOUS AGAINST GOD, AGAINST the Holy One, who is faithful." 
 
But then the 1985 New Jerusalem went back to "But Judah IS STILL ON GOD'S SIDE, HE IS FAITHFUL to the Holy One."
 
Foreign language Bibles that agree with the KJB reading are the Portuguese Almeida - "mas Judá ainda domina com Deus, e com o Santo está fiel.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - "Pero Judá aún gobierna con Dios, y es fiel con los santos.", the French Martin 1744 - "Juda dominait encore avec le Dieu Fort, et qu'il était fidèle avec les Saints."
 
and the Modern Greek translation - "αλλ' ο Ιουδας ετι εχει εξουσιαν μετα του Θεου και ειναι πιστος μετα των αγιων." = "But Judah still has power with God and IS FAITHFUL with the saints."
 
 
This time Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees in the main with the KJB saying: "But Judah still roams about with God; he remains faithful to the Holy One."

The Holman Standard has come up with a different rendering, saying: "Judah STILL WANDERS WITH EL, AND IS FAITHFUL TO HOLY ONES." Say what?!? Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure.
 
If you think the Hebrew is obscure, then the English translations are downright mind-boggling. So which, if any, of the multiple-choice bible versions is the true word of God?
 
Adam Clarke comments: "Judah yet ruleth with God - There is an allusion here to Genesis 32:24, where Jacob, having "wrestled with the Angel," had his name changed to Israel, one that rules with God. That glory the Israelites had lost by their idolatry; but Judah still retained the true worship, and alone deserved the name of Israel." 
 
John Gill comments: "but Judah yet ruleth with God - a theocracy was as yet acknowledged and supported among them; God ruled in the midst of them, and; they ruled with him; their kings ruled in the fear of God, and according to his laws, statutes, and appointment, and not their own; particularly in the days of Hezekiah, which may be here respected, the people retained and practised the true worship and service of God."
 
John Wesley tersely comments: "Judah adheres to God's holy prophets, priests, and other saints of God."
 
John Calvin likewise translated the passage as it stands in the King James Bible -"Judah autem adhuc dominatur (vel, principatum tenet) cum Deo, et cum sanctis fidelis est." and then comments: "But of Judah the Prophet speaks much otherwise, that he still ruled with God, because the posterity of David, though we know that they laboured under many vices, had not yet changed the worship prescribed by the law, except that Ahab had erected an altar like one at Damascus, as the sacred history relates, (2 Kings 16:11,12;) but yet pure religion always prevailed at Jerusalem. But the Prophet speaks comparatively, as it will be presently seen: for he does not wholly excuse the Jews, but says that in comparison with Israel they yet ruled with God; for the kingdom and the priesthood, as we have said, were joined together in Judah, and both had been divinely instituted." 

 

Hosea 13:9 KJB - "O Israel, THOU HAST DESTROYED THYSELF: BUT IN ME IS THINE HELP."

 

ESV -  "HE destroys you, O Israel, FOR YOU ARE AGAINST ME, AGAINST YOUR HELPER."

 

The Holman Standard - "I WILL DESTROY YOU, Israel; YOU HAVE NO HELP BUT ME."  

 

Agreeing with the meaning found in the King James Bible are Wycliffe 1395 - " Israel, thi perdicioun is of thee; thin help is oneli of me.", Coverdale 1535 - "O Israel, thou doest but destroyeth thyself, In me only is thy helpe.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "O Israel, thou doest but destroye thy selfe, in me onely is thy helpe.",  the Geneva Bible 1587, the NKJV, Young's - "Thou hast destroyed thyself, O Israel, But in Me `is' thy help", Green's MKJV and interlinear, Douay, Webster's, KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

 

The International Standard Version is pretty much like the KJB, reading: "You have destroyed yourself, Israel, although I remain your help."

 

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the Latin Vulgate - "perditio tua Israhel tantummodo in me auxilium tuum" = "you have destroyed yourself Israel but in me is your help",  the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Cipriano de Valera of 1602, the Reina Valera 1909-1995, and the R.V. Gómez 2010 - "Te perdiste, Israel, mas en mí está tu ayuda." = "You destroyed yourself, Israel, but in me is your help.", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "O Israele, tu sei stato perduto; ma il tuo aiuto è in me." = "O Israel, you have lost yourself, but your help is in me.", the Portuguese Almeida Revisada y Actualizada - "A tua runa, Israel, vem de ti, es de mim, o teu socorro." = "Your ruin, O Israel, is coming from you, and from me, your help.", Luther's German bible 1545 - "Israel, du bringst dich in Unglück; denn dein Heil steht allein bei mir.", the Modern German Bible - "Israel, du bringest dich in Unglück; denn dein Heil stehet allein bei mir." = "Israel, thou bringest you into evil, for thy salvation standeth with me.",  the French Martin 1744 - "On t'a perdu, ô Israël! mais en moi réside ton sec ours.",  the Russian Synodal Translation - "Погубил ты себя, Израиль, ибо только во Мне опора твоя.", the Chinese Union Traditional Bible, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2009 - "Israele, tu te-ai nimicit pe tine însuţi; dar în mine este ajutorul tău." = "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thine help.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Het heeft u bedorven, o Israel! want in Mij is uw hulp." "You have destroyed yourself, O Israel, but in me is your help." and the Modern Greek Bible - "Απωλεσθης, Ισραηλ· πλην εν εμοι ειναι η βοηθεια σου." = "You have destroyed yourself, Israel, but in me is your help."

 

But the NASB, NIV say: "It is your destruction, O Israel, that you are against me, against your help."

 

Just to make it interesting, the New English Bible 1970, the Revised English Bible 1989 and the Bible in Basic English say: "I HAVE SENT DESTRUCTION ON YOU, O Israel. WHO WILL BE YOUR HELPER?"  

 

Then the ESV confuses this further by saying: "HE destroys you, O Israel, FOR YOU ARE AGAINST ME, AGAINST YOUR HELPER."

 

The Holman Standard takes another stab at it with: "I WILL DESTROY YOU, Israel; YOU HAVE NO HELP BUT ME."  (Now, that makes a lot of sense, huh?  Think about it.)

 

The Lexham English Bible 2012 puts another twist on things with: "I will destroy you, O Israel; WHO WILL HELP YOU?"

 

The Catholic versions present us with their usual confusion as well.  The earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 as well as the Douay of 1950 both carry the same sense as found in the KJB, reading: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me."  

 

However then the Jerusalem bible of 1968 says: "I MEAN TO DESTROY YOU, ISRAEL; WHO CAN COME TO YOUR HELP?". The 1970 St. Joseph NAB has the enigmatic: "YOUR DESTRUCTION, O ISRAEL! WHO IS THERE TO HELP YOU?".  

 

Then the 1985 New Jerusalem bible goes back essentially to the meaning found in the KJB, saying: "Israel, YOU HAVE DESTROYED YOURSELF THOUGH IN ME LIES YOUR HELP." And the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version also carries this meaning with: " Perdition is yours, Israel. Your help is only in me."

 

So, as James White and other Bible agnostics tell us that by comparing several different versions we can get a better idea what the passage means, is it "Israel who has destroyed herself, or God? And is God their helper or is He asking Who will be their helper when God destroys them?

 

Adam Clarke comments: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself - These evils come not by my immediate infliction; they are the consequences of thy own crimes. "But in me is thine help" -Though thou hast destroyed thyself, yet in me alone can thy help be found" - others read, And who will help thee? reading mi, who, for bi, in me. Though this is countenanced by the Syriac, yet there is no evidence of it in any of the MSS. yet collated, nor do I think it to be the true reading."

 

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says: "God alone is our help, we are the sources of our own destruction."

 

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - "hast destroyed thyself — that is, thy destruction is of thyself (Proverbs 6:32; Proverbs 8:36). in me is thine help — Hadst thou rested thy hope in Me, I would have been always ready at hand for thy help [Grotius]."  

 

John Gill - "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself,.... Though the Lord was a lion, a leopard, and a bear to them, yet their destruction was not owing to him, but to themselves; he was not chargeable with it, but they only; the fault and blame was theirs; their own sins brought it on them."  "but in me is thine help; not in themselves, not in any creature, but in the Lord alone"

 

MacLaren's Expositions of Holy Scripture - "Israel’s destruction arose from the fact of Israel having turned against God, its Help. Sin is suicide. God is our Help, and only Help."

 

"Matthew Henry comments: "Thy case is bad, but it is not desperate. Thou hast destroyed thyself but come to me, and I will help thee." This is a plank thrown out after shipwreck, and greatly magnifies not only the power of God, that he can help when things are at the worst, can help those that cannot help themselves, but the riches of his grace, that he will help those that have destroyed themselves and therefore might justly be left to perish"  

 

The King James Bible is right, as always.

 

   

Hosea 13:14

KJB -  "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."

 

ESV 2001-2011 - "SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol? SHALL I redeem them from Death? O Death, WHERE ARE your plagues? O Sheol, WHERE IS YOUR STING? COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes." 

NET version - "WILL I DELIVER THEM FROM THE POWER OF SHEOL? NO, I WILL NOT!  WILL I REDEEM THEM FROM DEATH? NO, I WILL NOT! O DEATH, BRING ON YOUR PLAGUES! O SHEOL, BRING ON YOUR DESTRUCTION! MY EYES WILL NOT SHOW ANY COMPASSION!" 

 

Hosea 13:14  "I will redeem them from death...REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."

 

One of the most beautiful and comforting promises in the book of the prophet Hosea has been completely turned on its head and made out to be utter non-sense in many versions. 

 

King James Bible -  "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."

 

ESV 2001-2011 - "SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol? SHALL I redeem them from Death? O Death, WHERE ARE your plagues? O Sheol, WHERE IS YOUR STING? COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes."

 

Note the changing of the promise of God to redeem them from death into a Question in the ESV - "I WILL redeem them from death" to " SHALL I redeem them from death?".

 

Then we have the textual change from "I WILL BE thy plagues...I WILL BE thy destruction" to "WHERE ARE your plagues...WHERE IS your sting?.

 

And last we have the total change in meaning from "REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes" (I will not change my mind, but will surely do it) to "COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes."


The ESV reads exactly the same as the liberal RSV 1952 and the NRSV 1989, but it lacks some of the footnotes found in both the RSV and NRSV. The RSV, NRSV inform us that the textual reading of "WHERE ARE YOUR PLAGUES? WHERE IS YOUR DESTRUCTION? (Both the RSV and NRSV read "destruction" as the KJB has it, but the ESV changed this to "sting") comes from the Greek and the Syriac, but that the Hebrew text reads: "I WILL BE thy plagues...I WILL BE thy destruction."  The ESV conveniently left out this information.  So right off the bat, the ESV is rejecting the clear Hebrew reading for something else. Not even the NIV rejected the Hebrew text in this passage, but several other modern versions have, as we shall see shortly. 

 

 

The meaning of this promise is abundantly clear in the King James Bible. God has promised to redeem His people from death and destroy the power of the grave and He will not change His mind about doing this for us.  The word "repentance" here simply means a change of mind and is used in this way many times in Scripture when referring to God.  Psalm 110:4 "The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."  "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."  Romans 11:29.

 

One would think the meaning of this precious promise is obvious. 

 

John Gill comments: "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes; that is, the Lord will never repent of his decree of redemption from hell, death, and the grave; nor of the work of it by Christ; nor of the entire destruction of these things; which being once done, will never be repented of nor recalled, but remain so for ever."

 

Adam Clarke's Commentary says: "Repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. On these points I will not change my purpose; this is the signification of repentance when attributed to God."

 

The Coffman Commentary on the Bible says: "Repentance shall be hid from mine eyes…The clear meaning of that is that God will not repent of his glorious promise. The immutable and eternal God will do what he promised!"

 

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's Commentary simply says: "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes--that is, I will not change My purpose of fulfilling My promise by delivering Israel." 

 

John Wesley comments: "Repentance shall be hid - I will never, as a man that repents, change my word and purpose, saith the Lord. What a glorious promise is this, which is interposed in the midst of all these judgments!" 

 

Matthew Henry comments: "This promise he has made, and it shall be made good to all that are his; for repentance shall be hidden from his eyes; he will never recall this sentence passed on death and the grave, for he is not a man that he should repent. Thanks be to God therefore who gives us the victory."

 

Matthew Poole comments:"Repentance shall be hid from mine eyes - this grace toward the godly, toward believers in Israel and in the church, throughout all ages, is unchangeable; I will never, as man that repenteth, change my mind and purpose, saith the Lord."

 

Not only does the King James Bible read this way but so do the following Bible translations: the Geneva Bible 1587 -"I will redeem them from the power of the graue: I will deliuer them from death: O death, I wil be thy death: O graue, I will be thy destruction: repentance is hid from mine eyes.", the Revised Version 1881, Noyes Translation 1869, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Darby, Youngs, the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society)- "Ho, thy plagues, O death! Ho, thy destruction, O nether-world! Repentance be hid from Mine eyes!", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's literal translation 2000, A Conservative Version, The Scriptures 1998 by the Institute for Scripture Research, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 - "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy plagues! O grave, I will be thy destruction! Repentance shall be hid from Mine eyes."

 

Even a modern paraphrase like God's Word Translation 1995 agrees with the sense found in the KJB. It reads:  - "I want to free them from the power of the grave. I want to reclaim them from death. Death, I want to be a plague to you. Grave, I want to destroy you. I won't even think of changing my plans."

 

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865, the Reina Valera of 1909 and the Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 - "De la mano del sepulcro los redimiré, los libraré de la muerte. Oh muerte, yo seré tu muerte; y seré tu destrucción, oh sepulcro; el arrepentimiento será escondido de mis ojos." = "repentance will be hidden from my eyes", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Je les rachèterais de la puissance du Sépulcre; je les garantirais de la mort. O mort! je serais ta peste. O Sépulcre! je serais ta destruction. Le repentir se cache à mes yeux!", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "Eu os remirei da violência do inferno e os resgatarei da morte; onde estão, ó morte, as tuas pragas? Onde está, ó inferno, a tua perdição? O arrependimento será escondido de meus olhos." = "repentance shall be hidden from my eyes", the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991,  and Italian Riveduta 1927, 1994, 2006 - "Io li riscatterei dal potere del soggiorno de’ morti, li redimerei dalla morte; sarei la tua peste, o morte, sarei la tua distruzione, o soggiorno de’ morti; ma il lor pentimento è nascosto agli occhi miei!" = "the repentance is hidden to the eyes mine!", the Modern Greek translation - "Εκ χειρος αδου θελω ελευθερωσει αυτους, εκ θανατου θελω σωσει αυτους. Που ειναι, θανατε, ο ολεθρος σου; που, αδη, η φθορα σου; η μεταμελεια θελει κρυπτεσθαι απο των οφθαλμων μου." = "Repentance will be hid from my eyes".

 

In other words, God has promised to redeem His people from the power of the grave and and He will not change His mind nor alter His purpose.  Let's look at the verse once again as it stands in the King James Bible and so many others, and then compare it to many other versions around today to see the differences. 

 

Hosea 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death; O death, I will be thy plagues; O Grave, I will be thy destruction, REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes." 

 

 

The NKJV keeps the verse as 4 statements but changes the meaning. It says:  "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! PITY is hidden from My eyes."

 

 

The NIV and the Holman Standard change this verse by making it 2 statements and 2 questions and alter the meaning with: "I WILL ransom them from the power of the grave; I WILL redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction? I WILL HAVE NO COMPASSION." (NIV)

 

While versions like the RSV, NRSV and ESV have turned all 4 statements into 4 questions and again completely change the meaning of the verse.  The ESV along with the RSV, NRSV change the 4 statements into 4 questions and alter the entire meaning of the verse, making it some sort of a threat instead of a comforting promise.  The ESV says: "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? COMPASSION IS HIDDEN FROM MY EYES." The NASBs keep on changing their text and meaning.  

 

The earlier NASBs of 1972, 1973 and 1977 all say: "I WILL ransom them from the power of Sheol; I WILL redeem them from death."  But the 1995 NASB now reads: "SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol?  SHALL I redeem them from death?"  The of course it totally changed the meaning of the rest of the verse by saying: "O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? COMPASSION will be hidden from My sight."

 

NET version - Perhaps the worst of them all is Dan Wallace and company's NET version which has changed all 4 statements into exclamations, added words not found in any Hebrew text and turned the meaning completely upside down, making it a threat of doom rather than a promise of deliverance. 

 

The NET version actually says: "WILL I DELIVER THEM FROM THE POWER OF SHEOL? NO, I WILL NOT!  WILL I REDEEM THEM FROM DEATH? NO, I WILL NOT! O DEATH, BRING ON YOUR PLAGUES! O SHEOL, BRING ON YOUR DESTRUCTION! MY EYES WILL NOT SHOW ANY COMPASSION!"

 

Notice also the totally opposite meaning from the King James Bible that is found in what is called The Good News Bible (which turns out to be not good news at all) which says: " I will not save this people from the world of the dead or rescue them from the power of death. Bring on your plagues, death! Bring on your destruction, world of the dead! I will no longer have pity for this people."

 

Coffman's Commentary -

 

What I found to be of great interest is Burton Coffman's Commentary on the Old and New Testament regarding Hosea 13:14. He comments: "Many have tried to pervert this precious promise into a threat of destruction by the rendition of it as an interrogative instead of a declaration; but we are compelled to reject this. The apostle Paul viewed the passage as a promise and quoted it in 1 Cor. 15:55; and thus inspiration from God provides the true meaning of it. What upsets the commentators is the totally unexpected appearance of a blessed promise like this in the midst of the most severe denunciations to be found in the whole Bible; but the setting is this: God had promised that through Israel "all the families of the earth" should be blessed, and Hosea had been charged with the task of revealing God's purpose of rejection and destruction of the very Israel through whom the blessing of all men was promised to be conveyed! Did that mean that the hope of human salvation was lost? Indeed no! The ultimate victory of God, upon behalf of men, over the consequences of sin would yet be achieved. "I will ransom them!" thundered from the throne of God as the answer for any doubt. God was not being defeated in the apostasy of Israel; it was Israel that was being defeated. God would yet achieve his purpose through the righteous remnant which would remain, and particularly through the True Israel, even Jesus Christ our Lord! How appropriately, therefore, do the words of this sublime promise shine like a blazing lamp in the midnight darkness of Israel's wretched apostasy.

It is a fact that, "Modern scholarship is virtually unanimous in taking this verse as a threat. God is summoning up the plagues of death to punish his recalcitrant people." Despite this, we are certain that the scholars are wrong here because they are blind to the crying need for just such a promise in this exact place. They are looking only at Israel; but God's purpose in Israel has always been a redemption planned for all men, and not for Jews only. Most of the so-called "modern translations" follow the lead of the scholars in perverting this blessed promise; and in this particular, they become not "translations" in any sense but commentary, and woefully ignorant and inaccurate commentary at that! The apostle Paul could not have used this passage as he did, unless it is a glorious promise. Many of the scholars, even some of them who accept the passage as a threat, have pointed out that there is no genuine authority whatever for their changing the meaning of this verse." (end of comments - Coffman's Commentary)

 

The Catholic versions are very much like today's NKJV, NIV, NASB.  The 1610 Douay-Rheims reads: "I will deliver them out of the hand of death. I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite: COMFORT IS HIDDEN FROM MY EYES."

 

While the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read basically the same with "Shall I save them from the clutches of Sheol? Shall I buy them back from Death? Where are your plagues, Death? Where are your scourges, Sheol? COMPASSION WILL BE BANISHED FROM MY SIGHT!"

 

It should be blatantly obvious that not all Bible versions teach the same things. Many of them teach the exact opposite from what is found in others.  Is God this confused? Of course not. Who is the father of lies and confusion?  Who corrupts and steals the words of God from the hearts of men? He's been at it since the garden of Eden. It is Satan, the devil and Lucifer who asks the very first question recorded in the Holy Bible way back in Genesis 3 - "Yeah, hath God said...?" 

 

Get yourself a copy of the true words of God as found in the greatest Bible ever printed. The all time best seller in all of history and the only Bible believed by multiplied thousands to be the complete, inspired and 100% true words of the living God - The Authorized King James Holy Bible.

All of grace, believing the Book,

 

Will Kinney



Colossians 2:18

KJV things which he hath NOT seen

NIV, TNIV, ISV what he HAS seen

NASB visions he HAS seen

RSV, ESV, Holman, NET = NASB, NIV.

 

Now obviously God did NOT inspire both readings in the same verse that teach opposite things. Either one is right and the other is wrong; or both are wrong and the Bible agnostics are correct when they tell us that No Bible is the infallible words of God.


Colossians 2:18 - "NOT seen" or "SEEN"?

KJB - "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath NOT seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind."

 

On the other hand, that little word NOT has been removed from the NASB, NIV and ESV versions, which results in the opposite meaning. Has this false teacher seen or NOT SEEN the things of which he speaks? 

 

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Jehova Witness NWT, modern Catholic versions) - "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in details about VISIONS, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind." Footnote: "about the things HE HAS SEEN" 

The ESV just paraphrases a bad text.  The NASB says "taking his stand on visions HE HAS SEEN". It just adds the word "visions".  Surprisingly, the NIV is actually the most literal translation of a bad text. It says "goes into great detail about WHAT THEY HAVE SEEN." 

The reading of NOT SEEN is found in the Majority of all texts, Sinaiticus correction, D correction, C, F, G, K, L, P, Psi, the Old Latin copies ar, c, dem, div, f, g, mon, o, x, z, the Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Herclean, Gothic, and Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.  It is so quoted by such early church writers as Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Pelagius, Jerome, Theodore, Augustine, Theodoret and John-Damascus.


The Catholic Connection

Even the previous Catholic Douay Rheims of 1582 and the 1950 Douay version read "those things he hath NOT SEEN". But the more modern Catholic versions (St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985) have now changed to the other reading.

The word "NOT" is omitted by Vaticanus and A, and so we have the opposite meaning given in the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the more modern Catholic Versions.

The reading of "intruding into those things HE HATH NOT SEEN" is also that of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douai-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace 1729, Wesley's N.T 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, Sawyer N.T. 1858, Etheridge 1849, Murdock 1852 and Lamsa's translations of the Syriac Peshitta, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, NKJV 1982, the Hebrew Names Version, The Word of Yah 1993, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Last Days Bible 1999, Green's Literal 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, English Majority Text Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "things he HAS NOT SEEN", Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 - "things he HAS NOT SEEN", the World English Bible 2012 and the Holy Bible Modern Literal Version 2014. 

 

The Modern Greek Bible - εμβατευων εις πραγματα τα οποια δεν ειδε - "into things he has NOT seen"


And The Modern Hebrew Bible - אל תתנו לאיש לעקב אתכם על ידי שפלות רוח ועבודה מלאכים המהלך בדברים אשר לא ראו עיניו ומלא רוח גאוה על לא דבר משכל בשרו׃ 

 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "things HE HAS NOT SEEN" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909 to 2011- “metiéndose en lo que no ha visto”, the Portuguese Biblia Sagrada - “metendo-se em coisas que não viu”, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - “vârându-se în cele pe care nu le-a văzut”, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 - “s'ingérant dans des choses qu'il n'a point vues”, Luther’s German bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - “indem er sich in Demut und Verehrung von Engeln gefällt und sich in Sachen einlässt, die er nicht gesehen hat” = “things he HAS NOT SEEN”, the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “ponendo il piè nelle cose che non ha vedute”, the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - “en indring in wat hy nie gesien het nie”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - “intredende in hetgeen hij niet gezien heeft” = “intruding into those things he has NOT SEEN.”, the Hungarian Károli Bible - “ a melyeket nem látott”, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible 1998 - “ Siya ay nagkukunwaring nakakita ng mga bagay na hindi naman niya nakita.” and the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - " wdając się w to, czego nie widział" = "thing HE HAS NOT SEEN"  

So, once again it comes down to either the Reformation Bibles text of "NOT seen" or the new Vatican Versions "HAS SEEN".

 

 
Colossians 4:8
KJV HE might know YOUR estate
ESV YOU may know how WE ARE
HCSB YOU may know how WE ARE
NIV YOU may know about OUR CIRCUMSTANCES
TNIV YOU may know about OUR CIRCUMSTANCES
 
The differences in this single text are obviously textual and it should be just as obvious that God did NOT inspire all these contradictory words. Either one is right and one is wrong, or they are both wrong and it is a fool's errand to call "the Bible" the infallible words of God.

The textual evidence for the reading found in the King James Bible is both massive and universal. "that HE might know YOUR estate" is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including the earliest known mss. called P46 which dates to about 150 years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is also the reading found in Sinaiticus third correction, C, D third correction, the Byzantine Lectionaries, the Old Latin copies c, dem civ, f, o, x and z. It is also the reading found in the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic Sahidic, the Coptic Boharic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions. Early church fathers that quote the verse as it stands in the King James Bible are Chrysostom, Theodore, Theodoret, Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, John-Damascus and Jerome.

The reading found in versions like the ever changing NASBs, NIVs and ESVs comes primarily from the Vatican manuscript and Alexandrinus.  Both Sinaiticus and D origianlly read like the Vatican mss. but were both later changed by early scribes who saw them as being in error. To see what the true character of these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" upon which today's Vatican Versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, NET are based read the following article replete with numerous concrete examples of just how utterly corrupt and contradictory they really are -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm

Agreeing with the King James reading of "that HE might know YOUR estate" are  Wycliffe's bible 1395 - "that he knowe what thingis ben aboute you, and coumforte youre hertis", Tyndale 1525 - "that he myght knowe how ye do", Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "that he might know your state", the Douay-Rheims bible 1582 (they didn't even follow their own Vatican mss.), Wesley's translation 1755, Darby, Young's literal, the Hebrew Names Version, the World English Bible, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "that he may know the state of your affairs", Webster's 1833 translation, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.  

Among foreign language Bible translations that read like the King James Bible "that HE might know YOUR estate" are the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "afin qu'il connaisse quel est votre état", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - "para que entienda vuestros negocios", the 1960 and 1995 Reina Valera Bible, the Reina Valera Gómez of 2004 the Italian Diodati 1649 - "acciocchè sappia lo stato vostro" and the 1991 Nuova Diodati, Luther's German Bible 1545 - " daß er erfahre, wie es sich mit euch verhält,", the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 = so that he experiences, how it stands with you", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "para que saiba do vosso estado", and of course it is the Greek text followed by the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world today - "ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ἵνα γνῷ τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν"

The Catholic Bibles do their usual switcheroo throughout history. The earlier 1582 Douay-Rheims read like the KJB as did the 1950 Douay, but the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible follow the Vatican manuscript and read like the NET, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV.  However now the latest Catholic Public Domain Version has come out in 2009 and it has gone back to the reading found in the Traditional Greek text and the King James Bible. It reads: "so that he may know the things that concern you".

 

 

Hebrews 3:16

KJB - For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

NKJV - For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?

ESV -For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?

NIV - Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?

 

Hebrews 3:16 "Some did provoke:howbeit not all" - The KJB is right

3:16 "For SOME, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit, NOT ALL that came out of Egypt by Moses."

Notice that this is a statement in the King James Bible. Not everyone provoked God, but some did. Caleb and Joshua did believe God and the thousands of children from 20 years old and under did enter the promised land. It was only the grown men ages 20-up who were able to go to war (Numbers 1:3), numbering 603,548 (Numbers 1:46 minus Joshua and Caleb), who rejected God's command and died in the wilderness. The children, women, elderly men (unable to go to war), and possibly even all of the Levites (they were not numbered for war - Numbers 1:47) who came out of Egypt (therefore numbering more than the fighting men as a whole by estimation) are not included in the group of provokers. (Numbers 14:29, Deuteronomy 2:14) That is why the Hebrews passage is quite accurate to say "some" and then to describe who those "some" were.

This is the reading of the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible.  This is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "For some whan they herde, prouoked. Howbeit not all they yt came out of Egipte by Moses.", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729,  the Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster's 1833 translation, Youngs literal, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot English text Bible,  the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's literal of 2000,  the 2012 Knox Bible and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible.

Though the early Catholic versions were not entirely based on the Traditional Greek texts, yet the early Catholic bible versions did follow the same reading found here in Hebrews 3:16.  The 1582  Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay both correctly read: - "For some who heard did provoke: but not all that came out of Egypt by Moses."

However the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 now agree with the UBS critical text put together by the Vatican and "evangelicals". The New Jerusalem reads like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, Holman and NET versions saying: "Who was it who listened and then rebelled? SURELY ALL those whom Moses led out of Egypt."

Foreign language Bibles that follow the same Greek texts and have the same meaning as that found in the King James Bible are the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the early Italian Diodati (I have a copy right here in front of me. Notice it is a statement, not a question) -"Percioché alcuni, avedndola udita lo irritarono; MA NON GIA TUTTI QUELLI CHE ERANO USCITID D' EGITTO PER OPERA DI MOSO." , the French Martin of 1744 -"Car quelques-uns l'ayant entendue, le provoquèrent à la colère; mais ce ne furent pas tous ceux qui étaient sortis d'Egypte par Moïse.", the Russian Synodal Bible 1876 - "Ибо некоторые из слышавших возроптали; но не все вышедшие из Египта с Моисеем.", the Finnish Bible 1776 - "Sillä koska muutamat sen kuulivat, niin he vihoittivat hänen, vaan ei kaikki, jotka Egyptistä Moseksen kautta läksivät ulos.",  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Want sommigen, als zij die gehoord hadden, hebben Hem verbitterd, doch niet allen, die uit Egypte door Mozes uitgegaan zijn.", the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Fiindca unii, dupa ce au auzit, au provocat; insa nu toti care au iesit din Egipt, prin Moise.",  Luther's 1545 German Bible and the 2000 Schlachter Bible - "Denn etliche, da sie höreten, richteten eine Verbitterung an, aber nicht alle, die von Ägypten ausgingen durch Mose."

 

The earlier Spanish translations like the 1569 Sagradas Escrituras, the Reina Valera’s of 1858 and 1909 editions read just like the King James Bible. “Porque algunos de los que habían salido de Egipto con Moisés, habiendo oído, provocaron, However the latest 1960 and 1995 have been “revised” by people like Eugene Nida to adopt more of the Westcott-Hort readings. On the other hand, the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible got it right, reading: " Porque algunos de los que habían salido de Egipto con Moisés, habiendo oído, provocaron, aunque no todos.”aunque no todos."

 The Portuguese Almeida of 1681 and the modern Almeida Corregida y Fiel as well as A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués  also read as does the Traditional Greek text of the Reformation bibles saying - "Porque, havendo-a alguns ouvido, o provocaram; mas näo todos os que saíram do Egito por meio de Moisés."

Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta is interesting in that it uses a question mark but still carries the same meaning as that found in the King James Bible. It says: “Who are those who have heard and provoked him? Were they not those who came out of Egypt under Moses, although not all of them? “

Though Mace’s New Testament translation of 1729 changed hundreds of textual readings found in the KJB, yet he agrees with the King James reading of Hebrews 3:16 saying: “or some when they had heard his voice, did provoke him: however, not all that were brought out of Egypt by Moses did so.”

However here in Hebrews 3:16 the NKJV departs from the Greek text underlying the King James Bible and follows the Westcott-Hort text of the modern versions like the RSV, NASB, Holman, ESV, NIV and modern Catholic versions. The NKJV reads: "For WHO, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, WAS IT NOT ALL who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?" The NKJV, along with the Holman, NIV, NASB, forces you to answer, Yes, it was all of them. But this is untrue.

JOHN GILL on Hebrews 3:16 - "howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses"; that is, they did not all provoke, but some did; which is another aggravation of their sin; they were just come out of Egyptian bondage; brought out of it by the Lord, with the mighty and outstretched arm of his power; and yet they provoked him: but however all did not, yet these were but few; it seems only Caleb and Joshua, out of six hundred thousand; God will have a few to serve him in the worst of times."

MATTHEW HENRY comments: "Though the majority of hearers provoked God by unbelief, yet some there were who believed the report. God will have a remnant that shall be obedient to his voice, and he will take care of such and make mention of them with honour."

JOHN CALVIN also translates it the same way as found in the King James Bible and then comments about the unbelief of the many as opposed to the faith of the few. He remarks: “David spoke of the fathers as though that whole generation were unbelieving; but it appears that some who truly feared God mingled with the wicked. The apostle mentions this to modify what had been more severely said by David, in order that we may know that the word is preached to all for this end, that all may obey it with one consent, and that the whole people were justly condemned for unbelief, when the body was torn and mutilated by the defection of the greatest part. But by saying that some provoked, while yet they were by far the greatest part, this object was not only to avoid giving offense, but also to encourage the Jews to imitate those who believed; as though he had said, “As God forbids you to follow the unbelief of the fathers, so he sets before you other fathers whose faith is to be your example”.

JOHN OWEN also translates Hebrews 3:16 as it stands in the King James Bible and goes on in great detail to explain that SOME provoked and did not belief, while OTHERS did believe.

“The apostle adds expressly a limitation, with respect to the persons who heard and provoked: “Howbeit not all.” In his preceding discourse he had expressed the sin and punishment of the people indefinitely, so as at first view to include the whole generation in the wilderness, without exception of any. Here, out of the story, he puts in an exception of some even of them who came up out of Egypt under the conduct of Moses....Caleb and Joshua; and it is certain that these are principally, if not solely intended. Now, the reason why the apostle expresseth this limitation of his former general assertion is, that he might enforce his exhortation with the example of them who believed and obeyed the voice of God, and who thereon both enjoyed the promises and entered into the rest of God.”

Owens continues: “He that would choose his party by tale would scarce have joined himself with Caleb and Joshua, against the consent of about six hundred thousand men, who cried out to stone them because they were not of their mind. God’s way, indeed, is always to preserve some; but sometimes his way is to reserve but a few, — as we have seen in sundry instances before mentioned. They that provoked God were about six hundred thousand men, and upon the matter two only opposed them. But, in the language of the Holy Ghost, all that great multitude were but “some,” — some, not “all;” the principal part was preserved in those who were obedient. They were his portion, his inheritance, his jewels, dear to him as the apple of his eye...”

The People's New Testament Commentary - "3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke. Some in the wilderness heard God, but refused to listen, and did not provoke him. Howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses." There were a few exceptions: Joshua and Caleb, Eliezer, and perhaps some more of the Levites."

 
Additional sources which support the King James Bible reading.

Brother Steven Avery has done a lot of research on this verse and has found the following information.

LATIN EVIDENCES - OLD LATIN & VULGATE & REFORMATION BIBLES

Brother Avery writes: "First I think it is helpful to emphasize that the Rheims NT seems to be representing the full Old Latin and Latin manuscript evidence, 100% like the Reformation Bible. No Latin variants of significance having been referenced from :

Rheims - “For some who heard did provoke: but not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.”

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Vulgate/Hebrews.html

quidam enim audientes exacerbaverunt sed non universi qui profecti sunt ab Aegypto per Mosen

As mentioned above, this is the Old Latin (Itala) line of 200 AD as well as the Vulgate translation of Jerome utilizing Latin and Greek ('the fountainhead' - Jerome) manuscripts in 400 AD. This solidifies the fact that these ancient translators and scholars, knowing the language much closer to the NT time, understood the uncial Greek as did the Reformation scholars much later. Thus the value of this evidence can be properly emphasized, against the modernists who tend to simply place it on ignore. Here is the early English translation from the Latin.

Wycliffe (1395) - “For some men hearing wrathed, but not all they that went out of Egypt by Moses.”

Beza's Latin translation - Nam quidam, quum audissent, exacerbarunt [Domine]: non omnes tamen ii qui exierunt ex AEgypto per Mosen.

Calvin's Latin translation (used in his commentaries) Quidam enim quum audissent, exacerbarunt; at non omnes qui egressi fuerant ex AEgypto per Mosen.

OTHER EARLY TEXT-LINES

B. W. Johnson, in the People's New Testament is another who did not mangle this meaning of the verse and gave commentary in synch with the verse.

“For some, when they had heard, did provoke. Some in the wilderness heard God, but refused to listen, and did not provoke him. Howbeit not all.” * There were a few exceptions; Joshua and Caleb, Eliezer, and perhaps some more of the Levites.

PESHITTA

Similarly Lamsa from the Syriac. Note that also the two other main Peshitta translators, while using a question, also do not reverse the verse meaning. As is done by the NKJV and the modern versions.

Murdock - “But who were they that heard, and angered him ? It was not all they, who came out of Egypt under Moses. “

Etheridge- “For who are they who heard and provoked him ? Not all they who came out of Metsreen by the hand of Musha. “

Lamsa - “Who are those who have heard and provoked him? Were they not those who came out of Egypt under Moses, although not all of them? “

All the Syriac translators line up with the meaning of the Reformation Bible against the Westcott-Hort deformed version juggernaut which rolled over the NKJV. A good guideline with the Bible text is Reformed over deformed.

Here are a couple of additional fine commentaries.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pi...ebrews_015.htm An Exposition of Hebrews - Christ Superior to Moses. - Arthur Pink (1886-1952)

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses" (verse 16). The apostle here begins to describe the kind of persons who sinned in the provocation, amplification being given in what follows. His purpose in making mention of these persons was to more fully evidence the need for Christian watchfulness against hardness of heart, even because those who of old yielded thereto provoked God to their ruin. The opening "for" gives point to what has preceded. The unspeakably solemn fact to which He here refers is that out of six hundred thousand men who left Egypt, but two of them were cut off in the wilderness, Caleb and Joshua.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4l0PAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA342 Thomas Chalmers (1780- 1847)

And let me not be insensible to the call of " to-day," that I may no longer postpone the good work either of faith or of repentance. Let it be remarked that "some" might signify a small or a very large proportion of the whole. It is said that some, howbeit not all, who came out of Egypt by Moses did provoke God : certainly not all — for both Caleb and Joshua were faithful, and got both an entry and an inheritance in the land of Canaan. Let them be examples to us, that we may shine as lights in the midst of a perverse and crooked generation.

Interestingly Edwin Gifford used the Hebrews verse as part of his interpretation of Romans, which led to the excellent Thomas Chalmers section above.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bGwsKmDfnCoC&pg=PA83 The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans By Edwin Hamilton Gifford

Romans 3:3 - It is to be remarked that "some" in the original signifies a part of the whole, but not necessarily a small part of it. It may be a very great part and majority of the whole, — as in Hebrews iii. 16, where it is said, " Some when they heard provoked, howbeit not all that came out of Egypt with Moses." All did provoke God on that occasion except Joshua and Caleb, and those who were still too young to bear arms . . (Chalmers) - (end of notes by Steven Avery)

Hebrews 3:16 "For SOME, when they had heard, did provoke: HOWBEIT NOT ALL that came out of Egypt by Moses."

The King James Bible is right, as always!

 

Genesis 15:1 - "I am thy shield, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD"

A verse that holds forth a precious promise is found in Genesis 15:1, but it has been changed in such versions as the NASB, ESV, NET, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness NWT, the liberal RSV, NRSV and some of the more modern Catholic versions.

In the King James Bible we read: "the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram; I am thy shield, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD."

Just think of this a moment. God Himself is our shield and our exceeding great reward. In my better moments it is so good to just think about the Person of God Himself. Who He is, what He is like, how great, wise, all powerful, merciful, loving, gracious, faithful and true.

He spoke and the worlds were created. He suffered on Calvary's cross, bore my sins, paid for them in full and rose from the dead victorious over all His enemies and He is the Lover of my soul. Isn't He beautiful, that He would receive a wretch like me and make me His own for all eternity? God is our exceeding great reward.

That God Himself is our exceeding great reward is the reading of the Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version of 1885, the ASV of 1901, the predecessor of the NASB, which according to the preface of the NASB was such a good translation.

 

Genesis 15:1 - "I am thy shield, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD"


This is also the reading of the NKJV 1982, the NIV 1984 and 2011, the TNIV 2005,  Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, the 1610 Douay-Rheims bible - "Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, and thy reward exceeding great.", Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward.", the Douay of 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998,  A Conservative Version 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Context Group Version 2007 - "I am your shield, and your exceeding great reward.", The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, the New Heart English Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010 - "I am your shield, your exceeding great reward.", The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011 - "I am your shield and very much your reward.", The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The World English Bible 2012, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Modern English Version 2014 - "I am your shield, your exceeding great reward.", the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The International Standard Version 2014 - “Stop being afraid, Abram.” he said. “I myself—your shield—am your very great reward.” and The Tree of Life Version 2015 - “Do not fear, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward.”

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Both the earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay version read like the King James Bible - "Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, and thy reward exceeding great." but the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 read :"and I WILL MAKE YOUR REWARD VERY GREAT."  This is how versions like the RSV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman and the Jehovah Witness NWT read.  

But now the Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012 has gone back to the reading of "I am your protector, and your reward exceeding great."

 

Foreign Language Bibles

 

Foreign Language Bibles that read like the  KJB are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valeras from 1602 - 1909, and the 2004 Reina Valera Gómez - "Yo soy tu escudo, Y SOY TU GALARDON SOBREMANERA GRANDE", the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia and the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 2009 - " Abräo, eu sou o teu escudo, o teu grandíssimo galardäo.", the French Martin 1744 - "je suis ton bouclier, ET TA GRANDE RECOMPENSE", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "ich bin dein Schild und dein sehr großer Lohn.", the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 and the Romanian Revised Cornilescu Bible 2014 - "Eu sunt scutul tău şi răsplata ta cea foarte mare.

 

Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary is precisely to the point, saying: “Observe also, what the Lord promiseth, not only to defend, but to bless; NOT SIMPLY TO REWARD, BUT HIMSELF TO BE THE REWARD, AND THAT EXCEEDINGLY GREAT.”

Thomas Coke Commentary on the Whole Bible - “I am thy exceeding great reward. Every thing beside to a believing soul is light in the balance. The enjoyment of the Blessed God is the ultimatum, the whole of his felicity. O may I know more feelingly, and say more confidently, Thou art my portion, O Lord! “

 

Joseph Benson’s Commentary of the Old and New Testaments - “And thy exceeding great reward — NOT ONLY THY REWARDER, BUT THY REWARD. GOD HIMSELF IS THE FELICITY OF HOLY SOUL; HE IS THE "PORTION OF THEIR INHERITANCE, AND THEIR CUP."

 


John Gill comments on Genesis 15:1 “I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward” - “nay, HE HIMSELF WOULD BE HIS REWARD, and which must be a great one, an exceeding great one; as Christ is to his people in his person, offices, and grace, all being theirs, and he all in all to them; all the blessings of grace and glory coming along with him, and HE BEING THEIR PORTION HERE AND HEREAFTER, to all eternity; for since he is theirs, all are theirs, all things appertaining to life and godliness, and eternal life itself.”

Matthew Henry likewise remarks: “I will be thy exceedingly great reward; NOT ONLY THY REWARDER, BUT THY REWARD. (Caps are mine). Abram had generously refused the rewards which the king of Sodom offered him, and here God comes, and tells him he shall be no loser by it. GOD HIMSELF IS THE PROMISED FELICITY OF HOLY SOULS-- He is the portion of their inheritance and their cup.”  

John Calvin comments on Genesis 15:1 - “The promise, therefore, that GOD WILL BE Abram’s shield AND HIS EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD, holds the first place; to which is added the exhortation, that, relying upon such a guardian of his safety, and such an author of his felicity, he should not fear. .. IN CALLING HIMSELF HIS “reward,” HE TEACHES ABRAM TO BE SATISFIED WITH HIMSELF ALONE...God declares, that HE ALONE IS SUFFICIENT for the perfection of a happy life to the faithful. For the word “reward” has the force of inheritance, or felicity . Were it deeply engraven on our minds, that IN GOD ALONE WE HAVE THE HIGHEST AND COMPLETE PERFECTION OF ALL GOOD THINGS; we should easily fix bounds to those wicked desires by which we are miserably tormented. The meaning then of the passage is this, that we shall be truly happy when God is propitious to us; for he not only pours upon us the abundance of his kindness, but OFFERS HIMSELF TO US, THAT WE MAY ENJOY HIM. NOW WHAT IS THERE MORE, WHICH MEN CAN DESIRE, WHEN THEY ENJOY GOD? David knew the force of this promise, when he boasted that he had obtained a goodly lot, because THE LORD WAS HIS INHERITANCE, (Psalm 16:6.) But since nothing is more difficult than to curb the depraved appetites of the flesh, and since the ingratitude of man is so vile and impious, that God scarcely ever satisfies them; THE LORD CALLS HIMSELF NOT SIMPLY “a reward,” BUT AN EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD, with which we ought to be more than sufficiently contented.”

Clearly men like John Calvin, John Gill, Thomas Coke, Joseph Benson and Matthew Henry saw this verse as teaching the truth found in the King James Bible and many others that God promised to Abraham that He Himself would be both his shield and his exceeding great reward- God Himself.

To see a really good, short study on this verse and others related to it that show that God Himself is our exceeding great reward, please see Jerry Bouey's blog here: 

http://buy-the-truth.blogspot.com/2007/08/genesis-15-thy-exceeding-great-reward.html

However the NASB along with the RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard along with the modern Catholic Versions have changed this to now read: "I am a shield to you; YOUR REWARD SHALL BE VERY GREAT."

Daniel Wallace's NET bible version also misses the correct meaning with: "I am your shield and THE ONE WHO WILL REWARD YOU IN GREAT ABUNDANCE."

Do you see the difference? Is should be noted there is no verb in the Hebrew "shall be", yet the NASB has placed it in the text and not even in italics. All these versions have ADDED a verb to the Hebrew text that simply is not there, and thus they have entirely changed the meaning of God's promise to Abraham.

In the NASB, ESV, NET, etc. it is no longer God Himself who is the exceeding great reward but instead teaches that Abraham's material reward will be very great.

Consider, what else could God give Abraham? He already was very rich 13:2; he has already been promised the land of Canaan and told that kings would come out of him and that all nations would be blessed in him; his name would be great and God would bless them which bless him and curse the one who cursed him, and God had delivered his enemies into his hand.

Nothing else could be added, but the promise that God Himself would be his exceeding great reward. Abraham was to continue his life journey learning more and more of God.

This whole promise is lost in versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, St. Joseph NAB and Holman.  

The King James Bible is always right. Accept no inferior substitutes.

 

In Genesis 16:12 we read of Ishmael, the father of the Arab nations, a verse that is highly significant of the history of the modern day Arab nations. "And he shall be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL his brethren."

The warlike Arabs have indeed been wild men, a contentious and warlike people; they are heavily concentrated in the same area of the world (in the presence of their brethren) and for the most part they still are in conflict with each other as well as all others.

He shall dwell "IN THE PRESENCE OF" all his brethren is the reading or meaning of the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, Spanish Reina Valera, the Revised Version, the ASV, RSV, Douay, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, the KJV 21 and others. Darby and Young's say "he will dwell before the face of all his brethren. Yet the NASB says: "And he will live TO THE EAST of all his brothers."

The NASB has translated this same word as "in the presence of" some 135 times. The word for east is an entirely different word.

The NIV has yet a different meaning and says: "and he will live IN HOSTILITY toward all his brothers." The Holman is similar with: "he will LIVE AT ODDS WITH with all his brothers."

Daniel Wallace's NET version says: "He will live AWAY FROM his brothers.” He then posts the usual confusing footnotes, saying: " Heb “opposite, across from.” Ishmael would live on the edge of society (cf. NASB “to the east of”). Some take this as an idiom meaning “be at odds with” (cf. NRSV, NLT) or “live in hostility toward” (cf. NIV)."

It's interesting how Mr. Wallace confidently tells us the Hebrew word means "opposite, across from", as though this were the only meaning of the word. Yet he himself translates this same word as "presence" in the book of Genesis. In Genesis 3:8 "Adam and his wife hid themselves FROM THE PRESENCE of the LORD God" but Wallace just omits the word saying: "and they hid FROM the Lord God". In Gen. 4:16 "And Cain went out from THE PRESENCE of the LORD", Wallace has "So Cain went out from THE PRESENCE of the Lord". In Genesis 27:30 "Jacob was scarce gone out from THE PRESENCE of Isaac his father", Wallace has "Jacob had scarcely left his father’s PRESENCE". In Genesis 41:46 "And Joseph went out from the PRESENCE of Pharoah", Wallace again paraphrases as: "Joseph WAS COMMISSIONED BY by Pharaoh". Then he footnotes: "Heb “went out from before.” This is the type of misleading scholarship that is behind these modern versions.

So, which is it, will he dwell "in the presence of", "away from", "to the east of" or "in hostility towards" his brethren? See, if you go to seminary, become an expert in Biblical languages you too can be qualified to create confusion in the name of "the science of textual criticism".

Genesis 20:16 - "And unto Sarah he said, BEHOLD, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: BEHOLD, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."

 

Genesis 20:16 presents us with another example of paraphrasing found in the modern versions which misses the point of the passage and results in confusion.

Abraham had been told by God that He would give him a son by his wife Sarah. Yet we see the faltering steps of faith in our spiritual father as he and Sarah sojourned in the land of Gerar. Upon entering the region of king Abimelech, Abraham thought "Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake." So he told Sarah to say that he was her brother.

The result of this was that Abimelech took Sarah into his house, thus putting her into a very precarious position. Then God came to Abimelech by night in a dream and told him that Sarah was Abraham's wife and that he was "but a dead man".

Abimelech arose early in the morning and called Abraham and asked him why he had done this. Then the king gave Abraham sheep, oxen, men and womenservants and restored him Sarah his wife and told him to dwell where he pleased.

Then in Genesis 20:16 we read: "And unto Sarah he said, BEHOLD, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: BEHOLD, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."

"Covering of the eyes" is the literal reading of the Hebrew and is also found in the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Douay, Geneva and Spanish bibles. Even the NKJV shows in its footnote that the literal Hebrew is "covering of the eyes".

Abimelech is saying to Sarah that the truth is now known that her "brother" is in fact her husband and that Abraham will serve as a covering of other men's eyes so that they will not look upon Sarah as a potential wife. Thus she was reproved for her part in the deception that almost cost Abimelech his life.

However the NASB, NIV, and NKJV all miss this point and even contradict each other. Instead of "Behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved" the NKJV says: "INDEED, THIS VINDICATES YOU before all who are with you and before all others. Thus she was REPROVED."

The NASB has: "Behold, IT IS YOUR VINDICATION before all who are with you and before all men YOU ARE CLEARED.", while the NIV reads: " THIS IS TO COVER THE OFFENSE AGAINST YOU before all who are with you; you are COMPLETELY VINDICATED."

So which is it? Was she reproved as the KJB, NKJV and others say or was she cleared and vindicated as the NIV - NASB have it? And what on earth does "this vindicates you" mean?

The NIV omits the word "behold" three times in verses 15, 16, adds "offence" though it did get "cover" more or less right but yet the meaning is totally different than either the NKJV, NASB or the KJB.

The Geneva Bible of 1599 notes:

20:16 "And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved." "God caused this heathen king to reprove her because she concealed her identity, seeing that God had given her a husband as her veil and defence."

Matthew Henry and John Wesley both say the same thing in their commentaries.

"He gives to Sarah good instruction, tells her that her husband (her brother he calls him, to upbraid her with calling him so) must be to her for a covering of the eyes, that is, she must look at no other, nor desire to be looked at by any other. The marriage-covenant is a covenant with the eyes, like Job says in ch. 31:1."

John Gill notes: "behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee; a protection of her person and chastity: so an husband, in our language, is said to be a cover to his wife, and she under a cover: thus Abraham being now known to be the husband of Sarah, would for the future be a covering to her, that no one should look upon her, and desire her, and take her to be his wife."

Genesis 25:17-18 “and he died in the presence of all his brethren.”

In verse 18 we have very different meanings given to us regarding the death of Ishmael. In verse 17 we are told: "AND THESE ARE THE YEARS OF THE LIFE OF ISHMAEL, an hundred and thirty and seven years; and he gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people. And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria; AND HE DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF all his brethren."

This is the reading and meaning of Wycliffe 1395 (he diede bifore alle his britheren”, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the King James Bible 1611, Webster’s 1833, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the NKJV 1982, the Douay 1950, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909, 1960, 1995 (y murió en presencia de todos sus hermanos. - And he DIED in the presence of all his brethren), the KJV 21st Century 1994. Young’s ‘literal’ is also very similar, reading: “in the presence of all his brethren hath he fallen.”

However there are a multitude of different versions, all with different meanings. The NIV says: "THEY LIVED IN HOSTILITY toward all their brothers"; the NASB has: "HE SETTLED IN DEFIANCE of all his relatives" (notice the NIV says “They” and the NASB has “He”); the New English Bibles says: "They took their place TO THE EAST of all their brothers"; the New Living Translation has: "THEY CAMPED CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER.”, while Today's English Version says: "THEY LIVED APART FROM THE OTHER DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM.”

It is getting to the point where Hey, if you don't like what it says in one version, find another one you do like. No wonder people scoff at the idea of an inspired and inerrant Bible. Is God really this confused?

Genesis 27:39-40. A couple of very significant changes in meaning are found in these two verses. Isaac gave Esau another blessing after Jacob had stolen the original blessing. Though Esau would be subject to Jacob for a time, he did receive an abundant blessing. We read in verse 27:39 - "And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling SHALL BE THE FATNESS OF the earth, and OF the dew of heaven from above." Esau would be blessed with abundant earthly wealth.

This is the reading of the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, The Judaica Press Tanach, Hebrew Names Bible, the Geneva, Coverdale, Wycliffe, Bishops' bibles, Revised Version, American Standard Version, NKJV, Spanish Reina Valera, Douay, Darby and Young's. However beginning with the RSV and now continuing with the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman, all these versions give us the opposite meaning here. The NIV, NASB say: "Your dwelling will be AWAY FROM the earth's richness, AWAY FROM the dew of heaven above." In other words, Esau would not enjoy these blessings - the exact opposite of the reading found in the KJB and all other previous English and Jewish Bible versions.

We know the KJB reading is correct and the NASB, NIV, ESV are false because we later see Esau with great wealth, cattle, servants, beasts and substance. So much so that "their riches were more that they might dwell together" and Esau moves on to another place. See Genesis 33:9 and 36:6.

Matthew Henry comments: " It was a good thing, and better than he deserved. It was promised him, [1.] That he should have a competent livelihood--the fatness of the earth, and the dew of heaven. Note, Those that come short of the blessings of the covenant may yet have a very good share of outward blessings. God gives good ground and good weather to many that reject his covenant, and have no part nor lot in it. [2.] That by degrees he should recover his liberty. If Jacob must rule (Genesis 27:29), Esau must serve; but he has this to comfort him, he shall live by his sword. He shall serve, but he shall not starve; and, at length, after much skirmishing, he shall break the yoke of bondage, and wear marks of freedom. This was fulfilled (2 Kings 8:20,22) when the Edomites revolted."

The meaning of verse 40 has also been changed in the NKJV, NIV, NASB. There Isaac tells his son Esau: "And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother. and it shall come to pass when thou SHALT HAVE THE DOMINION, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck." As Matthew Henry previously commented - “This was fulfilled (2 Kings 8:20,22) when the Edomites revolted.”

This word "to have the dominion" is # 7300 rood. It is used only three times and is translated as "we are lords" in Jer. 3:21 and Hosea 11:12 as "Judah yet ruleth with God." "When thou shalt have the dominion" is the reading of Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera, 1936 Jewish translation.

The Geneva and Bishops' Bibles say "when thou shalt get the mastery". However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all say: "when YOU BECOME RESTLESS, you shall break his yoke from your neck." The RV, RSV, and NRSV say: "when you BREAK LOOSE", and then in a footnote the RSV, NRSV tell us "the Hebrew meaning is uncertain." Well, one thing we know for sure is that the various English versions are definitely uncertain, aren't they?

NIV all messed up Gen. 47:21, 31

Genesis 47:21 The KJB, NKJV, and NASB all read the same here because they are following the Hebrew Massoretic Text. You know, the one God originally inspired.

In Genesis 47:21 the KJB, NKJV, NASB, Jewish translations, Young's, Darby, Geneva Bible, Holman, etc. say: "And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES, from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof."

However the NIV says: "JOSEPH REDUCED THE PEOPLE TO SERVITUDE". The NIV footnote tells us that this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, but the Hebrew reads "he moved the people into the cities". The NIV is also the reading of the super liberal RSV, the NRSV and the ESV, and they too have the same footnote telling us they have rejected the Hebrew text and followed some other source. This is your NIV.

 

Genesis 47:31 - In this same chapter the NIV again departs from the Hebrew text and mistakenly follows the Greek Septuagint. In Genesis 47:31 we read of Jacob making Joseph sware that he would not bury him in Egypt but in the land of his fathers in their buryingplace. "And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself UPON THE BED'S HEAD."

“UPON THE BED'S HEAD” is the reading of the Hebrew, Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Young, Darby and even the liberal RSV, along with the NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard. ONLY the NIV here rejects the clear Hebrew text and follows the incorrect LXX at this point. The NIV says "Israel worshipped AS HE LEANED ON THE TOP OF HIS STAFF."

The NIV "scholars" mistakenly applied Hebrews 11:21 to this event in Genesis 47. In Hebrews 11:21 it says "By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."

However, if you look closely at the context in both the New Testament book of Hebrews and especially in Genesis chapters 47 through 49, we see that Joseph did not die during the events of Genesis 47 where the chapter ends with the correct reading that Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head.

In chapter 48 verse one we read: "And it came to pass AFTER THESE THINGS, that one told Joseph, Behold thy father is sick: and he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. Then the whole of chapter 48 is taken up with Jacob blessing the two sons of Joseph and all of chapter 49 with Jacob telling each of his own sons what would befall them in the last days. Then Jacob dies at the very end of chapter 49 where we read: "And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people." The NIV has placed the wrong reading in the wrong place.

 

Genesis 49:6 - In Genesis chapter 49 Jacob is telling each of his sons something about what will befall them in the last days, and of their blessings or penalties. There we read what Jacob said concerning his two sons Simeon and Levi. "Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL."

"They digged down a wall" is the reading of the King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 and 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1998, the Italian Diodati, the Modern Greek Old Testament (not the Septuagint), the Jewish Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, the Douay Rheims of 1950, (though more recent Catholic versions like Jerusalem Bible and St. Joseph New American Bible read "hamstrung oxen") Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible. Darby’s footnote mentions that “Some read ‘pulled down a wall’ .”

Matthew Henry comments: “They slew a man, Shechem himself, and many others; and, to effect that, they digged down a wall, broke the houses, to plunder them, and murder the inhabitants.” (Note: if you want to see the “every man for himself bible version” mentality, take a look at the comments made by Adam Clarke, or even John Gill)

The Syriac translation (Lamsa, 1936) also agrees with the King James reading and says: "in their rage they destroyed a town wall."

John Calvin sides with the King James reading. He translates into Latin " et voluntate sua eradicaverunt murum". Then he comments: "Interpreters also differ respecting the meaning of the word (shor.) Some translate it "bullock," ... But a different exposition is far preferable, namely, that they "overturned a wall." For Jacob magnifies the atrociousness of their crime, from the fact, that they did not even spare buildings in their rage."

The NKJV says "THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX", the NIV "they hamstrung OXEN" and the NASB says "they LAMED AN OX." Young's has "they ERADICATED A PRINCE"!!! So what is going on here?

It all has to do with the pointed consonants introduced in the 6th century after Christ, and the points are not considered inspired. It is well know that an individual Hebrew word can multiple meanings. Only God can guide as to the true meaning of a text or word. We believe He has done this in the King James Bible.

The reading of "hamstrung an ox or oxen", as found in the NKJV, is also contrary to the context. We are told in Genesis 34:27-29 that Simeon and Levi came upon the city of Hamor and Shechem his son and slew all the males; they spoiled the city and took their sheep, oxen and their asses and carried away all their wealth, their wives and children. They did in fact destroy the city but they did not kill or hamstring the oxen, but rather took them alive for themselves. Why would they damage what was now their own property? I believe the King James Bible is right - as always.

Genesis 49:10

One of the best known verses in this chapter is 49:10. "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a LAWGIVER from between his feet, until SHILOH come; and unto him shall THE GATHERING OF THE PEOPLE be." This verse is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ.

LAWGIVER is the reading of the KJB, the Jewish translations, the NKJV, Geneva Bible, Darby and Young's. But the NASB and NIV say "THE RULER'S STAFF' yet they both translated this same word as "lawgiver" in Isaiah 33:22 "the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king."

“Until SHILOH COME” is the reading of the Geneva Bible, Bishops’ bible, the KJB, NKJV, NASB, ASV, RV, Darby, Green, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, Hebrew Names Version, the Spanish Bibles and the Third Millenium Bible. The word Shiloh occurs only once in the Bible and it comes from the verb meaning to be tranquil or to be at peace.

Judaica Press Tanach - “10. The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the student of the law from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him will be a gathering of peoples.”

The NIV, along with the RSV and NRSV, says: "UNTIL HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS" instead of "until Shiloh come". You won't find this note in the NIV but the RSV and NRSV both tell us in their footnotes that the SYRIAC reads the way the NIV does, but that the Hebrew says UNTIL SHILOH COME.

Other “bible versions” give us yet other completely different meanings with the New English Bible 1970 reading: “the sceptre shall not pass from Judah...SO LONG AS TRIBUTE IS BROUGHT TO HIM, (not, “until Shiloh comes”) and the obedience of the nations is his.”

Now the new 2001 ESV (a revision of the RSV) has come out and it too has changed to now read: “nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM...”

Young’s ‘literal’ says: “And a lawgiver from between his feet, Till HIS SEED COME”

The 2001 Easy to Read Version says: “before THE REAL KING comes”

The Douay-Rheims has: “till HE COME THAT IS TO BE SENT”

The Holman Standard says: “or the staff from between his feet, until HE WHOSE RIGHT IT IS COMES”

The latest online NIV now gives us three options for this single word ‘Shiloh’. It says: “until HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS and the obedience of the nations is his.” FOOTNOTES: "Or until Shiloh comes; or until he comes to whom tribute belongs.”

So why did the NIV "scholars" decide to dump the Hebrew text and follow the Syriac? Because in spite of all their rhetoric about being "good, godly, evangelical scholars" they are in reality biblical relativists, with no absolute authority but their own minds.

The NIV tells you in their own introduction that they have used sources other than the Hebrew for their Old Testament including "the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian, the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta, the Tagums. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful." Introduction to the NIV found on page xviii. They’re lying to you. Many of the notes in the NIV tell you clearly what the Hebrew says, (it is not ‘doubtful’) yet they follow these other sources.

The NIV has a unique reading in 49:21. The KJB, as well as Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’, the Geneva Bible, Douay, Darby, Youngs, RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB and the Jewish translations say: "Naphtali is a hind let loose: HE GIVETH GOODLY WORDS." However the NIV again joins the super liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard as says: "THAT BEARS BEAUTIFUL FAWNS."!

Now that would be quite a trick for Naphtali to bear fawns. The word is WORDS # 561 eh mar and is used phrases such as "the words of God" in Numbers 24:4. 16, Deut.32:1 etc.

The blessing upon Joseph includes verse 26 which reads: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my PROGENITORS unto the UTMOST BOUND of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head OF HIM THAT WAS SEPARATE FROM his brethren."

"HIM THAT WAS SEPARATE from his brethren" is the reading of the KJB, the Revised Version, the ASV, NKJV, Geneva, Youngs, Darby, the 1936 Jewish translation, the Judaica Press Tanach, and even the RSV and NRSV. We all know that Joseph was separated from his brethren and sold into Egypt. The word is translated as separate in places like Leviticus 15:31; 22:2 and Ezekiel 14:7. The NASB says "the one DISTINGUISHED AMONG his brethren" while the NIV has "the PRINCE among his brothers."

PROGENITORS is the reading of the RV, ASV, Young's, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, and ‘ancestors’ is in the NKJV and NASB, which conveys the same meaning. “The UTMOST BOUND” or boundary is also the reading of these versions. However the NIV again goes along with the RSV and NRSV and says "blessings of THE ANCIENT MOUNTAINS, than the BOUNTY of the age old hills."

The NIV has changed PROGENITORS to ANCIENT MOUNTAINS, and UTMOST BOUND to BOUNTY. Why? Again the RSV gives us the reason. The RSV and NRSV footnote tells us that "ancient mountains" and "bounty" come from the Greek Septuagint but that the Hebrew says "progenitors" and "boundaries".

Anyone who knows these facts about the corrupt NIV perversion and still uses it or tries to defend it as being the words of God is willfully blind.

 

Exodus 4:23 - Silly statements in the NASB, NIV.

Another silly statement found in versions like the NASB, NIV is Exodus 4:23. In the King James Bible (and many others as we shall soon see) we read of God appearing to Moses and telling him: “When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. 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.” Exodus 4:21-23.

Obviously, Moses had not yet gone into Egypt nor had he spoken these words to Pharaoh yet. This did not happen till Exodus chapter 5 where we read: “And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.” Exodus 5:1-2.

Agreeing with the reading that shows that Moses had not yet spoken to Pharaoh but was to tell him what would happen IF he refused to let Israel go in Exodus 4:23 - “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.” - are the following Bible translations:Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Darby, Young’s literal, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Judaica Press Tanach version, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, the New Life Bible, the Amplified bible, the Revised Standard Version and the 2001 English Standard Version (though the NRSV read like the NASB, NIV do now), the New Berkeley Version 1969, the Revised English Bible 1989, the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 version - “pero si te niegas a dejarlo ir, yo mataré a tu hijo, a tu primogénito", the Italian Diodati 1991, the French Louis Segond 1910, the so called Greek Septuagint, the Modern Greek version, the NKJV 1982 and the Third Millenium bible 1998.

However there are many other modern versions that change the meaning of the verse, and even different editions of the same bible version come out with different readings. Instead of God telling Moses what he should say to Pharaoh and what will happen IF he refuses (the context is referring to a future event), versions like the NASB, NIV, ASV, NRSV, NEB and the Spanish RV Gomez version say: “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the LORD, Israel is my son, My firstborn. "SO I SAID to you, `Let My son go that he may serve Me'; but YOU HAVE REFUSED to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.” (NASB)

NIV - “AND I TOLD YOU, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." BUT YOU REFUSED to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.”

Moses had not yet even gone to Egypt nor yet spoken to Pharoah in the name of the LORD, so it would be more than a little difficult for God to say at this point that He had ALREADY spoken to Pharaoh and that Pharaoh had ALREADY refused to let them go. This is just plain silly.

The King James Bible is right, as always.

 

Exodus 14:25 -  "the LORD TOOK OFF their chariot wheels"

 

KJB - "And it came to pass that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians...and troubled the host of the Egyptians, And TOOK OFF THEIR CHARIOT WHEELS, that they drave them heavily"  Exodus 14:24-25

 

ESV - "And in the morning watch the LORD looked down on the Egyptian forces...CLOGGING their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily."  

Footnote "Or, binding (compare Samaritan, Septuagint, Syriac. HEBREW - REMOVING" (caps are mine)

 

NASB - "At the morning watch, the LORD looked down on the army of the Egyptians...He CAUSED their chariot wheels TO SWERVE and He made them drive with difficulty"  

 

NIV 1978 and 1984 editions - "He made the wheels of their chariots COME OFF so that they had difficulty driving"

NIV 2011 edition - "He JAMMED THE WHEELS of their chariots so that they had difficulty driving."

The ISV 2014 (International Standard Version) - “He MADE the wheels of their chariots WOBBLE so that they drove them with difficulty.”

 

Exodus chapter 14 relates the event of the children of Israel crossing the Red Sea when God divided the waters. The Egyptians pursued after them and were drowned in the sea.

In Exodus 14: 24-25 we read: "And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, And TOOK OFF their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily."

 

"TOOK OFF their chariot wheels"

 

is the reading of Tyndale 1530,  Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Holy Bible 1611, The Lesser Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, the ASV of 1901 "he TOOK OFF their chariot wheels" (the predecessor of the NASB), Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "HE TOOK OFF their chariot wheels", New Life Version 1969,  the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998,  the two Jewish translations of JPS 1917 and Hebrew Publishing Company 1936, the Living Bible 1971 "the chariot wheels began coming off", the NIV 1978 and 1982 editions - "He made the wheels of their chariots COME OFF", The Word of Yah 1993, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999 - "SMOTE OFF the wheels", World English Bible 2000, The Sacres Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Green's interlinear 2005,  A Conservative Version 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, New Heart English Bible 2010 - "He TOOK OFF their chariot wheels", Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Names of God Bible 2011, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "HE TOOK OFF the wheels of their chariots", Lexham English Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "He TOOK OFF their chariot wheels", Hebrew Names Version 2014,  and The Modern English Version 2014. 

 

Likewise the modern Jewish translation called the Judaica Press Tanach 2004 follows the Hebrew and agrees with the King James Bible saying: " And HE REMOVED THE WHEELS OF THEIR CHARIOTS, and He led them with heaviness, and the Egyptians said, Let me run away from the Israelites because the Lord is fighting for them against the Egyptians."

The Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - “He caused the wheels of their chariots TO BREAK OFF"

 

Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "He TOOK OFF wheels" 

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Exodus%2014:25

The Modern Greek Bible also follows the Hebrew text and agrees with the King James Bible.  It says - "και εξεβαλε τους τροχους των αμαξων αυτων" = "and TOOK OFF the wheels of their chariots".


Among foreign language bible that follow the Hebrew text and tell us that God "TOOK OFF the wheels" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valeras 1909 - 2011 - "quitó las ruedas" = "TOOK OFF the wheels", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Il ôta les roues de ses chariots, et fit qu'on les menait bien pesamment. " = "he TOOK OFF the wheels", and the Italian Nuova Riveduta 2006 - " Tolse le ruote dei loro carri e ne rese l’avanzata peasant" = "He TOOK OFF the wheels"

However the "scholarly" NASB tells us: "He CAUSED their chariot wheels TO SWERVE". This is also the reading of the brand recent Holman Christian Standard version.

Now I've had the unpleasant experience of having my car wheels swerve on ice or snow, but thankfully I have never had them come off yet. You have to admit there is a difference between the Lord taking off their wheels and the Lord causing them to swerve.

The word used here is # 5493 soor and it means to remove or take away. It is used in Exodus 8:8 "take away the frogs"; in 8:31 "he removed the swarms of flies", in 34:34 Moses took off the vail", Genesis 41:42 "Pharoah took off his ring" and in Genesis 8:13 "Noah removed the covering of the ark".

Besides the confusion of the NASB, Holman Standard and ESV, let's see what some of the other modern versions have done with the passage.

The Catholic Connection

The Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Catholic Douay version say God "OVERTHREW the wheels"; but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 say God "CLOGGED the chariot wheels."  The New Jerusalem then footnotes that "clogged" comes from "versions", but that the Hebrew reads TOOK OFF!

And now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it says: "He OVERTURNED the wheels of their chariots". (whatever that means!)

The RSV 1952, NRSV, ESV 2001-2011, New English Bible 1970 and The Message 2002 all say God was "CLOGGING the wheels", with a footnote that tells us this reading (clogging) comes from the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch and Syriac; but that the Hebrew text reads "TOOK OFF" or "removed". Actually, the Greek version called the Septuagint doesn't say "clogging" at all, as we shall soon see.

The NIV 2011 edition has now come out and it changed the text of the old NIV 1978 and 1984 editions. The old NIVs say God "MADE THE WHEELS COME OFF"

But now the new New International Version of 2011 says God "JAMMED the wheels" (And so does Dan Wallace and company's NET version 2006) and then the NIV footnotes that we should consult the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint and the Syriac, all of which not only differ from the Hebrew but also from each other!  AND it even tells us in their own footnote that the Hebrew reads REMOVED!

The Bible in Basic English of 1965 says God "made the wheels STIFF"

The New Century Version tells us God "KEPT THE WHEELS FROM TURNING."

The so called Translator's Bible 2014 says: "He CAUSED THE WHEELS of the chariots TO GET STUCK IN THE MUD"

Young's "literal" (hah) says: "and TURNETH ASIDE the wheels of their chariots." This would mean they swerved, but not that they actually came off.

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta reads: "CLOGGING THE WHEELS" (from the Syriac we get the reading found in the Message, RSV, NRSV and ESV)

The Voice 2012 - " He CAUSED the wheels of their chariots TO BREAK DOWN, so that it was nearly impossible for the drivers to control them."

New Living Translation 2013 - "He TWISTED their chariot wheels, making their chariots difficult to drive." Then it footnotes that this comes from "As in Greek version. Hebrew reads HE REMOVED."

Today's English Version 1992 "He made the wheels get stuck"

Contemporary English Version 1995 completely removes God from the picture and says: "Their chariot wheels GOT STUCK, and IT WAS HARD FORM THEM TO MOVE."

The Easy-to-Read Version 2006 also completely removes God from the picture and makes it seem like a natural event.  It reads: “The WHEELS of the chariots BECAME STUCK. It was very hard to control the chariots.”

And the famed Greek Septuagint says God "BOUND THE AXEL-TREES of their chariots". It doesn't say "clogging the wheels" as the false footnotes of the RSV, ESV, NIV tell us.

So when you read glowing recommendations about the next Bible of the Month Club version coming down the pike that is based on "better manuscripts", "greater advances in scholarship", "easier to read", just realize it is a lot of pious sounding BALONEY.

None of these people believe any Bible or any text is the inspired words of God, and all their efforts are designed to overthrow the time tested, inerrant, God approved King James Holy Bible.  

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."  Luke 8:8

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."  1 Corinthians 14:38

 

Exodus 15:2. "The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, AND I WILL PREPARE HIM AN HABITATION."

So reads the King James Bible, which I firmly consider to be the true, inerrant, complete, and perfect word of God. It is also the reading found in Webster's 1833 translation, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "I will PREPARE HIM AN HABITATION; my father's Elohim (אלהים), and I will exalt Him.”, the Jubilee Bible 2010, 

Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "I WILL PREPARE HIM AN HABITATION"

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Exodus%2015:2 


The Complete Jewish Tanach 2004 - “this is my God, and I WILL MAKE HIM A HABITATION, the God of my father, and I will ascribe to Him exaltation.”


Rashi’s Commentary - “and I will make Him a habitation: Heb. וְאַנְוֵה. Onkelos rendered it as an expression of habitation (נָוֶה) [as in the following phrases]: “a tranquil dwelling (נָוֶה)” (Isa. 33:20); “a sheepfold (נְוֵה)” (Isa. 65:10).

 

Other Bibles -

 

The Smith Bible 1876 - "This is my God, I WILL CAUSE HIM TO REST."

The Fenton Bible 1966 - "He is my God and I WILL REST UPON HIM."

The Geneva Bible of 1599 reads: "and I will PREPARE HIM A TABERNACLE."

The New Jewish Version 1985 - “This is my God and I WILL ENSHRINE HIM; The God of my father, and I will exalt Him.


However when we look at the NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV, NASB we read instead: "He is my God, AND I WILL PRAISE HIM." Now, you have to admit there is quite a difference in meaning between "I will prepare Him an habitation" and "I will praise him". At least, I hope your thinking has not degenerated to the point where you can no longer see that these two phrases do not mean the same thing.

 

Some Bibles say: "...he is my God, AND I WILL ADORN HIM." Among these are the Conservative Bible 2011, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Concordant Version 2012.

 

Foreign Language Bibles


The French Martin Bible 1744 - “Je lui dresserai un Tabernacle”  = I will prepare for him a Tabernacle”

 

The Spanish Jubilee Bible 2000 - “y a éste prepararé habitación” = “I will prepare him an habitation”

 

and the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez Bible 2010 - "Éste es mi Dios, y le prepararé morada; Dios de mi padre, le exaltaré." = "I will prepare him A DWELLING PLACE."


The Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - “el este Dumnezeul meu şi îi voi pregăti o locuinţă” = “he is my God and I WILL PREPARE A PLACE”

 

The Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the  Almeida Corrigida 2009  - “este é o meu Deus, portanto lhe farei uma habitaçäo; ele é o Deus de meu pai, por isso o exaltarei." = "I will make him AN HABITATION" 

 

 

The King James Bible is always right, and I will try to show why this is so in Exodus 15:2. There is only one Hebrew word used here which is rendered as "I will prepare him an habitation". The verb is # 5115 nah-vah and is found only twice in the entire Old Testament. The other time the verb is used is in the book of Habakkuk 2:5 where even the NKJV and NASB translate the verb as "stay at home". Your home is your habitation.

The noun form of the verb #5115 nah-vah is a very common noun used many times. It is #5116 nah-veh, and is frequently translated by all versions as "habitation". In fact, in the same context of Exodus 15:13 it is used in the same song of Moses when they say: "Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy HABITATION."

Neither the verb nor the noun have anything to do with "praise" as the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV have rendered Exodus 15:2. In the King James Bible and a few others we read instead that the children of Israel would prepare "an habitation" for their God. This is exactly what we are told they would do later in the book of Exodus.

In Exodus 25 God commands Moses to tell the children of Israel to bring offerings of precious metals, linen and animal skins to build the tabernacle where God will meet with them. In verse 25:8 God says: "And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them." This is what is prophetically referred to in Exodus 15:2 when the King James Bible has Moses and the children of Israel singing "and I will prepare him an habitation."

As usual, the commentators disagree among themselves, but John Gill notes: "Moses, or the people of Israel, or both, determine to "prepare" him an "habitation"...and seem to have some respect unto, and knowledge of an habitation hereafter to be built, the tabernacle and temple."

A.W. Pink remarks: "He is my God, and I will prepare Him an habitation" Beautiful is this. A spirit of true devotion is here expressed. An "habitation" is a dwelling-place. It was Jehovah's presence in their midst that their hearts desired. And is it not ever thus with the Lord?"

 

Exodus 17:16 KJB (NASB, NKJV, ASV) - “For he (Moses) said, BECAUSE THE LORD HATH SWORN that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”


NIV 1984 edition - “He said, FOR HANDS WERE LIFTED UP TO THE THRONE OF THE LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation.”


NIV 2011 edition - “He said, “BECAUSE hands were lifted up AGAINST the throne of the LORD, the LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation. 


NIV Spanish Version (Nueva Versión Internacional 1999) “¡Echa mano al estandarte del Señor!” = “LAY YOUR HAND UPON THE STANDARD OF THE LORD!” 


NIV Portuguese version (Nova Versao Internacional  2000) - “E jurou: “Pelo trono do Senhor! O Senhor fará guerra contra os amalequitas de geração em geração”. - “And he SWORE: “BY THE THRONE OF THE LORD!”


So far, there are 4 different NIV versions of this one phrase, and they are all different from each other.



ESV 2011 - “saying, “A HAND UPON THE THRONE OF THE LORD!  The LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.


RSV 1952, NRSV 1989 - “saying “A HAND UPON THE BANNER OF THE LORD! The LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”  Footnote  - Hebrew is obscure.


What is going on here that we have so many different ways people have translated this verse?  It basically has to do with what does the text MEAN as opposed to what it literally says.  A strictly literal translation lends itself to many different interpretations. 


The word “hand” # 3027 has a multitude of meanings that are radically different depending on the context. It can mean such varied things as “hand, times, work, tenons, place, presumptuously, coast, beside, border, axletrees, ledges, means, custody, state, stroke, places, power, and through.”  


The little word “upon” # 5921 can also be translated as “above, in, over, at, concerning, throughout, against, from, than, forth, through, between, as, from above, from out,  by reason of, accordingly, according to, because of, in that, among, beside the rest of, and touching.”


And the word that is in some versions translated as “throne” #3676 kehs, is only found one time in the Hebrew texts. It is not the usual word for “throne”, and several commentators have surmised that the Hebrew text itself has been corrupted.  The only word that scholars agree on is the word for the LORD.  


John Calvin notes: “Translators do not agree as to the meaning of the expression” 


John Gill mentions 3 or 4 different views, but says: “For he said, because the Lord hath sworn,.... So some Jewish writers take it for an oath, as we do”  


Matthew Poole’s Annotations: “These words then are a paraphrastical description of a solemn oath, by the usual posture of it, viz. the lifting up the hand, which is usually put for swearing, and in that sense is ascribed both to men… And this hand of God lifted up upon his throne, where his majesty doth peculiarly and gloriously dwell, SIGNIFIES THAT GOD SWEARS BY HIMSELF, as is said Hebrews 6:13 (He swore by himself). And thus the Chaldee and Arabic interpreters understand it.”


Adam Clarke comments: “This is no translation of the words מלחמה יה כס על יד כי  which have been variously rendered by different translators and critics”


Dan Wallace says: “The line here is very difficult…Most scholars have simply assumed that the text is wrong and should be enmended”



Rashi comments on this verse - “The hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, was raised to swear by His throne, to have a war and bear hatred against Amalek for eternity.” 


The King James Bible translators were well aware of the various ways to translate this verse.  The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549 and the Bishops’ Bible 1568 all read: “THE HAND IS ON THE SEAT OF GOD (or, the Lord) that the Lord will have war with Amelech through out all generations.”


Coverdale Bible 1535 is very confusing with “The battle of the LORD shall be against Amalek THROUGH AN HAND UNDER THE DEFENSE OF GOD from child to child’s child.”


The Bible Babble Buffet Version 


The so called Greek Septuagint - “FOR WITH A SECRET HAND the Lord wages war upon Amalec to all generations.”


The Contemporary English Version 1995 - “THIS IS BECAUSE I DEPENDED ON THE LORD.”  Footnote - One possible meaning for the difficult Hebrew text.” 


Good News Translation 1992 - “HOLD HIGH THE BANNER OF THE LORD!” 


The New English Bible 1970 - “MY OATH UPON IT: the LORD is at war….” 


Holman Standard 2009 - “INDEED, MY HAND IS LIFTED UP TOWARD THE LORD’S THRONE.” 


Jubilee Bible 2010 - “BECAUSE AMALEK LIFTED HIS HAND AGAINST THE THRONE OF THE LORD, the LORD will have war….”


International Standard Version 2014 - “A FIST HAS BEEN RAISED IN DEFIANCE AGAINST THE THRONE OF THE LORD”



The Common English Bible 2011 has: “THE POWER OF THE LORDS BANNER!”  


New Simplified Bible 2011 - “THIS IS BECAUSE I DEPENDED ON THE LORD.”


New International Reader’s Version 2014 “THE AMALEKITES OPPOSED THE AUTHORITY OF THE LORD. So the LORD will fight against the Amalekites for all time to come.”


The Catholic Versions give us 3 different meanings. The Douay-Rheims 1610 and Douay 1950 are virtually non-sensical with “BECAUSE THE HAND OF THE THRONE OF THE LORD, and the war of the Lord shall be against Amalec, from generation to generation.”


Then the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 changed this to: “for he said, “THE LORD TAKES IN HAND HIS BANNER;  the LORD will war against Amalek  through the centuries.”


And once more the New Jerusalem bible 1985 again changes this to read: “meaning, “LAY HOLD OF YAHWEH’S BANNER! Yahweh will be at war with Amalek generation after generation.”



“BECAUSE THE LORD HATH SWORN…”



Also reading like the King James Bible - “For he said, BECAUSE THE LORD HATH SWORN that the LORD will have war with Amalek” are the following Bible translations - the Geneva Bible 1587 “the LORD HATH SWORN”, Webster’s Bible 1833, the Longman Version 1841,  the Lesser Bible 1853, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “BECAUSE THE LORD HATH SWORN”, Lamsa’s Translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933 - “Behold, AS THE LORD HATH SWORN, the LORD will fight with Amalek…”, The Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, the Bible in Basic English 1961, New Life Version 1969, The NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, The NASB 1995, World English Bible 2000, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 -Because YHWH (יהוה) hath sworn that YHWH (יהוה) will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”, The New European Version 2010, The VW Bible 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “Because Yahweh has sworn: Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”, The Modern English Version 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Amplified Bible 2015 - “The LORD has sworn; the LORD will have war…”  


And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “The LORD hath sworn, the LORD will have war with Amelek from generation to generation.”


http://studybible.info/IHOT/Exodus%2017:16


Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 = KJB - “E disse: Porquanto jurou o Senhor que ele fará guerra contra Amaleque de geração em geração.” = Because the Lord swore that He would have war….”


The Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 = the KJB “Și a spus: Pentru că DOMNUL a jurat că DOMNUL va avea război cu Amalec din generaţie în generaţie.”  


The Spanish Reina Valera Gómez Bible 2010 also reads like the KJB - “y dijo: Por cuanto Jehová lo ha jurado: Jehová tendrá guerra contra Amalec de generación en generación.” = “and he said: BECAUSE THE LORD HAS SWORN: the LORD will have war with Amalec from generation to generation.”


 

Exodus 25:5; 26:14 etc. 

Exodus 26:14 KJB - "Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed RED, and a covering of BADGER'S skins".  

ESV - "And you shall make for the tent a covering of TANNED rams' skins, and a covering of GOATSKINS on top."

NIV 1978 & 1982 editions, The Voice 2012 - "Make for the tent a covering of ram skins dyed RED, and over that a covering of hides of SEA COWS."

NIV 2011 edition - "Make for the tent a covering of ram skins dyed RED, and over that a covering of OTHER DURABLE LEATHER."

ISV (International Standard Version) - "You shall make a cover for the tabernacle of ram skins dyed red and a covering of DOLPHIN SKINS above that."

ASV - " And thou shalt make a covering for the tent of rams' skins dyed red, and a covering of SEALSKINS above."

NASB - "You shall make a covering for the tent of rams' skins dyed RED and a covering of PORPOISE SKINS above."

Holman Standard - "Make a covering for the tent from rams skins dyed RED, and a covering of MANATEE SKINS on top of that."


Many commentators are all over the board on what the Hebrew word means here. Some say it's probably this animal and others some other, but most just admit that they do not know for sure.  


I had one Bible critic write me saying: "The only reason the KJV et al translate "tachus" as "badger" is by false etymology to the Latin transliteration "taxus" which means "badger." Badger skins would have been a horrible choice to use to cover the tabernacle, as they are so small. Dozens of badgers would have had to have been chased down, caught, skinned, thrown out as unfit to eat, and then laboriously sewn together into a watertight covering.The Tachus was an animal so big that only a few of its hides were required to cover the entire tabernacle. And it was clean. It just wasn't native to Israel."  


The big problems with this guys criticism are two. First, the Latin Vulgate does NOT say Tachus or anything even remotely close to this.  The Latin Vulgate reads: "et pelles arietum rubricatas pelles ianthinas et ligna setthim" which translates as "And rams' skins dyed red, and the wood of shittim wood, the curtains of VIOLET COLORED SKINS."


"Violet colored skins." That is why the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Douay both read this way - because they translated from the Latin. Secondly, if you do a Google search or look in any Dictionary, you will not find any such animal called The Tachus. No such animal exists.  And yet this Bible critic tells us all kinds of fascinating details about the nature of this imaginary animal.


Some Bible critics even go so far as to say that the badger did not exist in Israel, Palestine or the desert area, yet all one has to do is do an internet search of "badger", oftenly referred to as "the pound for pound toughest animal on the face of the earth", and you will see that badgers DO exist in Israel and Palestine even today and have existed throughout history in almost every area on the face of the earth.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_Badger

http://www.allposters.com/-st/Badgers-Photography-Posters_c99108_.htm

 

http://www.napak.com/honey_badger_II.html


You can also go to this site and see what the Badger's pelt actually looks like and what a perfect covering for the Tabernacle in the wilderness it would have made.


 http://marilynndawson.hubpages.com/hub/Badger-Skin-Ancient-Jewish-Bridal-Attire

Bible versions as well are totally confused and contradictory when it comes to translating this word, yet all the "scholars" have "gone to the Hebrew" like they tell us we need to do in order to see what this word means.

Bible translations that agree with the King James Bible's "badgers skins" are the NKJV 1982, Geneva 1599, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the 1936 Jewish translation (Hebrew Publishing Company New York), Webster's 1833, the Lesser Bible of 1853, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible of 1902, New Life Bible 1992, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, English Jubilee Bible 2000, and the Natural Israelite Bible 2008 all agree with the KJB reading of BADGER'S SKINS.  

Among foreign language Bibles that also read "BADGERS SKIN" are Luther's German Bible 1545 - "dazu über sie eine Decke von Dachsfellen." - "badger's skins",  the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera of 1909, 1960 and 1995 as well as the Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 - "pieles de tejones", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodoti 1991 - "pelli di tasso", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel  and the A Biblia Sagrada em Portugues- "peles de texugo", the French Martin 1744 - "des peaux de taissons", the Russian Synodal Version - "и еще покров верхний из кож синих." = "and a covering of BADGERS SKINS.", the Chinese Union Version Traditional - 再 用 海 狗 皮 做 一 層 罩 棚 上 的 頂 蓋 。and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "şi un acoperământ deasupra lui din piei de bursuc." = "and a covering of BADGERS SKINS"

 

Coverings of Badgers' Skins

 

Exodus 26:14

"Badgers' skins were tough, durable, non-porous, water repellent, and weather resistant. Protection was its purpose.

Beauty was inside the Tabernacle. The outside withstood the rain, storms, and the sun. Jesus withstood the torture, ridicule, and shame of the Cross for our sake. He weathered the storm that we might enjoy the beauty inside.

No dimensions were given for the two upper coverings of rams' skins dyed red or badgers' skins. The cleansing power of Jesus' blood (rams' skins dyed red) is immeasurable. The durable badgers' skins typify the boundless protection and security of believers in Christ.

Non-Christians never see the inner beauty of Christ. They only see the plain boring looking badgers' skins. We who are in Christ are able to enjoy the beauty of the gold!"  Distributed by Hope of Israel Baptist Mission  -   Copyright 1997-2006. 

The NASB says the covering would be "of PORPOISE skins" while the NIV 1984 edition has "sea cows", but the Spanish NIV says it was "dolphin skins" (pieles de delfín) and the NIV Portuguese version says it was "leather".  The 1989 Revised English Bible says: "dugong skins"; a dugong looks sort of like a walrus. The ASV says "SEAL SKINS". The RSV and the 2001 ESV both have "GOATSKINS".

 Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac says "skins dyed with vermillion"; the 1917 JPS says "sealskins", Green's 'literal' has "DUGONG skins", and Dan Wallace's NET version and the NRSV say "FINE LEATHER", and the Holman Standard says "manatee skins" and the 2011 Common English Bible tells us it was "beaded leather" (whatever that might be).  

The Catholic Connection

Among the Catholic versions the 1610 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay tell us it was "VIOLET COLORED SKINS". But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible says it was "FINE LEATHER", while the 1970 St. Joseph NAB has "TAHASH SKINS" and finally the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has settled on "SKINS OF VIOLET" once again.

Some versions like the Judaica Press Tanach and the Orthodox Jewish bible of 2011 have no idea what this animal was, so they just transliterate the word that for them has no specific meaning - "and tachash skins". There is NO such animal known as a "tachash". Eugene Petersons' The Message tells us it was "dolphin skins".

But wait. There's more. Now the "new" New International Version of 2011 has come out and now they tell us it was not their previous "SEA COWS" but "OTHER DURABLE LEATHER" - in other words, "we have no idea what this was so we are just taking another wild guess."

 Scholarship is a wonder to behold, isn't it?  You always have to wonder what they will come up with next. Hey,  "badger skins, porpoise skins, sea cows, goatskins, violet colored skins, sealskins, dugong skins, manatee skins, dolphin skins, and durable leather" - they're all about the same, right?

While wandering around in the wilderness for 40 years, badger's skins might be troublesome to get, but how many "porpoises" (NASB) or "sea cows" (NIV) or "manatees" (Holman) do you think they could have scrounged up? Possibly porpoises or sea cows would have been found in the Red Sea, but the wandering Israelites were not near the Red Sea during their wilderness wanderings, but in the desert. Hellooooo... Is anybody home?

Notes from the Internet

 

This from  http://marilynndawson.hubpages.com/hub/Badger-Skin-Ancient-Jewish-Bridal-Attire about Badger's skin - You can also see a picture of what Badger pelts look like.

Characteristics and Discussion

"The first point of interest, is that we are unable to consider this footwear without considering it's use first mentioned in Scripture, that of the outer covering of the Tabernacle. While the colour is indeed stated as unassuming and drab, the nature of the skin is what God was after. Badger skin has been well-known down through the ages as being excellent protection against the natural elements of storm, dust, and weather. While this author has never held a badger skin in her hands, it is said that the way the hair grows on the animal, water, ice and snow roll off it like water off a ducks back. So while the more colourful and rich fabrics were underneath, the badger skin protected the Tabernacle from all inclement weather the Hebrews would encounter on their travels. In addition, it was to cover the tables, altar, lamp stands, and Ark of the Covenant in transit. This gave a very unassuming appearance to a very important part of Tabernacle set up, protection and transportation."

This from  http://marilynndawson.hubpages.com/hub/Badger-Skin-Ancient-Jewish-Bridal-Attire

 about Badger's skin - You can also see a picture of what Badger pelts look like.

Characteristics and Discussion

The first point of interest, is that we are unable to consider this footwear without considering it's use first mentioned in Scripture, that of the outer covering of the Tabernacle. While the colour is indeed stated as unassuming and drab, the nature of the skin is what God was after. Badger skin has been well-known down through the ages as being excellent protection against the natural elements of storm, dust, and weather. While this author has never held a badger skin in her hands, it is said that the way the hair grows on the animal, water, ice and snow roll off it like water off a ducks back. So while the more colourful and rich fabrics were underneath, the badger skin protected the Tabernacle from all inclement weather the Hebrews would encounter on their travels. In addition, it was to cover the tables, altar, lamp stands, and Ark of the Covenant in transit. This gave a very unassuming appearance to a very important part of Tabernacle set up, protection and transportation.

From KJV Today 

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/badgers-skin-or-another-type-of-leather-in-exodus-255-et-al 

"Badgers' skin" or another type of leather in Exodus 25:5 et al.?

"And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass, And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair, And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and shittim wood," (Exodus 25:3-5, KJV)

 

The charge is that badgers are unclean animals and hence unsuitable for use in the tabernacle (ESV - Leviticus 11:5, Deuteronomy 14:7).  There is no internal inconsistency in the KJV, however, because the KJV does not translate this unclean animal as "badgers".  The KJV translates this unclean animal in Leviticus 11:5 and Deuteronomy 14:7 as "conies".  Therefore "badgers" (at least their skins) are not unclean according to the Bible, whether or not modern Jews regard them as unclean.

 

The Bible versions are in disagreement about what type of animal is referred to in Exodus 25:5 and elsewhere where תּחשׁ (tachash) is used.

  • KJV: badger
  • NIV 1984: sea cow
  • ESV: goat
  • NASB: porpoise
  • ASV: seal

Some translations avoid the issue and do not mention the name of the animal (e.g. TNIV, NIV 2011).  There is no reason to doubt the KJV translation since it makes just as much sense as any other translation of תּחשׁ.

 Exodus 33:7 “Tabernacle” or “Tent”?  Is this an error in the King James Bible?


For some reason some bible agnostics (they don’t know for sure what God wrote and they have NO complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language they will ever show you) seem to find fault with the King James Bible for having the word “Tabernacle” here in Exodus 33:7 instead of the word “Tent”.


The particular Hebrew word used here is # 168 oh’hel, and it is translated at both “tabernacle” and “tent”.


In this section, and all throughout chapter 33 of Exodus, we see the same word translated as both “Tabernacle” and as “tent”.  This particular Tabernacle that was set up outside the camp was where God dwelt. It was not the permanent Tabernacle that was later constructed and placed inside the camp.


The “tents” in this chapter are were the individual people dwelt.  God is in his Tabernacle and the people are in their “tents”.


Exodus 33:7-8 King James Version Bible.



And Moses took the TABERNACLE, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the TABERNACLE of the congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the Lord went out unto the TABERNACLE of the congregation, which was without the camp.


And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the TABERNACLE, that all the people rose up, and stood every man at HIS TENT DOOR, and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the TABERNACLE.”


See also the people’s “tents” in contrast to the Lord’s Tabernacle in Exodus 33:10 - “And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the TABERNACLE door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his TENT door.”


Not only does the King James Bible have the word TABERNACLE here in Exodus 33:7, in reference to the temporary dwelling place of God, but so too do the following Bible translations -


Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims bible 1610, The Webster Bible 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Version 1936, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth Translation 1999, The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2003, The Asser Septuagint Bible 2009, The Public Domain Version 2009, The Jubilee Bible 2010,  The Bond Slave Version 2012, and The New Brenton Translation of the Septuagint 2012.


And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “And Moses took the TABERNACLE and pitched it outside the camp”


http://studybible.info/IHOT/Exodus%2033:7


Foreign Language Bibles


Several foreign language bibles also have the word “TABERNACLE” here in Exodus 33:7.  Among these are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - “Y Moisés tomó el tabernáculo”, Cipriano de Valera Bible 1602, The Spanish Reina Valera 1960, 1977, 1995, 2011 editions - “Y Moisés tomó EL TABERNACULO , y extendiólo fuera del campo, lejos del campo, y llamólo el Tabernáculo del Testimonio.”, The French Ostervald Bible 1996 - “Et Mose prit le TABERNACLE, et se le dressa hors du camp” and the Italian Diodati Bible 1649 - “Il TABERNACOLO della convenza”


The Commentators - 


Matthew Henry - “Moses took the tabernacle, not his own tent for his family, but the tent wherein he gave audience, heard causes, and enquired of God, the guild-hall (as it were) of their camp, and pitched it without, afar off from the camp (v. 7), to signify to them that they had rendered themselves unworthy of it, and that, unless peace was made, it would return to them no more.”


The Geneva Study Bible Notes - “That is, the tabernacle of the congregation: so called because the people turned to it, when they needed to be instructed of the Lord's will.”


John Calvin - “And Moses took the TABERNACLE  This was a sign of the divorce between God and the Israelites, that the tabernacle should be removed from the camp and pitched at a distance, as if God were tired of His connection with them. He had promised as a special blessing that He would dwell in the midst of the people; and now, by departing elsewhere, He declares them to be polluted. In a word, the removal of the TABERNACLE was like the breaking of the tables; for, just as by the breaking of the tables Moses dissolved the covenant of God, so he thus deprived the Israelites for a time of His company and presence.”


Matthew Poole’s Annotations on the English Bible - “The tabernacle was a tent set up by Moses for the people to meet in for sacrifice and seeking of God, and other parts of God’s worship, until the great tabernacle should be finished; for such a place was necessary, or highly expedient for that use, and therefore it is not probable they would be without it for a year’s space.


The tabernacle of the congregation; it was so before, but he called it so now, to show that God had not wholly forsaken them; and that if they truly repented, he still permitted them to come into his presence, and to seek the Lord.”


Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary - “The removal of the tabernacle was another indication of the Lord's displeasure. Leviticus 26:21. This tabernacle, it should be remembered, was only the temporary camp, where ordinances had been occasionally observed, until the appointed tabernacle was erected.”


Joseph Benson’s Commentary - “Perhaps this tabernacle was a model of the tabernacle that was afterward to be erected, a hasty draft from the pattern showed him in the mount, designed for direction to the workmen, and used in the mean time as a tabernacle of meeting between God and Moses about public affairs. And called it the tabernacle of the congregation — Implying, that whosoever would seek the Lord, that is, would seek either for his favour, or for counsel and direction, must come thither.”


Thomas Coke Commentary on the Whole Bible - “There was a tabernacle among the Israelites, before that which was formed and reared by the immediate order of God…This tent was called the tabernacle of the congregation because it was there that Moses met God, and where the people met Moses, when there was an occasion to consult the Divine oracle: God was pleased to give sensible tokens of his presence at such times.”


There is NO error in the King James Bible.


 

Leviticus 10:6 and 21:10 -  “UNCOVER NOT YOUR HEADS" or “DO NOT LET YOUR HAIR BECOME UNKEMPT"?

 

 

KJB - “And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, UNCOVER NOT YOUR HEADS, neither rend your clothes”

 

NIV - “Then Moses said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, “DO NOT LET YOUR HAIR BECOME UNKEMPT and do not tear your clothes”

 

Jehovah Witness NWT - "DO NOT LET YOU HEADS GO UNGROOMED"

 

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "DO NOT DISORDER YOUR HAIR, or tear your clothes"

 

Dan Wallace’s NET 2006 - “DO NOT DISHEVEL THE HAIR OF YOUR HEADS and do not tear your garments”

 

ESV (Holman)- “And Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and Ithamar his sons, “DO NOT LET THE HAIR OF YOUR HEADS HANG LOOSE, and do not tear your clothes”  

 

Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta says: - "DO NOT SHAVE YOUR HEADS"  

 

while the so called Complete Jewish Bible 1998 says the opposite with: “DO NOT LEAVE YOUR HEADS UNSHORN”. - The exact opposite!

 

Let’s see, “uncover not your heads”, “don’t let your hair be unkempt” and “do not shave your heads”, “Do not leave your heads unshorn”....Yep, pretty much the same thing, right? Looks like James White is right again, by comparing several different versions we get a better idea of what God really meant, huh?

 

Is God really this confused, or is somebody messing with God’s pure words?

 

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The earlier Douay-Rheims 1610, the Douay 1950 and even St. Joseph NAB 1970 read like the KJB with "DO NOT UNCOVER your heads".  But then the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 changed this to "DO NO DISORDER YOUR HAIR", like the Jehovah Witness NWT and the NIV have it.

 

But, not to fear. Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out, as well as the 2012 Revised Douay-Rheims, and they both go back to reading - "UNCOVER NOT YOUR HEADS, and do not rend your garments"

 

 

In Leviticus 10 we read of the event when Aaron’s two sons, Nadab and Abihu, offered strange fire before the Lord and God sent fire out of heaven and destroyed them.  Then Moses tells Aaron and his remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar - “UNCOVER NOT YOUR HEADS, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people...”

 

The word "uncover" is #6544 pay-rag and means "to uncover"  or "to make naked", and the other word is "head" # 7218 rohsh and means "head" as in "it shall bruise thy HEAD" (Gen. 3:15) and "from his HEAD even to his foot" (Lev. 13:12). The word never means "hair". There is an entirely different Hebrew word for "hair".

 

The specific Hebrew word for "hair" is used some 27 times in the Hebrew and English Bible. It is #8181 she-gahr. Just a few of these 27 examples are found in Leviticus 13:3, 4, 10, 20, 21, 25, 26, 31, 31, 32, 36, 37; Leviticus 14:8, 9; Judges 16:22 of Samson "the HAIR of his HEAD began to grow" (both hair and head in the same verse), 2 Samuel 14:26 "he weighed the HAIR of his HEAD" (again, both words are used), Ezra 9:3, Psalm 68:21,Song of Solomon 4;:1 and 6:5and  Eze. 16:7 - "and thine HAIR is grown."

  

"UNCOVER NOT YOUR HEADS" - So read Wycliffe 1395 (not make your heads naked), Tyndale's translation 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible (Cranmer) of 1540, Matthew's Bible of 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, 1587 “Vncouer not your heads”, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Rotherham's Emphasized Version 1902, Young’s 1898, Darby 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "UNCOVER NOT YOUR HEADS", the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the Hebraic Torah Transliteration Scriptures of 2008, New Life Bible 1969, The Word of Yah 1993, NKJV 1982, The New Jewish Version 1985 - "Do not bare your heads", The NASB 1995, God's First Truth 1999, Green’s ‘literal’ 2000, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Public Domain Version of 2009, Bond Slave Version 2009, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Holy Scriptures VW edition 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - "Do NOT UNCOVER YOUR HEADS".

 

Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “UNCOVER NOT YOUR HEADS”

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Leviticus%2010:6 

 

Most foreign language Bibles also read "UNCOVER NOT YOUR HEADS", including and the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995, the Spanish Biblia de las Américas 1997, the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez bible = “No descubráis vuestras cabezas”, the Russian Synodal version,  the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 and French Ostervald 1996 all agree with the KJB reading of “uncover not your heads” = “Ne découvrez point vos têtes”, as well as Luther’s German bible of 1545, the so called Greek Septuagint as well as the Modern Greek version both agree with the KJB reading of "uncover not your head" - Τας κεφαλας σας μη αποκαλυψητε,  the Italian Diodati 1649, the New Diodati 1991 and the 2006 Italian Riveduta  = “Non andate a capo scoperto” = "do not go bareheaded", and the Portuguese Almeida, the 2000  Portuguese O Livro = “Não descubrais as vossas cabeças”, the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Nu vă descoperiţi cape tele" - "uncover not your heads". and the Dutch Staten Vertaling - "Gij zult uw hoofden niet ontbloten"

 

John Gill’s commentary - “uncover not your heads; that is, do not take off your mitre,... or the bonnets which they wore in the time of their ministry; for the Jewish priests always had their mitres and bonnets on when they sacrificed;... now it was the way, or custom of a mourner, as Ben Melech observes, to remove his mitre, bonnet, or tiara, from his head; but in this case, that no sign of mourning might be shown, Aaron and his sons are forbid to uncover the head.”

 

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - "Uncover not your heads -  They who were ordered to carry out the two bodies, being engaged in their sacred duties, were forbidden to remove their turbans, in conformity with the usual customs of mourning"

 

Matthew Poole - "Uncover not your heads By putting off your mitres and bonnets, or ornaments, and going bare-headed, as mourners sometimes did. See Leviticus 13:45; Ezekiel 24:17, 23."

 

 

 


Leviticus 11:16 KJB - And the owl, and the night hawk, and the CUCKOW, and the hawk after his kind, 


Deuteronomy 14:15 - And the owl, and the night hawk, and the CUCKOW, and the hawk after his kind, 


Steini asks: “Why has the cuckow been removed from other translations except King James Version, Jubilee Bible 2000, Webster's Bible Translation, and Young's Literal Translation? “


Hi Steini. The Bible versions vary quite a bit on this verse and what birds are in the list. Many of them do not match the other birds in the list either. 


 But agreeing with the KJB’s “CUCKOW” are the following Bible versions - Tyndale 1834, Coverdale 1535, The 

Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, Webster’s bible 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Lesser Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young’s 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Hebrew Publication Society 1936 Translation, The Word of Yah 1993, The 21st Century KJV 1994, God’s First Truth 1999, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, 


This Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - and the cuckoo


http://studybible.info/IHOT/Leviticus%2011:16



Other Versions


Wycliffe 1395  - the hawk


Geneva bible 1587, The Revised Version 1885, JPS 1917, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Context Group Version 2007 - the seameaw or seamew


The Sharpe Bible 1883 - the falcon


NKJV, NIV, NASB, Holman - the seagull  Judaica Press Tanach 2004 - the sparrow hawk


Complete Apostle’s Bible 2003  - every raven, AND BIRDS LIKE IT


Dan Wallace’s NET 2006, The Common English Bible 2011, Modern English Version 2014 - the long-eared owl


The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011 - the larus  


Both the names of these birds themselves and the reasons why some are on this list vary. As Matthew Henry points out, there may have been different reasons some were on this list, not just that they were meat eaters.


Matthew Henry comments - "Concerning fowls here is no general rule given, but a particular enumeration of those fowls that they must abstain from as unclean, which implies an allowance of all others. The critics here have their hands full to find out what is the true signification of the Hebrew words here used, some of which still remain uncertain, some sorts of fowls being peculiar to some countries. Were the law in force now, we should be concerned to know with certainty what are prohibited by it; and perhaps if we did, and were better acquainted with the nature of the fowls here mentioned, we should admire the knowledge of Adam, in giving them names expressive of their natures, Gen. 2:20. But the law being repealed, and the learning in a great measure lost, it is sufficient for us to observe that of the fowls here forbidden, (1.) Some are birds of prey, as the eagle, vulture, etc., and God would have his people to abhor every thing that is barbarous and cruel, and not to live by blood and rapine. Doves that are preyed upon were fit to be food for man and offerings to God; but kites and hawks that prey upon them must be looked upon as an abomination to God and man; for the condition of those that are persecuted for righteousness' sake appears to an eye of faith every way better than that of their persecutors. (2.) Others of them are solitary birds, that abide in dark and desolate places, as the owl and the pelican (Ps. 102:6), and the cormorant and raven (Isa. 34:11); for God's Israel should not be a melancholy people, nor affect sadness and constant solitude. (3.) Others of them feed upon that which is impure, as the stork on serpents, others of them on worms; and we must not only abstain from all impurity ourselves, but from communion with those that allow themselves in it. (4.) Others of them were used by the Egyptians and other Gentiles in their divinations. Some birds were reckoned fortunate, others ominous; and their soothsayers had great regard to the flights of these birds, all which therefore must be an abomination to God's people, who must not learn the way of the heathen." 

 


Leviticus 11:22 - “the beetle”

 

A bible critic who himself does not believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God thinks he has found a provable error in the King James Bible.  He writes - 

 

THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS LEAPING BEETLES 

 

LEVITICUS 11:21-22 (KJV): 

Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and THE BEETLE after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. 

 

The ‘beetle’ is a translation error in the King James Bible. No species of beetle has specialized hind jumping legs to leap upon the earth. Beetles are not the same kind of insects that locusts, bald locusts, and grasshoppers are. 

 

The King James Bible insect, mistranslated ‘beetle,’ and all the beetles after their kind, are described as having specialized hind jumping legs to leap upon the earth. The beetle and ALL beetles after their kind must have specialized hind jumping legs to leap upon the earth. No species of beetle has these type legs. 

 

The beetle error in the King James Bible was properly corrected to ‘cricket’ in the New King James Bible and is listed as cricket in all other English translated versions of Scripture.” [END of the Bible critic’s comments]

 

My Response - 

 

The right definition of “the beetle”

 

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary 11th edition


Beetle 1. :
  any of an order (Coleoptera) of insects having four wings of which the outer pair are modified into stiff elytra that protect the inner pair when at rest

  • 2 :  any of various insects resembling a beetle
  • American Heritage Dictionary - n. An insect resembling a member of the order Coleoptera.
  • Webster’s New World College Dictionary 4th edition
  • Beetle - any insect resembling a beetle
  • Infoplease Dictionary - (loosely) any of various insects resembling the beetle

  • The Hebrew word found here in Leviticus 11:22 occurs only one time in the entire Hebrew Old Testament.  Many bible versions merely transliterated the word as “hargol” or “chargol”. When bible translators transliterate a word, this is usually a strong indication that they really did not know what animal or insect was being referred to.

 

Others have come up with a wide variety of translations, but there are several Bible translations that also have “THE BEETLE” as does the King James Bible.

 

The word “beetle” in this passage seems to be a generic word that refers to “any of various insects that resemble a beetle”.  It is a translation choice, but not an error.

 

Here is a list of some of the varied translations that are found in various English Bibles through the years.

 

Leviticus 11:22 “the beetle”.  Not only does the King James Bible say “the beetle” but so do the following Bible translations - Webster’s Bible 1833, the Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Young’s 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “the BEETLE after its kind”, The Word of Yah 1993,  KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, Bond Slave Version 2009, Jubilee Bible 2010, and The Biblos Bible 2013 - “the BEETLE in its kinds”

 

This online  Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “and the BEETLE after his kind”

 

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Leviticus%2011:22

 

Other Translations

 

Wycliffe 1395 - OPYMACUS

 

The Thomson Bible 1808 - the SERPENT-FIGHTER and all its species

 

The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862 - the HARGOL-LOCUST after his kind

 

The Revised English Bible 1877 - the GREEN LOCUST after his kind

 

ASV, 1917 JPS, NKJV, Holman, NASB,   - the CRICKET

 

Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, Matthew’s Bible 1549, Bishops’ Bible 1568, Geneva bible 1587, Darby 1890 - the HARGOL after his kind 

 

(All previous English bible transliterated the word - they apparently did not know what it was)

 

Brenton Translation 1851, The New Brenton Translation 2012 - the CANTHARUS and his like

 

Lesser Old Testament 1853 - and the CHARGOL after its kind

 

The Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Smith Bible 1876 - the LOCUST WITHOUT WINGS according to its kind

 

Rotherham 1902, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - the CHARGOL-LOCUST after his kind

 

God’s Word Translation 1995, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Names of God Bible 2011 - KATYDIDS 

 

Complete Apostle’s Bible 2003 - and the CANTHARUS and his like

 

Green’s literal 2005 - the LONG-HORNED LOCUST according to his kind

 

Judaica Press Tanach 2004 - the SPOTTED GRAY LOCUST after his species

 

Far Above All Translation 2011 -the SHORT HORNED GRASSHOPPER

 

The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012  - OPHIMACHUS according to their kind

 

The Voice 2012 - DESERT LOCUSTS

 

It seems pretty obvious from this varied list of translations and transliterations that many bible translators are merely guessing at what this insect might be. If you try to look up most of these translations, you will find that there is no such animal. The cricket does exist, but this Hebrew word is not the Hebrew word that means  crickets. I looked it up and it is an entirely different Hebrew word.

 

And “the beetle”, as found in the King James Bible and quite a few others, including a couple of Jewish translations, does indicate “any of various insects that resemble a beetle” that would meet the qualifications spelled out in these verses. 


ַThe word used here in Leviticus 11:22 is NOT how to say “cricket” in the Hebrew language.  The word used here is # 2728 ghar-gohl.

ה ַח ְר ֹגּל ־ 

And the Hebrew word for “cricket” is an entirely different word. 


http://www.dictionary.co.il/hebrew_word.php?topic=h3401&image=h34/h3401008&name=Cricket

 

It is tse-rah-tsahr.

 

h3401008.gif

 

 

 

Leviticus 11:29 "the tortoise", "the frog", "the crocodile", "a large lizard"?  We need to go to "the Hebrew", right?  

 

Leviticus 11:29 KJB - "These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and THE TORTOISE after his kind."

 

NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB - "THE LARGE LIZARD"

 

The TORTOISE (turtle) is found only one time in the English translation of the King James Bible. The Hebrew word is # 6632 tzahv. Some scholars believe "tortoise" is the correct translation since this Hebrew word is also translated as "covered" in Numbers 7:3 where we read of "six COVERED wagons", and that the turtle has the covering of its own shell.  But others have an entirely different view of things as we shall soon see. In fact, the versions don't even agree among themselves regarding the identity of the three animals names here - "THE WEASEL, THE MOUSE and THE TORTOISE".

 

Agreeing with the King James Bible's "THE TORTOISE" are the following Bible translations - Webster's Version 1833 - "the weasel, the mouse and the TORTOISE", the Lesser Bible 1853,  Young's literal 1898 - "the weasel, the mouse and THE TORTOISE", the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible - "the weasel, the mouse and THE TORTOISE", The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969 - "the weasel, the mouse and EVERY SPECIES OF TURTLE", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the French Martin Bible 1744 - "et la Tortue", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "e di testuggine", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 1681 - "e a tartaruga segundo a sua espécie" = "and the TORTOISE after his kind", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "en die akkedis volgens sy soorte" = "and the TORTOISE after his kind", and the Modern Greek Bible - και η χελωνη  = "and the TURTLE".

 

BUT others have an entirely different animals among the three animals listed in the KJB as "THE WEASEL, THE MOUSE, THE TORTOISE"  

 

Wycliffe 1395, Douay-Rheims, 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "A WEASEL, A MOUSE, AND A CROCODILE"

 

Coverdale, the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible - THE WEASEL, THE MOUSE AND THE TOAD"

 

Geneva Bible - "THE WEASEL, THE MOUSE AND THE FROG"

 

NKJV - "THE MOLE, THE MOUSE, THE LARGE LIZARD"  

 

NIV - "THE WEASEL, THE RAT, ANY KIND OF LIZARD"  

 

NASB - "THE MOLE, THE MOUSE, THE GREAT LIZARD"  

 

NET - "THE RAT, THE MOUSE, THE LARGE LIZARD OF ANY KIND"  

 

Brenton's  LXX - "THE WEASEL, THE MOUSE, AND THE LIZARD"

 

Luther's German Bible 1545 - das Wiesel, die Maus, die Kröte = "THE WEASEL, THE MOUSE AND THE FROG" 

 Spanish Reina Valera 1909 - 1995 and R.V. Gómez - "comadreja, y el ratón, y la rana" = "the weasel, the mouse AND THE FROG"

The Commentaries  

As usual, the Commentaries are all over the board

John Gill - "the last in this text, "the tortoise", means the land TORTOISE; it has its name from the shell with which it is covered, this word being sometimes used for a covered wagon, Numbers 7:3;  there are various kinds of them, as Pliny and other writers observe.... the Septuagint version renders it, the "LAND CROCODILE", which, is approved of by Bochart... Jarchi says, it is a creature like A FROG; he means A TOAD; Dr. Shaw takes the creature designed to be THE SHARP-SDALED TAILED LIZARD."

Adam Clarke - "Most critics allow that the tortoise is not intended here, but rather the crocodile, the frog, or the toad. The frog is most probably the animal meant, and all other creatures of its kind."


Leviticus 13:45 - “And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, AND HIS HEAD BARE, and he shall but a covering upon HIS UPPER LIP, and shall cry, Unclean. unclean.”

There are two phrases that are radically changed in many modern versions.  The one is “and his head bare” and the other one is “upon his upper lip”.  


Agreeing with the King James Bible reading that the leper was to have the hair of his head uncovered and reading “and his head bare” are the following Bible translations:  the Latin Vulgate 405 - “caput nudum”,  the so called Greek Septuagint as well as the Modern Greek translation (as well as "the upper lip") -"η κεφαλη αυτου θελει εισθαι ασκεπης, και το επανω χειλος αυτου θελει καλυψει" , Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Rotherham/s Emphasized bible 1902, Young’s, Darby 1870, Douay Rheims, KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, Green’s 2000, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - “su cabeza descubierta”, La Biblia  de las Américas - “el cabello de su cabeza estará descubierto”, the French Martin 1744, the Louis Segond 1910, and the French Ostervald 1996 - “et aura la tête nue”, the Italian Diodati 1649, the Riveduta 1927, and the New Diodati 1991 - “e il capo scoperto”. 


However, instead of “his head bare”  the NIV says “LET HIS HAIR BE UNKEMPT”, and instead of “his upper lip” it has “THE LOWER PART OF HIS FACE”.


The Holman Standard has: “HIS HAIR HANGING LOOSE, AND HE MUST COVER HIS MOUTH”.


The NKJV agrees in the first part, but not the later part. It reads: “HIS HEAD BARE, and he shall cover HIS MUSTACHE.”  This is very similar to the NASB which has: “HAIR OF HIS HEAD SHALL BE UNCOVERED and he shall cover HIS MUSTACHE.”


While Darby’ translation has: “and his head shall be uncovered, and he shall put a covering ON HIS BEARD.”


Among those Bible translations that say “HIS UPPER LIP” are the  the JPS 1917, the RV, ASV, Youngs, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001, New English Version 1970, New Berkeley Version 1969, the Message 2002, World English bible, Hebrew Names Bible, the Modern Greek translation used in the Orthodox  churches all over the world, the  KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium bible 1998 to name but a few.


 

In Numbers chapter six we read of the children of Israel complaining about the constant diet of the heavenly manna and their desire to eat flesh. "and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: But now OUR SOUL IS DRIED AWAY: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes."

It is obvious that the children of Israel were crying out for new, more and better food. This is again confirmed in verse 13 where Moses complains: "Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat." And again in verse 18 where God says to them: "and ye shall eat flesh; for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat?"

John Gill comments: "But now our soul is dried away…Meaning their bodies, which, for want of flesh food, they pretended had no moisture in them, or they were half starved, and in wasting and consuming circumstances."

John Wesley tersely comments: "soul Dried away - Is withered and pines away; which possibly might be true, through envy and discontent, and inordinate appetite."

Agreeing with the literal Hebrew text and correctly translating it as: "OUR SOUL IS DRIED AWAY" are the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Coverdale, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Darby, Young, Douay, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, Hebrew Names Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, and the Third Millenium Bible. Even Daniel Wallace's NET version says: "WE are dried up" with a footnote that the literal Hebrew is "soul" and not "we".

The NKJV paraphrases a bit with "our WHOLE BEING is dried up", but at least it is not nearly as bad as the NASB, NIV and Holman. The RSV, NRSV, and ESV miss the mark with: "our STRENGTH is dried up", but the totally off-the-wall NASB, NIV and Holman all say: "WE HAVE LOST OUR APPETITE", then the NASB informs us in their footnote that the literal reading is "our soul is dried up".

The absurdity of the NASB, NIV, Holman reading is that the children of Israel certainly HAD NOT LOST THEIR APPETITE, but were instead HUNGRY for new, more and different food that that plain ol' manna.

Leviticus 13:47 “LEPROSY” or “MILDEW” or “A GREEN OR RED AREA” or “A DEFILING MOLD” or “A CONTAGION”?




Leviticus 13:47 KJB - “The garment also that the plague of LEPROSY is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment”


NIV 1978 and 1984 editions - “If any clothing is contaminated with MILDEW”


The Message 2002 “if clothing is infected with A PATCH OF SERIOUS FUNGUS”


Also reading MILDEW are the Holman Standard 2009 and the New Living Bible 2015


NIV 2011 edition - “As for any fabric that is spoiled with A DEFILING MOLD”


International Standard Version 2014 - "When clothing becomes infected with A CONTAGION


NET 2006 - "When a garment has A DISEASED INFECTION in it”


God’s Word Translation 1995 and Names of God bible 2011 - “if there is A GREEN OR RED AREA”

The Catholic Connection


The Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay Version 1950, Jerusalem bible 1968 and the St. Joseph New American Bible all read LEPROSY.


BUT the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has now changed this to read: “When a piece of clothing is infected WITH MOULD”


LEPROSY


Bible versions that says LEPROSY are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Douay-Rheims 1610, Lesser O.T. 1835, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Rotherham bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society Tanach 1917, the RSV 1946-1971, Living Bible 1971, NKJV 1982, NRSV 1989, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the NASB 1995, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, the World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, Green’s literal 2005, Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, the New Heart English Bible 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the ESV 2011, The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 and the Modern English Version 2014.


Foreign Language Bible - LEPROSY


Both the so called Greek Septuagint and Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta say LEPROSY. And The Modern Greek Bible - “Και εαν υπαρχη εις ιματιον πληγη λεπρας”


The French Martin bible 1744 and French Louis Segond 2007 - “est infecté de la plaie de la lèpre”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991- “è piaga di lebbra”, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1549, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1960-2015 - “una mancha de lepra”, the Portuguese Almeida 2009 - “praga de lepra” and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - “în care se a ă rana leprei”

 

Definition of Leprosy from the Bible


Etymology Dictionary 


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=leprosy


leprosy (noun) - name given to various chronic skin diseases, later in more restricted use, 1530’s, probably from leprous.  First used in Coverdale Bible, where it renders Hebrew cara’ath, which apparently was a comprehensive term for skin diseases.”


Historical Texts - 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy#Historical_texts


Biblically speaking, the Hebraic root tsara or tsaraath (צָרַע, --tsaw-rah' -- to be struck with leprosy, to be leprous) and the Greek (λεπρός - lepros), are of broader classification than the more narrow use of the term related to Hansen's Disease. Any progressive skin disease (a whitening or splotchy bleaching of skin, raised manifestations of scales, scabs, infections, rashes, etc.…) as well as generalized molds and surface discoloration of any clothing, leather, and/or discoloration on walls surfaces throughout homes all came under the "law of leprosy" (Leviticus 14:54-57).[77] Ancient sources also such as the Talmud (Sifra 63) make clear that tzaraath refers to various types of lesions or stains associated with ritual impurity and occurring on cloth, leather, or houses, as well as skin. It may sometimes be a symptom of the disease described in this article but has many other causes, as well. 

 


All Words.Com


https://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=Leprosy&goquery=Find+it%21&Language=ENG


 1(disease) An infectious disease caused by infection by Mycobacterium leprae.


2. In the Bible, a disease of the skin not conclusively identified, which can also affect clothes and houses.


Wordnik.


http://www.wordnik.com/words/leprosy


n. In the Bible, a disease of the skin not conclusively identified, which can also affect clothes and houses.



Your Dictionary.com


http://www.yourdictionary.com/leprosy


In the Bible, a disease of the skin not conclusively identified, which can also affect clothes and houses.


Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/leprosy#IAQJj5FSIsCVQbDH.99


Free Dictionary.Com

http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=leprosy



The disease now called leprosy, is not the same as the leprosy of the ancients. A GENERIC TERM FOR MANY VARIETIES OF SKIN DISEASE, SOME OF WHICH, AMONG THE HEBREWS, RENDERED A PERSON CEREMONIOUSLY UNCLEAN.”

 

 

 

Numbers 11:12   “nursing father”, “mother”, “nurse”, “guardian”, “nursing woman” or “foster father”?


KJB - “Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as A NURSING FATHER  beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?”


New Living Translation 2015 - “ Did I give birth to them? Did I bring them into the world? Why did you tell me to carry them in my arms like A MOTHER carries a nursing baby? How can I carry them to the land you swore to give their ancestors?”


ESV 2016 — “ Did I conceive all this people? Did I give them birth, that you should say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom, as A NURSE carries a nursing child,’ to the land that you swore to give their fathers?”


NKJV 1982 - “Did I conceive all these people? Did I beget them, that You should say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom, as A GUARDIAN carries a nursing child,’ to the land which You swore to their fathers?”


Holman Christian Standard 2009 - “Did I conceive all these people? Did I give them birth so You should tell me, ‘Carry them at your breast, as A NURSING WOMAN carries a baby,’ to the land that You[a] swore to give their fathers?”



NET 2006 - “Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, ‘Carry them in your arms, as A FOSTER FATHER bears a nursing child,’ to the land which you swore to their fathers?”


In the King James Bible (and many others as we shall soon see) Moses likens himself to “A NURSING FATHER”.  The English verb “to nurse” is NOT limited to the meaning of “to suckle or to breast feed an infant other than their own; a wet nurse.”


To nurse or a nurse also means “one that looks after, fosters, or advises” (Webster’s Dictionary), 


“one that looks after, fosters, or advises (Oxford English Dictionary), 


One that serves as a nurturing or fostering influence or means” (American Heritage Dictionary)


look after, treat, tend to, care for” (Collins English Dictionary) 


The King James Bible, and many others as well, using this term again in reference to males being “nursing fathers” in Isaiah 49:23 where we read: 


And kings shall be THY NURSING FATHERS, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.”  


“Nursing fathers” is also found in the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Young’s literal 1898, the ASV 1901, the KJV 21st Century Version and the Jubilee Bible 2010, to name just a few.


Not only does the King James Bible have Moses (who was obviously a man) describing himself as “A NURSING FATHER” in Numbers 11:12 but so also do the following Bible translations:  the Lesser O.T. 1835, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Young’s literal 1898, the ASV 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company bible, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Bond Slave Version 2012 and The Hebrew Names Version 2012.


Deuteronomy 29:19 - add drunkenness to thirst?

Moses was warning the children of Israel of the dire consequences that would befall them from the hand of the LORD if and when they forsook the covenant of the law and turned to idols. We pick up in verse 18 "Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood; And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, TO ADD DRUNKENNESS TO THIRST."

This is the reading in the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster 1833 translation, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1936 Hebrew-English, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, The Word of Yah 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Bond Slave Version 2009, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Jubilee Bible 2010 the Spanish and the Italian Diodati bibles. It is even found in the footnote of the NIV.

The Spanish Reina Valera equals the meaning of the King James Bible with: "Tendra paz, aunque ande en la dureza de mi corazon, a fin de con la embriaguez quite la sed."

Simply put, "to add drunkenness to thirst" means to sin. Thirst is a legitimate need, but drunkenness is a sin.

John Gill comments: "to add drunkenness to thirst; as a thirsty man to quench his thirst drinks, and adds to that, or drinks yet more and more until he is drunken; so a man inclined to idolatry, that has a secret desire after it, thirsts after such stolen or forbidden waters, and drinks of them, adds thereunto, drinks again and again until he is drunk with the wine of fornication, or idolatry, as it is called (Revelation 17:2)

Adam Clarke remarks: "to add drunkenness to thirst - A proverbial expression denoting the utmost indulgence in all sensual gratifications."

The phrase "to add drunkenness to thirst" consists of three Hebrew words. "To add" is used in Isaiah 29:1 "Add ye year to year..."; Isaiah 30:1 "...that they may add sin to sin"; and Numbers 32:14 "to augment yet the fierce anger of the LORD".

The word drunkenness comes from the verb meaning "to make drunk, to water, or to satiate". It is used in Jeremiah 46:10 "made drunk with their blood", and in Lamentations 3:15 "he hath made me drunken".

The word "thirst" is found 9 times and is always translated as thirst or thirsty. It is found in such verses as Psalm 107:5 "hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted"; Proverbs 25:21 "if he be thristy, give him water"; Isaiah 44:3 "I will pour water upon him that is thristy", and in Isaiah 55:1 "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters."

However in the NKJV we read "AS THOUGH THE DRUNKARD COULD BE INCLUDED WITH THE SOBER";

The NASB says: "IN ORDER TO DESTROY THE WATERED LAND WITH THE DRY"

The NASB reads like the ASV of 1901, but at least the ASV has a footnote that reads: "Or, TO ADD DRUNKENNESS TO THIRST."

Dan Wallace and company’s NET version is similar to the NASB, saying: “I will have peace though I continue to walk with a stubborn spirit.”THIS WILL DESTROY THE WATERED GROUND WITH THE PARCHED.”  

He then footnotes: “The word “ground” is implied. The exact meaning of the phrase is uncertain although it appears to be figurative.”


Well, now it is really uncertain.

The NIV and Holman Standard say: "THIS WILL BRING DISASTER ON THE WATERED LAND AS WELL AS THE DRY."

Green's Modern KJV and Darby's translation say: "though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart, TO SNATCH AWAY THE DRUNKEN WITH THE THIRSTY." (Say what?!)

The Bible in Basic English 1960 says: "If such a man, hearing the words of this oath, takes comfort in the thought that he will have peace even if he goes on in the pride of his heart, TAKING WHATEVER CHANCE MAY GIVE HIM."

Young's translation says: "though in the stubbornness of my heart I go on, IN ORDER TO END THE FULNESS WITH THE THIRST."

(Huh? What did he just say?)

RSV, ESV say: "This WOULD LEAD TO THE SWEEPING AWAY OF MOIST AND DRY ALIKE."

The New English Bible 1970  has "I will follow the promptings of my stubborn heart", but THIS WILL BRING EVERYTHING TO RUIN."

The Douay-Rheims has: "I shall have peace, and will walk on in the naughtiness of my heart: AND THE DRUNKEN MAY CONSUME THE THIRSTY."

The Greek Septuagint is total nonsense saying: "And it shall be if one shall hear the words of this curse, and shall flatter himself in his heart, saying, May holy things happen to me, for I will walk in the error of my heart, LEST THE SINNER DESTROY THE GUILTINESS WITH HIM."

The 1998 Complete Jewish Bible has a totally different meaning with: "though I will stubbornly keep doing whatever I feel like doing; so that I, although "dry," [sinful,] will be added to the "watered" [righteous].'

The Judaica Press Tanach 2004 reads: “saying, "I will have peace, even if I follow my heart's desires," IN ORDER TO ADD THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE UNINTENTIONAL SINS OF THIS MAN TO THAT OF HIS INTENTIONAL SINS.”

 

Aren't you glad we have what James White calls "an abundance of riches" with all these multiple versions so we can find out what God REALLY said?  

Instead of the endless Bible Babble Buffet versions so popular today, get yourself a copy of God's complete and inerrant Book, the King James Holy Bible, and you will find rest for your souls.

 

Deuteronomy 33:2 "The LORD came from Sinai, and ROSE UP from Seir unto THEM; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came WITH ten thousands of saints; FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM."

The multitude of conflicting, multiple-choice, Let's go to the Original Languages, Do It Yourself Scholars really strut their stuff in this verse.

First of all, the phrase "the LORD...ROSE UP from Seir UNTO THEM" is the reading of the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, Webster's, Darby, Young's, Hebrew Names Version, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Beginning with the RSV and now in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, it now reads: "The Lord DAWNED ON them from Seir."

More importantly, the part that reads "FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM" is found in Tyndale 1630, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, the NKJV 1982, Green's MKJV, Webster's 1833, Third Millenium Bible, the Douay-Rheims 1610, the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) and 1936 Hebrew  Publishing Company translation, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Darby, the Judaica Press Tanach - "from His right hand was a fiery Law for them", the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 - "Y vino de entre diez millares de santos,  Con la ley de fuego a su mano derecha.", the Portuguese Almeida - "ã sua direita havia para eles o fogo da lei.", the French Martin of 1744 and the Louis Segond of 2007 - "de sa main droite, envoyé le feu de la loi."

I was actually quite surprised to see that Dan Wallace's NET version is really quite close to the meaning found in the King James Bible, because usually if there is anything wacky, then Dan Wallace will go with it. But his NET version reads basically the same with: "He appeared in splendor from Mount Paran, and came forth with ten thousand holy ones. With his right hand he gave a fiery law to them."

John Wesley comments: "A fiery law - The law is called fiery, because it is of a fiery nature purging and searching and inflaming, to signify that fiery wrath which it inflicteth upon sinners for the violation of it, and principally because it was delivered out of the midst of the fire."

Compare Deuteronomy 4:11-12 and 5:26. "And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven...and the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice." "For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?"

Now let's see what the noted scholars of today, all of whom have gone to seminary and consulted "the original languages", have done with this passage.

Instead of "FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM" we read:

The RSV 1952, and ESV 2001 - " dawned from Seir upon US; he shone forth from Mount Paran, he came FROM the ten thousands of holy ones, WITH FLAMING FIRE AT HIS RIGHT HAND."

In this verse the RSV, NRSV, and ESV all change the Hebrew reading of "unto THEM" to "upon US" and then footnote that the word "us" comes from the Syriac, the LXX and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew texts read "them".

The 1989 New RSV - " With him were myriads of holy ones; AT HIS RIGHT HAND, A HOST OF HIS OWN."

NIV- "The LORD came from Sinai and DAWNED OVER them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones FROM THE SOUTH, FROM HIS MOUNTAIN SLOPES." (That's right, this is what it says in place of "from his right hand went a fiery law for them".) However the NIV Spanish edition of 1999 (Nueva Versión Internacional) and the NIV Portuguese editions have a completely different meaning even from the NIV English version and it says: "y llegó desde Meribá Cades con rayos de luz en su diestra." which means "He came from Meriba Cades (Say what?) with rays of light in his right hand." Yep, that's pretty close, right?

NASB - "The LORD came from Sinai, and DAWNED ON them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came FROM THE MIDST OF (not with?) ten thousand holy ones, AT HIS RIGHT HAND THERE WAS FLASHING LIGHTNING FOR THEM."

The Bible in Basic English 1960 says: "coming from Meribath Kadesh: from his right hand went flames of fire: HIS WRATH MADE WASTE THE PEOPLES."

This is similar to the Catholic versions that just keep getting weirder and weirder. The older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the King James Bible saying: "he hath appeared from mount Pharan, and with him thousands of saints. In his right hand a fiery law."  However, believe it or not, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible actually reads: "He shone forth from Mount Paran and advanced from Meribath-kadesh, WHILE AT HIS RIGHT HAND A FIRE BLAZED FORTH AND HIS WRATH DEVASTATED THE NATIONS."  Then the 1985 Catholic New Jerusalem came out and it says: "...from Mount Paran came forth, FOR THEM HE CAME, AFTER THE MUSTERING AT KADESH, FROM HIS ZENITH AS FAR AS THE FOOTHILLS." I am not kidding you or making this stuff up. That is actually how these "bibles" read.

 

The New English Bible 1970 - "He showed himself from Mount Paran, and with him were MYRIADS OF HOLY ONES STREAMING ALONG AT HIS RIGHT HAND."

 

Common English Bible of 2011. One of the latest critical text versions to come down the pike is what they call The Common English Version of 2011, and so you can see where "the science of textual criticism" is making great strides in our understanding of the Scriptures (NOT), here is how this latest mess reads: "from Paran Mountain he beamed down. Thousands of holy ones were with him, HIS WARRIORS WERE NEXT TO HIM, READY."  Pretty close to "from His right hand went a fiery law", huh?

Young's translation - "Jehovah from Sinai hath come, And hath risen from Seir for them; He hath shone from mount Paran, And hath come with myriads of holy ones; At HIS RIGHT HAND ARE SPRINGS FOR THEM."

The Greek Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta are of no help at all in this verse. They both give conflicting readings as well. The Greek Septuagint reads: "The Lord has hasted out of Mount Pharan with the ten thousands OF CADES, on his right hand WERE HIS ANGELS WITH HIM."

Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta has: "he came with ten thousands of saints AT HIS RIGHT HAND. YEA, HE SUPPLIED THEIR NEEDS: he also made them to be beloved BY THE NATIONS."

Was it a "fiery law", "flashing lightning", "he supplied their needs", "his angels with him", "tongues of fire", "streams", "a host of his own", or "from the south"? Who really cares? They all mean the same thing, right? As Professor James White says, "If we compare all the bible versions together, we arrive at a better understanding of what is really being said." Don't you agree?

Deuteronomy 32:43 "Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people"

In the King James Bible we read: "Rejoice, O YE NATIONS, WITH his people; for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people."

This is the reading of the Hebrew Masoretic texts, the Jewish translations of 1936, the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and many others. The Holman Standard changes the meaning a bit with: "Rejoice, you nations, OVER His people, for He will avenge the blood of His servants."

However when we get to the RSV, NRSV, and ESV things change a great deal.

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) of 1958 says: "PRAISE HIS PEOPLE, O YOU NATIONS; for he avenges the blood of his servants, and takes vengeance on his adversaries, and makes expiation for the land of his people."

The New RSV of 1989 says: "PRAISE, O HEAVENS, HIS PEOPLE, WORSHIP HIM, ALL YOU GODS For he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries; HE WILL REPAY THOSE WHO HATE HIM, and cleanse the land for his people."

Notice the NRSV changed the RSV's "O ye nations" to "O heavens", and it added the phrase "He will repay those who hate him".

Then the next revision of the revision of the revision, called the English Standard Version (ESV)of 2001 has: "REJOICE WITH HIM, O HEAVENS, BOW DOWN TO HIM, ALL GODS, for he avenges the blood of his CHILDREN (not servants) and takes vengeance on his adversaries. HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM and cleanses his people's land."  

The ESV footnote tells us that changing the word "servants" to "children" comes from one Dead Sea Scroll and the Greek Septuagint, but the Hebrew Masoretic text says "servants" and so do the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.

The ESV also changes "Rejoice...with HIS PEOPLE" to "rejoice WITH HIM", even though the previous RSV and NRSV had "his people".

And the ESV again changes "O ye nations" to "O Heavens", and adds "bow down to him, all gods" and "he repays those who hate him".

Where do all these extra words and changes found in the NRSV, ESV and also the New English bible of 1970 come from? The added portions are: "Bow down to him, all gods" and "he repays those who hate him". Some of them change "O ye nations" to "O heavens", and the ESV changes "servants" to "children", and "his people" to "him".

The Holman Standard generally reads in this verse (though not in hundreds of others) as does the King James Bible. It tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew text reads as does the King James Bible, but that the Greek LXX has a whole bunch of words not found in the Hebrew Masoretic texts saying: "Rejoice, you heavens, along with Him, and let all the sons of God worship Him; rejoice, you nations, with His people, and let all the angels of God strengthen themselves in Him." (Actually, the Holman footnote is a bit mixed up. The LXX copy I have reverses "sons of God" and "angels of God", but, then again, not all LXX copies are the same.)

It also tells us that a Dead Sea Scroll reads: "Rejoice, you heavens, along with Him, and let all the angels worship Him."

So where did the three different readings of the RSV, NRSV and ESV come from? Well, it looks like they just made them up, doesn't it? None of the three followed the Hebrew Masoretic texts and each one took different parts from some Greek Septuagint readings and parts of one Dead Sea Scroll manuscript which differs in scores of places from the traditional Hebrew texts. And none of the three Revisions agrees with the others! Isn't modern scholarship a kick in the head?

In Deut. 33:25, "As thy days, so shall thy STRENGTH be." No matter what difficulties we may encounter, God will give us the strength to bear them and go on. The NIV, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, Geneva, Youngs, and Spanish all agree with the KJB reading. However the NASB says: "And according to your days, so shall YOUR LEISURELY WALK be." Did God ever promise us a leisurely walk? Not if you've read the rest of the Bible, He didn't.

“none abiding” or “without hope”?

The Book of Judges

For a study on the Bible Babble in the Book of Judges see this link here -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/bookofjudges.htm


Will Kinney

 Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

Bible Babel 1

 

 

Psalm 7:4 KJB "If I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me; Yea, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY."

NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman - "If I have repaid evil to him who was at peace with me, OR HAVE PLUNDERED MY ENEMY WITHOUT CAUSE"

NET -  "or have wronged my ally, OR HELPED HIS LAWLESS ENEMY".

Young's - ""If I have done my well-wisher evil, AND DRAW MINE ADVERSARY WITHOUT CAUSE."

The New Jerusalem bible - "If I repaid my ally with treachery, OR SPARED SOMEONE WHO ATTACKED ME UNPROVOKED, may an enemy hunt me down and catch me."

Greek LXX - "If I have requited with evil those who requited me with good, MAY I THEN PERISH EMPTY BY MEANS OF MY ENEMIES."

 

The reading or meaning found in the King James Bible - "Yea, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY" is also that of the Revised Version 1881 -"(yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary)", the ASV 1901 - "(Yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary)", the Great Bible 1540 -"yee, I haue delyuered hym, that without any cause is myne enemy.", Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 "yea I haue deliuered him that vexed me without cause", Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Bible, Webster 1833, Darby 1890 "(indeed I have freed him that without cause oppressed me)",  Bible in Basic English 1969, World English Bible - "(Yes, I have delivered him who without cause was my adversary)", and the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Updated Bible Version 2004 - "(Yes, I have delivered him that without cause was my adversary;)"

Many foreign language Bibles also read like the King James Bible.  Among these are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 - "Si dí mal pago al pacífico con- migo, (hasta he libertado al que sin causa era mi enemigo;) = "I have even freed him, who without cause, was my enemy.",  Reina Valera 1909 - 1995 "(al contrario, he libertado al que sin causa era mi enemigo)", the Reina Valera Gómez 2010, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and Almeida Corregida E Fiel - "(antes, livrei ao que me oprimia sem cause) = "rather, I have freed him who without cause oppressed me", the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "(io che ho lasciato andare libero colui che mi era nemico senza region)"


Yet the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV all give a very different meaning. Instead of Yea, I have DELIVERED him that without cause is mine enemy", they say: "Or have PLUNDERED my enemy without cause?"

Yet the NKJV and the others translate the same Hebrew word as "delivered" in Psalms 18:19; 34:7; 50:15, 81:7 and 91:15.

 

The Catholic Connection  - Three completely different meanings

The earlier Douay-Rheims, the 1950 Douay and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version all read: "If I have rendered to them that repaid me evils, LET ME DESERVEDLY FALL EMPTY BEFORE MY ENEMIES."

But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem changed this to "If injustice has stained my hands, If I repaid my ally with treachery, OR SPARED SOMEONE WHO ATTACKED ME UNPROVOKED, may an enemy hunt me down and catch me."

While the 1970 St. Joseph NAB gives us: "If I have repaid my friend with evil, I WHO SPARED THOSE WHO WITHOUT CAUSE WERE MY FOES - Let the enemy pursue and overtake me."

Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, has written his own translation called the NET bible version. He renders Psalm 7:4 in this manner: "or have wronged my ally, OR HELPED HIS LAWLESS ENEMY".

Young's 'literal' (hah!) is different from them all, saying: "If I have done my well-wisher evil, AND DRAW MINE ADVERSARY WITHOUT CAUSE."

The Jubilee bible 2000 is unique, with: "if I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me, THEN LET MY PERSECUTOR ESCAPE WITHOUT RETRIBUTION."  Huh?

God's Word Translation 1995 and the 2012 Names of God Bible are very different still, with: "if I have paid back my friend with evil, OR RESCUED SOMEONE WHO HAS NO REASON TO ATTACK ME—"!!! Then the Names of God bible footnotes "Hebrew meaning of this line is uncertain."  Well, it certainly is NOW, huh?

The alleged Greek LXX renders verse 7:4 as: "If I have requited with evil those who requited me with good, MAY I THEN PERISH EMPTY BY MEANS OF MY ENEMIES."

So, did he Deliver his enemy or Plunder him, ask that he perish empty, or rescue someone who didn't attack him, or did he help his ally's lawless enemy?

 

As James White and other bible agnostics love to tell us, By comparing many different versions we can get a better understanding of the passage, right?

"Badgers' skin" or another type of leather in Exodus 25:5 et al.?

"And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass, And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair, And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and shittim wood," (Exodus 25:3-5, KJV)

The charge is that badgers are unclean animals and hence unsuitable for use in the tabernacle (ESV - Leviticus 11:5, Deuteronomy 14:7).  There is no internal inconsistency in the KJV, however, because the KJV does not translate this unclean animal as "badgers".  The KJV translates this unclean animal in Leviticus 11:5 and Deuteronomy 14:7 as "conies".  Therefore "badgers" (at least their skins) are not unclean according to the Bible, whether or not modern Jews regard them as unclean.

The Bible versions are in disagreement about what type of animal is referred to in Exodus 25:5 and elsewhere where תּחשׁ (tachash) is used.
  • KJV: badger
  • NIV 1984: sea cow
  • ESV: goat
  • NASB: porpoise
  • ASV: seal
Some translations avoid the issue and do not mention the name of the animal (e.g. TNIV, NIV 2011).  There is no reason to doubt the KJV translation since it makes just as much sense as any other translation of תּחשׁ.

Isaiah 32:1-2 KJB - "Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. V.2 And A MAN shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land."


ESV (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET) - "EACH will be like a hiding place from the wind, a shelter from the storm, like streams of water in a dry place." Then the ESV gives a false footnote saying: "Hebrew 'they'"


The ESV is wrong and its footnote is flat out wrong and misleading. And the ESV and these other Vatican Versions completely miss the fact that this passage refers to the Messiah, the Son of God.



ESV (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET) - "EACH will be like a hiding place from the wind, a shelter from the storm, like streams of water in a dry place." Then the ESV gives a false footnote saying: "Hebrew 'they'"

ESV (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET) - "EACH will be like a hiding place from the wind, a shelter from the storm, like streams of water in a dry place." Then the ESV gives a false footnote saying: "Hebrew 'they'"

ESV (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET) - "EACH will be like a hiding place from the wind, a shelter from the storm, like streams of water in a dry place." Then the ESV gives a false footnote saying: "Hebrew 'they'"

ESV (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET) - "EACH will be like a hiding place from the wind, a shelter from the storm, like streams of water in a dry place." Then the ESV gives a false footnote saying: "Hebrew 'they'"
See the complete article on Isaiah 32:2 here and learn why the King James Bible and the Hebrew text are right and the ESV isn't.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/isaiah322amanhiding.htm

Ecclesiastes. 2:8 "I gat me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, and that of all sorts."

"Musical instruments" is the reading of the NKJV 1982, the ASV of 1901 (remember, the NASB introduction says this was the "Rock of Biblical Honesty"), Webster's 1833 translation, the Hebrew Names Version - "musical instruments, and that of all sorts.", World English Bible, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 - "musical instruments of all kinds."  

 

Other English Bibles that read "MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS" are The Word of Yah 1993, the Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the New Heart English Bible 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the English Jubilee Bible 2010, Natural Israelite Bible 2012, the World English Bible 2012 - "MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS".

 

Among Foreign language Bibles that also have "musical instruments" are Luther’s German Bible 1545 - “die Wonne der Menschen, allerlei Saitenspiel” = “the joy of all the people, ALL KINDS OF MUSIC.”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and the Nuova Diodati 1991 - "E STRUMENTI MUSICALI di ogni genere. (of every kind) ",  the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569, 1909, 1960 and 1995 INSTRUMENTOS MUSICALES, and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez bible - "y de toda clase de instrumentos de música.",  the French Martin 1744 - "une harmonie d'INSTRUMENTS DE MUSIQUE, même plusieurs harmonies de toutes sortes d'instruments", the Russian Synodal Bible of 1876 - "разные музыкальные орудия." = all kinds of musical instruments", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "e das delícias dos filhos dos homens, E DE INSTRUMENTOS DE MUSICA de toda sorte.", the Albanian bible - "dhe vegla MUZIKORE të çdo lloji.", the Czech Kralicka Bible - "a nástroje MUZICKE rozličné.", the Lithuanian bible - "MUZIKOS INSTRUMENTU.", the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - “mga sarisaring INSTRUMENTO NG MUSIKO iya'y totoong marami.”, and the Romanian Fidela Bible of 2009 - "INSTRUMENTE MUZICALE".

 

The Bible Babble Buffet in Action 

The NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard say: "I provided for myself male and female singers and the pleasures of men-MANY CONCUBINES."

The NIV says: "I acquired men and women singers, AND A HAREM AS WELL, - the delights of the heart of man." Then the NIV footnotes that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between musical instruments and an harem. Let's see what some other translations have come up with. Remember, all these translators are "experts in the original languages". 

The Catholic Connection

The Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay Version 1950 - "...and the delights of the sons of men, CUPS AND VESSELS TO SERVE TO POUR OUT WINE." 

Then the Catholic St. Joseph of 1970 changed this to "AND ALL HUMAN LUXURIES." 

Then the 1985 New Jerusalem embellished this a bit more and says: "AND EVERY HUMAN LUXURY, CHEST UPON CHEST OF IT." 

But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has gone back to the previous Douay version reading: "and the delights of the sons of men, BOWLS AND PITCHERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF POURING WINE."

Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “the delights of the sons of men, and I appointed for myself BUTLERS AND WAITRESSES.”

The Jehovah Witness NWT has: "exquisite delights of the sons of mankind, A LADY, EVEN LADIES."  

The Common English Bible OF 2011 (one of the latest critical text edition) has: "along with EVERY HUMAN LUXURY, TREASURE CHESTS GALORE!"   

The Knox Bible of 2012 says: "men-singers I had and women-singers, and all that man delights in; BEAKERS A MANY, AND JARS OF WINE TO FILL THEM." 

The Judaica Press Tanach - "I acquired for myself various types of MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, the delight of the sons of men, WAGONS AND COACHES."

The Concordant Literal Version - “the delicacies of the sons of humanity, A WINE WAITER AND WINE WAITRESS.”

The Online Interlinear 2012 (André de Mol) - "delicacies of the sons of men, FIELD AND FIELDS."

New English Version 1970 - "I acquired singers, men and women, and ALL THAT MAN DELIGHTS IN."

The so called Greek Septuagint (LXX) actually says: "I procured me singing men and singing women, and delights of the sons of men, A BUTLER AND FEMALE CUPBEARERS."

Coverdale 1535 - "...I GAT ME DRINKING CUPS AND ALSO GLASSES."

Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587 - "I have provided me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as A WOMAN TAKEN CAPTIVE, AND WOMEN TAKEN CAPTIVES."

Young's - "and the luxuries of the sons of man -- A WIFE AND WIVES."

Easy To Read Version 2001 - " I had men and women singing for me. I HAD EVERYTHING ANYONE COULD WANT." 

Green's "literal" says: "and the delights of the sons of men, A CONCUBINE, AND CONCUBINES." (Makes a lot of sense, huh? ;-) 

Peterson's The Message: " and--most exquisite of all pleasures--VOLUPTUOUS MAIDENS FOR MY BED."  

Let's see..."musical instruments", "a harem", "everything anyone could want", "a woman taken captive", "a wife and wives", "drinking cups and glasses", "a butler and female cupbearers", "beakers and jars of wine to fill them", "every human luxury", "wagons and coaches", "field and fields" and "concubines". Yep, it must be true. The bible scholars have made great advances in their knowledge of biblical languages. All we need to do is "go to the Hebrew" to find out what God REALLY said...Don't ya think?  

Bible scholars are all over the board on just about any subject and any individual word. What one affirms, another absolutely denies, so my trust is NOT in any scholar but in the sovereign God of the universes who promised to give us "the book of the LORD" and to preserver His words.  

John Gill - "and the delights of the sons of men; as musical instruments, and that of all sorts; such as David his father invented; and to which he might add more, and indeed got all that were to be obtained; see Amos 6:5. The two last words, rendered "musical instruments, of all sorts," are differently interpreted; the Targum interprets them of hot waters and baths, having pipes to let out hot water and cold; Aben Ezra, of women taken captive; Jarchi, of chariots and covered wagons; the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions, of cup bearers, men, and women, that pour out wine and serve it; and the Vulgate Latin version, of cups and pots, to pour out wine. IT SEEMS BEST TO UNDERSTAND IT OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, or of musical compositions ; sung either with a single voice, or in concert; which, according to Bochart , were called "sidoth," from Sido, a Phoenician woman of great note, the inventor of them or rather from giving unequal sounds, which, by their grateful mixture and temperament, broke and destroyed  one another."


The Complete Jewish Tanach 2004 - “this is my God, and I WILL MAKE HIM A HABITATION, the God of my father, and I will ascribe to Him exaltation.”

Rashi’s Commentary - “and I will make Him a habitation: Heb. וְאַנְוֵה. Onkelos rendered it as an expression of habitation (נָוֶה) [as in the following phrases]: “a tranquil dwelling (נָוֶה)” (Isa. 33:20); “a sheepfold (נְוֵה)” (Isa. 65:10).

For additional confusion, Lamsa’s 1936 translation says: “DO NOT SHAVE YOUR HEADS”, while the so called Complete Jewish Bible says the opposite with: “DO NOT LEAVE YOUR HEADS UNSHORN”. - The exact opposite!