For many examples of the Bible Babble Buffet versions in action, see this comparative study here -
Joshua 9:4 KJB, speaking of the inhabitants of Gibeon who deceived Joshua and the Israelites into making a league with them - "They did work wilily, AND WENT AND MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS, and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles, old, and rent, and bound up"
ESV - "They on their part acted with cunning and went and MADE READY PROVISIONS and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and wine-skins, worn-out and torn and mended." (No notes)
Holman Standard 2009 - "they acted deceptively. THEY GATHERED PROVISIONS [a] and took worn-out sacks on their donkeys and old wineskins, cracked and mended."
Footnotes: [a] - Joshua 9:4 Some Hb mss, LXX, Syr, Vg; other Hb mss read They went disguised as ambassadors
NASB 1995 - “they also acted craftily AND SET OUT AS ENVOYS, and took worn-out sacks on their donkeys, and wineskins worn-out and torn and [b] mended”
Footnote - literally “tied up” (Note: thus the KJB’s “and bound”, which is what the Hebrew text says)
NIV 2011 edition - “they resorted to a ruse: THEY WENT AS A DELEGATION whose donkeys were loaded with worn-out sacks and old wineskins, cracked and mended.
Footnotes: Joshua 9:4 Most Hebrew manuscripts; some Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac (see also Septuagint) They prepared provisions.
Common English Bible 2011 (a critical text version) - “they acted cleverly. THEY SET OUT PRETENDING TO BE MESSENGERS. [a] They took worn-out sacks for their donkeys and worn-out wineskins that were split and mended.”
Footnotes: Joshua 9:4 Heb uncertain
NKJV 1982 - “they worked craftily, and went AND PRETENDED TO BE AMBASSADORS. And they took old sacks on their donkeys, old wineskins torn and mended”
Here is a case where even the modern Vatican Versions disagree among themselves. The NASB, Common English Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, The Voice 2011 and NIV (all five are Critical text versions) and the NKJV side with the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text which reads “MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS”.
But the ESV and Holman (both Critical text versions) reject the traditional text and say "and MADE READY PROVISIONS."
The Holman Standard tells us they got this reading from the so called Greek Septuagint. The ESV doesn't even have a note telling why they changed the Hebrew text.
Well, there are a few things you should know about this so called Greek Septuagint. It DOES say "AND MADE PROVISION" in verse 9:4 instead of the traditional Hebrew text "AND MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS."
But it also says "they carried the old sacks ON THEIR SHOULDERS" instead of the Hebrew "took old sacks UPON THEIR ASSES".
And the LXX also starts off with Joshua 9 verses one and two, but then it inserts verses 30 through 35 from the previous chapter, and then picks up again with verses three and four and the following verses to the end of the chapter. So the Hebrew text has 27 verses in this chapter, but the LXX has 33 verses.
As for Lamsa's translation of the Syriac, it too reads "They worked subtly, AND PREPARED PROVISIONS", but at least they laid the old sacks "upon their asses", unlike the LXX.
The Catholic Connection
The Catholic versions, following the Latin Vulgate all basically say the same thing - Douay-Rheims 1610 - "Cunningly devising TOOK FOR THEMSELVES PROVISIONS, laying old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles rent and sewed up again" This includes the St. Joseph New American bible 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "TOOK FOR THEMSELVES PROVISIONS".
Following these Catholic versions are Dan Wallace and company's NET version (big surprise), the liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV, ISV 2014 and the Holman Standard.
Agreeing with the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic text and the King James Bible are Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 - “went and made them selues embassadours”, the Geneva Bible 1582- “for they went, and feigned themselves ambassadors”, Youngs literal 1898 - “and go, and feign to be ambassadors”, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917 - “and went and MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS”, Living Bible 1971 - “they sent ambassadors to Joshua”, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the NASB 1995, NIV 2011, the 2004 Jewish Tanach - “and they went, and disguised as ambassadors”, The Conservative Bible 2011 - “went and made as if they had been ambassadors”, the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, the Jubilee Bible 2010 - “made as if they had been ambassadors”, the New European Version 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Names of God Bible 2011 (another critical text version), Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS", the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - “and went and made as if they had been ambassadors”, and the Voice 2012 (another critical text version), the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the World English Bible 2012, the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, and the 2014 Natural Israelite Bible - “and went and pretended to be ambassadors.”
The Modern English Version 2014 just omits the phrase altogether and says: “ they acted craftily, and took old sacks on their donkeys, and old wineskins, torn and mended”
So, once again it comes down to the Traditional text of the Reformation bibles and the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic text, or the Vatican Versions, that don’t even agree among themselves.
“If we would destroy the Christian religion, we must first of all destroy man’s belief in the Bible.”
Voltaire - French philosopher and former unbeliever. (He now knows better)
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8
1 Samuel 8:16 “goodliest young men” (Hebrew) or “best of your cattle” (LXX)
In the Hebrew text and in the King James Bible we read of Samuel describing the manner of king that would reign over them in their rebellion against God. Part of this description is found in verse 16 where Samuel tells them: "And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and YOUR GOODLIEST YOUNG MEN, and your asses, and put them to his work."
So read the Hebrew texts as well as the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation - "and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.", the Complete Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "And he will take your menservants and your maidservants, and your goodly young men and your asses, and put them to his work.", Wycliffe's Bible 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the KJB 1611, NKJV 1982, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950, World English Bible, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Holman Standard 2003, ESV 2001, NASB 1995, the 2012 Lexham English Bible, the 2012 Knox Bible, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the KJV 21st Century Version and the 1998 Third Millennium Bible 1998.
However the NIV 1984 and 2011 edition reads: "Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your CATTLE (F27) and donkeys he will take for his own use." Then it footnotes that "cattle" comes from the Septuagint but the Hebrew text reads "young men".
Not only does the NIV reject the clear Hebrew reading here but so do the liberal RSV, NRSV, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Life Bible 1969, the New Living Translation 1996, the New Century Version 1991, the Amplified bible 1987, the Revised English Bible 1989, Dan Wallace's NET version (with NO footnotes!) and the 2011 Common English Bible.
The hypocrisy and inconsistency of the NIV and all these other modern versions that have rejected the clear Hebrew reading of "best young men" and have replaced it with the so called Greek Septuagint reading of "cattle" is that the Septuagint also has several other false readings in this very same chapter that they have NOT followed.
For instance, in verse 12 the Hebrew text and all the English translations followed the Hebrew text that says: "And he will appoint him captains over THOUSANDS, and captains over FIFTIES". However the Septuagint copy reads "captains of HUNDREDS and captains of THOUSANDS". Yet nobody followed the LXX reading here.
Again in verse 16 the so called Septuagint ADDS the words "and he will take a tenth of them for his work." Then it again says, as does the Hebrew in verse 17 "And he will take a tenth of your sheep..." But the LXX ADDS all those words to verse 16 as well, yet nobody followed the LXX there.
Again in verse 17 the Hebrew text and all these bible versions say: "He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants." But the so called Greek Septuagint again ADDS the words: "because ye have chosen yourselves a king." to verse 17 and repeats them again in verse 18 as does the Hebrew. So why didn't the NIV, Dan Wallace and all these other modern versions be consistent and include the extra words found in verses 16, 17 and change the numbers in verse 12? Go figure!
The Catholic/Jehovah Witness Connection.
Again, the Catholic versions are in their usual disarray. It seems a lot of these new Vatican Versions have the same type of problems. The older Douay Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the Hebrew text and the King James Bible with "your goodliest young men" instead of "your cattle", but the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 also rejected the Hebrew reading and followed the LXX saying "your goodly CATTLE".
BUT now the latest Catholic version of 2009, called the Catholic Public Domain Version, has gone back to the Hebrew reading - "Then, too, he will take your servants, and handmaids, and YOUR BEST YOUNG MEN, and your donkeys, and he will set them to his work."
Likewise the Jehovah Witness New World Translation has rejected the Hebrew text of "YOUR YOUNG MEN" and has replaced it with the so called LXX reading of "and YOUR BEST HERDS".
This is much like we see in the liberal RSV and the NRSV (both of which read "cattle") and the now the revised ESV once again has gone back to the Hebrew reading of "the best of your young men." The new Bible Babble Buffet versions are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.
Get yourself the Authorized King James Holy Bible and you will never go wrong.
1 Samuel 9:25 When Saul went to Samuel and he was anointed king of Israel we read: "And when they were come down from the high place into the city, SAMUEL COMMUNED WITH SAUL UPON THE TOP OF THE HOUSE."
So read the Hebrew texts, and even the NASB, NIV, NKJV, Holman Standard and Dan Wallace's NET version.
However the RSV, ESV NRSV, New English Bible 1970 and the 1989 Revised English Version say: "And when they came down from the high place into the city, A BED WAS SPREAD FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE LAY DOWN TO SLEEP."
Then in a footnote the ESV tells us this reading comes from the Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads like the KJB, NASB, NIV, NET and NKJV. The meaning is not at all the same.
The Catholic Versions like the Douay-Rheims, the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 also read this way. The Douay-Rheims of 1610 says: "And they went down from the high place into the town, and he spoke with Saul upon the top of the house: AND HE PREPARED A BED FOR SAUL on the top of the house, AND HE SLEPT."
One of the latest critical text versions to come down the pike is the 2011 Common English Bible. It says in verse 9:25 - " When they came back from the shrine to the town, A BED WAS MADE FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE SLEPT."
Then they footnote that this reading comes from the LXX but that the Hebrew text reads as does the KJB - "LXX; MT He (Samuel?) talked with Saul on the roof. Then they got up early." The 1989 Revised English Version also changes the Hebrew text and adds these extra words too.
Eugene Peterson's the Message of 2002 does the same thing. It likewise omits the Hebrew "Samuel communed with Saul upon the top of the house" and instead substitutes the so called Greek LXX and reads: "Afterward they went down from the shrine into the city. A BED WAS PREPARED FOR SAUL ON THE BREEZE COOLED ROOF OF SAMUEL'S HOUSE."
The RSV, ESV also change the Hebrew texts in verse 24 where the Hebrew says: "Behold that which is left! set it before thee, and eat: for unto this time hath it been kept for thee since I said, I HAVE INVITED THE PEOPLE."
But the LXX has a completely different reading and says: "Behold that which is left; set it before thee, and eat; FOR IT IS SET FOR THEE FOR A TESTIMONY IN PREFERENCE TO THE OTHERS; TAKE OF IT; and Saul ate with Samuel on that day."
However the RSV and ESV do not follow either the Hebrew text nor the LXX but instead say: "Eat, because it was kept for you until the hour appointed, THAT YOU MIGHT EAT WITH THE GUESTS."
Then in a footnote the ESV informs us that the Hebrew says "I have invited the people", just as the King James Bible has it. Even the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible stick with the Hebrew reading of "I have invited the people".
This reading found in the ESV comes neither from the Hebrew nor the LXX; they just made it up. Not even the Catholic versions read this way but say "when I invited the people." (Douay-Rheims)
Then just two verses later in 1 Samuel 10:1 the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001, New English Bible 1970, Revised English bible 1989, NET, the Message and the Common English bible of 2011 add a whole bunch of words not found in the Hebrew texts nor in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, Holman Standard, Geneva Bible nor any Jewish translation like the 1917 JPS, Complete Jewish Bible, Orthodox Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Tanach, etc.
The KJB, as well as the NASB, NIV, says: "Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?"
BUT, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011, NET, Revised English bible 1989 Common English Bible and the Message say: "Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, Has not the LORD anointed you to be prince over HIS PEOPLE ISRAEL? AND YOU SHALL REIGN OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD AND YOU WILL SAVE THEM FROM THE HAND OF THEIR SURROUNDING ENEMIES. AND THIS SHALL BE THE SIGN TO YOU THAT THE LORD HAS ANOINTED YOU TO BE PRINCE OVER his heritage."
And once again we see that it is the Catholic bible versions like the Douay, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bibles and the Greek Septuagint that all add these 40 to 42 extra words.
The New Jerusalem footnotes that all these extra words come from the Greek Septuagint but that the Hebrew text does not contain them.
Here also Dan Wallace's NET version adds all these extra words too and then footnotes: "The MT reads simply “Is it not that the Lord has anointed you over his inheritance for a leader?” The translation (NET) follows the LXX."
Wallace comes up with the lame explanation that a scribe's eye accidentally skipped over all these words and that the LXX supposedly restores these lost words to the Hebrew text. Why does Dan Wallace and company follow the so called Greek Septuagint in 1 Samuel 10:1 but not in 1 Samuel 9:25? Or why do all of them still stick with the Hebrew number of THIRTY men in verse 22 and not go with the Septuagint's SEVENTY in verse 22?
All these 43 extra words in capital letters in 1 Samuel 10:1 (see above) are not found in the Hebrew texts, but they are brought in from the Septuagint version which is wildly different than the Hebrew texts in hundreds and hundreds of passages.
If these contradictory modern versions wish to follow the so called Septuagint instead of the Hebrew, then why did none of them follow the Greek reading found in this same chapter in verse 22? The Hebrew text tells us "And Samuel took Saul and his servant, and brought them into the parlour, and made them sit in the chiefest place among them that were bidden, which were about THIRTY persons."
However the LXX tells us: "and set them there a place among the chief of those that were called, about SEVENTY men."
The Bible is supposed to be a historically true narrative of events that actually took place and there is a significant difference between 30 and 70. Why did none of these modern versions follow the LXX reading in verse 22? It's anybody's guess, but the bible agnostics like to call this lame-brained witches brew of theirs "the science of textual criticism".
1 Samuel 13:21 “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. “
There is much confusion and a wide variety of way the various Bible versions have translated this verse. The reason I bring it up is because at one of the Bible clubs I belong to an NIV user posted it as an example of an indisputable “error” in the King James Bible.
The NIV and some other perhaps surprising modern versions, like the NKJV, have a very different translation in this verse. The NIV reads: “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.”
Then they have a footnote that (mistakenly) says: “Hebrew pim; that is, about 1/4 ounce (about 8 grams).” Why do I say mistakenly? Because the meaning of the Hebrew in this verse is not at all so cut and dried as the NIV editors want you to think it is.
For instance, the King James Bible has a marginal note that says: “Hebrew - a file with mouths.” The RSV also reads similarly to the NIV with: “AND THE CHARGE WAS A PIM for the plowshares and for the mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening the axes and for setting the goads.” But then their footnote says: “The Hebrew of this verse is obscure.”
The NKJV also reads very differently than the King James Bible. It basically goes along with the liberal RSV and reads: “AND THE CHARGE FOR A SHARPENING WAS A PIM for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to set the points of the goads.” Then the NKJV has a footnote that reads like the NIV saying that a pim is “About two-thirds shekel weight.”
Other versions that read like the NIV are the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV and the Holman Standard. However as we shall soon see, this interpretation of the meaning of the verse is a fairly recent development and one that is not at all shared by many other Bible translators.
The Hebrew expression translated as “file” in the King James Bible and many others is a combination of two words. That is why the KJB margin says “Hebrew - file of mouths. One word is used only once in all the Old Testament and the other one is quite common. The common word is “peh” and is generally translated (or often the translation is omitted as being superfluous) as mouth, commandment, word, according to, hole, edge or parts. The NIV concordance shows that they have not translated this word at all ten times, and have given it over 60 very different meanings including “jaws, edge, fruit, collar, neck, face, number, double-edged, hunger, share and taste”. The NIV only translated it as “two-thirds” just once, and that is here in 1 Samuel 13:21. So for them to dogmatically affirm, as does the NKJV as well, that the Hebrew says “two-thirds of a shekel” is more than a little presumptuous. Even Daniel Wallace notes that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.
Bible commentators are often at odds with each other as well when it comes to what they think this verse means.
Adam Clarke says in his commentary: “Yet they had a file - The Hebrew petsirah, from patsar, to rub hard, is translated very differently by the versions and by critics. Our translation may be as likely as any: they permitted them the use of files, (I believe the word means grindstone,) to restore the blunted edges of their tridents axes, and goads.”
John Gill sticks to the sense found in the King James Bible saying: “Those that would not go to the Philistines kept files by them to sharpen those several instruments with upon occasion... when the mouths, or edges, of the mattocks, coulter were dull or "blunt" and so needed sharpening.”
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown agree with the KJB reading as well - “Yet they had a file--as a kind of privilege, for the purpose of sharpening sundry smaller utensils of husbandry.”
Agreeing with the King James Bible translation of “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.” are the following Bible translations: the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1560-1602, Webster’s 1833, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the Hebrew Names Version, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Judaica Press Tanach “And there was a file for the mattocks...”, Young’s ‘literal’, the World English Bible, the Bible in Basic English 1960, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac, the 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera Gomez, the Portuguese Almeida, and the 1649 Italian Diodati.
It should be obvious that this is by no means an error in the King James Bible. To see this verse developed a bit more, go to the article here -
1 Samuel 20:40 - When “artillery” isn’t what you think it is.
“And Jonathan gave his ARTILLERY unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them into the city.”
I have run into some Bible mockers (none of whom actually believes that ANY Bible in ANY language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God) who scoff at the King James Bible and its “archaic” language.
They tell us that the English word “artillery” is totally wrong here in the King James Bible and that it really should be something like “weapons” (ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV) or “equipment” (Holman, NET, ISV) or “arms” (Douay-Rheims) or “his gear” (The New Jewish Version 1985, Concordant Version 2012) or “quiver and bow” (The Message) or “bow and arrows” (Wycliffe, Geneva bible, Easy to Read Version)
The word “artillery” is used only one time in the King James Bible and that is here in 1 Samuel 20:40.
Yet if they were willing to actually look up the word “artillery” in a good English dictionary they just might learn something about their own language.
The English word “artillery” is not only used to describe cannons, howitzers or missile launchers, though that is the more modern meaning of the word that most people think of when they hear it. It is also used in a more generalized sense of -
The American Heritage Dictionary -
4. Weapons, such as catapults, arbalests, and other early devices, used for discharging missiles. (missiles in the sense of anything that is thrown or shot as an arrow, a bullet or a spear.)
The Online Plain Text English Dictionary
The second definition given is (n.) Munitions of war; implements for warfare, as slings, bows, and arrows.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary - Artillery
1. In a general sense, offensive weapons of war. Hence it was formerly used for bows and arrows.
Webster’s 1913 English Dictionary - Artillery
1. Munitions of war; implements for warfare, as slings, bows and arrows.
And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad. - 1 Samuel xx.40.
Not only is the word “artillery” found in the King James Bible to describe the bow and arrows Jonathan used in warfare, but it is also found in the following Bible translations - The Bill Bible 1671, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The Hebraic Transliteration Scriptures 2010 - “And Yonatan gave his ARTILLERY unto his lad”, The Bond Slave Version 2012 and The Biblos Bible 2013 - “And gave Jonathan his ARTILLERY unto boy his and said to him, Go, carry to the city [them].”
And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “Gave And Jonathan his artillery unto the lad”
1 Samuel 27:10 “Whither HAVE YE MADE A ROAD to day?”
“And Achish said, Whither HAVE YE MADE A ROAD to day? And David said, Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the Kenites. “
The expression “to make a road” is admittedly not a very common or modern expression, but with a little study, it is not that hard to explain. It is found only one time in the entire English Bible called the Authorized King James Holy Bible.
Webster’s 1913 Dictionary gives as one of the obsolete definitions of “to make a road” as “an armed expedition; a hostile incursion
The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines the term as “An inroad; incursion of an enemy.”
Obviously a road is a way or a path into an area, and the phrase simply means that David and his men made their way into the territory of their enemies and invaded their land.
The immediate context indicates what this phrase means. In verse 27:8 we are told that “David and his men went up and invaded the Geshurites”; 27:9 “And David smote the land”.
The Hebrew verb used here has a wide range of meanings including “to put off, to rush, to run upon, to invade, to spread themselves abroad, to strip, to spoil, to flay and to make a road.”
The expression “to make a road” does not refer to building a highway, but rather to invade or make a raid.
Here are several ways various bible versions have t
ASV, RV - “Against whom have ye made a raid to-day? And David said, Against the SOUTH of Judah, and against the SOUTH of the Jerahmeelites, and against the SOUTH of the Kenites.”
NIV, NASB, ESV - "Where did you go raiding today?" David would say, "Against the NEGEV of Judah" or "Against the NEGEV of Jerahmeel" or "Against the NEGEV of the Kenites."
NKJV - “"Where have you made a raid today?" And David would say, "Against THE SOUTHERN AREA of Judah, or against THE SOUTHERN AREA of the Jerahmeelites, or against THE SOUTHERN AREA of the Kenites."
Webster’s 1833 translation - “And Achish said, WHITHER HAVE YE MADE A ROAD TO-DAY? And David said, Against the SOUTH of Judah...”
Youngs translation - “And Achish saith, `WHITHER HAVE YE PUSHED to-day?' and David saith, `Against the SOUTH of Judah...”
The Bishops’ Bible 1568, Geneva Bible - “And Achis saide: Where HAVE YOU BEEN ROVING this day? And Dauid answered: Against the south of Iuda...”
The Lesser Old Testament 1853, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862 - “Whither have ye made an inroad today?”
“Whither have ye made a road to day?”
Also reading this way are the following Bible translations - The Bill Bible 1671, The Webster Bible 1833, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “Whither have ye made a road to-day?”, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012 - “Where have you made a road to day?” and The Biblos Bible 2013 - “Where have you made a road today?”
The King James reading of “Whither have ye made a road to day” makes sense when we just think about it.
The main thing to realize is that we believe God has given us His complete, inspired and 100% true words in the King James Bible. ALL other bible versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman etc. are in fact the new Vatican Versions which follow the wrong and ever changing critical texts in the New Testament and OFTEN reject the clear Hebrew readings in the Old.
Nobody believes or defends any of them as being the infallible words of the living God, and this is simply because they are not.
See my article on The Old Fashioned Language of the King James Bible -
And Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are the new Vatican Versions -
All of grace, believing The Book,
2 Samuel 5:21 “burned the idols” or “carried them away”?
2 Samuel 5:21 - David had recently become king of all Israel and the Philistines came up with a great army to attack him and the people of Israel. David enquires of the LORD and God tells him to go out against them and that He would doubtless deliver the Philistines into his hand.
David and the children of Israel defeat the armies of their enemies and in 2 Samuel 5:21 we read that the Philistines had left their idols behind. “And there they left their images, and David and his men BURNED them.”
But the NKJV and many modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman tell us that David and his men “CARRIED THEM AWAY” with them instead of burning them.
2 Samuel 5:21 NKJV 1982 - “And they left their images there, and David and his men CARRIED THEM AWAY.”
Yet the parallel account given in 1 Chronicles 14:12 when the Philistines went to make war with David and the children of Israel in the valley of Rephaim, we read: “And when they had left their gods there, David gave a commandment, and they were BURNED WITH FIRE.”
The Hebrew word in question in 2 Samuel 5:21 (burned vs. carried away), #5375 nah-sah, has many meanings including “accept, arise, burn, forgive, bring, set up, lift up, went, bear, regard, respect, carry away, fetch, and to pardon.” Often the correct meaning of a word is to be found in the context and by comparing parallel verses in other books, as we have here.
Even the NASB variously translates this single word as "accept, bear, become proud, bring, carry, contain, continued, count, desire, direct, ease, endure, forgive, exalt, fetch, forget, found, grant, have, high, honor, incur, laid, lifted, load, lofty, longing, looked, make, married, obtain, offer, pardon, partial, pick, promote, put, raise, receive, regard, released, respected, rise, sets, shield-bearer, show partiality, sing, spare, sworn, take, towers, upheaved, wear, went on, withhold, wore and worked."
The NIV has even more meanings for this one word, among which are "to carry, bear, forgive, bring, endure, spread, married, offer, pay, rise up, spare, wear, armed, begin, borne fruit, casts, clothed with, disdainful, guilty, have respect for, helped, high, incur, let shine, made, moved, pardon, provide, relish, rebel, ridicule, share, sing, snatch up, suffer for, toil, wail, and wore."
"David and his men BURNED THEM."
2 Samuel 5:21 - Agreeing with the King James Bible that David and his men BURNED the images of the false gods instead of “carrying them away” are the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - “they left their images, and Dauid and his men BURNT THEM.”, Websters 1833, Lesser Old Testament 1853, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "and David and his men BURNED them.", The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, Wycliffe Update 2001 - “And they left their idols there, which David and his men BURNED TO ASHES.”, the Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 - “And they forsook there their images, and David and his men BURNED them.”, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, English Jubilee Bible 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - “and BURNED THEM.”, and the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “BURNED THEM.”
Foreign language bibles that tell us David and his men BURNED the images are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, 2011 - “David y sus hombres los QUEMARON”, Luther’s German Bible 1545 - “David aber und seine Männer huben sie auf.” = David and his men BURNED it”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - “en David en zijn mannen namen ze op.” = “BURNED THEM”
The Catholic Connection
All Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation unite in telling us that David and his men “CARRIED THEM AWAY.”
Other Versions that got this wrong in 2 Samuel 5:21 and tell us that David and his men “CARRIED THEM AWAY” instead of burning them are Coverdale, Great Bible, Darby, Young’s “David and his men LIFT THEM UP”, JPS 1917, NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, Green’s literal, ISV, Green’s Literal 2005, Dan Wallace NET version 2006 - “and David and his men PICKED THEM UP.”
Some Bible Commentators on 2 Samuel 5:21
John Gill comments - “and David and his men burnt them: that is, his men burnt them at his command, 1 Chronicles 14:12; agreeably to the law of God, that so no profit might be made of them, Deuteronomy 7:5”
Jameson, Fausset and Brown’s Critical Commentary of the Whole Bible - “And there they left their images, and David and his men BURNED them. There they left their images - probably their lares or household deities, which they had brought into the field to fight for them. These were burnt, as ordained By law (Deuteronomy 7:5).”
Matthew Poole’s Commentary - “David BURNED them, as God had commanded, Deuteronomy 7:5.
Matthew Henry Commentary - “David and his men converted to their own use the rest of the plunder, BUT THE IMAGES THEY BURNT, AS GOD HAD APPOINTED (Deu. 7:5): “YOU SHALL BURN THEIR GRAVEN IMAGES WITH FIRE”, in token of your detestation of idolatry, and lest they should be a snare." Bishop Patrick well observes here that when the ark fell into the Philistines' hands it consumed them, but, when these images fell into the hands of Israel, they could not save themselves from being consumed.”
2 Samuel 19:24 beard or mustache?
Kin James Bible - “And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his BEARD, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came again in peace.”
Also reading “trimmed his BEARD” are the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, ASV of 1901, JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), Darby 1890, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the Hebrew Names Bible, Douay 1950, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the New English Bible 1970, The Living Bible 1971, the Amplified Bible of 1987, the Revised English Bible 1989, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, the Message 2002, the Context Group Version 2007, The New European Version 2010, the Common English Bible of 2011, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "nor trimmed HIS BEARD", The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - "nor trimmed HIS BEARD", the World English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012 and the International Children's Bible 2015 - "had not cut his BEARD".
Foreign language bibles that also read “BEARD” are the Italian Diodati 1649, the New Diodati 1991 and the Nuova Riveduta of 2006 - “né spuntata la barba”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, 2011 - “no se había lavado los pies, ni se había cortado LA BARBA”, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond, and the French Ostervald 1996 - “ni fait SA BARBE”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel of 1681, the A Biblia em Portugués, the O Livro of 2000, AND the NIV Portuguese editon of 2000 called the Nova Versão Internacional - “nem aparado a BARBA”, Luther’s German bible 1545 as well as the German Schlachter bible of 2000 and the Romanian Cornilescu bible .-"m tinha feito A BARBA."
and the Modern Greek translation - "ουτε τον πωγωνα αυτου ευπρεπισει" - πωγων = beard.
NKJV - “Now Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king. And he had not cared for his feet, nor trimmed his MUSTACHE...”
Also reading “trimmed his MUSTACHE” are the NASB, NIV, Holman Standard and Dan Wallace’s NET version.
Catholic New Jerusalem 1985 - “He had not cared for his feet OR HANDS, he had not trimmed his MOUSTACHE or washed his clothes...” Footnote “or hands” from Greek; Hebrew omits.
Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - “He had not washed his feet nor trimmed his MOUSTACHE...” (No “hands” in this one)
Among the Catholic versions the usual differences appear. The Douay Rheims bible of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 say “neither trimmed his BEARD”, but the St. Joseph and the New Jerusalem differ from each other (‘or hands’ in one, but not the other) but both have “moustache”.
But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has gone back to “neither trimmed his BEARD”.
The Jehovah Witness New World Translation says "nor had he attended to HIS MUSTACHE"
LXX - “He had not dressed his feet, NOR PARED HIS NAILS, nor shaved himself, neither had he washed his garments...”
Young’s - “and he prepared not his feet, NOR DID HE PREPARE HIS UPPER LIP, yea, his garments he washed not...”
It should be obvious that there is a difference between trimming your BEARD or just your MUSTACHE, and Young translation is just plain goofy. All Jewish men in Old Testament times had full beards and a man always trims his entire beard, not just his mustache. The King James Bible is always right. Accept no substitutes.
1 Kings 18:27 - Bible agnostics tell us “We need to learn Hebrew to find out what God really said.”
So, let’s put their theory to the test, OK? Let’s see what those who have “gone to the Hebrew” have come up with.
1 Kings 18:27 - the scene is Elijah confronting the 450 false prophets of Baal, and the God that answers by fire will be known to be the true God.
1 Kings 18:27 King James Bible - “And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either HE IS TALKING, OR HE IS PURSUING, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.”
“or OCCUPIED IN FOLLOWING HIS ENEMIES” - Great Bible 1540, Bishops’ bible 1568
2004 Judaica Press Tanach - “And it was at noon that Elijah scoffed at them, and he said, "Call with a loud voice, for he is a god. Perhaps he is talking OR HE IS PURSUING [enemies] or he is on a journey; perhaps he is sleeping and will awaken.
Commentary by Rashi - "or he is overtaking and pursuing his enemies in war."
World English Bible 2012 - “At noon, Elijah mocked them, and said, “Cry aloud; for he is a god. Either he is deep in thought, OR HE HAS GONE SOMEWHERE, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he sleeps and must be awakened.”
Holman Standard 2009 - “He said, “Shout loudly, for he’s a god! Maybe he’s thinking it over; MAYBE HE HAS WANDERED AWAY; or maybe he’s on the road. Perhaps he’s sleeping and will wake up!”
Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950 - “And when it was now noon, Elias jested at them, saying: Cry with a louder voice: for he is a god; and perhaps he is talking, OR IS IN AN INN, or on a journey; or perhaps he is asleep, and must be awaked.”
NASB 1995 - “Call out with a loud voice, for he is a god; either he is occupied OR GONE ASIDE, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened.”
“or GONE ASIDE” - RV 1881, ASV 1901, Darby 1890
NIV 2011 - “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, OR BUSY, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”
The Message 2002 - “Call a little louder—he is a god, after all. Maybe he’s off meditating somewhere or other, OR MAYBE HE’S GOTTEN INVOLVED IN A PROJECT, or maybe he’s on vacation. You don’t suppose he’s overslept, do you, and needs to be waked up?”
NET 2006 - “At noon Elijah mocked them, “Yell louder! After all, he is a god; he may be deep in thought, OR PERHAPS HE STEPPED OUT FOR A MOMENT or has taken a trip. Perhaps he is sleeping and needs to be awakened.”
NKJV 1982 - “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, OR HE IS BUSY, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.”
“or HE IS BUSY” - Greek Septuagint, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985
RSV 1971 - “And at noon Eli′jah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is musing, OR HE HAS GONE ASIDE, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
NRSV 1989- “ At noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud! Surely he is a god; either he is meditating, OR HE HAS WANDERED AWAY, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
ESV 2001-2011 - “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or HE IS RELIEVING HIMSELF, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
Jehovah Witness NWT - “for he is a god; for he must be concerned with a matter, AND HE HAS EXCREMENT AND HAS TO GO TO THE PRIVY. Or maybe he is asleep, and ought to wake up!”
The Voice 2012 - “The one to whom you cry out certainly must be a god! Perhaps he is daydreaming OR NAPPING or away from his heavenly throne. Perhaps he is in a deep sleep, and you must wake him up. Shout louder!
Living Bible 1971 “Perhaps he is TALKING TO SOMEONE, OR IS SITTING ON THE TOILET, or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!”
New Living Translation 2013 - “Perhaps he is DAYDREAMING, OR IS RELIEVING HIMSELF. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and need to be wakened!”
Complete Jewish bible 1998 (David Stern) - “Maybe he’s daydreaming, OR HE’S ON THE POTTY, or he’s away on a trip. Maybe he’s asleep, and you have to wake him up.”
Agreeing with the King James Bible are the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Longman Version 1841, Young's 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Mebust Bible 2007, The Judaica Press Tanach 2005, The 2005 Revised Geneva bible - "or is pursuing his enemies", The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010,The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013 - "or he is pursuing".
And this online Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament - "or he is pursuing"
Yep, if we could only learn Hebrew then we would know for certain what God REALLY said, right?
1 Kings 19:12 - "a still small voice"
“A Still Small Voice” 1 Kings 19:12 - Did Elijah hear the voice of the Lord or not?
“My sheep hear my voice.” John 10:27
KJB - “And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire A STILL SMALL VOICE.”
V. Price, Bible critic and unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible, says: “Literally, as in "A SOUND OF GENTLE STILLNESS." There is nothing to indicate to us whether the sound was articulate or not."
NASB - “After the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire A SOUND OF A GENTLE BLOWING.”
NRSV - “and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire A SOUND OF SHEER SILENCE.”
NIV - “After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came A GENTLE WHISPER.”
ESV - “And after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire THE SOUND OF A LOW WHISPER.”
The Voice 2012 - “After the fire died out, there was nothing but THE SOUND OF A CALM BREEZE.”
The Catholic Connection
The Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and Douay Version 1950 both read: “A WHISTLING OF A GENTLE AIR.”
But the St. Joseph NAB 1970 says it was “A TINY WHISPERING SOUND.” and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has “A LIGHT MURMURING SOUND”,
but now the Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 says it was “THE WHISPER OF A GENTLE BREEZE.”
The so called Greek Septuagint has “THE VOICE OF A GENTLE BREEZE”
A STILL SMALL VOICE
Agreeing with the KJB’s “A STILL SMALL VOICE” are The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885, The ASV 1901, Young’s 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “a still small voice”, The Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “a still small voice”, The RSV 1946-1971, The NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, Green’s Literal 2005, New Heart English Bible 2005, The Context Group Version 2007, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, and The Modern English Version 2014 - “A STILL SMALL VOICE.”
The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.
2 Kings 2:23-24 KJB - “And he (Elisha) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth LITTLE CHILDREN out of the city, and mocked him, Go up, thou bald head; go up thou bald head.
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she BEARS out of the wood, and tare forty and two CHILDREN of them.”
Some Bible critics complain about this reading in the King James Bible and claim it is an error. They tell us it should be “YOUNG MEN” instead of “LITTLE CHILDREN”. I guess they think that somehow the severity of what happened to them is somehow lessened. One goofy bible agnostic was even trying to tell us that there were no BEARS in Israel, even though ALL translations in all languages I have looked at say these were "she bears" and bears are mentioned some 12 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.
For example, in 1 Samuel 17:34, 36, 37 David tells of his encounter with a lion and a bear and he "slew both the lion and the bear".
2 Samuel 17:8 - "as a bear robbed of her whelps"
2 Kings 2:24 "there came forth two she bears"
Bears are also mentioned in Proverbs 17:12 and 28:15, Isaiah 11:7 tells us "And the cow and THE BEAR shall feed", Isaiah 59:11 "we all roar like BEARS"; Lamentations 4:3 "He was unto me as A BEAR"; Hosea 13:8 "I will meet them as a BEAR" and Amos 5:19 - "As if a man did flee from a lion and A BEAR met him"
Let’s take a closer look. The Hebrew for “little children” is two words. The work “little” is #6996 kah-tohn. It is variously translated in the KJB as “little, small, youngest, the least and younger.”
It is translated as “little” in such places as “my LITTLE finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins.” (1 Kings 12:10) and “a LITTLE CHILD shall lead them” (Isaiah 11:6 BOTH words here) and “when thou wast LITTLE in thine own sight” (1 Samuel 15:17) and “I am but a LITTLE CHILD” (1 Kings 3:7 - again, both words used here).
The word “CHILDREN” is #5288 nah-gar, and is variously translated as “child, young man, servant, the lad, boys, and children.”
Both words are used together in Isaiah 11:6 - “A LITTLE CHILD shall lead them” and in 1 Kings 3:7 “I am but A LITTLE CHILD”. It is also used in places like “THE CHILD shall be a Nazarite” (Judges 13:5) and “Train up a CHILD in the way he should go” (Proverbs 22:6) and “And I will give CHILDREN to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.” (Isaiah 3:4)
2 Kings 2:23 - Other Translations
The New English Bible 1970, ESV 2011, Holman 2009, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985 - “some small boys”
ASV 1901, NASB 1995, Hebrew Names Version 2014 - “young lads”
NET 2006 - “some young boys”
NKJV 1982 - “some youths” (omits Hebrew word “little”)
Youngs 1898, Catholic Douay 1950 -“little youths”
NIV 2011, Jehovah Witness NWT - “some boys”
Coverdale 1535, Darby 1890 - “little boys”
Living Bible 1971 - “a gang of young men”
The Message 2002 - “some little kids”
Common English Bible 2011 -“some young people”
ISV 2014 - “some insignificant young men”
Agreeing with the King James Bible’s “LITTLE CHILDREN” are The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, Wycliffe 1395, The Great Bible 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Longman Version 1841,The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New Brenton Translation 2012, the Biblos Interlinear 2013 - “LITTLE CHILDREN”
And the Modern Greek Bible - “εξηλθον εκ της πολεως παιδια μικρα” = there came out of the city SMALL CHILDREN - δυο αρκτοι και διεσπαραξαν εξ αυτων τεσσαρακοντα δυο παιδια. - "and two BEARS tore of them 42 children."
2 Kings 6:25 “dove’s dung” or “seed pods”?
In 2 Kings 6:25 we read: “And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the forth part of a cab of DOVE’S DUNG for five pieces of silver.”
The famine was so severe that the unclean ass’s head, with very little meat on it, was sold for much and the dove’s dung may well have served as fuel for cooking. There obviously would not have been any trees left within the city walls to use for heating a fire. John Gill comments: "some of the Jewish writers say this was bought for fuel." Other commentators like Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole, both of whom affirmed that it was "dove's dung", believed that it was actually sold as food in times of famine.
In any event, the reading of “a cab of DOVE’S DUNG” is that of the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Hebrew Names Bible 2012, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Bible, the Revised Version 1885, American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Peshitta, the Greek LXX, the Modern Greek bible, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the RSV 1971, NRSV 1989, and the ESV 2011, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the Holman Standard of 2003, the NASBs 1963 to 1995, Green’s interlinear, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the 2011 Lexham English Bible, the 2012 Knox Bible, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible, and the Common English Bible of 2011. Even Dan Wallace's NET version has "dove's droppings".
The NKJV also reads “dove droppings” but it comes out to the same thing.
Also agreeing with the KJB’s “dove’s dung” are Luther’s German bible 1545, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909, 1960, 1995 as well as the 2011 Reina Valera Contemporánea - "estiércol de paloma", the Portugues Almeida and O Livro - "cabo de esterco de pombas, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1902, French Ostervald 1996, the French Louis Segond of 2007 - "crotte de pigeon 5 pièces d'argent." and the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991 and Riveduta of 2006 - "cab di sterco di colombi" AND the NIV Portuguese edition of 2000 called Nova Versão Internacional - "de esterco de pomba" = "dove's dung"
However the NIV stands virtually alone in that it says: “a donkey’s head...and a fourth of a cab of SEED PODS.” The NIV then footnotes "or doves dung". The Message has “A BOWL OF FIELD GREENS"!!, and the 1989 Revised English Version says it was a "kab of LOCUST-BEANS".
The Catholic versions are a riot. The 1610 Douay Rheims and the 1950 Douay version both read "one forth cab of PIGEON'S DUNG"; BUT then the Jerusalem bible of 1968, the St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible of 1985 all say "a quarter kad of WILD ONIONS"!!!
And the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 goes so far as to foonote "pigeon dung is impossible". Oh, but wait. Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out, and the Pope's scholars have now gone back to that 'impossible' "one fourth part of a pint of PIGEONS' DUNG sold for five silver coins."
Now I am not a professional biologist or botanist but I’m pretty sure there is a big difference between “a bowl of field greens”, “seed pods”, "locust beans", "wild onions" and “dove’s dung”.
Vashni or Joel or both?
1 Samuel 8:2 “Now the name of his firstborn was JOEL; and the name of his second, Abiah; they were judges in Beersheba.”
1 Chronicles 6:28 KJB - “And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn VASHNI, and Abiah.”
Some bible agnostics (boy, do they hate being called what they are) claim the King James Bible and the Hebrew texts themselves have an error here. They tell us that somehow a scribe either omitted the name Joel in 1 Chronicles 6:28 or mistook some Hebrew word for VASHNI.
As usual the commentators are all over the board and in disagreement with each other trying to explain what happened here in 1 Chron. 6:28.
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown claim it is a scribal error, saying: “the sons of Samuel--The sons of Samuel are here named VASHNI and Abiah. The first-born is called JOEL (1Sa 8:2); and this name is given to him in 1Ch 6:33. It is now generally thought by the best critics that, through AN ERROR OF THE COPYISTS, AN OMISSION has been made of the oldest son's name, and that Vashni, which is not the name of a person, merely signifies "and the second." This critical emendation of the text makes all clear, as well as consistent with other passages relating to the family of Samuel.”
Dan Wallace and company’s NET version (not surprisingly) has 1 Chron. 6:28 as “The sons of Samuel: JOEL THE FIRSTBORN (footnote) and Abijah THE SECOND OLDEST.” They then tell us: “The Hebrew text lacks the name יוֹאֵל (yo’el, “Joel”), which has probably dropped out due to homoioteleuton (note the last three letters of the preceding name שְׁמוּאֵל (shÿmuel, “Samuel”).”
Of course Dan Wallace and his group also added the words “THE SECOND” to the Hebrew text here so their “correction” would make more sense; but he fails to mention this little detail.
Adam Clarke likewise says: “The first-born VASHNI, and Abiah - There is a great mistake in this verse: in 1 Samuel 8:2; we read, Now the name of his (Samuel's) first-born was JOEL; and the name of his second Abiah. The word יואל JOEL IS LOST OUT OF THE TEXT IN THIS PLACE, and ושני vesheni, which signifies the second, and which refers to Abiah, is made here into a proper name. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Chaldee, copy this blunder; but the Syriac and Arabic read as in 1 Samuel 8:2. The MSS. have all copied the corrupted Hebrew in this place.”
So, according to men like Adam Clarke, not only was the Hebrew text corrupted but so too were the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.
But John Gill and Bullinger affirm that this man (like many others listed in the Hebrew Old Testament) had two names.
For example, Mose’s father in law had three different names. He is called Jethro in Exodus 3:1, but Reul in Exodus 2:18 and Hobab in Numbers 10:29.
Likewise Joshua is usually called Joshua, but is called Oshea in Numbers 13:8a and 16 and Jehoshua in Numbers 13:16. Just in this one verse (Numbers 13:16) he is called both Oshea and Jehoshua.
And of course in the New Testament we have Peter, Cephas and Simon for the apostle Peter.
Bullinger comments: “the firstborn VASHNI. Compare 1 Samuel 8:2, where the firstborn’s name CAME TO BE JOEL. From 1 Chronicles 6:28 IT SEEMS TO HAVE ORIGINALLY BEEN VASHNI. From 1 Chronicles 6:23, HE SEEMS TO HAVE HAD TWO NAMES.”
John Gill simply says: “Samuel the prophet, whose firstborn was Vashni, and whose name also was Joel, 1 Chronicles 6:33.”
Haydock’s Commentary says: “This person had therefore either two names, or Joel has been omitted, and we should translate "Joel and the second, Abia.--- These brothers acted so ill as judges, that the people took occasion to demand a king, 1 Kings viii. 3.”
The Geneva Bible study notes agrees, saying: “6:28 And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Vashni, and Abiah. (e) WHO IS ALSO CALLED JOEL, 1 Samuel 8:2; 1 Chronicles 6:33)
Versions that change the name VASHNI to JOEL in 1 Chronicles 6:28 are the ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
The NKJV also changed the text. It reads: “The sons of Samuel were JOEL (in italics) the firstborn, and Ahijah the second.”
Then the NKJV footnotes that the Hebrew text reads VASHENI, but “following the Septuagint, Syriac and Arabic” they came up with JOEL.
However even this footnote is false. The so called Septuagint does NOT read JOEL. I have a hard copy of it right here in front of me and it reads “Sons of Samuel the firstboren SANI, and Abia.” SANI is not even close to “Joel”.
Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and read “VASHNI” are The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 bible - “the sons of Samuel: the first-born Vashni; then Abiah.”, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1610, Webster’s Bible 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, The Word of Yah 1993, God’s First Truth 1999, Green’s Literal 2005, The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Revised Geneva Bible 2009, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “And the benai Shemu'el; the bakor VASHNI, and Avyah.”, The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011,
Foreign Language Bibles Foreign language Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and have VASHNI are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909 - 2011 - “Los hijos de Samuel fueron Vasni, su primogénito, y Abías.”, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - “Vaşni şi al doilea Abia.”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Riveduta 2006 - “ I figli di Samuele furono: VASNI, il primogenito, e Abiia.”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigenda 2009 - “ E os filhos de Samuel: VASNI, seu primogênito, e o segundo Abias.”, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap - “ Og Samuels sønner var VASNI, hans førstefødte, og Abia.”, Luther’s German Bible 1545 - “der Erstgeborene VASNI und Abia.”
Even though the NIV English version reads JOEL, yet the NIV Spanish Version 2005, Nueva Versión Internacional (Castilian), sticks with the Hebrew and reads VASNI - “Los hijos de Samuel fueron VASNI, el primogénito, y Abías.”
The French Martin 1744, Louis Second and the French Ostervald 1998 - “ et les fils de Samuel, le premier-né VASCHNI et Abija.”, the Hungarian Karoli Bible - “Vásni”, the Czech BKR bible - “VASNI a Abia.”, the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - “zijn eerstgeborene was VASNI, daarna Abia.”,
And the Modern Greek Bible - “Και οι υιοι του Σαμουηλ, Βασνι ο πρωτοτοκος και Αβια.”
1 Chronicles 29:15 KJB - "For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on earth are as a shadow, AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING."
NKJV (NIV, NASB, Holman, ISV, MEV)- "For we are aliens and pilgrims before You. As were all our fathers; Our days on earth are as a shadow, AND WITHOUT HOPE."
This is pretty straight forward in the King James Bible. There is none abiding here on this earth, we are just passing through and soon die. The common sense reading of "AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING” is also found in Coverdale of 1535 - "Oure life vpon earth is as a shadowe, and here is no abydinge.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587 - "our dayes are like ye shadowe vpon the earth, & there is none abiding.", Douay-Rheims 1610, the Revised Version 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Jewish translations of 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, Young's 1898, the New English Bible 1970, the RSV 1954, and the 2001 English Standard Version - "Our days on the earth are like a shadow, and there is no abiding." The Updated Bible Version of 2004 also has the same sense as the KJB with: "our days on the earth are as a shadow, AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING."
Other Bibles that read like the KJB - AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING." - are The Jewish Family Bible 1864 - "AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING.", The Revised English Bible 1877, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING.", The Amplified Bible 1987 - "AND THERE IS NO HOPE OF REMAINING.", The Word of Yah 1993, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Green’s literal 2005, The Context Group Version 2007, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The ESV 2011 - "AND THERE IS NO ABIDING.", The World English Bible 2012, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012 - "AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING.", The Lexham English Bible 2012 - "and THERE IS NO HOPE OF ABIDING.", and The Biblos Bible 2013 - "AND THERE IS NONE ABIDING."
The so called Greek Septuagint also reads: "our days upon the earth are as a shadow, AND THERE IS NO REMAINING." as does the Latin Vulgate of 405 A.D. - "dies nostri quasi umbra super terram et nulla est mora" = "days of our fathers are like a shadow over the earth AND NOTHING IS ABIDING."
The New Living Translation says: "Our days on earth are like a passing shadow, gone so soon without a trace." The 2012 Knox Bible says: "AND THERE IS NO ABIDING HERE."
The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "Our days on earth are as a shadow, AND WITHOUT PERMANENCE."
The Easy to Read Version 2006 has the same meaning with: "Our time on earth is like a passing shadow, AND WE CANNOT STOP IT."
The New European Version 2010 - "AND THERE IS NO REMAINING."
The Living Bible 1971 - "our days on earth are like a shadow, GONE SO SOON, WITHOUT A TRACE."
The Wycliffe bible of 1395 has the same sense as found in the King James Bible saying: "our days be as a shadow on the earth, AND THERE IS NO TARRYING."
The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 reads: "Our days on earth are as a shadow, AND THERE IS NO STAY."
The Voice 2012 - "Our days on earth are dark AND TEMPORARY."
The Amplified Bible of 1987 actually has an interesting way of translating the verse, that still agrees with the sense found in the King James Bible. It says: "our days on the earth are like a shadow, AND THERE IS NO HOPE OR EXPECTATION OF REMAINING."
FOREIGN LANGUAGE BIBLES
Foreign language versions that agree with the sense of the KJB that “there is none abiding” are Luther’s German bible 1545, and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "Unser Leben auf Erden ist wie ein Schatten und bleibt nicht bestehen." = "Our life on Earth is like a shadow and is not maintained.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, 1995 - “y nuestros días sobre la tierra, cual sombra que no dura.” and the 2011 Reina Valera Contemporánea reads: "¡Nuestros días sobre la tierra son como una sombra pasajera!" = "our days upon the earth are as a passing shadow", and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014.
The Portuguese Almeida Atualizada - “e não há permanência” - “and there is not permanence (remaining),
and The Modern Greek Bible - αι ημεραι ημων επι της γης ειναι ως σκια, και μονιμοτης δεν υπαρχει. = "and there is no (permanence) remaining."
Adam Clarke comments on this verse, saying: "There is none abiding. However we may wish to settle and remain in this state of things, it is impossible, because every earthly form is passing swiftly away, all is in a state of revolution and decay, and there is no abiding, mikveh, no expectation, that we shall be exempt from those changes and chances to which our fathers were subjected. "As the shadow of a bird flying in the air of heaven, such are our days upon the earth; nor is there any hope to any son of man that he shall live for ever."-Targum.
Matthew Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible - “There is none abiding: we only give to thee what we must shortly leave, and what we cannot keep to ourselves; and therefore it is a great favour that thou wilt accept such offerings; or, and therefore we are not perpetual possessors of this land, and the fruits of it, but only pilgrims and passengers through it.”
However again the NKJV joins the NIV, NASB, Holman Standard with the ridiculous reading of: "our days on earth are as a shadow, AND WITHOUT HOPE."
One of the main points of David’s public prayer before the congregation of Israel was to emphasize the confidence and hope they all shared in the living God. “and David the king also rejoiced with great joy. Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. Thine, O LORD is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all. Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name.”
For these versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB and several other modern versions to then turn around and have king David say that their days were "as a shadow and WITHOUT HOPE” is absurd.
Dan Wallace's NET version says: "our days are like a shadow on the earth, WITHOUT SECURITY." (Wrong!) They had just expressed their confidence in God.
The Catholic Connection
The Catholic versions are in their usual contradictory mess. The earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay version read: "Our days upon earth are as a shadow, and THERE IS NO STAY."
The St. Joseph NAB 1970 has the sense found in the KJB and reads: "Our life on earth is like a shadow THAT DOES NOT ABIDE."
But the Jerusalem bible 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read like the NKJV, NIV, NASB with: "our days on earth fleeting as a shadow WITHOUT HOPE."
And the latest Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 is nonsensical with: "Our days upon the earth are like a shadow, AND THERE IS NO DELAY."
2 Chronicles 34:6 “Mattocks” or “Ruins” or Something Else?
In the King James Bible we read in 2 Chronicles 34 of the young king Josiah who began to seek after the God of David his father. In the 12th year of his reign “he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images. And they brake down the altars of Baalim in his presence; and the images…he cut down; and the groves, and the carved images, he brake in pieces, and made dust of them” (2 Chron. 34:3-4)
Then in verses 6-7 we read: “And so he did in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali, WITH THEIR MATTOCKS round about. And when he had broken down the altars and groves, and had beaten the graven images into powder, and cut down all the idols throughout all the land of Israel, he returned to Jerusalem.”
A mattock is an agricultural tool shaped like a pickax, with an adze and a chisel edge as the ends of the head. It looks like a pickax with two sharpened edges on each end of the head. It would have been the perfect tool for breaking down the altars, groves and graven idolatrous images.
However several modern Vatican versions have changed the text in verse 6. Instead of saying “WITH THEIR MATTOCKS” versions like the NIV, NASB and ESV say “and as far as Naphtali, IN THEIR RUINS all around.”
Then the ESV footnotes - “The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.”
The Holman Standard is interesting in that it reads differently than them all. It says: “He did the same in the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, and as far as Naphtali AND ON THEIR SURROUNDING MOUNTAIN SHRINES.”
Then the Holman Standard footnotes: “Syriac, Vulgate read ‘THE RUINS ALL AROUND’; Hebrew is obscure.”
However I have a copy of Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac and it does NOT say what the Holman says it does. It reads: “And so did he in the cities of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon and Naphtali, IN THEIR STREETS round about.”
The Hebrew word used here is #2719 gheh-rev and it has a wide variety of meanings including “sword, tool, knives, dagger, and mattocks.” One thing for sure, it does NOT mean “RUINS” and it certainly does not mean “STREETS” either.
The Catholic Connection
The Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay 1950 merely say: “And in the cities of Manasses, and of Ephraim, and of Simeon, even to Nephtali HE DEMOLISHED ALL.”
But the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible has: “He did likewise in the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon and IN THE RUINED VILLAGES OF THE SURROUNDING COUNTRY as far as Naphtali.”
But then again the 1985 New Jerusalem bible changed it once more to now read: “In the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim and Simeon, as far as Naphtali, AND ROUND THEIR OPEN SPACES.”
Agreeing with the sense found in the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible 1587 - “euen vnto Naphtali, with their MAULES they brake all round about.”, the Lesser Bible 1853 - “even as far as Naphtali, with their MATTOCKS, round about.”, Webster’s Version 1833 - “with their MATTOCKS around.”, Young’s literal translation 1898 and J.P. Green’s translation - “even unto Naphtali, WITH THEIR TOOLS, round about.”, JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 - “even unto Naphtali, with their AXES round about.”, The Word of Yah 1993 - “with their MATTOCKS”, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998 - “with their MATTOCKS round about.”, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 - “as far as Naphtali with their INSTRUMENTS OF DESTRUCTION round about.”, The Apostolic Bible 2006 (Charles Van der Pool) - “even unto Naphtali WITH THEIR MATTOCKS”, Bond Slave Version 2009 “with THEIR MATTOCKS”, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 “with their MATTOCKS” (Yerusha Shen), Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - “with THEIR MATTOCKS”, Conservative Bible 2011 - “with their MATTOCKS round about.” (Andrew Schlafly), the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “as far as Naphtali and all around, WITH AXES.”
Other Versions with different meanings
NKJV 1982, Jubilee Bible - “even unto Naphtali, with their SWORDS round about.”
J. P. Green’s 2005 -“even to Naphtali, with THEIR TOOLS all around.”
Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902 - “even as far as Naphtali, - SEARCHED HE THEIR HOUSES, round about.”
Common English Bible 2011 (Critical Text Version) - “and as far as Naphtali, HE REMOVED THEIR TEMPLES.” Footnote =Hebrew is uncertain.
The Voice 2012 (another Critical Text version) - “and Naphtali AND THEIR SURROUNDING VILLAGES.”
The Message 2002 (New Living Translation 1996, CEV) - “The clean-up campaign ranged outward to the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS —as far north as Naphtali.”
Some Bible Commentators -
Commentators, like bible versions, are all over the board with conflicting and contradictory opinions, but here are a couple that side with the meaning found in the KJB and many others.
Adam Clarke - “Even those who were under the government of the Israelitish king permitted their idols and places of idolatry to be hewn down and destroyed: after the truth was declared and acknowledged, THE SPADE AND THE AXE were employed to complete the reformation.”
John Gill - “with their mattocks round about; or hammers or mauls, as Kimchi, or pick axes, such sort of instruments as were used in demolishing altars and images”
Ezra 1:9 - another prime example of the modern Bible Babel
In the book of Ezra we read of king Cyrus being moved upon by God Almighty to issue a decree that the Israelites could leave the kingdom of Persia and return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple.
Among the various vessels and utensils the children of Israel carried back with them, we find the following list in Ezra 1:9. "And this is the number of them: thirty chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and twenty KNIVES,..."
However there is a confusing hodge-podge of contradictory and conflicting modern versions that have totally different meanings the one from the other. Many people wrongly assume that if they could only learn "the original languages" then they would have a firm grasp on what God REALLY said. Well, if this were true, then why do we have all these modern scholars giving us such a mess of uncertainty?
Let's compare the various Bible versions to see what the scholars have come up with.
"29 KNIVES" is the reading found in the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Douay-Rheims bible of 1610, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, both the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) and the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Jewish translations, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Douay of 1950, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the NKJV of 1982, the NRSV of 1989, the Bible in Basic English 1960, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The New Jewish Version 1985, God's Word Translation 1995, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, God's First Truth 1999, The World English Bible 2000, Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Holman Standard 2009, The New European Version 2010, the Common English Bible 2011, The Names of God Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Bond Slave Version 2012, the Knox Bible 2012 The Biblos Bible 201he Hebrew Names Version 2014, The International Standard Version 2014, The Modern English Version 2014.
Foreign Language Bibles = 29 KNIVES
Among foreign language bibles that correctly read "29 KNIVES" are Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter bible - "29 Messer" = 29 knives; the Italian Diodati 1649 and 1991 and the 2006 Italian Riveduta - "ventinove coltelli" = 29 KNIVES, the French Martin, Ostervald 1996, Louis Segond of 2007 - "29 couteaux" = 29 knives, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 - "vinte e nove facas" = 29 KNIVES, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960, 1995, the Reina Valera Contemporánea of 2011, AND the NIV Spanish edition Nueva Versión Internacional of 1999!!! - "veintinueve cuchillos" = 29 KNIVES.
ODD BALL VERSIONS in The Bible Babble Buffet
BUT, the NASB says there were "29 DUPLICATES" (of what? It doesn't tell us)
The NIV 1984-2011, The Message 2002 and The New International Reader's Version 2014 all say - "29 SILVER PANS" and then the NIV footnotes "the meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain".
Well, even if it wasn't uncertain, it SURE IS NOW, huh!?
The RSV, and the ESV 2001-2011 tell us there were "29 CENSERS".
Notice how the RSV of 1952 was the first version to reject "knives", then the NRSV 1989 went back to "knives", and then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV - has now gone back to the "29 censers" of the previous RSV.
The 1969 New Life Bible says "29 OTHER DISHES"
Amplified Bible says: "29 SACRIFICIAL DISHES"
The Voice 2012 - "29 EXTRA DISHES"
The so called Greek Septuagint says there were "29 CHANGES", and then footnotes that the Hebrew text reads "knives".
Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac tells us there were "29 VESTMENTS".
The New English Bible 1970 gives us "29 VESSELS OF VARIOUS KINDS"
The Scripture 4 All Translation 2010 - "29 ALTERNATIVES." (Yep. That's what it says!)
And The New Living Translation 2015 tells us there were "29 SILVER INCENSE BURNERS."
The Catholic Connection
The Catholic versions are all over the board, with hardly any one agreeing with the others. Both the Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 correctly read "29 KNIVES"
but the 1968 Jerusalem bible says "29 SILVER BOWLS"; then the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible has "sacks of silverware, one thousand AND TWENTY NINE.", thus combining the numbers 1000 and 29 and omitting the Hebrew word "knives".
But then the 1985 Catholic New Jerusalem bible says: "1000 silver dishes 29 REPAIRED"!
BUT, once again in 2009 the latest Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has gone back to "one thousand silver bowls, twenty-nine KNIVES."
Doctor Dan Wallace and Company In Action
Dan Wallace's NET 2006 tells us there were "29 SILVER UTENSILS", And THEN he Footnotes: "Hebrew - knives. The Hebrew noun מַחֲלָפִים (makhalafim, "knives") is found only here in the O.T. While the basic meaning of the term is fairly clear, what it refers to is unclear."
And I suppose Doctor Dan's "29 SILVER UTENSILS" is now crystal clear, Right? Folks, you have to be a modern day Seminary Professor to be able to talk like this and do it with a straight face and actually think that people are going to take you seriously and not think you are some kind of a NUT!
Oh, if we only went to seminary and learned the original languages, then we would have it all figured out, right? Don't count on it.
Get yourself a King James Bible and believe the Infallible Book God in His providence has given us. You will never go wrong.
Ezra 4:21 A “real big mistake” in the KJB?
There is an ignorant Bible correcting pastor out there in videoland named David Middleton. This man believes that ALL Bibles have errors in them and that he, with his school boy knowledge of “the” Greek and Hebrew, is The Man to whom people need to come to find out what God REALLY said.
One of the alleged horrible mistakes he thinks he has found in the King James Bible is in Ezra 4:21 where the KJB has an italicized word that he says should not be there.
The verse in question is Ezra 4:21 and in the KJB it reads: “Give you now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until ANOTHER commandment shall be given to me.”
These words were spoken by Artaxerxes, the king of Persia, in the beginning of his reign after the enemies of the Jews wrote him a letter complaining about the Jews building in the city of Jerusalem and trying to get the king to stop the ongoing work.
Many Jews were in the process of re-building the house of the Lord in Jerusalem after they had returned from their 70 year captivity in Babylon.
Mr. Middleton then tells us: “In Ezra 4:21 there is A REAL BIG MISTAKE the KJB did. They added a word - “another”. This implies that he (Artaxerxes) already gave one commandment about building the city. But he never gave an original commandment. NO OTHER TRANSLATION has “another” in it. Not even the modern translations. They have seen that it is wrong and it is deceptive.”
(End of quotes by our “deep insights scholar” who is here to tell you and the rest of us what God REALLY said.)
The more I hear from these “know it all” King James Bible correctors, the more I believe the saying - “If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.”
First of all, the King James Bible is NOT the only translation that has this extra word “another” in it, as our eminent teacher ffirms so strongly.
This man obviously has not bothered to do much research on the matter, but what he lacks in knowledge he makes up for with "conviction."
Not only does the King James Bible “add” this little word “until ANOTHER commandment be given from me.” but so too do The Great Bible 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Webster’s Bible 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "until [another] commandment be given from me.", The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "until ANOTHER ma'am shall be given from me.", the Bond Slave Version 2012, the Jubilee Bible 2010 and the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013.
The simple reason why the KJB and others are correct for “adding” this extra word here is because THERE HAD BEEN A PREVIOUS COMMANDMENT given by a king of Persia, and we read about this FIRST decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem in the first chapter of the book of Ezra itself.
In Ezra 1:2 we read: “Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.”
And in Chapter 4 where Artaxerxes issues his commandment, as a king of Persia, we read that “Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.” 4:24
Then once again, another king of Persia, Darius, reaffirms the first commandment of Cyrus, king of Persia, and in Ezra chapter 6 he makes search of the court records and finds where Cyrus had previously issued the decree that the house of the LORD be built in Jerusalem and he reaffirms it, and even provides the Jews with more building material.
Though I believe this is the correct understanding of the passage, even if we look at it in another way, the KJB STILL makes perfect sense. King Artaxerxes says in Ezra 4:21 - "Give ye NOW commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, UNTIL ANOTHER commandment shall be given from me."
They were already building in the city. He now commanded them to cease, and this would be UNTIL another commandment would be given, that is, in case he (Artaxerxes) changed his mind, and would give another commandment to continue the work again, or until another king of Persia would give a different order.
The fact that "pastor" Middleton would see what he calls "a real big mistake" in the KJB here, shows that there is something seriously wrong with this man's thinking processes.
The King James Bible is absolutely correct and is not even remotely “a real big mistake”, as our ignorant Bible corrector claims.
Nehemiah 3:5 - King James Bible - “And next unto them the Tekoites repaired; but their nobles put not their necks to the work of their Lord.
Notice that the literal translation of the word “necks” is given in the King James Bible, and “the work of their Lord” refers to serving their God. The Hebrew word for “Lord” is #113 Adon, and it is found only three times in the book of Nehemiah, here, in 8:10 “for this day is holy unto our Lord”, and 10:29 “and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD, our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes.”
Agreeing with the King James Bible reading and meaning word for word are the following Bible translations: the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Amplified, the Revised Standard Version 1956, the New Revised Standard Version 1989, Douay-Rheims, Darby, Young’s, Green’s translation, Bible in Basic English, KJV 21st Century Version, and Third Millenium Bible.
The 1395 Wycliffe bible read: “but the principal men of hem puttiden not her neckis vndur in the werk of her Lord God.” Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac also agrees with the KJB meaning, as well as the Complete Jewish Bible - “but their chiefs did not burden themselves with the work of their Lord.”
The Spanish Reina-Valera Bible reads just like the King James Bible with: “mas sus grandes no prestaron su cerviz á la obra de su Señor.” They use the literal word for ‘necks’ (cerviz = the nape of the neck) and refer to their work as being of their Lord.
Likewise the French Martin 1744, and the Modern Greek also have the same meaning as the King James Bible, as do the Italian Diodati - “il collo al servigio del lor Signore.”, and the Portuguese Almeida - “seus nobres não meteram o pescoço os serviço do Senhor.”
Even the modern English Standard Version 2003 reads: “but their nobles would not stoop to serve their Lord.” They changed “necks” to ‘stoop’ but at least the reference is to their Lord, or God. The NKJV has: “but their nobles did not put their SHOULDERS (R12) to the work of their Lord.”, then footnote “literally, necks”.
There is a change in meaning with the RV and ASV in that they say: “but their nobles put not their necks to the work of their lord.” Here they keep the literal “necks” but change the work from that of the Lord (God) to their human master (their lord). So, did the nobles have a human master or lord? Doubtful, and if so, he wasn’t much of a ‘lord’.
The NASB went even further, and it now says: “the Tekoites made repairs, but their nobles DID NOT SUPPORT the work of their MASTERS.” ASV = one ‘lord’; NASB = ‘multiple masters.’ Then in a footnote it tells us the literal reading is “necks” and not ‘support’.
The Geneva bible was similar to the NASB reading: “but the great men of them put not their neckes to the worke of their lordes.”
The NIV puts a similar spin on the meaning of this verse and says: “The next section was repaired by the men of Tekoa, but their nobles would not put THEIR SHOULDERS to the work UNDER THEIR SUPERVISORS.”
The Holman Standard has: “but their nobles did NOT LIFT A FINGER TO HELP their supervisors.”; and The Message reads: “and next to him the Tekoites (except for their nobles, who wouldn't work with THEIR MASTER (one master again) and refused TO GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY with such work). “
Wallace’s NET version reads: “but their town leaders WOULD NOT ASSIST with the work of THEIR MASTER.” Then he informs us in his footnotes that the literal reading is ‘necks’, and also notes that “The plural form (’adonehem, “lords”) is probably a plural of majesty referring to Nehemiah. However, some English versions take the plural to refer to the “supervisors” (NIV, NCV, TEV) and others to “their Lord” (KJV, NRSV).”
In any case, it is obvious that not all Bibles mean the same thing, even when we “go to the Hebrew”.
Nehemiah 8:4 “pulpit”, “a wooden platform”, “wooden podium”, “a tower of wood”?
“And Ezra the scribe stood upon A PULPIT of wood, which they had made for the purpose….”
I had never heard that Nehemiah 8:4 is an alleged “error” until today (January 11, 2016) when some bible agnostic at one of the forums told me it was. Of course this guy also thinks the words “pastor” and “baptize” are errors, so you know right off the bat that this man has made his own mind his “final authority” and has NO inerrant Bible to believe in himself or to give to anybody else.
He thinks "baptize" should be "submerge". If you "submerge" new converts in water, then it's Glug, Glug, and they drown. But "baptize" symbolizes the going down into the water and coming up again - death, burial and resurrection.
This is what he actually said - "I personally don’t like the King James choice to translate as “pulpit” what is “tower” in every other appearance. In that case, I think the translators were not only wrong, but intentionally wrong, so as to promote an agenda, reading a particular ecclesiology into the text. Same with “baptize” rather than the more literal (not to mention accurate and understandable) “submerge.” Wrong. And intentionally wrong."
This man, like so many today, is his own authority and he doesn't even understand his own English language very well. A pulpit was originally an upraised platform on which the preacher or teacher STOOD. Notice that the King James Bible says "and Ezra the scribe STOOD UPON A PULPIT."
Definition of “pulpit”
Merriam Webster Dictionary - a pulpit - an elevated place in the which a clergyman stands while preaching.
Oxford English Dictionary - pulpit - a raised platform or lectern from which the preacher delivers a sermon.
American Heritage Dictionary - 1. An elevated platform, lectern, or stand used in preaching or conducting a religious service.
This Bible corrector is not looking at the original meaning of the word "pulpit" but is thinking of the modern counterpart, which got its name from original raised platform, where todays preachers stand IN FRONT OF the "pulpit" and places his Bible and notes on it. But the King James Bible, and many others, tell us that Ezra STOOD UPON the pulpit. That was the raised platform. You can see similar pulpits in many of the older churches today.
In Nehemiah 8:4 we read: “And Ezra the scribe STOOD UPON A PULPIT of wood, which they had made for the purpose….” Then we are told that “they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:8)
The Hebrew word used here for “pulpit” in the KJB (and many others as well will soon see) is #4026 mig-dahl. About 45 times it is translated as “tower”. Once as “pulpit”, and once as “flowers” (Song of Solomon 5:13) and once as “castles” (1 Chronicles 27:25)
Young’s “literal” is a little too literal and ends up being ridiculous. It says - “And Ezra the scribe standeth on A TOWER OF WOOD that they made for the purpose”
The ESV, NIV, Holman and NKJV unite to tell us it was “a wooden PLATFORM”
NASB - “a wooden PODIUM”
NET version 2006 - Ezra the scribe stood on A TOWERING WOODEN PLATFORM constructed for this purpose.
Darby 1890 - “a HIGH STAGE of wood”
New Life Version 1979 - Ezra the writer stood on A RAISED FLOOR of wood
ISV 2014 - Ezra the scribe stood on A WOODEN ROSTRUM
Wycliffe 1395 - And Ezra the writer stood on THE DEGREES OF WOOD
The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011 - “stood upon A STEP OF WOOD”
A PULPIT of wood
Agreeing with the King James Bible’s “a pulpit of wood” are the following Bible translations - The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917, The Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, The Revised Standard Version 1946-1971, Amplified Bible 1987, The Word of Yah 1993, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, God’s First Truth 1999, Green’s Literal 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The New Heart English Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, the Word English Bible 2012, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, and The Hebrew Names Version 2014.
and this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “a pulpit of wood”
Foreign Language Bibles that also read “a PULPIT of wood” are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1960, 1977 - “un púlpito de madera” and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “sobre um púlpito de madeira”
It should be obvious that our Bible corrector doesn’t know what he is talking about and the King James Bible is right, as always.
Job 6:6 Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? OR IS THERE ANY TASTE IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?
This is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, the NIV 1984 edition, TEV, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible 1998, Bishops' Bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva bible 1599, Living Bible, New Life Bible 1969, Darby, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible 1902, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Common English Bible 2011, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond of 2007 - "trouvera-t-on de la saveur dans le blanc d'un œuf?", Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuova Diodati 1991 - "Si mangia forse un cibo insipido senza sale?, o c'è qualche gusto nel chiaro d'uovo?", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Oder wer mag kosten das Weiße um den Dotter?", and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, NIV Spanish edition 1999 - "¿Por ventura se comerá lo desabrido sin sal? ¿O habrá gusto en la clara del huevo?", the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada and NIV Nova Versão Internacional 2000- "Pode se comer sem sal o que é insípido? Ou há gosto na clara do ovo?"
The various Jewish translations themselves are in disagreement in this verse as well. The 1917 JPS version says: "Or is there any taste in the JUICE OF MALLOWS?".
The Judaica Press Tanach has: Can bland food be eaten without salt, or is there a taste in the SALIVA OF STRONG-TASTING FOOD?"
But the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, version reads just like the KJB's "or is there any taste IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?"
And the Complete Jewish Bible also reads: "Can food without flavor be eaten without salt? DO EGG WHITES HAVE ANY TASTE?"
Hebrew Names Version - "Or is there any taste in the white of an egg? "
Even Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees with the King James reading: "Or is there any taste in the white of an egg?"
Then Mr. Wallace footnotes: "Some commentators are not satisfied with the translation “white of an egg”; they prefer something connected to “slime of purslane” (H. H. Rowley, Job [NCBC], 59; cf. NRSV “juice of mallows”). This meaning is based on the Syriac and Arabic version of Sa`adia. The meaning “white of the egg” comes from the rabbinic interpretation of “slime of the yolk.” Others carry the idea further and interpret it to mean “saliva of dreams” or after the LXX “in dream words.” H. H. Rowley does not think that the exact edible object can be identified. The idea of the slimy glaring white around the yolk of an egg seems to fit best"
NOTE - Daniel "Anything but the King James Bible" Wallace is incorrect when he says the LXX reads "in dream words". It doesn't. It says "empty words" - καὶ ἔστιν γεῦμα ἐν ῥήμασιν κενοῖς
The so called Greek Septuagint (LXX) -εἰ βρωθήσεται ἄρτος ἄνευ ἁλός εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔστιν γεῦμα ἐν ῥήμασιν κενοῖς
"SHALL BREAD BE EATEN WITHOUT SALT? OR AGAIN, IS THERE TASTE IN EMPTY WORDS?"
But take a look at what other eminent scholars have come up with while translating the same Hebrew texts.
The NIV 1978 and 1984 editions read: "Is tasteless food eaten without salt, OR IS THERE FLAVOR IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?"
NIV Spanish edition Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 - "¿Puede comerse sin sal la comida desabrida? ¿Tiene algún sabor la clara de huevo? = "Is there any taste in the white of an egg?"
NIV Portuguese edition Nova Versão Internacional 2000- "Come-se sem sal uma comida insípida? E a clara do ovo, tem algum sabor?" = "Is there any taste in the white of an egg?"
However the NIV 2011 English "this time we got it right" edition now reads: "Is tasteless food eaten without salt, OR IS THERE FLAVOR IN THE SAP OF THE MALLOW?"
RSV (Revised Standard Version) 1952 - "Is there any taste IN THE SLIME OF THE PURSLANE?"
NRSV, ESV 2001 - "Is there any taste IN THE JUICE OF THE MALLOW?"
Jehovah Witness New World Translation -"Or is there any taste in THE SLIMY JUICE OF MARSH MALLOW?"
Youngs literal - "Is there ANY SENSE IN THE DRIVEL OF DREAMS?"
Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950 "Or can an unsavoury thing be eaten, that is not seasoned with salt? OR CAN MAN TASTE THAT WHICH WHEN TASTED BRINGETH DEATH?"
Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "Can a thing insipid be eaten without salt? IS THERE FLAVOR IN THE WHITE OF AN EGG?
Bible in Basic English 1961 - "Will a man take food which has no taste without salt? or is there any taste IN THE SOFT SUBSTANCE OF PURSLAIN?"
The 2012 Knox Bible - "Would you have me relish food unseasoned, LICK MY LIPS OVER THE TASTE THAT BRINGS DEATH?"
Lexham English Bible 2011 - "Can tasteless food be eaten without salt, or is there taste IN THE WHITE OF A MARSHMALLOW PLANT?"
"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25 King James Holy Bible.
Job 13:15 "THOUGH HE SLAY ME, YET WILL I TRUST IN HIM."
So read the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, Bishops's 1568, NKJV, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, Message, TNIV, NET, Bible in Basic English, Darby, Douay 1950, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the ESV 2001, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - "Aunque él me mate, en él esperaré.", Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Judaica Press Tanach, and the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament.
However, believe it or not, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, RSV 1952, and the NRSV 1989 say: "SEE, HE WILL KILL ME; I HAVE NO HOPE." - the opposite meaning!
The Common English Bible (a critical text edition) also reads this way. It says: "He will slay me; I'M WITHOUT HOPE."
The NIV Spanish edition, La Nueva Versión Internacional of 1999 also reads this way, saying - "¡Que me mate! ¡Ya no tengo esperanza!" = LET HIM KILL ME! I NO LONGER HAVE ANY HOPE!"
RSV 1952 - "Behold, he will slay me; I have no hope..."
The fictitious LXX further confuses the issue with: "Though the Mighty One should lay hand upon me, FORASMUCH AS HE HAS BEGUN, verily I will speak, and plead before him."
Not to be outdone for novelty, Young's "literal" says: "Lo, He doth slay me -- I wait not!" and Green's goes along with this, saying: "Behold, He will cut me off; I WILL NOT WAIT."
Job 26:9 He holdeth back the face of his throne
Many times God seems to conceal Himself from us and hide His workings from our sight and understanding. We are told in Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hideth thyself"
Job 26:9 tells us: "He holdeth back the face of his THRONE, and spreadeth his cloud upon it."
This is the reading of Wycliffe 1393, the Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Douay-Rheims 1610, The Thomson Bible 1808, Lesser O.T. 1835, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901 (the precursor to the NASB) The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1917 & 1936 Hebrew-English Masoretic translations, Douay of 1950, the NKJV 1982, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, God's Word Translation 1995, the World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2003, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Complete Jewish Tanach 2004, the Holman Standard 2009 - "He obscures the view of His throne, spreading His cloud over it.", The New European Version 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, New Heart English Bible 2010, the Knox Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013 and The Hebrew Names Version 2014.
Foreign Language Bibles
Foreign language bibles that read like the KJB are the so called Greek Septuagint - "πρόσωπον θρόνου" = "the face of his THRONE", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 and 2011- "Él encubre la faz de SU TRONO y sobre él extiende su nube.", the Portuguese Almeida - "Encobre a face do SEU TRONO", the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the French Louis Segond of 1910 and of 2007 and La Bible du Semeur 1999 - "Il recover SON TRONE", the Italian Diodati versions of 1649 and 1991 and the 2006 Nuova Riveduta - "Copre la vista del SUO TRONO."
The word is # 3678 kisseh, and means throne. It is so translated many times and never means moon. Even the LXX agrees with the Hebrew and the KJB and says throne. - "πρόσωπον θρόνου"
However the NASB, NIV, New Living Translation and Dan Wallace's NET version read: "He covers the face of THE FULL MOON." This is also the reading of the liberal RSV, the NRSV and the ESV, but the RSV, ESV have a footnote "or throne."
We see the same confusion among the Catholic versions. The Douay-Rheims of 1610 and Douay of 1950 read "face of his THRONE", but the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the New Jerusalem of 1985 all read "the face of THE FULL MOON". Ah, but now once again in 2009 the latest Catholic Public Domain version has gone back to - "He holds back the face of HIS THRONE, and he stretches his cloud over it."
Job 22:29 "WHEN MEN ARE CAST DOWN, THEN THOU SHALT SAY, THERE IS LIFTING UP; and he shall save the humble person."
The meaning is quite clear as it stands in the KJB. When others are cast down for their sins, you will say in effect, God is lifting me up. So read the Jewish translation of the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "When others are cast downe, then shalt thou say, I am lifted vp: and God shall saue the humble person.", Spanish Reina Valera 1569, 1909, 1960 - "Cuando fueren abatidos, dirás tú: Enaltecimiento habrá" , Webster's 1833 translation, the 21st Century KJV 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
John Gill remarks: "When men are cast down,.... Wicked men are brought down from a state of prosperity to a state of adversity, are in low circumstances, great straits and difficulties: then thou shall say, there is lifting up; that is, for himself and his; when others are in adversity, he should be in prosperity; when others are cast down into a very low estate and distressed condition, he should be exalted to a very high estate."
However in the case of the NKJV, NIV, and NASB all three give different meanings even from each other.
The NKJV says: "When THEY cast YOU down, AND you say "EXALTATION WILL COME". Then He will save the humble person."
The NASB has: "When YOU are cut down, YOU WILL SPEAK WITH CONFIDENCE", And the humble person He will save."
The NIV reads: "When MEN are brought low and you say "LIFT THEM UP, then he will save the downcast."
The Holman Standard is different still. It says: "When OTHERS are humiliated and you say, “Lift them up,” GOD will save the humble."
The Complete Jewish Bible 1999 - "when someone is brought down, you will say, ‘IT WAS PRIDE, BECAUSE GOD saves the humble."
Job 22:30 "He shall deliver THE ISLAND OF THE INNOCENT; and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands."
According to Strong's and Wigram's concordances the word for island is # 336 and is used numerous times meaning "island". Agreeing with the KJB reading are the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, New English Bible, 1970 - "He will deliver the innocent", Douay 1950, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1909 - "El libertará la isla del inocente; Y por la limpieza de tus manos será librada.", the Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "Él libertará la isla del inocente; y por la pureza de tus manos será librada.", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Und der Unschuldige wird errettet werden" = "And the innocent will be saved", Webster's 1833 translation, the 1992 Today's English Version - "He will rescue you if you are innocent", the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
Also saying that the innocent are delivered are the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society) - "He delivereth him that is innocent", the so called Greek Septuagint - "ῥύσεται ἀθῷον", the Wycliffe updated version of 2001 - "An innocent shall be saved.", the Douay-Rheims 1610 - "The innocent shall be saved", Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 - "He shall deliver the innocent" , Lamsa's translation of the Syriac - "The innocent man shall be spared wherever he is", the Bible in Basic English 1961 - "He makes safe the man who is free from sin", the Modern Greek - "Θελει σωσει και τον μη αθωον·" , the RSV (Revised Standard Version)- "He delivers the innocent man", the Revised English Bible 1989 - "He will deliver the innocent", and the Knox Bible of 2012 - "But the innocent shall be kept safe".
The Geneva Bible notes read: " He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands. God will deliver a whole country from peril, even for the just man's sake." (End of quote)
However once again the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV, ESV and many others and says the opposite with: "He will deliver EVEN one who is NOT INNOCENT."!! Bible commentators are all over the board on this one as are the Bible translations, and even though Dan Wallace and company side with the ESV, NIV, NKJV, NASB - "He will deliver even someone who is NOT innocent" yet he footnotes: "The Hebrew has אִי־נָקִי (’i naqi), which could be taken as “island of the innocent” (so Ibn-Ezra), or “him that is not innocent” (so Rashi)." Matthew Poole also mentions the same thing in his commentary, that the Hebrew word can be translated either as "the island of the innocent" or "he that is not innocent".
Job 26:12 "He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding HE SMITETH THROUGH THE PROUD."
This is the reading or meaning found in Wycliffe 1395 - "and his prudence smoot the proude.", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "and by his vnderstanding he smiteth the pride thereof.", Young's - "And by His understanding smitten the proud.", 1936 Hebrew Publication Society, Douay - Rheims 1610 and Douay 1950 - "and his wisdom has struck the proud one.", Green's interlinear, 2000 - "and by His understanding He shatters pride." Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
Among foreign language translations that have the same meaning as found in the King James Bible are the Italian Riveduta of 1994 and 2006 - "con la sua intelligenza ne abbatte l’orgoglio" = "by his intelligence he strikes down the pride", the French Louis Segond of 1910 and 2007 - "par son intelligence il en brise l'orguei", the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 and Contemporánea of 2011 - " Y con su entendimiento hiere la arrogancia suya." = "and by his understanding he wounds their arrogance.", and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 - "e com o seu entendimento abate a sua soberba." = "by his understanding he knocks down their pride."
However again the multi-meaning modern versions are all over the map. Instead of "by his understanding he SMITETH THROUGH THE PROUD" the NKJV says: "by His understanding HE BREAKS UP THE STORM". Yet the NKJV rendered this same word as "proud" in Job 9:13, but here as "storm"!
The NASB, NIV say: "by his wisdom HE CUT RAHAB TO PIECES". Yet the NASB translates the same Hebrew word as "proud" in Psalm 40:4 and the NIV has translated the same word as "proud" in Psalm 101:5 'a proud heart' and Proverbs 21:4 'a proud heart'. Lamsa's translation has: "by His wisdom He SAVES MANY." Rotherham's Emphasized bible of 1902 informs us that - "by his skill, hath HE SHATTERED THE CROCODILE." And if you don't like any of these, you can always go with The Message which says: "by His wisdom HE TAMES SEA MONSTERS."
"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!”
After the LORD appeared and spoke to Job, he realized the error of his thinking and confessed in Job 42:6 "Therefore I ABHOR MYSELF and repent in dust and ashes." This is the reading of the KJB along with the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NIV, and ESV. However the NASB says, "Therefore I RETRACT, and I repent in dust and ashes". There is a big difference between abhoring myself and "I take back what I said".
Proverbs 12:26 "The righteous IS MORE EXCELLENT THAN HIS NEIGHBOR; but the way of the wicked seduceth them."
John Gill comments on the meaning of the verse - "The righteous is more excellent than his neighbour… Not than his neighbour who is righteous also; ... but the righteous is more excellent than his neighbour, who is ungodly and unrighteous, or however who has no other righteousness than his own; though his neighbour may be of more noble birth, and have even the title of "his excellency" given him; though he may have a larger share of wealth and riches; and though he may have attained a greater degree of natural wisdom and understanding, be a man of brighter parts, and of a larger capacity; yet, being righteous, he is more excellent than he: his superior excellency lies in his righteousness, from whence he is denominated; the righteousness of Christ, imputed to him, is far better than the best righteousness of his neighbour; it being the righteousness of God, his is the righteousness of a creature."
Adam Clarke also agrees with this sense of the Hebrew and the KJB reading, as does Matthew Henry who comments: "There is a true excellency in religion; it ennobles men, inspires them with generous principles, makes them substantial; it is an excellency which is, in the sight of God, of great price, who is the true Judge of excellency. His neighbour may make a greater figure in the world, may be more applauded, but the righteous man has the intrinsic worth. "
Agreeing with the King James Bible reading are the Bishops' bible 1568-"The ryghteous excelleth his neyghbour", the Geneva Bible 1599 "The righteous is more excellent then his neighbour.", 1936 Hebrew translation, Webster's 1833 translation - "The righteous is more excellent than his neighbor", the New American Bible 1970 - "The just man surpasses his neighbor", the KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
The NKJV says: "The righteous SHOULD CHOOSE HIS FRIENDS CAREFULLY."
NASB says "The righteous is A GUIDE to his neighbor"
NIV 1984 edition has "the righteous man is CAUTIOUS IN FRIENDSHIP." But...
The NIV 2011 now reads: "The righteous CHOOSE THEIR FRIENDS CAREFULLY" But...
The NIV Spanish edition La Nueva Versión Internacional of 1999 says: "El justo es guía de su prójimo" =The righteous IS A GUIDE TO HIS NEIGHBOR." (Yeah, that's pretty close to the NIV English version, right?)
Holman Standard - "A righteous man IS CAREFUL IN DEALING WITH HIS NEIGHBOR."
The Message - "A good person SURVIVES MISFORTUNE."
The CEV (Contemporary English Version) of 1995 put out by the American Bible Society is so "contemporary" that it is unrecognizable. Sure, it's "easy to read" but is it even close to what God said? It says: " YOU ARE BETTER OFF TO DO RIGHT, THAN TO LOSE YOUR WAY BY DOING WRONG."
Young's 'literal' - "The righteous SEARCHETH HIS COMPANION."
2012 Knox Bible - "IT IS WELL DONE TO PUT UP WITH LOSS FOR A NEIGHBOUR'S NEED; the calculations of the sinner do but lead him astray." (Say What?!?)
RSV 1952 - "A righteous man TURNS AWAY FROM EVIL."
NRSV 1989 - "The righteous GIVES GOOD ADVICE TO FRIENDS."
The REB (Revised English Bible) of 1989 - "The righteous ARE FREED FROM EVIL, but the wicked take a path that leads them astray."
ESV 2001 - "One who is righteous IS A GUIDE TO HIS NEIGHBOR."
The Catholic Versions
Let's see how the Catholic bible versions handle this verse. All four of them are completely different.
Douay-Rheims 1609, 1950 - "HE THAT NEGLECTETH A LOSS FOR THE SAKE OF A FRIEND, IS JUST."
Jerusalem Bible 1968 - "AN IMPARTIAL ARBITER IS HIS OWN BEST FRIEND."
St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 - "The just man SURPASSES HIS NEIGHBOR." This one is actually like the King James Bible here)
The New Jerusalem 1985 - "The upright SHOWS THE WAY TO A FRIEND; the way of the wicked leads them astray."
The LXX - Even Adam Clarke says - The Septuagint is insufferable: "The WELL-INSTRUCTED RIGHTEOUS SHALL BE HIS OWN FRIEND."
The Jewish Translations
How about the Jewish translations? They too all differ from each other. So much for "going to the Hebrew".
Jewish Publication Society 1917 - "The righteous IS GUIDED BY HIS FRIEND."
Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 - "The righteous IS MORE EXCELLENT THAN HIS NEIGHBOUR." = KJB.
The Complete Jewish Bible - "The righteous GUIDES HIS FRIEND'S WAY RIGHTLY."
The 2001 Judaica Press Tanach - "The righteous IS MORE GENEROUS THAN HIS NEIGHBOR."
The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "The tzaddik (righteous) PREVAILETH ADVANTAGEOUSLY OVER his neighbor, but the derech resha’im leads them astray."
Note: Actually, this last one is pretty close to the meaning found in the King James Bible. Also, note the use of "that old, archaic English" in this very recent translation done in 2011 that uses the word "prevaileth". By the way, here is Proverbs 30:6 in this 2011 translation - "Add THOU not unto His devarim, lest He rebuke THEE, and THOU be found a kazav (liar)." (CAPS are mine)
You can see for yourself this Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2008, 2010, 2011 by Artists for Israel International at Gateway here -
Proverbs 26:10 Say what!
King James Holy Bible 1611: "The great God that formed all things, both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors." This is the reading of Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.
Geneva Bible 1599: "The Excellent that formed all things both rewardeth the foole, and rewardeth the transgressours."
Young's "literal" translation: "Great is the Former of all, And He is rewarding a fool, And is rewarding transgressors."
NKJV 1982: "The Great God who formed all things gives the fool his hire and the transgressor his wages."
Spanish Reina Valera 1909: "El grande cria todas las cosas, y da paga al insensato, y la da a los transgressores." (The Great creates all things, and gives a recompense to the fool and gives it to the transgressors.)
The translations above generally teach the same idea, (except the NKJV gives it a different slant), but from here on, it is anybody's guess.
Spanish Reina Valera 1960: "Como arquero que a todos hiere, es el que toma a sueldo insensatos y vagabundos." (As an archer who wounds all, is he who hires fools and vagabonds.) Notice how different the two Spanish versions are.
Darby's Translation 1890: "A master roughly worketh everyone; he both hireth a fool and hireth passers-by."
Jewish Publication Society translation 1917: "A master performeth all things; but he that stoppeth a fool is as one that stoppeth a flood."
Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta: "The body of a fool is greatly afflicted, and a drunkard thinks that he can cross a sea."
Greek Septuagint Version (date disputed): "All the flesh of fools endures much hardship, for their fury is brought to nought."
Catholic Douay Version 1950: "Judgment determineth causes; and he that putteth a fool to silence, appeaseth anger."
Catholic Jerusalem Bible 1968: "An archer wounding all who pass: such is the man who employs a fool."
RSV 1952, ESV 2003: "Like an archer who wounds everybody is he who hires a passing fool or drunkard."
NASB 1972, 95: "Like an archer who wounds everyone, So is he who hires a fool or who hires those who pass by." (The NASB complete concordance shows they have translated this word as "great" 84 times, and only once as "archer")
NIV 1984: "Like an archer who wounds at random is he who hires a fool or any passerby."
The Good News Translation 1992: "An employer who hires any fool that comes along is only hurting everybody concerned."
The Living Bible 1981: "The master may get better work from an untrained apprentice than from a skilled rebel."
The New Living Bible 1998: "An employer who hires a fool or a bystander is like an archer who shoots recklessly."
God's Word Translation 1995: "Like many people who destroy everything, so is one who hires fools or drifters."
The Message 2002: "Hire a fool or a drunk and you shoot yourself in the foot."
As noted scholar James White likes to say, reading a variety of translations gives us a better understanding of the Scriptures.
Let's look at some of the verses in Proverbs 30, in the modern Bibles, to see if they contradict each other. In verse 3 we read, "I neither learned wisdom, NOR have the knowledge of the holy." The RV, ASV, Spanish, NIV, NKJV agree with the KJB.
However the NASB of 1972 says "I have not learned wisdom, BUT I have knowledge of the Holy One." - the exact opposite. Then in 1995, the NAS changed again to read like the KJB and others.
In Prov. 30:11 we read, "There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother." It refers to a whole generation of people. NASB has, "a kind of man who curses his father", and the NIV, "those who curse their father. . ." The correct word is "generation", as even the ESV footnote says.
In verse 17 "the young eagles shall eat it" NKJV, NAS, have eagles while the NIV has "vultures". Verse 26 "The conies are but a feeble folk" Conies are a kind of rabbit, it is not archaic. Conies are found in the Geneva, RV, ASV, NIV, and Youngs. But the NKJV has "rock badgers" while the NAS of 1972 has "badgers" then in 1995 changed it to the "shepharim". These are just two of many examples where the great NASB doesn't even agree with itself from one edition to the next.
In verse 28 "the spider taketh hold with her hands" is the same in the KJB, NKJV, Geneva, 1917,1936, Youngs and Spanish. But the spider becomes a lizard in the NAS, NIV, and lastly for now in verse 31 "a greyhound" in the KJB, NKJV, Geneva, ASV, 1917, 1936 Hebrew - English versions, becomes "the struting cock" in the NASB and "the struting rooster" in the NIV. Now biology is not my strong point, but I'm pretty sure a struting cock is not the same thing as a greyhound.
As can be seen from this one chapter of the Bible, the finest modern day scholars do not agree with each other, and come up with totally different renderings for the same word.
Not all of them can equally express the mind of God. If I take the modern position, I can pick and choose which rendering I personally like, go back and forth among the versions and become my own final authority for what the word of God says. That is where the "Whateverists" or the "originals only" crowd are.
I, by God's grace, believe His complete inspired words are only found preserved in the King James Bible. On this issue, I part company with the modern version proponents.
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, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, Darby, Young’s, the NKJV 1982, the Hebrew Names Bible, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation and the 2004 Jewish Complete Tanach.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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 at the same time.
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 thinks they are “reliable”.
Have these Bible critics lost their minds? (That’s a rhetorical question ;-)
Isaiah 30:7 "Their strength is to sit still"
Israel knew they were about to be attacked and they turned to Egypt to hire mercenaries who would help them. In 30:7 we read: "For the Egyptians shall help in vain, and to no purpose: therefore HAVE I CRIED CONCERNING THIS, THEIR STRENGTH IS TO SIT STILL."
This is the reading of the KJB, the Geneva Bible, Young's 'literal' translation, Green's interlinear of 2000, the Douay version 1950, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - "su fortaleza sería estarse quietos.", the Reina Valera 1960, 1995 and Contemporánea of 2011 - "Por eso yo le he dado voces, que su fortaleza sería estarse quietos." = "her strength will be to be still", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "por isso clamei acerca disto: No estarem quietos será a sua força." = "so I cried about this: On being quiet is their strength.", the French Martin 1744 - "leur force est de se tenir tranquilles." = "their strength is to be still", the Modern Greek - "Η δυναμις αυτων ειναι να καθηνται ησυχοι." = "their strength is to sit still", Webster's 1833 translation, Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the KJV 21 1994.
Matthew Henry and John Wesley comment on this verse.
Isaiah 30:7 Matthew Henry - Their strength is to sit still, in a humble dependence upon God and his goodness and a quiet submission to his will, and not to wander about and put themselves to great trouble to seek help from this and the other creature.?
John Wesley - 30:7 Sit still - It is safer and better for them to sit quietly at home, seeking to me for help.
John Gill comments on Isaiah 30:7 saying: "that it was best for them quietly to trust in the Lord, and depend upon his protection, and sit still in Jerusalem, and not attempt to flee from thence to Egypt for safety, and they should see the salvation of God"
John Calvin also translates this passage in Latin as "their strength is to sit still" (Robur illorum quiescere.) and then comments: "To sit still" means here "to remain and to stay at home," though he will afterwards shew (verse 15) that they ought to have peaceable dispositions. The cause of their alarm and impassioned exertions was, that they were terrified and struck with dismay, and did not think that God's protection was sufficient, if they had not also the Egyptians on their side. Thus, they who do not give sufficient honor to God have their hearts agitated by unbelief, so that they tremble and never find peace."
The immediate context also argues for this interpretation. We read in verse 15 "For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not."
However instead of the KJB's "I cried concerning this, their strength is to sit still" the NKJV says: I HAVE CALLED HER RAHAB-HEM-SHEBETH".
The NIV has "I CALL HER RAHAB THE DO-NOTHING"
The NASB says: "I HAVE CALLED HER RAHAB WHO HAS BEEN EXTERMINATED."
The New Living Translation of 1996 says: "Egypt's promises are worthless! I CALL HER THE HARMLESS DRAGON."
The Bible in Basic English 1961 has: "For there is no use or purpose in the help of Egypt: SO I HAVE SAID ABOUT HER, SHE IS RAHAB, WHO HAS COME TO AN END."
The NET version by Dan Wallace and company reads: "For this reason I call her ‘PROUD ONE WHO IS SILENCED."
The so called Greek Septuagint has: "The Egyptians shall help you utterly in vain: tell them, THIS YOUR CONSOLATION IS VAIN."
The Knox bible of 2012 says: "my word has been said about her, THERE GOES PRIDE, LET HER ALONE."
The Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 tells us: "Therefore I CALL HER RAHAB QUELLED."
And the Catholic New Jerusalem of 1985 has: "and so I CALL HER RAHAB-THE-COLLAPSED."
Boy, am I glad they cleared that up for us, aren't you?
Isaiah 59:19 When the enemy shall come in like a flood the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.
Isaiah 59:19 "So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When THE ENEMY shall come in like a flood, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD SHALL LIFT UP A STANDARD AGAINST HIM."
This is the reading of the NKJV 1982, Darby's translation, Webster's bible 1833, Youngs 'literal', the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "When the enemy shall come in like a nahar (flood, river), the Ruach [Hakodesh] of Hashem shall lift up a standard against him."
Among foreign language translation that read like the KJB are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960 and the Reina Valera Gómez bible 2010 - "porque vendrá el enemigo como río, mas el Espíritu de Jehová levantará bandera contra él.", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "vindo o inimigo como uma corrente de águas, o Espírito do SENHOR arvorará contra ele a sua bandeira.", the Italian Diodati of 1649 - "perciocchè il nemico verrà a guisa di fiume; ma lo Spirito del Signore leverà lo stendardo contro a lui.", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "quand l'adversaire viendra comme un fleuve, l'Esprit de l'Éternel lèvera l'étendard contre lui.", the 1991 Italian Diodati - "quando l'avversario verrà come una fiumana, lo Spirito dell'Eterno alzerà contro di lui una bandiera." and the Modern Greek bible - "οταν ο εχθρος επελθη ως ποταμος, το πνευμα του Κυριου θελει υψωσει σημαιαv."= "When the enemy comes in as a flood, the Spirit of the Lord will raise up a sign (standard)"
John Gill comments on Isaiah 59:19 saying: "when the enemy shall come in like a flood; when Satan, the common "enemy" of mankind, the avowed and implacable enemy of Christ and his people, "shall come" into the world, and into the church, as he will in the latter day; and has already entered "like" an impetuous flood, threatening to carry all before him, introducing a flood of immorality and profaneness, as in the days of Noah and Lot, to which the times of the Son of Man's coming are likened, (Luke 17:26-30) (2 Timothy 3:1-5) or else a flood of error and heresy of all sorts; see (Revelation 12:15) and likewise a flood of persecution, as will be at the slaying of the witnesses, that hour of temptation that will come upon all the earth, to try the inhabitants of it, (Revelation 3:10) (11:7,8) . Aben Ezra compares this passage with, and illustrates it by, that time of trouble which will be, such as never was since there was a nation, (Daniel 12:1) when this will be the case, which seems to be near at hand: the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him; Christ and his Gospel, or Christ the standard lifted up in the ministry of the Gospel, (Isaiah 11:10,12) a set of ministers shall be raised up, having the everlasting Gospel, which they shall publish to all nations, and which shall have an universal spread; and by means of which the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."
John Calvin comments: "For the enemy shall come as a river. As to the reason now assigned, commentators differ. But the true meaning, in my opinion, is, that the attack of the enemy shall be so furious that, like a rapid and impetuous torrent, it shall appear to sweep away and destroy everything, but that the Lord shall cause it instantly to subside and disappear. It is therefore intended to heighten the description of the divine power, by which the vast strength and dreadful fury of the enemies are repelled, receive a different direction, and fall to pieces."
However the RSV, NASB, ESV and Holman Standard read: "FOR HE WILL COME LIKE A RUSHING STREAM, WHICH THE WIND OF THE LORD DRIVES."
This is also how the modern Catholic versions like the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the St. Joseph NAB 1970 read: "For he will come like a pent up stream impelled by the breath of Yahweh." (New Jerusalem)
The NIV says: "FOR HE WILL COME LIKE A PENT UP FLOOD THAT THE BREATH OF THE LORD DRIVES ALONG."
If you look up this word "enemy" it is number 6862 tzar or tzahr meaning enemy or adversary, trouble. The NASB concordance shows they have translated this word as "enemy" or adversary or foe some 68 times and as "rushing" only once. The NIV concordance shows as enemy or foe 61 times, yet as "pent-up" only one time.
The NASB and Holman capitalize the word "He", as though it is refering to God. So is it God or the enemy who comes rushing in like a flood? A totally different meaning is found in this verse depending on which "bible" you are using. Which one are you confident in telling other people is the inspired word of God?
Isaiah 63:11 "The HE remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people...."
In 63:11 we read: "Then HE remembered the days of old, Moses and his people..." HE refers to God and is the reading of the KJB, Geneva bible, Coverdale, Wycliffe, RV, ASV, NKJV, ESV, Young's, Darby, Geneva, RSV, Spanish Reina Valera, KJV 21, TMB, Webster's, Douay, and the Holman Standard versions.
The commentaries are divided as to whether the passage is speaking about God remembering or whether the literal "he" refers to the people of Israel. However the context in the preceding verses and in this verse itself refer again and again to the people of Israel as "they" and "them", not "he".
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment: "remembered - Notwithstanding their perversity, He forgot not His covenant of old; therefore He did not wholly forsake them - God is represented, in human language, mentally speaking of Himself and His former acts of love to Israel, as His ground for pitying them notwithstanding their rebellion."
However the NASB, ESV and NIV say "HIS PEOPLE remembered..." It is of interest to note that the NRSV says THEY remembered, but then in a footnote tells us the Hebrew literally says HE, just as the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard have it.
The online NASB is really messed up. It reads: "Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses. " Then in the footnote "cross reference" it notes Psalm 106:44, 45. However when we look at Psalm 106 what we read is not of "His people" remembering, but rather God remembering, as the KJB correctly has it. "Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry: And he remembered for them his covenant..."
Isaiah 66:5 But He shall appear to your joy
There are literally hundreds of examples of how the New KJV has changed the meaning of the Scriptures as found in the King James Bible. One more of these hundreds of examples is found in Isaiah 66:5.
There we read: "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: BUT HE SHALL APPEAR TO YOUR JOY, and they shall be ashamed."
This is the reading of not only the KJB but also the Geneva Bible of 1587 - "Your brethren that hated you, and cast you out for my Names sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appeare to your ioy, and they shall be ashamed., Rotherham's Emphasized Bible of 1902- "Therefore shall he appear to your rejoicing", Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Lesser Old Testament 1853 - "Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for the sake of my name, said, "Let the Lord be glorified;" but he will appear to your joy, and they shall be made ashamed.", Green's Modern KJV - "But He will appear to your joy, and they will be ashamed.", the Jewish translation of the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936, the Third Millenium Bible1998 - "He shall appear to your joy'; and they shall be ashamed."
Among foreign language translations that have the same sense as found in the King James Bible are the French Martin 1744 - "que l'Eternel montre sa gloire. Il sera donc vu à votre joie, mais eux seront honteux.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 - "Mas él se manifestará a vuestra alegría, y ellos serán confundidos." = "But He shall appear to your joy, and they shall be confounded.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909, 1960 and the Reina Valera Gómez Bible of 2010 - "Jehová sea glorificado. Mas Él se mostrará para alegría vuestra, y ellos serán confundidos.", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "Certo egli apparirà in vostra letizia, ed essi saran confusi." = "he will appear in your joy, and they shall be confounded.", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "lasset ihn erscheinen zu eurer Freude!" = "Let him appear to your joy! ", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Doch Hij zal verschijnen tot ulieder vreugde" = "But He will appear to your joy", and the Modern Greek Bible - "Ας δοξασθη ο Κυριος· πλην αυτος θελει φανη εις χαραν σας, εκεινοι δε θελουσι καταισχυνθη." = "But He will appear to your joy".
However a host of modern versions, including the NKJV, give a very different message. The NKJV says along with the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV: "Who cast you out for my name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, THAT WE MAY SEE YOUR JOY'. But they shall be ashamed."
What happened to the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is the true meaning "But He shall appear to your joy" or "That We may see your joy"?
The verb used here is # 7200 variously translated as "to see, to appear, to provide". It is a very common verb, but this particular instance is what is called a Niphal participle. It is only found three times in this particular form and the other two both refer to God or the Lord. Genesis 12:7 "the LORD who appeared unto him"; Genesis 35:1 "God that appeared unto thee", and here in Isaiah 66:5 "but he shall appear to your joy."
Jamison, Faucett and Brown -. They cast you out for my name's sake--excommunicate, as if too polluted to worship with them. So in Christ's first sojourn on earth . So it shall be again in the last times, when the believing shall be few (Luke 18:8). Let the Lord be glorified--the mocking challenge of the persecutors, as if their violence towards you was from zeal for God. "He shall appear to your joy," --giving you "joy" instead of your "rebuke"
Geneva Bible study notes:"but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed. He encourages the faithful by promising to destroy their enemies, who pretended to be as brethren, but were hypocrites, and hated them that feared God."
John Calvin translates it as "But He will be seen to your joy" and then comments: "As if he had said, "God, by his coming, will cause believers to know that they have not hoped in vain; for he will appear for the advantage of believers, and for the destruction of those who maintain that he will appear as the defender of wickedness, of which he will be the severe avenger. The former shall enjoy gladness and consolation, while the latter shall be ashamed and shall blush, for they shall quickly feel that the judgment of God, which they now laugh at, is at hand."
I personally believe this verse has a great deal of application to the Bible version issue so vehemently being fought today. There are two camps in this battle. We who believe God has in fact kept His promises to preserve His pure, inspired words and He has done this in the King James Bible for the last 400 years; we "tremble at His word". And then there are those on the other side who profess to believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, but when their beliefs are closely examined, we find out that "only the originals were inspired", "No Bible is 100% correct, All translations are faulty, The correct reading should be..., Here there is a mistake", etc. and they cast out the Bible believer as being some kind of a nut or a "cultist", who has "made an idol out of the Bible" and they think they are honoring God when they do this. In the Bible Agnostic's way of thinking (They don't KNOW where to find God's complete and infallible Book) they who do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete and perfect words of God are "Orthodox", while we who believe God HAS given us His perfect Bible in the English language of the King James Holy Bible are "heretics" and kooks.
The battle lines are clearly drawn and you cannot sit on the fence. By the grace of God, may we be among those who tremble at His word. We have God's promise that He will appear to our joy, and they shall be ashamed.
Jeremiah 3:7 and 19 God "said" or God "thought"? Different Words = Different Meaning and Different Theology.
Jeremiah 3:7 KJB - "And I SAID after she had done all these things, TURN UNTO ME. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister saw it."
ESV, NIV - "I THOUGHT after she had done all this SHE WOULD RETURN TO ME but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it."
Jeremiah 3:19 KJB - "But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? AND I SAID, THOU SHALT CALL ME, MY FATHER; AND SHALL NOT turn away from me."
ESV, NIV - "I said How I would set you among my sons, and give you a pleasant land, a heritage most beautiful of all nations. And I THOUGHT YOU WOULD CALL ME, MY FATHER, AND WOULD NOT turn away from following me."
Many new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and the modern Catholic Versions translate these two verses in such a way as to end up portraying a god who THOUGHT something would turn out a certain way, but he was wrong, and things didn't turn out the way he'd hoped they would.
The Open Theists love to pounce on these two verses as they stand in many modern versions, and say "See, God doesn't know how things will turn out in the future."
Some modern versions like the NASB, NET and Holman even go so far as to have a verse in Psalms 78:36 that tells us that the children of Israel DECEIVED God; not just tried to deceive Him, or thought they had deceived Him, but actually DECEIVED God! For more on this see - "Can God be deceived?" -
Jeremiah 3:7 and 19 "I SAID" versus "I THOUGHT"
Agreeing with the King James Bible in both Jeremiah 3:7 and in 3:19 and showing God as saying something, rather than just thinking that it might turn out a certain way and being wrong about it, are the so called Greek Septuagint "AND I SAID, after she had committed all these acts of fornication, TURN AGAIN TO ME. Yet she returned not...AND I SAID, ye shall call me my Father", Wycliffe 1395 - "And Y seide, whanne sche hadde do alle these thingis, Turne thou ayen to me; and sche turnede not ayen…And Y seide, Thou schalt clepe me fadir, and thou schalt not ceesse to entre aftir me.", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 "And I sayde, when shee had done all this, Turne thou vnto me: but she returned not…", the Douay-Rheims 1610, the KJB 1611, Webster's translation 1833, Noyes Translation 1869, the Revised Version 1881, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the ASV 1901, JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society) “And I said: ‘Thou shalt call Me, My father; and shalt not turn away from following Me.”, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syria Peshitta - "And I SAID, after she had done all these things, RETURN TO ME,but she did not return...AND I SAID, YOU SHALL CALL ME, MY FATHER, and shall not turn away from me.", Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the New English Version 1970, the NKJV 1982 - “And I said, after she had done all these things, "Return to Me.' But she did not return…"And I said: "You shall call Me, "My Father," And not turn away from Me.”, Amplified Bible 1987, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Jubilee Bible 2000 and the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "And I SAID after she had done all these things, TURN THOU UNTO ME. But she returned not…And I SAID, Thou shalt call Me, Avi; and shalt not turn back from following Me."
Different Words = Different Meaning = Different Theology.
The first major English Version to change the traditional reading into another was the liberal RSV 1952, then followed by the NRSV 1989 and now such versions as the ESV 2001-2011, NIV 1978-2011, Dan Wallace's NET Version, Holman Standard 2003, Common English bible 2011 and Names of God Bible 2011 -
“And I THOUGHT, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me’; BUT SHE DID NOT RETURN…And I THOUGHT YOU WOULD CALL ME, My Father, and would not turn from following me.” (RSV)
The Voice 2012 - “I THOUGHT, “After she’s done all this, she’ll return home to Me,” BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED. She didn’t come back….I HOPED FOR the day when you would call Me ‘My Father,’ and no longer pull away from Me and My ways.”
Jehovah Witness New World Translation 2013 - “I also THOUGHT that you would call me, ‘My Father!’ and that you would not turn away from following me. “
The NASBs are interesting in that in Jeremiah 3:7 they read: "I THOUGHT, After she has done all these things, she will return to Me, but she did not." But in Jeremiah 3:19 it has: "...And I SAID, You SHALL CALL ME, My Father, And not turn away from following me."
The Catholic Connection
The older Douay Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both read like the KJB saying: “I SAID: RETURN TO ME, and she did not return. And her treacherous sister Juda saw…And I SAID: THOU SHALT CALL ME FATHER AND SHALT NOT CEASE TO WALK AFTER ME."
However the 1968 Jerusalem bible, Saint Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 all read like many modern versions and say: "I THOUGHT, After doing all this she will come back to me. BUT she didn't come back...I THOUGHT, you will call me Father, and will never cease to follow me."
But, once again in 2009 the Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) has gone back to the traditional Hebrew text and says: "I said: ‘Return to me.’ But she did not return….And I said: You will call me Father, and you will not cease to walk after me."
"My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change." Proverbs 24:21
Get yourself the King James Bible and stick with it. It is God's infallible Book.
Jeremiah 4:30 - “though thou rentest thy face with painting”
Jeremiah 4:30 - “And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though THOU RENTEST THY FACE WITH PAINTING, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life.”
I want to examine this phrase “retest thy face with painting” and try to explain what it means. This is a literal translation of what the Hebrew text actually says. Many modern versions have modified the text in an attempt to interpret it. But it may not mean what these non-literal, paraphrases think it means. Some Bible commentators think it means literally what both the Hebrew text and the KJB (and many other too) say it does.
Other bibles differ only in a spelling change of the word “rentest” to “rendest”. Both forms are found in the King James Bible itself, and both are valid ways to spell the word “to rend” - which means to cut, tear in two.
The Hebrew word is # 7167 kah-rag, and it is found some 62 times ini the Hebrew O.T. It is translated as either “rend” or “rent” some 57 times, as as “to tear” three times and “to cut” or “to cut out” twice.
It is most commonly used in the expression “Then THEY RENT their clothes” (Genesis 44:13) and “A time TO REND and a time to sow.” (Ecclesiastes 3:7)
It is also uses in such expressions as when Samuel speaks to king Saul, saying: “The Lord HATH RENT the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou.” (1 Samuel 15:28).
We also see it used in Isaiah 64:1 where we read: “Oh that thou wouldest REND the heavens, that thou wouldest come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence.”
The ASV 1901 is one of the paraphrases. It says: “though thou ENLARGEST thine eyes with paint” and then Footnotes “Hebrew - RENDEST”. It admits that this is the literal Hebrew text, and it is.
Well known Jewish scholar and commentator Rashi notes - “Hebrew. תקרעי. An expression of TEARING, for the paint appears as widening the opening of the eye. “ This is a possibility, but there are also other ways to understand what this expression -"thou retentest thy face with painting" - means, as we shall soon see.
Many modern versions like the ESV, NKJV, NASB read something like “though you ENLARGE your eyes with paint”
Some modern versions are full blown paraphrases, like the ISV 2014 which says “AND HIGHLIGHTING YOUR EYES WITH MAKEUP” or Dan Wallace’s NET version, with: “and PUTTING ON EYE SHADOW!”
The Geneva bible, as well as the earlier English bibles like Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew’s bible, and the Bishop’s bible, were all an interpretation - “though thou PAINTEST thy face with colors” - and not a translation.
The King James Bible translators were well aware of this paraphrased meaning, but they deliberately chose to give us a more literal translation from the Hebrew text itself.
The word for “painting” is the same one used to describe the wicked queen Jezebel in 2 Kings 9:30 where we read: “And when Jehu was come to Jereel, Jezebel heard of it; and she PAINTED HER FACE, and tired her head (attired), and looked out at a window.”
“though THOU RENTEST THY FACE WITH PAINTING”
Bibles that agree with the King James Bible and have “though thou RENTEST (or RENDEST) thy face with painting” are The Bill Bible 1671- “though thou RETENTEST THY FACE WITH PAINTING”, the Webster Bible 1833, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Darby Translation 1890, Young’s literal Translation 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Third Millennium Bibe 1998, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “though thou rentest thy face with painting”, and The Bond Slave Version 2012.
And this online Hebrew Interlinear translation -
“though thou rentest with painting thy face”
A couple of modern versions are a bit awkward with “and YOU TEAR YOUR FACE WITH PAINT”. These are the Biblos Bible 2013 and The Scripture 4 All Translation 2010.
Some Bible Commentators Interesting Remarks on Jeremiah 4:20
Matthew Henry - “She rents her face with painting, puts the best colours she can upon her present distresses and does her utmost to palliate and extenuate her losses, sets a good face upon them. But this painting, though it beautifies the face for the present, REALLY RENDS IT; the frequent use of paint SPOILS THE SKIN, CRACKS IT, AND MAKES IT ROUGH; so the case which by false colours has been made to appear better than really it was, when truth comes to light, will look so much the worse.”
Matthew Pool’s English Annotations - “Though thou rentest thy face with painting: it is observed that they that paint much MAKE THEIR SKINS WITHERED"
Adam Clarke’s Commentary - “Though thou rentest thy face with painting - This probably refers to the custom of introducing stibium a preparation of antimony, between the eye and the lids, in order to produce a fine lustre, which occasions a distension of the eye-lid in the time of the operation. In order to heighten the effect from this some may have introduced a more than ordinary quantity, so as nearly TO REND the eye-lid itself.”
Ellicott’s Bible Commentary - “The “rending the face” is, literally, enlarging the eyes with kohl, or antimony, still used for this purpose in the east, the black powder being laid on horizontally with a small stylus, or pencil, drawn between the eyelashes.”
Whedon’s Commentary on the Bible - “This pigment was a black powder made of sulphur-antimony, and was applied by drawing a style smeared with it horizontally between the closed eyelids. This Jeremiah calls rending the face (eyes) with paint.”
Joakim A. writes: A guy online in a forum on religion published a lot of alleged mistranslations in the KJV Bible. What is your opinion on one of these that I show you?
(Jeremiah 10:3,4) For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
The mistranslation here is axe. The Hebrew word ma atsad does not translate to axe. It literally translates to a tool used for carving. It's clear that the KJV authors didn't have a good understanding of ma atsad because they mistranslate it again in Isaiah 44:12 except that time it's translated as tongs.
Jeremiah 10:5 KJB - “THEY ARE UPRIGHT AS THE PALM TREE”
ESV - “THEIR IDOLS ARE LIKE SCARECROWS IN A CUCUMBER FIELD.”
NIV 1978, 1984 editions - "Like A SCARECROW IN A MELON PATCH, their idols cannot speak"
NIV 2011 edition - "Like A SCARECROW IN A CUCUMBER PATCH, their idols cannot speak"
Jeremiah 10 is speaking about the idols of the heathen and tells the children of Israel not to be like them.
“2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5 THEY ARE UPRIGHT AS THE PALM TREE, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.”
The Hebrew word here for “PALM TREE” is # 8560 tohmer, and is only used twice in the O.T. The other instance is in Judges 4:5 where we are told about the prophetess Deborah “And she dwelt under the PALM TREE”. Even versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB etc. translate the word as “palm tree” in that place.
The Catholic Connection
However in this place the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read - “They are like SCARECROWS IN A CUCUMBER PATCH.” - or “Scarecrows in a melon patch.”
Likewise, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation reads: "They are like A SCARECROW OF A CUCUMBER FIELD, and cannot speak."
However the previous Douay-Rheims 1610 and Douay 1950 both read “palm tree” and now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has gone back to - “They have been fabricated in the likeness of A PALM TREE”
Agreeing with the King James Bible’s “they are upright as THE PALM TREE” are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549 - “It standeth as styfe as the PALMTREE”, the Bishop’s Bible 1568 - “It standeth as stiffe as the Palme tree”, the Geneva Bible 1599 - “The idols stand up as the PALM TREE”, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “They are set upright as PALM TREES”, Julia Smith Translation 1855, Noyes Translation 1869, the Revised Version 1881 - “They are like a PALM TREE,” Darby 1890, Young’s 1898 - “As A PALM they are stiff”, the ASV 1901 - “They are like a PALM-TREE”, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Context Group Version 2007, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “They [the idols] are upright as the tomer (palm tree]”, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Green's Literal 2005, Bond Slave Version 2008, the Concordant Literal Version, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - “They are upright, like A PALM TREE”, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, the New European Version 2010, the Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "They are UPRIGHT AS THE PALM TREE", The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the World English Bible 2012, .
Foreign language Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and also read “PALM TREE” are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909-1995 and Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - “Erguidos están como PALMERA”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - “Säo como a PALMEIRA”, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia - “Sila'y gaya ng puno ng PALMA”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “Son tratti diritti, a guisa di PALMA”, the Albanian bible - “Idhujt qëndrojnë drejt si një palmë”, the Lithuanian Bible - “Jie yra tiesūs kaip palmė”
AND The Modern Greek Bible - Ειναι ορθια ως φοινιξ, αλλα δεν λαλουσιν· = "They are straight as THE PALM TREE (φοινιξ) , but they do not speak."
And the Hebrew Rashi Complete Tanach 2004 - “Like a PALM TREE” and the Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament - “כתמר as the palm tree, מקשׁה upright המה They”
Where does this weird change from “a palm tree” to “a scarecrow in a cucumber patch” come from? Not the so called Greek LXX (It is really messed up in this section - it omits verses 6, 7, 8 and 10, and has two verse fives, neither one of which reads like the Hebrew or these modern Vatican Versions) nor the Syriac Peshitta, which reads just like the KJB has it - “They are set up straight as PALM TREES, but they do not speak.”
The Pulpit Commentary tells us - “They are upright as the palm tree; rather, they are like a pillar (i.e. a scarecrow) in a field of cucumbers. This is the interpretation given to our passage in Ver. 70 of the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah (written in the Maccabean period, evidently with reference to our prophecy), and is much more striking than the rival translation, "like a palm tree”.
So, in other words, it has nothing to do with the Hebrew text, which reads “palm tree” but with some APOCRYPHAL book that is not even in the Bible, and it is “an interpretaion” they like it because “it is much more striking” than that dull old “palm tree”. Folks, this is how modern scholarship works.
John Gill comments: “They are upright as the palm tree, Being nailed to a post, or fastened to a pillar, or set upon a pedestal, and so stand erect without bending any way; and are like a palm tree, which is noted for its uprightness.”
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: -“5. upright—or, "They are of turned work, resembling a palm tree" [Maurer]. The point of comparison between the idol and the palm is in the pillar-like uprightness of the latter”
John Calvin translated it into Latin as “palm tree” - “Sicuti palma aequalis” and then comments: “They are indeed erect as the palm-trees; and thus there appears in them something remarkable: but they speak not.”
Adam Clarke Commentary - “They are upright as the palm tree - As straight and as stiff as the trees out of which they are hewn.”
Matthew Poole’s Commentary - “They are upright as the palm tree; the nature of which is to grow upright and tall, without any branchings, till it comes to the top, thereby possibly representing majesty.”
Some Other Weird Versions (so you can get a better sense of the meaning, don't ya know ;-)
The Ancient Roots Translinear bible 2008 says: "HAMMERED TO A DATE-PALM, it speaks nothing"
Interlinear Hebrew Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "LIKE A ROUNDED POST, THEY ARE, and they cannot speak"
The King James Bible is right, as always.
False prophets steal the words of God
Jeremiah 23 is one of the many chapters in the Holy Bible which speaks of the false prophets that continually rose up to deceive God's people. By the simple twisting of just a few words, the NIV and NASB are hiding the very sins they themselves are committing.
Jeremiah 23:26-32 - "the prophets (and Bible versions) that steal my words every one from his neighbor"
God says: "How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour...he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD. Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, THAT STEAL MY WORDS EVERY ONE FROM HIS NEIGHBOR, Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith. Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD."
It is clear from the immediate context that these false prophets were stealing the true words of God from the Lord's people. In Jeremiah 23: 30 the King James Bible says: "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, THAT STEAL MY WORDS EVERY ONE FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR." The word "neighbour" refers to those around them, and it is the same word translated as neighbour in verse 27 and 35. God refers to them as "my people" in verse 27 and 32.
Other bibles that agree with the KJB reading here are the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NKJV 1982, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Therefore beholde, I will come against the prophets, saieth the Lorde, THAT STEALE MY WORD EUERIE ONE FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR.", Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, The Lesser O.T. 1835, Darby 1890, Young 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, 1917 Jewish Publishing Company Bible, 1936 Hebrew-English versions, Douay-Rheims 1610, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Bible in Basic English 1961, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2003, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green's interlinear 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, Jubilee Bible 2010, New Heart English Bible 2010, Lexham English Bible 2012, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Biblos Bible 2013, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, and The Modern English Version 2014.
Foreign Language Bibles = KJB
the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "Por tanto, he aquí yo contra los profetas, dice Jehová, que hurtan mis palabras cada uno de su compañero.", the French Martin bible 1744 - "C'est pourquoi voici, j'en veux aux Prophètes, dit l'Eternel, qui dérobent mes paroles, chacun de son prochain." = "Therefore behold, I am against the prophets, says the Lord, that steal my words, each of his neighbor."
and the Modern Greek Bible - "Δια τουτο, ιδου, εγω ειμαι εναντιον των προφητων, λεγει Κυριος, οιτινες κλεπτουσι τους λογους μου, εκαστος απο του πλησιον αυτου." = "who steal My words, each one from his neighbor."
Matthew Henry comments: "(Some) understand it of the word of God as it was received and entertained by some of the people; they stole it out of their hearts, as the wicked one in the parable is said to steal the good seed of the word, Matthew 13:19. By their insinuations they diminished the authority, and so weakened the efficacy, of the word of God upon the minds of those that seemed to be under convictions by it. (2.) They stand indicted for counterfeiting the broad seal. Therefore God is against them (Jeremiah 23:31), because they use their tongues at their pleasure in their discourses to the people; they say what they themselves think fit, and then father it upon God, pretend they had it from him, and say, He saith it."
John Trapp, English Puritan - “That steal my word every one from his neighbour. That filch it, either by hiding it from others, as the Popish doctors do from the common people, or by wresting it to the defence of their false doctrines… by causing the people to forget and lose the good that they had once learned of the true prophets.”
Matthew Poole’s Annotations - “That steal my words every now from his neighbour - the generality of the people, from whom they are said to steal the Lord’s word because they withheld it from them injuriously; or by their arts and flatteries brought men out of love with or fear of the words of the Lord, which had by the true prophets been delivered to them.”
Bogus Bible Versions try to hide their sins
However, when we look at the NASB, RSV, ESV, and Holman we read "I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, WHO STEAL MY WORDS FROM EACH OTHER." While the NIV says: "I am against the prophets who STEAL FROM ONE ANOTHER WORDS SUPPOSEDLY FROM ME."
Dan Wallace and company's NET version says: "So I, the Lord, affirm that I am opposed to those prophets who STEAL MESSAGES FROM ONE ANOTHER THAT THEY CLAIM ARE FROM ME."
The Message shows the similarity to these modern perversions, saying: “I’ve had it with the ‘prophets’ who get all their sermons secondhand from each other. Yes, I’ve had it with them. They make up stuff and then pretend it’s a real sermon."
(Actually, this is a very good description of today's many Bogus Bible Babble Buffet versions on the market that NOBODY seriously believes are the infallible words of God.)
The Catholic Connection
The older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the King James Bible "the prophets who steal my words every one from his neighbor" but the newer Catholic versions like the Jerusalem bible 1968 and the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible read like these modern versions and say: "I am against the prophets, says the LORD, who steal my words FROM EACH OTHER."
These bible versions are merely saying that the false prophets are just stealing the words from each other, and not from the people.
Others like the NET version and the Message are telling us that the false prophets are just stealing their "messages" from each other. Notice the Dan Wallace's NET version doesn't even mention that these are in fact "God's words".
The word "supposedly" as found in the NIV, is not in any Hebrew text. These versions do not even make sense. The prophets did not have God's words to begin with, so how could they possibly steal GOD'S words from each other? You cannot take from someone something he does not possess.
Maybe, that is why the NIV added the word "supposedly". Yet, in the NIV the false prophets are just stealing false words from one another, and doing no real harm to God's people nor perverting the true words of God by their lies.
These bogus bible versions have done the very thing God is condemning. They have stolen the words of God from His people by giving us words NOT from God and omitting many thousands of words that ARE from God. We would do well to ask ourselves the very question God puts to His people. "What is the chaff to the wheat?"
Jeremiah 27:1 JEHOIAKIM or ZEDEKIAH? Has the Hebrew text been corrupted?
Jeremiah 27:1 - Is there a scribal error in the King James Bible and in the Hebrew Masoretic text?
Jeremiah 27:1 KJB - "In the beginning of the reign of JEHOIAKIM the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying...."
ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "In the beginning of the reign of ZEDEKIAH the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD."
The King James Bible is right, as always. And here is why -
Jeremiah 30:21 and 31:3
The context speaks of God restoring His people back to fellowship with Himself. He says "For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the LORD." verse 17. Then in verse 21 God continues with "And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: FOR WHO IS THIS THAT ENGAGED HIS HEART TO APPROACH UNTO ME? saith the LORD?"
This phrase can be looked at in two ways in the KJB. "Who is this that engaged his heart" can be looked at as it is God Himself who engaged this man's heart. The context suggests this meaning, because God is He who will cause him to approach. Compare Psalms 65:4 "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee".
However a second view is allowable, in that it is the man himself who has engaged his heart to approach unto the Lord, because God has caused him to draw near. The NKJV has so translated this phrase as to limit the possible meaning only to this second view. The NKJV has "For who is this who PLEDGED his heart to approach Me?"
The NIV goes further off on it's own tangent with "I will bring him near and he will come close to me, for who is he who WILL DEVOTE HIMSELF to be close to me?" Here, the NIV has clearly limited the possible interpretations. The word is "heart" however, just as in verse 24 "performed the intents of his heart" and not "himself" as the NIV has it.
However, when we get to the NASB, we find a totally different and absurd rendering. "And their ruler shall come forth from their midst; And I will bring him near, and he shall approach Me; FOR WHO WOULD DARE TO RISK HIS LIFE to approach Me? declares the LORD." Are you beginning to get a glimpse of just how confusing the modern bibles are? That is why this section is called Bible Babel.
Just 6 verses later, we read in the KJB Jer. 31:3 "The LORD hath appeared of old UNTO ME, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee."
Again it is God who does the drawing, so this would also support the idea that it is God who engaged his heart to approach unto Him in the previous verse. The use of "thee" as opposed to the general "you" of the NKNV, is much better and more meaningful. Thee is the singular. God loves me, He loves you, as an individual, not just as a group or mass of people. It is much more comforting to know this, and the KJB's use of the singular "thee" brings this out here and in hundreds of other verses much better than the generic "you" - But that is another subject.
The Lord hath appeared of old UNTO ME, is found in the NKJV, RV, ASV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Geneva, Darby, Spanish, Youngs, Green interlinear. The NASB says: "The LORD appeared TO HIM from afar, saying..."
"Of old" would suggest a long time ago, and this is true for us who hear these words today. It is an ancient revelation, that has lasted through time and continues today, that God loves each one of His people, and has drawn us to Himself. The NASB suggests that God appeared from "afar", like He is distant. But the main thing here is that the NASB says "to him" rather than "to me".
The RSV, NRSV and the ESV read the same as the NASB, but they have a footnote that says Greek - to him; Hebrew - to me. The NASB has followed the LXX and rejected the clear Hebrew text. I know of at leaast 40 examples of where the NASB does this, and usually they do not tell you in their footnotes.
The NIV has something even different with its "The LORD appeared to US in the past, saying..."Here the NIV differs from the "afar" of the NASB, and agrees more with the KJB, but the NIV has "TO US" instead of the Hebrew "to me" or the Greek "to him", and just makes up their own text as they go along. This all may seem minor to some, but when we begin to pile example upon example of these type of blunders, it is apparent that the NASB, NIV and NKJV are false bibles. They are not God's true words, nor His perfect revelation of Himself to us.
The word of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul. The new version promoters do not believe any bible or translation is perfect. They have no bible either in English or Greek or Hebrew. When we say, Yes, there is a perfect Bible, they say No, there isn't. We can present evidence and facts only to a certain point, but we need faith to believe God has kept His promises and His words. He has given many of us that faith to believe His perfect words are still with us today, and they are found in the King James Bible.
Jeremiah 46:20 "destruction" or "a gadfly"?
James Snapp says: “The second kind of flaw in the KJV consists of instances where the KJV’s rendering does not convey the meaning of the original text. In Jeremiah 46:20, what the KJV calls “destruction” is better rendered “a gadfly” or “a horsefly.” (The NKJV retains the KJV’s rendering.)
KJB - “Egypt is like a very fair heifer, but DESTRUCTION cometh; it cometh out of the north.”
Agreeing with the KJB's "destruction" are the Great Bible 1540, Bishops’ Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587 - “ DESTRUCTION commeth”, Webster’s translation 1833, Noyes Translation 1869 “but DESTRUCTION cometh”, Revised Version 1881 - “DESTRUCTION out of the north is come, it is come.”, ASV 1901 - “Egypt is a very fair heifer; but DESTRUCTION out of the north is come, it is come.”, Brenton’s Greek Septuagint - “Egypt is a fair heifer, but DESTRUCTION from the north is come upon her.”, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Version “DESTRUCTION cometh from the north”, the World English Bible, the NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Hebrew Names Version, The Updated Bible Version 2004, English Jubilee Bible 2010, the Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, A Conservative Version 2005 - “Egypt is a very fair heifer, [but] DESTRUCTION out of the north has come, it has come.”, New Heart English Bible 2010 - “but DESTRUCTION out of the north has come, it has come.”, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 -“"Egypt is a very pretty heifer, But DESTRUCTION comes, it comes from the north.” and the Complete Hebrew Tanach - “Egypt was a fair heifer; DESTRUCTION from the north is coming, yea it is coming!”
The Modern Greek Bible - “Η Αιγυπτος ειναι ως δαμαλις ωραιοτατη, πλην ο ολεθρος ερχεται· ερχεται απο βορρα.” = “Egypt is a heifer A lovely, except the DESTRUCTION ( ο ολεθρος ) cometh; coming from the north.”
Darby 1890 - Egypt is a very fair heifer; the GAD-FLY cometh, it cometh from the north. JPS 1917 - “Egypt is a very fair heifer; but the GADFLY out of the north is come, it is come.
Lesser Bible 1853 - “O fairest heifer, Egypt! THE BUTCHER from the north cometh, he cometh.”
Dan Wallace’s NET Version Egypt is like a beautiful young cow; But northern armies will attack her like SWARMS OF STINGING FLIES. (41) Then he footnotes: “The exact meaning of the word translated “stinging fly” is uncertain due to the fact that it occurs nowhere else in Hebrew literature.” So, in other words, he is just guessing; and so is James Snapp.
Common English Bible 2011 - “ but a HORSEFLY [a] from the north is coming to bite her.” Footnote - Hebrew is uncertain.
ESV - ““A beautiful heifer is Egypt, but A BITING FLY from the north has come upon her.”
NASB - ““Egypt is a pretty heifer, But a [a] HORSEFLY is coming from the north—it is coming!” Footnote - or possibly a mosquito.
RSV, NRSV - “A beautiful heifer is Egypt, but A GADFLY from the north has come upon her.”
Young’s 1898 - “A heifer very fair is Egypt, RENDING from the north doth come into her.”
Foreign language Bibles that agree with the KJB “destruction” are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Spanish Reina Valeras from 1909 to 2011 - “»Una becerra hermosa es Egipto, mas viene destrucción: ¡Del norte viene!, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond and the French Ostervald 1996 - “L’Egypte est une très belle génisse; mais la destruction vient, elle vient de l'Aquilon.” - the Italian Nuova Diodati 1991 - “L'Egitto è come una giovenca bellissima, ma viene la distruzione, viene dal nord.”
Bible Commentators -
As usual, Bible commentators are all over the board with multiple interpretations and opinions. What one affirms another denies. But here a few to give you some idea.
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “destruction—that is, a destroyer: Nebuchadnezzar. Vulgate translates, "a goader," answering to the metaphor, "one who will goad the heifer" and tame her.”
Benson Commentary - “But destruction cometh, — The Hebrew is very emphatical, קרצ מצפוז בא בא, destruction from the north, it cometh, it cometh. “
John Gill Commentary - “But destruction cometh, it cometh from the north; that is, the destruction of Egypt, which should come from Chaldea, which lay north of Egypt; and the coming of it is repeated, to denote the quickness and certainty of it: the word used signifies a cutting off, or a cutting up; in allusion to the cutting off the necks of heifers, which used to be done when slain, Deuteronomy 21:4; or to the cutting of them up, as is done by butchers: and the abstract being put for the concrete, it may be rendered, the "cutter up" (h); or cutter off; men, like butchers, shall come out of Babylon, and slay and cut up, this heifer. So the Targum,"people, that are slayers shall come out of the north against her, to spoil her ;'' that is, the Chaldean army, agreeably to the Syriac version, "an army shall come out of the north against her.''
John Calvin - “The Egyptians trust in their prosperity, even as though they were like a heifer frisking in the fields; but CALAMITY” he says,.” is coming, is coming from the north.” He repeats the same word, in order to remove every doubt: coming, then, is DISTRESS, it is coming from the north, that is, from the Babylonians, who were situated northward to Judea.”
Ezekiel 7:7 The MORNING is come unto thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is near, and not THE SOUNDING AGAIN of the mountains."
The "morning" is the dawning of the day of trouble and judgment. The phrase "and not the sounding again of the mountains" refers to an echo sounding off the mountain side. An echo would be an empty or hollow sound. This judgement would not be a mere echo, but the real thing.
Adam Clarke comments: " The morning is come unto thee. Every note of time is used in order to show the certainty of the thing. The morning that the executioner has watched for is come; the time of that morning, in which it should take place, and the day to which that time, precise hour of that morning, belongs in which judgment shall be executed. All is come.
And not the sounding again of the mountains. - not the reverberation of sound, or reflected sound, or re-echoing from the mountains."
John Gill remarks: "The morning is come upon thee, O thou that dwellest in the land, That is, early ruin was come, or was coming, upon the inhabitants of Judea, which before is said to be awake, and to watch for them; and now the day being broke, the morning come, it hastened to them....and not the sounding again of the mountains; not like the echo of a man's voice between the mountains, which is only imaginary, but this is real; so Kimchi and Ben Melech interpret it."
John Calvin also translates the verse this way in Latin - "Venit mane super to, habitator terrae: venit tempus, propinquus est dies tumultus, et non clamor montium." Then he comments: "But the sentence flows best -- the morning cometh. By "the morning" he implies what he had said before, namely, the hastening of God's vengeance. As, therefore, he said the end was watching, since God was hastening to take vengeance, so also he says, the morning is come to them, and then rouses them from that drowsiness in which they had grown torpid...For this reason, then, the Prophet says, that morning is come to the Israelites, because they had promised themselves perpetual night, as if they were never to be called upon to render an account of their conduct. For the morning, he says, will immediately seize upon you; hence morning is coming upon thee, O inhabitant of the land; afterwards, the time is come: te, gneth, properly signifies all appointed or determined time...I say, of noise, and not the echo of the mountains, says he; that is, it shall not be an empty resounding, as when a sound is produced among the mountains a concussion arises, and since the sounds which are uttered there, when taken up by the neighboring mountains, return to their own place, and thus a greater resounding occurs, called echo. The Prophet therefore says, that the clamor of which he speaks should not be an echo, that is, an empty resounding, because all should seriously cry out."
King James Bible - "The MORNING is come". So read the Geneva Bible - "The morning is come vnto thee, yt dwellest in the lande: the time is come, the day of trouble is neere, and not the sounding againe of the mountaines.", the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "The mornyng is come vnto thee that dwellest in the lande, the tyme is at hande, the day of trouble is harde by, and not the foundyng agayne of the mountaynes.", Young's literal - "Come hath the morning unto thee", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - "La mañana viene para ti, oh morador de la tierra; el tiempo viene, cercano está el día; día del alboroto, y no será eco de los montes.", Reina Valera (la mañana), Italian Diotati, 1649 - "Quel mattutino ti è sopraggiunto, o abitator del paese; il tempo è venuto, il giorno della rotta è vicino, che non sarà un’eco di monti.", Webster's 1833, the KJV 21st Century Version and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV - "Your DOOM is come"
Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 - "The CIRCLE hath come"
Bible in Basic English 1961 - "The CROWNING TIME has come on you"
Easy to Read Version 2001 - "Do you HEAR THE WHISTLE?"
Is it "the morning", the "doom", the "circle", the "crowning time" or the "whistle"?
Ezekiel 7:7 -
Ezekiel 7:7 The MORNING is come unto thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is near, and not THE SOUNDING AGAIN of the mountains."
King James Bible - "and not THE SOUNDING AGAIN of the mountains". So read Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Young's - "And not the shouting of mountains.", Webster's 1833, the Italian Diodati - "che non sarà un’eco di monti.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 -" y no será eco de los montes." and the Third Millenium Bible.
NKJV - "not OF REJOICING in the mountains"
NIV - "there IS PANIC, NOT JOY, upon the mountains"
NASB - "the day is near--tumult rather than joyful shouting on the mountains."
Easy to Read Version - " The NOISE OF THE ENEMY IS GETTING LOUDER AND LOUDER on the mountains."
The Message 2002 - "No dragging of feet now, no bargaining for more time."
So, it is "not the sounding again of the mountains" or "not joy" or "the noise of the enemy" or "no dragging of feet, no bargaining"?
Ezekiel 28:13 Satan and his music - deleted in many modern versions
A King James Bible believer writes: “I have never compared Ezekiel 28 to the modern versions before, but I heard the guys on Sound the Battle Cry talking about this passage. I wish I could say I was surprised.”
Ezekiel 28:13 KJB
“Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the WORKMANSHIP OF THY TABRETS AND OF THY PIPES was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.”
He continues: “I know some dispute whether this passage is speaking about Satan or not, but to me it is clear that it is. This passage is where we get the idea that Lucifer was a musician. Now if Satan is a musician, it would be logical to think that he would use music as a means to deceive man. When we compare to the modern versions, we see that "tabrets" and "pipes" are removed.”
Ezekiel 28:13 ESV -
“You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle; and CRAFTED IN GOLD WERE YOUR SETTINGS AND YOUR ENGRAVINGS. On the day that you were created they were prepared.”
Ezekiel 28:13 NIV -
“You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. YOUR SETTINGS AND MOUNTINGS were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.”
“The ESV has “settings and engravings” and then footnotes “The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.” Basically agreeing with the ESV and NIV by omitting any reference to musical instruments are the RSV, NASB, NET, Holman.”
My Comments -
Well, the word for “TABRETS” is # 8596 tohph, and it is found 17 times and is always translated as either “tablets” or “timbrels”. For example - “with songs, WITH TABRET, and with harp?” (Genesis 31:27), “came to meet him with TIMBRELS” (Judges 11:34); “with a psaltery, AND A TABRET” (1 Samuel 10:5); “to meet king Saul, WITH TABRETS” (1 Samuel 18:6); “the harp, and the viol, THE TABRET” (Isaiah 5:12); “the mirth of TABRETS ceaseth” (Isaiah 24:8); “shall be with TABRETS and harps” (Isaiah 30:32).
The word for “pipes” is only found once. It is # 5345, but since it is clearly linked with “tabrets” then it must refer to something of a musical nature.
Satan or Lucifer is most definitely associated with a type of music in the King James Bible. We see a similar thing in Isaiah 14:11-13 -
11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and THE NOISE OF THY VIOLS: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Yet many modern versions have changed the name of Lucifer and put “morning star” in its place, even though the word “star” is nowhere to be found in this verse, and “the morning star” is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ.
See my article on this here -
Lucifer or Morning Star?
Ezekiel 28:13 -
Agreeing with the King James Bible “ the WORKMANSHIP OF THY TABRETS AND OF THY PIPES was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.” are the following Bible versions - the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - “the woorkemanship of thy timbrels, and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.”, The Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Lesser O.T. 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876 - “thy DRUMS AND THY PIPES”, The Revised English Bible 1877 - “thy tabrets and thy pipes”, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, The NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, World English Bible 2000 - “work of tambourines and of pipes”, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, New Heart English Bible 2005, The Context Group Version 2007, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scriptures 2010, The New European Version 2010 - “Gold workmanship of TAMBOURINES AND OF PIPES was yours. In the day that you were created they were prepared.”, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “the workmanship of your TIMBRELS AND PIPES was prepared for you on the day you were created.”, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013 - “the craftsmanship of your TABRETS AND OF YOUR PIPES in you in the day that you were created was prepared.” and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015“the workmanship of YOUR TAMBOURINES AND YOUR PIPES in you. In the day you were created, they were prepared.”
And this online Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament - “the workmanship of THY TABRETS AND OF THY PIPES”
The NASB online edition mentions the KJB reading in its footnotes -
And the gold, the workmanship of your [a]settings and [b]sockets,
Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared.
a Ezekiel 28:13 Or tambourines
b Ezekiel 28:13 Or flutes
The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 reads: “the workmanship of THY HAND DRUMS AND OF THY WIND INSTRUMENTS was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.”
The Judaica Press Tanach 2004 reads: “the work of your DRUMS and your orifices is in you; on the day of your creation they were established.”
Then Rashi comments: “I made in you the work of the perforated drums that let out wind with an instrument sound like a drum.”
The World English Bible 2000 - “Gold work of TAMBOURINES AND OF PIPES WAS IN YOU. In the day that you were created they were prepared.”
J.P. Green’s Literal 2005 - “The workmanship of YOUR TAMBOURINES AND OF YOUR FLUTES in you. In the day you were created, they were prepared.”
Foreign Language Bibles
Foreign Language bibles that read like the KJB and refer to these musical instruments are the Spanish Sagradas Escritureas 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960-1995 - “Los primores de tus TAMBOUILLES Y FLAUTAS fueron preparados para ti en el día de tu creación!”, The French Martin Bible 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and The French Louis Segond 2007 - “Tes TAMBOURINS ET TES FLUTES étaient à ton service, préparés pour le jour où tu as été créé.”, The Italian Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - “TAMBOUR E FLAUTI erano al tuo servizio, preparati il giorno che fosti creato.”, and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “a obra dos teus TAMBORES e dos teus PIFAROS estava em ti; no dia em que foste criado, foram preparados.”, The Portuguese Almeida Atualizada 2009 - “os teus tambores e os teus pífaros”,
And The Modern Greek Bible - “η υπηρεσια των τυμπανων σου και των αυλων σου ητο ητοιμασμενη δια σε την ημεραν καθ' ην εκτισθης.”
Matthew Henry - “Another thing that made him think his palace a paradise was the curious music he had, the tabrets and pipes, hand-instruments and wind-instruments. The workmanship of these was extraordinary, and they were prepared for him on purpose”
Now who do you think would want to hide the fact that it was Lucifer who fell from heaven when he wanted to be like God and that he has his own brand of music he uses to influence those he is trying to deceive?
Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and stick to it. It is God’s inerrant book of 100% truth.
Ezekiel 38: 13 "THE YOUNG LIONS", "villages" or "leaders"?
Ezekiel 38:13a KJB - "Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all THE YOUNG LIONS thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil?"
NIV (NASB, RSV, MEV 2014) - "Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish and all HER VILLAGES will say to you, “Have you come to plunder?"
Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 (NRSV) - "Sheba and Dedan and the traders of Tarshish with all ITS YOUNG WARRIORS will say to you, “Have you come to loot?" NRSV footnote - "Hebrew - young lions"
Holman Standard 2009 - “Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish with all ITS RULERS will ask you, ‘Have you come to seize spoil?”
ESV 2011 - "Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish and all ITS LEADERS will say to you, ‘Have you come to seize spoil?”
International Standard Version 2014 - “Businessmen based in Sheba, Dedan, Tarshish, and all of ITS GROWLING LIONS will ask you, “Are you coming for war spoils?"
Notice that the RSV went with "HER VILLAGES", then the NRSV with "ITS YOUNG WARRIORS" and a footnote that says "Hebrew - young lions", and finally the ESV (all revisions of each other) changed this to "IT'S LEADERS". None of them are right, of course.
The Catholic Connection The earlier Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950 and even the St. Joseph NAB 1970 all have "THE YOUNG LIONS". But then the New Jerusalem bible 1985 changed this to "THE MAGNATES", but then footnoted "literally fierce lions." But now the Public Domain version of 2009 has come out and it goes back to "THE YOUNG LIONS".
The so called Greek Septuagint has "all her VILLAGES"
Foreign Language Bibles
Foreign language bibles that follow the Hebrew text and read “young lions” are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909 (but not the newer ones) - “y todos sus leoncillos”, the French Martin 1744, French Louis Segond 2007 - “et tous leurs jeunes lions”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991, and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - “e tutti i suoi leoncelli”, and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “e todos os seus leõezinhos”
The only thing we can rely on by using these "reliable versions" is that they will leave us in utter confusion.
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm