Another King James Bible Believer

Bible Babble Buffet - Part 3

 Bible Babble Buffet Part 3




 

 

 

Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"



An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.


"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."


Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.


There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568 -"After these threescore & two weekes shall Messiah be slaine, & not for him selfe" , the NKJV 1982, the French Martin  of 1744  - “le CHRIST sera retranché, mais non pas pour soi”, the Romanian  Fidela of 2010 "dar nu pentru el însuşi", the Reina Valera 1865 Angel de Mora, the 1909 Reina Valera and the 2010 Reina Valera Gomez bible - “Daniel 9:26 Y después de las sesenta y dos semanas el Mesías será muerto, y no por sí.” but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation -"Και μετα τας εξηκοντα δυο εβδομαδας θελει εκκοπη ο Χριστος, πλην ουχι δι' εαυτον·",  the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Green's 1998 Modern KJV 2000, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible - "And after threescore and two heptads, yikaret (will be cut off) Moshiach [Yeshayah 53:8], but not for himself.",  and the KJV 21st Century Version 1994. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.


Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".


The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The Spanish NIV, La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 says: "después de las sesenta y dos semanas, se le quitará la vida al príncipe elegido. Éste se quedará sin ciudad y sin santuario, porque un futuro gobernante los destruirá." which means "After 62 weeks the life of the elect prince will be taken away. THIS ONE WILL REMAIN WITHOUT A CITY AND WITHOUT A SANCTUARY..."! But the Portuguese NIV reads differently than both the English and Spanish versions.  The NIV Portuguese edition, Nova Versão Internacional 2000 has: "Depois das sessenta e duas semanas, o Ungido será morto, e já não haverá lugar para ele." which comes out to mean - "After the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one is dead, AND THERE WILL BE NO PLACE FOR HIM."


Dr. Daniel Wallace and company, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."


This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible commentators, teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.


Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."


John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation."


John Gill offers two different interpretations but he gives this one first: "when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TO OBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation."


David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."


C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!


Matthew Poole was well aware of all the different theories and ideas about how to translate this passage and he comments on it in his Commentary on the whole Bible saying: -  Daniel 9:26 “Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself” - But not for himself - which being abrupt, is variously rendered and read; some referring it to Christ, and some to the people, and others to both, and all with very probable conjectures: There was none to succour him ; or that they would none of him for their Messiah; they set him at nought, and would not have him live, and therefore he would not own them for his people, but cast them off, for thus dying is expressed in short, not to be.  But our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i. e. not for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation.” 


Bible Babel in Action


Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".


Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."


Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."


The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."


The Lesser Old Testament 1853 - "And after the sixty and two weeks will an anointed one be cut off WITHOUT A SUCCESSOR TO FOLLOW HIM."


Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."


Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."


The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."


The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)


1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (Again not true)


The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."


The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."


The Common English Bible 2011 - "after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be eliminated. NO ONE WILL SUPPORT HIM." (Then it footnotes that "Hebrew is uncertain")


The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.


The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."


Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)


The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY"


And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)


May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.  


See more on Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but not for himself" here - 


http://brandplucked.webs.com/dan926messiahcutoff.htm


HOSEA


 

Here are just a few examples of the confusion found in the modern bibles from the book of Hosea. 

 

Hosea the prophet was told by God to go and marry a woman who was an adulteress according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel. Israel's history of unfaithfullness is portrayed, and God rebukes Israel for her sins, and pledges to heal their backslidings and bring her again into the covenant of grace.

 

Hosea 2:1 "PLEAD with your mother, PLEAD"

 

The King James Bible, Geneva, Darby, the 1936 Jewish translation, the Revised Version, Young's, RSV, NRSV, and ESV all have "plead with your mother, plead.  To plead with somebody to entreat them earnestly.

 

 The NKJV says: "Bring charges against your mother, bring charges"; the  NIV - "Rebuke your mother, rebuke her"; the  NASB- "Contend with your mother, contend".

 

Those who desire the reconciliation of another would plead with them, not rebuke, contend or bring charges against them. The new versions make it sound as though they are headed for the divorce court rather than reconciliation.

 

Hosea 3:1 "Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her FRIEND, yet an adulteress..." Friend is found in the NKJV footnote as being the literal word, yet the NKJV has A LOVER, the NIV has "loved by ANOTHER" while the NASB has "loved by her HUSBAND".  Yet the word is "friend" and is so rendered by the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby and Douay.

 

4:18 KJB "Their drink is SOUR", and so also read the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, and others but the NKJV has "their drink is REBELLION"; the  NIV- "their drinks are GONE" and NASB "their liquor GONE".

 

So is their drink sour, rebellion or gone?  Hey, all bibles are the same; Don't worry about it, right? 

 

Hosea 6:6 KJB "For I desired MERCY and not sacrifice."

 

NASB (Holman) - "I delight in LOYALTY, rather than sacrifice." 

 

The RSV, NRSV and ESV all say: "For I desire STEADFAST LOVE and not sacrifice"

 

This verse is quoted in Matthew 12:7 in the same way by all versions, - "But if ye had know what this meaneth, I WILL HAVE MERCY, AND NOT SACRIFICE, ye would not have condemned the guiltless."

 

and it is rightly the same here in Hosea 6:6 in the King James Bible and many others:  "For I desired MERCY and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." 

 

Hosea 6:6 reads MERCY in Wycliffe 1395, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587- "For I desired mercie, and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more then burnt offrings.", the RV 1881, Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950, the NKJV 1982, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, Complete Jewish bible 1998, Hebrew Names Version, Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publication Society translation "I desired MERCY",  the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Voice of 2012 - "For I want not animal sacrifices, but MERCY." and the NIV 1984 and 2011 editions, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The New European Version 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), World English Bible 2112 - "I desired MERCY and not sacrifice" and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014.

 

Among foreign language translations that correctly read "I desired MERCY and not sacrifice" in Hosea 6:6 are the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, 1995, the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - "Porque MISERICORDIA quiero, y no sacrificio."  HOWEVER, even though the NIV English version has "I desired MERCY" in Hosea 6:6, the Spanish NIV does not.

 

Instead, the 1999 Nueva Versión Internacional says: "lo que pido de ustedes es AMOR y no sacrificios, conocimiento de Dios y no holocaustos." = "What I ask of you is LOVE and not sacrifices".  But the NIV Portuguese edition correctly has "mercy" in Hosea 6:6 - "Pois desejo MISERICORDIA, e não sacrifícios"

 

Also reading "I desired MERCY" in Hosea 6:6 are the Portuguese Almeida, the Italian Diodati 1991 - "Poiché io desidero la MISERICORDIA e non i sacrifici" and the French Martin 1744 and Nouvelle Edition de Genève 1979 - "Car je prends plaisir à LA MISERICORDE, et non point aux sacrifices"

 

 

The ASV of 1901 says: "For I desire GOODNESS, and not sacrifice" in Hosea 6:6 but then quotes it as "I desire MERCY" in Matthew 12:7

 

The NASB and the Holman Standard say: "I delight in LOYALTY, rather than sacrifice." in Hosea 6:6. But in Matthew 12:7 has "I desired COMPASSION, and not sacrifice."

 

Loyalty is not at all the same thing as mercy, even though the NASB and the Holman both "quote" the same verse in Matthew 12:7 using the word "mercy" or "compassion" (NASB)

 

Though the NASB has "compassion" here in Matthew 12:7 yet a simple look at the NASB complete concordance shows that this Greek word eleos # 1656 occurs some 27 times in the NASB and 2 times they have translated it as "compassion" and 25 times as "MERCY"!  

 

The NASB complete concordance shows that they have translated this same Hebrew word in Hosea 6:6 as "lovingkindness" some 183 times, and as such varied things as "devout, devotion, faithfulness, kindness (32 times), loyalty (6 times), righteousness, unchanging love, loyal deeds, MERCIFUL (See 1 Kings 20:31 "merciful kings"; Proverbs 11:17 "the MERCIFUL man does himself good.", MERCIES - Isaiah 55:3 "the faithful MERCIES of David", and MERCY - 2 Samuel 15:20 "MERCY and truth be with you."  

 

The NASB seems to be arbitrarily changing words just so they can get a copyright and make money. Not enough changes = No copyright and no Money to be made Selling your Product.

 

The RSV, NRSV and ESV all say: "For I desire STEADFAST LOVE and not sacrifice" in Hosea 6:6, but then all three of them quote the verse as "I desired MERCY and not sacrifice" in Matthew 12:7.

 

This is much like the modern Catholic versions. The St. Joseph NAB 1970 - "For it is LOVE that I desire, not sacrifice" and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible - "For FAITHFUL LOVE is what pleases me, not sacrifice."

 

However the older Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay 1950 and even the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has gone back to "I desired MERCY and not sacrifice" in Hosea 6:6.

 

Dan Wallace and company's NET version, as well as Green's Literal 2005 are different still, with: "For I delight in FAITHFULNESS, not simply in sacrifice."  Yet both have Jesus quoting Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 12:7 as  "I want (desire - Green) MERCY and not sacrifice."

 

Let's see... "mercy, goodness, love, loyalty, steadfast love, faithfulness"...? 

 

Sorry, folks, but all these different words are not interchangeable. They are not synonyms and they do not have the same meanings.

 

Yet when all these conflicting versions have the Lord Jesus "quoting" Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 12:7, it has the same meaning as it stands in the King James Bible (and many others) in Hosea 6:6 - "But if ye had known what this meaneth, (the verse He then quotes from the Old Testament) I will have MERCY and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless."

 

What is happening here is the confounding and confusing of words so as to blur the lines of precise thinking and to create a general, all inclusive vocabulary so that "the Bible" can mean almost anything you want it to. Is God really this confused?

 

Plus, they gotta get that all important copyright, so they can hope to make the Big Bucks.  

 

Notes from the Internet on the use of the word "mercy"

 

Larry B. writes: "I was taken back by the consistent replacement of "mercy" with "steadfast love" in the ESV and others. The implication is quite in step with our culture, which claims that we are not sinners and thus don't need mercy but rather deserve love (perhaps even owed love)"


Excellent point, Larry. The NIV does that same thing a lot. Mercy implies by its very meaning that we do NOT deserve the blessings of God because we are sinners. "steadfast love" omits that element.


They will then try to defend their translations by saying "Well, the Hebrew word CAN mean "loving kindness". That is true. But the word has multiple meanings depending on context.  It can also mean "wicked thing" (Lev. 20:17 - It is a WICKED THING ) or goodness, or good deeds, or even "reproach" (Proverbs 14:34 - sin is a REPROACH to any people".


Since not one of them has what he honestly believes is a complete and inerrant Bible in ANY language, and they do not believe that God has worked in history to guide a group of men to put together His complete and perfect words into a single Book with all the correct meanings, they then become their own "final authority" and it's right back to "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."  Judges 21:25.


In fact, a lot of theologically important words in the Holy Bible are being toned down or even lost entirely. As examples, here is a partial list of the frequency of certain words comparing the King James Bible Old Testament, with the NKJV, the NASB,  ESV and the NIV Old Testament.


TRUTH KJB - 118 times; NKJV - about same; NASB - 92; ESV - 44;  NIV - 41


GRACE KJB -38 times; NKJV - 20; NASB - 9; ESV - 7; NIV - 8


MERCY, MERCIFUL KJB - 288 times; NKJV -same; NASB - 51; ESV - 132;  NIV - 85


SOUL KJB - 478 times; NKJV - same; NASB - 255; NIV - 110


LUCIFER KJB - 1 time; NKJV - 1 time; NASB - 0; ESV - 0;  NIV - 0


JEHOVAH KJB - 7 times; NKJV - 0; NASB - 0; ESV - 0;  NIV - 0


HELL KJB - 31 times; NKJV - 19; NASB - 0; ESV - 0;  NIV - 0


Examples of other words in the whole Bible, both testaments.


DOCTRINE KJB - 56 times; NKJV - 42; NASB - 14; ESV - 13;  NIV - 7


FORNICATION KJB - 44 times; NKJV - 21; NASB - 8; ESV - 0; NIV - 0


DAMNATION, DAMNED KJB - 9 times; NKJV - 0; NASB - 0; ESV - 0; NIV - 0


HELL (whole Bible) KJB - 53 times; NKJV - 32; NASB -13; ESV - 14; NIV - 13

 

Hosea 6:9 KJB "they murder in the way BY CONSENT".  Here the NKJV agrees with the KJB, and so do the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish Reina Valera, but the NIV & NASB say: "they murder on the road TO SHECHEM".

 

Hosea 10:1 KJB "Israel is an EMPTY vine."  An empty vine is also the reading of Young's, the Geneva Bible, and the Diodati.  However the NKJV says "Israel EMPTIES his vine; the NIV says "Israel is a SPREADING VINE", while the NASB has "Israel is a LUXURIANT vine."

 

Hosea 10:7 KJB "As for Samaria, her king is cut off as the FOAM upon the water."  

 

FOAM is also the reading of the RV 1885, ASV 1901, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva 1587, Lesser Bible 1853, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), Douay 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011. 

 

The NKJV  reads: "As for Samaria, her king is cut off like a TWIG on the water." 

 

The NASB has: "Samaria will cut off her king like a STICK on the surface of the water"

 

while the NIV has something a little different still with "Samaria and its king will float away like a twig on the surface of the waters."

 

Who here does the cutting off? God? Samaria? or do they just float away? Is it foam, a stick or a twig?

 

 

Hosea 11:2 KJB - "As THEY called them, so they went from THEM: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images."

 

ESV - "The more THEY WERE CALLED, the more they went away: they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols."  

 

NIV 1984 edition - "The more "I" called Israel, the further they went from ME."  

 

The words "I" and "ME" come from the so called Greek Septuagint and there is no word for "Israel" in the Hebrew text or in the LXX either. They just made it up.

 

NIV 2011 edition - "The more THEY WERE CALLED, the more they went away from ME."  

 

Then it footnotes that ME comes from the Septuagint but the Hebrew reads THEM. Actually this is a false note as well. The so called Greek Septuagint actually says - "As I called them, so they departed FROM MY PRESENCE." So, they even paraphrased the Septuagint.

 

Dan Wallace and company's NET version 2006 - "But the more I summoned3 them, the farther they departed from me.4 "

 

And then he clearly footnotes that the Hebrew reads "THEY CALLED" and "FROM THEM"!!! 

 

Here the words "THEY/THEM" refer to the prophets God sent to call Israel back to Himself (See verse 7) - "And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him."

 

The Hebrew texts  read  "THEY/THEM" as well as the Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587, RV 1885, ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, NASB 1995, NKJV, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, Hebrew Names Version, The Word of Yah 1993, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011 and the  World English Bible 2012.

 

The ESV changes the active voice - "They called them" to a passive voice - "they were called" and omits the word THEM.

 

However the NIV, RSV, NRSV read: "But the more "I" called Israel, the further they went from ME." (NIV)  Then these versions footnote that "I" and "ME" come from "SOME Septuagint manuscripts, but the Hebrew reads "they" and "them". 

 

Another one that rejects the Hebrew reading and follows the Septuagint paraphrase is the International Standard Version of 2014. It reads: “The more I called out to them,  the farther they fled from ME.”  Then it footnotes - “So LXX. Masoretic Text reads They called to them, so they went away from them.”

 

The Holman Standard confuses things even further by saying: "The more THEY called them, the more they departed from ME."

 

Then it footnotes that "ME" comes from the LXX but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads "THEM".

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The older Douay-Rheims 1610 as well as the Douay 1950 read "As they called them, they went away from before their face: they offered victims to Baalim, and sacrificed to idols."  

 

But now the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem reject the Hebrew text and follow a paraphrase of the so called Greek Septuagint - just like Dan Wallace's NET and the NIV, RSV.  

 

These modern Catholic versions read: "The more "I" called them, the farther they went from ME, sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to idols."  

 

John Gill - “As they called them, so they went from them,.... That is, the prophets of the Lord, the true prophets, called Israel to the worship and service of God; but they turned a deaf ear to them, and their backs upon them; and the more they called to them, the further they went from them, and from the way of their duty.”

 

Matthew Poole - “As they - Moses and Aaron, and other prophets, and holy, zealous judges and priests, as Samuel, 

Called -  advised, persuaded, entreated, and urged by exhortations.

Them -  the whole house of Israel, and among these the ten tribes, or Ephraim.

So they -  Israelites, called and entreated, especially they of that age when the division was made, and ever since.

Went from -  frowardly and most disingenuously apostatized more and more

From them -  from the prophets’ counsel and commands, delivered as they came from God.

 

Matthew Henry - “as they called them so they went from them they rebelled in those particular instances wherein they were admonished the more pressing and importunate the prophets were with them, to persuade them to that which was good, the more refractory they were, and the more resolute in their evil ways, disobeying for disobedience-sake. This foolishness is bound in the hearts of children, who, as soon as they are taught to go, will go from those that call them.”

 

Get yourself the true words of God in the King James Bible. Friends don't let friends use bogus bible versions.

 

Hosea 11:7 - KJB "And my people are bent to backsliding from me; though they (the prophets) called them to the most High, NONE AT ALL WOULD EXALT HIM." (the people would not exalt God).

 

In this verse the Geneva Bible - "And my people are bent to rebellion against me: though they called them to the most hie, yet none at all would exalt him.", The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the NKJV, RV, ASV, Darby, the Amplified bible, The New European Version 2010, and the NASB are in agreement with the KJB.

 

The verse simply means as John Gill, John Wesley, Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown and many other Bible commentators have said: "bent to backsliding--Not only do they backslide, and that too from ME, their "chief good," but they are bent upon it. Though they (the prophets) called them (the Israelites) to the Most High (from their idols), "none would exalt (that is, extol or honor) Him." To exalt God, they must cease to be "bent on backsliding." (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown).

 

Foreign language Bible that agree with the King James Bible are the Reina Valera 1909, the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - " Entre tanto, mi pueblo está inclinado a rebelarse contra mí; aunque ellos invocan al Altísimo, ninguno absolutamente quiere enaltecerle.",  the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - " Et mon peuple pend attaché à sa rébellion contre moi; et on le rappelle au Souverain, mais pas un d'eux ne l'exalte.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "Porque o meu povo é inclinado a desviar-se de mim; bem que clamam ao Altíssimo, nenhum deles o exalta.", the Italian New Diodati 1991 - "Il mio popolo tende ad allontanarsi da me; malgrado invocano l'Altissimo, nessuno di essi lo esalta."

 

and the Modern Greek - "Και ο λαος μου ειναι προσκεκολλημενος εις την αποστασιαν την κατ' εμου· αν και εκαλεσθησαν προς τον Υψιστον, ουδεις ομως υψωσεν αυτον." = "my people are joined to apostasy from me; even though they called them to the Most High, none at all exalted Him."

 

The so called Greek Septuagint is not anything like the Modern Greek and the King James Bible. It actually says: "AND HIS PEOPLE SHALL FONDLY CLEAVE TO THEIR HABITATION; BUT GOD SHALL BE ANGRY WITH HIS PRECIOUS THINGS, AND SHALL NOT AT ALL EXALT HIM." (Yeah, that's pretty close, huh?!)

 

But the NIV and ESV have: "My people are determined to turn from me. EVEN IF THEY CALL TO THE MOST HIGH, HE WILL BY NO MEANS EXALT THEM."

 

This is a totally different meaning. In fact, it is the opposite of what we find in the King James Bible. These versions would have us believe that even if the people called out to God, He would not hear nor help them. Read it again.

 

Just to make things more interesting, the RSV says: "My people ARE BENT ON TURNING AWAY FROM ME, SO THEY ARE APPOINTED TO THE YOKE, AND NONE SHALL REMOVE IT."

 

The Catholic Douay-Rheims is sort of like the RSV...but not, with: "And my people SHALL LONG FOR MY RETURN, BUT A YOKE SHALL BE PUT UPON THEM TOGETHER, WHICH SHALL NOT BE TAKEN OFF." 

 

Then the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 says: "His people are IN SUSPENSE ABOUT RETURNING TO HIM, AND GOD, THOUGH IN UNISON THEY CRY OUT TO HIM, SHALL NOT RAISE THEM UP."

 

Dan Wallace and company's NET version is really different with: "My people are obsessed with turning away from me; THEY CALL TO BAAL, BUT HE WILL NEVER EXALT THEM!"

 

Boy, am I glad that is all cleared up for us.  Remember what James White says: we get a clearer picture of what God really said by comparing all the different versions. Don't you agree?

 

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

 

KJB Judah yet RULETH WITH God

NIV Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God

NASB Judah is also UNRULY AGAINST God


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

 

Those bible versions that agree with the KJB in that Judah YET RULETH WITH GOD are the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011 - " but Judah still walks with God and is faithful to the Holy One.", Darby 1890, Youngs 1898 - "And Judah again is ruling with God, And with the Holy Ones is faithful!", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "but Iudah yet ruleth with God, and is faithfull with the Saints.", the Bishops' Bible 1568 - "but Iuda yet ruleth with God, and is faithfull with the saintes.", Green's interlinear, Hebrew Publishing Company Translation 1936 and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.  

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So which one is God's true word?

 

The Catholic Connection

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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


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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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



Hosea 12:7 KJB "He is a MERCHANT"; surprisingly the NASB & NIV, along with the RV, ASV,The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the RSV, NRSV, ESV agree with the KJB, while the NKJV simply says: " A CUNNING CANAANITE!".

 

Hosea 13:3 KJB "and as the smoke out of the CHIMNEY."  The RV, ASV, NASB, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, and NKJV have "chimney" while the NIV has WINDOW. Now, my wife will tell you that I am not much of a handyman, but even I know that a window is not the same thing as a chimney.

 

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

 

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

 

RSV (NRSV) - "I WILL DESTROY YOU, O ISRAEL; WHO CAN HELP YOU?"

 

NIV - "You are destroyed, O Israel, because you are against me, against your helper."  

 

Holman Standard 2009 - "I will destroy you, Israel; YOU HAVE NO HELP BUT ME."


 

Agreeing with the meaning found in the King James Bible in Hosea 13:9 "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself;  BUT IN ME IS THINE HELP." are Wycliffe 1395 - "Israel, thi perdicioun is of thee; THINE HELP IS ONLY OF ME.", Coverdale 1535 - "O Israel, thou doest but destroyeth thyself, IN ME ONLY IS THY HELPE.", The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, The Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587, Douay-Rheims 1610, Webster's Bible 1833, Young's 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "BUT YOUR HELP IS IN ME.", Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013 - "O Israel, you have destroyed yourself, but in me is your help.", Conservative Bible 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "BUT YOUR HELP IS IN ME.",  Modern English Version 2014, and the International Standard Version 2014 - “You have destroyed yourself, Israel, although I remain your help."

 

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the KJB are the French Martin 1744 - “On t'a perdu, ô Israël! mais en moi réside ton secours.”, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the Reina Valera 1995 - “Te perdiste, oh Israel, mas en mí está tu ayuda.”, the Italian Diodati 1649 - “O Israele, tu sei stato perduto; ma il tuo aiuto è in me.”, Luther’s German Bible 1445 - “Israel, du bringest dich in Unglück; denn dein Heil stehet allein bei mir.” 

 

And the Modern Greek Bible - “Απωλεσθης, Ισραηλ· πλην εν εμοι ειναι η βοηθεια σου.” = "but your help is in me."

 

 

However the NRSV (and RSV too) reads: "I WILL DESTROY YOU, O ISRAEL; WHO CAN HELP YOU?". 

 

It then footnotes that their reading comes from the Greek and Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads the way the King James Bible has it. Their footnote says: "Gk Syr: Heb [for in me is your help]   

 

This is a very misleading, inaccurate and deceptive footnote.  I have a hard copy of Bentons Greek Septuagint and it simply reads: "O Israel, WHO WILL AID THEE IN THY DESTRUCTION?"  That's it. That is all there is to the verse in the LXX.  It doesn't say anything about "thou hast destroyed thyself" or even "I will destroy you".

 

As for the Syriac, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta says: "O Israel, YOU HAVE CORRUPTED YOURSELF; who can help you?"  The first part reads like the King James Bible and certainly doesn't match the RSV. Only the last part is changed and neither part matches the reading found in the NIV or the ESV. 

 

Dan Wallace and company’s NET version 2006 says: “I will destroy you, O Israel! Who is there to help you?”  And then he footnotes that the Hebrew Masoretic text reads: “But in me is your help.” 

 

Likewise the Message is just the opposite of the KJB in that it says: "I'm going to destroy you, Israel. Who is going to stop me?"

 

The Common English Bible (another Critical text version) 2011 has: “I will destroy you, Israel;  for you didn’t realize that I could help you.”

 

The Holman Standard is similar to the RSV with an obvious self contradiction saying: "I WILL DESTROY YOU, ISRAEL; YOU HAVE NO HELP BUT ME."

 

The NIV and NASB are pretty similar to each other but very different from the NKJV, the ESV and the RSV. 

 

The NIV reads: "You are destroyed, O Israel, because you are against me, against your helper." while the NASB has: "It is your destruction, O Israel, That you are against Me, against your help."

 

The ESV, a revision of the RSV, NRSV, reads differently than both its predessors and the Holman, and the NKJV and the NIV/NASB with: "HE destroys you, O Israel, FOR YOU ARE AGAINST ME, AGAINST YOUR HELPER."  

 

The Catholic Connection

 

The Catholic versions are in total disarray.  The older Douai-Rheims 1610 and the Douay Version 1950 had the same meaning as that found in the King James Bible. They say: "DESTRUCTION IS THINE OWN, O Israel; THY HELP IS ONLY IN ME."  

 

But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible came out with " I MEAN TO DESTROY YOU, Israel. WHO CAN COME TO YOUR HELP?"

 

Then in 1970 they came out with the St. Joseph New American Bible and it says: "YOUR DESTRUCTION, O Israel! WHO IS THERE TO HELP YOU?"  

 

But now in 1985 the New Jerusalem bible has come out and it reads like the King James Bible, with: "Israel, YOU HAVE DESTROYED YOURSELF THOUGH IN ME LIES YOUR HELP."

 

John Gill - “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself…their destruction was not owing to God, but to themselves; he was not chargeable with it, but they only; the fault and blame was theirs; their own sins brought it on them.  BUT IN ME IS THINE HELP - not in themselves, not in any creature, but in the Lord alone”

 

Matthew Henry - “Israel had destroyed himself by his rebellion; but he could not save himself, his help was from the Lord only."

 

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

 

 

Hosea 13:10 KJB - God says to Israel "I WILL BE YOUR KING; where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities?" 

 

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "WHERE IS NOW YOUR KING, to save you in all your cities?"

 

"I WILL BE YOUR KING" - So read the King James Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, Julia Smith Translation 1855 - "Now I will be thy king", The Word of Yah 1993 - "I WILL BE THY KING", the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, The Apostolic Bible 2006, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear 2011 - "I WILL BE YOUR KING. Where is any other that may save you in all your cities?", Conservative Bible 2011, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “I will be your King; Where is any other, That he may save you in all your cities?”


 

 

Foreign language bibles that read "I WILL BE THY KING" too are the Romanian Fidela Bible of 2009 - "Eu voi fi imparatul tau" = "I will be your King".

 

 

Other Versions, Different Meanings -

 

JPS 1917 - “Ho, now, thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities!  

 

Judaica Press Tanach 2004 - "I will be, where is your king? Now let him save you in all your cities, and your judges, concerning whom you said, "Give me a king and princes."

 

Previous English Bibles did not get this right either. The Bishops' Bible and Geneva Bible said: "I am: where is thy King, that shoulde help thee in al thy cities? and thy iudges, of whom thou saidest, Giue me a King, and princes?"

 

The King James Bible was the first English Bible to correctly translated the Hebrew text. It is the final product in the process of the purification of God's words, "purified seven times" - Psalm 12:6-7

 

David Guzik's commentary - "I will be your King . . . I gave you a king in My anger, and took him away in My wrath: God wanted to be recognized as the King of Israel, no matter which man sat on the royal throne. When they rejected the LORD as King, He gave them the kind of kings their hearts wanted and deserved, and then even took those kings as further judgment.

 


 

Jameson Fausset  and Brown Critical Commentary - “I will be thy king; where — rather, as the Margin and the Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, “Where now is thy king?” [Maurer]. ENGLISH VERSION (KJB) IS, HOWEVER, FAVORED BOTH BY THE HEBREW, BY THE ANTITHESIS BETWEEN ISRAEL’S SELF-CHOSEN AND PERISHING KINGS, AND GOD, ISRAEL’S ABIDING KING. (Compare Hosea 3:4-5).

 

 

John Trapp, English Puritan commentator, often quoted by Charles Spurgeon  - “Ver. 10. I will be thy king -  Thine eternal King, so Pagnine. As I have been thy prophet, Hosea 13:4-5, so I WILL BE THY KING; I will also be thy priest and thy Redeemer, Hosea 13:14, that so thou mayest hear my voice, submit to my sceptre, and apply my death for thy deliverance from death’s dominion. Or, I WILL BE THY KING, and not be borne down by thy boisterousness, who calleth for another king, and repinest against my righteous regiment. Thou wouldst cast off mine authority, but I will maintain it. The Lord is king, be the people never so unquiet, Psalms 99:1, he will reign over rebels in spite of their hearts; and those that will not be his subjects, his willing people, shall be his slaves, his footstool, Psalms 110:1; Psalms 110:3.” 

 

Charles Spurgeon - “Hosea 13:9-10. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me thine help. I WILL BE THY KING: If thou hast shifted me from the throne, and set up a usurper, I will come and be thy King even now.”

 

Barnes Notes on the Bible - "I will be thy King - (literally, "I would be" thy King) Where is any other that, etc"

 

John Gill mentions both readings, saying: "I will be thy King, where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities?.... Governor, Protector, and Defender; and so confirming what is before said, that their help was in him: or, as the Targum, Abarbinel, and others (n), "where is thy king now, that he may serve thee in all thy cities?"

 

Matthew Poole’s Commentary - “I will be thy King; I would have been thy King to govern and save thee, but thou refusedst me in both; yet I will he thy King to punish thee. I will not lose my right and honour by thy rebellious carriages against me, I will be a King and subdue such.”

 

John Wesley - “Thy king - I would have been thy king to govern and save thee, but thou refusedst me in both: yet I will be thy king to punish thee. “

 

Geneva Bible Study Notes - "{g} I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities?"

 

But a multitude of versions like  the NIV and NASB ask "WHERE IS your king?"  So also do Darby, Youngs, RV, ASV.

 

The NRSV reads: "WHERE NOW IS YOUR KING, that he may save you?" and then the RSV footnotes that their reading comes from the Greek, Syriac and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew reads "I will be...": "Gk Syr Vg: Heb [I will be].  

 

Dan Wallace's NET version is interesting in that he also says: "Where then is your king?" but then he footnotes - "Few English versions follow the MT (Masoretic Text) : “I will be thy/your king” (KJV, NKJV)."

 

The Holman Standard 2009 reads like most modern versions - “Where now is your king,[a] that he may save you in all your cities…?” 

 

But then it footnotes that the reading of “WHERE IS NOW YOUR KING?” comes from  the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac and the Vulgate. But that the Hebrew Masoretic text reads “I WILL BE YOUR KING.”  - LXX, Syr, Vg; MT reads I will be your king

 

The King James Bible is right, as always. Even when many others disagree with it.  It is God's INERRANT words of truth and grace.

 

 

 

Hosea 13:14 KJB -  "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."

 

ESV - "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes."

 

One of the most beautiful and comforting promises in the book of the prophet Hosea has been completely turned on its head and made out to be utter non-sense in many versions.  In the King James Bible we read: "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Not only does the King James Bible read this way but so do the following Bible translations: the Geneva Bible 1587 -"I wil redeem them from the power of the graue: I will deliuer them from death: O death, I wil be thy death: O graue, I will be thy destruction: repentance is hid from mine eyes.", the Revised Version 1881, Noyes Translation 1869, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society)- "Ho, thy plagues, O death! Ho, thy destruction, O nether-world! Repentance be hid from Mine eyes!", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's literal translation 2005, The Scriptures 1998 by the Institute for Scripture Research, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 - "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy plagues! O grave, I will be thy destruction! REPENTANCE SHALLL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."

 

Also reading like the King James Bible in Hosea 13:14 as a blessed promise of God's grace to redeem us from death and that God will not change His mind concerning this, are The Word of Yah 1993 - "REPENTANCE shall be hid from my eyes.", Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, Jubilee Bible 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "O grave, I will be your destruction, REPENTANCE shall be hid from my sight.", Conservative Bible 2011  "REPENTANCE shall be hid from my eyes", and the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 - "REPENTANCE shall be hid from my eyes."

 

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

 

Foreign language Bibles that agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865, the Reina Valera of 1909 and the Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 - "De la mano del sepulcro los redimiré, los libraré de la muerte. Oh muerte, yo seré tu muerte; y seré tu destrucción, oh sepulcro; el arrepentimiento será escondido de mis ojos." = "repentance will be hidden from my eyes", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Je les rachèterais de la puissance du Sépulcre; je les garantirais de la mort. O mort! je serais ta peste. O Sépulcre! je serais ta destruction. Le repentir se cache à mes yeux!", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "Eu os remirei da violência do inferno e os resgatarei da morte; onde estão, ó morte, as tuas pragas? Onde está, ó inferno, a tua perdição? O arrependimento será escondido de meus olhos." = "repentance shall be hidden from my eyes",

 

Other foreign language Bibles that agree with the reading found in the KJB are the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991,  and Italian Riveduta 1927, 1994, 2006 - "Io li riscatterei dal potere del soggiorno de’ morti, li redimerei dalla morte; sarei la tua peste, o morte, sarei la tua distruzione, o soggiorno de’ morti; ma il lor pentimento è nascosto agli occhi miei!" = "the repentance is hidden to the eyes mine!"

 

And the Modern Greek Bible - "Εκ χειρος αδου θελω ελευθερωσει αυτους, εκ θανατου θελω σωσει αυτους. Που ειναι, θανατε, ο ολεθρος σου; που, αδη, η φθορα σου; η μεταμελεια θελει κρυπτεσθαι απο των οφθαλμων μου." = "Repentance will be hid from my eyes".

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

While versions like the RSV, ESV and NASB have turned all 4 statements into 4 questions and again completely change the meaning of the verse.  The ESV along with the RSV change the 4 statements into 4 questions and alter the entire meaning of the verse, making it some sort of a threat instead of a comforting promise. 

 

The ESV says: "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? COMPASSION IS HIDDEN FROM MY EYES."

 

"COMPASSION IS HIDDEN FROM MY EYES" is also the reading found in the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and in the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985.

 

 

The International Standard Version 2014 makes NO sense at all. It goes well till we get to the last line, and then turns everything upside down.  It reads: ““From the power of Sheol I will rescue them, from death I will redeem them. Death, where are your plagues?  Sheol, where is your destruction? MY EYES WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO YOUR PLEAS FOR COMPASSION.”

 

The Voice 2012 (another goofy Critical text version) says: “Hey, Death! Where is your big win?  Hey, Grave! What happened to your sting?  I’LL LOOK THE OTHER WAY AND NOT SHOW THEM ANY PITY.”


(Have these bible correctors lost their collective minds?)

 

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

 

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

 

Coffman's Commentary -

 

What I found to be of great interest is Burton Coffman's Commentary on the Old and New Testament regarding Hosea 13:14. He comments. Keep in mind that he is NOT a KJB only believer.  

 

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


It is a fact that, "MODERN SCHOLARSHIP IS VIRTUALLY UNANIMOUS IN TAKING THIS VERSE AS A THREAT. God is summoning up the plagues of death to punish his recalcitrant people." Despite this, we are certain that the scholars are wrong here because they are blind to the crying need for just such a promise in this exact place. They are looking only at Israel; but God's purpose in Israel has always been a redemption planned for all men, and not for Jews only. MOST OF THE SO CALLED "MODERN TRANSLATIONS" FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE SCHOLARS IN PERVERTING THIS BLESSED PROMISE; and in this particular, they become not "translations" in any sense but commentary, and woefully ignorant and inaccurate commentary at that! The apostle Paul could not have used this passage as he did, unless it is a glorious promise. Many of the scholars, even some of them who accept the passage as a threat, have pointed out that there is no genuine authority whatever for their changing the meaning of this verse." (end of comments - Coffman's Commentary)

 

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

 

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

 

It should be blatantly obvious that not all Bible versions teach the same things. Many of them teach the exact opposite from what is found in others.  Is God this confused? Of course not.

 

Who is the father of lies and confusion?  Who corrupts and steals the words of God from the hearts of men? He's been at it since the garden of Eden. It's Satan, the devil and Lucifer who asks the very first question recorded in the Holy Bible way back in Genesis 3 - "Yeah, hath God said...?" 

 

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

 


 These are just a few of the similar examples that are found throughout the entire Old Testament. All bibles are not the same. God is not a liar nor is He the author of confusion. All of these versions cannot be the inspired, true, preserved words of the living God.

 

 False witnesses sometimes tell the truth, but they end up contradicting the truth in other areas and they do not agree with each other. I firmly believe the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NET and NASB are false witnesses and false bibles. May God reveal to us the truth of His infallible words and where they are found today - in the  Authorized King James Bible. 

 

Amos 3:2 "You only HAVE I KNOWN of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."


"You only HAVE I KNOWN" is the reading of the Bishops Bible 1568 - "You only haue I KNOWEN of al the families of the earth, therfore I will visite you for all your iniquities.", the Geneva Bible 1587, Douay-Rheims 1610, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NKJV 1982, Darby 1890, Young's 1898 and the Jewish translations like the 1917 Jewish Publication Society bible, the Complete Jewish Bible 1936, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003 and the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011.  


 


Also correctly reading "You only HAVE I KNOWN of all the families of the earth" are The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Green's literal 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011 - "You only have I KNOWN", and the Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014.  

 

Foreign Language Bibles = KJB

 

Foreign language Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and read like the KJB are The Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 - “A vosotros solamente HE CONOCIDO de todas las familias de la tierra; por tanto visitaré contra vosotros todas vuestras maldades.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1960-2015 editions, The Italian Diodato 1991 and Italian Nuova Riveduta 2006 - “Soltanto voi HO CONOSCIUTO fra tutte le famiglie della terra; perciò io vi punirò per tutte le vostre iniquità»., the French Martin bible 1744 and French Ostervald bible 1996 - “Je vous ai CONNUS vous seuls d'entre toutes les familles de la terre”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “De todas as famílias da terra a vós somente CONHECI; portanto, todas as vossas injustiças visitarei sobre vós."and the Latin Vulgate Bible - “tantummodo vos COGNOVI ex omnibus cognationibus terrae idcirco visitabo super vos omnes iniquitates vestras”


The word "to know" is # 3045 yah-dag, and means to know, as is Genesis 4:1 "And Adam KNEW his wife Eve"; Genesis 22:12 "Now I KNOW that thou fearest God"; " I KNOW not the Lord" Exodus 5:2, and Jeremiah 1:5 "before I formed thee in the belly, I KNEW thee." 


However the NASB of 1972 and 1973 editions said: "You ONLY HAVE ME of all the families of the earth."


Then in 1977 the NASB changed to read like the NIV and NET versions: "You only HAVE I CHOSEN of all the families...". Both readings are wrong. The Hebrew words does not mean "to have" or "to chose". It means "to know someone or something intimately".


Dan Wallace and company's NET version is like the NIV. It says: "I HAVE CHOSEN you alone from all the clans of the earth"  He then footnotes "Hebrew - You only have I known"


The Lexham English Bible 2011 does the same thing. I says: "You only HAVE I CHOSEN of all the clans of the earth" and then it footnotes: "Literally 'known'"


The Common English Bible of 2011 (another critical text Vatican Version) completely paraphrases it and says: "You only HAVE I LOVED SO DEEPLY of all the families of the earth. Therefore, I will punish you for all your wrongdoing."


The Message 2002 again paraphrases and says: "Out of all the families on earth, I PICKED YOU."

 

THE CATHOLIC CONNECTION


The Catholic versions continue to change as well. The older Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay correctly read: "You only HAVE I KNOWN", but the 1968 Jerusalem bible says "You alone HAVE I ACKNOWLEDGED" and the 1970 St. Joseph NAB has: "You alone HAVE I FAVORED", but the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version goes back to "I HAVE KNOWN only you" and so does The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012.

 


Folks, they are not making these changes for the sake of accuracy, but they need to change about 20% of their wording in order to get a copyright and thus make money and they are being used by the enemy to blur the lines of clarity and bring about confusion.

 


Amos 3:3 "Can two walk together, EXCEPT THEY BE AGREED?


In Amos 3:3 God is rebuking his people for their sin of departing from him and being rebellious. The Lord says: "Can two walk together, except they BE AGREED?"


In other words, we must be in agreement with God, see things the way He does, and assent to walk in fellowship with Him or we shall surely suffer the consequences.


Bibles = King James Bible in Amos 3:3


Other versions that agree with the KJB here are Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 and Matthew's Bible 1549 both read: - "Maye twayne walke together EXCEPTE THEY BE AGREED AMONGE THEM SELVES?", Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Can two walke together except they bee agreed?", Douay-Rheims 1610, The Thomson Bible 1808,  Webster's Bible 1833, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the ASV 1901 (the version so highly praised by the NASB as being the Rock of Biblical Honesty), Noyes Translation 1869 - "Can two walk together, Unless they agree together?", The Sharpe Bible 1883, Revised Version 1885, both the 1917 Jewish Publication Society (JPS) and 1936 Hebrew-English versions, Darby 1890, Douay 1950, New Life Version 1969, NKJV 1982, Green's interlinear, Orthodox Jewish Bible 1998 "except they be agreed?", World English Bible 2000,  the English Jubilee Bible 2010 - "Can two walk together EXCEPT THEY BE AGREED?", The Natural Israelite Bible 2012 (online) "Can two walk together unless they are agreed?"


 


Other Bible translations that also read "Can two walk together, EXCEPT THEY BE AGREED?" are The Revised English Bible 1877, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, the Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, Green's Literal 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, World English Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014. 


Foreign Language Bibles

 

Among the foreign language Bible that agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1960, 1995, the Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 - "¿Andarán dos juntos, si no estuvieren de acuerdo?" = Can two walk together, UNLESS THEY ARE IN AGREEMENT?,  the French Martin 1744  - "s'ils ne s'en sont accordés?" = "unless they are in agreement"?, the Italian Diodati 1649 and New Diodati 1991 - "Due cammineranno essi insieme, se prima non si son convenuti l’uno con l’altro?" = "unless they are in agreement the one with the other?", the Portuguese Almeida - "Acaso andarão dois juntos, se não estiverem de acordo? = "unless they are in agreement?" and the Modern Greek translation - "Δυνανται δυο να περιπατησωσιν ομου, εαν δεν ηναι συμφωνοι;" = "Can two walk together, UNLESS THEY ARE OF THE SAME MIND.?"


 

However the NASB says: "Do two men walk together unless they HAVE MADE AN APPOINTMENT?"  

 

The NASB matches the Jehovah Witness New World Translation that says: "Will two people walk together unless they HAVE MET BY APPOINTMENT?"


There is no word for "men" or "people" in the Hebrew, so the meaning that this is talking about God and his people walking together is lost. The NASB is speaking about just two men. The phrase "they have made an appointment" completely changes the meaning. People can make an appointment to meet together physically, yet they can totally disagree with each other and hold opposite views. The whole meaning of the verse has been changed.


The Holman Standard is like the NASB with: "Can two walk together WITHOUT AGREEING TO MEET?" Then it gives this false footnote saying "LXX reads 'without meeting'  Brenton's copy of the so called LXX says "Can two walk together, if THEY DO NOT KNOW ONE ANOTHER?" 


Dan Wallace's NET version and Young's 'literal' are just plain goofy, with: "Do two walk together WITHOUT HAVING MET?", and obviously (if you think about it) they disagree with the meaning found in the NASB, NIV and ESVs.


The NIV has: "Do two walk together unless THEY HAVE AGREED TO DO SO?

 

The ESV has "Do two walk together, UNLESS THEY HAVE AGREED TO MEET?"

 

Complete Apostle's Bible 2003 - "Shall two walk together at all, IF THEY DO NOT KNOW ONE ANOTHER?"

(You can obviously know another person without agreeing with them)

 

 

The Message 2002 - "Do two people walk hand in hand IF THEY AREN'T GOING TO THE SAME PLACE?"


 

The Living Bible 1971 is different still, with: “ For how can WE walk together WITH YOUR SINS BETWEEN US?"  

 

But, not to worry, now the "NEW" Living Bible of 2013 has come out and cleared everything up for us by stating: "Can two people walk together WITHOUT AGREEING ON THE DIRECTION?"

 

The Voice 2012 has the unique and incomprehensible - “Do two people travel together IF THEY HAD TO SET UP A TIME TO MEET?” (Say What?!?) 

 

So we have at least FIVE completely different meanings among todays Bible Babble Buffet versions.  


Looks like the James White clones are right when they tell us they can get a better understanding of the word nuances of what the originals said by comparing several different versions, huh?


The Catholic Connection


These modern Vatican Versions are in fact just like their modern Catholic counterparts. The older Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and 1950 Douay read like the KJB with "Can two walk together, except THEY BE AGREED?",

 

BUT the Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968 and the New Jerusalem bibles 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version all say: "Do two MEN TAKE THE ROAD TOGETHER IF THEY HAVE NOT PLANNED TO DO SO?" (AGREED TO DO SO) = NIV, ESV, NASB, Holman.  

 

BUT The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012 goes back to "You only have I KNOWN of all the families of the earth: therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities.  Shall two walk together EXCEPT THEY BE AGREED?"

 

Modern versions are not getting better; they are getting worse and most Christians are either unaware of it, can't see it or just don't care.


John Gill comments on the meaning of Amos 3:3 saying: "The design of these words is to show, that without friendship there is no fellowship, and without concord no communion; as this is the case between man and man, so between God and man; and that Israel could not expect that God should walk with them, and show himself friendly to them, and continue his favours with them, when they walked contrary to him; when they were so disagreeable to him in their sentiments of religion, in their worship, and the rites of it, and in the whole of their conduct and behaviour. And to a spiritual walk with God, and communion with him, agreement is requisite."


Not only John Gill but also Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown and John Wesley all expressed the same thoughts regarding the meaning of this verse. For example, Adam Clarke says: "While ye loved and served me, I dwelt in you and walked among you. Now ye are become alienated from me, your nature and mine are totally opposite. I am holy, ye are unholy. We are no longer agreed, and can no longer walk together. I can no longer hold communion with you."


Amos 4:12 "Thus saith the LORD; As the shepherd taketh out of the mouth of a lion two legs, or a piece of an ear; so shall the children of Israel be taken out that dwell in Samaria, and IN DAMASCUS in a couch."


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary remarks: in Damascus in a couch--Jeroboam II had lately restored Damascus to Israel (2 Kings 14:25, 28). So the Israelites are represented as not merely in "the corner of a bed," as in Samaria, but "in a (whole) couch," at Damascus, living in luxurious ease."


John Wesley's commentary says: "Damascus - The chief city of Syria taken by Tiglath - Pilneser about the time when he wasted Israel."


"and IN DAMASCUS IN A COUCH" is the reading of Coverdale 1535, Bishops's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company's translation, Young's, THE NIV, and TNIV!!!, Douay, Green's interlinear, the Modern KJV, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Webster's 1833 translation, Luther's German, Calvin's Latin translation, and the Third Millenium Bible.


The Holman Standard notes that Damascus is the reading even of the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac, the Hebrew Targums and the Vulgate. However instead of "Damascus" the NKJV says: "ON THE EDGE of a couch", then footnotes that the Hebrew is uncertain. Even Daniel Wallace notes that the NKJV reading of "on the edge" is an emended (changed) text "based on a Hebrew term not attested in the Bible." The NASB has: "a COVER of a couch", the RV and ASV say: "ON SILKEN CUSHIONS of a bed", Holman Standard "the CUSHIONS of a couch"; the RSV, ESV have: "ON PART of a bed"; Darby - "on THE DAMASK of a bed", New English Bible 1970 "A CHIP FROM THE LEG of a bed"; The Message, as usual, differs from them all saying: - "A couple of old chairs at most, THE BROKEN LEG OF A TABLE."  


Habakkuk 2:4 "the just shall live BY FAITH."


 


Habakkuk 2:4 KJB - "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live BY HIS FAITH."


NIV 1978 and 1982 editions - "See, HE is puffed up; his desires are not upright - but the righteous will live BY HIS FAITH."  


NIV 2011 edition - "See, THE ENEMY is puffed up; his desires are not upright - but the righteous PERSON will live by HIS FAITHFULNESS."


There is a world of difference between the just living by faith and the just living by his faithfulness. The first is the principle of living by the faith God has given us to believe the gospel of the grace of God in redeeming us through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.  The second - "the just shall live by his FAITHFULNESS" - is to remove the entire focus away from what Christ has done for us and to place it on ourselves, our performance and our own works.


This wonderful verse in Habakkuk 2:4 is repeated again in the book of Romans where it is made the centerpiece is the apostles arguments about the difference between being saved by works or by grace. 


 


Romans 1:16-17 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel OF CHRIST: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live BY FAITH."  


The NIV 2011 completely perverts this truth. First of all, the Hebrew word used in Habakkuk is not "HE" and much less is it "THE ENEMY" but it is "his SOUL" It is the same word used in Genesis 2:7 where we read: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living SOUL."  

 

 

 

 

Secondly, the verse in Romans 1:16 is changed in the NIV and other critical text Vatican Versions as well. There we read: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel OF CHRIST."


The NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NET, Holman and ALL Catholic versions omit the words "OF CHRIST" because not found in Sinaitucus, Vaticanus, A or C.  


But the words "of Christ" are found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including K, L, P, Psi, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac  Peshitta, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, NKJV and in the Modern Greek Bible - Διοτι δεν αισχυνομαι το ευαγγελιον του Χριστου· , as well as the Modern Hebrew Bible - כי אינני בוש מבשורת המשיח באשר גבורת אלהים היא. = "I am not ashamed of the gospel teachings of the Messiah"


Habakkuk 2:4 "the just shall live by his FAITH"


Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible that "the just shall live BY HIS FAITH" are - Wycliffe 1395 - "the iust man schal lyue in his frith.", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bbile, Darby 1890, the Revised Version 1881 - "the just shall live by his faith.", ASV 1901, JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), the Complete Tanach "the righteous shall live by his faith.", the RSV 1946 - 1971, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001-2011, NASB 1972 - 1995, Holman Standard 2003 - 2009, NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Jubilee Bible 2000 and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - "but the just shall live by his faith." 


Other perverted bible versions are -


The Jehovah Witness New World Translation - "the righteous one, BY HIS FAITHFULNESS HE WILL KEEP LIVING."


Youngs 1898 - "And the righteous by HIS STEDFASTNESS liveth." 


Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968, New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "the upright will live THROUGH FAITHFULNESS."


Dan Wallace's goofy NET version - "Look, the one whose desires are not upright will faint from exhaustion, but THE PERSON OF INTEGRITY WILL LIVE BECAUSE OF HIS FAITHFULNESS."

 

The Common English Bible 2011 (another Critical Text version) - "Some people’s desires are truly audacious; they don’t do the right thing. But the righteous person WILL LIVE HONESTLY."

 

 


The big theological question to ask is this - Does the just live by FAITH, meaning by what he believes about what God has done for us in Christ, or by his FAITHFULNESS, meaning how he lives? 

The King James Bible is always right.


 See the full article on this verse here Habakkuk 2:4 "the just shall live by his FAITH" OR "by his FAITHFULNESS"?

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/habakkuk24.htm

 

Zephaniah 2:14 The Bible Babble Buffet at its Best

 

 

 

 

The NKJV adds to this mess by reading differently than the KJB and saying it was a PELICAN and a BITTERN. None of these 5 English versions match any of the others. Ain't $cholar$hip Grand!

And in Isaiah 34:11 the KJB has the same two birds mentioned - "But the CORMORANT and the BITTERN shall possess it", but this time the NKJV says: "But the PELICAN and THE PORCUPINE shall posses it"

The exact same Hebrew word the NKJV has as BITTERN in Zephaniah 2:14 it now has as A PORCUPINE in Isaiah 34:11.

Now, I have to admit that zoology is not my strong point, but I'm pretty sure there is a difference between a bittern, which is a heron-like wading bird, and a porcupine.  But I could be wrong about that;-)

Zephaniah 2:14 

KJB -  CORMORANT (a large sea bird) and THE BITTERN (similar to the heron) - both aquatic birds.

NIV - DESERT OWL and SCREECH OWL  

NIV Spanish version (Nueva Versión Internacional) 2015 - “el pelícano como la garza.” = PELICAN and the HERON.

NASB - PELICAN and THE HEDGEHOG - revision of the ASV

ASV 1901 - THE PELICAN AND THE PORCUPINE

ESV 2011- THE OWL and THE HEDGEHOG - revision of the RSV

RSV 1971- THE VULTURE and THE HEDGEHOG

NRSV 1989 - THE DESERT OWL and THE SCREECH OWL - revision of the RSV

NKJV - PELICAN and THE BITTERN - But translates the same word as A PORCUPINE in Isaiah.

Holman Christian Standard 2003 Edition - DESERT OWL AND THE SCREECH OWL

Holman Christian Standard bible 2017 Edition - EAGLE OWLS AND HERONS

Easy-to-Read Version 2006 - OWLS and CROW

NET bible 2006 - OWLS (that’s it)

The Thomson Translation 1808 - CHAMELEONS and PORCUPINES

Greek Septuagint, Complete Apostle’s bible 2005 - CHAMELEONS and HEDGEHOGS 

Living Bible 1971 - THE VULTURES and THE OWLS

God’s First Truth Translation 1999 - PELICANS and STORKS

Names of God Bible 2011 - PELICANS AND HERONS  

The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012 - THE VULTURE and THE HEDGEHOG

The Catholic Connection

The Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 and Douay 1950 both read “THE BITTERN and THE URCHIN”

The Jerusalem bible 1968 says: “THE PELICAN and THE HERON”

The St. Joseph New American bible 1970 has: “THE SCREECH OWL and THE DESERT OWL”

And the New Jerusalem bible 1985 now goes with: “THE PELICAN and THE PORCUPINE”

Famous Mantra of the Bible Agnostics - “We need to go to the Hebrew to find out what God really said.”

the CORMORANT AND THE BITTERN = KJB

Reading like the King James Bible are  The Webster Bible 1833, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “the cormorant and the bittern shall lodge”, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The 21st Century KJV 1994, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013 - “the cormorant and the bittern” and the Modern English Version 2014.


 

 

 


Zechariah 9:16-17 - God’s goodness and beauty or man’s?




The NKJV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard steal the Lord’s goodness and beauty and attribute them to man.


Zachariah 9:16-17 KJB - “And the Lord their God shall save them in that day as the flock of his people: for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land.


For how great is HIS goodness, and how great is HIS beauty! corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids.”


NKJV (hard copy) - “The Lord their God will save them in that day, As the flock of His people. For they shall be like the jewels of a crown, Lifted like a banner over His land—


For how great is THEIR goodness And how great THEIR beauty! Grain shall make the young men thrive, And new wine the young women.”


NKJV Footnote: “Literally HIS”


Also changing the literal HIS goodness and HIS beauty to THEIR are the NASB, NIV and the Holman Standard.


NIV - How attractive and beautiful THEY will be!


NASB - For what comeliness and beauty will be THEIRS!


NASB Footnote - “Literally HIS”


Holman Standard - How lovely and beautiful THEY will be!


BUT The ESV got it right - For how great is HIS goodness, and how great HIS beauty!


Also following the Hebrew text and reading like the KJB that speaks of the goodness and the beauty of the Lord - HIS beauty and HIS goodness - are the following Bible translations - the Geneva Bible 1587, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “For how great is His goodness, and how great is His beauty!”, The Word of Yah Bible 1993 - “For how great is His goodness and how great is His beauty!”, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, A Conservative Version 2005, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Common English Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, The International Standard Version 2014, Modern English Version 2014 - “For how great is His goodness, and how great His beauty!”


The Bible Commentators on Zechariah 9:17 


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Commentary - “17. his goodness . . . his beauty--the goodness and beauty which Jehovah-Messiah bestows on His people. Not as MAURER thinks, the goodness, &c., of His land or His people”


Matthew Henry Commentary - “For how great is his goodness and how great is his beauty! This is the substance, this the burden, of the songs wherewith they shall make a noise before the Lord. We are here taught, [1.] To admire and praise the amiableness of God's being: How great is his beauty! All the perfections of God's nature conspire to make him infinitely lovely in the eyes of all that know him. Our business in the temple is to behold the beauty of the Lord (Ps. 27:4), and how great is that beauty! How far does it transcend all other beauties, particularly the beauty of his holiness. This may refer to the Messiah, to Zion's King that cometh. See that king in his beauty (Isa. 33:17), who is fairer than the children of men, the fairest of ten thousand, and altogether lovely. Though, in the eye of the world, he had no form or comeliness, in the eye of faith how great is his beauty!”


John Calvin - “every one of you ought to be filled with amazement at God’s incredible kindness, and at his incredible beauty.”


John Gill’s Commentary - “For how great is his goodness.... Not of the land of Judea, as Kimchi; nor of the doctrine of the law, as the Targum; nor of the people of the Jews; but of the Messiah: and designs not his essential nor his providential goodness; but his goodness as Mediator, which he has in his heart, and has shown unto his people, in being their surety, and becoming their Saviour; in assuming their nature; bearing their sins, and obeying and suffering in their room and stead.”



Zechariah 13:5 KJB "But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; FOR MAN TAUGHT ME TO KEEP CATTLE FROM MY YOUTH."


Also reading this way are the Geneva Bible 1599 - "I am no Prophet: I am an husbandman: for man taught me to be an heardman from my youth vp.", The Lesser Old Testament 1853 - " I am no prophet, a man that tilleth the ground am I; for some one hath taught me to keep cattle from my youth.", The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; FOR MAN TAUGHT ME TO KEEP CATTLE FROM MY YOUTH."the NKJV 1982, the 1936 Jewish Publication Society of America translation, Webster’s 1833 translation, - "I am no prophet, I am a husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.", The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Revised Webster Bible 1995, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "I [am] no Navi, I [am] an husbandman; for MAN TAUGHT ME TO KEEP CATTLE FROM MY YOUTH.", The Bond Slave Version 2012, and The Biblos Bible 2013 - "I am not a prophet; I am a farmer, I serve the ground, for MAN TAUGHT ME TO KEEP LIVESTOCK from my youth." all read the same as the King James Bible.

 

 

Foreign Language  Bibles


Foreign language Bibles that agree with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the French Martin 1744 - "je suis un laboureur; car on m'a appris à gouverner du bétail dès ma jeunesse." = "I am a farmer; because I was taught to govern the cattle from my youth.", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991 -"Io non sono profeta, sono un agricoltore; qualcuno mi ha insegnato ad allevare il bestiame fin dalla mia giovinezza." = "I am no Prophet, I am an husbandman; someone taught me to keep cattle from my youth.", and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "Näo sou profeta, sou lavrador da terra; porque certo homem ensinou-me a guardar o gado desde a minha mocidade." = "I am no Prophet, I am a tiller of the Earth; because certain man taught me to keep cattle from my youth." 

 

The Natural Israelite Bible (online) - “But he will say, 'I am no prophet, I am a farmer; for a man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.’”



BIBLE BABBLE BUFFET VERSIONS


NIV 1984 edition - "I am not a prophet. I am a farmer; THE LAND HAS BEEN MY LIVELIHOOD SINCE MY YOUTH."


ISV (International Standard Version)  2012 - "He will say, 'I am NO MERE PROPHET. A SERVANT OF MANKIND AM I, BECAUSE A MAN DEDICATED TO THIS HAVE I BEEN from my youth.'

 

The New Jewish Version 1985 - "I am not a prophet; I am a tiller of the soil; YOU SEE, I WAS PLIED WITH THE RED STUFF from my youth on." (Yep. It really says this.)

 


NASB - "I am a tiller of the ground, FOR A MAN SOLD ME AS A SLAVE IN MY YOUTH."

 

 

Lama’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta: “AND A MAN MADE ME ZEALOUS TO PROPHESY from my youth.”


New English Bible: “I AM A TILLER OF THE SOIL WHO HAS BEEN SCHOOLED IN LUST from boyhood.”


RSV 1952 “FOR THE LAND HAS BEEN MY POSSESSION from my youth.”


The ESV now has "I am a worker of the soil, FOR A MAN SOLD ME IN MY YOUTH."


J.P. Green's translation 2000 - "I am a man, a tiller of the ground, for A MAN CAUSED ME TO BUY from my youth."


The 1969 Berkeley Version says: "I am a man who cultivates the ground, FOR THE SOIL HAS HELD ME DOWN from my youth."


Catholic Douay 1950 and 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version  “ADAM IS MY EXAMPLE from my youth.”


The so called Greek Septuagint has: "for I am a tiller of the ground, FOR A MAN BROUGHT ME UP THUS FROM MY YOUTH."


Aren't you glad that all these scholars have "gone to the Hebrew" in order to make the meaning plain for us and easy to understand?


John Calvin comments of this verse saying: "With regard to the verb ynnqh, ekenni, hnq, kene, means to possess, to acquire; but as the word hnqm, mekene, which signifies a flock of sheep or cattle, is derived from this verb, the most learned interpreters are inclined to give this meaning, "Man has taught me to possess sheep and oxen." I am however disposed to give this rendering, as I have already stated, "Man has taught me to be a shepherd." 


Adam Clarke comments: "He declares he is no prophet, neither true nor false; that he is now a husbandman, and was brought up a herdsman."


Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: "However, husbandry and keeping cattle might be regarded as jointly the occupation of the person questioned: then Amos 7:14, "herdman," will accord with English Version. A Hebrew kindred word means "cattle." Both occupations, the respondent replies, are inconsistent with my being a "prophet."


Matthew Henry comments: "He shall return to his own proper employment, which is the fittest for him: I will be a husbandman; "I will apply myself to my calling again, and meddle no more with things that belong not to me; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth, and cattle I will again keep, and never set up for a preacher any more." 


Zechariah  13:6  King James Bible - "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

 

 

"WOUNDS IN THINE HANDS?"


Agreeing with the King James Bible reading of "What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS" are the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Wycliffe Bible 1395, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, The Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Douay-Rheims 1610, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young's literal translation 1898, Darby's translation 1890, The Spanish Reina Valera "Y le preguntarán: ¿Qué heridas son estas en tus manos? Y él responderá: Con ellas fui herido en casa de mis amigos.", the Italian Diodati, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the KJV 21st Century version, The NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Easy-To-Read Version 2006, Jubilee Bible 2010, Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013 -"What are these wounds IN YOUR HANDS?" and the International Standard Version 2014 - "what are these injuries to your hands?"


Other translations:


NIV- "What are these wounds ON YOUR BODY? he will answer, 'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.' "

 

The NIV concordance shows that they have translated this same Hebrew word as "hand" or "hands" 887 times, and as "body" only once.


NASB - "What are these wounds BETWEEN YOUR ARMS?"

 

Where exactly is "between your arms", anyway? By the way, the word is clearly "hands" from the Hebrew, same as in the next verse "I will turn mine hand upon the little ones". The NASB has translated this Hebrew word as "hands" 1163 times.


The 1917 Jewish Pub. Society - "And one shall say unto him: 'What are these wounds BETWEEN THY HANDS?' Then he shall answer: 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'"


The RSV, ESV - "And if one asks him, 'What are these wounds ON YOUR BACK?' he will say, 'The wounds I received in the house of my friends.'


The NRSV, Holman 2009 - "And if anyone asks them, "What are these wounds ON YOUR CHEST?" the answer will be "The wounds I received in the house of my friends."  

 

Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - "If someone asks him, 'Then what are THESE GASHES BETWEEN YOUR SHOULDERS?', he will answer, 'I got hurt at my friends' house." 


THE MESSAGE - "And if someone says, "And so WHERE DID YOU GET THAT BLACK EYE?' THEY'll say, "I RAN INTO A DOOR at a friend's house.'


New Life Bible 1969 - "If someone asks him, 'What are these SORES ON YOUR BACK?' he will answer, 'They are the sores I received in the house of my friends.'

 


The Living Bible 1981 - "And if someone asks, Then what are these SCARS ON YOUR CHEST AND YOUR BACK? he will say, "I GOT INTO A BRAWL AT THE HOME OF A FRIEND."


Zechariah 14:6 The context is the “day of the LORD” when He goes forth to fight against the nations that He gathers against Jerusalem.


We pick up in 14:5-7 where we read: “...and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. And it shall come to pass in that day, THAT THE LIGHT SHALL NOT BE CLEAR, NOR DARK: But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, NOT DAY, NOR NIGHT: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time is shall be light.”


Even Jamieson, Fausset and Brown point out: "English Version (this would be the King James Bible) accords with Zec 14:7: "There shall not be altogether light nor altogether darkness." The King James Bible makes perfect sense in the context. However there is a huge difference in the way the various versions have translated this section, with several of the more modern ones abandoning the Hebrew, and following SOME copies of the so called Greek Septuagint.


Agreeing with the King James reading of “THAT THE LIGHT SHALL NOT BE CLEAR, NOR DARK” either word for word or in sense are: Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible “And in that day shall there bee no cleare light, but darke.”, Webster’s 1833, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version :”no bright light nor thick darkness”, Darby, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, and the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament (not to be confused with the LXX).


The Spanish translations from 1569 to 1960 agree exactly with the KJB reading. The Sagradas Escrituras 1569, and the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909, 1960, - “Y acontecerá que en ese día no habrá luz clara, ni oscura.” - And it will come to pass in that day that there will not be clear light, nor dark.” (But the 1995 RV rejects the Hebrew and follows the alleged LXX - Acontecerá que en ese día no habrá luz, ni frío, ni hielo. - “there will not be light, nor cold, nor ice.”


The Judaica Press Tanach is very similar to the KJB with: “And it shall come to pass on that day that there shall be no light, only disappearing light and thick darkness.”


The modern Complete Jewish Bible is very similar to the KJB with: “On that day, there will be neither bright light nor thick darkness.”


The 1917 Jewish Publication Society version is in the ballpark of the KJB reading: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that there shall not be light, but heavy clouds and thick." Notice that none of the four Jewish translations cited say anything about "cold and frost", but instead refer to some sort of a combination of light and darkness on that day.


Young’s ‘literal’ - “in that day, The precious light is not, it is dense darkness.”


Green’s 2000 “literal” - “And it will be in that day, there shall not be light; THE GLORIOUS ONES WILL SHRINK.”!!


The 1982 NKJV has a different meaning that either the KJB or the NIV saying: “It shall come to pass in that day That there will be no light; THE LIGHTS WILL DIMINISH.”


Darby is similar in sense to the KJB - “in that day, that there shall not be light; the shining shall be obscured.”


NIV - “On that day there will be no light, NO COLD OR FROST.”


But the 2003 Holman Standard doesn’t go along with the NIV reading, but instead has: “On that day there will be no light; THE SUNLIGHT AND MOONLIGHT WILL DIMINISH.”


Not even the New International Reader’s Version 1998, put out by the same people who gave us the NIV, go along with the previous NIV reading, but have: “There won't be any light on that day. THE SUN, MOON AND STARS WILL NOT SHINE.”


The 2001 English Standard Version reads like the NIV but notice its footnotes: ESV- “On that day there shall be NO LIGHT, COLD, OR FROST.” Footnote: Compare Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, Targum; the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.”


However the earlier RSV, and NRSV even omitted the word “light” and tell us: “On that day there shall not be EITHER COLD OR FROST.” But then footnote: Compare Gk Syr Vg Tg: Meaning of Heb uncertain.”


The Latin Vulgate does read like the NIV has it, saying “et erit in die illa non erit lux sed frigus et gelu” (and in that day there shall not be light but cold and frost) and to this also agree Wycliffe and Coverdale. The first English Bible to follow the Hebrew rather than the Latin here was the Bishops’ Bible which agrees in sense with the King James Bible. But the Spanish Bible had it right way back in 1569.


The RSV, NRSV, ESV recommend the so called Septuagint, but the LXX versions differ among themselves. The LXX copy I have says “and there shall be no light, and there shall be for one day A SOUL (psukee) and frost.” Then even it footnotes: “Alexandrian psukos, cold, PROBABLY the right reading.” So not even the LXXs agree with each other.


ASV 1901 - “there shall not be light; THE BRIGHT ONES SHALL WITHDRAW THEMSELVES.”


NASB - “In that day there will be no light; THE LUMINARIES WILL DWINDLE.”


The Message is unrecognizable with: - “The Day is coming—the timing is God's—when it will be continuous day. Every evening will be a fresh morning.”


Contemporary English Version 1995 - “It will be a bright day that won't turn cloudy.” Footnote - “One possible meaning for the difficult Hebrew text.”


NET Version. As usual, Daniel Wallace puts his own spin on things, but his footnote is of interest in that what he says he thinks it means is basically what is found in the King James Bible.


NET Version - “On that day there will be no light – the sources of light in the heavens will congeal.” Then part of his lengthy footnote reads: “This difficult phrase is not clarified by the LXX which presupposes “and cold and ice,” a reading followed by NAB, NIV, NCV, NRSV, TEV). Besides the fact that cold and ice do not necessarily follow the absence of light, the idea here is that day will be night and night day.”


Malachi 2:15 - Bible Babel in Action


First the context and an explanation of the verse: "...Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. AND DID NOT HE MAKE ONE? YET HAD HE THE RESIDUE OF THE SPIRIT. AND WHEREFORE ONE? THAT HE MIGHT SEEK A GODLY SEED. Therefore take heed to thy spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth." Malachi 2:14-15


Though I believe there is a spiritual, allegorical meaning to this passage as well, let's focus on the usual literal meaning of the words as applied to the marriage between one man and one woman.


Malachi 2:15 King James Bible - "And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed."


This is the word for word rendering of the Revised Version 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901. It is also the reading or meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, the NKJV, the World English Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, the Updated Bible Version 2004, and the Third Millenium Bible.


Commentators as well as Bible versions are all over the board on the meaning of this verse, but most of them generally agree with the sense found in the King James Bible.


John Wesley comments: "One - But one man, and one woman. Yet - Yet he could have made more. Wherefore one - One couple, and no more. A godly seed - A holy seed born to God in chaste wedlock, and bred as they were born, in the fear of God. Take heed - Keep your heart from wandering after strange wives."


The Geneva Bible has these marginal notes of explanation.


"And did not hee make one? yet had hee abundance of spirit: and wherefore one? because he sought a godly seede: therefore keepe your selues in your spirit, & let none trespasse against the wife of his youth."


Did not God make man and woman as one flesh and not many? By his power and strength he could have made many women for one man.


John Gill comments on Malachi 2:15: "And did not he make one? - That is, did not God make one man, and out of his rib one woman? did he not make man, male and female? did he not make one pair, one couple, only Adam and Eve, whom he joined together in marriage? or rather, did he not make one woman only, and brought her to Adam to be his wife? which shows that his intention and will were, that one man should have but one wife at a time; the contrary to which was the then present practice of the Jews.


Yet had he the residue of the spirit - it was not for want of power that he made but one woman of Adam's rib, and breathed into her the breath of life, or infused into her a human soul or spirit; he could have made many women at the same time; and as the Father of spirits, having the residue of them with him, or a power left to make as many as he pleased, he could have imparted spirits unto them, and given Adam more wives than one.


And wherefore one? -what is the reason why he made but one woman, when he could have made ten thousand, or as many as he pleased? the answer is, That he might seek a godly seed.


The NKJV basically reads like the King James Bible - "But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth."


The Updated Bible Version of 2004 has also gone back to the King James reading with: "And did he not make one, although he had the residue of the Spirit? And why one? He sought a godly seed."


HOWEVER, when we begin to compare a multitude of modern versions we encounter totally different and conflicting meanings. Remember, all these scholars have the same training and are translating the same Hebrew texts, yet they come up with completely different translations.


The RSV of 1952


"Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring."


The NRSV of 1989


"Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his. And what does the one God desire? Godly offspring."


The ESV of 2001


"Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring."


Each of these is a revision of the other, and none of them agree not with the King James Bible, but not even with each other.


The NASB of 1995 (Remember that both the RV and ASV read as does the KJB)


"But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring?"


The NIV of 1984


"Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring."


Holman Standard of 2003


"Didn't the one God make us with a remnant of His life-breath? And what does the One seek? A godly offspring."


The Message of 2002


"GOD, not you, made marriage. His Spirit inhabits even the smallest details of marriage. And what does he want from marriage? Children of God, that's what."


Not one of these modern versions, from the RSV to The Message, has the same meaning as any of the others. They are wildly different from each other, and yet we are constantly being told that all bibles have the same message. This is the present day Bible Babel and confused state of Christianity in the 21st century.


The Bible Babble Buffet in the New Testament


I would like to start off this section with a short post from another dear brother in Christ who is a King James Bible believer and has his own webpage defending The Book.  His site is called KJV Today.  He posts: 

"Most modern translations are based on an edition of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text, which omits words and phrases found in the Greek text of the KJV.  Proponents of these modern critical texts often claim that the KJV contains "110%" of the word of God and that the modern texts are actually closer to the originals.  Yet modern textual criticism cannot determine correct readings with any certainty.  A textual critic might omit or abandon Textus Receptus readings based on the evidence and theory of his time, but a textual critic at a later time might go back to Textus Receptus readings based on new evidence or theory. This is exactly what has happened."

 



Malachi 2:16 KJB - “For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that HE HATETH PUTTING AWAY; FOR ONE COVERETH VIOLENCE WITH HIS GARMENT,  saith the Lord of hosts: THEREFORE TAKE HEED TO YOUR SPIRIT, THAT YE DEAL NOT TREACHEROUSLY.”





However the NIV 1979 and 1984 editions did not read this way. They USED to say: "I HATE DIVORCE" says the LORD God of Israel, "and I HATE A MAN’S COVERING HIMSELF WITH VIOLENCE AS WELL AS HIS GARMENT," says the LORD Almighty."


But now the NIV 2011 edition says: “THE MAN WHO HATES AND DIVORCES HIS WIFE,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “DOES VIOLENCE TO THE ONE HE SHOULD PROTECT,” says the LORD Almighty.”


The ESV is similar to the NIV 2011 edition in the first part of the verse but not the second part, saying: 


FOR THE MAN WHO DOES NOT LOVE HIS WIFE BUT DIVORCES HER, says the Lord, the God of Israel, COVERS HIS GARMENT WITH VIOLENCE, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”  


Likewise the Holman Standard 2009 is similar in the first part but not the second, with: “IF HE HATES AND DIVORCES HIS WIFE,” says the Lord God of Israel, “he covers his garment with injustice,” says the Lord of Hosts. Therefore, watch yourselves carefully, and do not act treacherously. 


The Geneva Bible 1599 as well as the Bishops’ bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, Great bible 1540 and Matthew’s Bible 1549 were all very different from the KJB saying: “ IF THOU HATEST HER, PUT HER AWAY, saith the Lord God of Israel, yet he covereth the injury under his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore keep yourselves in your spirit, and transgress not.” 


The King James Bible was the first English translation to get it right. 


Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syraic Peshitta is totally different from them all, saying: “For the LORD, the God of Israel, says THAT NO ONE SHOULD CONCEAL THE INIQUITY OF HIS ROBE, therefore take heed to your spirit, and do not deal treacherously.”  Huh?



The Catholic Versions -


The Douay-Rheims says: “ WHEN THOU SHALT HATE HER PUT HER AWAY, saith the Lord the God of Israel: but iniquity shall cover his garment, saith the Lord of hosts, keep your spirit, and despise not.”


But the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 has: “FOR I HATE DIVORCE, says the LORD, the God of Israel, And covering one’s garment with injustice, says the LORD of hosts: You must then safeguard life that is your own, and not break faith.”



Similar to the King James Bible -


Similar to the KJB are the NASB 1995 - “FOR I HATE DIVORCE,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with ]wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”



Also reading in a similar way to the KJB are The Lesser O.T. 1835, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Young’s 1898, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the RSV 1971, NRSV 1989 “For I hate divorce”, the NKJV 1982, God’s Word Translation 1995, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998,  Green’s Literal 2005, the NET bible 2006 - “I hate divorce” says the LORD, The Mebust Bible 2007, the Holman Standard 2009, the ISV 2014 - “he hates divorce”, The Natural Israelite Bible, Names of God Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011,  the Lexham English Bible 2012 - “For I HATE DIVORCE”,  The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012,  Tree of Life Version 2015. 



Bibles = KJB


Agreeing word for word or almost with the King James Bible are The Bill Bible 1671, the Webster Bible 1833, The Longman Version 1841, Darby 1890, The Revised Version 1885 - “For I HATE PUTTING AWAY, saith the LORD, the God of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith the LORD of hosts; therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”, the ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 - “For I hate putting away, saith the LORD, the God of Israel, and him that covereth his garment with violence, saith the LORD of hosts; therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company bible, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, the  World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern English Version 2014 and The Hebrew Roots Bible 2015.



Mark 1:1:


 

The KJB says, "the Son of God;"

The TNIV of 2005 omitted the phrase.

The NIV 2011 put the phrase back into the text.


Mark 10:7: 


The KJB says, “cleave to his wife.” 

The NASB of 1977 and 1995 omitted the phrase. 

The ESV of 2001 put the phrase back into the text. 



Luke 24:6: 


The KJB says, “He is not here, but is risen:” 

The RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase. 

The NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text at the end of the previous verse. 



Luke 24:12: 


The KJB says, “Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.” 

The RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase. 

The NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text. 



Luke 24:36: 


The KJB says, “And saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” 

The NASB of 1977 and RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase. 

The NASB of 1995 and the NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text. 



Luke 24:40: 


The KJB says, “And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.” 

The RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase. 

The NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text. 



Luke 24:51: 


The KJB says, “and carried up into heaven.” 

The NASB of 1977 omitted the phrase. 

The NASB of 1995 put the phrase back into the text. 



Luke 24:52: 


The KJB says, “worshipped him.” 

The NASB of 1977 and the RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase. 

The NASB of 1995 and the NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text. 



John 13:32:


      . The KJB says "If God be glorified in him"


      . The RV 1881, ASV 1901 omitted these words.


      . The NASB, ESV, NIV put them back in.


 


Romans 15:19: 


The KJB says, “spirit of God.” 

The NIV of 1984 omitted "of God". 

The NIV of 2010 put the phrase back into the text.



1 Corinthians 10:9: 


 

The KJV says not to tempt, “Christ.” 

The RSV of 1971 says not to tempt "the Lord". 

The NRSV of 1989 goes back to "Christ".



Colossians 3:6:


The KJV says, “on the children of disobedience.”

The NASB of 1977 omitted the phrase.

The NASB of 1995 put the phrase back into the text.


 

1 Peter 5:2 

The KJB says, “taking the oversight thereof.” 

The RSV of 1971 omitted the phrase.

The NRSV of 1989 put the phrase back into the text

 

 

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume29/GOT029003.html

 

 

 

 

Wilbur Pickering, ThM. PhD. writes in his book The Identity of the New Testament Text, 2014 - 


"Bruce Metzger said, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence". A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED CHANGES" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition (the same committee of five editors prepared both).


K. Aland, M. Black, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, eds., The Greek New Testament, third edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. viii. Although this edition is dated 1975, Metzger's Commentary upon it appeared in 1971. The second edition is dated 1968. IT THUS APPEARS THAT IN THE SPACE OF THREE YEARS ('68-'71), WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ACCRETION OF NEW EVIDENCE, THE SAME GROUP OF FIVE SCHOLARS CHANGED THEIR MIND IN OVER 500 PLACES. IT IS HARD TO RESIST THE SUSPICION THAT THEY WERE GUESSING."


http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/Pickering/Miscellaneous/Pickering%20-%20Identity%20of%20the%20NT%204th%20edit..pdf

 

The changes between the 25th and 27th editions of the Nestle-Aland NTG are also interesting -- 763 changes, of which 408 occur in the Gospels.

 

 

Matthew 1:7-10. ESV errors from corrupt texts

 

Matthew chapter one lists the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ from the kingly line of David and Solomon. 

 

KJB - “And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat ASA (ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀσά); and ASA (Ἀσά) begat Josaphat…(v.10) And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat AMON (Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμών) and AMON ( Ἀμών) begat Josias.”

 

ESV - “and Solomon the father of (Here the ESV changed the verb found in all Greek texts “begat” to a noun not found in ANY Greek text “the father of) Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of ASAPH (δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀσάφ), and ASAPH ( Ἀσάφ) the father of Jehoshaphat…(v.10) And Hezekiah the father of Manasseh and Manasseh the father of AMOS (Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμώς) and AMOS ( Ἀμώς) the father of Josiah.”

 

These different names - ASA versus ASAPH, and AMON versus AMOS are TEXTUAL differences. They are not variations in spelling the same names, but are totally different names that come from very different Greek texts.  And the texts followed by the ESV here in verses 7, 8 and 10 are the WRONG names.

 

Simply go back to 1 Chronicles 3:10-14 in either the Hebrew Scriptures or even the so called Greek Septuagint and they both read the same.  ASA was the son of Abia, and AMON was the son of Manasseh. Even the ESV tells you this in 1 Chronicles 3:10-14.

 

The ESV has followed the Westcott-Hort, UBS critical Greek text in these places where they have the wrong names.  There were at least three men names Asaph and two names Amos, but neither one of them is listed anywhere in the Bible as being in the lineage of the man Jesus Christ.

 

The Majority of all Greek manuscripts, the Hebrew Scriptures, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta and even the so called Greek Septuagint read as does the King James Bible with ASA and AMON.

So where did the ESV get the names of ASAPH and AMOS?  They come from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  Instead of just recognizing that these are two of the most corrupt manuscripts in existence, they have chosen to go against all historical evidence  to the contrary and have two guys in the lineage of our Saviour who simply do NOT belong there.

 

What is interesting here is that not even the NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, The Voice, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 or even Dan Wallace’s NET version followed the UBS, Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts here that falsely read “Asaph” and “Amos”, but went instead with the Traditional Greek texts of the Reformation Bibles and the KJB and they all correctly read “ASA” and “AMON” instead of the ESV’s “ASAPH” and “AMOS”.

 

The other perverted bibles would be the previous RSV where they correctly have ASA in verses 7 and 8 but then footnote that “the Greek says ASAPH”, which is not true at all.  Only a very few corrupt Greek manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read this way, while the vast majority of them have it right.  But the RSV then went with the false reading of AMOS in verse 10, and then footnotes “others read Amon”.

 

Then came along the NRSV of 1989 and it changed BOTH names to ASAPH and AMOS, just like the ESV 2001-2011 has it.  These are TEXTUAL errors that result in two of the wrong men being placed into the lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ, and even the NASB, NIV, Holman and NET translators had enough sense to see that these are the wrong names and they went back to the Traditional Greek text in these two instances.

 

God is a God of absolute Truth; He cannot lie.  If you find lies and falsehood in a book that purports to be the words of the living God and they are false, then this bible version is false and cannot be trusted.

 

“For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.”  Mark 14:56  

 

 

Matthew 1:25 “her FIRSTBORN son” - Is your bible one of the new Vatican Versions?


In Matthew 1:25 we read of the birth of the Saviour Jesus who would save His people from their sins.  Here it is recorded that Joseph, the husband of the virgin Mary “knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.” 


Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born - “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1:18)


However after the birth of Jesus, Mary also had other children; at least 7 other children.  We see this as recorded in Matthew 13:55-56 when those astonished at His teaching in the synagogue ask: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?  And his sisters, are they not ALL (not ‘both’) with us?  Whence then hath this man all these things?”



However the Catholic church teaches that the virgin Mary was perpetually a virgin. The Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, which also omits the word “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25, has a footnote in reference to the brothers and sisters of the Lord Jesus. They tell us: “The question about the brothers of Jesus and his sisters cannot easily be decided on linguistic grounds. Greek-speaking Semites used the terms adelphos and adelphe, not only in the ordinary sense of blood brother or sister, but also for nephew, niece, half-brother, half-sister, and cousin. The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.”  page 48 St. Joseph NAB.



The textual support for the reading in Matthew 1:25 of “knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son” (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον) is massive and widespread.  It is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts and many uncial copies (capital letters) including C, D, E, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma and Omega.



 It is also the reading found in numerous early church Lectionaries, the Old Latin copies of aur, d, f, ff1, g2, q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Armenian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions. It is also so quoted by many early church witnesses including the Diatessaron, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Proclus, Jerome and Augustine.



However the reading of “THE FIRSTBORN” is omitted in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and a few others.  The modern versions that omit the word “FIRSTBORN” and merely say something like: “But but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” are the NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Holman and the Common English Bible - all the new Vatican Versions. 


 


The Catholic Connection


 


The Catholic bibles are interesting in that they continue to change their underlying texts from one edition to the next.  The previous Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay version of 1950 both included the phrase, saying: “And he knew her not till she brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.”



However the Douay-Rheims gives this lengthy footnote to try to explain away the clear meaning of the verse.  They tell us: “[25] Till she brought forth her firstborn son: From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future...St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.”



 


Well, to get rid of this “problem” and the convoluted, Jesuit reasoning used to try to dismiss what the text clearly says, the more modern Catholic versions like the Jerusalem bible of 1968, the St. Joseph NAB of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 simply omit the word “firstborn” altogether as also do the other Vatican Versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB, ISV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Holman, etc. 


They now read: “he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son.” (New Jerusalem bible 1985)



But wait a minute; there’s more. The 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version has now put the word back into their text! It now reads: “And he knew her not, yet she bore her son, THE FIRSTBORN. And he called his name JESUS.” And so does The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible of 2012.


 


Bibles that agree with the King James Bible reading of “her FIRSTBORN son” are the following: the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. - “et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum.”, the Anglo-Saxon gospels  by Aelfric Manuscript 140 dated to about 1000 A.D. - "hyre frum-cennedan sunu", Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "And he did not know her until she gave birth to her first-born son; and she called his name Jesus.", Wycliffe 1395 - "til she hadde borun her firste bigete sone", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer's bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "til she had broght forth her first borne sonne, & he called his name Iesus.", the Beza N.T. 1599,  Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Webster's translation 1833, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the NKJV 1982, the Amplified Bible 1997, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012, Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Modern English Version 2014.


 


Foreign Language Bibles



Among foreign language bibles that read like the King James Bible with "her FIRSTBORN son" are the following: the Chinese Union Traditional bible, the French Martin 1744, the French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Second 2007 - "ce qu'elle eût enfanté son FILS PREMIER-NE", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "ERSTGEBORENEN Sohn", the Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuovo Diodati of 1991 - "il suo figliuol PRIMOGENITO" the the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960, 1995 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - "hasta que parió á su hijo PRIMOGENITO", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 2009 and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada  deu à luz seu filho, O PRIMOGENITO", the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - "Ale nie obcował z nią, dopóki nie urodziła swego pierworodnego syna, któremu nadał imię Jezus.", the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Russian Synodal Version, the Czech BKR Bible - "Ale nepoznal jí, až i porodila Syna svého prvorozeného, a nazvala jméno jeho Ježíš.", the Smith and Van Dyke Arabic Bible - ولم يعرفها حتى ولدت ابنها البكر. ودعا اسمه يسوع


the Modern Greek N.T.  as well as the Greek texts used by the Orthodox Churches all over the world today - "εγεννησε τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον". 


And the Modern Hebrew Bible - ולא ידעה עד כי ילדה בן את בכורה ויקרא את שמו ישוע׃


 


 


Matthew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU, DO GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU, and pray for them which DESPITEFULLY USE YOU, and persecute you." 


All the words in capital letters are found in the Majority of remaining Greek manuscripts including D, E, K, L, M, S, U, W, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma and Omega. They are also found in the Old Latin copies of c, d, f, h and m.  They are included in the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, and in the Gothic, Ethiopic and Armenian ancient versions. 


All these words are omitted in basically two manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.


English Bibles prior to the Westcott-Hort creation of a new text contained all these words.  These include  the Anglo-Saxon Gospels of 990 A.D., Wycliffe's Bible of 1395 - "But Y seie to you, loue ye youre enemyes, do ye wel to hem that hatiden you, and preye ye for hem that pursuen, and sclaundren you", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible (Cranmer) 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "But I say vnto you, Loue your enemies: blesse them that curse you: doe good to them that hate you, and pray for them which hurt you, and persecute you", The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley's translation 1755, Worseley Version 1770, The Etheridge translation of the Syriac 1849, Murdock's translation of the Syriac 1852 and Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Emphatic Diaglott 1865, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, Darby 1890, Young's 1898,  the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Lawrie Translation 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Last Days Bible 1999, God's First Truth 1999, Tomson N.T. 2002, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2003, The Pickering N.T. 2005, A Conservative Version 2005, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), the English Jubilee Bible 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011, the Knox Bible of 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The World English Bible 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, and The Modern English Version 2014.


 


Foreign Language Bibles


 


Among foreign language translations that include all these words in the text are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, 1909-1995 and the 2010 R.V. Gómez Bible - "Mas yo os digo: Amad a vuestros enemigos, bendecid a los que os maldicen, haced bien a los que os aborrecen, y orad por los que os calumnian y os persiguen the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Mais moi je vous dis : aimez vos ennemis, et bénissez ceux qui vous maudissent, faites du bien à ceux qui vous haïssent, et priez pour ceux qui vous courent sus, et vous persécutent.", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "Ma io vi dico: Amate i vostri nemici, benedite coloro che vi maledicono, fate bene a coloro che vi odiano, e pregate per coloro che vi fanno torto, e vi perseguitano", Luther's German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Dutch Staten Vertaling, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués 1671 and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - "Eu, porém, vos digo: Amai a vossos inimigos, bendizei os que vos maldizem, fazei bem aos que vos odeiam, e orai pelos que vos maltratam e vos perseguem", the Basque N.T.,  the Czech BKR Bible,  the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible - واما انا فاقول لكم احبوا اعداءكم. باركوا لاعنيكم. احسنوا الى مبغضيكم. وصلّوا لاجل الذين يسيئون اليكم ويطردونكم.,  and the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013


 


The Modern Greek Bible - Εγω ομως σας λεγω, Αγαπατε τους εχθρους σας, ευλογειτε εκεινους, οιτινες σας καταρωνται, ευεργετειτε εκεινους, οιτινες σας μισουσι, και προσευχεσθε υπερ εκεινων, οιτινες σας βλαπτουσι και σας κατατρεχουσι"


And the Modern Hebrew Bible - אבל אני אמר לכם אהבו את איביכם ברכו את מקקליכם היטיבו לשנאיכם והתפללו בעד מכאיביכם ורדפיכם׃




English Bible versions generally did not begin to omit these 15 words from Matthew 5:44 until the Westcott-Hort Revised Version came out in 1885.


Since then others that also omit all these words are the ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, NET, Holman Standard and the Jehovah Witness NWT.


The ESV is typical of these Critical text modern Vatican Versions.  It reads: "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."


 


The Catholic Connection


 


Of interest are the Catholic versions.  Both the 1610 Douay Rheims and the 1950 contained many of the words that are now omitted by the more modern Catholic versions.  They both read: "But I say to you, Love your enemies: DO GOOD TO THEM THAT HATE YOU: and pray for them that persecute AND CALUMNIATE YOU."


The only part of the Scripture they omitted are the words "BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU"; they included the other words of the text. 


But now the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 read just like the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. The New Jerusalem bible says: "But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." 


So too reads the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.


But hold on.


The Catholic church is not done yet.  Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out they have gone back to the previous Douay reading. It once again adds most of the words back to the text saying: "But I say to you: Love your enemies. DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE YOU. And pray for those who persecute AND SLANDER you."


 


Matthew 6:13 KJB - And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.



And lead us not into TEMPTATION.


Is this a bad translation? Should, as some self appointed, “know it all”, Bible correctors tells us, this word have been translated as “Lead us not into TRIAL”?

 

A fellow Bible believer wrote me, saying: “I read one who thinks that the word tempt found in the Lord's Prayer is bad. He thought the word would be better translated as trial like in Revelation 3:10 as many other translations of Revelation 3:10.  He also said that this will also arrange the problem of James 1:13 if you translate the word in Matthew 6:13 "more correct". Your view on this?”


Bible correctors are a dime a dozen nowadays. Everybody thinks he’s an expert, and is therefore free to make up his own translation. 


First of all, this Every Man For Himself Bible Versionist is ignorant of his own English language. The English word “to tempt” and the noun “temptation” has more than one meaning.


Oxford English Dictionary tells us that “to tempt” can mean either 1. to entice or try to entice (someone) to do something unwise or wrong, as by promising pleasure or reward.


Or, 2. to provoke or put to the test.


Dictionary.Com also informs us that the word can mean either 


1. to entice or allure to do something often regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral., Or


2. to put someone to the test in a venturesome way; provoke


Both senses can apply to how God deals with His children. God brings both trials, and sometimes He leads us into temptation by allowing either Satan or our own sinful flesh to test us for the purpose of purifying and strengthening us.


“Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him (Hezekiah) to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, GOD LEFT HIM, TO TRY HIM, that he might know all that was in his heart.” 2 Chronicles 32:31  

 

"Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil."  Matthew 4:1. Notice that it was the Spirit of God that led Him to a place where He would be tempted.

 

John Calvin - “That we may not be led into temptation, deliver us from evil The meaning is: “We are conscious Of our own weakness, and desire to enjoy the protection of God, that we may remain impregnable against all the assaults of Satan.” We showed from the former petition, that no man can be reckoned a Christian, who does not acknowledge himself to be a sinner; and in the same manner, we conclude from this petition, that we have no strength for living a holy life, except so far as we obtain it from God. Whoever implores the assistance of God to overcome temptations, acknowledges that, unless God deliver him, he will be constantly falling.”



John Wesley - “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil - Whenever we are tempted, O thou that helpest our infirmities, suffer us not to enter into temptation; to be overcome or suffer loss thereby; but make a way for us to escape, so that we may be more than conquerors, through thy love, over sin and all the consequences of it.”


John Gill - “And lead us not into temptation,.... Such a petition as this is often to be observed in the prayers of the Jews, "do not lead me" neither into sin, nor into transgression and iniquity, "nor into temptation", or "into the hands of temptation"; that is, into the power of it, so as to be overcome by it, and sink under it; in which sense the phrase is to be understood here. We are not here taught to pray against temptations at all, or in any sense, for they are sometimes needful and useful; but that they may not have the power over us, and destroy us.”  


Matthew Henry - “It is not as if God tempted any to sin; but, "Lord, do not let Satan loose upon us; chain up that roaring lion, for he is subtle and spiteful; Lord, do not leave us to ourselves (Ps. 19:13), for we are very weak; Lord, do not lay stumbling-blocks and snares before us, nor put us into circumstances that may be an occasion of falling." 


Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament - “God does test or sift us, though he does not tempt us to evil. No one understood temptation so well as Jesus for the devil tempted him by every avenue of approach to all kinds of sin, but without success. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus will say to Peter, James, and John: “Pray that ye enter not into temptation”  (Luke 22:40). That is the idea here. Here we have a “Permissive imperative” as grammarians term it. The idea is then: “Do not allow us to be led into temptation.”



Agreeing with the KJB’s “temptation” are the ASV 1901, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898,  J.B. Phillips 1962, RSV 1946-1971, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, New Century Version 2005,  Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006, NIV 2011, the ESV 2011, Holman Standard 2009, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, the Mounce Reverse-Interlinear N.T. 2011, The Voice 2012, Lexham English Bible 2012, New Living Translation 2013, International Standard Version 2014, Modern English Version 2014. 



Only one version I know of DOES change this to “TRIAL”, The liberal  NRSV of 1989 - “And do not bring us to the time of TRIAL”, but then it footnotes “or, temptation”. 


Notice that the RSV had “temptation”. Then the NRSV went with “trial” but then the ESV went back to “temptation”. These are all revisions of each other.

 

 

 

Matthew 6:1 KJB - "Take heed that ye do not your ALMS  (ελεημοσυνην)  before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven."

 

ESV - "Beware of practicing your RIGHTEOUSNESS (δικαιοσυνην) before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven."

 

The reading of “ALMS” ελεημοσυνην is that found in the Majority of all remaining manuscripts as well as L, W, Z, theta, the Old Latin f, k, and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Coptic and Armenian ancient versions.

 

The read of “RIGHTEOUSNESS” is that of Vaticanus, D, and the Sinaiticus original and second correction. Sinaiticus first said “righteousness”, then a scribe changed it to read “gifts” and then a third changed it back to “righteousness” again.

 

 

"do not your ALMS before men"

 

The traditional Reformation text of the King James Bible’s “ALMS” is also that of Tyndale 1534 - “Take hede to youre ALMES. That ye geve it not in the syght of men”, Coverdale 1535 - “Take hede to youre ALMES”, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Worsley Version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, The Morgan N.T. 1848, Etheridge translation of the Syriac 1849 - “See that in your ALMSGIVING you do it not before men”, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Dillard N.T. 1885,  Darby 1890, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “YOUR ALMS, not to do them in the presence of men”,  NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Third Millennium Bible 1998 - "ALMSGIVING", God's First Truth 1999 - "ALMS",  World English Bible 2000 - “don’t do your charitable giving before men”, The Tomson N.T. 2002, A Conservative Version 2005 “don’t do your charity before men”, Complete Apostles Bible 2005, The Pickering N. T. 2005 - "YOUR CHARITABLE GIVING", the Bond Slave Version 2009 - "do not your ALMS before men", The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) - "ALMS", the Conservative Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011 -"ALMS", The Aramaic N.T. 2011,  The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “don’t practice your charity giving before men”, the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them.” , The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 - "your ALMSGIVING", The Hebrew Names Version 2014 - YOUR CHARITABLE GIVING", The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 - "YOUR CHARITY",  and The Modern English Version 2014 - "your CHARITABLE DEEDS".

 

Foreign Language Bibles - ALMS

  

the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - “Mirad que no hagáis vuestra limosna delante de los hombres”, the French Martin 1744 - “Prenez garde de ne faire point votre aumône devant les hommes” = “do not your ALMS before men”, the French Louis Segond 2007 - “Gardez-vous bien de faire des dons devant les hommes pour qu’ils vous regardent” = “to make donations”, the Italian Diodati 1991 - “Guardatevi dal fare la vostra elemosina davanti agli uomini” = "your ALMS before men", and Luther’s German bible 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “Habt acht auf eure Almosen, daß ihr die nicht gebet vor den Leuten” = “your ALMS” and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Almeida Corregida 1681 - “Guardai-vos de fazer a vossa esmola diante dos homens” = “do not your ALMS before men.”

 

 This is also the reading of the Modern Greek Bible - "Προσεχετε να μη καμνητε την ελεημοσυνην σας εμπροσθεν των ανθρωπων δια να βλεπησθε υπ' αυτων·"

 

Those versions that follow the reading of RIGHTEOUSNESS are the Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

 

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Douay Rheims 1582- “Take heed that you DO NOT YOUR JUSTICE BEFORE MEN, to be seen by them”. Then the Douay 1950 reads: “Take heed not to do YOUR GOOD before men”. The 1968 Jerusalem bible says: “Be careful not to parade YOUR GOOD DEEDS before men to attract their notice.”  The 1970 St. Joseph NAB has: “Be on guard against performing RELIGIOUS ACTS for people to see”. The 1985 New Jerusalem bible has: “Be careful not to parade YOUR UPRIGHTNESS in public to attract attention”.

 

This reading contradicts Matthew 5:16 where our Lord just got done saying “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

 

Christ tells us we are to do good works, and righteousness and good deeds before others that they may glorify our Father in heaven, but when it comes to giving alms or money to the poor, this is to be done in secret.

 

Some critical text versions translate this as “do not your GOOD DEEDS (or GOOD WORKS) before men.”  

 

Amplified bible 1987 - “Take care not to do your GOOD DEEDS publicly or before men”  

 

Common English Bible 2011 - ““Be careful that you DON’T PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION in front of people” 

 

Holman Standard 2009, NIV 2011 - ““Be careful NOT TO PRACTICE YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS in front of people, to be seen by them.”

 

Names of God Bible 2011 - “Be careful NOT TO DO YOUR GOOD WORKS IN PUBLIC in order to attract attention”

 

Young’s “literal” (Ha!) has made his own reading not found in any manuscript and says: “Take heed your KINDNESS not to do before men, to be seen by them”  

 

 

Matthew 6:22 - If thine eye be SINGLE

 

Matthew 6:22  KJB - “The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be SINGLE, thy whole body shall be full of light.”


NKJV (Holman) - “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is GOOD, your whole body will be full of light.”


NIV (NET, ESV) - “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are HEALTHY, your whole body will be full of light.”


NASB (MEV) - “The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is CLEAR, your whole body will be full of light.” 


Moffat Translation 1926 - “The eye is the lamp of the body: so, if your Eye is GENEROUS, the whole of your body will be illumined”


Lexham English Bible 2012 - "The eye is the lamp of the body. Therefore if your eye is SINCERE, your whole body will be full of light.”


The King James Bible, as always, is right and many modern versions are not.


The English word “single” is defined in Webster’s modern dictionary as meaning “only one, without another or others, not double, compound or multitude.”  



The Greek word used both here in Matthew 6:22 and Luke 11:34 where the Lord Jesus says: “when thine eye is SINGLE” is haplous and in Greek it looks like this - απλους 


The Greek Lexicons tell us that the word means “single”. 


Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford Press 1968, page 190 defines the Greek word haplous as meaning 1. single. 2. simple


Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon 1889 page 57 defines it as “simple or single”.


Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon, University of Chicago Press 1957 page 85 defines it as: “single, simple, sincere.”


Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, page 1058 tells us that the Greek word means “simple, single - used in the moral sense. Singleness of purpose keeps us from the snare of having double treasure and consequently a divided heart.”

 

The noun form of this adjective is # 572 haplotees and is translated in Ephesians 6:5 "in SINGLENESS of your heart, as unto Christ." and in Colossians 3:22 as "obey in all things....in SINGLENESS of heart, fearing God." 


The word does NOT mean "good" as the NKJV has it. There is an entirely different word for "good" which is agathos.  The verse is not talking about having "good eyesight" as opposed to bad eyesight, but rather it refers to having a single focus on the things of God. 


"if therefore thine eye be SINGLE"


Not only does the King James Bible correctly translate this phrase as “if therefore thine eye be SINGLE”, meaning that we are focused on one particular goal, and NOT that we have “good eyesight”, but so also do the following Bible translations.


Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Webster’s Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Alford New Testament 1870, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised Version 1885, Darby Translation 1890, the ASV 1901, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, God’s First Truth Translation 1999, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Disciples’ Literal N.T. 2011 - “if your eye is SINGLE, your whole body will be full-of-light.”, and The Pioneer’s New Testament 2014.




Matthew 6:27 "Which of you by taking thought can add ONE CUBIT UNTO HIS STATURE?"


Here is an interesting case of modern version flights of fancy. All Greek texts read the same here and clearly use the word "cubit". A cubit is a unit of about 18 inches and is used to measure physical height, length or thickness. The Greek word for cubit is # 4083 peekus and it is only found 4 times in the entire New Testament and every time it refers to "a length of 18 inches". 


Matthew 6:21 and Luke 12:25 - "can add ONE CUBIT to his stature"; John 21:8 "And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred CUBITS) dragging the net with fishes." and Revelation 21:17 "And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four CUBITS, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel."


"ADD ONE CUBIT UNTO HIS STATURE"



Bible translations that correctly read "add one cubit unto his stature" are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Whiston N.T 1745, the Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster Bible 1833, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, the Smith Bible 1876 - "can add one cubit to his size", The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Dillard N.T. 1885, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890,  Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Worrell N.T. 1904, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, the Holman Standard 2009, The English Majority Text Version 2009, The Faithful N.T. 2009, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The New European Version - "can add one CUBIT TO HIS STATURE?", The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Mounce Interlinear N. T. 2011, the Knox Bible 2012,  the Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Pioneer's N.T. 2014 - "ONE CUBIT TO HIS STATURE", The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.


 The Last Days Bible 1999 - "Which of you by worry and anxious care can add 18 inches to his height?"


Weymouth N.T. 1912 missed it by 6 inches - "can add a single FOOT TO HIS HEIGHT?"



Versions that paraphrase the Greek but end up with basically the same meaning as found in the KJB are the New Life Bible, New English Bible 1970, and the Message which reads: "Has anyone by fussing in front of the mirror ever gotten taller by so much as an inch?", while the Bible in Basic English has: "And which of you by taking thought is able to make himself a cubit taller?" Even Weymouth had "can add a single foot to his height?"


 


Foreign Language Bibles


 


Foreign Language Bibles that also say "add one CUBIT to his STATURE" are the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "ajouter une coudée à sa taille?", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the 1991 New Diodati - "aggiungere alla sua statura pure un cubito?" and the Riveduta 1927, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the Reina Valera 1960, 1995 and the Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "¿Y quién de vosotros podrá, por mucho que se afane, añadir a su estatura un codo?", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009  - "acrescentar um côvado à sua estatura?" , 


 


Now the NASBs present an interesting case. From 1963 to 1977 the NASB editions read: "add A CUBIT TO HIS LIFE SPAN".


Then after 32 years it may have dawned on the NASB translators that since a cubit is always used for a measurement of height or distance, and never as a length of time, that their reading didn't make much sense. So, in 1995 they have once again changed their "bible" to now read along with the NIV, RSV, NET, ISV and ESV: "add AN HOUR TO HIS LIFE SPAN".


Of course, there is no Greek text on this earth that reads "AN HOUR", and even the NASB online edition itself footnotes "F114 Lit. cubit (approx 18 in.)". We could well ask ourselves at this point how "an hour" somehow equals 18 inches but the NASB guys have never been sticklers for  consistency or accuracy.


Young’s 1898 also missed it, with: “And who of you, being anxious, is able to add to his AGE one cubit?” (Again, a cubit is not a measurement of time but of length or height.)


The critical text Common English Bible of 2012 paraphrases and misses the point with: "Who among you by worrying can add a SINGLE MOMENT TO YOUR LIFE?"  In this modern paraphrase the 18 inch cubit had dropped from the NASB, NIV, ESVs "hour" to a "single moment". They just keep getting better and better, don't they?  


YES, indeedy, we have made "wonderful advances in modern scholarship and now we are very close to what the originals actually said!" ;-)


 


The Catholic Connection


 


We see the same confusion in the Catholic versions.  The older Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the 1950 Douay both correctly read as does the KJB with "And which of you by taking thought, can add TO HIS STATURE ONE CUBIT?". 


Then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible both have the nonsensical reading of "add a SINGLE CUBIT TO YOUR SPAN OF LIFE?" (Keep in mind that a cubit is NOT a measure of time) and the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible has "add A MOMENT TO HIS LIFE SPAN?"


But, not to fear. Now the latest Catholic version to come down the pike, called the Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009, has once again gone back to reading "and which of you, by thinking, is able to ADD ONE CUBIT TO HIS STATURE?" and so has The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible of 2012. 


Get yourself a copy of the King James Bible and stick to it. Don't settle for an inferior bible version that NOBODY seriously believes is the inerrant words of God. 


 


For proof of the fickle nature of the ever changing NASBs please see my article - 'The ever-changing "literal" NASB' here:  


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


Matthew 7:14 is the way that leads to life “NARROW” or “HARD”?


Matthew 7:13-14 KJB - “ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:


14 Because strait is the gate, and NARROW is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”


ESV (RSV, Revised Standard Version CATHOLIC Edition 1966, NRSV) - “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is HARD that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”


The NKJV 1982, Holman Standard, NET - “DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life” (NKJV- the marijuana version;-)


Well, I guess it’s much harder when you are using one of the fake Vatican supervised versions like the ever changing ESV, but the way to life is not hard at all.  All we have to do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.  But the way IS “narrow”. There is only one door, not many, and that door is the Lord Jesus Christ himself.


“I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved”  John 10:9


 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”  John 5:24.


The Greek word translated here in Matthew 7:14 as “NARROW” is thlibo and it literally means “to press together” “to hem in” (Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the N.T. page 139.


Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon says that the perfect participle (which this is) means “HEMMED IN, CONFINED, NARROW.” (Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, 17th edition 1887, page 319)


Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament tells us on page 291 that the perfect participle (which this is here in Matthew 7:14) means: “a compressed way, i.e. NARROW, STRAITENED, CONTRACTED.”


The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon tells us on page 362 that the passive participle (which this is) means: “pressed together, compressed, MADE NARROW”


And even Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the N.T. says that the perfect participle is “Literally NARROWED, i.e. hemmed in, like a mountain gorge; the way is rendered NARROW by the Divine conditions.”



The Catholic Connection


The older Douay-Rheims 1582 said “narrow is the gate, and STRAIT (not crooked, not bent) is the way that leadeth to life”.  Then the 1950 Douay has a similar meaning saying: “narrow is the gate and CLOSE (narrow)  the way that leads to life”.


BUT now the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 has: “how narrow is the gate that leads to life, HOW ROUGH the road” and the 1968 Jerusalem and the 1985 New Jerusalem bibles now read like the ESV with “it is a narrow gate and A HARD ROAD that leads to life, and only a few find it.”


Other Versions -


The International Standard Version 2014, Green’s Literal 2005 and New American Bible 2010 have “how CONSTRICTED is the road that leads to life”


Young’s 1898 - “and COMPRESSED the way that is leading to life”


Worldwide English N.T. 1998 - “The gate is small and the road IS NOT WIDE that goes to life. Not many people find it.”


World English Bible 2000 - “How narrow is the gate, and RESTRICTED is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it.”


Jubilee Bible 2010 and Lexham English bible 2012  - “and CONFINED is the way which leads to life”  


The New European Version 2010 - “For narrow is the gate and STRAIGHT the road that leads to life, but few are they that find it.”


New Testament for Everyone 2011 - “But the gate leading to life is narrow, and the road going there IS A TIGHT SQUEEZE.”  


Biblos Bible 2013 - “and COMPRESSED the way leading to life”


English Majority Text N.T. 2013 - “and CONFINED is the way which leads to life”


Hebrew Names Version 2014 - “and RESTRICTED is the way that leads to life”


“NARROW is the way, that leadeth unto life”


Agreeing with the King James Bible are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley N.T. 1755,  Haweis N.T. 1795, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, Living Oracles N.T. 1826, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Revised N.T. 1862, Notes N.T. 1869, Twentieth Century N.T. 1901, the Clarke N.T. 1913, New English Bible 1970, Living Bible 1971, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the  NASB 1995, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, the New Century Version 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The Aramaic N.T. 2011 “and NARROW is the road”, the NIV 2011, The Voice 2012, The Translator’s Bible 2014, the Modern English Version 2014, and the New International Reader’s Version 2014.


The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.


The ever changing ESVs are one of the new Vatican Versions. Get used to that, as well.


The Ever Changing ESVs  2001, 2007, 2011 and 2016 editions = just another Vatican Version


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

 


Matthew 10:4 Simon the CANAANITE or Simon the ZEALOT?


KJB (Beza, Geneva, NKJV) - “Simon the CANAANITE, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”


ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem) - “Simon the ZEALOT, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”


Other Critical Text Versions - Matthew 10:4


Revised Version, ASV 1901, Weymouth N.T. 1902, RSV 1971 - “Simon the CANANAEAN, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.”


There is great confusion both among the underlying Greek texts and the translations of both Matthew 10:4 and Mark 3:18, where we read as well “and Simon THE CANAANITE.” - σιμων ο κανανιτης


In Luke 6:15 he is called Simon Zelotes and the Greek is σιμωνα τον καλουμενον ζηλωτην


That Simon the Canaanite was also called Simon Zelotes is usually thought to mean that at one time he was a member of the political movement that wanted to overthrow Roman rule, called the Zealots. 


Others think that it just means that he was very “zealous” in his faith.  


The Greek words are completely different. 


ο κανανιτης = the Canaanite


σιμωνα τον καλουμενον ζηλωτην = Simone called Zelotes


Matthew 10:4 - σιμων ο κανανιτης - Simon the Canaanite


In Matthew 10:4 Simon the CANAANITE - σιμων ο κανανιτης  is not only the reading found in the KJB, the Majority of all remaining Greek mss. but also in SINAITICUS. 


However the Vaticanus mss. reads Simon the CANANAEAN -  σιμων ο καναναιος - and many modern Vatican supervised Critical text versions have “interpreted” this to mean “Simon the ZEALOT” because one theory is that the word Cananaean is an Aramaic word (somehow tossed into the middle of a Greek text) that means “Zealot”.  


Another theory is that Simon was from Cana of Galilee, and that is why he was called “the Canaanite”, even though (if that were true) he would probably have been referred to as the Canite instead of the Canaanite.  


Matthew Henry mentions both of these theories, saying: “Simon is called the Canaanite, or rather the Canite, from Cana of Galilee, where probably he was born; or Simon the Zealot, which some make to be the signification of Kananiteµs.”  


John Gill mentions three different views and he disagrees with Matthew Henry.  The commentators can’t seem to agree among themselves.


Another explanation is that he really was a Canaanite (just as God’s Book says he was) whose family had been converted to the Jewish faith and he was brought up as a believer in the true God of Israel, who is Jehovah.


We have a similar example in the Old Testament with Uriah the Hittite who was one of David’s mighty men and the husband of Bathsheba. Yet the Hittites were one of the nations the children of Israel were told to destroy out of the land.  He was a Hittite but he was a believer in the one true God.


There is another example right here in Matthew of a person being referred to as “a woman of Canaan”.


In Matthew 15:22 we read: “And, behold, a woman of CANAAN came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.”


But, as is often the case, not even the so called “oldest and best manuscripts” agree with each other.  Nor do the Critical Text versions agree on how to translate the passage in Matthew 10:4, nor do the commentators agree among themselves on what the verse means.


In Mark 3:18 we have another example of textual confusion because the TR, the Majority of all manuscripts, including Alexandrinus, once again read “Simon the Canaanite”, but this time Sinaiticus changes gears and goes with the Vatican mss. 


Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, and the modern Catholic versions read:  “and Simon the Zealot”, Footnote - Greek kananaios, meaning zealots.


Back to Matthew 10:4 - “and Simon the Canaanite”


Wycliffe 1380 - Simon Canaanite


The Great bible 1540 - Simon of Canaan


Reading (correctly) that he is Simon the Canaanite are The Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Youngs 1898, the NKJV 1982, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “Shim'on  the  Kena'anite”, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, World English bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek 2003, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, A Conservative Version Interlinear 2005 “Simon the Canaanite”,  The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Context Group Version 2007, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Aramaic New Testament 2011 - “Simon THE CANAANITE”,  The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Concordant Version 2012, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Pioneer’s N.T. 2014 and The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 - “Simon the CANAANITE”.


Foreign Language Bibles = KJB


The French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1998, Louis Segond 2007 - “Simon le Cananite”


Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1995 - “Simón, el cananita”


Italian Diodato 1649, la Nuova Diodati 1991 - “Simone il Cananeo”


The German Schlachter bible 2000 - “Simon der Kananiter” 


The Dutch Staten Vertaling bible - “Simon Kananites”


The Afrikaans bible 1953 - “Simon Kananítes”


The Czech BKR Bible - “Šimon Kananitský”


The Romanian Fidela Bible 2015 - “Simon Canaanitul”


The Modern Greek Bible - Σιμων ο Κανανιτης = Simon the Canaanite


The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.


Matthew 12:40 - a WHALE, a FISH, Sea Creature or a SEA MONSTER?


"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."


The Greek word correctly translated in the King James Bible as "Whale" is ketos. I have a modern Greek dictionary called Diury's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Dicionary 1974. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It's just a Greek/English dictionary. If you look up the Greek word ketos it simply says WHALE. If you look up whale, it says ketos.


Here is an easy to use online Greek-English dictionary.  Just type in the word "whale" on the English to Greek side, or kitos on the Greek to English side and see what you come up with - WHALE, not a fish.  http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon


The Greek Septuagint (LXX).  Even though I do not at all believe the so called Septuagint is inspired Scripture, yet we can learn some valuable information about the meaning of Greek words from these texts.  In Genesis 1:21 the King James Bible as well as many other translations in English and foreign languages tell us that "God created GREAT WHALES".  The Septuagint version uses this very word ketos here and the English translation of the LXX is "And God made GREAT WHALES".  That IS the meaning of the Greek word ketos.


In Websters dictionary 1999 edition, there are two Englsih words listed which come from this Greek word ketos. Cetus is the constellation of the Whale. Cetology is the branch of zoology dealing with whales and dolphins. These are both English words derived from ketos. This word occurs only one time in the New Testament. The word is not "fish", which is an entirely different Greek word - ixthus.


Jonah 1:17 refers to a "great fish" which the LORD had prepared to swallow the errant prophet Jonah. The whale, though by today's man-made "scientific" classification is a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined in all dictionaries as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. This "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is of no relevance to the way God classifies His creatures. Most people even today, when they see a whale, say: "Wow, that's one big fish!" That is, until some pedantic type says: No, that's a mammal.


God's classification system differs from that of man's. In 1 Corinthians 15:39 we read: "All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." 


 


 

THE WHALE'S BELLY

 

Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi mss. circa 1000 A.D - "hwæles", Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, Beza's N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Worsley version 1770, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, Clarke N.T. 1795, Webster's Bible 1833, The New Covenant N.T. 1836,  the Pickering N.T 1840, the Hammond N.T. 1845, the Morgan N.T. 1848, Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Alford New Testament 1870 -"the belly of the WHALE", the Davidson N.T. 1876, the Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Dillard N.T. 1885 the Revised Version 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, Godbey's N.T. 1902, the Clarke N.T. 1913,  James Moffatt N.T. 1913, Goodspeed's N.T. 1923, Riverside N.T. 1923, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, The Evidence Bible 2003, Apostolic Polyglot English Bible 2003, the Revised Standard Version 1952, the New American Bible of 1970, Williams N.T. 1972, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, the Updated Bible version 2004, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Faithful New Testament 2009 (William Zeltler), the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010.   

 

 

Other English Bible that correctly have "the WHALE'S belly" are The Word of Yah 1993, the New Heart English Bible 2000, the World English Bible 2000  - "in the belly of the WHALE.", The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Common English Bible 2011, the Far Above All Translation 2011 and the Hebrew Names Version 2014. 

 

Foreign Language Bibles

 

Among foreign language Bible that correctly have "whale" are Luther's German bible 1545, German Elberfelder 1871 - "Walfisches Bauch" (Whales belly), the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de  Valera 1602, the Reina Valera of  1858 and 1909 - "LA BALLENA", the 2005 Reina Valera Gomez "LA BALLENA", the Italian Diodati 1649  - "della BALENA", the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681, the Portuguese A Bíblia Sagrada and Almeida Corregida 2009 - "como Jonas esteve três dias e três noites no ventre DA BALEIA", the French La Bible de Geneva 1669 and the French Martin 1744 -  "LA BALEINE", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "BALYENA" and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible -"BALENEI".

 

What big fish would have swallowed up Jonah alive except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER?

 

 

The NASB along with the Amplified bible 1987, the Complete Jewish bible 1998 and the Catholic Jerusalem bible of 1968, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 all tell us that Jonah was swallowed by a SEA MONSTER!  The Knox bible of 2012 tells us it was a SEA BEAST, and the 2008 ISV says it was a SEA CREATURE! (That pretty well narrows it down, doesn't it?!)

Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than correctly translating what the Greek word really means, the NKJV, Holman Standard and ESV have "the great fish"; the NIV, NET have "the huge fish"


 


The ever revolving door of modern scholarship can't seem to get its act together. The RSV, NRSV, and ESV are all revisions of each other, yet the RSV says "a whale", the NRSV has "a sea monster" and the ESV reads "the great fish". 


The Catholic versions are in their usual disarray with the 1582 Douay-Rheims reading "Whale", while the 1950 Douay has "fish", then the 1968 Jerusalem bible went with "sea monster", then the St. Joseph NAB of 1970 went back to "whale", and the 1985 New Jerusalem has "sea monster" but the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has once again gone back to "whale".


The Greek word itself means "a whale"; it does not mean a fish nor much less a sea monster. The Lord Jesus Christ said Jonah was swallowed by a whale and the King James Bible is correct while the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB are in error. 




Science vs. religion clash: is a whale a fish?

 

In 1818, a whale oil dealer refused to pay a fish-product fine on whale oil, because a whale isn't a fish. The inspector insisted on the tax, and a spirited court and public battle played out. 

 

Ultimately a jury ruled that a "whale is a fish," until the New York legislature settled the matter by voting that whales are not fish. I knew we could count on NY. 

 

This fascinating tale comes from D. Graham Burnett in Trying Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature. 

 

The Princeton University website says this about the book: 

 

In Moby-Dick, Ishmael declares, "Be it known that, waiving all argument, I take the good old fashioned ground that a whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me." Few readers today know just how much argument Ishmael is waiving aside. In fact, Melville's antihero here takes sides in one of the great controversies of the early nineteenth century--one that ultimately had to be resolved in the courts of New York City. In Trying Leviathan, D. Graham Burnett recovers the strange story of Maurice v. Judd, an 1818 trial that pitted the new sciences of taxonomy against the then-popular--and biblically sanctioned--view that the whale was a fish. The immediate dispute was mundane: whether whale oil was fish oil and therefore subject to state inspection. But the trial fueled a sensational public debate in which nothing less than the order of nature--and how we know it--was at stake. Burnett vividly re-creates the trial, during which a parade of experts--pea-coated whalemen, pompous philosophers, Jacobin lawyers--took the witness stand, brandishing books, drawings, and anatomical reports, and telling tall tales from whaling voyages. Falling in the middle of the century between Linnaeus and Darwin, the trial dramatized a revolutionary period that saw radical transformations in the understanding of the natural world. Out went comfortable biblical categories, and in came new sorting methods based on the minutiae of interior anatomy--and louche details about the sexual behaviors of God's creatures.

 

 

Matthew 16:2-3 The Utter Hypocrisy of modern Textual Criticism

 

 

In Matthew 16:2-3 we read: "He answered and said unto them, WHEN IT IS EVENING, YE SAY, IT WILL BE FAIR WEATHER; FOR THE SKY IS RED.  AND IN THE MORNING, IT WILL BE FOUL WEATHER TO DAY; FOR THE SKY IS RED AND LOWRING.  O YE HYPOCRITES, YE CAN DISCERN THE FACE OF THE SKY; BUT CAN YE NOT DISCERN THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES?"

 

Matthew 16:2-3.  Here we see an example of how ridiculous it is to call modern textual criticism a "science" in any legitimate sense at all.  Modern textual criticism has more in common with Voodoo or the Ouija board than science.

 

It's the ol' "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble...For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."  (From Shakespeare's Macbeth) 


Before we get into the textual matters, I want to address the word "lowring".  This is not an archaic word.  Webster's 1999 dictionary defines it as meaning "frowning; dark and threatening, gloomy, or sullen."  Lowring is also the English word found here in the Geneva Bible,  Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Worsley Version 1770, the Alford N.T. 1870, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, the Thomson Bible 1808, Webster's Bible 1833, Darby 1890,  the Montgomery N.T. 1924,  the Douay Version 1950, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Knox Bible 2012 (lowering) and even in the 2003 Updated Bible Version.  Now, to address the textual issues.


All these words in capital letters from "When it is" to "of the times?" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including C correction, the Syriac Peshitta and numerous Old Latin copies.  However BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit all 32 Greek words in these sentences.  


The total inconsistency of modern textual criticism is seen here in all its absurdity.  There are literally hundreds and hundreds of words and many whole verses omitted from most modern versions based primarily on the omissions found in Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus, yet right here in Matthew 16:2-3, even though BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words, versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, RV, ASV, ESV, ISV, NET and the Holman Standard, continue to include these two verses in their versions.  

 

Westcott and Hort put both verses [in brackets] to indicate doubt as to whether or not these 2 verses are inspired Scripture, and the Nestle-Aland and UBS critical Greek texts STILL have them in brackets today.

 

Versions that OMIT BOTH verses - Matthew 16:2-3 - because of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus


Actually, there are some versions that are based on the Critical Text that do omit all these 32 words from their translations because these words are omitted by the Sinaitiic and Vaticanus manuscripts. At least they are being consistent and more honest about it. 

 

These include The Anderson New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript 1918, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the James Moffatt New Testament 1913, the Riverside N.T. 1923, Goodspeed's translation of 1942, The English Bible of 1970, the Williams N.T. 1972, the Revised English Bible 1989 and The Christogenea New Testament 2009 - another Critical Text version.  The Jehovah Witness NWT puts the verses [in brackets], indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

 

Even in these two verses another significant omission is seen. The words "O YE HYPOCRITES" are in the Majority of Greek copies as well as the Old Latin copies a, air, b, c, d, ed, f, ff1, ff2, g1, l, q, the Coptic Boharic and the Diatessaron 170-175 A.D.


The word "HYPOCRITES!" is in the text of the Reformation Bibles in numerous foreign language Bibles as well.   But  there are a few manuscripts that contain all the words both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus leave out, except they omit the word "HYPOCRITES". So what do these modern versions do?  They also omit the words "O ye hypocrites" too.  


In other words, even though ALL these 32 words are NOT FOUND in either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, these modern versions INCLUDE all of them except "O YE HYPOCRITES" which is omitted only by a very few, and is found in the vast majority.  Now how "scientific" is that???!


The words "O ye HYPOCRITES" are found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1582, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Youngs 1898, NKJV 1982, World English Bible 2000, Modern English Version 2014,  Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta,  Luther's German Bible 1545 and Schlachter Bible 2000 "Ihr Heuchler!", the French Martin Bible 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Hypocrites" (it's the same in French as in English), the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and Riveduta 2006 "Ipocriti", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Cipriano de Valera 1602 and Reina Valera 1909-1995 "Hipócritas", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada "Hipócritas", the Afrikaans bible 1953 "Geveinsdes", Hungarian Karoli Bible "Képmutatók", the Russian Synodal Version 1876 "Лицемеры!", the Romanian Cornilescu Bible - "Făţarnicilor",  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Gij geveinsden!", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "O, kayong mga mapagpaimbabaw!", the Albanian Bible, the Smith and Van Dyke Arabic Bible -وفي الصباح اليوم شتاء. لان السماء محمرة بعبوسة. يا مراؤون تعرفون ان تميّزوا وجه السماء واما علامات الازمنة فلا تستطيعون.  and the Modern Greek Bible "Υποκριται".


 


Matthew 16:2-3 are found in virtually every Bible translation ever made, in spite of the fact that BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit them. They are found in all Reformation Bibles in all languages including the Modern Greek Bible and the Modern Hebrew Bible.


 


If ever the omission of a particular reading speaks volumes, this is it. The words "O ye hypocrites" are missing from these modern versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET AND from all the aforementioned Catholic versions.  Do you think there might be a chance these bible translators will hear "O ye hypocrites!" loud and clear from the mouth of the Lord God Almighty in a coming day? 


Matthew 17:4 "Let us make" versus "I will make"

 

Another bogus reading found in the modern Vatican Versions is found in Matthew 17:4 when the Lord Jesus is transfigured on the mount in the presence of Peter, James and John.  Here the Lord appears with Moses and Elijah and Peter says: "Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, LET US MAKE here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses and one for Elias." 

 

The Majority of all Greek texts, as well as C, D, the Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta and the  inspired accounts of this same event found in Mark 9:5 and in Luke 9:33 all have Peter say "LET US MAKE here..." ποιήσωμεν.

 

However, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have Peter say "I WILL MAKE here..." ποιήσω, yet they still have Peter saying "LET US MAKE three tabernacles" in both Mark 9:5 and in Luke 9:33 - ποιήσωμεν.

 

Even the older Catholic versions like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay version read like the KJB and the Majority of all texts with "Let us make here...".  However the more recent Vatican versions like the 1970 St. Joseph NAB, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985, and the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman Standard versions have now adopted this false reading of not only contradicts virtually all Reformation Bibles in all languages, but even the other synoptic gospel accounts as found in Mark 9 and Luke 9.

 

Matthew 17:20 - "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your UNBELIEF"


"unbelief" (απιστιαν)


versus

 

"little faith" (ολιγοπιστιαν)

 

 

KJB - “ And Jesus said unto them, Because of YOUR UNBELIEF: (απιστιαν) for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

 

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB) - “He said to them, “Because of YOUR LITTLE FAITH. (ολιγοπιστιαν) For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”


 

An error still retained in the NASB, ESV, NET, Holman Standard, NIV, Jehovah Witness NWT and the more modern Catholic Versions is the result of following Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the new Vatican supervised Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts. 


When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove."


In this instance they had NO FAITH AT ALL and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.


The reading of "UNbelief" or "NO faith" - Διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν ὑμῶν is that found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts including C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, X, Y as well as the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff1, 2, g1, 1,  the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Sinaitic and Slavonic ancient versions.


Matthew 17:20 - "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have FAITH AS A GRAIN OF MUSTARD SEED, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."


 


"Because of YOUR UNBELIEF"


 


Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible of "Because of YOUR UNBELIEF" are the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395 - "Jhesus seith to hem, For youre vnbileue.", Tyndale 1325 - "Iesus sayd vnto the: Because of youre vnbelefe", Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's translation 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Improved N.T. 1809, The Revised Translation 1815, the Kneeland N.T. 1823, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Morgan N.T. 1848, the Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, Sawyer N.T. 1858, Noyes Translation 1869, the Smith Bible 1876, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898 - "your want of faith", Godbey N.T. 1902, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The World English Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003 - "because of your UNBELIEF", Green's literal 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Faithful N.T. 2009, The Conservative Bible 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interliner 2010 (André de Mol), The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Aramaic N.T. 2011, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013 - "because of your UNBELIEF", The Far Above All Translation 2014, the Hebrew Names Bible 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.


 


Foreign Language Bibles 


 


Among foreign language Bibles that agree with the King James Bible's "Because of your UNBELIEF" are the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "Et Jésus leur répondit : c'est à cause de votre incrédulité", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlachter Bible - "Um eures Unglaubens willen.", the Russian Victor Zhuromsky Bible - "по неверию вашему", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909 (but the 1960, 1995 have been "revised" to now read "por vuestra poca fe" = because of your little faith), the Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - " Y Jesús les dijo: Por vuestra incredulidad" = "Because of your unbelief", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodati 1991 - "E Gesú disse loro: «Per la vostra incredulità", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Czech BKR Bible, Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014, the Maori Bible, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap bible, The Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013, and the Russian Synodal Version - "because of your UNBELIEF."


and the Modern Greek N.T. used in the Orthodox churches all over the world today - "Ο δε Ιησους ειπε προς αυτους· Δια την απιστιαν σας."


And the Modern Hebrew Bible -  ויאמר ישוע אליהם מפני אשר אינכם מאמינים כי אמן אמר אני לכם אם יש לכם אמונה כגרגר החרדל ואמרתם אל ההר הזה העתק מזה שמה ונעתק ממקומו ואין דבר אשר יבצר מכם׃ = you do not believe


 


Vatican Version Contradiction


However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read "Because of your LITTLE FAITH" - Διὰ τὴν ὀλιγοπιστίαν ὑμῶν instead of “Because of your UNBELIEF" - Διὰ τὴν ἀπιστίαν ὑμῶν, and so the NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph, New Jerusalem and NIV read: "He replied, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." (NIV).


If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had NO faith, then Jesus's words make sense. 


As John Wesley stated in his commentary: "Because of your unbelief - Because in this particular they had not faith. If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed - That is, the least measure of it"


 


The Catholic Connection


 


The older Catholic versions like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay read like the KJB with "because of your UNBELIEF" (NO faith)


But the more modern Catholic Versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 now agree with the false reading found in the NIV, ESV, NASB, NET and Holman Vatican Versions.


This is because they are ALL based on the same Vatican "interconfessional" UBS (United Bible Society) New Testament texts.  Oh, but wait!  Now the latest Catholic Public Domain version has come out in 2009 and it has gone back to the reading found in the King James Bible again.  It reads: "Jesus said to them: “Because of your UNBELIEF."


For Proof that versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. ARE the new Vatican Versions, See  -


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




Matthew 18:15 - The Fickleness and Inconsistency of the so called "science" of modern textual criticism.


In Matthew 18:15 we read: "Moreover if thy brother sin AGAINST THEE (eis se), go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone." 


 


NASB (NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, NIV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem) -  "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private"


The words "against thee" are missing from both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but they are found in the Majority of all Greek texts including D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, S, U, V, W, X, Y, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Pi, Sigma, Omega and in the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff1,and the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Palestinian, Arminian and Ethiopic ancient versions. 


The Nestles Greek text used to omit these two words entirely (Nestle text 4th edition 1934, and 21st edition 1975) but later they added them again but put them in [brackets].


The reading of "if thy brother sin AGAINST YOU, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone" is found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Alford N.T. 1870, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901 - "sins AGAINST THEE", Worrell N.T. 1904, Weymouth's N.T. 1912, Godspeed's N.T. 1923, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, J.B. Phillips 1972, the NKJV 1982, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2011, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, The Last Days Bible 1999, The World English Bible 2000, The Message 2002, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Spoken English N.T. 2008, Holman Standard 2009, The Conservative Bible 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Easy English Bible 2010, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Common English Bible 2011, ESV 2011, The Aramaic N.T. 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, New Living Translation 2013, The Biblos Bible 2013, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Hebrew Names Version 2014,  ISV 2014, The Translator's Bible 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Modern English Version 2014, The International Children's Bible 2015 and the Tree of Life Version 2015.


 


Among foreign language Bibles that read "if thy brother sin against thee" are Luther's German bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "Wenn aber dein Bruder AN DIR gesündigt hat", the Portuguese O Livro of 2000, the NIV Portuguese bible of 2000, and the Portuguese Biblia Sagrada - " se teu irmão pecar CONTRA TI",  the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Reina Valeras from 1909, 1960 and 1995 - "si tu hermano pecare CONTRA TI",  the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald of 1996 - "si ton frère a péché CONTRE TOI", the Italian Diodati of 1649, the Riveduta of 1994 and the Nuovo Diodati of 1991-"se il tuo fratello ha peccato CONTRO DI TE."


and the Modern Greek New Testament used all over the world by the Greek Orthodox churches.-"Εαν δε αμαρτηση εις σε ο αδελφος σου"


 


OMIT the words "AGAINST THEE"


The words "sin AGAINST YOU" are omitted by both the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus mss.  Versions that follow these corrupt texts and omit the words "AGAINST THEE" are Godbey N.T. 1902, The Moffatt N.T. 1913, Anderson's N.T. Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript 1918, The Jehovah Witness New World Translation, the NASB 1995, God's Word Translation 1995, the Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968 and New Jerusalem bible 1985, Daniel Wallace's NET version 2006, The Easy to Read Version 2006, the Mebust Bible 2007, the Christogenea N.T. 2009, Names of God Version 2011, Mounce Interlinear N.T. 2011, Pioneer's N.T. 2014 and the Amplified Bible 2015 (but the Amplified Bible 1987 edition INCLUDED the words!) 


 


The Catholic Connection


The older Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay 1950 read like the KJB - "if thy brother sins AGAINST THEE".


Then the Jerusalem bible came out in 1968 and they omitted these words.


But the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible put them back in.  


Then the 1985 New Jerusalem bible took them out again.


But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has come out and so has the 2012 Revised Douay Rheims bible and once again we read: "But if your brother has sinned AGAINST YOU, go and correct him, between you and him alone."


Obviously the omission of these two words changes the meaning and application of the passgage. The NASB reads: "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private."


On the other hand, versions like the NIV 1978 and 1984 editions, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the Holman Standard all reject in this place the two texts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) which are responsible for the omission of hundreds of other words in their New Testament versions, and here follow the Traditional textual reading of the King James Bible. They include the words "AGAINST YOU".


NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions - "If your brother sins AGAINST YOU, go and tell him HIS fault." 


But wait! Now the "new" New International Version of 2011 has come out and Guess What!  They have now decided to omit these words from their new text!


The 2011 NIV now reads: "If your brother OR SISTER sins, go and point out THEIR fault..."  


Not only have they omitted these two important words "AGAINST YOU", but they have now added the words "OR SISTER" and they changed the singular "HIS" to the plural "THEIR", none of which are not found in ANY text at all .


And they call this willy-nilly process the "science of textual criticism."


 


Notes from the Internet - 


At a Facebook club called The King James Bible Debate I had once posted the above article on Matthew 18:15 "sin against thee" and a young bible college student who herself is being taught that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible in any language, posted "You do know that Erasmus was a textual critic, right?"


To whom I responded -


"Miss..., What you totally fail to take into account with your Biblical agnosticm, constantly changing versions, fickleness and "No reading is sure" mentality is the sovereignty and Providence of God in History to give us His perfect words in a real Bible. 


The King James Bible is not like any other book. GOD Himself is the author of the Bible and He has promised to preserve His words and His hand is so markedly on this one Book - the King James Bible - like no other in history. It is as plain as the noon day sun to me since God opened my spiritual eyes to see it. Your present point of view leaves you with NO complete and infallible Bible at all. You fail to see God's hand in history to give us "the book of the LORD" in the end times universal language of English. And it's not American English; it's the king's English.

 

 

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (End of Facebook notes)

 

Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, ESV 2011 edition, Catholic New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness New World Translation)



Matthew 19:9 - Did Erasmus introduce an error in the Textus Receptus?

A Christian brother writes: 

Hello Will, This was the response I received about Matthew 19:9

“Just to summarize the argument regarding Matthew 19:9 with a bit more information, in case you want to follow up with your friend who is King James Only, the TR reads ei mē epi porneiai, which is not found in any Greek text in existence prior to that time, including the Greek texts which Erasmus himself consulted. 

The TR reading is found as a marginal note on one of the Greek texts which Erasmus consulted, a 15th century manuscript called Codex Leicestrensis (Manuscript 69); however, there is good evidence to suggest, which I did not realize when I spoke to you yesterday, that this correction was added after Erasmus saw the text (because the same corrector elsewhere uses verse numbering, which was first introduced in Robert Stephens’ royal edition of 1550, whereas Erasmus died in 1536). So it seems clear that the word ei was added by Erasmus out of the blue, without any textual support at all of any kind. He invented this reading out of nowhere.

So why did he do this? What was his motivation for corrupting the text? The argument for a theological motivation is as follows:

(a) Erasmus was introducing a new perspective on divorce and remarriage, which is still known today as the “Erasmian view”. This was in opposition to the traditional view of the Roman Catholic church, which was also pretty much uniformly the view of the church fathers.

(b) Matthew 19:9 is the crucial text in the debate. There is no other text in the entire New Testament which is potentially decisive in favour of the Erasmian view, and which is not open to very plausible and widely accepted alternative interpretations that many commentators continue to defend today.

(c) The reading mē epi porneiai is much more ambiguous as an exceptive clause for remarriage than the phrase invented by Erasmus.

(d) Erasmus also changed the reading in the Latin Vulgate of Matthew 19:9 in such a way as to widen the exemption clause.

So I would submit, this is a good example of a theologically motivated corruption to the TR by Erasmus. This in itself should be enough for anyone to reject King James Onlyism. I will be intrigued to see what your friend comes up with to explain this particular issue away.”  

[End of Bible critics comments]

My Response -

First of all, it is obvious that this friend of yours does not believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God.  

Just ask him to show you a copy of what he really believes is the inerrant Bible in ANY language - including “the” Greek and Hebrew.  My bet is that he will never do it.

Secondly, it would have been more than a little difficult for Erasmus to have changed the Latin Vulgate reading found in Matthew 19:9 since he was not born till about 11 centuries later. 

Thirdly, in the King James Bible we read: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

The modern Vatican supervised Critical text versions like the NASB, ESV, NIV, NET, Holman, etc. all have THE SAME MEANING.

NASB 1995 - “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

ESV 2016 - “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

NIV 2011 - “ I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The only difference translation wise is that the KJB is far more accurate when it says “except it be for FORNICATION”, which is a specific sexual sin, whereas the phony new versions use the open ended “you define it as you want to” vague term of “sexual immorality”.

See my article “Fornication or immorality - Sodomites or something else?”

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

Fourthly, when we look at the Greek texts here, what we see is a cluster of variant readings.

The Reformation Textus Receptus reads: “ει μη επι πορνεια” = except [it be] for fornication.

The so called “oldest and best manuscripts”, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, do not even agree with each other here.

Sinaiticus reads μ π πορνεί κα γαμήσ λλην, and this is the text adopted by Westcott and Hort and the Vatican supervised Critical Greek text of Nestle-Aland.

However Vaticanus has a completely different reading and says  παρεκτς λόγου πορνείας ποιε ατν μοιχται.  But even though it reads  παρεκτς λόγου πορνείας instead of μ π πορνεί (All three words are different, and two of them are radically different) yet it comes out to mean the same thing. 

Literally the Vaticanus reading would be “except for reason of fornication”.

And manuscript D reads differently than both Sinaiticus or Vaticanus with παρεκτς λόγου πορνείας κα γαμήσ λλην, differing from Vaticanus in the last 3 words, and different from Sinaiticus in all of them!

And these are his so called “oldest and best manuscripts”!

But even with all these textual differences here, the meaning comes out to be the same.  Just different ways of expressing the same idea.

Even the Modern Greek Bible, which uses modern Greek rather than New Testament Greek, makes up its own text in modern speech Greek, but it comes out to MEAN THE SAME THING.  

It reads: εκτος δια πορνειαν και νυμφευθη αλλην = except for fornication and marries another

The reading found in the Textus Receptus of Scrivener 1894 is ει μη επι πορνεια και γαμηση αλλην.  This is also the reading apparently found in Erasmus, and it is that of Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, and the Elzevir brothers Textus Receptus of 1624 - ει μη επι πορνεια 

Your “scholar wannabe” friend is making much ado about absolutely nothing, and is seeing “errors” where none exist.

He is his own authority, and it looks like not a very knowledgable one at that.  Again, ask him to show you a copy of this complete and inerrant Bible he supposedly believes in.  My bet is that he won’t be able to do it.

I hope this has been of some help to you, brother.

The King James Bible is always right, and the Bible critics just can’t stand it.


 


Matthew 20:22-23 KJB - “But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, AND TO BE BAPTIZED WITH THE BAPTISM THAT I AM BAPTIZED WITH? They say unto him, We are able.


And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, AND BE BAPTIZED WITH THE BAPTISM THAT I AM BAPTIZED WITH: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” 

 

ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, ISV, all Catholic versions, Jehovah Witness NWT) - “Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

 

You will notice that all the capitalized words in both verses are omitted by the Vatican Versions. They are omitted by the usual suspects, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and D, plus a very few others as well as the Latin Vulgate.  

 

However all these words are found in the Majority of all manuscripts including C, E, F, G, H, K, M, N, O, S, U, V, W, X, Y, Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma, Phi, Omega. They are also found in some Old Latin copies (f, h, q) and are in the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Arminian and in some Coptic Boharic ancient versions.  

 

These extra 23 words are also found in Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Modern Greek Bible and in the Modern Hebrew Bible.

 

Bibles that include all these words are the Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808,  The Revised Translation 1815, Webster’s bible 1833, the Longman Version 1841, the Morgan N.T. 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised N.T. 1862, the Smith Bible 1876, Young’s 1898, the New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Lawrie Translation 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Last Days Bible 1999, God’s First Truth 1999,  the Tomson N.T. 2002, The Pickering N.T. 2005, Green’s Literal 2005,  Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Conservative Bible 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011,  the Far Above All Translation 2011, The World English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012 (normally a critical text version), The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.

 

Foreign Language Bibles

 

Foreign language Bibles that include all these extra 23 words are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera’s from 1909 to 1995 (but the R.V. Contemporánea 2011 has now omitted all these words), Luther’s German bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000,  the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1998 and Louis Segond 2007, The Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta Bible 2006, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida Bible 2009,  the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Finnish Bible 1776, the Maori Bible, the Quechua-Chimborazo N.T. 2010, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Somali Bible, the Albanian Bible, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible 1998, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, Vereen’s Contemporary Bulgarian Bible, the Dutch Staten-Vertaling Bible, the Czech BKR Bible, the Lithuanian N.T., the Basque N.T., the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic bible, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014.  

 

You can either have the Reformation Bible text or the Vatican Versions.  The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.

 

NASB & Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic versions Confusion - The two sons and the Father's vineyard - Matthew 21:28-31 


 

Matthew 21:28-31 - "A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in MY vineyard. He answered and said, I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, sir.; and HE WENT NOT. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The FIRST."


This is the reading of the King James Bible 1611, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Alford N.T. 1870, the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV of 2011, the NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2009, the ISV 2014, the Catholic Douay 1950 and Jerusalem bibles 1969, 1985, the NIV of 1984 and 2011 and even the NET version.  

 

These readings are found in the majority of all manuscripts and in the Siniaticus copy, one of the so called oldest and best.

 

However Vaticanus reverses the order of the two sons and has the first son in verse 29 saying "I WILL GO, BUT HE WENT NOT" and the second son in verse 30 saying "I WILL NOT, BUT LATER HE GOES."

 

Westcott and Hort originally followed this reading found in Vaticanus and so did the earlier Critical Greek texts. I have a Nestle text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland 21st edition 1975 and both of them read this way.  Yet in spite of the Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland Vaticanus reading in their text, versions like the RV 1885, ASV 1901 and not even the RSV followed it.

 

But later on (with NO ADDITIONAL textual discoveries) they just changed their minds and now the more recent Nestle-Aland texts follow the reading that has been in the KJB all along.

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Even "most" of the Catholic bibles rejected the Vaticanus reading here, and they have it in the Vatican library as one of their treasured possessions. Yet they chose to follow the reading that matches the one found in the King James Bible and placed it in the 1582 Douay-Rheims, the Douay 1950, the Jerusalem bible 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985. 

 

However the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible reverses the two sons and has the first one saying he will go and then doesn't, while the second son says he will not go, and then does.   But the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain version goes back to the traditional reading found in the King James Bible and in all Reformation bibles.


 When the Father came to the first son and told him to go work in his vineyard, instead of saying "I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT." the NASBs from 1962, 63, 68, 71, 72, 75 and 1977 say "I WILL, AND HE DID NOT GO.”  And when he comes to the second son, in the NASBs from 1962 to 1977, instead of him saying "I GO SIR, AND HE WENT NOT” the NASBs have "I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT.”  Then, when Jesus asks which of them did the father's will, instead of “the FIRST”, the NASBs (1963 to 1977) say "the LATTER"!!!


Other bible versions that also followed the reading found in Vaticanus are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 edition, Twentieth Century N.T. 1904,  Riverside N.T. 1923, Montgomery N.T. 1924, Moffatt N.T. 1926,  Goodspeed 1943, the New English Bible 1970, and the Revised English Bible of 1989, put out as a recent joint effort between Protestants and Catholics.  All these versions follow the Vaticanus reading, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is wrong.

 

BUT now the Jehovah Witnesses have "revised" their New World Translation in 2013 and the new JW "bible" has now reversed itself just like the NASB 1995 did, and it now has the first son saying he will not go, but afterwards repents, while it is the second son who says he will go, but doesn't.


The NASB does not always follow the Vaticanus readings.  Siniaticus differs from it over 3000 times in the gospels alone. In fact in verse 28 the “my” of "MY vineyard" is in Vaticanus, but not in Siniaticus, but the NASB did not put it in. 

 

So the NASB goes back and forth between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, sometimes following one, sometimes the other, and sometimes changing their opinion from one year to the next. Here in verse 28 both the NIV and NASB have followed Siniaticus and rejected the Vaticanus and Majority reading of “MY vineyard”and have merely "THE" vineyard. 


The NASBs then chose to follow the Vaticanus reading (and not the Sinaiticus nor Majority reading) in verses 29-31 in all their editions from 1960 through 8 different editions until 1995 when they again changed their "scholarly opinion", based on the same evidence which they had all along! NOW the 1995 NASB “update” and the Jehovah Witness NWT update both read like the King James Bible and many others did all along. 


Which NASB was or is the true words of God?  Short answer - None of them.  There is no “science” in their critical text methods; only the fickle and every changing opinions of men who make change for change’s sake (and perhaps for a few dollars and personal fame tossed in as well.)   Their bogus bibles only serve to undermine the authority of God's true words and sow doubt and confusion among God’s people. 


 


Matthew 21:42 Jesus Christ the head of the corner


In Matthew 21:42 we read: "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the HEAD OF THE CORNER: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?"


The KJB contains the literal rendering. So also the Revised Version, the ASV, Geneva, Young, Tyndale and even the RSV. The head, kephale (κεφαλὴν), is used as Christ the head of the Church, the head of the body, the man being the head of the woman, etc. Corner is gonia (γωνίας) as in "the corners of the streets"; "this thing was not done in a corner" and "the four corners of the earth"


This name or reference to Christ as the head of the corner occurs in Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10, Acts 4:11 and I Peter 2:7. The NKJV and NASB are pretty close with "chief corner stone", though the word stone is not in the text, but it can be implied. Several other versions like the ESV and NASB and NET version tell us that Christ is the "cornerstone", but then the ESV correctly informs us that The Greek is literally "the head of the corner" just as the King James Bible has it.


In any case, a corner stone, or head of the corner is a large stone placed at the angle where 2 walls of a building meet, and helps bind them together. This large stone gives direction to the entire structure, and is the first stone put into place on  the foundation.


Notice the reference in Job 38:4-6 where the LORD asks Job "Where wast thou when I laid the foundation of the earth? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?"


However the NIV 1973, 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions have totally messed up these four references to Christ being the head of the corner, and instead has translated the exact same Greek as "the CAPSTONE." "The stone which the builders rejected has become the capstone."


Now the capstone is not the first stone placed in the foundation of the building to give it shape and direction, but is rather the very last stone to be placed at the TOP of the  finished structure. A capstone goes on the top of the building, so it is the exact opposite of "the head of the corner".


The NIV's 4 earlier editions even contradict themselves. If we look at the prophesy found in Isaiah 28:16 we read: "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a FOUNDATION a stone, a tried stone, a precious CORNER STONE, a sure FOUNDATION." This corner stone is the foundation, not the capstone. Even the NIVs have "precious CORNER STONE stone for a sure foundation."


Don't worry, they are just updating that old fashioned King James language so we can better understand it. They aren't really perverting (turning upside down) the words of God.


HOWEVER, now in 2011 the brand new New International Version has come out and changed well over 10% of the  verses found in the previous NIVs.  They have now gone back to the correct reading that was always found in the King James Bible. The NIV 2011 now reads once again: "the stone the builders rejected has become THE CORNERSTONE", and they changed "capstone" to "cornerstone" in Mark 12:10, Acts 4:11 and I Peter 2:7 as well.


We see the same confusion in the Catholic versions. The Douay Rheims of 1582 actually had it right and was the best with "the head of the corner", which is literally what all Greek texts as well as the King James Bible say. Then the 1950 Douay version changed this to "the cornerstone", just like the NASB, ESV and NET versions have it.


But then in the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible both these versions changed it to "the KEYSTONE", and this is very much like the erroneous NIVs. A keystone is the central, topmost stone place in an arch. It is not a foundation stone at all, just like the NIV's "capstone" is not. 


But then once again in the 1985 New Jerusalem version they have now gone back to "cornerstone".


I am reminded of a Proverb found in God's word - "My son, fear thou the LORD and the king; and MEDDLE NOT WITH THEM THAT ARE GIVEN TO CHANGE." Proverbs 24:21


Matthew 24:28 "Eagles" or "Vultures"? 


In Matthew 24 the Lord Jesus is telling us of the signs that will occur before the end of the world. He mentions famines, pestilences, wars, earthquakes, false Christs and false prophets. In verse 28 He says: "For wheresoever the carcase is, there will THE EAGLES be gathered together."


This is a reference to the book of Job 39: 27-30, where we read "Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high? She dwelleth and abideth on the rock, upon the crag of the rock, and the strong place. From thence she seeketh the prey, and her eyes behold afar off. Her young ones also suck up blood; and where the slain are, there is she."


All versions have the word eagle here in Job 39:27-30. In the book of Revelation 19:17-18 we read of the fowls of heaven being gathered for judgement. "And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great."


 


EAGLES


The word in Matthew 24:28 is clearly in all texts eagles, aetoi, and is correctly translated as "eagles" in Wycliffe's Bibld 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "For whersoeuer a dead carkes is, euen thither wyl EGLES resort.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "thither will the Egles be gathered together.", the Beza N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Webster's 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Noyes Translation 1869, The Alford N.T. 1870, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, the Revised Standard Version 1971, Bible in Basic English 1969, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Green's MKJV, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green's Literal 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, New European Version 2010, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011 and The Modern English Version 2014.  


Just a few of the foreign language Bibles that also correctly read EAGLES instead of VULTURES are the Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991 and Italian Riveduta of 2006 - "quivi si accoglieranno le aquile.", Luther's German Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 and the R.V. Gómez of 2010 - "allí se juntarán las águilas.", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "allí se juntarán las águilas." and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - " Pois onde estiver o cadáver, aí se ajuntaräo as águias." and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "שם יקבצו הנשרים" = "where the EAGLES gathered"

 

However the ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, ISV, Holman Standard, Dan Wallace's and company's NET version, most modern Catholic versions and an host of modern paraphrase versions have mistranslated this word as VULTURES.  ESV - "Wherever the corpse is, there THE VULTURES will gather."   


Dan Wallace's NET version says: "Wherever the corpse is, there the VULTURES will gather." Then he footnotes: "The same Greek term can refer to “eagles” or “vultures” (L&N 4.42; BDAG 22 s.v. ἀετός), but in this context it must mean vultures because the gruesome image is one of dead bodies being consumed by scavengers."  And then he tells us: "Greek “will be gathered.” The passive construction has been translated as an active one in English."


 


You will notice that the ESV did both the same things, translating "eagles" as "vultures" and changing the literal "will be gathered" (passive, because God is the one who does it to them) to an active voice "will gather".  This is pure human reasoning gone to seed.  I admit I am not much of an expert about birds, but I sure have the common sense to know that an eagle is not a vulture.  Any Greek dictionary will tell you that the word  ἀετός means "eagle" and the word γύπας means "vulture".  


 


The Catholic Connection


Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion.  The older Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the 1950 Douay both read like the KJB with: "there shall the EAGLES eagles also BE GATHERED TOGETHER." (Notice too the passive "be gathered").  


But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible are in agreement with the other Vatican versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and say: "there THE VULTURES WILL GATHER."


But wait! They are not done yet. Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it goes back to the original reading which follows the Greek text and says: "there also will the EAGLES BE GATHERED TOGETHER."


Greek Dictionary online. Type in the word "eagle"; it is aetos.  Type in the word "vulture" it is gupas.


http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon


I have a Divry's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Dictionary here in my study. It is just a secular dictionary. It has nothing to do with the Bible. If you look up the word "eagle" you find only one word and that is aetos. You look up aetos and it gives one definition - eagle. Then if you look up "vulture" it give one word - gup.  


 


The Greek word  ἀετός or "eagle" is found four times in the New Testament. It is used here in Matthew 24:28 and in Luke 17:37 (in the same context) and in Revelation 4:7 "the fourth beast was like a flying EAGLE" and in Revelation 12:14 "and to the woman were given two wings of a great EAGLE", and even the ESV, NIV, NASB and NET all translated the two times the word is mentioned in the book of Revelation as an "EAGLE"! Yet in Matthew 24 and Luke 17 they changed this bird into a VULTURE.  


 


What has happened is that some unbelieving bible agnostic similar to Dan Wallace has relied on his own carnal misunderstanding of the passage and thinks that only "vultures" eat dead animals, and so he assumes that the Greek word can only mean "vultures" in this context.  So some guy writes this nonsense down in some book or lexicon or commentary and another bible agnostic picks it up and runs with it. This is how modern scholarship works. They can't tell the difference between an eagle and a vulture.


Look up eagles in any encyclopedia or internet site and you will find that they are most definitely considered to be birds of prey. Here is a quote from one such site - "Due to the size and power of many eagle species, they are ranked at the top of the food chain as apex predators in the avian world. The type of prey varies from genus to genus....The eagles of the genus Aquila are often the top birds of prey in open habitats, taking almost any medium-sized vertebrate they can catch."

Just do some basic research. Google "Feeding habits of eagles".  Here is from the first site I found -  http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle3.html

Or Google "Feeding habits of eagles". Here is the first site I found.


http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/eagle/eagle3.html


 " A bald eagle's lifting power is about 4 pounds. They do not generally feed on chickens or other domestic livestock, but they will make use of available food sources. Bald eagles will take advantage of carrion (dead and decaying flesh), giving it a scavenger image, which causes some people to dislike eagles. Other people do not care for powerful and aggressive birds; while some object merely on the grounds that it is a bird of prey which kills other animals for food."  


And this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_Eagle#Diet_and_feeding -

 

"Bald Eagles also regularly exploit water turbines which produce battered, stunned or dead fish easily consumed. Predators who leave behind scraps of dead fish that they kill, such as Brown Bears (Ursus arctos), Gray Wolves (Canis lupus) and Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes), may be habitually followed in order to scavenge the kills secondarily."   "On San Juan Island in Washington, introduced European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), mainly those killed by auto accidents, comprise nearly 60% of the dietary intake of eagles." 

 

"The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it." Proverbs 3:31 

 

If someone were to change our American national bird from the eagle to the vulture, do you think most red blooded Americans would calmly accept this change without protest? Of course they wouldn't.  Yet modern bible correcting scholars can freely change and pervert God's holy word and no one raises an eyebrow or cares in the least. Something is seriously wrong with our priorities.


Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and you will never go wrong.  Accept no phony substitutes.


 


Matthew 24:36 “nor the Son”?  Is it inspired Scripture?


A Christian brother recently wrote me asking: “Concerning the verse Matt 24:36, how does a person defend the KJB when proponents of the NASB claim that the KJB omit the "nor the Son"? Thanks. “



Matthew 24:36 “nor the Son”?  Are these extra words part of inspired Scripture?


In the King James Bible we read: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”  


But in versions like the NIV, NASB, ESV we read: Matthew 24:36 ESV - “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, NOR THE SON, but the Father only.”


The extra words “nor the Son” is a minority reading that is not found in the Majority of remaining Greek manuscripts, nor in the Old Latin copies g1, 2, l, r2, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic or Harclean, nor in the Coptic Sahidic and Boharic ancient versions.


The reading “nor the Son” comes primarily from the Vaticanus manuscript.  Sinaiticus originally had it, then another scribe removed these words, and then a third scribe inserted them again. They are also found in the Armenian and Ethiopic versions.


NO English language Bible ever included these extra words in them until the Westcott-Hort revised critical Greek text came out in 1881.  Versions that contain these extra words “NOR THE SON” are the Revised Version 1881, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, The Voice, the Jehovah Witness NWT and ISV.  


Very surprisingly, Daniel Wallace’s NET version of 2006, which almost always follows the critical text editions, does NOT add the extra words but follows the Traditional Greek text here and says: “But as for that day and hour no one knows it – not even the angels in heaven – except the Father alone.” And then he footnotes that he does not believe these extra words (nor the Son) were part of Matthew’s original writings.


These extra words are NOT found in the Anglo Saxon Gospels of A.D. 990 - “Nat nan mann be am dæge ne be ære tide ne furun englas buton fæder äna” nor  Wycliffe 1395 - “But of thilke dai and our no man wote, nethir aungels of heuenes, but the fadir aloone.”


Tyndale 1525 - “But of that daye and houre knowith no man no not ye angels of heve but my father only.”  


Nor are they found in Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549 - “But of that daye and houre knoweth no man, no not the aungels of heauen, but my father onelye.”,  the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - “But of yt day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Angels of heauen, but my father only.”, The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s translation 1755, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, Darby 1890, Young 1898, the NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Knox Bible 2012, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2012, nor the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The Modern English Version 2014.


Foreign language Bibles that read like the King James Bible and do NOT add the extra words are Luther’s German bible 1545, and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - “Um jenen Tag aber und die Stunde weiß niemand, auch die Engel im Himmel nicht, sondern allein mein Vater.”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1602, 1909 - 1995 - “Pero del día y la hora nadie sabe, ni aun los ángeles de los cielos, sino sólo mi Padre.”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuova Diodati 1991 - “Quanto poi a quel giorno e a quell'ora, nessuno li conosce, neppure gli angeli dei cieli, ma soltanto il Padre mio.”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 - “Mas daquele dia e hora ninguém sabe, nem os anjos do céu, mas unicamente meu Pai. “ and the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald of 1996 - “Or quant à ce jour-là, et à l'heure, personne ne le sait; non pas même les Anges du ciel, mais mon Père seul.” and the Greek  New Testament used by the Greek Orthodox Churches all over the world today.


 


The Catholic Connection


The Catholic versions show their usual confusion and disagreement among themselves.  The early Douay Rheims of 1610 did not contain them, nor did the Douay of 1950 - “But of that day and hour no one knoweth: no, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone.”


But now that the Vatican has made a formal agreement with the UBS (United Bible Society), the more modern St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible ADD these extra words. 


But wait!  Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out, and it goes BACK to the Traditional text here and now does NOT contain the extra words.  It reads: “But concerning that day and hour, no one knows, not even the Angels of the heavens, but only the Father.”  So too does The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible of 2012 leave out these extra words of "nor the Son."


 


The King James Bible is right, as always, and not even today’s bible critics are in agreement with each other and not one of them has a complete, inspired and infallible Bible in ANY language to believe in himself nor to offer you.  That is the simple truth.


God’s Book = the Authorized King James Holy Bible.


Psalm 69:21 compared to Matthew 27:34 A Messianic Prophesy


Psalm 69:21 with Matthew 27:34 -Prophesy of the Messiah fulfilled, but perverted in many versions.


The idea for this comparative study was given to me by a dear KJB believing sister names Barbara who lives in Canada.  She studied this on her own and compared 48 different bible versions and was amazed at how few of them got it right.


Psalm 69 is a prophetic Psalm about the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. In 69:21 in the King James Bible we read: “They gave me GALL for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me VINEGAR to drink.”


We see the fulfillment of this prophesy in Matthew 27:34 - “They gave me VINEGAR to drink, mingled with GALL: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.”


GALL and VINEGAR are both found in both Scriptures (Psalm 69:21 and Matthew 27:34)  in the King James Bible.  


Now let’s do some version comparisons.


GALL/VINEGAR  (Psalm 69) = GALL/VINEGAR (Matthew 27)  -  Having both VINEGAR and GALL in both passages are Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the KJB 1611, Webster’s translation 1833, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the English Jubilee Bible 2010.


Also reading GALL and VINEGAR in Psalm 69:21 are the so called Greek Septuagint, the Douay-Rheims 1610, RV 1881, ASV 1901,  NASB, NIV, Lexham English bible 2012, Orthodox Jewish bible 2011 and Holman Standard 2009.  


But the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, the Message and the ISV tell us in Psalm 69 that it was POISON and vinegar. 


Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac is a little weird in that it says: “The gave me BITTER HERBS for my food; and in my thirst they gave me VINEGAR to drink.” Yet in the New Testament it agrees with the KJB’s Traditional Text and says: “And they gave him to drink VINEGAR mixed with GALL; and he tasted it, but he would not drink.”


When we get to the New Testament readings of the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical texts we have a different reading.  Instead of “VINEGAR mixed with GALL”, they read “WINE mixed with GALL”.  


These include the ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.


The NKJV is all messed up and gives a false footnote in Matthew.  


In Psalm 69:21 the NKJV correctly says “They also gave me GALL for my food, and for my thirst they gave me VINEGAR to drink.” but in Matthew 27:34 the NKJV reads: “ they gave Him SOUR [a] WINE  mingled with GALL to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink.” 


Then it gives this misleading footnote: [a] NU Text omits SOUR.  


This is both a wrong footnote and a wrong translation. There is no word for “sour” in any text.  The word is simply οξος (oxos) and it means VINEGAR.  The UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical text has a completely different word here. It reads “WINE” οινον (oinon).  The NKJV footnote implies that the Traditional Text reads WINE but that the Vatican Critical text reads SOUR wine. It doesn’t. It just reads WINE, and the Traditional Reformation text simply reads VINEGAR.


The word VINEGAR οξος is found 7 times in the N.T. It is used in Matthew 27:48 “took a sponge and filled it with vinegar” and is the reading of the Majority of all manuscripts including A, E, F, G, H, M, N, S, U, V, W, Y, Delta, Sigma, Phi, Omega, the Old Latin c, f, h, g, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, and some Coptic Boharic ancient versions.  


The KJB and many others have always translated οξος as VINEGAR all 7 times, but the NKJV has translated all 7 as “SOUR WINE”.


The reading of WINE (οινον) here instead of VINEGAR (οξος) is that of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, D, K, L and Theta, the Vulgate and Armenian and Ethiopic versions.  So it is definitely a variant reading and it has nothing to do with “SOUR” being omitted by the Vatican Versions.  The NKJV’s footnote is misleading.


Foreign language Bibles that agree with the King James Bible and have both VINEGAR and GALL in BOTH Psalm 69:21 AND in Matthew 27:34 are Luther’s German bible 1545 and German Schlachter 2000 - “gaben sie ihm Essig zu trinken, mit Galle vermischt” = “vinegar to drink mingled with gall”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, and the Reina Valera’s 1909-2011 - “le dieron a beber VINAGRE mezclado con hiel”, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - “du VINAIGRE mêlé avec du fiel”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “gli diedero a bere dell’aceto mescolato con fiele” = “vinegar to drink mingled with gall”, the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 1681 - “Deram-lhe a beber VINAGRE misturado com fel” and the Modern Greek Bible - “εδωκαν εις αυτον να πιη οξος μεμιγμενον μετα χολης·


The King James Bible is always right; don’t be fooled by one of the fake Vatican Versions.


Matthew 27:16 “Barabbas” or “JESUS Barabbas”?



 

KJB - “And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.”

 

So read the Geneva bible, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, ESV 2011, Holman 2009, New European Version 2010,  The Voice 2012 and the NIVs 1973, 1975 and 1984 editions.

 

BUT now the NIV 2011 edition reads; “At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was JESUS BARABBAS.”

 

Then it footnotes: “Many manuscripts do not have JESUS. also verse 17.”

 

The single name Barabbas is found in virtually every manuscript in existence, including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, A, D, E, F, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, the Ethiopian, Gothic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

 

As pointed out, even the THREE previous NIV editions of 1973, 1975 and 1984 all read the single name of Barabbas.

 

So what manuscripts says Jesus Barabbas?  Basically is is one Greek mss. called Theta.  The previous Nestle-Aland critical text versions like the 4th edition 1934, 21st edition 1975 only had Barabbas - But now the Nestle-Aland 27th and 28 editions place the name JESUS in the Greek text but in [brackets] indicating doubt about its authenticity.

 

And the Critical Text (Vatican supervised) Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament 2010 places both names in the text with NO brackets.  It reads “λεγόμενον Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν.”

And our nutter “scholar”, Dan (anything but the KJB) Wallace’s NET version also includes this extra name (big surprise) reading - “At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas.”

It is of interest to compare the RSV 1946, 1972 and the NRSV 1989 and then the ESV 2011 editions, which are all revisions of one another.

The RSV merely had “called Barabbas.”  Then it footnoted - “Other ancient authorities read JESUS BARABBAS.

 

Then the NRSV came out in 1989 and it read: “ At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called JESUS Barabbas.”  And this time they footnote - “Other ancient authorities lack Jesus.”

But now they have come out with the ESV 2001-2011 and once again they omitted the extra name of JESUS and went back to “And they had then a notorious prisoner called BARABBAS.” with NO footnotes this time.

This is how the “science” of textual criticism works, folks.

As Wilbur Pickering, ThM. PhD. points out in his book The Identity of the New Testament Text, 2014 -

 

"Bruce Metzger said, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence".4 A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED CHANGES" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition (the same committee of five editors prepared both).

IT THUS APPEARS THAT IN THE SPACE OF THREE YEARS ('68-'71), WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ACCRETION OF NEW EVIDENCE, THE SAME GROUP OF FIVE SCHOLARS CHANGED THEIR MIND IN OVER 500 PLACES. IT IS HARD TO RESIST THE SUSPICION THAT THEY WERE GUESSING."



Mark 1:1-2 KJB - "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD.  As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare the way BEFORE THEE."


Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare thy way BEFORE ME."


ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, ISV, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT 2013 edition, Catholic versions)  - Mark 1:1-2 - "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God*. As it is written in ISAIAH THE PROPHET*, Behold I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way."


First of all, the reading of "the Son of God" was omitted from the text in Sinaiticus original and Westcott and Hort as well as Tischendorf also omitted these words in their respective Greek texts.


Omit "THE SON OF GOD"


The Noyes Translation 1869, Rotherham's Emphasized bible of 1902, Twentieth Century N.T. 1904, The Anderson N.T. 1918 Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript, Goodspeed N.T. 1923, Riverside N.T. 1923, and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 edition followed the Westcott-Hort text and omitted these words, saying: "Beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ." (Jehovah Witness NWT 1961 edition) , the Lexham English Bible 2012,  


 


BUT Jehovah Witnesses have now "updated" their "bible" and the 2013 New World Translation now includes the words "the Son of God", but it still has the wrong reading in verse two.  


The  2013 edition now reads: "The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God: 2  Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “(Look! I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way.)"


 


However "the Son of God" - υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ - is found in Vaticanus as well as the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A and D and the Old Latin, the Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian and Ethiopic ancient versions.

 

Many "Vatican Versions" like the ESV, RSV, NIV have a footnote that says "Some manuscripts omit 'the Son of God'".  But the reading "the Son of God" is found in virtually every Bible in existence including Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, The Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman Standard.  

 

The second textual problem is between the reading of "IN THE PROPHETS" - ἐν τοῖς προφήταις - versus "IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET" - ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ.  There are TWO different prophets being quoted here, Malachi and Isaiah and the reading of "in the prophets" is that found again in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts as well as A, E, F, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, W, Y the Syriac Harclean, the Armenian, Ethiopic, Slavonic and some Coptic Boharic ancient versions.

 

It is directly quoted by the early church writer Iraneaus in  Against Heresies Book III, written in 180 A.D. where he writes:  "Wherefore Mark also says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written IN THE PROPHETS."

 

"IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET"

 

The reading of "IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET" is found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and D, the Old Latin, Vulgate and Gothic.  It is also the reading in ALL Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1582, St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985. And it is the reading of the critical text versions like Darby 1890, the ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NETl, Holman Standard, the Jehovah Witness NWT and all Catholic versions. 

 

 

"IN THE PROPHETS"


However "IN THE PROPHETS" rather than "in Isaiah the prophet" is found in Tyndale 1525 - "as yt is wrytten in the Prophetes", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - " As it is written in the Prophets", the Beza New Testament 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Clarke N.T. 1795, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815***, Webster's 1833, the Morgan N.T. 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Dillard N.T. 1885, Youngs 1898, Godbey N.T. 1902, The Clarke N.T. 1913, New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Lawrie Translation 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Worldwide English N.T. 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Last Days Bible 1999,  the Jubilee Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 (Vince Garcia),  Conservative Version Interlinear 2005, Green's Literal 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Faithful New Testament 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Far Above All Translation 2011, Pickering Majority Text N.T. 2011, The World English Bible 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern English Version 2014 and The Modern Literal New Testament 2014.


The Revised Translation 1815 included a note in the text about "the prophets". It read "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 2. As it is written in the prophets, Mal.3:1, Isaiah 40:3, Behold, I send my messenger (the Baptist) before thy face, to prepare thy way before thee"


 


Foreign Language Bibles


Many foreign language Bibles read like the King James Bible's "IN THE PROPHETS".  Among these are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602, 1865 and La Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - "Como está escrito en los profetas", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991- "Secondo ch’egli è scritto ne’ profit", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007- "conformément à ce qui est écrit dans les prophètes", Luther's German Bible 1545, Modernized German Bible and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "wie geschrieben stehet in den Propheten", the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "Como está escrito no profetas", the Russian Synodal Bible - "как написано у пророков", the Finnish Bible 1776 - "Niinkuin prophetaissa kirjoitettu on", the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "A mint meg van írva a prófétáknál", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "Soos geskrywe is in die Profete", the Czech BKR - "Jakož psáno jest v Prorocích", Dutch Staten Vertaling - "Gelijk geschreven is in de profeten",

 

the Modern Greek Bible - "Καθως ειναι γεγραμμενον εν τοις προφηταις· Ιδου, εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου, οστις θελει κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμπροσθεν σου·"

 

and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "ככתוב בנביאים הנני שלח מלאכי לפניך ופנה דרכך לפניך׃" = "As it is written in THE PROPHETS, I will send messenger ahead of you and your way BEFORE YOU."  

 

And the third textual problem in just these 2 verses are the last words in Mark 1:2 where it says "BEORE YOU" - ἔμπροσθέν σου.  These words are found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A, Delta, the some Old Latin copies, Vulgate Clementine, the Syriac Harclean, Coptic, and Gothic ancient versions.  

 

The significance of these two little words is huge, when we compare them with the prophesy given in Malachi 3.  There the prophet records God Himself predicting "I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way BEFORE ME." 

 

But the fulfillment in the New Testament has the Holy Ghost say through Mark - "Behold, I will send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE."  In other words, this Jesus, who is the Son of God, is none other than the LORD God Jehovah Himself!  This truth is lost in the Vatican Versions.


John Trapp Commentary - “As it is written in the prophets Isaiah and Malachi, Behold, I send my Messenger before thy face.  Malachi saith, "Before my face," in the person of Christ; to show that He and the Father are one.”

  

 

Matthew Henry. Though commentators constantly differ with each other, yet Matthew Henry comments - " Isaiah and Malachi each spake concerning the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, in the ministry of John. From these prophets we may observe, that Christ, in his gospel, comes among us, bringing with him a treasure of grace, and a sceptre of government."  

 

John Gill writes: "As it is written in the prophets,.... Malachi and Isaiah; for passages out of both follow; though the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Persic versions read, "as it is written in the prophet Isaias"; and so it is in some Greek copies: but the former seems to be the better reading, since two prophets are cited, and Isaiah is the last; to which agree the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, and the greater number of Greek copies."

 

Barnes' Notes on the Bible - As it is written in the prophets - Mark mentions "prophets" here without specifying which. The places are found in Malachi 3:1 and in Isaiah 40:3.

 

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee—(Mal 3:1; Isa 40:3)."  


Matthew Poole - “The prophets Malachi and Isaiah (saith the evangelist) prophesied of this beginning of the gospel."


John Lightfoot Commentary - “When two places are cited out of two prophets, it is far more congruously said, as it is written in the prophets; than, as it is written in Esaias: but especially when the place first alleged is not in Esaias, but in another prophet.”


Kretzmann Commentary - “Two of the prophets of olden times had distinctly described the person and the work of John the Baptist, and the evangelist combines their prophecies for the purpose of brevity. The first prophecy, Mal.3:1, is one in which the God of Israel promises to send His personal messenger before the Messiah… In the second prophecy, Isa 40:3, the distinctive contents of the message are given.”

 

There are 3 significant textual variations here in just these 2 verses. Obviously God did not inspire 6 different readings in just 2 verses. One set of Scripture readings is that of the Reformation Bibles and the other is that of the Jesuit Counter Reformation versions, that nobody seriously believes are the infallible words of God.

 

Get the one God has clearly set His mark of approval on and don't settle for an inferior substitute. The King James Bible is God's infallible Book. 


 

Mark 1:41 “Jesus moved with compassion” or “Jesus was indignant”?


In Mark 1:40 - 41 we read: “And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.  And Jesus, MOVED WITH COMPASSION, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.”


“moved with compassion” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C, the  Greek Lectionaries, the Old Latin Italic aur, c, e, f, l and q, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, the Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.  It is even the reading found in the UBS IV critical Greek text.


“moved with compassion” is the reading found in Wycliffe 1390, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Douay, Darby, Young’s, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, the RSV, NRSV, 1989, ESV 2001 - "moved with pity", NASB 1963 - 1995, Holman Standard 2003 and the ISV to name but a few. 


The NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 all read: “ Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”


And even the Spanish version of the NIV reads the same.  Marcos 1:41 (Nueva Versión Internacional) “Movido a compasión, Jesús extendió la mano y tocó al hombre, diciéndole: — Sí quiero. ¡Queda limpio! “


Well, the 2010 NIV finally did it!  Here it is -

Mark 1:41 (New International Version, ©2011)  -  " Jesus was indignant.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”


Footnotes: Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion.


Well, this totally bogus reading comes basically from one very corrupt manuscript called manuscript D, which  scholars have known about for centuries and rejected. But now the “late$t, greate$t and be$t $cholarly re$earch” has once again changed their minds and so we have this absurd reading in the latest NIV 2011.


They just keep getting better and better, right?

 

 

Mark 2:15 KJB - “And it came to pass, that, as JESUS sat at meat in HIS house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with JESUS and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.”

 

NKJV (ESV, NIV, NASB) - “Now it happened, as HE was dining in LEVI'S house, that many tax collectors and sinners also sat together with JESUS and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him.”

 

(Notice that the NKJV "added" the word "Levi's", but the NASB, ESV did not.  Many others do, though)

 

Some have criticized the King James Bible and tell us that it is in error because it “adds” that first word JESUS to the verse when it is not found in “the” Textus Receptus or the Critical text.  

 

Of course none of these Bible critics actually believe that any edition of “the” TR (there is no such animal as "the" TR. There are at least 14 varieties of it out there) or the ever changing Critical Greek text is in fact the complete and inerrant words of God either.  

 

When these guys start criticizing the KJB in this nit picky fashion, we know they are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something they hope will stick so they can try to convince you that there is something wrong with God’s masterpiece.

 

But is their criticism valid?  Not at all, as we shall see in a moment.

 

The word JESUS appearing twice in Mark 2:15 may not be in today’s printed Greek texts, but that does not mean that the KJB is wrong for translating this verse the way they did. I think the arguments for they way they and MANY others translated it this way are quite compelling. 

 

They simply saw the need to clarify the text (not "add to" or "take away" from it) so that the common reader would not be confused as to who was “sitting at meat” and in whose “his house” this was where this event took place.

 

 

When we read the previous verse, it tells us: “And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.”  

 

If we remove the word JESUS, the next verse then says: 

 

“And it came to pass, that, as he sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.” 

 

We would then have to ask Who was sitting at meat? and and In whose house did this take place? because we just got done reading about Matthew Levi.  

 

So to avoid any confusion, the KJB translators and MANY others (as we shall soon see) simply clarified the text. They didn’t “add” anything to the text, nor take any thing away from it. They just made it easier to understand.

 

 

One Bible version I found got confused and translated it wrong. It is called the Conservative Bible 2011 done by John Isett. Notice what he did in this verse.  

 

It says: “As it happened, Jesus then dined at His house with a great many tax collectors and sinners who chose to follow Him.”

 

Here they “added” the first word Jesus, then omitted it from the second half of the verse, and then they Capitalized the word “Him”, making it Jesus’s house, rather than Matthew Levi’s house.

 

 

ALL the major bible versions “add” words like God, Jesus, the Lord, or Christ to varying degrees to clarify certain verses.  Popular versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and NKJV ALL do this. 

 

I have a pretty good list of examples where they do this in my article on the expression “God forbid”.  You can see it here -

 

“God forbid” 

 

http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/godforbid.htm

 

In fact, I found about 20 different Bible translations that did what the NIV did here in Mark 2:15.  The NIV “added” the word JESUS to the first part of the verse, just as the KJB did, but then they omitted the word JESUS when it appears in all Greek texts in the second part of the verse.  And they “added” the word LEVI to the text, to clarify the words “his” house.  

 

This is how the NIV 1984 - 2011, The TNIV 2005, The New International Version 2011 and several other translations clarified the fact that it was Jesus who was sitting at meat and it took place in Matthew Levi’s house.  

 

The NIV reads: “While JESUS was having dinner at LEVI’S house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him.”  

 

At least 17 (SEVENTEEN) bibles I ran into translated the verse like this - “It came to pass, as JESUS sat at a meal in LEVI’S house, many publicans and sinners sat down together with JESUS and His disciples, for there were many who also followed him.”

 

 

These were The Contemporary English Version 1995, The God’s Word Translation 1995, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The New Century Version 2005, The Easy to Read Version 2006, The Spoken English N.T. 2008, The Easy English Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Orthodox Jewish bible 2011, The Common English Bible 2011, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011,  The Names of God Bible 2011, The Voice Translation 2012, The New Living Translation 2013 and The Translator’s Bible 2014.   All of these have the word JESUS twice and they “add” LEVI to the text as well. 

 

The Translator’s Bible 2014 even went further than the others and had the name of JESUS three times plus they added LEVI too, saying: 

 

“Later, JESUS was eating a meal in LEVI’S house. Many men who collected taxes and other people who were considered to be sinning regularly were eating with JESUS and his disciples. This was not surprising, for there were many people like this who were going everywhere with JESUS.”

 

 

Back to Mark 2:15 and the KJB’s  - JESUS……JESUS 

 

Not only does the King James Bible have the name of JESUS two times in this verse, but so also do the following Bible translations - Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza New Testament 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, the Clarke N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, the Dickenson N.T. 1833, the Webster Bible 1833, the Pickering N.T. 1840, the Longman Version 1841, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Dillard N.T. 1885, The Corrected English N.T. 1905, The Clarke N.T. 1913, the Riverside N.T. 1923, the New Life Version 1969, Good News Translation 1992, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Contemporary English Version 1995, The Revised Webster  Bible 1995 (Larry Pierce), God’s Word Translation 1995, the Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Last Days Bible 1999, the Tomson N.T. 2002, the New Century Version 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 (Vince Garcia), The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Easy-to-Read Version 2006, Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Names of God Bible 2011, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “as YEHOSHUA  (יהושע) reclined at tish in LEVI’S house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with YEHOSHA  (יהושע) and His talmidim”, The Expanded Bible 2011, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the New Living Translation 2013, the New International Reader’s Version 2014, the Modern English Version 2014, and The International Children’s Bible 2015.

 

Foreign Language Bibles 

 

Foreign language Bibles that have the word JESUS twice in Mark 2:15 are the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, La Biblia de Las Américas 1997, the Reina Valera Gómez Bible 2010, and the Spanish Reina Valeras from 1909 to 2011, the Reina Valera Gómez 2010,  the French Martin Bible 1744 and the French Ostervald 1998,  the Danish Bibelen på hverdagsdansk (BPH) 2006, the Hungarian Easy to Read Version 2012, the Hawaii Pidgin Bible 2000 (Wycliffe Bible Translators), the Italian Conferenza Episcopale Italiana Bible, the Nederlands Het Boek 2007, the Portuguese Nova Traduҫão na Linguagem de Hoje 2000 and the Portuguese Easy to Read Bible 1999, the Quichua Mushuj Testamento Diospaj Shimi 2010, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible 1998, The Vietnamese Easy to Read Version 2010, the Chinese Union Traditional Bible, the Swedish Bible 1917 and the Swedish Nya Levande Bibeln (SVL) 2004, the Somaii Bible 2008, the Russian Synodal Bible, and the Russian Easy to Read Bible 2007,  the Albanian Bible, the Basque Navarro-Labourdin N.T., the Haitian-Creole Bible, the Indonesian Bahasa Seharihari Bible, and the Japanese Bungo-yaku/Taisho-kaiyaku Bible and the Romanian Fidela  Bible 2014 - "Și s-a întâmplat, pe când ISUS şedea la masă în casa lui Levi, că mulţi vameşi şi păcătoşi şedeau şi ei împreună cu ISUS şi discipolii lui; fiindcă erau mulţi şi îl urmau.".

 

The King James Bible is right, as always. 

  


 Luke 1:28 "blessed art thou among women" - Reformation Bibles or the Vatican Versions?



Another verse having to do with Mary is Luke 1:28.  Here we read the inspired words of the angel Gabriel when he was sent from God to announce that the virgin Mary would soon give birth to the Son of God. "And the angel came in unto her and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN." 


Notice it does not say "you are blessed ABOVE all women" or "more than other women" but rather "thou art blessed AMONG women", and indeed she was.  



The reading of "blessed art thou among women" again is found in the Majority of all remaining Greek texts as well as A, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Lambda, Pi, the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, d, e, f, ff2, 1, q, r1 and the Latin Vulgate of 382.  It is also the reading found in the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, some Coptic Boharic mss, the Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.

 

However once again it is primarily Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that omit this entire phrase, plus a very few others as well, and so do the modern versions like the ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, ISV, Holman Standard and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. 


The ESV omits the phrase and then gives us a deliberately misleading footnote saying: "Some manuscripts add Blessed are you among women."  SOME!?! Rather it is the overwhelming Majority of all Greek manuscripts  that include this reading and it is only "some" very few that omit it!  Their footnote is a deceptive attempt to make us think the opposite.  


 


The Catholic Connection



 Once again the Catholic bible versions themselves are in their usual disarray.  The older Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the 1950 Douay both contained these words, reading: "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN."


But then in 1968 in the Jerusalem bible and again in 1985 with the New Jerusalem bible these modern Catholic bible versions omitted this entire phrase and merely read: "He went in and said to her, "Rejoice, so highly favored! The Lord is with you."


But the 1970 St. Joseph New American bible STILL retains the words in their text and reads "Rejoice, O highly favored daughter! The Lord is with you. BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN." 


And once again we see that the latest Catholic bible version (the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version) has put these words back into their text too. It now reads: “And upon entering, the Angel said to her: “Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN."



 So, in the Catholic versions this phrase was first in their bibles (1582, 1950), then taken out, (1968) then put back in (1970), then removed (1985) and now in again (2009)!  Both the Catholic and their modern day counterparts - the Evangelicals - keep changing the texts of their respective 'bibles' from one edition to the next. 


No verse is sure or settled and none of them believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% textually pure and true words of the living God.


 


"BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN"



Bible translations that agree with the Traditional reading of "Blessed art thou among women" in Luke 1:28 are the following: the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D. and 405 A.D. - "benedicta tu in mulieribus", the Anglo-Saxon gospels  1000 A.D. - "þu eart gebletsud on wifum.", Wycliffe 1395 - "Heil, ful of grace; the Lord be with thee; blessid be thou among wymmen.", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE is with the: blessed art thou amonge wemen.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's translation 1755, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Thomson Bible 1808, Webster's Bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835, Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac, New Life Bible 1969, the Amplified Bible 1987, NKJV 1982, Amplified Bible 1987 edition, The Word of Yah 1993, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, Lawrie Translation 1998, The Last Days Bible 1999, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Complete Apostle's Bible 2003, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 (Vince Garcia), Green's Literal 2005, Concordant Version 2006, Bond Slave Version 2009, Faithful N.T. 2009, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Jubilee Bible 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Aramaic New Testament 2011, World English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012 (normally a Critical Text version), The Biblos Bible 2013, The English Majority Text N.T. 2013, Far Above All Translation 2014,  the Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, and The Modern English Version 2014 - "Blessed are you among women."


 


Foreign Language Bibles



Other foreign language translations that contain the phrase "Blessed art thou among women" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valeras of 1909, 1960, 1995, and 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "El Señor es contigo; bendita tú entre las mujeres.", the Italian Diodati of 1649 and 1991, as well as the Nuova Riveduta of 2006  - "il Signore è con te; tu sei benedetta fra le donne", the Russian Synodal Version, Luther's German Bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "du Gesegnete unter den Frauen!", the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald of 1996 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - "le Seigneur est avec toi; tu es bénie entre les femmes.", the Portugues Almeida Corrigida 2009 and A Sagrada Biblia - "bem-dita és tu entre as mulheres.", the Afrikaans bible 1953 - "Die Here is met jou; geseënd is jy onder die vroue.",  the Maori Bible - "ko koe te manaakitia i roto i nga wahine.", the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 - "velsignet er du blandt kvinner!", the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - "Błogosławiona jesteś między kobietami.", the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Russian Synodal Bible - "благословенна Ты между женами.", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible 1998, Czech BKR Bible, the Dutch Staten Vertaling,  the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible and the Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible - فدخل اليها الملاك وقال سلام لك ايتها المنعم عليها. الرب معك مباركة انت في النساء., Hungarian Karoli Bible - "áldott vagy te az asszonyok között."



the Modern Greek and the Greek Orthodox Church's text all over the world - "ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν." as well as the Modern Hebrew New Testament.


 

God either inspired these words and they belong in His Book, or He didn't. You either have a complete and inerrant words of God Bible or you don't.   Most Christians today do NOT believe there is such a thing.

 

 

 

Luke 2:22 “her” purification or “their” purification


One King James Bible critic wrote me his thoughts on why he thinks the King James Bible reading of “her” purification is wrong and versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV supposedly have it right when they say “their” purification. Here is what he wrote:


“Now, some of the discrepencies you noted are worth attention. Some are not. Like Luke 2:22. Even Matthew Henry notes that "Many copies, and authentic ones, read autoµn for autees, the days of their purification, the purification both of the mother and of the child, for so it was intended to be by the law;" In other words, it was not a sacrifice to be cleansed from sin, it was a fulfillment of the Old Testament law that required purification for mother AND CHILD forty days after birth, cleansing from the birth process. If the sacrifice had not been made for Jesus' purification, then He could not later say the He came to fulfill the law. Just as later He fulfilled the Passover feasts--not for sin, but for fulfillment of the law.”


My response to him was this: Hi, brother. I would suggest you stick to the Bible itself here.


You said: " In other words, it was not a sacrifice to be cleansed from sin, it was a fulfillment of the Old Testament law that required purification for mother AND CHILD forty days after birth, cleansing from the birth process."


You did not find any of this in the O.T. law, brother. It is not there.


Luke 2:22 "And when the days of HER purification ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord."


This is clearly a referrence to Leviticus 12:6-8


Lev. 12:6 - And when the days of HER purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, SHE shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:


12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make AN ATONEMENT FOR HER; and SHE SHALL BE CLEANSED from the issue of her blood. This is the law for HER that hath born a male or a female.


12:8 And if SHE be not able to bring a lamb, then SHE shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement FOR HER AND SHE shall be clean.


Only the mother was to bring a sacrifice and only the woman was to have an atonement made for her and thus be cleansed- not the child too.


The reading of HER is a minority reading, but it is the correct one. For every single "minority reading" found in the KJB, there are a hundred found in the NASB, NIV, RSV. In fact, manuscript D, which is sometimes exclusively followd by the NASB, actually reads "HIS purification".


"HER purification" is found in several Greek copies. It is the reading of Beza's and Elzevir's Greek texts. It is also the reading of the Modern Greek text of the Greek speaking Orthodox churches, Green's interlinear Greek, and the Trinitarian Bible Society Greek text.


It is also found in the Old Latin (a, aur, b, beta ,c, d, e, ff2 ,1, r1), as well as the Greek manuscripts of R, Y, 047, 055, 0211. Her purification is also the reading of the Spanish Reina Valera 1858 and 1909 - “Y como se cumplieron los dias de la purificacion DE ELLA, conforme á la ley de Moisés, le trajeron á Jerusalem para presentar[le] al Señor;, the Geneva Bible 1599, Bishop's bible 1568, the King James Bible 1611, Webster's 1833 translation, the NKJV 1982, the 1994 KJV 21st Century, the 1998 Third Millenium Bible and even the Catholic Douay Version 1950.


Wycliffe's English version 1395 says: "the purification of Mary", as well as the French Martin version of 1744 - “Et quand les jours de la purification de [Marie] furent accomplis...”


The reading found the NASB, NIV, RSV and JW bibles of "after the days of THEIR purification" teaches that the baby Jesus needed to have an atonement and a sin offering made for his cleansing, which is contrary to anything found in the law of Moses, to which this passage directly refers. It is not the correct reading.


It is interesting to note that the new TNIV has altered the text in such a way as to avoid the blunder found in the previous NIV and make it agree with the correct teaching found in the King James Bible reading. The 2005 TNIV now reads: “When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.”


 Luke 2:49 "I must be about my Father's BUSINESS?"


A brother writes me saying, "Will -- in our study it was pointed out "business" is not there in the greek -- what say ye?, Rick


 

Luke 2:49 KJB - “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s BUSINESS?

 

Luke 2:49 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς Τί ὅτι ἐζητεῖτέ με οὐκ ᾔδειτε ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου δεῖ εἶναί με

 

Actually there is no word here for what the modern versions have either.  The Greek word under consideration is merely tois - τοῖς and the word “tois” is nothing more that the definite article, plural and in the dative case. It literally means simply “the”.  So a strictly literal translation would be “I must be in THE of my Father.”

 

So all the versions have to supply some kind of a word there for it to make sense.

 

Let’s look at a few modern versions and then at some others that read like the KJB.

 

NET 2006 by Dan Wallace - “But he replied, “Why were you looking for me? Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s HOUSE?”

 

There obviously is no word at all for “house” either.

 

ESV, NASB, NIV, Holman -  “And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's HOUSE?”[a]

 

Then the ESV and the NIV both footnote - “Or about my Father’s BUSINESS”, while the NASB footnotes: “Or affairs; lit. in the things of My Father.” and the Holman footnotes: “Or be involved in My Father’s interests (or things), or be among My Father’s people”

 

Young’s ‘literal’ 1898 - “`Why [is it] that ye were seeking me? did ye not know that in THE THINGS of my Father it behoveth me to be?’”  Yet there is no word for “THINGS” either. He had to “add” this for it to make sense. 

 

Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902 - “Perceived ye not, that, in THE COURTS of my Father, I must needs be?” 

 

Godbey N.T. 1902 - “Did you not know that it behooved me to be in THE AFFAIRS of my Father?”

 

Complete Jewish bible 1998 and Green’s literal Translation - “Didn’t you know that I had to be concerning myself with my Father’s AFFAIRS?”

 

Easy to Read Version 2006 - “You should have known that I must be WHERE my Father’s WORK IS.”

 

Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “Did you not have daas that I must be in the Beis Avi [i.e., dealing with His affairs]?”

 

Agreeing with the King James Bible and reading “that I must be about my Father’s BUSINESS” are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby 1890,  Worrell N.T. 1904, Weymouth’s N.T. 1912, the NKJV 1982, Amplified bible 1987, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the English Jubilee Bible 2010 and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - “And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's BUSINESS?"

  

 

 

 

Luke 6:1 KJB - "And it came to pass on THE SECOND sabbath AFTER THE FIRST, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands."  


 


ESV - Luke 6:1 - "ON THE SABBATH, while he was going through the grain fields, his disciples plucked and ate some of the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands."  


In the Traditional Reformation text there is a single Greek word that is translated as "THE SECOND AFTER THE FIRST".  It is the word δευτεροπρωτω (duteroprotos). It is found only one time in the entire New Testament and composed of the word "second" and "first". It literally is "the second after the first".  


This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts as well as Alexandrinus, C, D, E, H, K, X, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi as well as the Old Latin copies a, air, d, f, ff2.  It is the reading of the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever and even Tischendorf.  


It is also the reading found in the Vulgate, Syriac Harclean, Gothic, Armenian and Slavonic ancient versions and it is quoted in this way by several early church writers including Caesarius -Nazianzus, Gregory, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Isidore and Theophylact.


It is omitted by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and a small handful of others, and thus we have the simple reading of "ON THE SABBATH" in such critical text versions as the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NET, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and some modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.  



Most commentators - John Gill, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, Matthew Henry, Ellicott, Meyer, Alford, Clarke, Guzik, Poole, Lang, Calvin, etc. - believe the expression is genuine and offer several explanations of what the phrase means.  


John Gill comments: “what seems most likely is, that this sabbath was, as it may be rendered, "the first sabbath after the second"; that is, the first sabbath after the second day of the passover, when the sheaf of the firstfruits was offered, and harvest might be begun; which suits well with ears of corn being ripe at this time, which the disciples rubbed. So the Jews reckoned the seven weeks from thence to Pentecost by sabbaths; the first after the second day they called the second first, or the first after the second day; the second they called the second second; and the third was named the second third; and so on, the second fourth, the second fifth, the second sixth, and second seventh, which brought on Pentecost, when the harvest was ended. So in the Jewish liturgies, there are collects for the first sabbath after the passover, and for the second sabbath after the passover, and so on to the sabbath before Pentecost. The eastern versions, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic, not knowing what should be meant by it, have only rendered it, "on the sabbath day"


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “second sabbath after the first—an obscure expression, occurring here only, generally understood to mean, the first sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread.”  

 


The Catholic Connection  


The older Douay-Rheims 1582 as well as the Douay 1950 contained the reading.  But the 1979 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem omit it and read like the ESV, NIV, NASB.  But once again in 2009 the Catholic version called The Sacred Scriptures has gone back to including the reading once again.


 


"THE SECOND SABBATH AFTER THE FIRST" or δευτεροπρωτω and various ways of translating it is the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster's translation 1833, the Living Oracles 1835, Noyes Translation 1869, Sawyer N.T. 1858, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth 1912, World English Bible - "Now it happened on the second Sabbath after the first", NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Jubilee Bible 2010 and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - "Now it happened ON THE SECOND SABBATH AFTER THE FIRST that He went through the grain fields."


Many foreign language Bible contain the words, including Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter 2000 - "Und es begab sich an einem Sabbat", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909, Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "Y aconteció en el segundo sábado después del primero", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Or il arriva le jour de Sabbat second-premier", the Italian Diodati 1649, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada - "  E aconteceu que, no sábado segundo-primeiro", the 1998 Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible - "Nangyari, sa ikalawang araw ng Sabat pagkaraan ng una", the Modern Greek Bible - Κατα δε το δευτεροπρωτον σαββατον διεβαινεν αυτος δια των σπαρτων and the Modern Hebrew Bible ויהי בשבת השנית לספירת העמר עבר בין הקמה ויקטפו תלמידיו מלילת ויפרכו אתן בידיהם ויאכלו׃




Luke 7:31 "AND THE LORD SAID, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?"



Some criticize the KJB for the words "And the Lord said" because they are not found in the "Majority" text nor in the Critical text, and so they ask where do they come from.  

 

These 4 words are omitted by such versions as the ESV, NASB, NET, most modern Catholic versions, the Jehovah Witness NWT and the so called "Majority" text.  

 

The Catholic Connection  

 

The older Douay-Rheims bible of 1582 contained the words "And the Lord said". But then the Douay version of 1950 as well as the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 omitted them. But once again, the Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 has come out and it puts the words back in the text.


The words "And the Lord said" are in the Textus Receptus editions of Erasmus 1516, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Scrivener 1894 and Elzevir 1624. It is the text of the Reformation Bibles.


According to Jack Moorman’s book, When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text, these words are found in 2 cursive copies listed by The International Greek New Testament Project, the Old Latin copies of f and g2, and is in Jerome's Latin Vulgate of 404 A.D., the Clementine Vulgate and the Persian version.

 

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. contains the words “And the Lord said”. - “Ait autem Dominus: Cui ergo similes dicam homines generationis hujus? et cui similes sunt?”


http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=Luke+7%3A31&search_form_type=general&q1=Luke+7%3A31&s=0&t1=la_jvl&ns=0


Jerome’s Latin Vulgate 382 to 405 A.D.


http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk007.htm

 


 Ait autem Dominus: Cui ergo similes dicam homines generationis hujus? et cui similes sunt?


The first three words here are "And the Lord said" - Ait autem Dominus


But James Snapp says they are confusing this with the Clementine Vulgate, which (according to the same site) was done in 1592.


Now, a couple of problems come up here with James Snapp's argument. Both Wycliffe's bible 1395 and the Catholic Douay-Rheims done in 1582 are both before the Latin Clementine Vulgate.  So, the question becomes, if "And the Lord said" was NOT in the earlier Latin Vulgate (as James affirms), and didn't get "added" to the text until the 1592 Clementine, there where did these two earlier translations (both of which tell us were translated from the Latin Vulgate)  get this reading?

 


“And the Lord said [eipe(n) de ho kurios]” in Luke 7:31, 11:39; 12:42 [kai eipen ho kurios]; 17:6; 18:6. Clearly, this is a typical Lukan usage. 


From here: http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/07/text-note-luke-2231.html

 

You may also find Nick Sayers's article on Luke 7:31 "And the Lord said" to be helpful

 

http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Luke_7:31


 




“AND THE LORD SAID” are found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815,Webster’s bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young’s 1898, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Contemporary English Version 1995, The Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie Translation 1998, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Green’s Literal Translation 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Bond Slave Version 2009, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “And YHWH (יהוה) said,”, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern English Version 2014 and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015.


The International Standard Version 2014 has “Jesus continued”, and, the Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The New Century Version 2005, The Common English Bible 2011, Expanded Bible 2011, The New International Reader’s Version 2014, The New Living Translation 2015 and The International Children’s Bible 2015 have: “Then Jesus said,….”


Even the NIV 2011 says: “Jesus went on to say, ….”


The words are also in the Modern Greek N.T.


Και ειπεν ο Κυριος· Με τι λοιπον να ομοιωσω τους ανθρωπους της γενεας ταυτης; και με τι ειναι ομοιοι;


http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch


And they are in the Modern Hebrew Bible - 

ויאמר האדון עתה אל מי אדמה את אנשי הדור הזה ואל מי הם דמים׃


Luther’s German bible 1545, and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - Aber der HERR sprach


The Italian Diodati 1649 - E il Signore disse: and the New Diodati 1991


The French Martin 1744 - Alors le Seigneur dit, and French Ostervald 1998, 


The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - Y dice el Señor: ¿A quién, pues, compararé los hombres de esta generación, y a qué son semejantes?, Cipriano de Valera 1602, and the Spanish Reina Valera  1960 and 1995 editions, and the Reina Valera Gómez Bible 2010.


The Dutch Staten Vertaling bible - En de Heere zeide, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Czech Kralicka Bible, The Finnish Bible 1776 - Niin Herra sanoi, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, Veren’s Contemporary Bulgarian Bible, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Smith & VanDyke’s Arabic Bible, The Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013, The Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “E disse o Senhor”, and the NIV Portuguese edition 2000, and Portuguese O Livro 2000, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos bible 1998, The Turkish Bible 1994, the Basque (Navarro-Labourdin) N.T., The Czeck BKR Bible, the Chinese Union Traditional Bible and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - "Iar Domnul a spus"

 

 

Luke 9:54-56 KJB - "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, EVEN AS ELIAS? But he turned, and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village."

 

Luke 9:54-56 presents an interesting case. In the King James Bible we read: "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, EVEN AS ELIAS? But he turned, and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village."  

 

This is the only time these verses appear in the Bible together like this. They are either inspired of God and belong in your Bible or they are not.

 

All the capital lettered words in these three verses are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including F, K, M, U, Gamma, Lambda, Pi, the Old Latin copies of a, aur, b, c, e, f, q, r1, and are found in many ancient versions like the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Palestinian, Harkelian, Gothic, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, Ethiopian and the Latin Vulgate Clementine edition.

 

They are also found in the Modern Greek Bible - Στραφεις δε επεπληξεν αυτους και ειπε· δεν εξευρετε ποιου πνευματος εισθε σεις· διοτι ο Υιος του ανθρωπου δεν ηλθε να απολεση ψυχας ανθρωπων, αλλα να σωση. Και υπηγον εις αλλην κωμην” as well as the Modern Hebrew Bible - ויפן ויגער בם ויאמר הלא ידעתם בני רוח מי אתם׃ כי בן האדם לא בא לאבד נפשות אדם כי אם להושיעם וילכו להם אל כפר אחר׃

 

 

They are also in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible, and even the older Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay of 1950 contained all of verses 55 and 56.  All these words are also found in the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Knox Bible 2012, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Amplified bible 1987, The Voice 2012, the Jubilee Bible 2010 and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible.

 

Among foreign language Bible these verses are found in the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Segond of 2007, the Italian Diodati 1649 and New Diodati 1991 as well as the 2008 Riveduta, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Romanian Cornilescu and 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible, the Chinese Traditional Bible, Norwegian Det Norsk Bible 1930, the Polish Bible Nowe Przymierze of 2011, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Russian Synodal Version 1876, Luther's German Bible 1545 and 2000 German Schlachter, the Moari Bible, the Quichua Bible 2011, the 1998 Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible, Vietnamese Bible 1934, the Arabic Life Application Bible 1998, The Bulgarian Bible 1940, the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués -"Senhor, queres que digamos que desça fogo do céu e os consuma, como Elias também fez? 55 Voltando-se, porém repreendeu-os e disse: Vós não sabeis de que espírito sois, 56 Porque o Filho do homem não veio para destruir as almas dos homens, mas para salvá-las. E foram para outra aldeia." 

 


 

 

The Spanish Evangelio Segun San Lucas Rey Alfonso X of 1260 A.D. - "El tornos contra ellos, e maltroxo los e dixo: Non sabedes de qual esparto sodes. El Fiio de la Uirgin non uino a perder las almas, mas a saluar. E fueron a otro castiello."

 

These words are also found in the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909-2011, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation, who also do the NASB), and the Reina Valera Gómez Bible of 2010.

 

 

 

The NASBs reveal their fickle nature in that when it first came out in 1963 they completely omitted all these words from the text, as also in the 1972 and 1973 editions.  I have these NASBs right here in my study and all these words are omitted from their texts.  Then in 1977 and again in 1995 they put them back in [but in brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

 

What is happening here is that the Egyptian (Alexandrian) texts like Vaticanus,  Sinaiticus, A, C, P45 and P75 omit all these words, as do the Westcott-Hort/UBS/Vatican Greek texts and so all these words are now omitted by such versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, the Message, the J.W. New World Translation, Daniel Wallace's NET version AND (you guessed it) the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Once again we see the same pattern in the Catholic versions. The older Douay Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 contained all the words in verses 55 and 56; then the 1970 St. Joseph and the 1985 New Jerusalem Catholic versions omit some 28 words from these two verses, but then once again the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version put all 28 words back in verses 55 and 56 again! - "And turning, he rebuked them, saying: "Do you not know whose spirit you are? [9:56] The Son of man came, not to destroy lives but to save them." And they went into another town."  

 

Keep in mind that many bible critics tell us that the Douay Rheims and the latest Catholic Public Domain version are based on the Latin Vulgate. Yet this is simply not always the case.  The Latin Vulgate omits most of verses 55 and 56 just like the NIV does.

 

 

 

The NIVs in foreign language editions are not always the same either.  The Spanish NIV reads like the English NIV by omitting all these words, but the NIV Portuguese includes most of them by including all of verses 55 and 56, but omitting "even as Elias did" from verse 54. 

Here is what the NIV Portuguese edition looks like: Nova Versão Internacional 1999 - "Ao verem isso, os discípulos Tiago e João perguntaram: “Senhor, queres que façamos cair fogo do céu para destruí-los?” Mas Jesus, voltando-se, os repreendeu, dizendo: “Vocês não sabem de que espécie de espírito vocês são, pois o Filho do homem não veio para destruir a vida dos homens, mas para salvá-los”;  e foram para outro povoado."  


Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and stick with it. It is God's Book for these end times and the Standard of excellence and accuracy, and the only Bible seriously believed to be the 100% true and infallible words of the living God.


 


 


 Luke 10:1, 17 -  "How many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach, 70 or 72?"


 


Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God.  In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right.  It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of ASSERTIONS IN THE FIELD OF HISTORY and science.” 


 

Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement.  IF THE BIBLE IS NOT 100% HISTORICALLY TRUE, THEN AT WHAT POINT DOES GOD START TO TELL US THE TRUTH?  If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific names and numbers when it records past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right? 

Luke 10:1, 17  KJB - "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." V.17 "And the SEVENTY returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."


ESV, NIV -  "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two...V.17 The SEVENTY TWO returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name."


The reading of SEVENTY is found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE appoynted out other seuentie, and sent them two and two before him", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "the Lord appoynted other seuentye also", the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whitston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770,  Living Oracles 1835, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth 1912, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1962, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Lamsa's 1933, Etheridge 1849 and Murdock's 1852 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, World English Bible, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, the Holman Standard 2009, the 2007 International Standard Version, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, The Voice 2012, the Jubilee Bible 2000 and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012. 


SEVENTY is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including SINAITICUS, A, C the Old Latin f, q, r1 and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.


It is also so quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Tertulian, Origen, Eusebiou, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome and Cyril. It is also the Greek text reading of the Majority text, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Greek Orthodox text, and even Tischendorf's 8th edition. 


 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "SEVENTY" in Luke 10:1 and 17 are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera's 1909-1995 - "el Señor designó también a otros setenta", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - " le Seigneur en ordonna aussi soixante-dix autres", Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "HERR andere siebzig aus und sandte sie zwei ind zwei", the Portuguese Almeida -  "o Senhor outros setenta", the Italian Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta Bible 2006 - "il Signore ne designò altri settanta", the Modern Greek Bible - "Μετα δε ταυτα διωρισεν ο Κυριος και αλλους εβδομηκοντα" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "ואחרי כן הבדיל האדון עוד שבעים אחרים וישלחם לפניו"

 

However the Vaticanus manuscript, the Latin Vulgate (Post hæc autem designavit Dominus et alios septuaginta duos) and D read SEVENTY TWO and so the NIV, the ESV, Dan Wallace's NET version, the New English Bible 1970, Revised English Bible 1989, the Common English Bible 2011.


Notice that the previous RSVs 1946-1973 and the NRSV 1989 both read SEVENTY, but the latest revision of the revision of the revision, the ESVs (2001, 2007, 2011 editions) now goes with SEVENTY TWO.


The Catholic Connection 


ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version have followed the Latin Vulgate, Vaticanus reading here - "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY-TWO others and sent them two by two ahead of him..."


But many newer versions that are based on the Critical Text have retained the reading of SEVENTY. Among these are the NASB 1963-1995, the Holman Standard 2009, The Voice 2012, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Message 2002, Names of God Bible 2011 and the International Standard Version.


The Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbooks keep changing as well. Westcott and Hort put SEVENTY [TWO] in their text, bracketing the number [TWO]. However not even the Revised Version 1881 or the ASV of 1901 followed this reading of 72 but stayed with 70.  The Nestle Critical text 4th edition 1934 says 70 with no "two" in the text at all.  I have a hard copy of it here in my study.  But some time later the Nestle-Aland Critical text went back to putting the number [two] in brackets, indicating doubt, and this is how it stands in todays UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical textbooks.


So if all these versions are equally the inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God, how many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach - SEVENTY or SEVENTY TWO?  It is impossible that God inspired both readings in the same place. One is right and the other is wrong.  


At this point the Bible Agnostic crowd usually comes out with "What does this have to do with salvation?  No doctrines are changed, are they?"


Well, once again, going back to the doctrinal statement put out by their fellow bible agnostics in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, inerrancy also has to do with the recorded "assertions in the field of history."  Is the Inerrancy and 100% truthfulness and infallibility of God's words no longer a Doctrine of the Christian faith?


Besides this, there ARE several fundamental Doctrines that are watered down, confused and perverted in all these modern Vatican Versions. For several concrete examples, See Fake Bible Versions DO Teach False Doctrines -


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


And these examples of totally different numbers in the same verses among today's modern versions is not just a case or one or two. Here are at least 20 different examples you can see.  Wrong Numbers in the Multiple Choice Bible Babble Buffet Modern Versions -


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


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


 


Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"?  Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.

 

King James Bible -  Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

 

NASB 1963-1977 editions - “But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

 

NASB 1995 edition - “But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

 

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."  

 

NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."  

 

Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES?  What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?

 

This section of Luke tells of the time when Jesus came to the house of Martha and Mary, and Martha was cumbered with much serving and Mary sat at the feet of Jesus and heard his word. In Luke 10:42, after Jesus told Martha that she was careful and troubled about many things, he says: "But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

 

The one thing that is needful is to sit at the feet of Jesus, to hear his words, and be in fellowship with him.

 

"BUT ONE THING is needful”

 

The "But one thing is needful" is the reading found not only in the Majority of all manuscripts and the TR, but also of P45 and P75, both of which predate the vaunted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is also found in Alexandrinus, C original, E, F, G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Lambda, Pi, Psi. And it is the reading of the Old Latin aur,  f, g1, q, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Coptic Sahidic and Vulgate ancient versions.

 

"BUT ONE THING is needful" is the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901 (the highly praised precursor to the NASB), the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, Common English Bible and Dan Wallace's 2006 NET version.

 

But in the NASBs of 1963, 1972 and 1977 we read instead: "FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE."

 

This ridiculous reading comes from the Vaticanus manuscript.   The Siniaticus goes back and forth, being corrected three times in this one phrase alone. First Sinaiticus actually read ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν ἢ ἑνὸς = "but few things are the one" (Deep, huh?) Then a scribe changed it to read like the Majority text; and then another scribe changed it back again to read like Vaticanus.   

 

Also reading this way are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 and the 2013 J.W. Revision which say: “A FEW THINGS THOUGH ARE NEEDED, OR JUST ONE. For her part, Mary chose the good portion.”  

 

The Amplified bible of 1987 still non-sensically reads: “THERE IS NEED OF ONLY ONE THING OR BUT A FEW THINGS. Mary has chosen the good portion”. Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902 read this way - “OF FEW THINGS, IS THERE NEED, OR, OF ONE; Mary, in fact, hath chosen, the good part,” as does the Lexham English Bible of 2012 - “But FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, OR ONLY ONE THING, for Mary has chosen the better part”

 

But the NASB update of 1995 has reversed itself, and now reads as the KJB and the NIVs EARLIER EDITIONS and the ESV. Why? Not because of any new manuscript evidence recently come to light; they simply changed their minds.

 

The Catholic versions have done the same thing.  The early Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay followed the Traditional texts and read like the KJB - “But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL, and Mary hath chosen that good part”.  But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible followed the Vaticanus reading and read: “FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED, INDEED ONLY ONE.”

 

But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has also gone back to the Traditional reading and once again says: “And yet ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY. Mary has chosen the best portion”

 

Likewise the Nestle-Aland Critical Greek texts have changed over the years. Westcott and Hort originally went with the nonsensical reading ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία ἢ ἑνός, which is not even grammatically correct and literally is “few things is necessary the one”.  So also did the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975. I have hard copies of both of these and this is how their critical text reads.

 

 But not even the RV, ASV or even the RSV were that far gone that they actually followed this absurd reading found in their own critical Greek text editions. The first major translation to adopt it and put it in their text was the NASB in 1963 and the NASB stuck with it through 7 different editions until 1995.  Then sometime later they changed the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts and they now read as does the KJB with “ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία = “but one thing is necessary.”  

 

But wait!  There is more.  The NIVs 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions had it right. The read: "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Marry has chosen what is better."  But now that the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts have changed their reading to the correct one, which reads this way, the NEW NIV 2011 edition has come out, and now gone with the OLD Vaticanus reading the the critical text editors and the NASB just got done correcting.  The New NIV of 2011 now reads: "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better."!!!

 

    So the critical text promoters have abandoned in this place their beloved "oldest and best" manuscripts, all in the name of "the science” of Textual Criticism, don’t ya know. The question remains - Which NASB or which NIV was inspired and inerrant? The first 7 editions of the NASB from 1963 to 1977 or the 1995 update?  

 

Or the first three editions of the NIV, or this latest one done in 2011 where it doesn't even follow the late$t $cholarly Finding$? Well, actually, there is NO NASB or NIV user who believes their ever-changing versions are the inspired and infallible words of God.

 

 The 1995 NASB update changed 20,000 words and deleted another 8000 words from the previous 1977 NASB edition. This is not fantasy. I have the book Double Jeopardy, by Lawrence M. Vance, that documents in black and white every change that has taken place between these two different editions of the NASB.   

 

What we see among these bogus bible versions that are based on the ever changing Nestle-Aland/UBS/Vatican critical Greek texts (both  the “Evangelical” NASB, ESV, NIV, and the modern Catholic versions) is the fact that they have no settled Scripture. What may be fa$hionable $cholar$hip today, will change with the wind tomorrow.  And their so called “oldest and best manuscripts”, that these new Vatican Versions are based on, are in fact among the most corrupt in existence.

 

Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and “meddle not with them that are given to change” - Proverbs 24:21

 

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


 


 

Luke 11:11 "If a son shall ask bread..."

 

 

The perversion of God's word in the present day began in 1881 with the publication of the Revised Version in England. This is when Christiandom began to accept the Westcott-Hort revised Greek text, and literally thousands of changes were made in an attempt to overthrow the authority of the King James Bible. Satan is subtle and he introduces his changes little by little. The next bible that began to be accepted was the ASV or American Standard Version of 1901. They still kept all of the "thee"s and "ye"s, and actually the ASV is much closer to the KJB than its later counterpart,  the NASB. Each new version departs from the KJB a little bit more. The NKJV is not primarily based on the same Greek text as the NIV, but it does not wholly follow the underlying Greek texts of the KJB either in at least 40 instances in the New Testament, and has changed the meaning of hundreds of verses and introduced false doctrines into the Bible.

 

In Luke 11:11 we read:  "If a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" 

 

All of the capitalized letters are omitted in the NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman and NIV. The NASB says :  "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a FISH (not bread), he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?"

 

There is no "now suppose" in any text; they have changed the active verb "ask" to the passive "is asked" and they have omitted the words "WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASK". The NIV, ESV, RSV, Holman and NET are all similar to the NASB. This is because Vaticanus does not have these words and Vaticanus (B) has substituted "Fish" for "bread".

 

P45 and P75 are also in disagreement with each other, as well as the Majority of all Greek texts.  P45, agreeing with Vaticanus,  has "FISH" (ixthun not BREAD - arton) BUT P75 has a unique reading not found in any bible version I know of.  P75 actually has a completely different word here - isxun - STRENGTH, or MIGHT.  These two partial, paprus manuscripts often differ one from the other, sometimes following Vaticanus and at others Siniaticus, and sometimes going their own separate ways. For example, both P45 & 75 omit "neither under a bushel" in verse 33, yet the NASB, NIV include these words because they are found in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  

 

The reading of the King James Bible in Luke 11:11 is that found in the Majority of all manuscripts including A, C, D and Siniaticus - one of the "oldest and best" (according to modern scholarolatry).

 

The Vaticanus manuscript and the Westcott-Hort text read - τίνα δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν τὸν πατέρα αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἰχθύν, μὴ ἀντὶ ἰχθύος ὄφιν αὐτῷ ἐπιδώσει;

 

But the text found in the Majority, A, C, D, Sinaiticus, the Byzantine and even Tishendorf reads: τίνα δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν τὸν πατέρα αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; ἢ καὶ ἰχθύν, μὴ ἀντὶ ἰχθύος ὄφιν αὐτῷ ἐπιδώσει

 

It is of great interest to note that the KJB reading is also that of the Revised Version of 1881 and the ASV of 1901 which was so highly praised by the NASB as being "the Rock of Biblical Honesty." These were the first "Critical texts" to come on the scene,  and yet both of them still read as does the King James Bibe. Both the ASV of 1901 and the Revised Version of 1881 read: "And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and he give him a stone? or a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent?" So, why did the NASB change the reading? Hey, the Textual Critics can do whatever they want whenever their fancy strikes them.

 

The KJB reading is also found in the Catholic Douay Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 and even the Catholic Jerusalem bible of 1968.  The 1582 Douay-Rheims read: "And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? Or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" It is the Catholic church that posseses the Vaticanus manuscript, yet even they did not follow it in this place, as did the NIV, ESV, NET, Holman and NASB; that is until later Catholic versions came on the scene, like the NEW Jerusalem in 1985.

 

The New Jerusalem bible 1985 now reads like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET with: "What father among you, if his son asked for a FISH, would hand him a snake?" and then it now omits the words "will he give him a stone? Or a fish...". BUT the latest Catholic version has come on the merry-go-round bible scene and guess what. It has gone back to the original reading once again.  It is the 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version and it now reads: "So then, who among you, if he asks his father for bread, he would give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he would give him a serpent, instead of a fish?"

 

Can we expect the same random changes in the Bible of the Month Club English versions?  Most definitely.  In fact, it has already happened among those modern versions that generally follow the ever changing Westcott-Hort, UBS type of fickle scholarship.  They have now come out with what they calle the International Standard Version in 2010 and it too has gone back to the original reading found in the King James Bible all along.  The brand new, updated according to $cholar'$ late$t finding$, I$V now reads in Luke 11:11 - "What father among you, if his son asks for bread, would give him a stone, or if he asks for a fish, would give him a snake instead of the fish?"  Modern scholarship is nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

 

The first version the change the Greek and English text to omit the words “WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASK" and to change BREAD to FISH was the liberal RSV, then followed by the NASB, NRSV, NIV, ESV, Message, the Holman Standard and Wallace’s NET version.

 

The reading of “if a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE?  OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” is found in the Majority of all manuscripts, and in such Bible translations as: the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi Manuscript circa 1000 A.D. Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525,  Coverdale 1535,  Cranmer’s Bible 1539, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557 - 1602, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the King James Bible 1611, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s translation of 1755, Young’s, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac,  Weymouth Version 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, the Amplified Bible 1987 (put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB), the 1994 21st Century KJV, and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible.

 

 

Foreign language Bibles that read the same way as the King James Bible are Jerome’s Latin translation of 382 A.D., the Latin Vulgate of 405, the Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Gómez Bible 2010 - “¿Qué padre de vosotros, si su hijo le pide pan, le dará una piedra? ¿o si pescado, en lugar de pescado, le dará una serpiente?”, the 2003 Castillian, the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (by the same Lockman Foundation), Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible of 2000 - "Wo bittet unter euch ein Sohn den Vater ums Brot, der ihm einen Stein dafür biete? und, so er um einen Fisch bittet, der ihm eine Schlange für den Fisch biete?",  the Italian Diodati 1649, and the New Diodati 1991, and the 1997 La Parola e Vita - “E chi è tra voi quel padre che, se il figlio gli chiede del PANE, gli dà una pietra? “, the Portuguese de Almeida and the A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "E qual o pai de entre vós que, se o filho lhe pedir pão, lhe dará uma pedra? Ou também, se lhe pedir peixe, lhe dará por peixe uma serpente?", the Chinese Union Traditional, the Russian Synodal Translation 1876, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996 - “Qui est le père d'entre vous, qui donne à son fils une pierre, lorsqu'il lui demande du PAIN?”,

 

the Modern Greek used throughout the whole world in the Greek Orthodox churches and the Modern Hebrew New Testament - ומי בכם האב אשר ישאל ממנו בנו לחם ונתן לו אבן ואם דג היתן לו נחש תחת הדג׃    . 

 

So if you are trusting the modern "bibles" to give you the complete truth of God, you are getting something "fishy" instead of the bread of God.

 

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

 


Matthew 21:28-31 - NASB Confusion - The two sons and the Father's vineyard -

 

 

Matthew 21:28-31 - "A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in MY vineyard. He answered and said, I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, sir.; and HE WENT NOT. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The FIRST."

 

This is the reading of the King James Bible 1611, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV of 2001, the NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2003, the ISV 2010,  the Catholic Douay 1950 and Jerusalem bibles 1969,  1985, the NIV of 1984  and even the NET version.   These readings are found in the majority of all manuscripts and in the Siniaticus copy, one of the so called oldest and best. However Vaticanus or B, reverses the order of the two sons. Even the Catholic bibles rejected the Vaticanus reading,  and they have it in the Vatican library as one of their treasured possessions. Yet they chose to follow the reading that matches that found in the King James Bible. 

 

 When the Father came to the first son and told him to go work in his vineyard, instead of saying "I will NOT:BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT." the NASBs from 1962, 63, 68, 71, 72, 75 and 1977  say "I WILL, AND HE DID NOT GO.”  And when he comes to the second son, in the NASBs from 1962 to 1977 , instead of him saying "I GO SIR, AND HE WENT NOT” the NASBs have "I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT.”  Then, when Jesus asks which of them did the father's will, instead of “the FIRST”, the NASBs (1963 to 1977) say "the LATTER"!!!

 

Other bible versions that also follow the reading found in Vaticanus are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961, the New English Bible 1970, Goodspeed 1943, and the Revised English Bible of 1989, put out as a recent joint effort between Protestants and Catholics.  All these versions follow the Vaticanus reading, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is wrong.

 

The NASB does not always follow the Vaticanus readings.   Siniaticus differs from it  over 3000 times in the gospels alone. In fact in verse 28 the “my” of "MY vineyard" is in B, but not in Siniaticus, but the NASB did not put it in.  So the NASB goes back and forth between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, sometimes following one, sometimes the other, and sometimes changing their opinion from one year to the next. Here in verse 28 both the NIV and NASB have followed Siniaticus and rejected the Vaticanus and Majority reading of “MY vineyard”and have merely "THE" vineyard. 

 

The NASBs then chose to follow the Vaticanus reading (and not the Sinaiticus nor Majority reading) in verses 29-31 in all their editions from 1960 through 8 different editions until 1995 when they again changed their "scholarly opinion", based on the same evidence which  they had all along! NOW the 1995  NASB “update” reads as did the King James Bible and many others all this time. 

 

Which NASB was or is the true words of God?  Short answer- None of them.  There is no  “science” in their critical text methods; only the fickle and every changing opinions of men who make change for change’s sake (and perhaps for a few dollars and personal fame tossed in as well.)   Their bogus bibles only serve to undermine the authority of God's true words and sow doubt and confusion among God’s people. 

 

 John 1:42 - “A stone”, “Peter” or “Rock”?


At one of our Facebook forums a very ignorant Bible critic posted: “Jesus gave the PARTICULAR name as stone ONLY in the KJV that was founded because the POPE opposed him in his marriage offer. The true meaning we see in Paul calling Peter ONLY as Cephas which means ROCK.”

Well, our illustrious Bible critic is wrong on several counts. He is wrong about the meaning of the word petros; He is wrong in saying that ONLY the KJB translates this word as “stone”, and he is totally wrong in his reference of the marriage of king James and the Pope. He has confused king James with Henry the VIII. Other than these minor details, he is right on;-)

Let’s take a closer look

John 1:42 KJB - “ And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A STONE.” - πετρος


συ κληθηση κηφας ο ερμηνευεται πετρος

ESV (NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims) - “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means PETER).”

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 Holman Standard 2009 - “and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, “You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which means “ROCK”).

New Life Version 1969 Living Bible 1971, The Message 2002 - ““You are Simon, John’s son—but you shall be called Peter, THE ROCK!”


The Greek word πετρος is only this one time translated as “a stone” in John 1:42. All other times it means Peter. But the word for A ROCK is not this word. It is a slightly different Greek word petra - πετρα. And this word petra IS translated as ROCK some 16 times in the New Testament.

It is used in such places as “built his house upon A ROCK” (Matthew 7:24), “upon this ROCK I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and ROCK of offense: and whosoever believeth ON HIM shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33), “they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them; and that ROCK was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4)

Petra - πετρα - is a large Rock and it refers to Christ or the foundation of a building, while PetrOs is a small rock or a stone, and refers to the apostle Peter.

The Lexicons

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon 1887 page 557 tells us that this word Petros - πετρος- means: “a piece of rock, A STONE while the word πετρα means A ROCK.

Likewise the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, 1957 on page 660 informs us that the word petra means “ROCK” and that the other word petros means “a STONE”.

Notice that in Matthew 16 when the Lord asks the disciples Who He is and Peter responds “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” that Jesus tells him that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but the Father in heaven did. And then He says: “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros = a small rock, a stone), and upon THIS ROCK (not “you”, but “this rock” petra - a large rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Christ Himself is the Rock; not Peter. “For other foundation can no man lay that that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST.” 1 Corinthians 3:11

A STONE

Agreeing with the King James Bible where Jesus tells Cephas his name means A STONE are Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1933, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth Translation 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009 and the Jubilee Bible 2010.

The Pickering N.T. 2005 also says: “You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated ‘Stone’).6 “ and then he footnotes: “petros is Greek for ‘stone’ (a small object, as opposed to a 'rock'). The name ‘Peter’ is a transliteration into English of petros, but since ‘peter’ does not mean ‘stone’ in English, to put ‘Peter’ in verse 42 misses the point. “

The Modern Literal New Testament of 2014 goes even further and says: “You are Simon, the Son of Jonah, you will be called Cephas, which is by translation, A PEBBLE.”

The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.


 

John 1:42 - “A stone”, “Peter” or “Rock”?

At one of our Facebook forums a very ignorant Bible critic posted: “Jesus gave the PARTICULAR name as stone ONLY in the KJV that was founded because the POPE opposed him in his marriage offer. The true meaning we see in Paul calling Peter ONLY as Cephas which means ROCK.”

Well, our illustrious Bible critic is wrong on several counts. He is wrong about the meaning of the word petros; He is wrong in saying that ONLY the KJB translates this word as “stone”, and he is totally wrong in his reference of the marriage of king James and the Pope. He has confused king James with Henry the VIII. Other than these minor details, he is right on;-)

Let’s take a closer look

John 1:42 KJB - “ And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A STONE.” - πετρος


συ κληθηση κηφας ο ερμηνευεται πετρος

ESV (NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims) - “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means PETER).”

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 Holman Standard 2009 - “and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, “You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which means “ROCK”).

New Life Version 1969 Living Bible 1971, The Message 2002 - ““You are Simon, John’s son—but you shall be called Peter, THE ROCK!”


The Greek word πετρος is only this one time translated as “a stone” in John 1:42. All other times it means Peter. But the word for A ROCK is not this word. It is a slightly different Greek word petra - πετρα. And this word petra IS translated as ROCK some 16 times in the New Testament.

It is used in such places as “built his house upon A ROCK” (Matthew 7:24), “upon this ROCK I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and ROCK of offense: and whosoever believeth ON HIM shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33), “they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them; and that ROCK was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4)

Petra - πετρα - is a large Rock and it refers to Christ or the foundation of a building, while PetrOs is a small rock or a stone, and refers to the apostle Peter.

The Lexicons

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon 1887 page 557 tells us that this word Petros - πετρος- means: “a piece of rock, A STONE while the word πετρα means A ROCK.

Likewise the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, 1957 on page 660 informs us that the word petra means “ROCK” and that the other word petros means “a STONE”.

Notice that in Matthew 16 when the Lord asks the disciples Who He is and Peter responds “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” that Jesus tells him that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but the Father in heaven did. And then He says: “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros = a small rock, a stone), and upon THIS ROCK (not “you”, but “this rock” petra - a large rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Christ Himself is the Rock; not Peter. “For other foundation can no man lay that that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST.” 1 Corinthians 3:11

A STONE

Agreeing with the King James Bible where Jesus tells Cephas his name means A STONE are Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1933, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth Translation 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009 and the Jubilee Bible 2010.

The Pickering N.T. 2005 also says: “You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated ‘Stone’).6 “ and then he footnotes: “petros is Greek for ‘stone’ (a small object, as opposed to a 'rock'). The name ‘Peter’ is a transliteration into English of petros, but since ‘peter’ does not mean ‘stone’ in English, to put ‘Peter’ in verse 42 misses the point. “

The Modern Literal New Testament of 2014 goes even further and says: “You are Simon, the Son of Jonah, you will be called Cephas, which is by translation, A PEBBLE.”

The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.

John 1:42 - “A stone”, “Peter” or “Rock”?

At one of our Facebook forums a very ignorant Bible critic posted: “Jesus gave the PARTICULAR name as stone ONLY in the KJV that was founded because the POPE opposed him in his marriage offer. The true meaning we see in Paul calling Peter ONLY as Cephas which means ROCK.”

Well, our illustrious Bible critic is wrong on several counts. He is wrong about the meaning of the word petros; He is wrong in saying that ONLY the KJB translates this word as “stone”, and he is totally wrong in his reference of the marriage of king James and the Pope. He has confused king James with Henry the VIII. Other than these minor details, he is right on;-)

Let’s take a closer look

John 1:42 KJB - “ And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A STONE.” - πετρος


συ κληθηση κηφας ο ερμηνευεται πετρος

ESV (NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims) - “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means PETER).”

Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 Holman Standard 2009 - “and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, “You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which means “ROCK”).

New Life Version 1969 Living Bible 1971, The Message 2002 - ““You are Simon, John’s son—but you shall be called Peter, THE ROCK!”


The Greek word πετρος is only this one time translated as “a stone” in John 1:42. All other times it means Peter. But the word for A ROCK is not this word. It is a slightly different Greek word petra - πετρα. And this word petra IS translated as ROCK some 16 times in the New Testament.

It is used in such places as “built his house upon A ROCK” (Matthew 7:24), “upon this ROCK I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and ROCK of offense: and whosoever believeth ON HIM shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33), “they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them; and that ROCK was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4)

Petra - πετρα - is a large Rock and it refers to Christ or the foundation of a building, while PetrOs is a small rock or a stone, and refers to the apostle Peter.

The Lexicons

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon 1887 page 557 tells us that this word Petros - πετρος- means: “a piece of rock, A STONE while the word πετρα means A ROCK.

Likewise the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, 1957 on page 660 informs us that the word petra means “ROCK” and that the other word petros means “a STONE”.

Notice that in Matthew 16 when the Lord asks the disciples Who He is and Peter responds “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” that Jesus tells him that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but the Father in heaven did. And then He says: “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros = a small rock, a stone), and upon THIS ROCK (not “you”, but “this rock” petra - a large rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Christ Himself is the Rock; not Peter. “For other foundation can no man lay that that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST.” 1 Corinthians 3:11

A STONE

Agreeing with the King James Bible where Jesus tells Cephas his name means A STONE are Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, the Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1933, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth Translation 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009 and the Jubilee Bible 2010.

The Pickering N.T. 2005 also says: “You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated ‘Stone’).6 “ and then he footnotes: “petros is Greek for ‘stone’ (a small object, as opposed to a 'rock'). The name ‘Peter’ is a transliteration into English of petros, but since ‘peter’ does not mean ‘stone’ in English, to put ‘Peter’ in verse 42 misses the point. “

The Modern Literal New Testament of 2014 goes even further and says: “You are Simon, the Son of Jonah, you will be called Cephas, which is by translation, A PEBBLE.”

The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.