Dan Wallace is messing with The Book - Big Time!
There is a popular saying this is absolutely true. I have seen it time and again over the years. "If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind." Or, as the Bible puts it - "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 1 Corinthians 1:19
Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and he and a large group of fellow "scholars", Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible in ANY language have pooled their resources to put together the popular NET bible version 2006, complete with several of the Apocryphal books.
What Dan Wallace really believes about the truth of the Scriptures in his own words -
“Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.” (Dr. Daniel Wallace, “Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation”)
The purpose of this article is to prove to you that Docktor Dan is deceived when it comes to the Bible version issue. I will show by his own comments (or those of his fellow collaborators) found in his NET version that the man often perverts the texts and the meaning of the Scriptures. If my tone sounds a bit harsh to you, that is because it really gets my blood boiling when I see presumptuous Bible correctors and liars messing with God's Book.
Why do I say that Dan Wallace is lying? For the simple fact that he (like his colleague James White) SAYS he believes the Bible IS the infallible words of God, yet Dan Wallace couldn't show you a copy of this infallible Bible he PROFESSES (and lies about) to believe in, if his life depended on it; and he knows he can't even when he says he believes it.
So, I ask you to bear with me for a few minutes; read the article and see if your own spirit doesn't start to get a bit heated when you see what he is doing to the words of the living God.
Anybody who uses the NET version has taken a giant step backwards into confusion and uncertainty regarding the text of the Bible itself. Just over 60 years ago this same Dallas Theological Seminary, where Dr. Wallace now teaches, wrote a scathing article about three specific readings found in the liberal RSV.
Here is what the Dallas Theological Seminary symposium said. This particular section was written by Merrill F. Unger, Th.D., Ph. D. You can see the Dallas Theological Seminary article here -
These were all Christological passages and included the nature of the Son of God as found in Micah 5:2, the Messianic prophesy about “until Shiloh come” in Genesis 49:10 and changing “a virgin shall conceive” in Isaiah 7:14 to “a young woman”. Yet here we are just 60 years later, and Dan Wallace’s NET version has gone back to those same readings that were in the liberal RSV they criticized.
KJB Micah 5:2 - “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM OF OLD, FROM EVERLASTING.”
RSV Micah 5:2 - “But you, O Bethlehem Eph′rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, WHOSE ORIGIN IS FROM OF OLD, FROM ANCIENT DAYS.”
NET Micah 5:2 - “As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah – from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one WHOSE ORIGINS* ARE IN THE DISTANT PAST.”
* Footnote - “Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT)
Genesis 49:10 KJB - “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor A LAWGIVER from between his feet, until SHILOH COME; and unto him shall THE GATHERING of the people be.”
RSV Genesis 49:10 - “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS;* and to him shall be THE OBEDIENCE of the peoples.”
* Footnote - “Syriac: Hebrew until Shiloh comes “
NET Genesis 49:10 - “The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the RULER’S STAFF from between his feet, until HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS;* the nations WILL OBEY him.”
* Footnote -“The Hebrew form שִׁילֹה (shiloh) is a major interpretive problem.”
Isaiah 7:14 KJB - “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, A VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
RSV - “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, A YOUNG WOMAN shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el.”
NET version - “For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, THIS YOUNG WOMAN is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, YOUNG WOMAN, will name him Immanuel.”
Again, you can see the DSS article and discussion on why the RSV readings (now found also in Dan Wallace's NET version here -
How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples
Number 1 - Haggai 2:7 The Desire of all nations shall come
Number Two - Isaiah 66:5 But He shall appear to your joy
Number Three - Daniel 9:26 "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself"
Dan Wallace and his NET version is wrong on all three. See particularly the article on Daniel 9:26 "Messiah shall be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."
The NET commentary on this verse reveals a lot about these men-
The 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 Dock Wallace's opinions.
Bible Commentators that got it right
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 SEEM 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."
Here are a few of the numerous examples -
Deuteronomy 32:8 KJB - "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL."
ESV - "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD."
Footnote - "Compare Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint; Masoretic Text sons of ISRAEL."
NRSV 1989 - "he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number OF THE GODS."
Dan Wallace NET version 2006 - "he set the boundaries of the peoples,according to the number of THE HEAVENLY ASSEMBLY."
Deuteronomy 32:8 - "according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL" is the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901 - "according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.", the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), Darby, Youngs 1898, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, NIV 1984-2011, Holman Standard 2009, Names of God Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012 - the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.", and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - "When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."
But the RSV and ESV say: "he fixed the borders of the people according to the number of the SONS OF GOD." Then footnotes: Compare Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint; Masoretic Hebrew text "Israel". The NRSV of 1989 had said: "the number of THE GODS."
Other modern versions that also read "the SONS OF GOD" instead of the Hebrew text "the children OF ISRAEL" are The Voice 2012 - "the number of the sons OF GOD.", the ISV "the number of the CHILDREN OF GOD.", and the 2011 Common English Bible (another critical text version) goes even further and says: "based on the number OF THE GODS."!!!
First of all it should be noted that the so called Greek Septuagint does NOT read "sons of GOD" as these modern version footnotes imply, but rather it reads "according to the number of the ANGELS OF GOD" - ἀγγέλων θεοῦ
Secondly, what was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at this point is a very chopped up text with numerous missing words in just this verse alone. Even Dan Wallace refers to it as "a Qumran fragment". The copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Abegg, Flint & Ulrich shows in brackets what is missing. The only parts found here would read: "When...their inherit...he separated...the children of GOD." That's it! And from this scrap of manuscript alone some modern versions have now rejected the time tested Hebrew Masoretic text and changed it.
The reading of "according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL" is the reading found in all Hebrew Masoretic texts as well as the Syriac Peshitta -"according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL".
ALL Jewish translations like the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the Hebrew Names Version, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and the Judaica Press Tanach - "according to the number of THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."
The Modern Greek Bible - “εστησε τα ορια των λαων κατα τον αριθμον των υιων Ισραηλ.” = “He set the boundaries of the people according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL.”
The Modern Hebrew Bible - בהנחל עליון גוים בהפרידו בני אדם יצב גבלת עמים למספר בני ישראל׃ - "the number of the sons of the people of ISRAEL."
The Dead Sea Scrolls may read "the children of GOD", but the Septuagint does not read as the ESV implies it does. The LXX (Septuagint) reads "angels of God", not "sons of God".
The willy nilly nature of the "science" of textual criticism employed by the ESV translators can easily be seen in that they randomly pick from among various DSS readings, using some and rejecting others. For example, the ESV footnotes that 2 Samuel 5:4-5 are "lacking in the DSS", but yet they are in the Hebrew texts as well as the so called Septuagint, and this time the ESV leaves the two verses in their version.
The Catholic Connection
The older Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims, and Douay read like the KJB and the Hebrew texts with "the children of ISRAEL."; BUT the newer Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 read like the ESV and have "the children OF GOD." The New Jerusalem informs us in their footnote that "children of God" comes from the Greek, but the Hebrew reads "children of ISRAEL."
But there is more. Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) has come out, and it goes back to the Hebrew reading and says: "according to the number of the sons OF ISRAEL."
Dan Wallace's goofy NET version reads differently than them all. He has "he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of THE HEAVENLY ASSEMBLY." Then in his footnote he acknowledges that the Hebrew Masoretic Text reads "sons of ISRAEL", and that the LXX has "ANGELS OF GOD", but that one Qumram fragment has "sons OF GOD." So where did Dan Wallace and company get "THE HEAVENLY ASSEMBLY"? They just made it up!
Wallace's NET version is in good company with some other comic book "dynamic equivalent" perversions like the Living Bible 1971 which had: "He gave each of them A SUPERVISING ANGEL!", the New Living Bible 2007 that says: "according to the number IN HIS HEAVENLY COURT.", and Eugene Peterson's The Message of 2002 which says: "under the care of DIVINE GUARDIANS." Hey, we can now make the bible say virtually anything we want it to say, right? And most modern day professing Christians don't really care one way or the other.
Judges 5:8 KJB - "THEY CHOSE NEW GODS; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel."
Daniel Wallace's NET: "GOD CHOSE NEW LEADERS, then fighters appeared in the city gates."
NIV 1978 and 1984 editions - "WHEN THEY CHOSE NEW GODS, war came to the city gates, and not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel."
NIV 2011 edition - "GOD CHOSE NEW LEADERS WHEN WAR CAME TO the city gates, but not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel."
Reading "THEY CHOSE NEW GODS; THEN WAS WAR IN THE GATES" are the Great Bible 1540, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, the NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the ESV 2011, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, World English Bible 2000, The Complete Jewish Tanach 2004, Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, New Heart English Bible 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The New American Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Common English Bible 2011, the Holman Standard, Names of God Bible 2011, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Voice 2012 - "They had chosen new gods, so war came to their gates.", The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014.
The NASB is very similar with: "NEW GODS WERE CHOSEN, THEN WAS WAR IN THE GATES,
AND the NIV 1978 and 1984 editions have: "WHEN THEY CHOSE NEW GODS, war came to the city gates."
All these versions say basically the same thing.
John Gill comments: They chose new gods…That is, Israel, as most of the Jewish commentators interpret it;... this they did after the death of Joshua; it refers to their first idolatry, begun by Micah, (Judges 17:1) they chose other gods than the true God. then was war in the gates - when they fell into idolatry, then God suffered the judgment of war to come upon them, even into the gates of their fortified cities.
Bible Babble Buffet
The NEB (New English Bible) 1970 and the 1989 Revised English bible both say: "They chose new gods, THEY CONSORTED WITH DEMONS."
Bible in Basic English 1961 - "THEY HAD NO ONE TO MAKE ARMS, THERE WERE NO MORE ARMED MEN IN THE TOWNS; was there a body-cover or a spear to be seen among forty thousand in Israel?
Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac tells us "THE LORD WILL CHOOSE NEW THINGS; THEN THE BARLEY BREAD AND A SWORD OR A SPEAR shall not be seen among 40,000 in Israel." (Say what?!)
God's First Truth 1999 - "GOD CHOSE NEW FASHIONS OF WAR, FOR WHEN THEY HAD WAR AT THEIR GATES: there was not seen among forty thousand, either shield or spear in Israel."
The Catholic Connection
This may be hard to believe, but these are the actual Catholic translations of this one verse. The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both read: "THE LORD CHOSE NEW WARS, AND HE HIMSELF OVERTHREW THE GATES OF THE ENEMIES: a shield and spear was not seen among forty thousand of Israel.”
Then the 1968 Jerusalem bible changed this to - "THOSE THAT SHOULD STAND FOR GOD WERE DUMB, FROM FIVE CITIES, NOT ONE SHIELD! Not one spear from forty thousand in Israel!"
And after that the 1970 St. Joseph NAB read - "NEW GODS WERE THEIR CHOICE, then the war was at their gates. Not a shield could be seen, nor a lance, among forty thousand in Israel."
You will notice the St. Joseph is very much like most Bible versions.
1 Samuel 13:5 we read: "And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, THIRTY thousand chariots..." (Hebrew text, Geneva, RV, ASV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, Douay-Rheims) or "THREE thousand chariots." (Syriac text, NET, NIV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible)
See many more examples of Dan Wallace and company's NET version rejecting the Hebrew texts here - "Wrong Names and Numbers in the Vatican Versions"
Dan Wallace and company's NET version completely misses this prophesy about Christ and mistranslates the Hebrew.
Isaiah 32:1-2 KJB - "Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. And A MAN shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land."
NET Version - "EACH OF THEM (3) will be like a shelter from the wind and a refuge from a rainstorm; like streams of water in a dry region and like the shade of a large cliff in a parched land."
And then he has the chutzpah to footnote: Hebrew “a man,” but אִישׁ (’ish) probably refers here to “each” of the officials mentioned in the previous verse."
None so blind as an educated bible agnostic, huh, Dan? See why Wallace is wrong here -
Leviticus 16:10 - Scapegoat (Jesus) or Azazel (the devil)?
The confusion (and the error) of some Bible translators is that they see the Hebrew word # 5799 "gazah-zehl" as being a personal name - Azazel - , whereas others (correctly) see this Hebrew word as being a compound noun made up of two words - Scapegoat.
Wigram's Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldea Concordance of the Old Testament shows this to be the case. This word is a combination of #5795 gehz "goat" (Leviticus 9:3; 16:5; 17:3, etc) and the verb #235 "ah-zal" meaning "to be gone" or "to depart" that is used in places like Proverbs 20:14 - "BUT WHEN HE IS GONE his way".
The KJB (and even the NASB, NIV, NKJV and many others) got it right. The ESV, Jehovah Witness NWT, NET and modern Catholic versions did not.
See the whole article here.
For more examples of where Dan Wallace's NET version rejects or adds to the Hebrew text See "The NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions reject the Hebrew Texts Part One" here -
Dan Wallace has written an article called “Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today”
You can see it here -
Another King James Bible believer has already written a response to Dan Wallace’s article. His name is Brandon Staggs and he wrote his rebuttal back in 2004. His article is appropriately called “Why you shouldn't care what Daniel Wallace thinks about the King James Bible” You can see it here -
Let’s take a look at the very first thing Dan Wallace says in his article about the King James Bible. He opens with these words: “First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD, INERRANT, INSPIRED AND OUR FINAL AUTHORITY FOR FAITH AND LIFE.”
Dan Wallace starts off his criticism of the King James Bible with a bald faced lie and it goes downhill from there. Dan Wallace is like peas in a pod with other men like James White. They both SAY they believe “The Bible IS the inspired and inerrant word of God”. Notice that both Dan Wallace and James White both use a present tense verb - IS - when they PROFESS to believe "The Bible IS the inerrant words of God."
But all you have to do to prove that they are prevaricating (that’s a fancy word for “lying”) is to simply ask either of them to SHOW you a copy of this “inspired and inerrant word of God” they both PROFESS to believe in. They cannot and will NEVER tell you. Why? Because neither one of them actually HAS (present tense) a real Bible between two covers that you can hold in your hands, read and believe IS the inspired and inerrant words of God - and they KNOW IT! They are lying to you. It’s just that simple.
The second lie Dan Wallace tells us is found at the beginning of his second paragraph where he says: “Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.”
This is amazing. James White does the same thing when talking about the text of the King James Bible. They try somehow to link the King James Bible to the Roman Catholic Church and in this way discredit it. Whereas the TRUTH of the whole matter is that it is the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard and the NET versions themselves that are the new Vatican Versions!
I know this may sound like an outrageous, fanatical KJB Onlyist Conspiracy Theory to you at first, but I can PROVE it beyond all doubt and document it for you with quotes right out of the Nestle-Aland critical text itself, the UBS (United Bible Society) sites and direct quotes from the Vatican.
See “Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"
“Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth..is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit...and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication...Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins” Revelation 17:2-5; 18:2-4
Be sure to take a look at Part Two where you can see the hundreds of words that have been omitted in the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and the modern Catholic versions, and where they have rejected and added to the Hebrew texts themselves. These are not the baseless ravings of a mindless fanatic. These are cold facts you can see for yourself in black and white.
No Catholic bible version has ever used the Greek text of Erasmus. In fact, the Council of Trent (1545-1564) branded Erasmus a heretic and prohibited his works. In 1559, Pope Paul IV placed Erasmus on the first class of forbidden authors, which was composed of authors whose works were completely condemned. And besides this, the King James Bible translators did not even primarily use Erasmus’ text, but that of Beza and secondarily of Stephanus.
The third piece of misinformation Dan Wallace gives us is when he writes: “Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore? “
Dan Wallace and James White both use the same worn out, misleading information when they criticize the Bible God has born witness to throughout the last 400 years as being His Book.
The King James Bible has never been “revised”. They changed the text font from Gothic to Roman print, corrected some minor printing errors within the first 30 years of its publication and updated the spelling of words like “sinne” to “sin” and “Sonne” to “Son”, but this was because the English language itself was not yet settled in its spelling.
But the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts and the English translation of these texts has NEVER changed. And this is in sharp contrast to the many and deliberate textual changes that continue to take place in versions like the ESV, NIV and NASB.
See 'The Printing Errors Ploy' - the last ditch effort of the Bible agnostics to convince us that there is no infallible Bible here -
The Fourth subtle twisting of truth is when Dan Wallace says: “Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?”
Again, Dan Wallace is misrepresenting the facts. For an educated man, his command of the English language is exceedingly limited. To “suffer” meaning “to permit or to allow” is STILL used today and the same applies to “Study”. The word still means to “study”. Dan Wallace and other Vatican Version promoters would have us reject the infallible words of God because it has at times a slightly “archaic feel” to them, and replace them with a perverted text that likewise has numerous words the average high school graduate of today would not be able to define.
See my article called “The "Old fashioned language" of the King James Bible”
Oh, and by the way, if you are wondering about all those “thee”s and “ye”s - they are there for a reason and are far more accurate to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts than is the generic “you”.
See - “Why those "thee"s and "ye"s are more accurate.”
The Fifth lie Dan Wallace tells us is this: “Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain AT a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain OUT a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that NO TRANSLATION IS INFALLIBLE (Caps are mine) but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).
First, Dan Wallace is wrong again about Matthew 23:24 being an error. And here is why - “Strain AT a gnat”
And Second, Notice that Dan Wallace just got done telling us that “NO TRANSLATION IS INFALLIBLE”, and yet at the beginning of his article he told us that he believes “THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD, INERRANT, INSPIRED AND OUR FINAL AUTHORITY FOR FAITH AND LIFE.”
So, at this point it behooves us to ask Dan Wallace and James White and others like them, WHERE exactly IS this "inerrant and inspired Bible" you guys piously PROFESS to believe in? Do you have an UN-translated Bible in “the original languages” of Hebrew and Greek that you can show us that you honestly believe IS the inspired and infallible words of God? Not a chance. They will NEVER actually SHOW you this inerrant Bible they SAY they believe in, and they know they can't.
I will briefly mention the last two examples Dan Wallace lists as examples of alleged errors in the King James Bible. He tells us that 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the KJB and many other Bibles is wrong and that Hebrews 4:8 where it says "Jesus" and not "Joshua" is also a mistake.
Here is my article on 1 John 5:7 - "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"
And here is my article on Hebrews 4:8 - Jesus or Joshua?
Before showing you some examples of why I say Dan Wallace is a NUT, let me address one more point he makes in his article.
He says: “most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that NO DOCTRINE IS AFFECTED (Caps are mine) by these changes. One can get saved reading the KJV and one can get saved reading the NIV, NASB, etc. “
Here I agree with one statement and totally disagree with the other. I agree that one can get saved using any bible version out there in print, no matter how corrupt it may be in many other places. The gospel of salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His substitutionary death for His people on the cross and His resurrection from the dead is found in ANY bible. You can even find these gospel truths in many Christian songs or concise well written gospel tracts. I do not at all believe that a person has to be KJB Only in order to be saved. Not at all.
However there most definitely ARE many doctrines that have been weakened, changed and even perverted in the modern versions. The main one of course is the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Bible itself. Most Christians today do not really believe that ANY Bible in any language IS the infallible words of God. The polls show this to be true, and these polls are not done by King James Bible believers.
See “The Bible is NOT the inspired and infallible words of God”
And secondly, there ARE several fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith that have been changed in these inferior bible versions. Here are some examples:
"Fake Bible Versions DO teach and pervert several biblical doctrines", and the infallibility of the Bible (any bible in any language) is a huge doctrine that most Christians do not believe anymore.
Here are just a few of the perverted doctrines.
#1. Can God be deceived? The NASB and Dan Wallace’s NET version say that the children of Israel DECEIVED God. Not just "tried to deceive" or "thought they had deceived" but deceived Him.
#2. Did the Son of God have an "origin from ancient times" or "his goings forth are from everlasting"? Did He have a beginning or is He eternal? (Again, the Dan Wallace’s NET version is wrong)
#3. Who controls the world, God or Satan? 1 John 5:19
Several modern fake bibles teach it is Satan - Wallace’s NET is wrong.
#4. Is your righteousness before God the fine linen of the righteousness of Christ, or your "righteous deeds" as several fake bibles and the modern Catholic versions teach? Again, the NET is wrong.
#5. Can man "speed up" the coming of the day of God's judgment, or is it already marked by God on the calendar to the day and month? The NET is wrong again.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38
#6. Daniel 9:26 What Did Christ Accomplish With His Death?
KJB - "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"
ESV (NIV, NASB, NET) - "an anointed one shall be cut off AND SHALL HAVE NOTHING."
Why Dan Wallace is Messing with the Book
There is a saying that “If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.” Or as the Bible puts it: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” 1 Corinthians 1:19-20
Here are some of the comments and footnotes that Dan Wallace and company’s NET version makes regarding several passages of Scripture.
Number One - In Daniel 9:26 we have a great prophesy about the death of the Lord Jesus Christ and what His death will accomplish. In the King James Bible and many others we read: "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."
However Wallace’s 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 us 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.
See the whole article here -
Number Two - How tall was Goliath the giant?
In 1 Samuel 17:4 the Hebrew texts tell us that the height of Goliath was SIX cubits and a span, which would make him about 9 feet 6 inches tall. That indeed is a giant. However the LXX tells us that Goliath was a mere FOUR cubits and a span - "ὕψος αὐτοῦ τεσσάρων πήχεων καὶ σπιθαμῆς" - which would make him only 6 feet 6 inches tall, which would hardly be much among NBA players today. All Jewish translations, like the JPS 1917 or the Complete Tanach of 2004 or Hebrew Names Bible follow the Hebrew texts and say "six cubits and a span". A cubit was about 18 inches and a span was the length of an open hand between the tip of the thumb and the tip of the little finger, or about 6 inches. This means Goliath was around 10 feet tall. Not even the Message or the NIV 2011 follow the LXX reading here. They agree with the Hebrew text and the KJB as do even the liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV, 2001-2011, NASB, 1995, Common English Bible 2011, Holman Standard 2003 - "HE WAS NINE FEET, NINE INCHES TALL", The Voice 2012 and the NKJV. The Modern Greek Bible has now followed the Hebrew reading of "six cubits and a span" instead of the corrupt LXX reading. The Modern Greek Bible says: υψους εξ πηχων και σπιθαμης· = "height SIX cubits and a span"
However there are a few loonies out there like Daniel Wallace and gang's NET version that says: "His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was CLOSE TO SEVEN FEET TALL." Then in Daniel Wallace and company's goofy, faith destroying footnotes they tell us: "Heb “his height was six cubits and a span” (cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV). A cubit was approximately eighteen inches, a span nine inches. So, according to the Hebrew tradition, Goliath was about nine feet, nine inches tall (cf. NIV, CEV, NLT “over nine feet”; NCV “nine feet, four inches”; TEV “nearly 3 metres”). However, some Greek witnesses, Josephus, and a manuscript of 1 Samuel from Qumran read “four cubits and a span” here, that is, about six feet, nine inches (cf. NAB “six and a half feet”). This seems more reasonable; it is likely that Goliath’s height was exaggerated as the story was retold."!!!
See Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness for a further development about the height of Goliath and other examples of what is found in the so called Greek Septuagint, which Dan Wallace's NET version often follows instead of the Hebrew texts -
Number Three - Psalms 22:16 How did Jesus Die? - KJB (ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, Holman) - "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: THEY PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET."
Dan Wallace and Company's NET version - "Yes, wild dogs surround me –a gang of evil men crowd around me; LIKE A LION THEY PIN my hands and my feet.”
Footnote: Heb “like a lion, my hands and my feet.” This reading is often emended because it is grammatically awkward, but perhaps its awkwardness is by rhetorical design…The psalmist may envision a lion pinning the hands and feet of its victim to the ground with its paws (a scene depicted in ancient Near Eastern art), or a lion biting the hands and feet. The line has been traditionally translated, “they pierce my hands and feet,” and then taken as foreshadowing the crucifixion of Christ. Though Jesus does appropriate the language of this psalm while on the cross, the NT does not cite this verse in describing the death of Jesus. If one were to insist on an emendation of כָּאֲרִי (ka’ariy, “like a lion”) to a verb, the most likely verbal root would be כָּרָה (karah, “dig”; see the LXX). In this context this verb could refer to the gnawing and tearing of wild dogs (cf. NCV, TEV, CEV). The ancient Greek version produced by Symmachus reads “bind” here, perhaps understanding a verbal root כרך, which is attested in later Hebrew and Aramaic and means “to encircle, entwine, embrace”. Neither one of these proposed verbs can yield a meaning “bore, pierce.”
To see more on this verse go to “Psalms #1 - How different the versions!” and scroll down to the bottom of the page here -
Number Four - John 7:8-10 Did Jesus lie or tell the truth?
In the King James Bible we read: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, THEN went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."
The reading of "not yet" (οὔπω) is that found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts including P66, P75, Vaticanus, L,T, W, Delta and in some Old Latin copies and in the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian and the Coptic Sahidic and Boharic ancient versions.
The old NIVs of 1973, 1978 and 1984 also read this way saying: "I am NOT YET going up to this Feast". However now the 2011 NIV has once again changed its underlying Greek texts and now has Jesus lying to His disciples by saying: "You go to this festival. I AM NOT GOING up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come." Dan Wallace's NET verion also reads this way.
Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: “Most mss (P66,75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 Ë1,13 Ï sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), but "ouk" is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10."
So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus a liar, it must be right!
Wilbur Pickering, who himself is not even a KJB onlyist, comments on this blunder: Serious Anomalies/Aberrations -John 7:8 oupw--P66,75,B,E,F,G,H,L,N,T,W,X,D,Q,Y 070, 0105, 0141, 0250, f1, 13, Byz, Lect, syr p, h, pal, co sa "NOT YET" ; ouk -- À, D, K, P, lat, syr s, c, co bo "NOT". Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him.
You can see this verse discussed in much more detail here -
Dan Wallace Stands Virtually Alone = Matthew 27:16-17
In Matthew 27:16-17 in the King James Bible and virtually every Bible in any language we read: "And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? "
However Daniel Wallace's NET version reads: "At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas. 27:17 So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?"
Then he adds this footnote: "Although the external evidence for the inclusion of "Jesus" before "Barabbas" (in vv. 16 and 17) is rather sparse, being restricted virtually to the Caesarean text the omission of the Lord's name in apposition to "Barabbas" is such a strongly motivated reading that it can hardly be original."
In other words, even though the overwhelming textual evidence (including the Bible agnostics favorites of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) reads "Barabbas" and not "Jesus Barabbas", Daniel thinks the traditional reading which rightly omits the two extra Jesus's "can hardly be original".,
Even when Westcott and Hort came out with their new critical text they did not even mention the odd variant readings that twice added the name of Jesus to the text. Years later it still was not mentioned even in a footnote in the Nestle critical text 4th edition. Then later on they began to put this minor variant at the bottom of the page in a footnote, and NOW in the newest Nestle-Aland, UBS texts these spurious additional readings are added to the text in brackets. This is the nature of the ever changing merry-go-round they like to call the "science" of modern textual criticism.
The two additional names of "JESUS Barabbas" are NOT found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, Geneva, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASV, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard or the ISV of 2010.
However the NRSV, the Message, the NIV 2011 edition (though not in the 1973, 1978 or 1984 NIVs) and Daniel Wallace's NET version add the name Jesus twice to the text in Matthew 27:16-17. Notice the RSV did not add these names, then the NRSV did add them to their texts, but then the latest revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV - once again took them out! And they call this "science".
It is kind of interesting that, though the Catholic versions still read like the KJB and the traditional text, the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 has this footnote after Matthew 27:16 - "Here and in v. 17, variant JESUS Barabbas, which would give peculiar point to Pilate's question BUT APPEARS TO HAVE ITS ORIGIN IN AN APOCRYPHAL TRADITION."
But now Dan "the Man" Wallace, who seems to like ANY weird reading out there, and the new NIV 2011 have put it in the text of their fake (apocrypha = of doubtful authenticity) "bible" versions.
So far everything we have looked at shows Dan Wallace's NET version to be one of the worst Vatican PerVersions on the market and he certainly is not telling us the truth when he SAYS he believes the Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God. Dan Wallace has no such infallible Bible to believe in himself nor to give to anyone else.
That some people actually take this guy seriously shows how far along the prophesied "falling away from the faith" has come. I expect the widespread unbelief in a REAL Bible to only get worse because I DO believe The Bible when it says that the last days will be characterized by "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13
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."
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."
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.
In fact, the Catholic commentary in the New Jerusalem bible 1995 which also says "the upright will live THROUGH FAITHFULNESS." says: "Being faithful to God, to his word and to his will, is characteristic of the upright, and assures him security and life here on earth."
Dan Wallace's NET version also translates Habakkuk 2:4 as "the person of INTEGRITY will live BECAUSE OF HIS FAITHFULNESS."
And then he comments: "Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word אֱמוּנָה (’emunah) has traditionally been translated “faith,” but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness.” In this case the Lord is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct."
Obviously both the Catholic versions mentioned and Dan Wallace and company are focusing on the "godly lifestyle" and personal "faithfulness" of these "persons of integrity", instead of their "faith" in God and what He does. And yet the Scriptures themselves quote this same verse as "the just shall live by his faith" and is found in at least 100 Bible translations, and many of them done by those who actually speak Hebrew as their native language.
The verse is quoted in the New Testament in direct contrast to the works of the law and what might be referred to as "a godly lifestyle". The gospel is for sinners who are lost, have no righteousness of their own and are under condemnation.
In Galatians 3:11-12 we read: "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them." So, whose right, Dan Wallace or the apostle Paul? (See also the commentaries on this verse at the end of the article.)
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."
Among foreign language Bibles that likewise read "the just shall live by FAITH" in Habakkuk 2:4 are Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Siehe, wer halsstarrig ist, der wird keine Ruhe in seinem Herzen haben; denn der Gerechte lebet seines Glaubens.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909-2011 - "He aquí se enorgullece aquel cuya alma no es derecha en él: mas el justo en su fe vivirá.", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and Italian Riveduta 2006 - "Ecco, l’anima di colui che si sottrae non è diritta in lui; ma il giusto viverà per la sua fede.", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1998 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Voici, l'âme de celui qui s'élève n'est pas droite en lui; mais le juste vivra par sa foi.", the Portuguese Almeida Atualizada - "mas o justo pela sua fé viverá.", the Modern Greek Bible - "Ιδου, η ψυχη αυτου επηρθη, δεν ειναι ευθεια εν αυτω· ο δε δικαιος θελει ζησει δια της πιστεως αυτου.", and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "הנה עפלה לא ישרה נפשו בו וצדיק באמונתו יחיה׃" = "the righteous shall live by 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 whole Reformation began with God opening the eyes of Martin Luther when he read the passage "The just shall live by his FAITH." He was finally freed from the heavy yoke of trying to obtain his own righteousness through the works and self merit system of the Roman Catholic Church.
Do you think he could have seen this liberating truth if he had read instead "the just shall live by HIS FAITHFULNESS."? Not at all.
The Bible Commentators
John Gill on Habakkuk 2:4 - "But the just shall live by faith - the "just" man is the reverse of the former, who has no overweening opinion of himself, and of his own righteousness; nor does he trust in it for his justification before God, and acceptance with him; but in the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, from whence he is denominated a just man"
David Guzik's commentary on Habakkuk 2:4 - "But the just shall live by his faith: In contrast to the proud, there are the just. The principle of their life is faith, instead of pride that looks to self. True faith looks outside of self unto the LORD God, while pride always looks to self. This brief statement from the prophet Habakkuk is one of the most important, and most quoted Old Testament statements in the New Testament. Paul used it to show that the just live by faith, not by law. Being under the law isn’t the way to be found just before God, only living by faith is."
John Calvin on Habakkuk 2:4 - "What does the just do? He brings nothing before God except faith: then he brings nothing of his own, because faith borrows, as it were, through favor, what is not in man’s possession. He, then, who lives by faith, has no life in himself; but because he wants it, he flies for it to God alone....Let us now come to Paul, who has applied the Prophet’s testimony for the purpose of teaching us that salvation is not by works, but by the mercy of God alone, and therefore by faith."
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament - "The deep meaning of these words has been fully brought out by the Apostle Paul (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11: see also Hebrews 10:38), who makes the declaration ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται (The just shall live by faith) the basis of the New Testament doctrine of justification by faith."
NET Madness in Job 15:23
Job 15:23 "He wandereth abroad FOR BREAD, SAYING WHERE IS IT? he knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand."
This verse reads the same in the Jewish translations 1917 JPS, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, all based of course on the Hebrew texts.
It is also the reading of the RV, ASV, Darby, Youngs, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the NASB 1995, NKJV 1982, New Living Translation 2007, Holman Standard 2009, RSV - "He wanders about for bread, saying 'Where is it?' He knows that a day of darkness is ready at his hand.", NRSV 1989, ESV 2001 "He wanders abroad for bread, saying, ‘Where is it?’", the Voice of 2012, Lexham English Bible 2012, the International Standard Version of 2012- "He wanders about for food, saying, "Where is it?", and the Modern English Version 2014.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible says: "The meaning of the Hebrew is, simply, that he will be reduced to poverty, and will not know where to obtain a supply for his needs."
Adam Clarke's commentary, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown and John Wesley all agree with the Hebrew reading and it's sense. Adam Clarke says: "He wandereth abroad for bread - He is reduced to a state of the utmost indigence, he who was once in affluence requires a morsel of bread, and can scarcely by begging procure enough to sustain life."
NIV and NET Madness
The NIV and Dan Wallace and company's LOONY NET version however, go totally off the wall here and the NIV doesn't even tell you in their footnotes how they came up with their unique reading. The NIVs 1978 and 1984 editions say: "He wanders about - FOOD FOR VULTURES."
Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 has: "he wanders about – FOOD FOR VULTURES;(48) he knows that the day of darkness is at hand." Wallace at least gives us a footnote. He says - "The MT has “he wanders about for food – where is it?” The LXX has “he has been appointed for food for vultures” So, he at least tells us that the Hebrew Text reads as does the KJB and SO many others. He just decided to change it.
But Doktor Dan didn't follow the whole LXX reading for this verse. He just picked out a part of it to give us his "late$t finding$ in P$eudo $cholar$hip"
Other English versions that do this too are the New English Bible 1970 and the Revised English Bible 1989.
Actually, the so called Greek Septuagint reads very differently than both the Hebrew text and the NIVs OR Dan Wallace's goofy NET version. It is much longer and very different in meaning.
Instead of reading "He wandereth abroad FOR BREAD, SAYING WHERE IS IT? he knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand."
The so called Greek Septuagint reads: "AND HE HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO BE FOOD FOR VULTURES; AND HE KNOWS WITHIN HIMSELF THAT HE IS DOOMED TO BE A CARCASE; AND A DARK DAY SHALL CARRY HIM AWAY AS WITH A WHIRLWIND."
"Doctor" Dan and his illustrious group of 21st century "scholars" just decided to rummage through and pick out a small part of the LXX and ignore the rest, while dumping the inspired Hebrew text that makes perfect sense and most bibles in history have followed. And to think that young seminarians are learning from these Clowns and passing on this Goofiness to others.
But there is more.
The new NIV of 2011 has changed once again and it now reads: "HE WANDERS ABOUT FOR FOOD LIKE A VULTURE; he knows the day of darkness is at hand."
SO, is he "FOOD FOR VULTURES" or Does "he wander about for food LIKE A VULTURE?"
(Actually, it's neither one. Both NIVs are flat out wrong.)
The Modern Greek Bible has rejected the Septuagint reading and has gone back to the Hebrew text. It reads: "Περιπλαναται δια αρτον, και που;" = "HE WANDERS ABOUT FOR BREAD, and where is it?"
The Catholic Connection (Just a coincidence, right?)
Neither the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610 nor the Douay of 1950 read the way the NIVs do. The older Catholic versions basically followed the Hebrew text. The Douay says: "When he moveth himself TO SEEK BREAD, he knoweth that the day of darkness is ready as his hand."
BUT the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem of 1985 DO read like the NIV and Dan Wallace's NET version.
The St. Joseph New American bible 1970 reads: "A wanderer, FOOD FOR THE VULTURES, he knows that his destruction is imminent." Just like Dan Wallace's NET and the earlier NIVs.
The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible has: "MARKED DOWN AS MEAT FOR THE VULTURE. He knows that his ruin is at hand." Then it tells us in a footnote that this reading comes from the LXX and that "the Hebrew is faulty".
However the latest Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 has no longer gone with the so called LXX but now reads: "When he moves himself to seek bread, he knows that the day of darkness has been prepared for his hand."
Questions for Dan Wallace Types
Well, Mr. Daniel Wallace and company, any reasonable person is left wondering at least three things. #1. WHY did you reject the Hebrew and follow the LXX here? #2. Why didn't you go all the way and put the rest of the verse in as it reads in the LXX? And #3. Are we really supposed to take "bible scholars" like you seriously?
Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and stick with it. It is the only Bible that is really believed by thousands even today to be the complete and inerrant words of the living God.
To see more of this ongoing comparative study of the book of Job, go here -
Psalm 138:2 KJB - "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy TRUTH: for thou HAST MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME."
NET - “I will bow down toward your holy temple, and give thanks to your name, because of your loyal love and faithfulness, for you have exalted your promise above the entire sky.”3
How foolish of men to change the true words of God. The result of "altering the text" by men like Daniel Wallace is that they "understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm" (1 Timothy 1:7).
There is no specific promise made in this Psalm that "surpassed anything he had done prior to this", as Mr. Wallace tells us. David is merely praising God for the Truth of His word in all circumstances. It is foolish presumption on the part of some self absorbed "scholar" to alter the text of the inerrant words of God merely because he doesn't understand the meaning of a certain passage.
The fault is not with the Text, but with the Fool who places his own understanding above what God has written. Men like Wallace clearly do not believe in an inerrant Bible in any language.
To see more on Psalm 138:2 and why the King James Bible is right, See -
Hebrews 11:11 Was it Sarah or Abraham?
Hebrews 11:11 KJB - "Through faith also SARAH HERSELF received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child, when SHE was past age, because SHE judged him faithful who had promised."
(Tyndale, Geneva, Darby, Youngs, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, ESV 2011, NKJV, Holman Standard 2009, Common English Bible 2012 and ALL Greek texts)
NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "By faith ABRAHAM, even though HE was past age - AND SARAH HERSELF WAS BARREN - was enabled to become A FATHER because HE considered him faithful who had made the promise."
(Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, NRSV 1989, New Century Version 2005, Names of God bible 2011, Lexham English bible 2012)
NET version - "By faith, even though Sarah herself was barren AND HE WAS TOO OLD, HE received the ability to procreate, because HE regarded the one who had given the promise to be trustworthy.”
NIV 2011 edition - "And by faith even SARAH, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because SHE considered him faithful who had made the promise."
Another Example of Dan Wallace and Company's "Scholarship" - Hosea 4:4
Hosea 4:4 "Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: FOR THY PEOPLE ARE AS THEY THAT STRIVE WITH THE PRIEST."
So read the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "for thy people are as they that rebuke the Priest.", KJB, Darby 1890 - "for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.", the ASV 1901 - "Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove; for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.", Lesser Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, NKJV, NASB 1995, NIV 2011, Young's 1898, and the Jewish translations of JPS 1917 and 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company - "for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.", the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, and the Jubilee Bible 2000.
Among foreign language Bibles that read the same as the KJB are the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "porque o teu povo é como os que contendem com o sacerdote. ", Luther's German Bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 - "denn dein Volk ist wie die, so den Priester schelten.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1909-1995 - "porque tu pueblo es como los que resisten al sacerdotal.", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - "ton peuple est pareil à ceux qui se querellent avec les prêtres." = "your people are like those who quarrel with the priests.", and the Italian Diodati 1991 and Riveduta of 2006 - "perché il tuo popolo è come quelli che contendono col sacerdotal." = "your people are as those who contend with the priest." and the Modern Greek Bible - "διοτι ο λαος σου ειναι ως οι αντιλεγοντες εις τον ιερεα." = "for your people are as those who contradict the priest."
However the Holman Standard, Amplified bible 1987, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001-2011 say: "But let no one dispute; let no one argue, for MY CASE IS AGAINST YOU PRIESTS."
Then in a footnote, the Holman Standard says the text has been emended (changed), but that the Massoretic text reads: "and your people are like those contending with a priest." - just like the King James Bible has it.
The Catholic versions show the usual pattern in that the previous Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay both read like the KJB with - " for thy people are as they that contradict the priest." But now the Jerusalem bible 1968, the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 have all changed this to: "WITH YOU IS MY GRIEVANCE, O PRIESTS!"
The 2011 critical text Common English Bible gives a completely different meaning as to who is angry with whom, saying: " LISTEN, PRIEST, I AM ANGRY WITH YOUR PEOPLE." Then it footnotes: "Hebrew is uncertain." Well, it certainly is now!
Daniel Wallace and company's NET version reads: "Do not let anyone accuse or contend against anyone else: FOR MY CASE IS AGAINST YOU PRIESTS!
Then he footnotes: "The MT reads: 'and your people are like those who contend against the priest'. This is reflected in the LXX and the versions; however, it is syntactically awkward and makes little contextual sense. Several text-critics suggest that the text be emended to read: my contention is with/against you, O priest!"
Well, perhaps Mr. Wallace and company can't make sense out of it, but the meaning is quite clear, and he has no right to "emend" the text according to his own dulled understanding.
John Gill comments: "for thy people are as they that strive with the priest; they are so far from receiving correction and reproof kindly from any good men that they will rise up against, and strive with the priests, to whom not to hearken was a capital crime, (Deuteronomy 17:12)."
Likewise Jamieson, Faussett and Brown have no problem understanding the simple reading. They comment: " let no man reprove--Great as is the sin of Israel, it is hopeless to reprove them; for their presumptuous guilt is as great as that of one who refuses to obey the priest when giving judgment in the name of Jehovah, and who therefore is to be put to death (De 17:12). They rush on to their own destruction as wilfully as such a one."
Matthew Henry comments: "Thy people are as those that strive with the priests; they have grown so very impudent in sin, so very insolent, and impatient of reproof, that they will fly in the face even of a priest himself if he should but give them the least check, without any regard to his character and office"
To see more examples from the book of Hosea, Go to -
The King James Bible is right, as always.
Mark 6:22 - The Daughter of Herodias or Herod's daughter Herodias? -
The Progressive Lunacy of Textual Criticism
In Mark 6:22 we read: "And when the daughter OF the said HERODIAS (mentioned in verses 17 and 19) came in, and danced, and pleased Herod...the king said...Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee."
Common English Bible 2011 - "Herod’s daughter Herodias came in and danced...
Dan Wallace's NET version - "WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced, she pleased Herod..."
The 2003 Holman Standard reads: "When Herodias’s own daughter[a] came in and danced..." And then footnotes - Mark 6:22 Other mss read When his daughter Herodias
Herodias was previously the wife of Phillip, the brother of Herod, and she had a daughter by Phillip. At some point Herod took Herodias, his brother's wife, to be his own and John the Baptist reproved Herod for this. "For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Phillip's wife; for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." Mark 6:17-18.
Matthew 14:6 clearly tells us: "But when Herod's birthday was kept, THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS danced before them, and pleased Herod."
The reading that repeats the information and tells us that this girl who danced at Herod's birthday party was THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS is that of the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and C.
However the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually say that this was Herod's daughter named Herodias, instead of saying that it was Herodias' daughter and not mentioning her name.
Obviously the two readings cannot both be inspired by God at the same time, and the reading found here in Mark 6:22 in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the so called oldest and best upon which most modern versions are based) obviously contradicts what Matthew 14:6 tells us about this girl being "the daughter of Herodias".
Part of what makes this obvious textual blunder of such interest is to see how the critical text "scholars" have dealt with it.
Westcott and Hort originally adopted this strange variant reading because of their blind devotion to the Vatican manuscript, but not even the Revised Version of 1881 or the ASV of 1901 followed this strange and contradictory reading, but stayed with the traditional - "when THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS HERSELFcame in and danced".
The textual differences are quite obvious in the Greek. The Traditional Greek text and that of almost every Bible version in all languages in history that tells us this was the daughter of Herodias is "τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς Ἡρῳδιάδος " whereas the Vatican mss. reads "τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος" = HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS.
However later on the Nestle critical Greek text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition of 1975 both read like the King James Bible and the traditional Greek text. They did NOT adopt the Vatican/Sinaitic reading.
But then again the latest Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts 27th and the most recent 28th edition have once again changed their Greek text and have gone back to the one first followed by Westcott and Hort. The most recent Nestle Aland critical Greek texts now read "HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS" = τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος
We can see part of this fickle change in the RSV, NRSV and the revision of the revision of the revision called the ESV. The RSV read -" For when HERODIAS' DAUGHTER CAME IN" but the NRSV of 1989 said: "WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced," and then the ESV went back to reading: For when HERODIAS'S DAUGHTER came in and danced..."
Agreeing with the correct reading that this was "the daughter of Herodias" and not "Herod's daughter Herodias" are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the RV 1881, ASV 1901 - "when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced", NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NKJV and the ISV.
Those following the corrupt Vaticanus-Sinaiticus, United Bible Society/Vatican/Nestle-Aland 28th edition and that tell us this girl was Herod's daughter and her name was Herodias are Daniel Wallace and company's NET version, the latest critical text version called The Common English Version of 2011 and the NRSV of 1989.
The New Living Translation 2007 - "Then HIS DAUGTER, ALSO NAMED HERODIAS, came in and performed a dance"
Since the ever changing critical text scholars have lately adopted this obvious blunder as their preferred Greek text I suppose we will see some more in the future.
Stick with the King James Bible. It is always right.
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm