Bible Babble in the Book of Genesis - Yea, hath God said?
In this study of Genesis we will be comparing different readings and changed meanings found in the modern versions as compared to the King James Bible. My firm belief is that in the English language the only place we can find the true, inspired words of the living God and our Redeemer is the King James Bible.
I fully believe the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV etc. are false witnesses to the truth. God can use these modern versions to bring someone to a saving faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, but once the new Christian begins to read, study and compare them with other versions, their faith will be undermined and weakened. They will embrace false doctrine and other erroneous ideas because these pernicious weeds are found in the new perversions.
If anyone thinks the "New" KJV is just like the old King James Bible except they have changed "thee, Thou, thine and ye" to You, they are in for some big surprises.
The first error is found in the first verse. "In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the earth." Notice it is the heaven - singular. This is the reading of the King James Bible, Wycliffe, 1395, Tyndale 1534 (he translated part of the O.T. before his death), Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible (Cranmer) 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Lesser Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, the Revised Version 1885, the Jewish Pub. Society translation of 1917 and Hebrew Publishing Company of 1936, Webster's 1833 translation, Douay 1950, 21st Century KJV 1994, the Bible in Basic English of 1965, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version and the 2011 Names of God Bible - "In the beginning Elohim created HEAVEN and earth."
Other English Bibles that correctly have the singular "HEAVEN" are The Word of Yah 1993, God's Word Translation 1995, God's First Truth 1999, the Bond Slave Version 2009, and The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011
Among foreign language translations that also have the singular "HEAVEN" are Luther's 1545 German bible and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "Gott erschafft Himmel und Erde", the Italian Diodati 1649 and Conferenza Episcopale Italiana Version - "Dio creò il cielo e la terra.", the Portuguese O Livro 2000 - "Quando Deus começou criando o firmamento e a Terra", the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez 2004-2010 - " En el principio creó Dios el cielo y la tierra." and the Modern Greek Bible - "Εν αρχη εποιησεν ο Θεος τον ουρανον και την γην."
However the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Youngs, NET and the Holman Standard have the HEAVENS - plural. There are three heavens mentioned in Scripture. The third heaven is where God and His throne are now. Paul tells us he was caught up to the third heaven, into paradise and heard words not lawful for man to utter - 2 Cor. 12: 2-4. The second heaven is where the sun, moon, stars are physically located and the first heaven is the realm of the clouds, flying birds and wind.
But notice that what God created in verse 1 is the heaven (singular) and the earth. The heaven where the fowl fly, clouds form and winds blow was not created until the second day in verse 8. "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." You see, in verse one there was only one heaven created by God and it wasn't until the second day that God made the firmament to divide the waters under the firmament from those above it. Thus we have the seas below and the rain clouds above.
There are many Hebrew words that end in the letters im that can be either singular or plural, depending on the context. For example, the word God is Eloyhim #430 and yet it is often translated in ALL Bible versions as either a singular God or as plural gods. See the singular God in Genesis 1:1, 2 and 3. And yet the same word is plural - gods - in Genesis 31:30 and 32 "wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?" and "thou findest thy gods". In Psalm 82 we find the singular God in verses 1 and 8, and yet the plural gods in verses 1 and 6 - "he judgeth among the gods" and "I have said, Ye are gods".
The word "heavens" itself (# 8064) is often translated as a singular "heaven" in the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB etc. Here are just a few of the MANY times they all do this: In Genesis 14:19 and 22 God is called the "possessor of HEAVEN and earth". In Genesis 1:8 "God called the firmament HEAVEN." Genesis 19:24 the Lord rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah "out of HEAVEN". In Genesis 21:17 God called to Hagar "out of HEAVEN". In Genesis 22:11 and 15 the angel of the Lord calls to Abharam "out of HEAVEN". In Genesis 24:3 and 7 God is referred to as "the LORD God of HEAVEN". and in Genesis 26:4 God tells Isaac "I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars OF HEAVEN."
In Psalms 11:4 "the LORD's throne is in the HEAVEN"; Psalm 14:2 "the LORD looked down from HEAVEN"; Psalm 20:6 "He will hear from his holy HEAVEN"; Psalm 33:13 "The Lord looks from HEAVEN" and Psalm 57:3 "He shall send from HEAVEN." These are just a few of the many times they all do this.
The Hebrew word for face is #6440 pahneem and yet it is often translated in ALL Bible versions as either a singular or a plural. We see the singular in such verses as Genesis 1:2, 29; 4:5, 6, 14 - "darkness was upon THE FACE of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon THE FACE of the waters" (Gen. 1:2), "and from THY FACE shall I be hid" (6:14) and yet as plural in such places as Genesis 9:23; 18:22 and 30:40 - "and their faces were backward" (Gen. 9:23).
The Hebrew word for "WATER" is # 4325 mayim. And yet all bible translations sometimes have it as the plural "waters" and just as many times as the singular "water". We see in Genesis 1:2 "upon the face of THE WATERS", and yet this same Hebrew word is singular in places like Genesis 18:4 "Let a little WATER be fetched, and wash your feet". In Genesis 21:14 and 15 Abraham "took bread, and a bottle of WATER" and gave it to Hagar, "and THE WATER was spent".
The Hebrew word for "virginity" is # 1331 b'thoo-leem. It is a masculine plural noun in Hebrew. Yet all the translations correct have it as the singular "virginity" or "a maid". Leviticus 21:13 "he shall take a wife in HER VIRGINITY." Deuteronomy 22:14, 17- "When I came to her, I found her not A MAID". Judges 11:37, 38 - "that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my VIRGINITY"
At our Facebook club -King James Bible Debate - a dear sister in the Lord posted the following short article:
“Heaven” or “Heavens” in Genesis 1:1?
Critics charge that שמים (shamayim) is plural and should be translated as “heavens.” In Hebrew, however, the plural form may identify size rather than number in certain contexts. Such a plural is called a "plural of extension or amplification" (William Rosenau, Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible, p. 111). Even in English, the plural form, "skies," is used to refer to a large expanse in the atmosphere which is technically just one sky (e.g. "The plane took to the skies"). Jewish translations of the Tanakh also translate שמים (shamayim) in Genesis 1:1 as “heaven.” The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text says, “heaven.” The 1917 JPS Translation says, “heaven.” Moreover, just a few verses later in Genesis 1:8 the NASB and ESV translate שמים as “heaven.” The NIV translates it as “sky” (singular). The translators of the NASB, ESV, and NIV all agree that שמים can be translated in the singular. Whether the word should be translated in the singular or plural depends on the translator’s assessment of the context. The KJV translators translated שמים in Genesis 1:1 in the singular because the other heaven (the expanse in the sky) was not created until day two (Genesis 1:7-8). (end of article)
The King James Bible is correct in saying In the beginning God created the heaven (singular) and the earth. The modern versions that say "heavens" are incorrect.
Firmament is also another word the NASB and NIV have changed. The firmament is the great arch, vault or expanse over our heads in which earth's atmosphere is placed and in which the sun, moon and stars appear to be placed and their light shines. They physically are in the second heaven, but their light appears in the firmament of heaven. Firmament is not archaic and is the reading of the KJB, Geneva, nkjv, ASV, RSV, 1917, 1936, Douay, Lamsa, and others. The NASB/NIV have expanse, which is OK, and the NRSV has "dome".
Dealing with the Bible Agnostics - Jonathan Sarfati and Genesis 1:5
Jonathan David Sarfati says: “The NASB is one of the few that translates yom echad in Genesis 1:5 as "one day". Most other English translations erroneously have "the first day", but this would be yom rishon.”
But is he right? Of course not.
The Hebrew word translated in the KJB as “the FIRST day” is # 259 echad, and the NASB concordance shows that they have translated this word in many different ways, including “one, first (38 times), a few (3 times), alone, altogether, another, apiece, certain (11 times), each (55 times), once, other (33 times) and same (26 times)
A few of the places where the NASB has “the FIRST” are Exodus 39:10 the first row, Lev. 23:24 - the first, 2 Chron. 36:22 the first year, Ezra 1:1 = the first year, Ezra 10:16-17 “the FIRST day” (twice).
Genesis 1:5 KJB - And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE FIRST DAY.
ALSO reading “the first day” are Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ bible 1568, Webster’s Bible 1833, Darby 1890, NKJV 1982, Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006, Holman Standard 2009, The Common English Bible 2011, ESV 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, NIV 2011, Lexham English bible 2012, World English Bible 2012, and Modern English Version 2014.
In Genesis 1:26 we read: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." There is a footnote in the NKJV and NIV "bibles" that says: "ALL THE WILD ANIMALS of the earth" instead of "over all the earth" and that this is the reading of the Syriac. Why would they put that in their footnotes? Who cares what the Syriac says? The scriptures were originally given to us in Hebrew not Syriac. The reason is because the nrsv has incorporated this reading and rejected the Hebrew. The NKJV has some 48 such ridiculous footnotes referring to the readings found in the LXX, Syriac, Samaritan, Vulgate and various traditions - all of which cast doubt upon the inspired text. See for example the footnotes in the nkjv at Exodus 1:5 and 22
In Genesis 1:28 there is a word that is frequently attacked in the KJB. God told Adam and Eve: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth, and subdue it." If you bother to look in a dictionary like Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary the first definition of this word is "to fill with persons or animals, to stock. The second definition is to fill again.
Adam was being told to fill or stock the earth with people, not to fill it again. "Replenish" is the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901, both the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew-English translations, the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium bible.
The modern versions say "to fill" which is fine, but the KJB is not in error. Words have more than one limited meaning. People like to pick out a little word like this in the KJB, and on the basis of their limited understanding, toss out the KJB and embrace instead a false modern perversion that contains errors, false doctrines and omits thousands of God's inspired words. This is the logic of unbelief.
In verse 29 the NKJV, NIV and NASB all omit the Hebrew word TREE. It is in the Hebrew # 6086 and reads: " and every tree (same word) in the which is the fruit OF A TREE yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." This second "of a tree" is found in Geneva, ASV, 1917, Youngs and others.
For a much more developed article on the word "replenish" see
Finally one serious accomodation to the lie of evolution is found in the NASB throughout this chapter. Evoloutionists or even "Christian evolutionists" think the earth and all its animals were not created in 6 literal 24 hour days. They say the days represent long periods of time, intervals of perhaps millions of years, and are not to be taken as literal 24 hour days. Instead of THE FIRST DAY, THE SECOND DAY etc. the NASB reads ONE DAY, A second day, A third day, etc. thus opening the door for the interpretation that these "days" were in fact long periods of time. See verses 5, 8, 13, 19 and 23 in the NASB and the liberal RSV.
In Genesis 2:4 we read: "These are THE GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were created."
The word here is clearly "generations". It is # 8435, used 39 times and always in the KJB translated as generations. It comes from the verb to give birth to or to be born. It is only used once in reference to the physical creation. All others refer to people giving birth to other people as Gen. 5:1; 6:9; 25:19 "the generations of Adam, of Noah, of Isaac" etc. Generations is the reading of the ASV, Geneva, 1917, 1936 Hebrew-English translations, Douay and others.
But the NKJV says: "THIS IS THE HISTORY of the heavens...", while the NIV and NASB say: "This is THE ACCOUNT OF...". The word has nothing to do with a history or an account, but rather states the physical creation was given birth to by God's creative power.
The NASB and NIV give us a really stupid reading in verse 5. In the KJB we read: "the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth and every herb of the field BEFORE it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watred the whole face of the ground." This account takes us up to the sixth day, for we read in verse 7: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground..." Obviously the plants and herbs had already been created on the third day, and now existed. God made them before they grew up "naturally". Once they were created, their seeds were in them and they then continued to grow naturally.
But the NASB and NIV read: "Now no shrub of the field WAS YET in the earth, and no plant of the field HAD YET SPROUTED." This is a flat out contradiction of chapter 1:11-13 which tell us that God had already caused the earth to bring forth grass, herbs and trees on the third day. Notice the NASB/NIV punctuate the sentence differently and come up with a contradiction. The NKJV is good here.
Another theological cross reference is lost in verse 7 in the NKJV, NIV and NASB. In the KJB, ASV, Geneva, 1917 Jewish translation and others 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."
The word is "soul" and it ties in with I Corinthians 15:45 were we read even in the NASB and NKJV: "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living SOUL." But here in Gen. 2:7 the NIV, NKJV and NASB say: "man became a living BEING" instead of a living SOUL, and the ESV has "man became A LIVING CREATURE."
Genesis 2:5 - Is there a big error in the King James Bible?
There are quite a few "scholars" (none of whom believes that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God) who severely criticize the King James Bible for the way it reads in Genesis 2:5, and tell us that versions like the ASV got it right instead.
Genesis 2:5 KJB - And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
ASV - And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground”
Also reading like the ASV are the NASB, ESV, NET, Holman and NIV -
NIV Genesis 2:5 - “Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground”
Reading like the KJB are Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Longman Version 1841, Darby 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, and the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2010 (Mebust), The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Lexham English Bible 2012,
and The Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh the God made the earth and the heavens, 2:5 BEFORE any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For Yahweh the God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no mankind to till the ground”
And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - “And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth….”
Foreign Language Bibles
Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 = KJB - “Y toda planta del campo ANTES QUE fuese en la tierra, y toda hierba del campo antes que naciese: porque aun no había el SEÑOR Dios hecho llover sobre la tierra, ni había hombre para que labrase la tierra” “antes que” = “before”
The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 is also correct - “y toda planta del campo ANTES QUE fuese en la tierra, y toda hierba del campo antes que naciese; porque el SEÑOR Dios aún no había hecho llover sobre la tierra, ni aun había hombre para que labrase la tierra” - “antes” = before
So also read the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1977 (but they changed it in the 1995 edition, and then went back to the correct reading in the 2011 Reina Valera Contemporánea) and the Reina Valera Gómez bible 2010,
So also reads the Italian Diodati 1649 - “e ogni albero ed arboscello della campagna, avanti che ne fosse alcuno in su la terra” “avanti che” = “before that”
And the French Martin bible 1744 - “Et toutes les plantes des champs, avant qu'il y en eût en la terre, et toutes les herbes des champs, avant qu'elles eussent poussé” - “avant” = “before”
And the Modern Greek Bible too - “και παντα τα φυτα του αγρου, πριν γεινωσιν επι της γης, και παντα χορτον του αγρου, πριν βλαστηση·” - That little word πριν means “before”
The Explanation of Why the King James Bible is right.
Genesis 1:11-13 tell us that God made the vegetation on the 3rd day before it rained.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
What made the plants grow was the mist from the earth that watered the whole face of the earth. We read of this in Genesis 2:6 - “5 And every plant of the field BEFORE it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.”
I believe v. 5 as it stands in the KJB refers to before the plants and herbs of the field grew NATURALLY out of the earth.
John Gill explains it very well, saying: “And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth,.... That is, God made it, even he who made the heavens and the earth; for these words depend upon the preceding, and are in close connection with them; signifying that the plants of the field, which were made out of the earth on the third day, were made before any were planted in it, or any seed was sown therein from whence they could proceed, and therefore must be the immediate production of divine power:
and every herb of the field before it grew: those at once sprung up in perfection out of the earth, before there were any that budded forth, and grew up by degrees to perfection, as herbs do now:
for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: so that the production of plants and herbs in their first formation could not be owing to that; since on the third day, when they were made, there was no sun to exhale and draw up the waters into the clouds, in order to be let down again in showers of rain:
and there was not a man to till the ground; who was not created till the sixth day, and therefore could have no concern in the cultivation of the earth, and of the plants and herbs in it; but these were the produce of almighty power, without the use of any means”
John Calvin also explains it in a similar way, saying - “But although he has before related that the herbs were created on the third day, yet it is not without reason that here again mention is made of them, in order that we may know that they were then produced, preserved, and propagated, in a manner different from that which we perceive at the present day. For herbs and trees are produced from seed; or grafts are taken from another roots or they grow by putting forth shoots: in all this the industry and the hand of man are engaged. But, at that time, the method was different: God clothed the earth, not in the same manner as now, (for there was no seed, no root, no plant, which might germinate,) but each suddenly sprung into existence at the command of God, and by the power of his word. They possessed durable vigor, so that they might stand by the force of their own nature, and not by that quickening influence which is now perceived, not by the help of rain, not by the irrigation or culture of man; but by the vapor with which God watered the earth.”
The King James Bible is right, as always. You just have to think about it and compare scripture with scripture.
In Genesis 2:10 we read: "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and bercame into four HEADS."
Heads is the reading of the ASV, Geneva, 1917 etc. It literally means head and is used in "it shall bruise thy head" 3:15; "Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head" 47:31; he laid his hand "upon Ephraim's head" 48:14 etc.
But the NASB, ESV say RIVERS, which is found in the first part of this verse but it is an entirely different Hebrew word. The NKJV says "riverheads" adding the word river, while the NIV has "headwaters" at least retaining the word "head". I just point this out for those who claim the modern versions are more "literal" than the KJB.
Genesis 2:18 KJB - "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him AN HELP MEET for him."
Some Bible correctors, who themselves do not believe that ANY Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek (there is no such animal) is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, have criticized the King James Bible words "an help meet".
One such critic ignorantly writes: “Helpmeet,” loosely translated, means “wife.” Its origins lie in the King James translation of the Bible, where it appears as two separate words. Flipped into a more modern syntactical order, the verse would read “meet help.” “Meet” (also loosely translated) means “fitting” or “suitable,” which is how most other translations of the Bible put it.
This non-word has always bothered me. I didn’t resent the word, exactly, but I always felt as if it didn’t fully capture what God meant. The Bible, after all, wasn’t written in King James English. It wasn’t written in English at all. It was written in Greek and Hebrew. And “helpmeet,” while cute, didn’t seem to encapsulate all that my mother was as a woman, or any of the wonderful women I knew growing up.
Turns out, I was right.
The Hebrew word at the root of the translation “help” or “helper” is ezer (pronounced ay-zer). Ezer is a beefy word that shows up 21 times in the Old Testament. It appears twice in the Bible in reference to women, and both times to Eve (Genesis 2:18 and 20)." [End of comments]
First of all, the Bible critic didn't even quote the King James Bible correctly. There are two words there - "help" and "meet", and there are two words in the Hebrew text. One is ezer, as he points out, and it is # 5828 and the other one he missed is "meet", and it is # 5048.
Ezer means "help". He has no problem with that. But then he tells us that he prefers the words "fitting" or "suitable". Maybe he is the product of American public school education in the 21st century, but if he is open to a chance to learn something, he might try consulting and English dictionary to find out what the word "meet" means. Just a friendly suggestion.
What he will find is that one of the meanings of the English word "meet" - the adjective, is "suitable, fit, proper" - Oxford English Dictionary.
Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary 11th edition
Definition of MEET
: precisely adapted to a particular situation, need, or circumstance : very proper
meet - "fitting, proper" - American Heritage Dictionary
Wordsmyth English Dictionary
meet - meet
part of speech:
It should be obvious at this point that the expression "an help meet for him" means exactly what our Bible corrector thinks it should mean. Part of his problem is that he doesn't know his own English language. The other part is that he doesn't actually believe that ANY Bible is the inerrant words of God, so he has made his own mind and personal preferences his "final authority", subject to change at any moment.
"I will make him AN HELP MEET for him."
And our Bible critic is also wrong in telling us that the expression "an help meet" has its origins in the King James Bible. Not only does the King James Bible use the expression "an help meet" to describe Eve, the wife of Adam, but so also do the following Bible translations - the Geneva Bible 1587 - “I wil make him AN HELPE MEETE for him.”, the Webster Version 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, The Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, The Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Webster Bible 1995 (Larry Pierce), The Third Millennium Bible 1998 - "I will make him a helper MEET for him.", A Conservative Version 2005 - "I will make him A HELP MEET for him.", The Revised Geneva Bible 2009, the English Jubilee Bible 2010 - "a HELP MEET for him.", and the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 (Yerusha Shen) - "an HELP MEET for him."
Or he might try this Online Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament
I will make
him a help
meet for him.
Many others have pointed out a change in the NKJV in verse 2:18 of which Hillary Clinton would be proud. In the KJB, as well as the ASV, 1917, 1936 translations, the Geneva Bible and others we read: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him AN HELP MEET FOR him." The word meet is not archaic. It means simply "fit, suitable or proper".
Eve was to be a suitable helper for Adam. As the rest of the Bible teaches us, a woman is to be subject unto her husband and be his helper, not his lord or even his equal in headship. The NASB and NIV are perfectly acceptable here with "a helper suitable for him", and the ESV is OK with "a helper FIT for him", but the NKJV says: "a helper COMPARABLE TO him" instead of "an help MEET FOR him."
Comparable means "equivalent to". If I say a Chevy is comparable to a Ford, I'm saying there really isn't much difference between them; they are equal to each other in function. The NKJV perverts this theological distinction.
The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.
The Creation accounts in Genesis chapter One and Genesis chapter Two - Is there a Contradiction?
The atheists, Bible skeptics and, unfortunately, many professing "Christian" scholars allege that there are direct contradictions in the creation accounts given in Genesis chapter One and Genesis chapter Two. And they come right out and tell us that the Bible is not the literal and inerrant words of God because of what they see as "contradictions."
There definitely are significant differences in the events recorded in the two chapters, but I and many others believe there is a very easy and obvious way to resolve these differences.
The main differences are #1. In Genesis One the animals are created BEFORE man is created; but in Genesis Two, man is created before the animals. #2. In Genesis One, the fowls are formed on day 5 out of the WATER; and in Genesis Two, the fowls are formed on day 6 out of the GROUND.
In Genesis chapter 1 God creates everything, including plants (on the 3rd day v. 13) and the moving creatures and fowl OUT OF THE WATER (1:20-23) on the 5th day. "And God said, Let THE WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven...And the evening and the morning were the FIFTH day."
Genesis 1:24-25 records the creation of the cattle, and creeping things and the beasts of the earth on the 6th day, BEFORE He creates Adam.
But when we get to Genesis chapter 2, there is a different creation event of the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air, and it is done IN THE GARDEN IN FRONT OF ADAM, before God made Eve from one of Adam's ribs on this same 6th day.
Genesis 2:7-25 is a more detailed account of the creation of both Adam and Eve on the sixth day and what took place after He made Adam and before He made Eve on the same day.
In Genesis 2 the Lord puts Adam in the garden on the 6th day, right after He creates him. Then right in front of Adam, God forms the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air (not ALL of them all over again, but individuals of each kind) and He does this OUT OF THE GROUND this time, NOT the water, as in the previous chapter on the 5th day.
Genesis 2:19 - "And out of THE GROUND the LORD God FORMED every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." Genesis 2:19
The material God used to make the fowl of heaven is WATER in Genesis 1:20 and here in the garden of Eden the fowls are formed out of THE GROUND. And obviously the 6th day is a different day than the 5th day when the fowl of heaven were created in Genesis 1:20-23. God then created man (Adam and Eve) on the 6th day.
Now, in Genesis 2:19 it says: "And OUT OF THE GROUND the LORD God FORMED every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; AND BROUGHT THEM TO ADAM to see what he would call them..."
Genesis TWO shows us God creating life right in front of Adam so he would not fall for the lie of Evolution, and that Adam would personally know from his own experience that all forms of animal life are directly formed by his Creator.
There is no contradiction at all between Genesis 1 and 2. They are two separate events and different accounts of TWO distinct creation events. It is really pretty simple once you see it.
Here is a 13 minute video where another brother explains this and shows how the King James Bible, (and most bibles out there ever made) and the Hebrew text is right and there are two separate creations on two different days in two different places and for two different purposes.
However the NIV makes a lame attempt to promote one of the false explanations of given by some misguided "Christian apologists" who try to get around the difficulty by teaching that God did not perform a second act of creation of the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air on day six. The NIV mistranslates the verb "formed" in Genesis 2:19.
The NIVs 1978, 1982 and 2011 editions translate Genesis 2:19 as "Now the LORD God HAD FORMED out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them..." The idea promoted by this erroneous translation is the theory that these were the animals God had created on the previous day five, and not a separate creation event on day six. So they translated the verb "formed" as "HAD FORMED".
However there are two big problems with the NIVs error here. The NIV has now created a very REAL contradiction that cannot be resolved. The NIV teaches that God "had formed" these animals out of the GROUND, and yet Genesis 1:20 tells us it was out of the WATER.
And the verb "formed" is exactly the same verb and tense used in Genesis 2:7 where even the NIV has "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." Not even Dan Wallace agrees with the way the NIV has translated this Hebrew verb, and should give you a hint as to how badly they botched it.
Among the Bible translations that correctly tell us in Genesis 2:19 that God FORMED these animals on the 6th day and then brought them to Adam to name are the Geneva Bible, Youngs, 1917 Jewish Publication Society Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, Holman, NKJV and the ESV 2001 edition.
However now joining the NIV and telling us that God "HAD FORMED" these animals and then brought them to Adam to name, are the ESV 2007 and 2011 editions, whereas the ESV 2001 said "So out of the GROUND the LORD God FORMED every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them."
The newer editions of the ever changing ESVs now say: "Now out of the ground the LORD God HAD FORMED every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them." This creates a very real contradiction with the Hebrew text and all these other Bibles that tell us that it was out of the waters that God brought forth the fowl of heaven on the 5th day.
One other problem the NIV has is that it rejects the clear Hebrew reading in Genesis 1:26 where we read: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER ALL THE EARTH, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
The reading of "OVER ALL THE EARTH" is in all Hebrew texts and is also the reading of the Geneva bible, Douay-Rheims, the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, NET, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, the Douay version and even the Message.
However the NIV rejects the Hebrew text that clearly says "OVER ALL THE EARTH" and has "and ALL THE WILD ANIMALS and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Then the NIVs 1978, 1982 and 2011 footnote: "Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Syriac); Masoretic Text "the earth".
Well, not even the Syriac reads like the NIV has it nor does the so called LXX nor ANY text at all. They just made it up and then tell us it is the "PROBABLE reading of the original Hebrew text"!!!
Guess who else has rejected the Hebrew reading here and substituted "ALL THE WILD ANIMALS" instead of "OVER ALL THE EARTH". You got it. The Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, the Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968 and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible.
If you want to use a "bible" version that rejects the Hebrew readings and replaces it with pure guess work; that creates real and not just apparent contradictions and mistranslates the texts it does follow, then get yourself one of these fake bible versions.
But by God's grace, I will stick with the time tested, complete and inerrant words of God Bible - the King James Holy Bible.
Genesis 3:5 KJB - "then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, MEV, Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness NWT - "your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Some other wrong translations
The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2006 got it wrong in a different way. It says: "For God knows that on the day that you eat thereof, your eyes will be opened, and you will be LIKE ANGELS, knowing good and evil."
In this foundational chapter we see the entrance of Satan, the fall of man, its consequences, and a glorious promise of redemption.
The first question found in the Bible is asked by the subtil serpent - Yea, hath God said...? Satan questions what exactly it was that God said. The devil's tactics are clearly seen from the very beginning. He both adds to, and takes away from God's inerrant words.
Satan adds the word "not" and he takes away "freely" and as a result changes what God had said. When we compare the King James Bible with many modern versions, we see that what Satan promised the woman for disobeying God has also been subtly changed as well.
In the King James Bible Satan promises the woman that both she and Adam "shall be as gods". Each of them would be as a god, with a small "g", and in a very real way, this is how the entrance of sin has affected how fallen man sees himself. In our fallen state, each of us becomes our own little god, the center of the universe and think the world revolves around us. By nature we are self centered and selfish.
I believe those versions that have Satan telling man "you will be like God" are wrong for several reasons. Satan is a liar from the beginning. "When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44
Whatever Satan told the woman was a lie, and it IS a lie that we shall be as gods. But it is true that we shall be like God.
Scripture tells us this in many places. "we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2
"As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied when I awake, with thy likeness." Psalm 17:15 "
But we all, with open face beholding as in the glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
2 Corinthians 3:18. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." If Satan had told the woman that she would be "like God", then this would have been a glorious truth.
That is what Satan wants for himself and he will have none his equal. "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." Isaiah 14:14 But Satan appeals to the pride of man telling them that they will be "as gods".
"ye shall be as gods"
Reading as the King James Bible "ye shall be as gods" are Wycliffe 1395, the Great Bible 1540 - “ye shalbe euen as goddess”, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582 - "ye shall be as Gods", the Geneva Bible 1587 - "ye shalbe euen as goddess”, the Bill Bible 1671, The Thomson Bible 1808 - "God knew...your eyes would be opened and you would be like gods", Webster's translation 1833, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Sharpe Bible 1883, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "ye shall be as gods", the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Version, An American Translation 1927, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933 - "you shall be like gods", the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English "you shall be as gods", The Word of Yah 1993, the 21st Century KJV 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 - "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and YE SHALL BE AS GODS, knowing good and evil.", The Apostolic Polyglot Bible Greek 2005 - "έσεσθε ως θεοί" = "you shall be Gods", A Conservative Version 2005, the Complete Apostles' Bible 2005 - "your eyes would be opened, and you would be as gods", the 2009 Public Domain Version, the Bond Slave Version 2009 "you will be like gods", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, the English Jubilee Bible 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The New Brenton Translation 2012, the Lexham English Bible 2012 - "and you both shall be like gods", and The New English Septuagint Translation 2014 - "For God knew that on the day you eat of it, your eyes would be opened, and you would be like gods knowing good and evil.”
and this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament
Foreign language Bibles that also read "and ye shall be as gods" are the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond and the French Ostervald 1996 - "et que vous serez comme des dieux", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera of 1602, Reina Valera 1909, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2000 and Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - "y seréis como dioses", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "onde sareste come dii", the Finnish Bible 1776 - " ja te tulette niinkuin Jumala", the Russian Synodal Version - "и вы будете, как боги, знающие добро и зло.", the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "és olyanok lésztek mint az Isten" = "ye shall be as gods", the Czeck BKR - " a budete jako bohové", and the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible - "atunci ochii voştri vor fi deschişi şi veţi fi ca dumnezei, cunoscând binele şi răul." = "your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." and the Modern Greek Bible as well as the so called Greek Septuagint - "θελουσιν ανοιχθη οι οφθαλμοι σας, και θελετε εισθαι ως θεοι, γνωριζοντες το καλον και το κακον.", Chinese Union Version Traditional - 因 為 神 知 道 ， 你 們 吃 的 日 子 眼 睛 就 明 亮 了 ， 你 們 便 如 神 能 知 道 善 惡 。
Even Dan Wallace’s NET version sort of got it right, saying: - “your eyes will open and YOU WILL BE LIKE DIVINE BEINGS who know good and evil.”
To be "as gods" is the promise of eastern religions, Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, Mormonism, Reincarnation and the New Age philosophy of the likes of Shirley McClain and now embraced by millions, that each and every "enlightened" man or woman will evolve and eventually become a god.
It is also the devil's lie being promoted by The “little gods” heresy of the Word of Faith preachers like Ken Copeland, Ceflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn. They have swallowed the devil’s lie. 7 minute video
This is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Compare also Ezekiel 28:2 "Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I AM A GOD, I sit in the seat of God"
In Acts 12:22 we read of Herod who sat on his throne and made an oration to the people, who gave a shout saying, "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man." And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."
A little further in Acts 14:11 when Paul and Barnabas had done a miracle of healing, the people "lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." The priest of Jupiter also came with sacrifices to offer unto these men who were "gods".
Later in Acts 28:6 the barbarous people on the island of Melita, when they say that Paul did not die after being bitten by a snake, they "said that he was a god."
We read in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12 of the culmination of Satan's plan when he finally gets a man in place to decieve multitudes before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. The falling away from the true faith occurs and "that man of sin is revealed...Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped: so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God."
This, I believe, is the lie referred to in verse 11 and in Genesis 3:5. For those who receive not the love of the truth "God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe A LIE: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
However when we look at a multitude of modern versions including the NKJV, NIV, NET and NASB this temptation presented by the serpent in the garden has changed. The NKJV, NIV and NASB say: "you will be LIKE GOD, knowing good and evil."
There is a big difference between being "like God" and being "as gods". We who are redeemed will in fact be like God in that we are being conformed to the image of His Son, but we will never be "as gods". To be as gods is the false promise of our own deity and this is the ultimate sin of pride and rebellion.
Who do you think would want to obscure and hide this connection between the first lie in the Bible and the ultimate triumph of Satan's man presenting himself as God?
Matthew Henry comments on Genesis 3:5 - "He tempts them to seek preferment, as if they were fit to be gods. Satan ruined himself by desiring to be like the Most High, therefore he sought to infect our first parents with the same desire, that he might ruin them too."
John Gill - "and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil: as "Elohim", which word is sometimes used of civil magistrates, sometimes of angels, and sometimes of God himself, and of the divine Persons in the Godhead."
John Wesley - "You shall be as gods - As Elohim, mighty gods, not only omniscient but omnipotent too".
Pagan and false religions are full of "gods" and "goddesses", and Mormonism, New Age Philosophy and other false religions teach that man can become "as gods".
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we in him." 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
The King James Bible is right, as always. Accept no substitutes.
Here in this 7 minute video John Ankerberg and some other “expert” criticize the King James Bible
The great promise of Genesis 3:15 has been altered in many versions. God speaks to the serpent whom He had just cursed and says: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; IT shall BRUISE thy head, and thou shalt BRUISE his heel."
Here we read of two different seeds. There are the children of the devil and the children of God. See Matthew 13:25, 39. Christ sowed good seed in his field. The good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the enemy who is the devil sowed tares and these are the children of the wicked one.
In the KJB the seed that will bruise the serpent's head is referred to as IT. Why is this? I believe it is because the seed refers not only to Christ but also to His people who will bruise the head of Satan. Christ is the seed, but we are also in Christ and are the promised seed as well.
Compare Galatians 3:16 and 29. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Abraham's seed is both Christ and His people.
The clincher is Romans 16:20, but it has been messed up in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Catholic versions and the Jehovah Witness NWT.
In the King James Bible we read: "And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Crist be with you. Amen."
The KJB has "bruise" in both Genesis 3:15 and in Romans 16:20, thus tying the two verses together. But the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Catholic versions and the Jehovah Witness NWT have changed "bruise" to "crush" in Romans 16:20 and thus obscure this connection.
We also read a related promise to the saints of God in Psalm 91:13 "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet."
We read of the enmity of Satan with the seed of the woman in Revelation 12:17 "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
In Genesis 3:15 the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Holman, ESV, Jehovah Witness NWT, the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 unite in changing the seed being referred to as "IT" to "HE" thus limiting it to only Christ.
The Catholic Douay version 1950 and the Work of God's Children Bible 2011 have "SHE shall bruise your head", probably referring to Mary
While the New English Bible 1970, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Revised English Bible 1989 and The New Jewish Version 1985 have "THEY shall bruise your head", which would also include the saints of God.
Even those who criticize the King James Bible (none of whom believes that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God) will at least admit that the Hebrew text can be translated as "IT."
Tyndale 1534 and Matthew's Bible 1549, God's First Truth 1999, the Jubilee Bible 2010 all say "THAT SEED shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
"IT shall bruise thy head"
Other Bible transalations that read IT along with the KJB are the Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's translation 1833, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885 - “IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Bond Slave Version 2012, and The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “IT shall crush thy rosh, and thou shalt strike his akev (heel).”.
And this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." - http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%203:15
The word "it" referring to the seed plural is also found in Genesis 16:10. "And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that IT shall not be numbered for multitude."
Isn't is wonderful to know that we are in Christ and are His seed, members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones; and that His victory is also ours because we are in Him and that shortly God will bruise Satan under our feet?
John Calvin also understood the passage in this way. He comments: “But because one stronger than he (Satan) has descended from heaven, who will subdue him, hence it comes to pass that, in the same manner, the whole Church of God, under its Head, will gloriously exult over him. To this the declaration of Paul refers, “The Lord shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly,” (Romans 16:20) By which words he signifies that the power of bruising Satan is imparted to faithful men, and thus the blessing is the common property of the whole Church”
Matthew Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible also saw the same truth, saying: “and by way of participation, all the members of Christ, all believers and holy men, who are called the children of Christ, Hebrews 2:13, and of the heavenly Jerusalem, Galatians 4:26. All the members whereof are the seed of this woman; and all these are the implacable enemies of the devil, whom also by Christ’s merit and strength they do overcome.”
Whedon’s Commentary shares the same view as well. He comments - “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. But this prophecy, given in Paradise before the expulsion of the transgressors, should not be explained exclusively of the personal Messiah. That promised seed comprehends also the redeemed humanity of which he is Head — that great company who both suffer with him and with him shall also be glorified. Romans 8:17…So only those who belong to Christ as their great head and leader, are the seed of promise; all others, though born of woman, by espousing the serpent’s cause and doing the lusts of the devil (John 8:44) are of the seed of the serpent, a “generation of vipers,” (Matthew 23:33) whose end is perdition.”
The Seed, the "IT" in Genesis 3:15, that shall ultimately bruise the head of Satan is Both the Lord Jesus Christ and all the redeemed who are His Seed together. The victory is ours as well because we are in Him and Scripture clearly promises to every saint of God - "And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Crist be with you. Amen." Romans 16:20
This truth is lost in these modern versions.
The King James Bible is right, as always, and none of those who criticize and "correct" it will ever show you a copy of any Bible in any language that they honestly believe is now the complete and inerrant words of God.
They are all version rummagers and their own authority as they piece together their individual "bible" versions which differ from every body else's. "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25
Genesis 3:16 the effects of sin -
Genesis 3:16 - KJB - "Unto the woman he said, I WILL GREATLY MULTIPLY THY SORROW AND THY CONCEPTION; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be TO thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
ESV 2011, NASB 1995 (Jehovah Witness NWT, - "To the woman he said, I will SURELY MULTIPLY YOUR PAIN IN CHILDBEARING; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be FOR your husband, and he shall rule over you."
NIV 2011 edition - "To the woman he said, "I WILL MAKE YOUR PAINS IN CHILDBEARING VERY SEVERE; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be FOR your husband, and he will rule over you."
Holman Standard 2003-2009 - "He said to the woman: I will intensify YOUR LABOR PAINS, and you will BEAR CHILDREN in anguish. Your desire will be FOR your husband, yet he will dominate you."
The Ever Changing ESVs
Genesis 3:16 KJB - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and THY CONCEPTION; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be TO thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
ESV 2001, 2007 and 2011 editions - To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply YOUR PAIN IN CHILDBEARING; in pain you shall bring forth children, Your desire shall be FOR your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
(I have hard copies of all three of these, and that is how they all read)
ESV 2016 edition - To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be CONTRARY TO your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
a Genesis 3:16 Or shall be toward (see 4:7)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016).
(You can see the ESV 2016 edition - 4th edition in just 16 years - online here)
There are two major problems with many new versions regarding how they have translated this verse. The difference between "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow AND THY CONCEPTION" versus "I will surely multiply your pain IN CHILDBEARING"
The second one is the difference between "thy desire shall be TO thy husband" versus "your desire will be FOR your husband.", OR as in the case of the ESV 2016 edition - "your desire shall be CONTRARY TO your husband." I will take up the first one here.
The first error in many modern versions has to do with the word "conception". This word obviously has to do with the act of becoming pregnant, not the actual giving of birth which occurs 9 months after conception. The word is found only three times in the Old Testament and it comes from the verb "to conceive" # 2029 hah-rah, as found in Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew his wife; and SHE CONCEIVED, and bare Cain..." and in Genesis 16:4,5 "when she saw that SHE HAD CONCEIVED".
The noun form is found again in Ruth 4:13 where we read: "the LORD gave her (Ruth) CONCEPTION". And the third time is in Hosea 9:11 "As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb and from THE CONCEPTION." and here in Gen. 3:16.
"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow AND THY CONCEPTION."
"I will greatly multiply thy pain AND THY CONCEPTION" is the reading found in the Great Bible 1540, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "I will greatly increase thy sorowes, AND THY CONCEPTIONS.", Webster's translation 1833, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, the Smith Bible 1876, the Revised Version 1885 -"I will greatly multiply thy pain AND THY CONCEPTION", the Sharpe Bible 1883, the ASV 1901 - "I will greatly multiply thy pain AND THY CONCEPTION", Young's 1898 "Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy CONCEPTION", The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1936 "I will greatly multiply thy pain AND THY CONCEPTION", the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, the NKJV 1984, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "I will increase your sorrow AND YOUR CONCEPTION", The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, Green's literal 2005, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the English Jubilee Bible 2010, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "I will greatly multiply thy itzavon ([labor] pain) AND THY CHILDBEARING", The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Hebrew Roots Bible 2015, and the 2014 Natural Israelite Bible - "I will greatly multiply your sorrow AND YOUR CONCEPTION."
And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament
Other Translations that are similar in meaning to the KJB
Wycliffe 1395 (modern spelling) I shall multiply thy wretchedness AND THY CONCEIVINGS"
Tyndale 1534 and Matthew's Bible 1549 (modern spelling) - I will surely increase thy sorrow, AND MAKE THEE OFTEN WITH CHILD."
Darby's Translation of 1890 has essentially the same meaning with “I will greatly increase thy travail AND THY PREGNANCY."
The Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation has: "‘I will greatly multiply thy pain AND THY TRAVAIL."
God's First Truth 1999 - "And unto the woman he said: I will surely increase your sorrow, AND MAKE YOU OFTEN WITH CHILD."
The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Complete Tanach 2004 - "I shall surely increase your sorrow AND YOUR PREGNANCY."
Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) - "I am increasing grief of you AND PREGNANCY of you"
Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “I will greatly multiply thy itzavon (labor] pain) AND THY CHILDBEARING.”
The Catholic Connection
The previous Douay Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both followed the literal Hebrew text and read as does the King James Bible - "To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy CONCEPTIONS: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children".
But the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 have all changed this to now read: "I will intensify the PANGS OF YOUR CHILDBEARING."
However the Catholic versions are not done yet. Now in 2009 the Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) has come out, and it goes back to the Hebrew reading of - "I will multiply your labors AND YOUR CONCEPTIONS."
The NASB, ESV say: "I will greatly multiply your PAIN IN CHILDBIRTH" and the NIV has: "your PAINS IN CHILDBEARING." Childbirth is the time the child is born from the womb, not the 9 months before when it was conceived.
Dan Wallace and company's NET version is of interest. It says: "I will greatly increase your labor pains; WITH PAIN YOU WILL GIVE BIRTH TO CHILDREN.”
HOWEVER, in his footnote he actually says this: (Caps mine) “HEBREW - "YOUR PAIN AND YOUR CONCEPTION", suggesting to some interpreters that having a lot of children was a result of the judgment.” And then he has this unbelievably DULL and (may I say) STUPID comment - “Conception,” if the correct meaning of the noun, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception”.
Dan Wallace and company, because they are Bible correctors and unbelievers in the inerrancy of ANY Bible in ANY language, become blind to simple truth and completely miss what the passage is actually talking about. If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.
I think most of the commentaries have missed the true meaning of this phrase as found in the Hebrew and the KJB; they look at what it says, can't figure it out and so paraphrase it to what they THINK it means rather than what it actually says. Take a look at most commentaries and you will see they change the text of the KJB, correct it one way or another and then tell you what they think it means.
I ask you to stop before continuing this article. What does "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow AND THY CONCEPTION" mean? What does the text SAY? It's not that hard to figure out.
Let the Bible determine your theology rather than your theology to interpret the Bible. In the previous verse God told the serpent, the devil, that He would put enmity between "thy seed and her seed". Satan has his seed, his children, and he has sown them in this fallen world.
Jesus tells us in Matthew 13:25 and 38 that the Son of Man sows His good seed which are the children of the kingdom and the enemy sows his own which are the children of the wicked one. In John 8:44 the Lord Jesus says to the Pharisees: "Ye are of your father the devil."
Paul calls Elymas the sorcerer "thou child of the devil" and I John 3:10 and 12 tells us of the children of the devil and that Cain "was of that wicked one, and slew his brother."
If Eve had not sinned against God and Adam had not followed her, there would not have been the fall of man. All the seed of future generations would have been a godly seed. But one of the disastrous results of the fall is that Satan can now sow his seed among men. That is why God says I will greatly multiply thy conception.
Two families are now being born into this world, the children of God and the children of the devil and the first son conceived and later born to Eve was Cain, a child of the devil. And there have been multitudes born into this world since that fateful day, both children of God and children of the devil.
The King James Bible is always right. God bless.
Genesis 3:16 KJB - "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and they conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; AND THY DESIRE SHALL BE TO THY HUSBAND, and he shall rule over thee."
ESV 2001, 2007 and 2011 editions - To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply YOUR PAIN IN CHILDBEARING; in pain you shall bring forth children, Your desire shall be FOR your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
(I have hard copies of all three of these, and that is how they all read)
ESV 2016 edition - To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be CONTRARY TO your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
NKJV - "...YOUR DESIRE SHALL BE FOR YOUR HUSBAND, and he shall rule over you."
What does "thy desire shall be TO thy husband" mean? There are basically three conflicting views usually presented. Some say that the wife will have a sexual desire towards her husband or more generally a desire FOR a husband. Others say that a woman will desire to lord it over her husband.
Finally there is what I believe to be the correct view and that is that the woman's desire will be subject to her husband. Remember when she saw the fruit of the tree was "desired" to make one wise and she took of the fruit? She followed her own desires, wishes and will instead of placing herself under the protection of her husband and the authority of God's word.
"Thy desire shall be TO thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" is reading of the Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's Bible 1833, The Bill Bible 1671, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, the Smith Bible 1876, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885, Darby's 1890, the ASV 1901 - "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.", The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, both the 1917 JPS - "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.", and 1936 Jewish Publication Society translations, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century Bible 1994, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Far Above All Translation 2014.
The Geneva Bible 1587 says: "thy desire shall be SUBJECT TO thine husband, and he shall rule over thee".
Wycliffe 1395 - "and thou schalt be vndur power of the hosebonde, and he schal be lord of thee."
Tyndale 1534 and Coverdale 1535 - "And thy lustes shall pertayne vnto thy husbond and he shall rule the."
The Boothroyd Bible 1853 - "and TO thy husband SHALL BE THY SUBJECTION, and he shall rule over thee."
Brenton translation 1851 says: "and thy submission shall be TO thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
The Lexham English Bible 2012 is correct with - "And to your husband shall be your desire. And he shall rule over you.”
Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 - "and your submission shall be TO your husband, and he shall rule over you."
The New Brenton Translation 2012 - "and your SUBMISSION SHALL BE TO YOUR HUSBAND, and he shall rule over you."
The Biblos Bible 2013 -"your desire shall be UNTO your husband, and he shall rule over you."
However the NKJV, NASBs, Holman, ESV early editions and NIV unite with the liberal RSV and NRSV and say: "Your desire will be FOR your husband."
The Common English Bible (a critical text version) 2012 has "YOU WILL DESIRE your husband, but he will rule over you.”
Names of God Bible 2011 (another critical text) - "Yet, YOU WILL LONG FOR your husband, and he will rule you.”
The Living Bible 1971 - "yet even so, you shall welcome your husband’s affections, and he shall be your master.”
The Voice 2012 - "You will desire your husband; but rather than a companion, He will be the dominant partner.
Dan Wallace's NET version 2006 is interesting in that it is different from them all. It says: "YOU WILL WANT TO CONTROL YOUR HUSBAND, but he will dominate you.”
Just a little change, but this change confuses the issue and allows them to read the idea of "desiring to have a husband" into the passage, and does away with the idea of being subject unto her husband.
In fact the New English Bible says: "YOUR URGE WILL BE FOR your husband", the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 says: "YOU WILL LEARN FOR your husband" and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 has "YOUR YEARNING WILL BE FOR your husband, and he will dominate you."
When you combine this reading of the NKJV with the other one they have changed in Genesis 2:18 from "an help MEET FOR him" to "a helper COMPARABLE TO him" you begin to see the direction these perversions are taking.
Genesis 3:16 KJB - “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; AND THY DESIRE SHALL BE TO THY HUSBAND, AND HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE.”
NKJV “To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; YOUR DESIRE SHALL BE FOR YOUR HUSBAND, AND HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU.”
John Gill - “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, this is to be understood of her being solely at the will and pleasure of her husband; that whatever she desired should be referred to him, whether she should have her desire or not, or the thing she desired; it should be liable to be controlled by his will, which must determine it, and to which she must be subject, as follows: and he shall rule over thee.”
John Calvin on Genesis 3:16 - “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband," is of the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said, 'Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.' … Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position.”
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “her condition would henceforth be that of humble subjection."
Adam Clarke commentary - “Thy desire shall be to thy husband - for thy desire, thy appetite, shall be to thy husband; and he shall rule over thee, though at their creation both were formed with equal rights, and the woman had probably as much right to rule as the man; but subjection to the will of her husband is one part of her curse.”
Matthew Henry - "She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, of which see an instance in that law, Num. 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”
The King James Bible is right, as always.
Genesis 4 Bible Babel
Genesis 4:7 has been interpreted in 5 or 6 different ways that I know of. If you believe the King James Bible is God's inerrant word, (and I certainly do) then stick with the text and don't change it in an attempt to put your particular spin on it as the modern versions have.
In chapter 4 both Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the LORD. By faith Abel offered a lamb whose blood was shed, as a type of Christ, who is the only sacrifice which makes us acceptable before a holy God. Cain offered the fruit of the ground, as a type of natural religion based on his own works and hard labour.
We read that "the LORD has respect unto Abel and to his offering; But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?"
God says to Cain in 4:7 "If thou doest well, shalt thou not BE ACCEPTED? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. AND UNTO THEE SHALL BE HIS DESIRE, AND THOU SHALT RULE OVER HIM."
This is the reading of not only the KJB but also the English Revised Version 1885 - "and unto thee shall be HIS desire, and thou shalt rule over HIM.", Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Thomson Bible 1808, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Smith Bible 1876, Darby's translation 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the 21st Century KJV 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2003, The Mebust Bible 2007, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012 and the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "And unto thee [shall be] HIS teshukah (desire), and thou shalt rule over HIM."
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be ACCEPTED?" In other words, if Cain brings the correct blood sacrifice, owning himself to be a death deserving sinner, he shall be accepted. We who are true Christians are "accepted in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins" Ephesians 1:6,7. "Accepted" is the reading of all the above versions plus the NIV, NKJV, Youngs, New English Bible and even the RSV.
However the NASB says: "If you do well, will not YOUR COUNTENANCE BE LIFTED UP?" There is no word for "your countenance" in this verse, though it does occur in verses 5 and 6, but not in verse 7 as the NASB has it. The NASB seems to be saying that if Cain does well he will be happy and maybe even proud.
The main problem is in the remainder of the verse. "And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
I believe this means that if Cain does not come before God with an acceptable blood sacrifice, as Abel did, then Cain will be overtaken by sin. Abel's desire will be subject to Cain and Cain will rule over Abel. This is brought out by the very next verse. "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."
Abel desired to go on living as he had been, but Cain ruled over him and took his life - this was the sin that lay at the door. The Hebrew construction is exactly the same as in 3:16 where it is said to Eve: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee", which the new versions have also messed up.
But the NKJV, NIV and NASB say: " And ITS desire is FOR you, but you MUST MASTER IT" thus changing the whole meaning of the verse. Can we "master" sin? Doesn't the Bible teach that we are servants to sin, dead in sins and held captive by its power? Only Christ can set us free from its dominion and this is accomplished by His acceptable sacrifice, not by our own efforts.
(This info on Genesis 4:7 was sent to me by another King James Bible believer)
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be HIS DESIRE, and thou shalt rule over HIM. (Gen 4:7, KJB)
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And ITS DESIRE is for you, but you should rule over IT." (Gen 4:7, NKJV)
The King James Version rightly translates the Hebrew text here when it reads, "And unto thee shall be his desire..."
The New King James Version mistranslate this verse based on their perception of what the text is saying rather than simply translating what the text actually does say.
When we read "his desire" rather than "its desire" we identify the antecedent as Cain's brother Abel rather than as sin (which the translation of "its" implies).
The Hebrew for "his desire" is masculine 3rd person. When the New King James Version translate it as "its" they are changing the masculine to a neuter, for which there is no manuscript evidence.
The similarity between this verse and the previous chapter where we are told that Eve's desire shall be for her husband (Gen 3:16) is striking. The same word "desire" is used and is second person female.
The proper translation of Gen 4:7 is "his" rather than "its," which leads to an interpretation of the order between older and younger brothers, correlating to Gen 3:16 and the order between husband and wife. (end of comments sent to me)
The modern perversions give us an interpretation and not a translation. I think they did not know what it meant, and so they put in what they thought it meant rather than what it says.
The King James Bible is the only popular version today that always follows the Hebrew Masoretic text in the Old Testament. The NKJV departs a few times, the NASB at least 40 times and the NIV is the worst of the three which clearly departs from the Hebrew some 80 plus times, and they tell you this in their own footnotes.
Genesis 4:8 - NIV, LXX - "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD"
In verse 8 the NIV does some peculiar things which condemn it as a false bible. After the words "And Cain talked with Abel his brother" the NIV adds these words: "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD", and then the NIV omits the words "and it came to pass" which are in the Hebrew, and in the NKJV and the NASB too. The NIV footnote tells us that the words "Let's go out to the field" come from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac, but the Masoretic Text does not have these words. So right here in one verse, and there are many more, the NIV both adds to and takes away from the inspired words of God.
Other modern versions that also add these extra words are the Holman Standard 2003, the Amplified bible 1987, Dan Wallace's NET version and ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible.
A Bible critic names Jeff Benner also supports this reading and tells us that the Masoretic texts are wrong and that when the Hebrew word translated as "talked" in the King James Bible really should be "SAID" and that it is ALWAYS followed by what the person said, thus proving (in his own mind) that the KJB and many others cannot be right but that something had dropped out of the text and this something is supplied by the Greek Septuagint.
Mr. Benner is wrong, of course. The Hebrew word in question is #559 ah-mar and is variously translated as "to say, to talk, promise, thought, command, to declare, reported, answer, desired, appointed, certified, uttereth and intend". And there most definitely ARE times when it is used and what the person said is NOT mentioned. See for example Job 8:10 "Shall not they teach thee, and TELL thee, and utter words out of their heart?"; Job 37:20 - "Shall it be told him that I speak? if a man SPEAK, surely he shall be swallowed up."; Esther 2:15 "appointed"; Esther 2:22 "certified"; Jonah 2:10 - "And the LORD SPAKE unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land."
If these new versions are so sure the so called LXX is right, then why didn't any of them follow the LXX reading of the previous verse 7, where instead of saying something like the KJB's "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." But the Greek LXX actually says: "Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it?" (Say What?!) Nobody followed this goofy reading in verse 7, yet they latch onto to a few words in verse 8 that are not found in any Hebrew manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, and obviously not ALL modern versions think these extra words should be added.
These extra words "LET'S GO OUT TO THE FIELD." are NOT found in the Hebrew texts, nor in the Dead Sea Scrolls, nor in the NASB 1995, the ESV 2001 - 2011 editions, the NKJV 1982, the Updated Bible 2004, the Message 2002, the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010, the Names of God Bible 2011-"Cain talked to his brother Abel. Later, when they were in the fields, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.", the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 - "And Kayin talked with Hevel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the sadeh, that Kayin rose up against Hevel his brother, and killed him." or The Voice of 2011.
The NIV concordance tells us that of the 3577 times this verb occurs in the Hebrew - "and it came to pass" (#216 the NIV has not translated (omitted, taken away) this verb 887 times, or a little more than one of every four times it occurs. It also does it in 6:1. These are verifiable facts, not wild accusations.
In verse 10 of this chapter it says: "And HE said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground." Here the NIV placed "the LORD" into the text instead of the Hebrew "he" and as the NASB/NKJV have it. If you look in the NIV concordance, again it will tell you that the word JEHOVAH # 3378 has not been translated 38 times when it does appear in the Hebrew and it has been added (as here) some 52 times when it is not in the Hebrew text! These are just samplings of what the NIV has done to God's word.
In verse 15 we read: "And the LORD said unto him, THEREFORE, whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." THEREFORE is the reading of the NASB, NKJV, ASV etc. But the NIV says: " But the LORD said unto him, NOT SO, if anyone kills Cain..." The NIV footnote tells us that the "not so" comes from the Vulgate, Syriac and the LXX, but as the RSV and NRSV footnote tell us "therefore" is the Hebrew reading. With the NIV one never knows if what he is reading are the true words of God or a man made mess. Well, the Bible believer knows it is a real mess.
Genesis 6 Bible Babel
Genesis 6:1 "AND IT CAME TO PASS, when men began to multiply on ther FACE of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,". Here, though in the Hebrew, the NASB, NKJV and the NIV translators again felt at liberty to edit some of God's inspired words. The NIV omits the verb "and it came to pass" in this verse and 886 other times as well. The NIV also omits the word FACE, though they did put it in in verse 7. A look at the NIV concordance shows that they have not translated this word for face 121 times when it occurs in the O. T. Hebrew. I'm sure they will be properly rewarded for their endeavors.
Genesis 6:4 Giants or Nephalim?
Genesis 6:4 KJB "There were GIANTS in the earth in those days." ESV, NIV, NASB - "The NEPHILIM were on the earth in those days." ESV footnote - Or giants.
There is no doubt that the Hebrew word used here and in Numbers 13:33 is # 5303 n'phee-leem, but which is the better TRANSLATION, giants or Nephilim? Many modern versions have merely TRANSLITERATED the word to Nephilim, but what does this communicate? How many people know what a Nephilim is? Not many. Don't the modern version promoters keep telling us that we need a bible version that is easy to read and understand in modern speech? And yet the result of the modern versions has been widespread and increasing biblical ignorance and unbelief in the inerrancy of the Bible.
The King James Bible and many others as we shall soon see, simply TRANSLATED this Hebrew word into English and told us what the word means, even as the ESV footnote tells us. So does the New English Bible 1970. The text says Nephilim but their footnote says "Or giants".
GIANTS is the reading of Wycliffe 1395 - "giauntis weren on erthe in tho daies", Coverdale 1835, the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1610, Webster's Translation 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, Darby's translation 1890, Douay Version 1950, the Living Bible, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 and the 2014 Natural Israelite Bible - "There were GIANTS on the earth in those days".
There are numerous foreign language Bibles that say GIANTS instead of the transliterated Nephilim. Among these are the Greek Septuagint version - οι δε γιγαντες ησαν επι της γης = "there were GIANTS in the earth", Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909-2011 - - "Había GIGANTES en la tierra en aquellos días"", La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation, the same people who give us the NASB), Dios Habla Hoy 1996, THE NIV Spanish Version La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 "hubo GIGANTES en la tierra.", Palabra de Dios Para Todos 2014, the Portuguese Almeida Corregida 1681 and La Sagrada Biblia em Portugués - "Havia naqueles dias GIGANTES na terra", the Latin Vulgate - "GIGANTES autem erant super terram", the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Segond 2007 - "Il y avait en ce temps-là des GEANTS sur la terre", the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "In jenen Tagen waren die Riesen auf der Erde" = "there were GIANTS on the earth", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "In quel tempo i GIGANTI erano in su la terra" and the Tagalog Bible - "Ang mga higante ay nasa lupa ng ma araw na yaon - GIANTS in the earth."
Other Foreign Language Bibles that also read "giants" are the Czeck Kralicka Bible - "Obrové pak byli na zemi v těch dnech" - "there were GIANTS in the earth", the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap - "I de dager var kjempene på jorden og likeså siden" = "GIANTS in the earth", the Russian Synodal Version - "В то время были на земле исполины" = "GIANTS in the earth", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "In dié dae was die reuse op die aarde" = "GIANTS in the earth", the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Az óriások valának a földön abban az idõben" = "GIANTS in the earth", Swedish Bible 1917 - " levde jättarna på jorden" = "lived GIANTS on the earth", the Albanian Bible - "Kishte gjigantë mbi tokë në ago kohë", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "In die dagen waren er reuzen op de aarde" = "GIANTS in the earth", the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible - "Erau uriaşi pe pământ în acele zile şi" = "GIANTS in those days", the Chinese Union Traditional Bible - 那時候有偉人在地上 = "there were GIANTS on the earth" and the Modern Greek Bible - "Κατ' εκεινας τας ημερας ησαν οι γιγαντες επι της γης"
Young's 1898 has a unique translation in Genesis 6:4 and goes off all by itself. It says "THE FALLEN ONES were in the earth in those days."
The New Life Version 1969 says: " VERY LARGE MEN were on the earth in those days"
The Voice 2012 has: "A GREAT WARRIOR RACE lived on the earth."
The Bible in Basic English 1961 says: "There were men of great strength and size on the earth in those days".
What would a six year old boy say if he saw a man of great strength and size? Oh, look, Mommy, there's a Nephilim! or would he be more likely to call him a "giant"? What do you think?
The NIV, which supposedly is so easy to read, says Nephilim instead of giants. So does the NASB, ESV, NET. How many high schoolers understand what Nephilim are? Giants are referred to in the KJB 20 times, the NKJV 18, the NASB 7 times and the NIV zero times. Not even when it speaks of Goliath and his sons that were slain by another Israelite, does the NIV call Goliath a giant but rather Rapha - see I Chronicles 20:6.
You can put together the words found in the KJB to make the sentence: "The very sad green giant was hungry" and in the NIV it would be: "The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished." See how much easier to read and in modern speech the NIV is?
In Genesis 6:5 we find a word that is not much liked by the new versions. In keeping with the New Age theology the word imagination is a very positive word, so we don't want to put this word in a negative light. The KJB always uses "imagination" in a negative way, as here. "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every IMAGINATION of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Imagination is the reading of the ASV, Geneva, 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, Darby, Youngs and even the RSV. But the NKJV and NASB have "intent" while the NIV has "inclination". The word Imagination is found in the KJB Old Testament 18 times, in the NASB 3, the NIV 4 and the nNKJV only one time.
Genesis 6:8 KJB - "But Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the LORD."
ESV (NASB, NIV, NET, Holman Standard, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "But Noah found FAVOR in the eyes of the LORD."
In Genesis 6:8 the word GRACE appears for the first time. It is always important to notice carefully the first time a certain word is used in the Bible. Grace is first used here in Genesis 6:8.
"But Noah found GRACE"
There was nothing different or special about Noah from the others who were so wicked in his days. Noah even got drunk (first time in the Bible) after the flood. His nature was not less sinful than others but he found grace in God's eyes just as we do in Christ.
When God tells Noah in Genesis 7:1 "thee have I seen righteous before me", keep in mind that he FIRST found grace. The same is true of us who are in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour. It is solely by His grace that we are in Him and clothed in His perfect righteousness.
"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 1:30-31
Even when we define grace as UNMERITED favor, we have to add the word "unmerited" to favor because the word favor can carry the implied idea of some basis of merit for this favor. For example, we say "Which team is favored to win the Super Bowl?" and we look at the talent on the team, its record, strengths and weaknesses.
Or if we say: You do me a favor and I'll do you a favor. Some degree of merit is involved or some other quality that elicits this favor.
The NIV, ESV, NET, Holman, NASB and Jehovah Witness NWT lend themselves to this idea of some kind of merit by saying that Noah found FAVOR in the eyes of the LORD.
The New English Bible 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem 1985 say "Noah WON THE FAVOR of the Lord"
The Living bible says that "Noah WAS A PLEASURE TO the Lord".
The Common English Bible 2011 (another Critical Text version) says: “But as for Noah, the Lord APPROVED OF HIM.”
The Living Bible 1971 reads: "But Noah WAS A PLEASURE TO the Lord."
The Good News Translation 1992 and The Contemporary English Version (Critical Text versions) 1995, ISV 2014 have: “But the Lord WAS PLEASED WITH Noah.”
The Easy English Bible 2010 (another Critical text version) - “But God WAS HAPPY WITH Noah.”
And The Message 2002 actually says: “ But Noah WAS DIFFERENT. GOD LIKED WHAT HE SAW IN NOAH.”
Do you see the subtle change in emphasis?
The word GRACE occurs in the King James Bible Old Testament 38 times, in the NKJV 20 times, in the NASB 9 times, in the NIV 7 times, and in the ESV and Dan Wallace's NET version only 6 times. This is a change in emphasis, and not for the better.
Other comparisons of the number of times a certain word occurs in the Old Testament are highly significant. Truth - in the KJB 118 times, in the NASB 92 (26 fewer), the ESV 44 times, the NIV 2011 edition only 32 times and only 27 times in Dan Wallace's NET version of the Old Testament.
Mercy, mercies or merciful in the KJB 288 times, in the ESV 138 times, in the NET version 103 times, in the NIV 2011 edition 83 times, and in the NASB only 51 times. Mercy implies that we do not deserve it. The NIV, ESV, NET and NASB often substitute the words lovingkindness or love instead of mercy. Love is a totally different Hebrew word as it is in English.
JEHOVAH as the personal name of the God of redemption occurs in the KJB 7 times, in the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB zero times.
Hell is found in the O.T. of the KJB 31 times, in the NKJV 19 times and in the NASB, ESV, NET and NIV zero times.
In the whole Bible the word "doctrine" is found in the KJB 56 times, in the NKJV 42 times, in the NASB 14, in the ESV 13 times, in the NIV only 7 times and in Dan Wallace's NET version only 2 times in the entire Bible. Doctrine is something fixed, settled, authoritative and unchanging. The new versions like to substitute the word "teaching" instead. Teaching implies an ongoing, fluid and changing process with no idea of authority attached.
"But Noah found GRACE"
Versions that read as the KJB are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims bible 1582, the Bill Bible 1671, Webster's bible 1833, the Longman Version 1841, The Lesser Bible 1853, Julia Smith Translation 1855, the Smith Bible 1876, the Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885, Young's 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, the Douay Version 1950, the Bible in Basic English 1961, The Basic English Bible 1965, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Green's Literal 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Asser Septuagint 2009, Concordant Literal Version 2009, The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God's Children's Illustrated Bible 2011, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, and The Modern English Version 2014.
Foreign language Bibles that say "Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the LORD" are the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D., the Clementine Vulgate, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina-Valera 1909 - 2011 - "Pero Noé halló GRACIA a los ojos del Señor.", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "Ma Noè trovò GRAZIA appo il Signore.", Luther’s German Bible 1545, the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “Aber Noah fand Gnade vor dem HERRN.”, The French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Second 2007 - “Mais Noé trouva GRACE devant l'Eternel.”, the Portuguese Almeida 2009 - "Noé, porém, achou GRACA aos olhos do Senhor.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Maar Noach vond GENADE in de ogen des HEEREN.", the Czech Kralicka Bible, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Finnish Bible 1776, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Swedish Bible 1917, the Japanese JKUG Bible, the Norwegian Det Bibleselskap, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014, the Chinese Union Traditional Bible and the Smith & van Dyke's Arabic Bible - واما نوح فوجد نعمة في عيني الرب.
Bible Commentators, like bible versions, often differ from each other about the meaning of passages of Scripture. But among those I believe got it right are -
John Gill - “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. This man and his family were the only exception to the general apostasy; God always reserves some, in the worst of times, for himself; there is a remnant, according to the election of grace; it was but a small one, and that now appeared; and this was owing to the grace of God, and his choice upon that, and not to the merits of the creature.”
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible - “And Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. - Noah and his family are the only exceptions to this sweeping destruction. It is opposed to works as a source of blessing. Whither grace comes there merit cannot be. Hence, we learn even from the case of Noah that original sin asserts its presence in the whole race of Adam.”
John Calvin - Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord - “…whence, however, did he attain this integrity, but from the preventing grace of God? The commencement, therefore, of this favor was gratuitous mercy. Afterwards, the Lord, having once embraced him, retained him under his own hand, lest he should perish with the rest of the world.”
John Trapp (English Puritan) - "But Noah found grace. Because in covenant with God; who of himself was a child of wrath, and saved by grace only”
Matthew Poole’s Annotations on the Holy Bible - “which is noted to show that Noah was so far guilty of the common corruption of human nature, that he needed God’s grace and mercy to pardon and preserve him from the common destruction.”
Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary - “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Is not Noah, in this instance, a type of the blessed Jesus? And is not the finding of Him the grace and favour here spoken of? Also, to find grace, implies God's gift of grace."
Benson’s Commentary of the Old and New Testaments - “Noah found grace — ...for although he was by nature corrupt and sinful, he had been renewed in the spirit of his mind, and by repentance and a lively faith, had obtained witness that he was righteous.”
"But Noah found GRACE in the eyes of the LORD" - The King James Bible is right, as always.
In Genesis 6:12 we read: "And God looked upon the earth, and BEHOLD, it was corrupt; for all FLESH had corrupted his way upon the earth." Again the NIV omits this word BEHOLD. It is a separate word in Hebrew - hinneh- and in the KJB it is always rendered as "behold" or "lo". It is used to draw our attention to something important. The NIV usually changes this to see, listen, here or there - all of which are incorrect. The NKJV and NASB also often do the same thing. The NIV concordance tells us that of the 1,061 times this word occurs in the Hebrew they have not translated it at all 550 times - a little over half the time; they just edited it out. This is so very common with the NIV, to omit literally thousands of God inspired words and to add thousands more which God did not inspire. Yet the NIV is probably the most popular version today. This tells us something highly significant about the spiritual state of early 21st century Christianity.
The NIV has also changed the word flesh to "all people". The NASB also does this many times but not as often as the NIV. Flesh is not a complimentary term. It signifies fallen, weak, sinful and ephemeral man without spiritual strength. If we refer to fallen man as "people" or "men" or "mankind", as the NASB and NIV often do, rather than "flesh", this is much more flattering. But both the Hebrew and the Greek have separate words for flesh and man or people. God used these specific words for a purpose, and the new perversions are altering what God has written, to their own peril.
Genesis chapter seven starts off with a great truth which has subtly been altered in the new versions. We read in Genesis 6:8 that Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. There the NIV, ESV and NASB altered grace to favor, so too here the Hebrew text has been altered and the meaning is almost imperceptively changed.
In Genesis 7:1 the KJB, as well as the ASV, Geneva, Darby, Young's, the 1917 Jewish translation and other older Bibles says: "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark: for thee HAVE I SEEN RIGHTEOUS BEFORE ME in this generation." There is only one verb in the Hebrew and in the English of the KJB. "Have I seen" is the only verb in the text.
This is the positional outworking or results of the grace of God. We are not righteous in our own selves. We are not righteous by our own works, inward purity or our prayer life. We are only righteous in God's sight because we are seen in Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world for His people.
So here when God says to Noah, "for thee have I seen righteous before me" He sees Noah as in Christ. Noah himself serves as a type of Christ in that Noah's house (his family) is saved because of the head of the house is seen righteous. So too with us and Christ; He alone is truly righteous and He is our head; we are His body and His house. Hebrews 3:6 "Christ as a son over his own house; whose house we are."
The new versions have subtly changed the meaning. The NKJV says: "because I have seen THAT YOU ARE righteous before me." - thus adding a verb not found in the text and implying that Noah was righteous by his own behavior. The NASB has: "for you ALONE I have seen TO BE righteous before me", adding the word "alone" and an extra verb to the text. The NIV is the worst with "because I have FOUND you righteous." Here the NIV at least does not add an extra verb, but it changes the verb "to see" to "to find" and it omits the Hebrew words "before me", which are in the other versions. God does not "find" us to be righteous but He sees us righteous because we are in Christ and His righteousness is imputed to us on the basis of grace, not of our works.
In verse 3 God tells Noah to take the animals to himself into the ark "to keep SEED alive upon the face of all the earth." SEED is the true reading and is found in the ASV, 1917, Geneva etc. but the NKJV has often changed the word "seed" to "species" as here, or descendants or offspring. There is throughout the Bible what is called a "seed theology". In Galatians 3:16 we read "and to thy seed, which is Christ" yet there the NKJV lists three verses in the footnote found in Genesis 12:7, 13:15 and 24:7, but none of these say "seed" in the NKJV, but of course they do in the KJB. In Genesis 9:9 the NKJV again says "descendants" but it has a footnote which says: "literally seed". In Genesis 7:3 the NASB likewise has OFFSPRING, while the NIV says: THEIR VARIOUS KINDS instead of the correct word seed. This is very frequent in the new versions. You see, they have to change a certain percentage of words in their new bibles in order to get a copyright. No copyright, no money. It is an issue of currency rather than accuracy.
In Genesis 7:7 we read: And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives WITH HIM into the ark, because of the waters of the flood." The words WITH HIM are in the Hebrew text, the ASV, nasb, 1917, Geneva etc., but the NIV and the NKJV have omitted these words.
In verse 11 we read: "and the WINDOWS OF HEAVEN were opened." The word for windows is # 699 and it is found 9 times. It is used of windows both literal and symbolic. In Isaiah 60:8 we read of those that "fly as doves to their windows" and in Ecclesiastes 12:3 we read a poetic picture of old age and poor eyesight "when...those that look out of the windows be darkened." The phrase "the windows of heaven" is also found in II Kings 7:2, 19 and in Malachi 3:10 where God will open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing. The WINDOWS of heaven is the reading of the ASV, 1917 Jewish translation, Geneva, Darby, NKJV, RSV, NRSV and Lamsa, but the NASB says: "FLOODGATES OF THE SKY" even though it has 'windows of heaven' in other places and the NIV has: "floodgates of the heavens" though it twice renders this same word as windows elsewhere.
In Genesis 7:19-20 there is a different meaning found in some modern versions. Theologians differ among themselves as to the exact meaning of the verses, but my intention is to point out that not all bibles have the same meaning. In verse 19 and 20 we read: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the HIGH HILLS that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and THE MOUNTAINS WERE COVERED." This is the reading of the NKJV, the 1936 Jewish translation, the Third Millenium Bible, Webster's 1833 translation and the KJV 21st century version.
The sense seems to be that the high hills were first covered and then the waters rose another 15 cubit and the mountains were then covered. The word for High Hills and mountains is the same, but context determines the meaning. Even the nasb has translated this word as "hill country" 81 times and "hills" 24 times. The NIV has this word as "hill country" 82 times and "hills" 72 times.
The NASB has a ridiculous reading of "all the HIGH MOUNTAINS everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubit higher, and the mountains were covered." Thus the high mountains were covered before the waters rose another 15 cubits to cover the mountains. Say what?
The NIV changed the meaning of the verse and says: "all the HIGH MOUNTAINS under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains TO A DEPTH OF MORE THAN 20 feet." Here the NIV adds "to a depth of more than" to the text and teaches that the waters not only covered the mountains but rose to 20 feet above the mountains. So which one is the true word of God?
Genesis 7:22 KJB - "All in whose nostrils was THE BREATH OF LIFE, of all that was in the dry land, died." Marginal reading - "Hebrew - the breath of the spirit of life".
Some Bible critics raise a big stink about this verse as it stands in the King James Bible (and many others, as we will soon see) and tell us: "See, the KJV is not a word for word, literal translation of this verse and it is therefore in error."
It should first be pointed out that not one of these KJB critics actually believes that ANY Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. Don't believe me? Just ask them to show you a copy of that they honestly believe IS the inerrant Bible. They won't do it.
Secondly, ALL Bible translations frequently "add" or "omit" hundreds of words to the Hebrew texts. The Hebrew language is not like the English language, or any other language. Sometimes it is elliptical. That is, it omits the subject or the verb or the direct or indirect object, and they need to be supplied in the translation into another language so the sentence makes sense. And at other times it is unnecessarily repetitive or redundant, and it is best to omit this repetition.
For example, this Online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament translates the phrase as “the breath, the breath of life”
Though there are different Hebrew words here, yet both words can mean either "breath" OR "spirit", and they are translated in both ways by virtually every Bible out there in all languages.
We also see this "redundancy" aspect of the Hebrew language in the use of the word "son" #1121 behn. For example, in Genesis 5:32 we read that "Noah was five hundred years OLD." Yet the Hebrew text literally says: "Noah was SON of five hundred years." To translate this phrase literally would not help clarify the meaning, but would only confuse the reader.
In Genesis 7:2 Noah was instructed to "take to thee BY sevens, the male and the female". Yet the literal Hebrew is "take SEVEN, SEVEN, the male and the female"
Or in Genesis 15:2 we read: "and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?" Yet the "literal" Hebrew text says: "and THE SON OF the possession of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?" It would be very wooden and awkward to actually translate the verse this way.
In the next verse, Genesis 15:3, we read: "and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir." Yet the "literal" Hebrew says: "the SON OF my house is my heir." To translate it literally would only confuse the reader as to whether Abraham yet had a son or not.
In Genesis 25:28 we read that "Isaac loved Esau, because he DID EAT OF HIS VENISON." but the strictly literal Hebrew would be "Isaac loved Esau, because VENISON IN HIS MOUTH".
In Genesis 25:30 we read of Esau saying to Jacob "Feed me, I pray thee, with that SAME RED POTTAGE", but the "literal" Hebrew would be: "Feed me, I pray thee, with that RED, RED."
In all these examples, neither do versions like the NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. give us a word for word literal translation.
Back to Genesis 7:22 "All in whose nostrils was THE BREATH OF LIFE, of all that was in the dry land died."
Other Bible translations that read like the KJB are Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, the ESV 2011, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bill Bible 1671, the Webster Version 1833, the Longman Version 1841, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, Darby 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The New Life Version 1969, The New English Bible 1970, the Revised Standard Version 1971, The New Jewish Version 1985 -"everything that had the merest breath of life died", The NRSV 1989, The Word of Yah 1993, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Green's Literal Translation 2005 - "the breath of life", the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “All in whose nostrils was ha ruach chayim (BREATH OF LIFE), of all that was in the dry land, died.”, The New American Bible 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Common English Bible 2011, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, the Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The New English Septuagint Translation 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014 - "the breath of life".
Other Translations of Interest
The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969 - "everything that had breath and lived on dry land perished."
The ISV (International Standard Version) 2014 simply has "Everything that breathed"
The God's Word Translation 1995 and The Names of God Bible 2011 - "every living, breathing creature"
The New International Reader's Version 2011 - "Every breathing thing"
Conservative Bible 2011 - "and breathed air"
The Easy English Bible 2010 - "Everything that was alive on the dry land died."
The Translators Bible 2014 - "On the land everything that breathed/every living thing died."
The King James Bible is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation of Genesis 7:22. It is not in error at all.
Again we see the NIV omits "And it came to pass at the end of" in chapter 8:6 and 13; it also omits the word SOLE in verse 9 "the dove found no rest for the SOLE of her foot" and again the word BEHOLD in verse 13.
One of the many things that continually annoy me about the new perversions is that so many significant spiritual connections are either lost or obscured. We see an example of this in Genesis 8:21. The judgment of the flood had already past and Noah and his family had been spared by the grace of God. In verse 20 and 21 we read: " And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the alter. And the LORD smelled A SWEET SAVOUR".
The sacrifices offered in the Old Testament all point to the only perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. In Ephesians 5:2 we read: "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a SWEETSMELLING SAVOUR." In the KJB you can see the connection between Noah's sacrifice and that of Christ as being a sweet savour unto God. The reading of sweet savour in Genesis 8:21 is also that of the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the ASV (the predecessor of the NASB), Young's, Darby's, and even the Catholic Douay versions. But the NKJV and NASB have changed this to A SOOTHING aroma, while the NIV has a pleasing aroma. None of these renderings match what they have in Ephesians 5:2 and the connection is lost. The NKJV has "a SOOTHING aroma" here but a sweet smelling aroma in Ephesians. The NASB has soothing here but fragrant in Eph. The NIV has pleasing here but fragrant in Eph. 5:2.
God did not need to be "SOOTHED" as though He were emotionally upset and needed to be calmed down. Noah's act of offering a sacrifice as a sweet savour was an act of devotion and thankfulness to the Lord for having spared him and his family. It was in recognition of the fact that they too had deserved to be judged and condemned along with the rest of mankind, but God had already brought them through the judgment. God did not need to be "soothed" as the nkjv and nasb wrongly imply.
In verse 22 the NKJV is the only bible version I have seen that reverses the word order as it does. All other versions, including the NIV, NASB, NRSV, RSV etc. read: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and SUMMER AND WINTER, and day and night shall not cease." But the NKJV alone says "winter and summer", thus reversing the word order. I guess it is one of the thousands of changes they had to make from the KJB in order to get their copyrights and make money.
Genesis 9, 10, 11 some quick notes
In verse 9:5 the Hebrew, KJB, ASV, 1917 Jewish translation, NKJV, Geneva etc. read; "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the HAND of every beast will I require it, and at the HAND of man; at the HAND of every man's BROTHER will I require the life of man."
The NASB and NIV unite in omitting all three words "hand". In fact a look at the NIV concordance shows that they tell you themselves that they have not translated this word 72 times when it occurs in the Hebrew text. Just a little editorial polishing on their part, I guess.
Also the word "brother", which is the true reading, also found in the NKJV, NASB, ASV, RSV, has been changed to "fellow man" by the NIV, and "human being" in the NRSV. If God wanted to say "man" He has a word for it, but He chose to say "brother" instead. Apparently the NIV committee feels God needs some help in choosing the right word to better express Himself to the modern mind.
In verse 6 "for in the image of God made HE man" the NIV again felt at liberty to say: "for in the image of God has GOD made man" - thus adding the word GOD when it is not in the text. In fact the NIV concordance shows they have added the word "God" (Elohim) 52 times when it is not in the text, and 13 times have omitted it when it is in the Hebrew text. Similarly the word for Jehovah has been added another 52 times by the niv and not translated when in the Hebrew 38 times. Thus with just these two words for God the NIV adds it 104 times when it is not in the text nor expresses a Hebraism and does not translate it when it is in the Hebrew text 51 times. So when you read the NIV you are never really sure if you are reading the words of God or the words of men. Good luck trying to figure it out. Unfortunately today most Christians just really don't care about any of this.
In Genesis 10:11 we find another blunder in the NKJV, NIV and NASB. The true reading is: "Out of that land went forth ASSHUR, and builded Nineveh." This is the reading of the KJB, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the Geneva, Darby, Spanish of 1602, Catholic Douay and others. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB unite in saying: "From that land HE (referring back to Nimrod) went to ASSYRIA and built Nineveh." Now was it Nimrod or Asshur? They cannot both be the true words of God, can they?
Again in verse 23 we read of the children of Uz and one of them is called MASH. Mash is the reading of the NKJV, NASB, 1917, Geneva etc., but the NIV says his name was MESHEEH. The NIV footnote says this name comes from the Greek but the Hebrew says Mash.
In 11:7 It says: "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's SPEECH." Though "speech" is found in the Hebrew, the NKJV, NASB and the NIV again decided to edit out this word, as they have done in seven other places according to their own concordance. These are just samplings of the omitted words in the NIV. I will not always point out all the omissions because it takes up too much time and space, but this will give you some idea of the creative editing of God's words which the new versions are employing. I'm sure their efforts will be justly rewarded in the coming Day.
How many errors in a so called bible version can there be before you finally realize it is a false witness? There are numerous errors in all the modern perversions, yet many Christians doggedly hang onto these rags and continue to try to overthrow the pure words of God as found in English only in the King James Bible.
An example of such an error in the highly touted NASB is found in verse one of Genesis chapter twelve. We read in the KJB: "Now the LORD HAD SAID unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee." Please notice the tense of the verb here where it says the Lord "HAD SAID" unto Abram... God had spoken this commandment unto Abram BEFORE he dwelt in Haran, which is called Charran in the New Testament. In chapter 11:31,32 we were told that Terah, Abram's father took him and Lot and Sarai and went forth from Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of Canaan "and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there" in Haran where Terah died.
So, when we look at Acts 7:2-4 where Steven is relating the history of Abraham, we read: "The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, WHEN he was in Mesopotamia, BEFORE HE DWELT IN CHARRAN, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. THEN came he out of the land of he Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, WHEN his father was dead, He removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell."
This is why we read in Genesis 12:1 in the KJB that God HAD SAID unto Abram "Get thee out of thy country...unto a land that I will shew thee." Abraham was a little slow to immediately obey the LORD and he continually had some problems in the area of believing God and obeying Him perfectly, just like we all do. The reading of "had said" is also found in the NIV (of all places!), the NKJV, ESV, Geneva, Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Reina Valera, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.
But the NASB misses this fact and instead renders Gen. 12:1 as though God just spoke this commandment to Abram instead of some years before the event of his finally entering the promised land. The NASB says: "Now the Lord SAID to Abram, 'Go forth from your country and from your relatives...So Abram went forth." The NASB makes it appear as though God spoke these words to Abram when he was in Haran after his father died instead of years before his father died there. This is an error, and there are many more in this false bible.
We continue to read in verse 4 and 5: "So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and INTO THE LAND OF CANAAN THEY CAME. This last part "and into the land of Canaan they came" is what the Hebrew says, as well as the NKJV, NASB, but the NIV omits the words "Canaan" and "land"; adds the word "there" and says: "and they arrived there."
Genesis 12:6 KJB - "And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto THE PLAIN of Moreh."
Genesis 12:6 NKJV - "Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as THE TEREBINTH TREE of Moreh"
NASB, ESV - "Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to THE OAK of Moreh"
NIV - "Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of THE GREAT TREE of Moreh."
Some Bible critics have made a big stink about the difference here and claim the King James Bible is wrong for translating this Hebrew word as "PLAIN" instead of (Pick one) "THE OAK", "THE TEREBINTH TREE", "THE GREAT TREE", or "THE NOBLE VALE" of Douay-Rheims 1610, "the FAMOUS STEEP VALLEY" of the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, or even as Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 has it, "THE TEACHER'S TEREBINTH".
Scholars and Bible translations go back and forth as to which specific word is used here, and it all has to do with the vowel points. Wigram's Englishman's Hebrew Concordance shows that the Hebrew word is #436 ehlohn (and not #437 allohn "OAK" Gen. 35:8; Isaiah 2:13 "the oaks of Bashan") and means "THE PLAIN" as in Genesis 13:18; 14:13 and 18:1 - "the PLAIN of Mamre" and in Deut.11:30 "the PLAINS of Moreh"; Judges 4:11 "the PLAIN of Zaanaim".
The King James Bible translators were well aware of the differences between these two very similar words and of how different translators looked at their respective meanings. The previous versions of Tyndale 1534 and Matthew's Bible 1549 both read "the OAK of Moreh". However the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1587 all read "THE PLAIN of Moreh"
Also reading "the PLAIN of Moreh" are the following Bible translations, among which are some Jewish translations like the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the Complete Tanach 2004 - "THE PLAIN of Moreh" and the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011.
Also translating as "THE PLAIN of Moreh" are Webster's 1833 Translation, the Lesser Bible 1853 - "unto the plain of Moreh", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1996 and the Jubilee Bible 2010.
Among Foreign language translations that also saw this word as referring to "THE PLAIN of Moreh" are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera of 1602 - " Y pasó Abram por aquella tierra hasta el lugar de Sichêm, haste LA LLANURA de Moreh", Reina Valera 1909, 1977, R.V. Gómez 2010 - "hasta el valle de Moreh", the Italian Diodati 1649 " ino alla PIANURA di More.", the French Martin 1744 - "jusqu'en LA PLAINE de Moré", the Czech BKR Bible -" to jest až k rovině More." = "the PLAIN of Moreh" and the Finnish Bible 1776 - "Moren lakeuteen asti." = "the PLAIN of Moreh"
The Jewish Targums read "the PLAIN of Moreh" and Bible commentator Willet explains "the truth is it was both a plain and set with oaks."
The NIV continues to omit "and it came to pass" in verses 12 and 13, "behold" in verse 11, "I pray thee" in verse 13 and the NIV and NASB both omit the words "to look upon" in verse 11. There we read in the KJB, ASV, 1917 Jewish translation, Geneva and even the RSV plus others, where Abram says to his wife: "Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman TO LOOK UPON". The NKJV alters this a little with "I know you are a woman of beautiful countenance" while both the NASB/NIV say: "I know that you are a beautiful woman" thus omitting the words "to look upon" which are found in the Hebrew text.
Genesis 13, 14
13:1 "And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the SOUTH." This phrase is found several times in the Scriptures as in 12:9 "Abram journeyed, going on still toward the SOUTH." This word is first mentioned in 12:9. It is # 5045 in Strong's and is always rendered as "south" in the KJB. South is also the reading of the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, the NKJV, the ASV (predecessor of the nasb), Geneva, Douay and others.
However both the NIV and NASB say Abram was going to THE NEGEV, and the ESV has NEGEB. Now that is much clearer than the south, isn't it? The NASB has a footnote that says "south country", even though both it and the NIV have translated this word as Negev 36 times, yet as "south" 70 times each.
In verse 13:12, after Lot and Abram had to separate from each other because their substance was so great they could not dwell together, we read that Lot "dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent TOWARD Sodom." Lot is a picture of the carnal believer who gradually drifts toward a sinful environment and its results. We usually do not fall into sin all of a sudden but by degrees. The next time we see Lot, he is living in a house inside the city of Sodom. But instead of conveying this idea of a gradual slide towards sin by saying he pitched his tent TOWARD Sodom, the NKJV joins the NASB, ESV in saying: "AS FAR AS Sodom", which would mean he was actually there, while the NIV says: "he pitched his tents near Sodom."
Again, as all through the book of Genesis, instead of correctly saying "seed" of the seed theology, the NKJV, NIV and NASB continually change this word to descendants, offspring, children, lineage, family or people. See verses 15 and 16. Both Jewish translations as well as the ASV and Geneva Bible always translate this word as "seed".
A subtle but important thought is lost in the new versions in verse 14. There we read that Lot WAS SEPARATED from Abram. This is a passive verb in English and in Hebrew. It is not always necessary to translate a passive as a passive either in Greek or Hebrew, but there is an important distinction here. God is He who acted through circumstances to separate Lot from Abram. Remember God told Abram to leave his kindred as well as his father's house in 12:1. Lot was part of his kindred, and God's purpose was to get Abram alone and make him the spiritual father of all believers. See Romans 4:11 and 12. Abraham was previously living in idolatry Joshua 24:2, but he was chosen Nehemiah 9:7, called Isaiah 51:2 and redeemed Isaiah 29:22, just as we are in Christ. Instead of Lot "was separated" (passive, God did it to him) the NKJV/NASB say Lot "had separated" (active, he did it himself) and the NIV has: "Lot had parted" - thus loosing the idea and the truth that God did this and not Lot himself.
All three modern versions of the NKJV, NIV and NASB blow it in 14:15 There we read in the KJB, 1917 Jewish translation, ASV and others: "And he (Abram, when he was going to rescue Lot who had been taken captive) divided HIMSELF against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is ON THE LEFT HAND OF Damascus." Instead of "he divided HIMSELF" the NKJV/NASB say "his forces" and the NIV "his men" which are unnecessary and not in the text. God knows how to say these words but they are not here. Perhaps more importantly instead of "on the left hand" of Damascus the NKJV, NASB, NIV all say "NORTH of Damascus." The word is mohl # 8040 and is always translated as left or left hand as when Jacob placed his left hand on the head of Manasseh in Genesis 48:13, 14. The word for "north" is a totally different word.
In both 14:19 and 22 there is praise given to the most high God who is called "POSSESSOR of heaven and earth". Possessor is the reading of the NKJV, NASB, ASV, ESV, Geneva and others and it fits the context because God was he who delivered the enemies of Abram into his hand. He not only created the world but He possesses it and actively controls it. The NIV joins the liberal RSV, as it so often does, and calls God the CREATOR of heaven and earth. Creator is a different word than possessor. God is the creator but He is much more than an absent landlord.
Finally for now, in verse 22 we read: "And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I HAVE LIFT UP MINE HAND unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet,...lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich." I have lift up mine hand is the word for word translation here and is the reading of the NKJV, 1917, ASV, ESV, Geneva, Young's and others, but the NASB says: "I HAVE SWORN to the Lord" which is a different word than the literal "to lift up the hand". I mention this in passing because there are those who wrongly affirm the NASB is so literal and accurate. This is falsehood repeated by those who have never actually closely examined the NASB or who are lying.
The NIV at least translated this phrase correctly but then went on to add some words not found in any text. It says: "I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most high, Creator (wrong) of heaven and earth, AND HAVE TAKEN AN OATH, (not in any Hebrew text) that I will accept nothing..." Remember God said not to add to nor take away from His words. No translation can always be nor should it be strictly a wooden word for word rendering in all cases. But what we continually see in the newer versions is a growing reckless regard and frivolous attitude towards what God has been pleased to reveal to us in His inspired words.
Genesis 15:1 KJB - "After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I AM THY SHIELD, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD."
ESV (NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "...Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; YOUR REWARD SHALL BE VERY GREAT."
A verse that holds forth a precious promise is found in Gen. 15:1, but it has been changed in such versions as the NASB, Holman, NET and the liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV and the Jehovah Witness NWT.
In the King James Bible we read: "the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram; I am thy shield, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD."
The Catholic Connection
The previous Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both read very similar to the KJB with: "Fear not, Abram, I am thy protector, AND THY REWARD EXCEEDING GREAT."
But then the New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 read: "Do not be afraid, Abram! I am your shield AND SHALL GIVE YOU A VERY GREAT REWARD."
However the NASB along with the RSV, ESV, Jehovah Witness NWT and Holman Standard have changed this to now read: "I am a shield to you; YOUR REWARD SHALL BE VERY GREAT."
Daniel Wallace's NET bible version also misses the correct meaning with: "I am your shield and THE ONE WHO WILL REWARD YOU IN GREAT ABUNDANCE."
Do you see the difference? Is should be noted there is no verb in the Hebrew "shall be", yet the NASB and ESV have placed it in the text and not even in italics. In the NASB, ESV it is no longer God Himself who is the exceeding great reward but instead teaches that Abraham's material reward will be very great.
Consider this - What else could God give Abraham? He already was very rich (Genesis 13:2); he has already been promised the land of Canaan and told that kings would come out of him and that all nations would be blessed in him; his name would be great and God would bless them which bless him and curse the one who cursed him, and God had delivered his enemies into his hand.
Nothing else could be added, but the promise that God Himself would be his exceeding great reward. Abraham was to continue his life journey learning more and more of God. This whole promise is lost in versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT and Holman Standard.
King James Bible Genesis 15:1 - Fear not, Abram: I AM THY SHIELD, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD."
Just think of this a moment. God Himself is our shield and our exceeding great reward. In my better moments it is so good to just think about the Person of God Himself. Who He is, what He is like, how great, wise, all powerful, merciful, loving, gracious, faithful and true. He spoke and the worlds were created. He suffered on Calvary's cross, bore my sins, paid for them in full and rose from the dead victorious over all His enemies and He is the Lover of my soul. Isn't He wonderful, that He would receive a wretch like me and make me His own for all eternity? God is our exceeding great reward.
That God Himself is our exceeding great reward is the reading of the Coverdale 1535 - "I am thy shylde and thy exceadinge greate rewarde.", Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Longman Version 1841, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, the Revised Version of 1881 "Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward", the ASV of 1901 " I am thy shield, `and' thy exceeding great reward.", the predecessor of the NASB, which according to the preface of the NASB was such a good translation. It is also the reading of the NKJV, the NIV 1984, the TNIV 2005, Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized Bible, the Hebrew Names Version - "Don't be afraid, Avram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.", Webster's 1833 translation, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, the Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward.", Douay 1950 (but later Catholic versions changed it to now read like the RSV, NASB), the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium bible 1998, the NIV! - "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward." and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward."
Other Bible versions that read like the KJB are The Word of Yah 1993, The World English Bible 2000, the Context Group Version 2007, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the New Heart English Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The World English Bible 2012, The Modern English Version 2014 - "Do not fear, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.” and the Hebrew Names Version 2014.
Many foreign language Bible read like the KJB telling us that God Himself is our exceeding great reward, including the Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1865, 1909 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - " No temas, Abram; yo soy tu escudo, y soy tu galardón sobremanera grande." = "Fear not, Abram, I am your shield, AND I AM YOUR EXCEEDINGLY GREAT REWARD.", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Fürchte dich nicht, Abram; ich bin dein Schild und dein sehr großer Lohn." = "Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.", the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 - "Abram, ne crains point, je suis ton bouclier, et ta grande récompense.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Almeida Corregida E Fiel 1681 - "No temas, Abro, eu sou o teu escudo, o teu grandssimo galardo. and the Modern Hebrew Bible - אל תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך שכרך הרבה מאד׃
John Gill comments on Genesis 15:1 “I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward” - “nay, HE HIMSELF WOULD BE HIS REWARD, and which must be a great one, an exceeding great one; as Christ is to his people in his person, offices, and grace, all being theirs, and he all in all to them; all the blessings of grace and glory coming along with him, and HE BEING THEIR PORTION HERE AND HEREAFTER, to all eternity; for since he is theirs, all are theirs, all things appertaining to life and godliness, and eternal life itself.”
Matthew Henry likewise remarks: “I will be thy exceedingly great reward; NOT ONLY THY REWARDER, BUT THY REWARD. (Caps are mine). Abram had generously refused the rewards which the king of Sodom offered him, and here God comes, and tells him he shall be no loser by it. GOD HIMSELF IS THE PROMISED FELICITY OF HOLY SOULS-- He is the portion of their inheritance and their cup.”
John Calvin comments on Genesis 15:1 - “The promise, therefore, that GOD WILL BE Abram’s shield AND HIS EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD , holds the first place; to which is added the exhortation, that, relying upon such a guardian of his safety, and such an author of his felicity, he should not fear. .. IN CALLING HIMSELF HIS “reward,” He teaches Abram to be satisfied with Himself alone. ..God declares, that HE ALONE IS SUFFICIENT for the perfection of a happy life to the faithful. For the word “reward” has the force of inheritance, or felicity . Were it deeply engraven on our minds, that in God alone we have the highest and complete perfection of all good things; we should easily fix bounds to those wicked desires by which we are miserably tormented. The meaning then of the passage is this, that we shall be truly happy when God is propitious to us; for he not only pours upon us the abundance of his kindness, but OFFERS HIMSELF TO US, THAT WE MAY ENJOY HIM. Now what is there more, which men can desire, when they really enjoy God? David knew the force of this promise, when he boasted that he had obtained a goodly lot, because the Lord was his inheritance, (Psalm 16:6.) But since nothing is more difficult than to curb the depraved appetites of the flesh, and since the ingratitude of man is so vile and impious, that God scarcely ever satisfies them; THE LORD CALLS HIMSELF NOT SIMPLY “a reward,” BUT AN EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD, with which we ought to be more than sufficiently contented.”
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Bible - "And thy exceeding great reward - NOT ONLY THY REWARDER, BUT THY REWARD. GOD HIMSELF IS THE FELICITY OF HOLY SOULS; He is the portion of their inheritance, and their cup."
David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible - "God knows how to become the answer to our need. When we need a shield or a reward, He becomes those things for us."
Thomas Coke Commentary - “I am thy exceeding great reward. Every thing beside to a believing soul is light in the balance. The enjoyment of the Blessed God is the ultimatum, the whole of his felicity. O may I know more feelingly, and say more confidently, Thou art my portion, O Lord!”
Whedon’s Commentary on the Bible - “God would be a shield between him and all his foes, AND WOULD BE HIMSELF A REWARD ‘GREATE EXCEEDINGLY’, NOT SIMPLY BESTOW REWARDS… JEHOVAH HIMSELF, THE SELF-EXISTENT, WOULD BE HIS INHERITANCE.” — Newhall.”
Clearly men like John Calvin, John Gill, John Wesley, Matthew Henry and others saw this verse as teaching the truth found in the King James Bible and many others that God promised to Abraham that He Himself would be both his shield and his exceeding great reward - God Himself is our reward, not the things He gives us.
In verse Genesis 15:2 Abram says: "Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the STEWARD of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? This word for STEWARD occurs only once in the O.T. A steward is one who manages another's property or who is in charge of running the household of another. Steward is the reading of the KJB, Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish translation, Webster's Bible, Darby, KJV 21, Douay, Spanish and Italian versions. But the NKJV, NIS and NASB all have HEIR instead of steward. The word "heir" occurs for the first time in the verse 3, twice in 4 and again in verse seven, but not in verse 2
In verse 4 God tells Abram: "This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own BOWELS shall be thine heir. This word for "bowels" is a specific word both in Hebrew and in Greek that the modern versions have consistently changed. It is still used to mean "the inward or interior parts" as in "the bowels of the earth". The archaic sense is according to Webster "the seat of pity, tenderness or compassion."
Bowels is still the reading found in the RV, ASV, the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, Youngs, Webster's Bible and the 1950 Catholic Douay versions. But the NKJV, NIV and NASB have consistently changed this word, though the NASB and NIV still use it 4 times in the O.T. However the NKJV completely omits the word and has instead "some of his offspring" here, "within me" Ps.22:14; "your descendants" Isaiah 48:19, and "my soul, my soul" in Jeremiah 4:19. The NKJV should never have been called the New KJV; it is a very different version than the KJB and the meaning has been changed in hundreds of verses.
Verse 6. "And HE believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Here the NIV alone says "Abram" instead of "he". "Abram" is not in the text. The NIV does the same in verses 8 and 10 adding the word Abram when it is not in any text. The NIV concordance shows they have added the word Abram or Abraham 12 times to the text when it is not there in the Hebrew. Then twice, almost immediately in 16:16 and in 17:1 where the text says "Abram" the NIV removes it and says "him" instead. We have seen this before where the NIV omits Noah, Sarah, God and the LORD when they are there and add them when they are not there. This may make little difference to some, but I wonder what God thinks about it. The NIV also omits 2 of the three times the word "three" occurs in verse 9.
In the making of a covenant, the party making the covenant passes through the midst of the sacrifices. See Jer. 34:18,19. The covenant God made with Abram was made between the Son and the Father. A deep sleep fell upon Abram -v.12. He was asleep when this covenant of grace was made with him. He was a passive recipient just as we are in Christ. It is Christ who passed between the pieces of the divided sacrifices as "a smoking furnace" and a "burning lamp".
In verse 17 we read: "And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking FURNACE, and a burning LAMP that passed between those pieces. In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy SEED have I given this land." Again the NKJV, NIV, and NASB all change the word "seed" to "descendants, offspring, or children" Seed is the reading of the ASV, 1917, Geneva etc.
The word "furnace" speaks of judgment as in Genesis 19:28 where the smoke of Sodom and Gomorrah went up as the smoke of a furnace, and in the N. T. where the angels of God will sever the wicked and cast them into a furnace of fire - Matthew 13:42, 50. The "lamp" represents salvation and the light of the truth in the midst of darkness. In Isaiah 62:1 God speaks of not resting till the salvation of His people goes forth "as a lamp that burneth". Instead of the "furnace" and the "lamp" of the KJB, the NKJV and NASB have "oven" and "torch", while the NIV has "firepot" and "torch". Lots of little connections like these are often obscured or lost in the NKJV etc.
A typical example of how the NIV continually omits, adds and paraphrases the words of God is found in verse two. In the KJB we read: " And SARAI said unto Abram, BEHOLD NOW, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I PRAY THEE, go in unto my maid; it may be that I MAY OBTAIN CHILDREN by her. And Abram HEARKENED UNTO THE VOICE of Sarai."
Here the NIV omits SARAI, and says "she", omits "behold now", omits "I pray thee" and instead of "that I may obtain children", which is the reading of the NASB, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, the NIV says: "perhaps I CAN BUILD A FAMILY through her." A family consists of a husband, wife and children. Sarai already had a husband, so she needs only the children, not a family. Then the NIV paraphrases the literal "hearkened unto the voice of Sarai" to "agreed to what Sarai said."
In verse five we read: "I have given my maid into THY BOSOM." Bosom is the reading of the 1917 Jewish translation, the Geneva, ASV and others, but the NASB/NIV wrongly translated this word as ARMS, which is a different word (though they both have "bosom" in other places like Exodus 4;6,7 where Moses put his hand into his bosom and took it out and it was leprous. In Exodus 4 the NKJV, NASB correctly have "bosom" but again the NIV has "cloak" there, which is wrong again. Here in Genesis 16:5 the NKJV has "your embrace", though with the correct "bosom" in other places.
The NIV has also done the same thing in the New Testament like in John 1:18 "the only begotton Son, which is in the BOSOM of the Father, he hath declared him" where the NIV says: "who is AT THE Father's SIDE." There is a word for bosom and a different word for side but the NIV continually paraphrases and has little regard for the inspired words of God.
The same unnecessary paraphrasing and omitting are seen in verse nine. We read: "And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her HAND." Hand is the Hebrew, the NKJV, 1917, ASV, Geneva etc, but the "more accurate" NASB says: "under her AUTHORITY" while the NIV just omits the word altogether.
Genesis 16:12 KJB - "And he shall be A WILD MAN; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL his brethren."
In Genesis 16:12 we read of Ishmael, the father of the Arab nations, a verse that is highly significant of the history of the modern day Arab nations.
The warlike Arabs have indeed been wild men, a contentious and warlike people; they are heavily concentrated in the same area of the world (in the presence of their brethren), or when they immigrate to foreign lands they tend to live in separate communities, and for the most part they still are in conflict with each other as well as all others. There is a lot of infighting among the Muslims to this day.
"And he shall be A WILD MAN" The "literal" Hebrew texts says "he will be a wild ass a man". The word "wild" is usually translated as "a wild ass", but in Hebrew we have the additional word added "a man". Some versions like the NASB, NIV have "he will be A WILD DONKEY OF A MAN", and the RV, ASV say "he will be a WILD ASS OF A MAN".
Others are stranger still.
The Bible in Basic English 1961 says: "He will be LIKE A MOUNTAIN ASS among men."
Young's is a bit humorous with: "He will be A WILD-ASS MAN."
The Voice 2012 - “ Ishmael, your son, is going to be a wild and rowdy man.”
The Message 2002 has: "He'll be A BUCKING BRONCO OF A MAN."
The 2014 ISV (International Standard Version) is different from them all with: "He'll be A NOMADIC SHEPHERD as a man".
And not to be outdone for novelty, the Jehovah Witness NWT actually says: "he will be A ZEBRA of a man"
However he was not literally an "ass" or a "donkey", and so the King James Bible and many others simply say "He will be A WILD MAN".
"A WILD MAN"
Among those that read like the King James Bible - "a wild man" - are the Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Thomson Bible 1808, Webster's translation 1833, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, the Longman Version 1841, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Improved Bible 1913, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Bond Slave Version 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The Revised Douay-Rheims bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "And he shall be A WILD MAN.", The New Brenton Translation 2012, and The Modern English Version 2014.
The Modern Greek Bible - "και ουτος θελει εισθαι ανθρωπος αγριος·" = "He will be a WILD MAN." The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1909-1995 - "Y él sera HOMRE FIERO.", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996, the Portuguese La Sagrada Biblia and the Almeida Corregida - "E ele ser homem feroz" - "He will be A WILD MAN", and Luther’s German bible 1545 - “Er wird ein wilder Mensch sein” = “He will be A WILD MAN.”
"IN THE PRESENCE OF his brethren"
He shall dwell "IN THE PRESENCE OF" all his brethren is the reading of the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society), the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Longman Version 1841, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Sharpe Bible 1883, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, RSV, Douay 1950, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2012, The New Brenton Translation 2012, and The Modern English Version 2014.
The New Jewish Version 1985 says: "He will dwell ALONGSIDE OF all his brethren."
Darby 1890 and Young's 1898 say "he will dwell BEFORE THE FACE OF all his brethren."
The Jewish Family Bible 1864 says: "he will dwell IN THE FACE OF all his brethren."
BUT the NASB says: "And he will live TO THE EAST of all his brothers."
The NASB has translated this same word as "in the presence of" some 135 times. The word for east is an entirely different word.
The NIV has yet a different meaning and says: "and he will live IN HOSTILITY toward all his brothers."
The Holman Standard 2009 is similar with: "he will LIVE AT ODDS WITH with all his brothers."
Daniel Wallace's NET version says: "He will live AWAY FROM his brothers.”
He then posts the usual confusing footnotes, saying: " Heb “opposite, across from.” Ishmael would live on the edge of society (cf. NASB “to the east of”). Some take this as an idiom meaning “be at odds with” (cf. NRSV, NLT) or “live in hostility toward” (cf. NIV)."
It's interesting how Mr. Wallace confidently tells us the Hebrew word means "opposite, across from", as though this were the only meaning of the word. Yet he himself translates this same word as "presence" in the book of Genesis.
In Genesis 3:8 "Adam and his wife hid themselves FROM THE PRESENCE of the LORD God" but Wallace just omits the word saying: "and they hid FROM the Lord God". In Gen. 4:16 "And Cain went out from THE PRESENCE of the LORD", Wallace has "So Cain went out from THE PRESENCE of the Lord". In Genesis 27:30 "Jacob was scarce gone out from THE PRESENCE of Isaac his father", Wallace has "Jacob had scarcely left his father’s PRESENCE". In Genesis 41:46 "And Joseph went out from the PRESENCE of Pharoah", Wallace again paraphrases as: "Joseph WAS COMMISSIONED BY by Pharaoh". Then he footnotes: "Heb “went out from before.” This is the type of misleading scholarship that is behind these modern versions.
So, which is it, will he dwell "in the presence of", "away from", "to the east of" or "in hostility towards" his brethren?
See, if you go to seminary, become an expert in Biblical languages you too can be qualified to create confusion in the name of "the science of textual criticism".
In Genesis 16:13 we read in the KJB along with the ASV, 1917, 1936, niv, nkjv, Spanish and others: "And she (Hagar) called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, HAVE I ALSO HERE LOOKED AFTER HIM THAT SEETH ME?" In other words, she spoke directly with the angel of the LORD and looked upon God who also saw her in her need. But the NASB says instead: "Have I EVEN REMAINED ALIVE HERE AFTER SEEING HIM?". Did she "look after Him" or "remained alive here"? It is of interest that the liberal RSV reads the same as the NASB but in its footnote it says the Hebrew reads just like the KJB, then along comes the NRSV which reads as the NASB again but this time the footnote says: "meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain". Do you see how the "experts" tell us one thing and then later another? If you go to their schools of higher learning you will come out just as confused as they are.
In Genesis 17:5 the NASB blows it again as it did in 12:1, not comparing Scripture with Scritpture. In the KJB, as well as the NIV, ASV, NKJV, Geneva, Spanish, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Douay, Youngs and others we read when God speaks to Abram: "Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations HAVE I MADE THEE." Notice the tense of the verb here. "I have made thee" as though it were already an accomplished fact. Why is this? Because Romans 4: 17 "As it is written, I HAVE MADE thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."
It is so sure that God says it is already done. We are already seated in the heavenlies in Christ and glorified. That is what the words of God tell us. However, the NASB says: "I WILL MAKE YOU a father of many nations" in Genesis (future tense, as though not yet done) but in Romans it says what is written is "I have made you a father of many nations." Consistently inconsistent.
The NIV continues to add to and take away from the words of God in this chapter. In verse 7 the NIV adds and additional "and the God of" in verse 10 it adds "the covenant you are to keep" and then to balance out the equation somewhat it omits "the flesh of your foreskin" in verses 11, 14, 23, 24 and 25, all of which are in the Hebrew and in the NASB, NKJV etc.
In verse 18 instead of having Abraham say: "O that Ishmael might live BEFORE THEE!" as the NASB, NKJV etc. the NIV says: "If only Ishmael might live UNDER YOUR BLESSING" which is not found in any text at all.
Here again the NIV is up to its usual tricks. In verse 2 "And HE LIFT UP HIS EYES and looked, and, LO, three men stood by him." The NIV changed HE to Abraham, which is not in the text, then it omitted "lift up his eyes" which is in the text, and it omitted the little word "lo".
In verse 3 both the NKJKV and NIV omit one of the two "I pray thee" phrases.
In verse 5 Abraham says to the three men: "And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and COMFORT YE YOUR HEARTS". This is the reading of the ASV, 1917, Geneva, NKJV etc. but the "literal" NASB says "refresh YOURSELVES" and the NIV "be refreshed" both changing the word "hearts".
Again the NIV omits the word Abraham in verse 7 and says "he", and when the text says "he" in verse 10 the NIV adds the words "the LORD", which is not in the text.
In verse 10 God is speaking to Abraham: "And he said, I will certainly return unto thee ACCORDING TO THE TIME OF LIFE, and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son." This is the literal meaning of the words "time" # 6256 as in "and it came to pass at that time", "my times are in thy hand" etc. and "life" # 2416 as in Gen. 1:20 "the moving creature that hath life". According to the time of life is the reading of the NKJV, Geneva, Youngs and others but the NASB and NIV say: "this time NEXT YEAR" instead of "life" while the RSV says: "in the spring". They did the same thing in verse 14.
In verse 19 we read God saying about Abraham: "For I KNOW him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD..." This word "know" is the same one used in Adam knew his wife Gen. 4:1 (where also the NIV, NASB wrongly translated it), and Jeremiah 1:5 "before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee." I KNOW him is the reading of the ASV, 1917, Geneva, NKJV, Youngs etc. but both the NIV and NASB say: "I have CHOSEN him". Chosen is a different word and is used in Gen. 6:2 "they took them wives of all which they chose" and 13:11 "then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan."
This same word is used in Amos 3:3 where God says to Israel: "You only HAVE I KNOWN of all the families of the earth: therefore will I punish you for all your iniquities." "Have I known" again is the reading of the 1917, 1936, ASV, nkjv, Geneva, Youngs etc. but the NASB 1972 said "You only HAVE ME" while the NASB 1977 and the NIV say "You only have I CHOSEN", which again is wrong. The NASB keeps changing from one edition to the next and they still can't get it right.
No translation of the Scriptures from the Hebrew or the Greek is always a literal word for word rendering. Neither should nor could it be. Hebrew words lend themselves to a multitude of meanings. Many words, but by no means all, are imprecise, general in scope, and capable of divers meanings. The same Hebrew word can be either "to curse" or "to bless". In English likewise we have "to cleave" which can mean either to divide asunder or to cling to.
A very important point to consider is that Hebrew is an elliptical language. That is it frequently omits the subject or the verb or the direct object of a sentence and they are supplied by inference. English, Spanish and most languages require a clear subject, verb, direct and indirect objects for a sentence to be complete. This is not always the case with Hebrew or Greek.
God is fully capable of translating His inspired words from one language into another. He is the Creator of languages. Usually the more literal translation is the correct one. If the literal rendering makes sense and can accurately be transferred into another language, then it should be used. This is why the KJB, ASV, Geneva, Tyndale, and other older translations read the way they do - they are far more literal than the modern counterparts.
Far too often today, the modern bible versions depart from the more literal translation approach of former years. I believe modern translations are tinged with unbelief and pride, and as a result, God has blinded their minds to the true meaning of hundreds of verses. It is so ridiculous to hear of some who promote the NASB as being more literal than the KJB. Such is not the case at all. The modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, RSV and especially the NIV are increasingly departing from the Hebrew and Greek texts and often miss entirely the true meaning of a passage. We will see more examples of this as we continue this study.
In Genesis 19:1 we read: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and LOT seeing them rose up to meet them."
The word LOT is in the Hebrew twice in this verse and is so translated by the NKJV and NASB, but the NIV has changed the text to HE instead of Lot. As far as I know, all Bible translations, including the KJB, occasionally will supply the name of a person if a context is unclear. But when we get to the NASB, NKJV and especially the NIV these instances of inserting personal names when not there and omitting them when they are there have reached the point of wild editorial recklessness and an unhealthy disregard for the words of the living God.
In the New Testament alone the NIV has added the word Jesus 336 times when it is not in any text nor necessary to the context. This is documented in the NIV concordance for all to see.
In this chapter alone the NIV has changed Lot to he in verse 1, LORD to he in verse 13, HIS to LOT'S in verse 26, GOD to he in verse 29. The NIV has omitted " behold now" in verse 2, "at the door" in v.6; "I pray you" and "good in your eyes" in v. 8; "from behind him" in verse 26 and "And it came to pass" in verse 29. The NIV concordance itself tells us they have not translated literally thousands and thousands of words that are in the Hebrew and Greek texts they used to make the NIV translation and they have added thousands more that are not found in any text at all. In fact the NIV contains almost 64,000 fewer words in it than are found in the King James Bible. This total number of words missing is like taking from the middle of the book of Acts to the end of Revelation and deleting that many words from the Bible. Yet this is the most popular perversion now accepted by much of modern Christendom.
How Many Daughters Did Lot Have - 2 or 4?
NIV, ESV, NASB, NET, Jehovah Witness, Catholic version Blunder
Comparing Genesis 19:8, 14 and 15.
How many daughters did Lot have?
Good Bible trivia question.
According to the KJB, NKJV, Jewish Publication Society Bible of 1917, The Hebrew Publishing Company bible 1936, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Darby 1890, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Greek Septuagint, The Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, Bible in Basic English 1961,The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, The Asser Septuagint 2009, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Far Above All Translation 2014, the ISV (International Standard Version) 2014, Modern English Version 2014, Lot had at least 4 daughters, two of which were married and two that lived at home with him that were not married.
BUT according to the NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, the Jehovah Witness NWT, the Catholic versions Lot only had 2 daughters total and not 4.
In Genesis 19:8 we read of the two daughters of Lot who lived with him at home and were still virgins. Lot tells the wicked men of Sodom - "Behold now, I have two daughters WHICH HAVE NOT KNOWN MAN, let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."
But in Genesis 19:14 we read of THE OTHER TWO daughters that Lot had who lived elsewhere and were married. "And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which MARRIED his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law." There are at least 2 married daughters here.
Then we read of the other two daughters in the next verse. "And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, WHICH ARE HERE; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city." Two unmarried daughters still in Lot's house.
But instead of the sons in law which MARRIED his daughters, the NASB, NET, Holman and ESV say: "sons in law who WERE TO MARRY his daughters" and the NIV has: "sons in law WHO WERE PLEDGED TO MARRY his daughters."
The Jehovah Witness New World Translation says: "Lot went out and began to speak to his sons-in-law WHO WERE TO TAKE HIS DAUGHTERS"
The Roman Catholic Douay verse has: "spoke to his sons in law THAT WERE TO HAVE his daughters"
while the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 says: "Lot went off and spoke to HIS FUTURE SONS-IN-LAW WHO WERE TO MARRY his daughters"
How can they be called sons in law if they are not yet married? Wouldn't they be called fiances or men who had asked to marry his daughters instead of sons in law?
So according to the NASB, ESV, NIV, Jehovah Witness NWT and the Catholic versions Lot had only two daughters and according the KJB and many others there were at least 4 daughters of Lot. Two of them died along with their husbands in Sodom while the other two who lived at home and were still virgins escaped to the mountain with their father Lot.
Bible Commentators -
As usual, they are all over the board, but many see Lot as having had FOUR daughters, two that lived at home with him that were virgins, and two who lived elsewhere that were married.
Elliott’s Commentary for English Readers - “The traditional view is that given in our Version, and is confirmed by Genesis 19:15, where the words—“thy two daughters which are here,” Heb., which are found—certainly suggest the idea that Lot had other daughters, besides the two which escaped with him.“
Aben Ezra and Jarchi (two Jewish commentators) - “and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters: according to Aben Ezra, he had two other daughters that perished in Sodom, which he gathers from Genesis 19:15 "which are here," as if he had some elsewhere; and so Jarchi says, he had two daughters married in the city.”
Genesis 20:16 KJB - "And unto Sarah he said, BEHOLD, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: BEHOLD, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."
Chapter 20 presents us with another clear example of paraphrasing which misses the whole meaning of the passage and results in conflicting versions of nonsense.
Abraham had been told by God that He would give him a son by his wife Sarah. Yet again we see the faltering steps of faith in our spiritual father as he and Sarah sojourned in the land of Gerar. Upon entering the region of king Abimelech, Abraham thought "Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake." So, he told Sarah to say that he was her brother. The result of this was that Abimelech took Sarah into his house, thus putting her into a very precarious position. Then God came to Abimelech by night in a dream and told him that Sarah was Abraham's wife and that he was "but a dead man".
Abimelech arose early in the morning and called Abraham and asked him why he had done this. Then the king gave Abraham sheep, oxen, men and womenservants and restored him Sarah his wife and told him to dwell where he pleased.
Then in Genesis 20:16 we read: "And unto Sarah he said, BEHOLD, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: BEHOLD, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."
"Covering of the eyes" is the literal reading of the Hebrew and is also found in the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Douay, Geneva and Spanish bibles. Even the NKJV shows in its footnote that the literal Hebrew is "covering of the eyes".
I believe God has blinded the modern version editors and they are not able to see the obvious meaning of this passage and that is why they have paraphrased it to mean what they think it is saying rather than what it actually says.
Abimelech is saying to Sarah that the truth is now known by all that her "brother" is in fact her husband and that Abraham will serve as a covering of other men's eyes so that they will not look upon Sarah as a potential wife. Thus she was reproved for her part in the deception that almost cost Abimelech his life.
However the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV all miss this point and even contradict each other.
Instead of the KJB's "Behold, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."
the NKJV says: " INDEED, THIS VINDICATES YOU before all who are with you and before all others. Thus she was REPROVED."
The NASB has: " Behold, IT IS YOUR VINDICATION before all who are with you and before all men YOU ARE CLEARED."
The ESV has: "IT IS A SIGN OF YOUR INNOCENCE in the eyes of all who are with you, and before everyone YOU ARE VINDICATED."
while the NIV reads: " THIS IS TO COVER THE OFFENSE AGAINST YOU before all who are with you; you are COMPLETELY VINDICATED."
So which is it- was she reproved as the KJB, NKJV and others say or was she cleared and vindicated as the NIV/NASB/ESV have it?
And what on earth does "this vindicates you" mean? The NIV omits the word "behold" three times in verses 15, 16, adds "offence" though it did get "cover" more or less right but yet the meaning is totally different than either the NKJV, NASB (ESV) or the KJB.
"Behold, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."
Bibles that agree with the Hebrew text and the King James Bible "Behold, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED." are Tyndale 1534 - "beholde he shall be a couerynge to thyne eyes vnto all that ar with the and vnto all men", Coverdale 1535 - "he shall be to thee a covering of the eyes", The Great Bible 1540 - "a couerynge of thyne eyes vnto all that are with the & thus with all was she reproued.”, Matthew's Bible 1549 - " a couering to thyne eyes & vnto al that are wyth thee", the Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's Bible 1833, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the Revised Version 1885 - "for thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee", Darby 1890, Young's 1898 - "to thee a covering of eyes, to all who are with thee", Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 - "a covering of the eyes", The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1909 - "Behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other. Thus she was reproved.", the JPS 1917 - "for thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee", The Word of Yah 1993, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "to you a covering of the eyes before all who are with you and before all others", Green's Literal 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “he is to you a covering of the eyes, to all that are]with you, and with all other: thus she was reproved.", the Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The English Jubilee Bible 2010, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - "for a covering of the eyes to all who are with you", The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012- “is for you a covering of the eyes to all who are with you. And with all this you are reproved.”, The Biblos Bible 2013 - "he is to you a covering of the eyes, to all that are with you and with all other"
And this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "and he shall be to thee a covering of the eyes, and to all that are with thee, and with all, thus she was reproved."
Geneva Bible notes 1599
Genesis 20:16 And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved. God caused this heathen king to reprove her because she concealed her identity, seeing that God had given her a husband as her veil and defence.
John Calvin is right on, saying: - “HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES. Moses, in this place, rather points to the husband; and this best suits the sense. For Sarah is taught that the husband to whom she is joined was as a veil, with which she ought to be covered lest she should be exposed to others…it applies more aptly to married women; because they are veiled, as by the very ordinance of marriage. I therefore thus explain the words, ‘Thou, if thou hadst no husband, wouldst be exposed to many dangers; but now, since God has appointed for thee a guardian of thy modesty, it behoves thee to conceal thyself under that veil. Why then hast thou of thine own accords thrown off this covering?’ This was a just censure; because Sarah, pretending that she was in the power of her husband, had deprived herself of the divine protection. THUS SHE WAS REPROVED. Interpreters distort this clause also. The natural exposition seems to me to be, that the Lord had suffered Sarah to be reproved by a heathen king, that he might the more deeply affect her with a sense of shame. For Moses draws especial attention to the person of the speaker; because it seemed a disgrace that the mother of the faithful should be reprehended by such a master. ”
Matthew Poole’s Annotations on the Bible - “He is to thee a covering of the eyes, i.e. a protection to thee from the wanton eyes and attempts of others, whilst they know thee to be the wife of another man, and he such a one whom they reverence and fear; and therefore thou didst take a very wrong course to disown him, whereby thou didst expose thyself to great danger.”
Matthew Henry and John Wesley both say the same thing -"He gives to Sarah good instruction, tells her that her husband (her brother he calls him, to upbraid her with calling him so) MUST BE TO HER FOR A COVERING OF THE EYES, THAT IS, THAT SHE MUST LOOK AT NO OTHER, NOR DESIRE TO BE LOOKED AT BY ANY OTHER. Note, Yoke-fellows must be to each other for a covering of the eyes. The marriage-covenant is a covenant with the eyes, like Job’s, ch. 31:1."
John Gill comments: "behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee; a protection of her person and chastity: so an husband, in our language, is said to be a cover to his wife, and she under a cover: thus Abraham being now known to be the husband of Sarah, would for the future be a covering to her, that no one should look upon her, and desire her, and take her to be his wife."
Now if you wish to defend the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV as being "reliable versions", go right ahead, but I and thousands of other Bible believers will have no part of it.
The King James Bible is right, as always. Get used to it.
A great prophecy concerning the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ has been destroyed in the modern versions. Abraham had been told by God: "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." This entire historical event forshadowed the Father offering up His Son as the lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.
Even the type of the resurrection after three days is found here. Abraham decided in his heart that he would obey God and kill his own son. It was as good as done in Abraham's mind the night before. Then he arose early in the morning of the next day, took his son, clave the wood for the burnt offering and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then we are told in verse 4 "Then ON THE THIRD DAY Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. It was on this third day that the angel of the LORD again called unto Abraham and said "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." So even the type of the resurrection after three days is fulfilled in this passage in Genesis 22. Hebrews 11:19 tells us of Abraham's "accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure."
The verse that has been changed in the NKJV, NASB and NIV and alters the full significance of the spiritual type being portrayed, is Gen. 22:8. In the King James Bible we read in verses 7 and 8: "And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God WILL PROVIDE HIMSELF A LAMB for a burnt offering." God will provide HIMSELF a lamb. This is the prophetic type as we are told in verse 14 "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen." What took place in type here with Abraham and his son would be seen at a future time. That time was when the Lord Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, died on Calvary for the sins of His people.
The reading of "God will provide HIMSELF a lamb" is the reading of the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations. They are not even Christians and yet they have it just as it is in the KJB. It is also the reading of the ASV (the predecessor to the nasb), Darby, the Catholic Douay version, the RSV (though later changed in the nrsv), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st century, the Third Millenium Bible, and the modern Hebrew Names Version.
The KJB reading of God will provide himself a lamb teaches that the lamb who in the future would be sacrificed was God himself, not somebody else. Jesus Christ is God, the second person of the trinity, the creator, God manifest in the flesh. However the NKJV and NASB say: "God will provide FOR Himself a lamb" while the NIV has "God himself will provide the lamb." Do you see the change here? No longer can you use the modern versions to prove that Christ is God by referring to Genesis 22:8. The prophesy was not fulfilled here in Genesis 22. Abraham lift up his eyes and saw behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns, and he offered up the ram in the stead of his son. But a ram is not a lamb. The true lamb, who is also God Himself, is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Notice another great verse which shows that Jesus Christ is God who was sacrificed for his people. In Acts 20:28 the apostle Paul is speaking to the elders of Ephesus and tells them to "feed the church of God which he hath purchased with HIS OWN blood." Imagine that - the blood of God! But even here some of the modern versions try to change this verse as well. The ASV of 1901 as well as the liberal RSV read: "feed the church of the Lord (not God) which he purchased with his own blood" while the nrsv and Jehovah witness bible say: "church of God which he purchased with the blood of his own Son." Do you see how these versions make a distinction between God and his Son or God and the Lord, thus denying that Christ is God and the church was purchased with God's blood?
The Lord Jesus Christ is GOD manifest in the flesh -I Timothy 3:16, but this verse also has been altered in the NASB and NIV (as well as the RSV, NRSV, ESV) to read "He was manifest in the flesh". Everybody has been manifest in the flesh, even you and I. So what? But it makes a huge difference to read that GOD was manifest in the flesh and that God will provide HIMSELF a lamb for a burnt offering.
Genesis 23, 24
Basically I want to point out a significant change in meaning in chapter 24, but I will first briefly mention many words and whole phrases that have been omitted in the NIV, NKJV and NASB.
The NIV omits "these were the years of the life of Sarah" following the LXX in 23:1, though all these words are in the Hebrew text and found in the NASB, NKJV etc. In verse 2 the NIV again changes Sarah to "she", in v. 3 the NIV alone changes "the sons of Heth" to "the Hittites" which is a different word which is found in verse 10.
In verse 4 the NIV omits "out of my sight" and again in verse 8, though found in the NKJV, NASB etc. The NIV concordance shows they have chosen not to translate this word "sight, or eyes" some 36 times.
In verse 5 the NIV omits "saying unto him" and again in verse 14. The NIV concordance shows they have omitted this word "to say" a whopping 878 times when it appears in the Hebrew text. The NASB update of 1995 also omits this expression scores of times both in the Hebrew and in the Greek. In fact the NASB 1995 contains almost 8,000 fewer words in it than the NASB of 1977.
This frequently is a case of not translating Greek and Hebrew words which they previously had translated. The NASB of 1972 also omitted 14 entire verses from the New Testament but then in 1977 they put them back into the text, though in brackets. The 1977 NASB version still omitted whole phrases and verses that were later put back in the 1995 update version. This is the factual confusion of the modern perversions.
All this information can be found in a book by Laurence M. Vance, with each example shown in black and white, titled "Double Jeopardy- The New American Standard Bible Update".
In verse 10 the NIV omits Ephron once. In Genesis 24 the NIV twice changes Abraham to "him" or "he". It also omits the phrase "I pray thee" (3 of every 4 times this word occurs in Hebrew) and again in verse 2 and 12.
Both the NKJV and NIV unite in omitting the word "camels" once in v. 10.
Both the NASB and NIV omit the words "to look upon" in verse 16 "the damsel was very fair TO LOOK UPON." One of the reasons the KJB reads the "old fashioned way" it does is because God Himself wrote His words in this manner. The KJB is simply translating into English the words of God the way He inspired them. The modern versions are editing many of God's words as though they were unnecessary. Whether God approves of their editorializing His words will be revealed in the coming Day of judgment.
The NIV changes Laban to "he" in 24:29, omits "behold" while the NKJV wrongly translates it as "there", though the NASB, 1917, ASV etc. have "behold".
The NKJV, NASB and NIV all omit the little word BOTH in v. 44 "And she said to me, BOTH (#1571) drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels." This word "both" is in the ASV, 1917, Youngs. Darby's, Douay etc.
The NIV changes the literal "turn to THE RIGHT HAND OR TO THE LEFT" to "turn ONE WAY OR ANOTHER" and the NIV again changes the literal "we cannot speak unto thee BAD OR GOOD" to "we can say nothing to you". In verse 51 the NIV omits "behold" and "before thee" and in 52 omits "And it came to pass". The NASB update of 1995 also frequently omits this phrase in both the Hebrew and the Greek, though it was present in the 1977 edition.
In verse 55 we read Rebecca's brother and mother saying to the servant: "Let the damsel abide with us a few days, at the least ten; after that SHE shall go". SHE is the reading of the NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV but the NIV says YOU may go, instead of SHE.
In verse 57 the literal "We will call the damsel, and enquire AT HER MOUTH" is the reading of the ASV, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, Young's, Darby etc. but the NKJV has "ask her personally", the NIV "ask her about it" and the NASB "consult her wishes" all of which are paraphrases.
The NIV again omits "lifted up his eyes" and "behold" in verse 63 and "her eyes" in verse 64.
Now, we finally get to the main thing I want to address. In Genesis 24: 22,30 and 47 we read that the servant gave an EARRING to Rebecca and put the earring upon her face. In verse 47 we read of the servant of Abraham saying: "and I put THE EARRING UPON HER FACE, and the bracelets upon her hands."
Genesis 24:47 “earring upon her face” or “a nose ring on her nose”?
In the King James Holy Bible we read of the servant of Abraham traveling to a foreign land to find a virgin bride for Abraham’s son Isaac. The servant finds a young woman named Rebecca and he gives her “a golden EARRING and two bracelets for her hands” (24:20) Her brother Laban sees “the EARRING and bracelets upon his sister’s hands” (24:30) and the servant later testifies how the Lord God of his master Abraham had guided him and how he had “put the EARRING UPON HER FACE, and the bracelets upon her hands.” (Genesis 24:47)
"EARRING" is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534 - "And I put the earynge vpon hir face and the bracelettes apon hir hondes.", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "the man toke a golden earynge", Matthew's Bible 1549 - "he toke a golden earing", Bishops' Bible 1568 - "and I put the earring vpon her face", Webster's translation 1833, Brenton's Translation 1851, the Lesser Bible 1853, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 - "and I put on her the earrings" and the 2008 Torah Transliteration Scripture.
However versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, RSV, ESV and NET translations tell us that the unnamed servant of Abraham didn’t give Rebeccah an EARRING but rather A NOSE RING to put in her nose.
Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The previous Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both correct read "EARRING", but the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 says: "Then I put this RING THROUGH HER NOSE". But then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has now come out and it has gone back to the reading of "EARRINGS". -"And so, I hung the EARRINGS on her, to adorn her face, and I put the bracelets on her hands."
The Amplified bible 1987 can't seem to make up its mind, so it gives us BOTH readings, saying: "And I put the EARRING OR NOSE RING on her face and the bracelets on her arms." (Hey, it was one or the other; I just can't remember right now ;-)
NKJV 1982 - “the man took a golden NOSE RING”...”So I put THE NOSE RING ON HER NOSE” - Genesis 24:22,47.
The Hebrew word for “face” (#639 aph) has many meanings and is variously translated by all versions as “face, anger, nostrils, nose, wrath and forehead.” The NKJV has translated this same word as “face” some 20 times, and the NIV, NASB as “face” 19 times.
The Hebrew word translated as “earring” is # 5141 neh-zem, and is used only 17 times and the KJB correctly translates it as “earring” 14 of the 17 times, and as “jewel” three times. It is never translated as “nose ring” in the KJB. The NKJV, NIV, NASB and ESV have translated it as both “earring” and “nose ring”, with the NKJV having “earring” 10 times, the NASB 7 times and the NIV as “earring” 6 times.
You have to admit, there is a difference when your wife or girlfriend wears earrings and when she might chose to wear a nose ring. So, does God’s infallible Book tell us that Rebecca wore an EARRING of gold on her face (***the ear is a part of the face) or “a NOSE RING IN HER NOSE”? If you do not believe in an infallible Bible, then you will never know.
Maybe it was as a couple of other weird versions put it. The English Jubilee bible 2000 says: "Then I put THE PENDANT OVER HER NOSE." or perhaps as the Ancient Roots Translinear Version of 2008 has it saying: “I set THE HOOP OVER HER NOSE, and the bracelets over her hands.” Now, that must have been a sight to see, huh?
***The ears are part of the human face.
American Heritage Dictionary - the face - The surface of the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the base of the chin and from ear to ear.
Webster’s New World English Dictionary, 4th Edition. the Face - the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin, and from ear to ear; visage; countenance.
The Wordsmyth English Dictionary - the face -the part of the head that extends from the forehead to the chin and from ear to ear.
The UltraLingua English Dictionary - the face - The front of the head from the forehead to the chin and ear to ear
Because we Bible believers do believe that God has in fact given us an infallible Bible in the Authorized King James Holy Bible, we maintain that it was an earring and not a nose ring that Rebecca, the young bride to be, wore on that day.
Other Bible translations that agree with the KJB that it was an earring.
Wycliffe 1395 - “hangide eere ryngis to ourne (to adorn) hir face”
Tyndale 1534 (he translated part of the O.T. before being put to death) - “And I put the earynge vpon hir face”
Coverdale 1535 - “Then layed I the earinge vpon hir face”
The Great Bible (Cranmer) of 1540, and Matthew’s Bible (John Rogers) of 1549 - “And I put the earing vpon hyr face, and the bracelettes vpon hyr handes.”
Bishops’ Bible 1568 - “and I put the earring vpon her face, and the bracelettes vpon her handes.”
Webster’s 1833 translation, and the 1851 Brenton Translation - “and I put the ear-ring upon her face”
The Douay-Rheims - “So I put earrings on her to adorn her face”
Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “and I put the EARRINGS ON HER EARS and the bracelets on her hands.”
The so called Greek Septuagint has - “So I put on her the EARRINGS” (τὰ ἐνώτια) Verses 22, 30, 47.
And the Modern Greek translation reads the same having “I put the earrings on her face” - και περιεθεσα τα ενωτια εις το προσωπον αυτης
The 21st Century KJV 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version all read like the KJB.
The 2008 Torah Transliteration Scripture - “and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands.”
The 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - “And so, I hung the earrings on her, to adorn her face, and I put the bracelets on her hands.”
This chapter again presents us with many examples of omissions, paraphrases and changed meanings in the modern versions.
In 25:6 we read: "But unto the sons of the concubines, which ABRAHAM had, ABRAHAM give gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, EASTWARD, unto the east country." Abraham occurs twice in this verse, but the NIV has changed one of them to HE and omitted the other. The NASB omits one of the two. The NIV likewise omits the word "eastward" though it is still in the NASB and NKJV.
In verse 7 the KJB, ASV and Jewish 1917 translations give the literal reading of: "And these are THE DAYS OF THE YEARS of Abraham's LIFE which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years." The literal phrase "days of the years" has been altered in the NKJV to "This is THE SUM of the years"; the NASB to: "these are ALL the years" and the NIV to: "ALTOGETHER (thus omitting the verb and the days of the years) Abraham lived 175 years" and it omits the word "life".
People often reply, Well the meaning is the same. Well, frequently it is not the same, but what I am pointing out is God used specific words to reveal Himself to us and what we see in the modern versions is a progressively blatant departure from these words. They edit out literally thousands of God given words and paraphrase them into their own words.
Most of the new versions are based on significantly different Greek texts in the New Testament than what the KJB uses. The NASB, ,NIV, RSV, NRSV and ESV frequently depart from the Hebrew text in the Old Testament and follow the Greek, Syriac, Vulgate and other sources. This is clearly wrong, yet many still defend these perversions.
I am not arguing for a 100% wooden, word for word translation in all cases. This is impossible and the meaning would be lost in some instances. But I am trying to show that the KJB is by far the best translation we have in the English language of what God actually inspired. We would do well to heed what the apostle said in I Corinthians 2:12, 13 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things we speak, NOT IN THE WORDS WHICH MAN'S WISDOM TEACHETH, BUT WHICH THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
In verse 18 we have very different meanings given to us regarding the death of Ishmael. In verse 17 we are told "And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, an hundred and thirty and seven years; and he gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people. And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria; AND HE DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF all his brethren." This is the reading and meaning of the 1936 Jewish translation, the nkjv, the Douay, Spanish, KJV 21, Webster's Bible, the Third Millenium Bible and Young's.
However there are a multitude of different versions, all with different meanings. The NIV says: "THEY LIVED IN HOSTILITY toward all their brothers", the NASB "HE SETTLED IN DEFIANCE of all his relatives" (notice one is They and the other is He); the New English Bibles says: "They took their place TO THE EAST of all their brothers", the New Living Translation has: "they camped close to one another" while Today's English Version says: "they lived apart from the other descendants of Abraham." It is getting to the point where Hey, if you don't like what it says, find another one you do like. No wonder people scoff at the idea of an inspired Bible. Is God really that confused?
Verse 21 tells us that "Isaac INTREATED the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD WAS INTREATED OF HIM, and Rebekah his wife conceived." Both intreat and was intreated of him are the same Hebrew word. The word means to intreat or to pray, and the second use of this verb, "was intreated of him", is a passive verb in the Hebrew and in the KJB. The versions that match the KJB are the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, the ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby's and others. However the NKJV changes this to an active and adds words saying the Lord "granted his plea", the NIV has "answered his prayer" and the NASB "answered him". The KJB is much more accurate.
Genesis 25:27 - "and Jacob was A PLAIN MAN, dwelling in tents."
A fellow King James Bible believer writes: “In a forum I am a member of that concern about different readings in the Bible a guy claimed that the KJV ignored the Hebrew in this verse, but instead followed the LXX. He says that the word "plain" is not in the Hebrew, but rather in the Greek. How do you see this? God bless you”
Another brother wrote me saying: "One of the elders of my church claims the KJV mistranslates Gen 25:27 by referring to Jacob as "plain." He claims the word should be translated “RIGHTEOUS”
I think the point he was trying to make is that Jacob was not a casper milktoast as the Bibles seem to depict him. I am researching this one, but wondered if you have any thoughts here as well. Best regards, Ron."
Hi Guys. Thanks for writing. This is the typical approach taken by the Bible agnostics, Bible correctors and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible. Each one sets up his own mind and personal preferences as his "final authority", subject to change at any moment.
Each one thinks he is smarter and more qualified than the 54 men God used to give us His masterpiece in the King James Bible.
So, they rummage through the lexicons and various readings to give us what they personally think are better ways to translate the Bible. But do any of them actually believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God? Of course not.
In any event, let's take a closer look at what others have done with this single Hebrew word and how others have translated it.
The word in question is # 8535 tahm. It is an adjective and it found 13 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is usually translated as “perfect”, as in Job 1:1 where Job is described as “that man was PERFECT and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.” It is also used in Psalm 37:37 “Mark the PERFECT man”
It can be translated as “UPRIGHT” - “The bloodthirsty hate the UPRIGHT” Proverbs 29:10 and “UNDEFILED” as in the Song of Solomon who describes his love as “my love, my dove, my UNDEFILED.”
The Bible critic is right in that the Greek Septuagint says Jacob was A SIMPLE MAN. But so does Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta. And so do many other English translations as well.
There is a wide variety of ways different Bibles translate this word here in the context of Genesis 25:27, and many of them agree with the sense found in the King James Bible.
Genesis 25:27 - "and Jacob was A PLAIN MAN, dwelling in tents."
As anybody who knows a minimal amount about languages, a single word can have multiple meanings depending on the changing contexts. Even the NASB concordance shows us that they have translated this single word as "blameless, complete, guiltless, integrity, peaceful, and perfect."
The NIV has "blameless, fitted, flawless, innocent, integrity, perfect, quiet, strong, and now "content". You will notice that neither of them has "righteous" as your Bible correcting elder humbly opines.
In Genesis 25:27 we are told that Jacob "was a PLAIN man, dwelling in tents."
“A PLAIN man”, that is ordinary, simple and common, is the reading of the Geneva Bible 1587 - " but Iaakob was a plaine man, and dwelt in tentes.", the Douay-Rheims 1582, Webster’s Bible 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864 - “Jacob was A PLAIN MAN”, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the English Revised Version 1885 - “Jacob was A PLAIN MAN”, Young’s 1898, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Modern Reader’s Bible 1907, The Improved Bible 1913, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, The Douay Version 1950, the Amplified Bible 1987 - "a PLAIN and quiet man”, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “and Ya'akov (יעקב) was A PLAIN MAN, dwelling in tents.”, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - “Jacob was A PLAIN MAN”, the BRG Bible 2012,
The Thomson Bible 1808 - “but Jacob was a man OF PLAIN MANNERS”
Darby's 1890 tells us he was "HOMELY"!!
Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Brenton Translation 1851, the Revised Version 1881 and the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible, God’s First Truth 1999, the Interlinear Hebrew- Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) have "Jacob was A SIMPLE MAN
But the Great Bible 1540, the ASV 1901, the 1917 JPS, the NIV 1978 and 1984 editions, the ESV 2001, New Jerusalem 1985, and the Holman Standard 2003 tell us "Jacob was A QUIET MAN, staying among the tents."
However the NIV 2011 revision now tells us "Jacob WAS CONTENT to stay at home among the tents."
The International Standard Version 2014 says: “but Jacob WAS THE QUIET TYPE WHO TENDED TO STAY INDOORS.”
The New Life Version 1969 - “Jacob was A MAN OF PEACE”
The Modern English Bible 2014 - “Jacob was A CALM MAN”
The NASB says he was a PEACEFUL man
the NKJV 1982 and The New Jewish Version 1985 have "he was a MILD man"
Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 has "a READY MAN"
New English Bible 1970 has "Jacob LED A SETTLED LIFE"
The Natural Israelite Bible says "Jacob was A MILD MAN"
the Jubilee Bible 2010 says "Jacob was AN UPRIGHT MAN"
the Judaica Press Tanach 2004 says "Jacob was AN INNOCENT MAN"
Dan Wallace's NET version says: "Jacob was AN EVEN-TEMPERED MAN"
The Koster Scriptures 1998 - Jacob was A COMPLETE MAN”
The New European Version 2010 - Jacob was A PERFECT MAN”
The Voice 2011 tells us "Jacob grew up to be A CONTEMPLATIVE MAN"
AND THE WINNER IS -
The Conservative Bible 2011 actually says: “Jacob became a MAN OF FLAWLESS SKIN, living in tents.”!!!
Or, in the case of your self appointed "every man thinks he's an expert" Bible Correctors Guild, they can just write their own bible version and be done with it.
As for me, I think I’ll stick to the tried and true King James Bible - “Jacob was a plain man”, and most of God’s people are too.
In Genesis 25:29 we are told that Jacob "sod POTTAGE". POTTAGE is not an archaic word. It means a soup of vegetables with or without meat. We are told that Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils. This was a vegetable soup of lentils without meat. Esau hunted for meat, but Jacob did not and Jacob was making this meal. Pottage is the reading of the 1917, 1936, Geneva, ASV, Youngs and even the RSV plus others.
But the NKJV, NIV and NASB all unite in saying STEW instead of pottage. So what is the difference" Well, stew does contain meat, while pottage of lentils does not. Just a little difference in meaning, but it shows the accuracy of God's word in the KJB.
Finally in this chapter in verses 31 and 33 Jacob says to his brother "Sell me THIS DAY thy birthright" and "Swear to me THIS DAY". Again this is the literal meaning of the words and is the reading of the NKJV, Young's and others, but the NASB and NIV have wrongly rendered "this day" as FIRST instead of "this day." The ASV also has "first" but then in a footnote tells us that the Hebrew reads "to day".
Genesis 26, 27
Again these chapters present us with many omissions and additions, particularly in the NIV, and a few examples of very different meanings. In verse 5 the literal: "Because that Abraham obeyed MY VOICE" is found in the ASV, the NKJV, 1917, Geneva, Young's but the NASB/NIV have changed "my voice" to ME. VOICE is the word in 3:8 where they heard the voice of the LORD God in the garden. God knows how to say voice and He knows how to say me, and He chose "my voice" here and not me.
In 7 both the NASB and NIV omit "she was fair TO LOOK UPON" which is in the ASV, 1917, NKJV etc.
The meaning is changed in verse 8 where we are told that Abimelech looked out at a window and say Isaac SPORTING with Rebekah his wife. Sporting is the reading of the ASV, 1917, Geneva and Young's has "playing". This word means to sport, play, mock or to laugh. Isaac was playing with his wife in such a way that Abimelech knew she was his wife. However the NKJV says Isaack was SHOWING ENDEARMENT TO her. The NASB/NIV have CARRESSING her. The meaning is not the same and the word does not mean this.
In 14 the word POSSESSION occurs twice as found in the ASV, Young's, 1917, NKJV etc. but the NASB omits one of the two and the NIV omits one and changes the other to MUCH. Many of these omissions and changes could be considered minor, and no translation is strictly literal in all cases, but I am showing that the KJB is far more literal and true to the Hebrew texts than any other version that is out there.
In 18 the word "names" is found twice in the Hebrew, and 1917, ASV, Young's, Darby and others in "and he called THEIR NAMES after the NAMES by which his father had called them." However the NKJV, NIV and NASB unite in omitting one of these two words.
In 26 Abimilech came to Isaac with one of his FRIENDS Ahuzzath. This word is found only 8 times and is rendered as friend or companion. Friend is the reading of the NKJV, ASV, Young, Geneva, 1917 etc. but in the NASB he becomes AN ADVISOR, and in the NIV a personal advisor, even though in all other instances the NASB and NIV have rendered this word as a friend or companion.
In 27 the FROM YOU has been omitted by the NIV alone in the phrase "and have sent me away FROM YOU." The NIV likewise changed HE to Isaac in 30.
The NASB omitted ONE TO ANOTHER in 31 where they sware one to another. "One to another" is found in the ASV, 1917, NKJV, Youngs and even in the NIV. The NASB says "they exchanged vows".
In chapter 27 the NIV does its usual thing of omitting the verb "and it came to pass" in verses 1 and 30, as it also did in 26:32. In verses 2, 3, and 4 the NIV changes HE to ISAAC, omits BEHOLD NOW, and I PRAY THEE, and instead of "that MY SOUL may bless thee", as in the NKJV, NASB, the NIV has "that I may give you my blessing." My soul changed to simply "I".
It is of interest that the KJB Old Testament contains the word SOUL 478 times, while that number has been diminished to 255 times in the NASB and the NIV has the word soul only 110 times, yet they are all translating (or not) the same Hebrew word. Other examples of this are in verses 19, 25 and 31 where the word soul has been changed to "I" or "you" in the NASB/NIV.
The NIV omits the word THEM in v. 9 "I will make THEM savory meat" referring back to the two good kids of the goats. THEM is in the Hebrew, the NASB and NKJV. The NIV changed HIS MOTHER to SHE in 14 and both the NASB and NIV omit the literal INTO THE HAND OF her son Jacob, though it is found in the ASV and NKJV.
In v. 30 the NIV omits the verb "and it came to pass", changed Jacob to HIM and omits ISAAC, though found in the NASB, NKJV. In 31 the NIV alone changed HIS FATHER to simply HIM.
In 36 both the NKJV and NIV changed HE to ESAU, though the Hebrew reads "he" and so too the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ASV etc.
The NIV omits the literal LIFTED UP HIS VOICE and wept of verse 38, though in the NASB, NKJV.
Genesis 27:39-40. A couple of very significant changes in meaning are found in these two verses. Isaac gave Esau another blessing after Jacob had stolen the original blessing. Though Esau would be subject to Jacob for a time, he did receive an abundant blessing. We read in 39 "And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling SHALL BE THE FATNESS OF the earth, and OF the dew of heaven from above."
Esau would be blessed with abundant earthly wealth. This is the reading of the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, The Judaica Press Tanach, Hebrew Names Bible, the Geneva, Coverdale, Wycliffe, Bishops' bibles, Revised Version, American Standard Version, NKJV, Spanish Reina Valera, Douay, Darby and Young's. However beginning with the RSV and now continuing with the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman, all these versions give us the opposite meaning here. The NIV, NASB say: "Your dwelling will be AWAY FROM the earth's richness, AWAY FROM the dew of heaven above." In other words, Esau would not enjoy these blessings - the exact opposite of the reading found in the KJB and all other previous English and Jewish Bible versions.
We know the KJB reading is correct and the NASB, NIV, ESV are false because we later see Esau with great wealth, cattle, servants, beasts and substance. So much so that "their riches were more that they might dwell together" and Esau moves on to another place. See Genesis 33:9 and 36:6.
Matthew Henry comments: " It was a good thing, and better than he deserved. It was promised him, [1.] That he should have a competent livelihood--the fatness of the earth, and the dew of heaven. Note, Those that come short of the blessings of the covenant may yet have a very good share of outward blessings. God gives good ground and good weather to many that reject his covenant, and have no part nor lot in it. [2.] That by degrees he should recover his liberty. If Jacob must rule (Genesis 27:29), Esau must serve; but he has this to comfort him, he shall live by his sword. He shall serve, but he shall not starve; and, at length, after much skirmishing, he shall break the yoke of bondage, and wear marks of freedom. This was fulfilled (2 Kings 8:20,22) when the Edomites revolted."
For a much more detailed study of Genesis 27:39 see -
The meaning of Genesis 27:40 has also been changed in the NKJV, NIV, NASB. There Isaac tells his son Esau: "And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother. and it shall come to pass when thou SHALT HAVE THE DOMINION, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck."
This word "to have the dominion" is # 7300 rood. It is used only three times and is translated as "we are lords" in Jer. 3:21 and Hosea 11:12 as "Judah yet ruleth with God." "When thou shalt have the dominion" is the reading of Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera, 1936 Jewish translation. The Geneva and Bishops' Bibles say "when thou shalt get the mastery". However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all say: "when YOU BECOME RESTLESS, you shall break his yoke from your neck." The RV, RSV, and NRSV say: "when you BREAK LOOSE", and then in a footnote the RSV, NRSV tell us "the Hebrew meaning is uncertain." Well, one thing we know for sure is that the various English versions are definitely uncertain, aren't they?
In 41 the NIV again changes Esau to he, and the NASB/NIV change the literal "said IN HIS HEART" which is the reading of the ASV, 1917, NKJV to "HE said WITHIN HIMSELF". The NIV omits BEHOLD and AS TOUCHING THEE from verse 42, and in 43 changed the literal OBEY MY VOICE to "do what I say" and omitted the word ARISE, which verb it omits 64 times from the Hebrew text, according to their own NIV concordance.
In 44 the NIV changes the literal phrase A FEW DAYS, which is the reading of the NASB, NKJV, ASV, 1917 etc. to A WHILE.
This is the pattern throughout the entire Bible. The NASB and NIV are among the most corrupt perversions of God's words on the market today. The NASB is fast fading from public interest and is being replaced by the NIV, which is even worse than the NASB. This is the state of modern Christianity at the beginning of the 21st century. The falling away from the faith is in full swing.
Genesis 29, 30
For the time being at least, I want to change the format of this study in Genesis. I will show some of the changes made in the translations of the NKJV, NASB and NIV and then concentrate on the most noteworthy changes in meaning.
The NKJV changes the word "Behold", as it often does, in verse 2. "And he looked, and BEHOLD, a well in the field, and LO, there were three flocks of sheep lying by it." These words Behold and Lo are interjections in Hebrew and in English, they are not verbs. The NIV has edited out this word some 550 times in the O.T. The NKJV has frequently mistranslated it as "indeed, there, now, and then" etc. but also correctly translated it as Behold in many other places. Here the NKJV has one correct as Behold but along with the NASB has translated one of them as the verb "and saw". The NIV simply omitted them both.
In verse 23 the NKJV put in JACOB for the Hebrew word HIM and did the same in verse 30 with no footnotes. Then again in 30:29 changed HE to Jacob, but says in the footnote that the Hebrew reads HE. In 30:33 the NKJV changes the literal "it shall come for my hire before THY FACE" to "before ME". Again, as I have said before, I am not arguing for a 100% literal translation, but it is frequently said that the NASB is more literal than the KJB. This is a lie. The KJB is by far a more literal translation than any of the modern versions in common use today.
The NASB changed the literal word BROTHER to RELATIVE, along with the NKJV and NIV in verse 12. "Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother." The Hebrew uses the word brother in a variety of ways, and often does mean a family realtive of any kind. The Hebrew also uses the words Father and Son in the same way, as so and so was the son of David, yet he is many generations removed from David. This is a Hebrew flavor that is consistently retained in the KJB but is frequently lost in the newer versions.
It is better to translate what God literally inspired, that is the word brother, and then explain its use, than it is to change in the text what God actually said. Brother is the reading of the Jewish translations, Young's, the ASV, Geneva Bible etc.
In 30:1 the NASB substitues SHE for the literal "RACHEL envied her sister".
Genesis 30:11 KJB - "And Leah said, A TROOP COMETH; and she called his name Gad."
NASB, NET - "Then Leah said, "HOW FORTUNATE!" So she named him Gad."
ESV, RSV - "And Leah said, “GOOD FORTUNE HAS COME!” so she called his name Gad."
NIV, Holman - " Then Leah said, “WHAT GOOD FORTUNE!” So she named him Gad."
Names of God Bible 2011 - "Leah said, "I'VE BEEN LUCKY!" So she called him Gad [Luck].
There are several problems with these new versions. Some very unbiblical words are being introduced into the modern bibles that are not found at all in the KJB. Words like Destiny, Luck, Fortune, Fortunate, and Fate. These are all pagan concepts and are not found in the King James Bible.
"FORTUNATE" NASB, ESV, NIV - Acts 26:2 - ""In regard to all the things of which I am accused by the Jews, I consider myself FORTUNATE, King Agrippa, that I am about to make my defense before you today" KJB - HAPPY
ESV - Ecclesiastes 4:2 "And I thought the dead who are already dead more FORTUNATE than the living who are still alive.
ESV, NASB, NIV Isaiah 65:11 - "But you who forsake the Lord, who forget my holy mountain, who set a table for FORTUNE and fill cups of mixed wine for DESTINY." KJB - THAT TROOP - THAT NUMBER.
Destiny in the NIV - 7 times - Psalm 73:17 - "till I entered the sanctuary of God; then I understood their final DESTINY.", Ecclesiastes 7:2 - "for death is the DESTINY of everyone", Ecclesiastes 9:2 -"All share a common DESTINY—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.", Ecclesiastes 9:3 The same DESTINY overtakes all.", Isaiah 65:11, Phillipians 3:19 - "Their DESTINY is destruction, their god is their stomach"
NIV 16 times - Numbers 16:29 "If these men die a natural death and suffer the FATE of all mankind, then the Lord has not sent me.", Esther 7:7, Job 12:5, Job 18:20, Job 20:29 - "Such is the FATE God allots the wicked, the heritage appointed for them by God.”, Job 21:17, Job 27: 13 - "“Here is the FATE God allots to the wicked, the heritage a ruthless man receives from the Almighty", Job 27:14, Psalm 49:3 "This is the FATE of those who trust in themselves", Ecclesiastes 2:14, 15; 3:19 - "Surely the FATE of human beings is like that of the animals; the same FATE awaits them both", Isaiah 14:16 " they ponder your FATE: “Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble", Jeremiah 49:20 and 50:45 - "The young of the flock will be dragged away; their pasture will be appalled at their FATE."
NASB 9 times - Numbers 16:29 ""If these men die the death of all men or if they suffer the FATE of all men, then the LORD has not sent me.", Job 18:20, Ecclesiastes 2:14, 15; 3:19 "For the FATE of the sons of men and the FATE of beasts is the same.", Ecclesiastes 9:2,3, and Luke 13:2 " And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this FATE?"
ESV 5 times - Numbers 16:20, Psalm 81:15 "Those who hate the Lord would cringe toward him, and their FATE would last forever.", Jeremiah 49:20, 50:45 "surely their fold shall be appalled at their FATE." and Lamentations 3:51 "my eyes cause me grief at the FATE of all the daughters of my city."
LUCKY The Message has the word LUCKY in it some 22 times!
Here are just a few of them - Genesis 30:11, 35:4, Deuteronomy 33:29 " LUCKY Israel! Who has it as good as you? A people saved by GOD! ", 1 Kings 10:8; 2 Chronicles 9:7; Psalm 10:6 and 14 "But you know all about it-- the contempt, the abuse. I dare to believe that the luckless will get LUCKY someday in you. You won't let them down: orphans won't be orphans forever.", Psalm 32:1, 2 " Count yourself LUCKY-- GOD holds nothing against you and you're holding nothing back from him.", Psalm 41:2, Proverbs 22:26, Isaiah 7:21, Ecclesiastes 7:26 " A woman can be a bitter pill to swallow, full of seductive scheming and grasping. The LUCKY escape her; the undiscerning get caught.", Ecclesiastes 10:17 "LUCKY the land whose king is mature", Isaiah 7:21, 30:18 "GOD takes the time to do everything right--everything. Those who wait around for him are the LUCKY ones.", Isaiah 7:21, 30:18, Jeremiah 8:2, Zechariah 8:10, 11:5, Malachi 3:15 and Mark 10:49 "Jesus stopped in his tracks. "Call him over." They called him. "It's your LUCKY day! Get up! He's calling you to come!"
Secondly, the Hebrew here is composed of two main words "a troop" - and in the margin of the KJB is tells us that Gad means "a troop, or a company", and the verb "cometh" #935. This verb is used in hundreds of places in the O.T. But neither the NASB nor the NIV or Holman translated the verb at all. The ESV at least put the verb in there, but there is no word for "good" and "troop" is not the same thing as "Fortune".
Other translations that are like the the King James Bible or similar to it are the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Then sayd Leah, A COMPANIE COMMETH: and she called his name, Gad.", the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible - "And Leah said, A TROOP COMETH, and she called his name Gad.", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994 - "And Leah said, "A troop cometh." And she called his name Gad [that is, A troop or company].", the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the French Martin 1744 - "Et Léa dit : Une troupe est arrivée, c'est pourquoi elle le nomma Gad.", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida E Fiel 1681 - "Ento, disse Lia: Vem uma turba; e chamou o seu nome de Gade."
John Gill comments: "And Leah said, a troop cometh,.... A troop of children, having bore four herself, and now her maid another, and more she expected; or the commander of a troop cometh, one that shall head an army and overcome his enemies; which agrees with the prophecy of Jacob, Genesis 49:19, and she called his name Gad: which signifies a "troop", glorying in the multitude of her children, that she had or hoped to have."
Matthew Henry comments: "Two sons Zilpah bore to Jacob, whom Leah looked upon herself as entitled to, in token of which she called one Gad (Genesis 30:11), promising herself a little troop of children and children are the militia of a family, they fill the quiver, Psalm 127:4,5. "
Adam Clarke comments: "She called his name Gad - This has been variously translated. גד (gad), may signify a troop, an army... which we translate a troop cometh...The Septuagint translate it εν τυχη , with good fortune; the Vulgate, feliciter, happily; but in all this diversity our own translation may appear as probable as any, if not the genuine one."
The Pulpit Commentaries - "The Authorised rendering, supported by the Samaritan, and supposed to accord better with Genesis 49:19, is approved by Calvin, Ainsworth, Bush, and others. And she called his name Gad"
In 30:27 instead of the literal "If I have found favor in thine eyes" , which is the reading of even the NIV and the ASV and the NKJV, the NASB has "IF IT PLEASES YOU" but then in a footnote says it literally reads as does the KJB. And in 30:33 the NASB alters the "before thy face" to "when you come". What is being lost in the newer translations are the Hebraisms and Jewish flavor of the Old Testament. These so called "antiquated" expressions of the KJB are there because it is a Jewish book and the KJB alone retains these Hebrew inspired expressions far more than the modern counterparts.
It gets really old talking about the NIV perversions. The NIV has altered the text so much, that it becomes boringly repetitive to mention them all. In verses 3 and 4 it alone changes the words "they" and "them" to "the shepherds", it adds the word YES, to "We know him" in v. 5. Changes the literal "Lo, it is high DAY" to "the SUN is still high" in v. 7.
Then the NIV goes on to omit "his mother's brother", changes the literal "of Laban his mother's brother" to simply "HIS UNCLE" omitting the words Laban, mother and brother, and changes JACOB to HE all in verse 10.
The NIV omits "lifted up his voice" in 11, and in 13 changes He to JACOB, and then LABAN to HE. The NIV does this type of thing literally hundreds of times where when God gives us a specific name the NIV makes it he, she or him etc. and when God says He, She or Her, the NIV gives us a specific name. For more instances of this see 29:15, 23, 25, 28, 30, and in Chapter 30 verses 1, 2, 5, 22 where the NIV puts He instead of the word GOD, and 29.
In verse 14 Laban says to Jacob "Surely thou art my BONE and MY FLESH". The NIV alone changed this to "my FLESH AND BLOOD." This may sound modern, but it is not what God inspired here. The words are clearly BONE AND FLESH, not flesh and blood.
In 30:2 Jacob says: Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee THE FRUIT OF THE WOMB." The niv changed this to "from having children" and in verse 3 the literal "she shall bear UPON MY KNEES" to "bear children for me". The word is knee as in "every knee shall bow" Isaiah 45:23.
Some very unbiblical words are being introduced into the modern bibles that are not found at all in the KJB. Words like Destiny, Fortune, Fortunate, and Fate. These are all pagan concepts and are not found in the KJB. In 30:11 when Leah bears Gad she says: "A TROOP COMETH". This is the reading of the 1936 Jewish translation, the NKJV, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Webster's Bible and Young's.
However the NIV says: "WHAT GOOD FORTUNE" and the NASB "HOW FORTUNATE". The NIV introduces the words Destiny and Destined 20 times, Fortune or Fortunate 23 times, and Fate 13 times. Look in their concordance. The NASB likewise has Destiny or Destined 8 times, Fate 8 times and Fortune or Fortunate 21 times. And the NKJV introduces Fate twice and Destiny once and destined twice.
Another significant change in meaning is found in 29:17 where Leah is described in this manner. "Leah was TENDER eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favoured." Tender eyed would mean she has soft, caring, compassionate eyes. This is the reading of the ASV, Darby, Geneva Bible, 1936 Jewish translation, and Young's translation.
However the NKJV says her eyes were delicate. I have heard of delicate hands or fingers or a delicate disposition, but not "delicate eyes". The NIV, RSV and NASB are far worse and they say "her eyes WERE WEAK". WEAK eyes? You mean, she needed glasses? Is that it? The NRSV says her eyes were "lovely". Yet the same NASB has translated this exact word as "tender" 4 times and the NIV 5 times.
One last change in meaning to be noted here is in verses 29:31, 33 where it says "the LORD saw that Leah was HATED." The word is clearly "hated" as in Gen. 37:5, 8 "they hated him yet the more"; "the image which the Lord thy God hateth", "I hate them with perfect hatred" etc. Hated is the reading of the 1917 Jewish translation, the ASV, Geneva, Youngs, Darbys, and even the RSV of 1952, but the NKJV, NIV and NASB all unite in saying she was NOT LOVED. There is a difference between not loving something and hating it.
Genesis 30:27 KJB, NKJV - And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found favour in thine eyes, tarry: for I HAVE LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.”
ESV, NIV, NET, (NASB - divined), Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Modern English Version 2014, modern Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 -
“But Laban said to him, “If I have found favor in your sight, I HAVE LEARNED BY DIVINATION that the Lord has blessed me because of you.”
The Living Bible 1971 - “for A FORTUNE-TELLER THAT I CONSULTED told me that the many blessings I’ve been enjoying are all because of your being here.”
Updated bible version 2004 - “for I HAVE USED MAGIC and found that Yahweh has blessed me for your sake.”
The Catholic Connection
The previous Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay 1950 both read like the KJB with “I have LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE that the Lord hath blessed thee.”
But the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 now read like the ESV, NIV, NASB and say: “I have learned BY DIVINATION”
Other versions. Dan Wallace’s NET version says “I have learned by DIVINATION that the Lord has blessed me on account of you.” But he then footnotes - “Or perhaps, “I have grown rich and the Lord has blessed me.” Then he refers to the New English Bible 1971.
I have a copy of the NEB and that is basically what it says. It reads: “I have become prosperous and the LORD has blessed me for your sake.” Nothing about “divination” or even “experience”.
The Amplified bible 1987 covers all the bases and says: “for I have LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE FROM THE OMENS IN DIVINATION that the Lord has favored me with blessings on your account.”
JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 - “I have observed the signs, and the LORD hath blessed me for thy sake.”
Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, God’s First Truth 1999 - “for I SUPPOSE THAT the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.”
Young’s literal 1898 - “I have OBSERVED DILIGENTLY THAT…”
The New Life Version1969 - “I HAVE LEARNED THAT the Lord has brought good to me because of you."
Easy to Read Version 2001 and the International Children’s Bible 2015 - “I KNOW the Lord has blessed me because of you.”
Individual words, both in Hebrew and English and all languages can have multiple different meanings depending on the context.
"I HAVE LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE..."
Agreeing with the sense of the King James Bible are Wycliffe’s Bible 1395 - “Y haue lerned bi EXPERIENCE that God blesside me for thee.”, Coverdale 1535 “I perceive that…”, The Bishops’ bible 1568 “I have PROVED that the Lord blessed me”, the Geneva Bible 1587 - “I have perceived that…”, Webster’s Bible 1833 - “I have learned by experience”, the Longman Version 1841, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Lesser Bible 1853 - “I have learned by experience that…”, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862 - “I have learned by experience”, the Sharpe Bible 1883 - “I have learned for certain that…”, Darby 1890 - “I have discovered that…”, Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “I have proven by experience”, the NKJV 1982, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - “I HAVE LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE…”, The Word of Yah 1993 - “I have learned by experience that…”, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “I have DILIGENTLY WATCHED that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.”, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, A Conservative Version 2005, The Complete Apostle's Bible 2005, the Jubilee Bible 2010 - “I have learned by experience…”, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “I have learned by experience that YHWH (יהוה) has blessed me for your sake.”, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - “I have LEARNED BY EXPERIENCE that…”
And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "I have learned BY EXPERIENCE..."
Foreign Language Bibles
The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1549, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and the Reina Valera 1909 - 1995 all read like the KJB - “HE EXPERIMENTADO que Jehová me ha bendecido por tu causa.” = “I HAVE EXPERIENCED that Jehovah has blessed me for your sake.”
Spanish Jubilee Bible 2010 - “Y Labán le respondió: Halle yo ahora gracia en tus ojos, HE EXPERIMENTADO que el SEÑOR me ha bendecido por tu causa.” = “I have EXPERIENCED that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.”
The French Martin Bible 1744 has - “j'ai reconnu que l'Eternel m'a béni à cause de toi.” = “I RECOGNIZED that the Lord has blessed me because of you.”
The French Louis Second 2007 says “J'ai appris que l'Eternel m'avait béni à cause de toi.” = “I have LEARNED that…”
The Portuguese Almeida Corrigenda 2009 reads like the KJB with “TENHO EXPERIMENTADO que o Senhor me abençoou por amor de ti.” = “I HAVE EXPERIENCED that…”
The Italian Diodati 1649 has: “Io ho veduto che il Signore mi ha benedetto per cagion tua.” = “I HAVE SEEN THAT the Lord has blessed me for your sake.”
Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Laban sprach zu ihm: Laß mich Gnade vor deinen Augen finden. Ich spüre, daß mich der HERR segnet um deinetwillen." = "I FEEL THAT the Lord will bless me for thy sake."
The Czech Kralicka Bible - " skutku jsem poznal, že požehnal mi Hospodin pro tebe." = "I KNOW that the Lord has blessed me for your sake"
The Russian Synodal Bible - "я примечаю, что за тебя Господь благословил меня." = "I HAVE NOTICED that the Lord has blessed me for your sake."
Veren’s Contemporary Bulgarian Bible 2009 - “защото разбрах, че ГОСПОД ме е благословил заради теб.” = “I REALIZE THAT the Lord has blessed me for your sake.”
The Finnish Bible 1776 - “ minä ymmärrän, että Herra on siunannut minun sinun tähtes.” = “I UNDERSTAND that the Lord has blessed me for your sake.”
The Modern Greek Bible also reads like the KJB - “εγνωρισα εκ πειρας, οτι ο Κυριος με ευλογησεν εξ αιτιας σου.” = “I have KNOWN BY EXPERIENCE that the Lord has blessed me for your sake."
Genesis 30:27 - the Bible Commentators
Bible commentators, like bible versions, are often all over the board. What one affirms, another just as adamantly denies. But here are a few to consider -
John Calvin explains the two views - “Moreover, as the word נחש (nachash,) among the Hebrews, means to know by auguries or by divination, some interpreters imagine that Laban, having been instructed in magic arts, found that the presence of Jacob was useful and profitable to him. Others, however, expound the words more simply, as meaning that he had proved it to be so by experiment.”
Adam Clarke Commentary - “I have learned by experience - נחשתי nichashti, from נחש nachash, to view attentively, to observe, to pry into. I have diligently considered the whole of thy conduct, and marked the increase of my property, and find that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.”
John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible - “for I have learned by experience; by the observations made in the fourteen years past”
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “He had found, from long observation, that the blessing of heaven rested on Jacob, and that his stock had wonderfully increased under Jacob's management.”
Matthew Henry - “I have learned by experience that the Lord has blessed me for thy sake. Observe, 1. Laban's learning: I have learned by experience. Note, There is many a profitable good lesson to be learned by experience. We are very unapt scholars if we have not learned by experience the evil of sin, the treachery of our own hearts, the vanity of the world, the goodness of God, the gains of godliness, and the like.”
The NKJV - 30:1 "And HE heard the words of Laban's sons..." The NKJV along with the NIV and NASB change He to Jacob. Jacob is not in the Hebrew text. The ASV, Geneva Bible, 1917 etc. read as the KJB. In this same verse the first use of the word GLORY is found in "and of that which was our father's hath he gotten all this GLORY." The word means glory or honor and is used in Ex. 11:7 "ye shall see the glory of the LORD" and in Ps. 24 "the king of glory shall come in".
The NKJV joins the NASB/NIV in rendering this word as WEALTH. Glory involves a lot more than just wealth, and wealth is a different word in Hebrew and English. This same word is used in Gen. 45:13 where Joseph tells his brothers "ye shall tell my father of all my glory in Egypt". It was not just that he was rich but had attained a position of power. In 45:13 the NKJV got it right, but not in 30:1.
Again some of the Hebrew flavor is lost in the NKJV in verse 21 where it joins the NIV in changing the phrase that Jacob "rose up, and passed over the river, and SET HIS FACE toward the mount Gilead." "Set his face" is the literal Hebrew and the reading of the NASB, 1917, Geneva, ASV etc. but the NKJV/NIV say he "HEADED toward the mountains of Gilead."
The NKJV, along with the NIV/NASB is in error in verse 25 when we compare it with verse 54. The KJB and the 1917 Jewish translation, the ASV, Geneva and others read: "Now Jacob had pitched his tent in THE MOUNT (singular) and Laban with his brethren pitched in the MOUNT of Gilead."
The NKJV, NIV and NASB all say: "in the MOUNTAINS (plural) and in the mountainS of Gilead." Yet when we read verse 54 Jacob and Laban are in the same place and "Then Jacob offered sacrifice upon THE MOUNT, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did eat bread and tarried all night IN THE MOUNT." Only one mountain - not many. Mount Gilead. The NASB/NKJV here read mountain twice, while the NIV has mountain and for the second word "mountain" substitutes the word "there".
The NKJV unites with the NASB and NIV in omitting the word HAND in v. 29 where Laban says to Jacob: "It is in the power of MY HAND to do you hurt." In fact, the NIV concordance shows the NIV has not translated this word 78 times when it occurs in the Hebrew text.
Again, the NKJV mistranslates the interjection BEHOLD as HERE IS twice in verse 51 "And Laban said to Jacob, Behold, this heap, and Behold this pillar, which I have cast up betwixt ME and THEE." Also the NKJV follows the NIV again and reverses the order of the words "me and thee" to "you and me".
So far I have found 4 places where the NKJV reverses the Hebrew word order in this manner. See 16:5; 31:44 and 51; and 37:10. This is a minor thing, but as I go through the NKJV and mark every departure from the KJB I believe the estimates are correct that the NKJV differs from the KJB in at least 100,000 words, and that is not counting the "thee, ye, thou" and the verb endings of "eth". The NKJV should never have carried the name of New King James Version. The N really stands for NOT KJB. It is a false bible and contains numerous theological and translational errors.
The NASB puts Jacob for HE in 31:1 and along with the NIV alters the literal and easy to understand phrase in verses 2 and 5. In the KJB and the ASV, Geneva, 1917, NKJV etc. we read Jacob speaking concerning Laban: "I see your father's COUNTENANCE, that it is not toward me as before."
The NASB and NIV say: "I see your father's ATTITUDE..." yet the NASB footnote says Literally - face. The word countenance, which simply means face, is not archaic and it is often found in the NASB, NKJV and is even in the NIV.
The NIV does its usual thing of changing proper names to he, him or she, and changes she, he or him to proper names in verses 1, 35, 36, 46, 54 and 55. The NIV also omits "the words of" in verse 1, the NIV concordance shows they have not translated this word for WORD 48 times when found in the Hebrew text, "thine eyes" in 12, one of the 36 times it omits this word EYES, omits ROSE UP in 17 and 55, OF HIS GETTING in 18, changes the literal WITH THE SWORD to in WAR in v. 26, omits HAND in verses 29 and 39, STOLEN in 39 and a whole scattering of the word BEHOLD.
A significant change of meaning is found in the NKJV, NASB and NIV in verse 28 where a "man" wrestled with Jacob till the breaking of the day and changed his name from Jacob to Israel. In 28 we read: "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for AS A PRINCE HAST THOU POWER with God and with men, and hast prevailed." This is the meaning found in the 1936 Jewish translation, the Geneva Bible, Youngs, Webster's translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21st Century. The name Israel is composed of two words - God and to rule or have power (like a prince). In fact the name Sarah comes from the same word used in "as a prince hast thou power" and her name means princess.
The NKJV joins the NIV in saying: "YOU HAVE STRUGGLED with God and with men" while the NASB says: "you have STRIVEN with God." The modern versions focus on Jacob resisting God while the KJB shows God's grace in empowering Jacob to prevail to receive a blessing in spite of his own weakness and sin.
Genesis 31:34 - "the camel's FURNITURE"
In Genessis 31:34 we read: "Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel's FURNITURE, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not."
This particular Hebrew word is only used a few times, but is has a wide variety of totally different meaning. It is # 3733 kar, and it translated as "furniture", lambs, pastures, large pastures, rams, and even as "captains".
Some Bible critics have complained about the KJB's use of the word "furniture" instead of things like "saddle" or "saddlebag" or "packs" or "cushion" (The New Jewish Version 1985).
But there is nothing wrong or inaccurate about the King James Bible. We just have to look up the meaning of the word "furniture".
The word furniture itself has several meanings. It can mean "the movable things in a room, like a sofa, chairs, tables, beds, etc.". But it also can refer to "the necessary equipment of a machine, ship, trade, etc." And the more archaic meaning of "furniture" is "all articles necessary to equip a man and horse, as armor, harness, etc." Webster's New World Dictionary.
Wiktionary furniture - 2. "The harness, trappings, etc. of a horse, hawk or other animal."
American Heritage Dictionary - furniture - (archaic) - "Necessary equipment, as for a saddle horse or sailing ship."
Collins English Dictionary - "the full armor, trappings, etc. for a man and horse."
Actually the KJB was the first English Protestant Bible to use the word "furniture" here in Genesis 31:34. Previous English bibles like Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 and the Bishops' bible 1568 read "the camel's STRAW", while the Geneva bible 1587 had "the camel's LITTER." So this was a deliberate change made by the KJB translators.
Not only does the KJB say "the camel's FURNITURE" but so too do The Bill Bible 1671, The Thomson Translation 1808, The Webster Bible 1833, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, Young's literal 1898, the American Douay-Rheims version 1899, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "the camel's FURNITURE", the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company bible, The Douay Version 1950, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Work of God's Children bible 2011, and The Bond Slave Version 2012.
And this online Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament - "the camel's FURNITURE"
Genesis 33, 34
The NKJV: The NKJV does this type of thing quite frequently, but not near as often as the NIV. In verse 8 the KJB and the Hebrew read "And HE said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met?" The NKJV, along with the NIV says: ESAU, with no italics, though it is not in the text or the NASB. The NKJV does the same thing in verses 12 where it joins the NASB and NIV in again changing the Hebrew HE to ESAU, with no italics, and in 13 the NKJV along with the NIV changes HE to JACOB.
The NKJV again joins the NASB, NIV, RSV in changing the meaning of verse 18. In the KJB we read: "And Jacob came TO SHALEM, A CITY OF SHECHEM, which is in the land of Canaan...and pitched his tent before the city." Shechem was the name of the son of Hamor (verse 19 and the whole next chapter tells us of how Shechem lay with Dinah their sister and wanted to marry her.) In the KJB and in the 1936 Jewish translation, Young's, Douay, the ASV and Darby footnotes, and even the LXX Shalem is a city that belongs to Shechem.
We further read in 34:20 and 24 of Hamor and his son Shechem going to the gate of THEIR city, and unto Hamor and Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of HIS city.
However, the NKJV, NIV, NASB have not translated Shalem as the name of a city but rather have rendered it as "safely". Thus we read in the NKJV: "Then Jacob came SAFELY to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan.."
In 34:22 the NKJV joins the NIV in omitting two words found in the Hebrew text, the 1917, Youngs, Geneva and even the NASB. "Only herein will the men consent UNTO US for to dwell with us, to be one people..."
The NASB: In verse 33:6 the NASB joins the NIV in omitting the word THEY in "Then the handmaidens came near, THEY and their children, and they bowed themselves." This "they" is in the Hebrew, the NKJV and the ASV plus others.
In 34:3 we read of Shechem regarding Dinah the literal KJB, ASV, Young's, Geneva, 1917, and nkjv: "And HIS SOUL CLAVE unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel. and spake kindly unto THE DAMSEL." Here the NASB paraphrases as: "And HE WAS DEEPLY ATTRACTED to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly TO HER." The word is damsel, or girl, but not "her".
In 34:30 we read of Jacob saying: "and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me." "I" is the reading of the Jewish translations, the NKJV, Geneva, Youngs etc. but the NASB says: "MY MEN being few in number" while the niv says: "WE are few in number".
The NIV as usual changes definite names to he, she, him or her, and changes he, she, him or her to a definite name in verses 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, and in 34: 7 and 18. The NIV omits "lifted up his eyes" in verse 1, changes the literal "FELL on his neck" to "threw his arms around his neck" in v. 4, omits "eyes" in 5, "they" in 6, "name" in 17.
In chapter 34 the NIV changes the literal DAUGHTER to "sister" though it does note in the footnote the Hebrew says "daughter", omits "unto us" and "circumcised" in v. 22, and in v. 26 where we read: "And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with THE EDGE OF the sword" the NIV, along with the liberal RSV, omits all 34 times this Hebrew expression occurs, which is found in the NASB, NKJV and the Jewish translations.
Genesis 35, 36, 37
Tne NKJV: In both verses 4 and 8 we read of an OAK tree where Jacob hid the strange gods and earrings of his children, and another OAK under which Deborah Rebekah's nurse was buried after she died. OAK is the reading of even the nasb, niv, Geneva, Young's, the ASV and the RSV. However the NKJV tells us in both verses of the TEREBINTH tree.
In verse 11 there is a quite common word which all the new versions have frequently mistranslated. The word is LOINS. Even though the NIV, NKJV and NASB still contain the word "loins" in other places, they very often have mistranslated it. The word loins has two meanings. One is the area on both sides of the spine between the ribs and the hipbones, and the other is the genital and pubic area of the human body.
In verse 11 we read of God telling Jacob: "be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy LOINS. LOINS is the reading of the Jewish translations, Youngs, the ASV, Geneva Bible and others, but the NKJV and NIV say BODY, which is a different word and the NASB says: "FROM YOU".
The NKJV has often mistranslated or paraphrased this expression. In Exodus 1:5 we read "All the the SOULS THAT CAME OUT OF THE LOINS of Jacob were seventy SOULS." But the NKJV reads: "All THOSE (instead of the literal souls) WHO WERE DESCENDANTS of Jacob were seventy PERSONS." Then in a footnote the NKJV tells us the literal Hebrew is "who came from the loins of".
In Job 31:20 we read Job saying: "If his LOINS have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep;", but the NKJV joins the NIV in mistranslating this word as HEART. The NKJV footnote tells us the word is literally LOINS, and even the NASB has loins here.
Genesis 37:3 "a coat of many colors"
One Bible critic wrote us in our Facebook forum King James Bible Debate saying: "Anyone who tells you that the King James Version is 100% accurate is not telling the truth. Joseph's coat was LONG SLEEVED in the Hebrew version but the King James version said it was multicolored. The great thing out of that is that we have Joseph and the Techi-coloured dream coat musical!!!" (End of bible critics 'deep thoughts')
As for Genesis 37:3 as it stands in the King James Bible - "he made him a coat of many colors" - it is really silly and superficial to claim there is an error here in the KJB. Versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV and NET versions, all of which disagree with the KJB reading, all tell us in their footnotes: "The meaning of the Hebrew word is uncertain."
So, not even the scholars behind these corrupt Vatican Versions know what the Hebrew expression means. They just changed it from the KJB reading so they can be different and get a copyright for their work.
There are many Bible translations in multiple languages that translate it just as it stands in the King James Bible. We will get to those in a moment. But first, let's look at the wild variety of ways some versions have translated what this piece of clothing was that Jacob gave to his favorite son Joseph.
Darby 1890 - "A VEST of many colors" Youngs 1898 "A LONG coat" RSV - "a LONG ROBE WITH SLEEVES" NIV 1984 edition - "a RICHLY ORNAMENTED ROBE." NIV 2011 edition - "AN ORNATE ROBE", J.P. Green's - "a LONG COAT REACHING TO HIS FEET." The 2011 Common English Bible says: "Jacob made for him a LONG ROBE." and then it Footnotes: "Hebrew uncertain." Dan Wallace's NET version has - "and he made a special tunic for him."
The only one so far in this list that says what our Bible critic says it should be is the Liberal RSV with its "a long robe with sleeves." I did find another one like this. It's called the Lexham English Bible. It came out in 2012 and says: "And he made a robe with long sleeves[a] for him." But then it Footnotes OR "of many colors".
Agreeing with the King James Bible are the following - Wycliffe 1395 - "and he made to Joseph a cote of many colors.", Tyndale 1834 - "and he made him a coote of many coloures.", Coverdale 1535 - "and he made him a cote of many coloures.", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1582, Webster's Bible 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901 - "and he made him a coat of many colors.", the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917, 1936 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Hebrew Names Bible, World English Bible, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2000.
Several others give a very similar meaning - the NKJV has "a tunic of many colors", NASB he made him a varicolored tunic", Douay and New Life Version 1969 "a long coat of many colors." The 2012 Natural Israelite Bible has "he made him a tunic of many colors." and two of the latest to come down the pike are the Holman Standard and the ESVs 2001-2011 which have" a robe of many colors".
Foreign language translations that read just like the KJB's "a coat of many colors" are the so called Greek Septuagint, and the Modern Greek Bible - "και εκαμεν εις αυτον χιτωνα ποικιλοχρωμον.", Luther's German Bible 1545 - " und machte ihm einen bunten Rock." = "he made him a coat of many colors", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 y le hizo una ropa de diversos colores.", the French Ostervald 1996 - "et il lui fit une robe de diverses couleurs.", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and Almeida Corregida - "e fez-lhe uma túnica de várias cores.", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "e gli fece una giubba vergata." = "he made him a coat of many colors.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling - "en hij maakte hem een veelvervigen rok." = "he made him a coat of many colors.", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "en hy het vir hom 'n lang rok met moue gemaak." = "he made him a coat of many colors." and the Czeck BKR Bible - "A udělal mu sukni proměnných barev."
The Hebrew words to describe Joseph's coat of many colors is used on 5 times. We find it here 3 times in Genesis 37:3, 23 and 32. And again in 2 Samuel 13:18 and 19 where Tamar, one of king David's daughters, also wore "A GARMENT OF DIVERSE COLORS."
So when some bible corrector like this tells you in no uncertain terms that the King James Bible is in error, just realize that none of these Bible Critics actually believes that ANY Bible in any language is the inerrant words of God, and most of them have no clue what they are talking about.
In Job 38:3 and 40:7 the LORD tells Job "GIRD UP THY LOINS NOW like a man" and this is also the reading of the NASB, but the NKJV again joins the NIV with "now prepare yourself like a man." In Psalms 66:11 instead of the KJB's "thou laidest affliction upon our LOINS" the NKJV/NIV say "our BACKS", though the NASB properly has loins. In Proverbs 31:17 the "she girdeth her LOINS with strength" the NKJV says she girds HERSELF with strength.
I am merely pointing out that the NKJV is a very poor translation compared to the KJB. There are hundreds of such examples throughout the NKJV. Don't be deceived into thinking it is just like the KJB but without the thee and ye. The NKJV is a perversion and a false witness.
Mules or Hot Springs?
In Genesis 36:24 we read of a man called Anah "that found THE MULES in the wilderness." Mules is the reading of the 1936 Jewish translation, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1998 reads "mules" (los mulos en el desierto), the Italian Diodati, the Third Millenium Bible, Webster's 1833 translation and even the New English Bible of 1970. The NRSV, and several other modern bible versions tells us in a footnote that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain or obscure. But the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV, ESV in saying Anah found THE HOT SPRINGS instead of the mules. The NIV gives this informative footnote: "the Vulgate and Syriac say he discovered water, but the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Now, I am not much of an expert in biology but I'm pretty sure there is a difference between a mule and a hot tub.
The NKJV frequently mistranslates the little word BEHOLD. Often it does say behold, but many times it changes behold to THERE 37:7, INDEED v. 7, THIS TIME v. 9, THERE HE WAS v. 15, INDEED again in verse 29 and other times it renders the word behold as SUDDENLY or some other word. The NIV usually just omits the word altogether, in fact some 550 times the NIV just doesn't translate it at all and they tell you this in their own concordance.
The NKJV also makes 37:32 into a question, though the KJB, NIV and NASB all have it as a statement. The NKJV is not the same as the KJB and should be soundly rejected as a perversion by any true Bible believer.
The NASB joins the NIV in omitting the words "from THE FACE OF Esau" in verses 1 and 7, and 36:6 though "the face of" is found in the NKJV, ASV etc. I am merely pointing out again that the NASB is not the great "formal equivalent" translation that it boasts to be. I have scores of such examples where the KJB is far more accurate in retaining these Hebrew expressions of the inspired texts.
The NASB joins the NKJV and NIV in changing Joseph to HIM in 37:28. Joseph is found three times in this single verse and in the Jewish translations, the KJB, the ASV, Geneva, Young's etc, but the NKJV, NASB only twice while the NIV has it only once.
The NIV does its usual thing of changing proper names to he, him or she in 35:5 where it changes the literal "after THE SONS OF JACOB" to "after THEM", "his NAME" to "him" 35:10, HE to GOD in v. 14. In fact the word Elohim which means God is not translated 13 times when it appears in the Hebrew texts used by the niv and 52 times the niv adds the word GOD when it is not in the Hebrew. They tell you this in their own concordance. The NIV changes HE to Joseph in 37:14 and JOSEPH to HIM in v. 23 and omits the word UPON HIS LOINS in v. 34.
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Genesis 38, 39, 40
The NKJV has a lot of problems translating the word SEED. The word is clearly seed referring to both seed of plants and seed of men. In 38:8, 9 the word seed occurs three times as in the raise up seed to thy brother, he knew that the seed should not be his, and lest that he should give seed to his brother. Seed is the reading of the Jewish translations, the ASV, Youngs, Geneva and others, but the NKJV says HEIR in all three. The word heir is a different word in both Hebrew and English. The NASB/NIV say offspring.
In verse 16 the NKJV omits the words "GO TO, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee." Go to is the reading of the ASV, Jewish translations, Geneva, Darby, Youngs but the NKJV just omits this expression. Even the NASB has it as "Here now" and the NIV as "Come now".
In 18 Tamar requests of Judah a pledge of his signet and BRACELETS and his staff, but the NKJV says CORD instead of bracelets.
The NKJV omits the word BEHOLD in v. 24 and changes behold to UNEXPECTEDLY in 38:29, and to THERE in 40:16, SUDDENLY in 41:5, INDEED in 41:7, 29, IN FACT in 42:13 and HERE in 44:16 though behold is in the NASB, Youngs etc. The NIV simply omits it altogether.
In 39:1 the NKJV unites with the NIV and NASB in omitting the phrase where Joseph was sold and Potiphar "bought him OF THE HANDS OF the Ishmeelites. "Of the hands of" is found in the Hebrew and in the Jewish translations, the ASV, Geneva, Youngs etc.
In 39:7 the KJB uses the literal Hebrew expression in saying that the wife of Potipher "CAST HER EYES UPON Joseph." Here even the liberal RSV and NRSV, along with the ASV, Geneva, Darby etc. agree with the KJB. The NKJV says she "cast LONGING eyes on Joseph" (adding the word "longing") while the NASB says LOOKED WITH DESIRE and the NIV TOOK NOTICE OF.
I merely point out here that the KJB retains the Hebraisms of the inspired text while the modern versions lose them.
In 39:23 the NKJV joins the NIV/NASB in changing "under HIS hand" to "under JOSEPH'S hand". The word Joseph is not in the text here.
In 40:3 there is a subtle change in meaning where the KJB is more accurate than the NKJV, NIV and NASB. The verse tells us that Joseph was in prison where he was BOUND. Bound is the reading of the ASV, the Jewish translations, the Geneva Bible and others. Bound means he was tied up or chained in some way. The NKJV and NIV say he was merely "confined" while the NASB says he was "imprisoned". There is a difference between being confined only and being bound.
Psalms 105:17,18 tell us: "He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant: Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron." Clearly Joseph was not just confined but BOUND as the KJB accurately tells us.
The KJB and NKJV tell us that Tamar disguised herself as an HARLOT, and sat IN AN OPEN PLACE, which is by the way to Timnath. Harlot is the reading of the Jewish translations, the ASV etc. but in the NASB/NIV the harlot becomes a "shrine" or "temple prostitute" and she is now sitting AT THE ENTRANCE TO ENAIM (or its gateway) which is on the road to Timnath.
The NASB continues to drop out more and more verbs as it goes through it's revisions. The verb "And it came to pass" of 39:10 and 19 was in the 1972 and 1977 editions, but in the 1995 it just disappears like in the NIV.
The NASB along with the NIV continues to lose more Hebraisms such as 39:14 where the wife of Potiphar says the literal: "I CRIED WITH A LOUD VOICE" There are three separate words here "I cried" "with a loud" and "voice" and is the reading of the ASV, NKJV, Jewish translations etc., but in the NIV/NASB this becomes merely "I screamed".
The NKJV continues to change the literal readings found in the KJB. The NKJV changes BEHOLD to SUDDENLY in 41:5 and 22; to INDEED in 29, adds "of the produce" to v. 34 "take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years"; changes "lay up corn under the HAND of Pharoah" to AUTHORITY; changes "without THEE shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt" to "without YOUR CONSENT".
In 41:47 "the earth brought forth by HANDFULS" has been changed in the NKJV to match the NASB/NIV with ABUNDANTLY. The word "handfuls" is #7062, used only four times, and yet the NKJV, NASB and NIV all translate the other three instances of this word as "handfuls". Needless change; change only for changes sake. Handfuls is the reading of the ASV, Young's, Darby's and others.
There are literally hundreds of such changes made in the NKJV that are totally unnecessary. The NKJV progressively follows the NIV and NASB in paraphrasing rather than translating what God has said.
In 43:11 Jacob tells his sons to take down to Egypt a present of a little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, NUTS and almonds. Nuts is the reading of the ASV, the Jewish translations, Geneva, Yound, Green, the Spanish, yet seemingly just for changes sake the NKJV, NIV and NASB all say PISTACCIO NUTS.
The main things I want to point out in the remainder of Genesis are the changed meanings found in the NASB/NIV and particularly the passages of Hebrew Scripture that the NIV has rejected and instead followed the Syriac or the Greek instead of the Hebrew.
In 41:16 Joseph interprets Pharoah's dream and tells him: "God shall give Pharoah an answer of PEACE." This is the reading of the NKJV, ASV, Young's, Darby, the Jewish translations and others. The Hebrew word here is Shalom, which we all know means peace. However the NASB says: "a FAVORABLE answer", and the NIV has "an answer HE DESIRES".
Why did call this an answer of PEACE? Because it would put Pharoah's mind at peace as to the interpretation. We saw in verse 8 that Pharoah's spirit was troubled at the dream and he could find no answer from his own wise men till Joseph appeared before him. The KJB is far more accurate than these modern imposters.
In 42:9, 12 Joseph accuses his brethren of being spies and says they have come to see the NAKEDNESS of the land. The land was naked because 45:6 tells us there was no plowing or harvest in the land of Egypt for 7 years. Nakedness is the same word used of Noah who was drunk in his tent and his two sons covered his nakedness. It is also the reading of the NKJV, ASV, the Jewish translations and Young's.
The NASB, however, says "the UNDEFENDED PARTS of the land" and the NIV has "the UNPROTECTED PARTS".
In 47:21 the KJB, NASB, NKJV, Jewish translations, Young's, Darby, Geneva Bible etc. say: "And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES, from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof."
However the perverted NIV says: "JOSEPH REDUCED THE PEOPLE TO SERVITUDE". The NIV footnote tells us that this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, but the Hebrew reads "he moved the people into the cities". The NIV is also the reading of the super liberal RSV and NRSV AND ESV, and they too have the same footnote telling us they have rejected the Hebrew text and followed some other source. This is your NIV.
In this same chapter the NIV again departs from the Hebrew text and mistakenly follows the Greek Septuagint. In verse 31 we read of Jacob making Joseph sware that he would not bury him in Egypt but in the land of his fathers in their buryingplace. "And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself UPON THE BED'S HEAD."
UPON THE BED'S HEAD is the reading of the Hebrew, the NASB, NKJV, Young, Darby and even the liberal RSV and NRSV. Only the NIV here rejects the clear Hebrew text and follows the incorrect LXX at this point. The NIV says "Israel worshipped AS HE LEANED ON THE TOP OF HIS STAFF."
The NIV "scholars" mistakenly applied Hebrews 11:21 to this event in Genesis 47. In Hebrews 11:21 it says "By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."
However, if you look closely at the context in both the New Testament book of Hebrews and especially in Genesis chapters 47 through 49, we see that Joseph did not die during the events of Genesis 47 where the chapter ends with the correct reading that Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head.
In chapter 48 verse one we read: "And it came to pass AFTER THESE THINGS, that one told Joseph, Behold thy father is sick: and he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. Then the whole of chapter 48 is taken up with Jacob blessing the two sons of Joseph and all of chapter 49 with Jacob telling each of his own sons what would befall them in the last days. Then Jacob dies at the very end of chapter 49 where we read: "And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people."
The NIV has departed from the clear Hebrew text in Genesis 4:8 and 15; Genesis 47:21, 31 and in Genesis 49:10 and 26.
There are several verses in chapter 49 that have been altered in the modern versions and they have a completely different meaning than that of the KJB.
In 49:6 Jacob is telling each of his sons something about what will befall them in the last days, and of their blessings or penalties. There we read in the KJB "for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL."
Genesis 49:6 KJB - "in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL." Wycliffe 1395, the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Webster's Bible 1833, 1936 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Torah Transliteration Scripture 2008, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Bible, the 2000 Holy Scriptures Jubilee Bible, the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, the Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1602 - "y en su voluntad arrancaron muro.", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "spianato il muro.", the Modern Greek Bible - "εν τω πεισματι αυτων κατηδαφισαν τειχος.", the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998 = KJB.
However the NKJV says "THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX", the NIV "they hamstrung OXEN" and the NASB says "they LAMED AN OX." Young's has "they eradicated a prince"! So what is going on here?
It all has to do with the pointed consonants introduced in the 6th century after Christ, and the points are not considered inspired. It is well know that an individual Hebrew word can have 3 or 4 different meanings, and if traced back to its root, as many as 9 or 10 different meanings. Only God can guide as to the true meaning of a text or word. We believe He has done this in the KJB.
The reading of "hamstrung an ox or oxen" is false. We are told in Genesis 34:27-29 that Simeon and Levi came upon the city of Hamor and Shechem his son and slew all the males; they spoiled the city and took their sheep, oxen and their asses and carried away all their wealth, their wives and children. They did in fact destroy the city but they did not kill or hamstring the oxen, but rather took them alive for themselves. The KJB is right, as always.
One of the best known verses in this chapter is 49:10. "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a LAWGIVER from between his feet, until SHILOH come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." This verse is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ.
LAWGIVER is the reading of the KJB, the Jewish translations, the nkjv, Geneva Bible, Darby and Young's. But the nasb and niv say "THE RULER'S STAFF' yet have they translated this same word as "lawgiver" in Isaiah 33:22 "the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king."
Until SHILOH COME is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, NASB, ASV, Spanish Bibles and most versions out there except the NIV, RSV and NRSV. The word Shiloh occurs only once in the Bible and it comes from the verb meaning to be tranquil or to be at peace.
The NIV, along with the RSV and NRSV, says: "UNTIL HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS", and the perverted ESV has: "UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM" instead of "until Shiloh come". You won't find this note in the NIV but the RSV and NRSV both tell us in their footnotes that the SYRIAC reads the way the NIV does, but that the Hebrew says UNTIL SHILOH COME.
So why did the NIV "scholars" decide to dump the Hebrew text and follow the Syriac? Because in spite of all their rhetoric about being "good, godly, evangelical scholars" they are in reality biblical relativists, with no absolute authority but their own puffed up and deluded minds.
The NIV tells you in their own introduction that they have used sources other than the Hebrew for their Old Testament including "the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian, the Vulgate; the Syriac Peshitta, the Tagums. Readings from these versions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful." Introduction to the NIV found on page xviii.
These people are liars, folks. Many of the notes in the NIV tell you clearly what the Hebrew says, yet they follow these other sources.
In 49:12 the KJB along with the Jewish translations, the ASV, Geneva Bible, Young's, Darby and even the RSV say: "His eyes shall be RED WITH wine, and his teeth WHITE WITH milk."
The NKJV and NIV say: "His eyes shall be DARKER THAN wine, and his teeth WHITER THAN milk." while the NASB has: "his eyes shall be DULL FROM wine".
The NIV has a unique reading in 49:21. The KJB, as well as the NKJV, NASB and the Jewish translations say: "Naphtali is a hind let loose: HE GIVETH GOODLY WORDS." However the NIV again joins the super liberal RSV and NRSV, ESV and says: "THAT BEARS BEAUTIFUL FAWNS."!
Now that would be quite a trick for Naphtali to bear fawns. The word is WORDS # 561 eh mar and is used phrases such as "the words of God" in Numbers 24:4. 16, Deut.32:1 etc.
The blessing upon Joseph includes verse 26 which reads: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my PROGENITORS unto the UTMOST BOUND of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head OF HIM THAT WAS SEPARATE FROM his brethren."
"HIM THAT WAS SEPARATE from his brethren" is the reading of the KJB, the ASV, NKJV, Geneva, Youngs, Darby, the 1936 Jewish translation and even the RSV and NRSV. We all know that Joseph was separated from his brethren and sold into Egypt. The word is translated as separate in places like Leviticus 15:31; 22:2 and Ezekiel 14:7. The NASB says "the one DISTINGUISHED AMONG his brethren" while the NIV has "the PRINCE among his brothers."
PROGENITORS is the reading of the ASV, Young's, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, and ancestors is in the NKJV and NASB, which conveys the same meaning. And UTMOST BOUND or boundary is also the reading of these versions. However the NIV again goes along with the RSV and NRSV and says" blessings of THE ANCIENT MOUNTAINS, than the BOUNTY of the age old hills."
The NIV has changed PROGENITORS to ANCIENT MOUNTAINS, and UTMOST BOUND to BOUNTY. Why? Again the RSV gives us the reason. The RSV and nrsv footnote tells us that "ancient mountains" and "bounty" come from the Greek Septuagint but that the Hebrew says "progenitors" and "boundaries".
Anyone who knows these facts about the corrupt niv perversion and still uses it or tries to defend it as being the words of God is willfully blind.