Another King James Bible Believer

The Book of Hebrews - a comparison of conflicting versions

Hebrews chapters One through Nine

 

Hebrews 1:3 Person, substance, essence, being or subsistence? Is the King James Bible’s “Person” a “poor translation”?

At one of the Bible clubs I belong to a certain King James Bible critic posted the following as an alleged error and poor translation. This particular man is one of the loopier Bible Agnostics I have ever run into. He does not defend any Bible in any language as being the pure words of God. For example, he thinks John 7:53 to 8:12 should be omitted from all bibles, and that whole verses (about a hundred words) not found in any Bible on earth should be added to Mark 16.

In any event, here is what this man writes:

“A classic case of supposed re-inspiration as portrayed by KJVOnlyism!

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnesse of his glory, and the expresse image of his *person* (hupostaseos), and vpholding all things by the word of his power, when hee had by himselfe (heauton) purged our sinnes, sate down on ye right hand of the Maiestie on high, (KJV 1611)

Did the translaters/revisers receive the notion the word "person" instead of "substance" should be used for the Greek word "hupostaseos" by inspiration from God?

The Greek word "prosopon" is the most often used word rendered in English as "person". (Mat_22:16, Mar_12:14, Luk_20:21, 2Co_2:10, Gal_2:6, 2Co_1:11, Jud_1:16)

The Greek word "hupostaseos" and the Latin "substantiae" usually would be rendered "matter" or "substance".

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the *substance* (hupostasis) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Somehow "person" just wouldn't fit!

2Co 11:17 That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence (hupostasei) of boasting.

Heb 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence (hupostaseos) stedfast unto the end;

2Co 9:4 Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident (hupostasei) boasting.“ [End of Bible critic's comments]

Part One of my Refutation

When this self appointed Bible critic tells us that “Somehow "person" just wouldn't fit!”, then the obvious should be pointed out to him as well. Neither would the word “confidence”. Would it make any clear sense to say that the phrase should be translated as to show that the Son of God is “the express image of his confidence”?!?

Or how about any other of the possible meanings this word can carry as listed in the various lexicons? Would they “fit”? Let’s try any of these to see how well they might do. How about the Son of God is the express image of His “assurance”, or “steadfastness”, or “placing under”, or “substructure”, or “foundation”, or “firm trust”? Would any of these possible meanings of the word “fit”?

The Bible critic continues:

“Consider other versions of Heb 1:3

Heb 1:3 qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura *substantiae* eius portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae purgationem peccatorum faciens sedit ad dexteram Maiestatis in excelsis (Latin)

Heb 1:3 Which whanne also he is the briytnesse of glorie, and figure of his *substaunce*, and berith alle thingis bi word of his vertu, he makith purgacioun of synnes, and syttith on the riythalf of the maieste in heuenes; (Wycliffe 1385)

Heb 1:3 Which sonne beynge the brightnes of his glory and very ymage of his *substance* bearinge vp all thinges with the worde of his power hath in his awne person (heauton) pourged oure synnes and is sitten on the right honde of the maiestie an hye (Tyndale 1535)

Heb 1:3 Who beyng the bryghtnesse of the glorie, and the very image of his *substaunce*, vpholdyng all thynges with the worde of his power, hauing by him selfe (heauton) pourged our sinnes, hath syt on the ryght hande of the maiestie on hye: (Bishop's Bible 1568)

Heb 1:3 who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his *substance*, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (RV 1881)

Well glory be! The KJV translaters/revisers must have received this revelation by divine inspiration from God himself! Re-inspiration!!!!! But from which god?

Well not so fast! Let's see if we can find a source for such a poor translation of the Greek! Hmmmmmmmmm! Here it is!

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightnes of the glory, and the ingraued forme of his *person*, and bearing vp all things by his mightie worde, hath by himselfe purged our sinnes, and sitteth at the right hand of the Maiestie in the highest places, (Geneva Bible, 1560, 1599)

Sorry no re-inspiration here, just someone copying a poor translation!

Maybe the "Bishop's Bible revisers" would have been more accurate by following the Latin and retranslated the reading into the English as "the representation (figura) of His substance (substantiae)". Following the Bishop's Bible would have been more accurate! But then accuracy was never the issue with the KJV (revisers)!  [End of Bible critic's comments]

 

Part Two of my Refutation:

This Bible critic only mentions a few of the various ways different Bible versions have translated the word hupostasis. His suggested reading of “substance” when referring to God the Father is the worst of the lot. God the Father does not have any substance. The Bible clearly tells us that God the Father is a Spirit and not flesh and bones, and that He is invisible Spirit. See John 4:24 “God is a Spirit”, and Colossians 1:15 tells us that Christ “is the image of the invisible God”. See also 1 Timothy 1:17 and Hebrews 11:27.

Bible versions like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops’ bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, and Darby are just flat out wrong. The English Bible was in the process of being purified, and none of them got it totally right until God’s timing brought forth perfection in the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Though I firmly believe the King James Bible is by far the best of all Bibles in any language, I do not have a serious problem with other versions that translate this phrase as something like “the express image of his BEING” (NIV, Weymouth, Berkeley), or “NATURE” (NASB, RSV, ESV, HCSB), or “ESSENCE” (NET, Complete Jewish bible), but I do have a big problem with translating it as “express image of His SUBSTANCE”.

One of the meanings of the word “substance” lends itself to rank heresy, whereas the word “person” cannot. One of the clear meanings of the word “subtance” is this as given by any good dictionary: Substance = physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence b: matter of particular or definite chemical constitution c: something (as drugs or alcoholic beverages) deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction.”

The Mormons even use this translation of “substance” to support their idea that God the Father has a literal body. See one of their sites that promotes this idea based on the misleading translation this Bible agnostic promotes.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/hebrews1.htm

This Mormon defender states in part: “The Bible clearly teaches that God has a physical body. With serious proof-texting, many come to the conclusion that God is a spirit and hence without a physical body. New Research has shown that the scripture used for this has been misapplied. We believe that Hebrews 1:2-3 is one of the most clear, powerful and straight forward for showing that God is embodied with a divine body, with a human shape....Since the SUBSTANCE of Jesus is clearly flesh and bones, then the SUBSTANCE of the Father is flesh and bones. The scripture is quite clear on that!”

Let’s Define the Terms

Person - Webster’s Dictionary 1913 - “6. (Theol.) Among Trinitarians, one of the three subdivisions of the Godhead (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost); AN HYPOSTASIS (Caps are mine) Three persons and one God." Book of Common Prayer.”

Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary of the English Language, New York, 1917. Page 1007 defines Person as: - “Theology. One of the three individualities in the Trinity; HYPOSTASIS.”

Again, just as Webster’s dictionary, it uses the very word this Bible agnostic uses when he ignorantly criticizes the King James Bible. The Greek word hypostasis is used to define the theological use of the word Person when referring to the Godhead.

Definition of hypostasis.

Merriam Websters Dictionary - hy·pos·ta·sis Function: noun Etymology: Late Latin, substance, sediment, from Greek, support, foundation, substance, sediment, from hyphistasthai to stand under, support, from hypo- + histasthai to be standing

1 a: something that settles at the bottom of a fluid b: the settling of blood in the dependent parts of an organ or body 2: PERSON (caps are mine) 3 a: the substance or essential nature of an individual

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 1. the unique nature of the one God 2. any of the three PERSONS of the Trinity, each PERSON having the divine nature fully and equally 3. the union of the wholly divine nature and of a wholly human nature in the one PERSON of Jesus Christ

The American Heritage Dictionary hy·pos·ta·ses Christianity a. Any of the PERSONS of the Trinity. b. The essential PERSON of Jesus in which his human and divine natures are united.

Bible Commentators

John Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 1:3 supports the King James Bible reading of “person”. Calvin seems to be a bit mixed up and self-contradictory, but I believe one of his points is quite valid. Calvin comments: “The word (upostasis) which, by following others, I have rendered substance, denotes not, as I think, the being or essence of the Father, but HIS PERSON (caps are mine); for it would be strange to say that the essence of God is impressed on Christ, as the essence of both is simply the same. But it may truly and fitly be said that whatever peculiarly belongs to the Father is exhibited in Christ, so that he who knows him knows what is in the Father. And in this sense do the orthodox fathers take this term, hypostasis, considering it to be threefold in God, while the essence (ousia) is simply one. Hilary everywhere takes the Latin word substance for PERSON. But though it be not the Apostle’s object in this place to speak of what Christ is in himself, but of what he is really to us, yet he sufficiently confutes the Arians and Sabellians; for he claims for Christ what belongs to God alone, and also refers to two distinct PERSONS, as to the Father and the Son. For we hence learn that the Son is one God with the Father, and that he is yet in a sense distinct from him, so that a subsistence or PERSON belongs to both.”

John Gill comments on Hebrews 1:3 and the phrase “the express image of his person” saying: “And the express image of his person; this intends much the same as the other phrase; namely, equality and sameness of nature, and distinction of PERSONS; for if the Father is God, Christ must be so too; and if he is a PERSON, his Son must be so likewise, or he cannot be the express image and character of him.”

Other Bible translations

Other Bible translations that agree with the King James Bible’s “express image of HIS PERSON” are the following: The Geneva Bible 1560, 1587, 1599, 1602, The Beza N.T. 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, John Wesley’s translation made in 1755, the Worsley Version 1770, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster’s bible 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised New Testament 1862, The Revised English Bible 1877, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012.

The French Martin Bible 1744, the French Louis Segond 1910, and the French Ostervald 1996 all read just like the = KJB -”et qui, étant le reflet de sa gloire et l'empreinte de SA PERSONNE...”

The NIV Portuguese translation, put out by the International Bible Society 2000 reads just like the King James Bible - “imagem perfeita da SUA PESSOA.” (HIS PERSON)

The King James Bible is always right. Don’t let the Bible Agnostics move you from your faith in a perfect, inspired and inerrant Bible.  

 

Hebrews 1:3 - "the EXPRESS IMAGE of his person" 

I recently heard some Bible critic (who himself does not have nor believe that ANY Bible in any language is or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God) say that the King James Bible is wrong for saying "the EXPRESS IMAGE". 

He writes: "The actual Greek in the Byzantine / Majority Text means "exact imprint", a precise imprinting or carving as in minting a coin or creating a relief in rock or another medium. The ESV translates it as "exact imprint", a far closer and clearer rendering of what both the Antiochean and Critical Texts provide."  

 

When once a person abandons his belief in an inerrant Bible, I am convinced that their thinking processes become dulled and illogical. God turns them over to a reprobate mind. They may very well still be Christians, but their minds become clouded and confused.

The word in question is χαρακτηρ - (karakteer). Our English word "character" comes directly from this Greek word. It is true that the word was used to describe the image placed or engraved upon coins, and also that of a carved work in stone or a statue, but what is this but "the express image" of a thing?  Helloooo?

Even the Lexicons define this word as "likeness, IMAGE, exact representation" - Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, 17th edition, 1887 page 777.

"A mark or figure burned in, or stamped on, and impression; the exact expression, IMAGE, of any person or thing" - Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889 page 667.  

Not only does the King James Bible say "THE EXPRESS IMAGE of his person" but so do the following Bible translations: John Wesley's N.T. 1755, Webster's Bible 1833, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Anderson N.T. 1918, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Green's Interlinear 2005, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scriptures 2010 - "the EXPRESS IMAGE of his person", The Bond Slave Version 2012, The Modern English Version 2014


Other Bibles -

"the VERY IMAGE" - Tyndale 1534, The Great Bible 1540, Bishops' Bible 1568, Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, World English Bible 2012, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust)

"the IMAGE" - Noyes Translation 1869

The New European Version 2010 - "the EXACT IMAGE of his person"

"the EXACT REPRESENTATION" - Weymouth 1912, Amplified bible 1987, NASB 1995, NIV 2011

"the VERY EXPRESSION" - Complete Jewish Bible 1998

"the EXACT IMPRINT" - ESV 2011

"the IMPRESSED IMAGE" - Far Above All Translation 2011

"the VERY STAMP" - RSV

"IMPRINTED WITH GOD'S IMAGE" - The Voice 2012

"the EXACT EXPRESSION of his substance" - the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013

"the EXACT IMPRESS" - Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011

"the ENGRAVED FORM of his person" - the Geneva Bible 1587

"the EXACT LIKENESS" - God's Word Translation 1995, ISV 2014, Names of God Version 2011

"the EXACT EXPRESSION" - Holman 2009


Hebrews 1:3 "when he had BY HIMSELF purged OUR sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

“BY HIMSELF purged OUR sins” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts as well as in the NKJV, Syriac Peshitta, Spanish Reina Valera, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops’, Geneva, Youngs, Hebrew Names Version, Third Millennium Bible, and Green’s Modern KJV.

The very few Greek texts the modern versions use are totally mixed up even among themselves in this verse.

The NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman Standard omit the words "by himself" and the "our" of our sins. The NASB reads: "When He had made purification of sins, He sat down...".

Hebrews 1:3 "when he had by himself PURGED OUR SINS, sat down...". This verse teaches that Christ accomplished something wonderful for His people - He actually and in fact purged our sins by His substitutionary, redemptive work on the cross. It is an accomplished fact of redemption. However the NIV not only omits "by himself" and "our" but also has rendered the rest of the verse as: "After he had PROVIDED PURIFICATION FOR SINS, he sat down at the right hand..." To provide purification is not the same as to actually purge.

 

Hebrews 1:4 “was made” or “became”?


James Grimes, a typical bible agnostic who is his own authority and who couldn’t show you a copy of a complete and inerrant Bible if his life depended on it, posted: “I was asked a question about a phrase in Hebrews 1:4 in the KJV, "(Jesus) Being made so much better than the Angels..."  As we know, Jesus was not "made" or created.

The KJV does not translate the Greek well in this passage. The Greek word is "ginomai," or "to become." The Greek word for make or create is "poieo." The translators here misused the English word "made," where they should have used "became."  Vigilance in one's Bible study is so important. See for yourself; don't blindly take someone's word for something that you can easily verify for yourself.”


My Response


James Grimes, as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you sure don't have a complete and inerrant Bible in any language that you believe in as your final authority. YOU are your own "final authority" - subject to change at any moment.


The Greek word ginomai has many meanings and ALL English bibles I am aware of sometimes translate it as "made".


In fact, the NASB translates the verb ginomai as “made” some 16 times, as in Philippians 2:7 where the Son of God “was MADE in the likeness of men” and in James 3:9 where “men are MADE after the similitude of God.”



And Jesus WAS made so much better than the angels by the things he suffered as a man as he learned obedience by the things that he suffered.


Not only does the KJB correctly have "made" here in Hebrews 1:4 but so also do the Geneva bible 1587,  The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston's N.T. 1745, John Wesley's N.T. 1755,  Haweis N.T. 1795, Thomson Translation 1808, Webster's bible 1833, Sawyer N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Clarke N.T. 1913, New Life Version 1969, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Bond Slave Version 2012 and the Modern English Version 2014

 


Hebrews 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE?" This is a reference to Psalms 2:7 and the verse is quoted three other times in Scripture. Here in Hebrews 1:5, 5:5 and Acts 13: 33. It refers to the day when God the Father raised Jesus Christ from the dead, not to His incarnation, for Jesus was the only begotten Son BEFORE His incarnation and obviously before His resurrection.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary:

this day have I begotten thee-- (Psalms 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4). Christ has a fourfold right to the title "Son of God"; (1) By generation, as begotten of God; (2) By commission, as sent by God; (3) By resurrection, as "the first-begotten of the dead" (4) By actual possession, as heir of all . I the Everlasting Father have begotten Thee this day, that is, on this day, the day of Thy being manifested as My Son, "the first-begotten of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5).The context refers to a definite point of time, namely, that of His having entered on the inheritance (Heb. 1:4)."

B.W. Johnson, People's New Testament:

"This day have I begotten thee. What day is referred to in the prophecy? Acts 13:32, 33 answers the question by quoting this very passage and declaring that it was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. He was born from the dead and God, who raised him, thus demonstrated that he was his Son.

The Expositor's Greek Testament:

"Today" is evidently intended to mark a special occasion and cannot allude to the eternal generation of the Son. It is not the beginning of life, but the entrance on office that is indicated and it is as King the person addressed is God's Son. Thus Paul applies it to the resurrection of Christ in Acts 13:33.

Hebrews 1:5 reads "this day have I begotten thee" in the KJB, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, but the NIV and the Holman Standard actually say: "You are my Son, Today I have become your Father".!!! This is heresy and is found in no text on the face of this earth. If there was a day when God became the Father of Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ was not the Son of God before that day. There is only one other version I have seen that renders this phrase "today I have become your Father" and that is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, and they do not believe that Jesus Christ is eternal God.

The NIV, ESV and the Holman CSB also agree with the Jehovah Witness New World Translation in Micah 5:2 by stating that Christ had "origins" and was "from ancient times", rather than the correct reading that Christ's "goings forth are from everlasting". The Jehovah Witnesses use both Micah 5:2 and Acts 13:33 (both of which read exactly the same in the NIV) as proof texts to teach that Jesus Christ was a created being, and not the eternal and from everlasting Son of God.

If you think the "message" is the same in all bibles then you haven’t been paying attention. The obvious fact is they are frequently very different in both text and meaning.

Hebrews 1:8 "But UNTO the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of THY kingdom."

Hebrews 1:8 "But UNTO the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of THY kingdom."

This verse shows God the Father directly addressing His Son as God. However the NASB says: "but OF the Son He says...the righteous scepter is the scepter of HIS (not Thy) kingdom." The word "his" instead of "thy" is found in the corrupt manuscripts of Siniaticus and Vaticanus, yet they differ from each other literally thousands of times. We will see more instances of these differences between them as we continue.

The NASB has a misleading footnote that says: SOME mss. read "Thy" - Some?! How about the vast majority of all remaining manuscripts and ancient versions, including A, D, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Palestinian, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Slavonic, Wycliffe, Coverdale, Tyndale, Bishops’, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, NET, NKJV, and even the NIV. For some reason these other modern versions chose not to follow Vaticanus in this verse, even though they do so hundreds of other times.

The Nestle-Aland critical text continues to change every few years. The Nestle-Aland text USED to read “HIS kingdom” (autou) , even when the RV and ASV came out, but they didn’t follow this reading. Only the NASB reads this way, but the latest Nestle-Aland 27th reads THY (your - sou) like the NIV, NKJV, ESV and most other bibles. I guess the old NASB is now out of date, huh?

Hebrews chapter Two

Hebrews 2:7 KJB - "Thou madest him A LITTLE LOWER than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS."  (R.V., ASV, NASB, NKJV) 

ESV - "You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor." (NIV, NET, Holman)


The full reading for this verse that includes the words at the end of the verse - "AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS." are found in Sinaiticus, A, C, D original, 0150 0243 6 33 81 88 104 181 256 263 330 365 424 436 451 459 629 1573 1739 1877 1881 1991 1912 1962 1985 2127 2464 2492,  the Old Latin copies of ar, b, c, d, den, div, e, f, v, x, z, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, the Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Armenian, Ehtiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

 

The Critical Text versions don't even agree with each other. Here Vaticanus and P46 omit the words - "AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS" and so too do versions like the NIV, ESV, ISV, NET, Common English Bible and the Holman Standard all OMIT these words.

But these same two manuscripts, Vaticanus and P46, also omit the words "under him" in the next verse where we read "in that he put all in subjection UNDER HIM", and this time these same versions that omitted all the words from verse 7 because of Vaticanus and P46, now included them in verse 8.  You see, this is how their "science" of textual criticism works.  

But not even all the Critical Text versions agree with each other - not even close.

 

This time even the NASB 1963-1995, RV 1881, ASV 1901 (all critical text versions) include the words "AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS" in Hebrews 2:7, as  well as other Critical Text versions like Weymouth 1912, Goodspeed 1923, Rotherham 1902 and even the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.

See how the "scholars", even among those using the ever changing Critical Greek text, don't agree among themselves. This same confusion is constantly repeated in the new Bible of the Month versions that continue to pour off the presses.

We also see other changes taking place in Vatican Versions like the NIV. The 1984 NIV edition of Hebrews 2:6-7 reads: "What is MAN that you are mindful of HIM, THE son of man that you care for him? You made HIM a little lower than the angels; you crowned HIM with glory and honor and put everything under HIS feet." 

But the NIV 2011 "gender neutral" edition now reads: "What is MANKIND that you are mindful of THEM, A son of man that you care for him? You made THEM a little lower than the angels; you crowned THEM with glory and honor and put everything under THEIR feet."  

NO Greek text reads like the NIV 2011 edition, but they aren't much concerned about that. They are just "putting it into the way we talk today" so you can understand it better, don't ya know.

And when quoting from Psalm 8:5 the NIV 1984 edition says: "You made HIM a little lower than the HEAVENLY BEINGS." But the 2011 NIV edition now says: "You have made THEM a little lower than the ANGELS."

Back to Hebrews 2:7

The words "AND DIDST SET HIM OVER THE WORKS OF THY HANDS" are found in Wycliffe 1395 - "and thou hast ordeyned him on the werkis of thin hondis.", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "and hast set hym aboue the workes of thy handes.", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's translation 1755, the Revised Version 1881 - “And didst set him over the works of thy hands”, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 (a Critical text), Godbey N.T. 1902, Twentieth Century N.T. 1904, Weymouth 1912, Goodspeed 1923, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Douay 1950, J.P. Phillips translation 1962, NASB 1995, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, the Amplified Bible 1987,  KJV 21st Century 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Knox Bible 2012,  The Voice 2012, and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "And set him over the works of Your hands.", The Biblos Bible 2013, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Open English Bible 2014 and the Modern English Version 2014.

At least half of these translations are Critical Text versions.

 

The Catholic Connection

We see the same confusion among the Catholic versions. The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 included these words "and didst set him over the works of thy hands" as well as the 1950 Douay, but the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible all now OMIT this phrase.

But there is more -   Now the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, The Sacred Scriptures, has come out, and it now once again includes these inspired words of Scripture - "and you have set him over the works of your hands."

 

Among foreign language Bibles the words are found in the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodati 1991 - "e lo hai costituito sopra le opere delle tue mani", Luther's German bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlachter Bible - "und hast ihn gesetzt über die Werke deiner Hände.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, La Biblia de Las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation), the Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005, the Reina Valera Contemporánea 2011 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible - "Y le pusiste sobre las obras de tus manos", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - "et tu lui as donné la domination sur ce que tes mains ont fai.", the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2010 - "and you have authorized him over the works of your hands.”, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 - "og satte ham over dine henders gjerninger", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "en Gij hebt hem gesteld over de werken Uwer handen", the Chinese Union Bible, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "met heerlikheid en eer het U hom gekroon en hom oor die werke van u hande aangestel.", the Polish Gdanska Bible, the Russian Synodal Bible and the Russian Zhuromsky N.T., the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "e o constituíste sobre as obras de tuas mãos.", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "Ipinailalim mo sa kaniya ang lahat ng gawa ng iyong mga kamay.” 

and the Modern Greek Bible used in the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world - "και κατεστησας αυτον επι τα εργα των χειρων σου·" and the Modern Hebrew Bible 

 

"Thou madest him A LITTLE LOWER THAN the angels" is quoted from Psalm 8:5. "A little lower" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV and NIV, but the NASB, ESV and the Holman say God made man "FOR A LITTLE WHILE lower than the angels".

The interesting thing is when you look back at Psalms 8:5 the King James Bible correctly reads: "For thou hast made him a little lower than THE ANGELS." This is also the reading of the NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Lamsa, Webster's, New American Bible, Douay, Douay-Rheims, Spanish, Diodati, Darby, Living Bible, New Century Version, Modern Greek translation, KJV 21 and the Third Millennium Bible.

However the NASB and the Holman Standard actually read: "Thou hast made him a little lower THAN GOD." One could combine the NASB and Holman readings to say: "Thou hast made him for a little while lower than God", and thus imply that man will some day be equal to God. Isn't this the ultimate apostasy that fallen man will embrace?

The NIV 1984 edition and the ESV differ yet from both the KJB and the NASB in that they read in Psalm 8:5 "You made him a little lower than the HEAVENLY BEINGS." However the NIV 2011 has now changed once again and now reads: "You have made  them a little lower than THE ANGELS." So, is it angels, heavenly beings, or God?

Do you think James White is correct when he says we can get a sense of the real meaning by comparing all the different versions together? All we really end up with is total confusion which leads to unbelief and apostasy.


Hebrews 2:16 KJB - "For verily he TOOK NOT ON HIM THE NATURE OF angels; but he TOOK ON HIM the seed of Abraham." This verse deals with the incarnation of our Lord who was made a little lower than the angels and "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He likewise took part of the same". Not only does the KJB read this way but so also do the Geneva Bible, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Lamsa's translation, Webster's 1833, Modern Greek edition, Bible in Basic English, and the Living Bible.

However the NKJV, NIV, Holman and NASB read: "For indeed He DOES NOT GIVE AID TO angels, but He DOES GIVE AID TO the seed of Abraham." (NKJV). The meaning is very different, and it is also untrue. God does help and give aid to angels. Notice what John Gill and other commentators have stated.

John Gill

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels… Good angels; for they are all along spoken of in this book; and it would have been impertinent to have said this of evil angels: and this is to be understood not of a denying help and assistance to the angels; for though they have not redemption from Christ, which they needed not, yet have they help from him; they are chosen in him, and are gathered together under him; and he is the head of them, and they are upheld and sustained by him in their being, and well being: but of a non-assumption of their nature; there was no need of it with respect to good angels, and there was no salvation designed for evil ones; and to have assumed the nature of angels, would have been of no service to fallen man; an angelic nature is not capable of death, which was necessary to atone for sin, save men, and destroy Satan.

People's New Testament commentary:

Hebrews 2:16-18. He took not the nature. He did not lay hold of an angel form in order to save angels, but the human form and nature, in order to be our Savior. He chose to be the seed of Abraham.

Matthew Henry

“Here the apostle proceeds to assert the incarnation of Christ, as taking upon him not the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham; and he shows the reason and design of his so doing. The incarnation of Christ is asserted. He took part of flesh and blood. Though as God he pre-existed from all eternity, yet in the fulness of time he took our nature into union with his divine nature, and became really and truly man. Now Christ resolving to recover the seed of Abraham and raise them up from their fallen state, he took upon him the human nature from one descended from the loins of Abraham, that the same nature that had sinned might suffer, to restore human nature to a state of hope."

Hebrews chapter Three

Hebrews 3:1 "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, CHRIST Jesus." Here the word CHRIST is omitted in the NIV, ESV, Holman, and the NASB even though it is found in the majority of all mss., the Syriac Peshitta and in P13, both of which predate Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. CHRIST Jesus is also in the NKJV, Spanish Reina Valera and Luther's German.

Hebrews 3:2 "as also Moses was faithful in ALL his house." Here Vaticanus omits the word "all" (holoo), but it is in Sinaiticus, and this time the NASB includes it, while the RSV, NRSV omit it. Then the ESV, NIV and Holman keep the word "all" but they also add the word "God" when not in any text, saying "in all God's house".

Hebrews 3:6 "But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the REJOICING of the hope FIRM UNTO THE END."

In this verse the words "firm unto the end" are again found in the majority of mss. and in Sinaiticus and the NASB, RV, ASV, but Vaticanus omits them and so do the NIV, RSV, Holman and ESV. Again see how the "oldest and best" constantly differ between themselves and how the "scholars" also differ among themselves. They have no sure word of God, and neither do you if you follow them.

The "REJOICING of the hope" is the reading of the KJB, Geneva, NKJV, Young's and others, but the RSV translates this as "the PRIDE of our hope" and the NASB, ESV, NIV have "the BOAST of our hope", and the Holman says: "the CONFIDENCE of our hope". The Greek is the same, but they have altered the meaning. We can definitely rejoice in what God has done for us, but dare we take pride or boast?

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



NKJV (ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible) - "For WHO, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, WAS IT NOT ALL who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?"

Notice that this is a statement in the King James Bible. Not everyone provoked God, but some did. Caleb and Joshua did believe God and the thousands of children from 20 years old and under did enter the promised land. It was only the grown men ages 20-up who were able to go to war (Numbers 1:3), numbering 603,548 (Numbers 1:46 minus Joshua and Caleb), who rejected God's command and died in the wilderness.

The children, women, elderly men (unable to go to war), and possibly even all of the Levites (they were not numbered for war - Numbers 1:47) who came out of Egypt (therefore numbering more than the fighting men as a whole by estimation) are not included in the group of provokers. (Numbers 14:29, Deuteronomy 2:14) That is why the Hebrews passage is quite accurate to say "some" and then to describe who those "some" were.

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

This is the reading of the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible and of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833, the KJV21st Century Version 1994,the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, Young's, the Douay-Rheims - "For some who heard did provoke: but not all that came out of Egypt by Moses." and the later 1950 Douay version (though the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 now agree with the UBS critical text put together by the Vatican and "evangelicals" ), the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the early Italian Diodati, the French Martin of 1744 and Luther's 1545 German Bible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Additional sources which support the King James Bible reading.

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

LATIN EVIDENCES - OLD LATIN & VULGATE & REFORMATION BIBLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OTHER EARLY TEXT-LINES

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

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

PESHITTA

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a couple of additional fine commentaries.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pi...ebrews_015.htm

An Exposition of Hebrews - Christ Superior to Moses. - Arthur Pink (1886-1952)

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=4l0PAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA342

Thomas Chalmers (1780- 1847)

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

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=bGwsKmDfnCoC&pg=PA83

The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans By Edwin Hamilton Gifford

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

The King James Bible is right: "For SOME, when they had heard, did provoke: HOWBEIT NOT ALL that came out of Egypt by Moses."

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

 

 

Hebrews Chapter 4

Unbelief or Disobedience?

It is somewhat amusing to see the "scholars" stumble over themselves as some of them try to discredit the King James Bible. A case in point is the rendering and meaning of the word apeitheoo and its noun form of apeitheia, which are translated in the KJB as "believed not" and "unbelief" in Hebrews and other places.

In Chapter 4 the noun form is found twice and the verb occurs in 3:18 where it says: "And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that BELIEVED NOT?" Verse 19 - "So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." Verse 19 effectively defines the contextual meaning of the verb rendered as "believed not". Apeitheoo can have the meaning of "not being persuaded", and thus, to not believe. We often string synonymns together to illustrate a point. If I say someone is unbelieving, without faith, incredulous, doubting, disbelieving, and not persuaded, I mean that he does not believe.

Again in 4:6 and 4:11 we are told: "Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of UNBELIEF"..."Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of UNBELIEF." Again the context of verse three defines the meaning of these two nouns - "For we which have believed do enter into rest".

Some lexicons and commentaries come right out and say this word only means disobedience and not unbelief - "as the A.V. incorrectly has it". Yet if you consult others like Liddell & Scott, Thayers and Vines we see they do allow for both meanings. The KJB sometimes translates apeitheo and its noun form as Disobedience and at othertimes as Unbelief - all the versions do the same thing with this word.

The whole context of the book of Hebrews is the ultimate importance of faith and the dangers of unbelief.

John Gill comments on Hebrews 3:18 where the KJB says they "believed not" but the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, and Holman say they "did not obey": - "And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest but to them that believed not the Lord; notwithstanding the signs and wonders he showed among them, they would not be persuaded by Moses and Aaron, by Joshua and Caleb, to be still and quiet, to cease murmuring, and submit to the will of God, and believe in him; Unbelief is a source of sin, and cause of judgment, being greatly provoking to God."

The NKJV has joined an host of modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman, and the RSV in rendering this word as "disobeyed" and "disobedience" in Hebrews 3:18. "And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did NOT OBEY?", and in 4:6 "they entered not in because of DISOBEDIENCE" and 4:11 "lest anyone fall after the same example of DISOBEDIENCE." The NKJV is not just updating the "archaic words" of the KJB, but is changing the meaning of hundreds of verses.

Yet the inconsistency of these modern versions is that the NKJV has also rendered this same Greek word as "Believed not", and "Unbelief" in John 3:36, Acts 14:2, 19:9, Romans 15:31 and Hebrews 11:31. The NASB has done so in Acts 14:2 and 1 Peter 2:7, while the NIV has "rejects" in John 3:36, "not believe" in 1 Peter 3:1, and Romans 15:31, and as "refuse to believe" in Acts 14:2 and 19:9.

Other Bible versions that agree with the KJB in Hebrews 3:18, and 4:6, 11 in saying they did not enter because they believed not are Tyndale, Geneva, Coverdale, Wesley, Young's, Darbys, Wycliffe, Douay, Douay-Rheims, Italian Diodati, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, Webster's, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, MKJV (Green), New English Bible and Today's English Version.

We are told in the Old Testament that the reason the children of Israel did not enter the promised land is because they did not believe God. Numbers 14:11 "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they BELIEVE me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?"

Deuteronomy 1:32 "Yet in this thing (entering the promised land) ye DID NOT BELIEVE the LORD your God." And in Deut. 9:23 "Likewise when the LORD sent you from Kadesh-barnea saying, Go up and possess the land which I have given you; then ye rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God, and YE BELIEVED HIM NOT, nor hearkended unto his voice."

Why, you might ask, is this distinction so critical here? Because we are talking about our salvation from sin and our resting in the finished, redemptive work of Christ. We do not obtain these things by our obedience or lose them by our disobedience, but rather we "believe to the saving of the the soul" Hebrews 10:39.

Who among us can claim to be totally obedient to God in all things at all times? We often fail and fall far short of the character of Christ, yet if we believe in our hearts that Christ alone is our only Saviour from sin and hell, we belong to Him and can never be lost.

Notice again this legalistic tendency in the NASB, RSV, ESV in John 3:36 where this same word apeitheoo is used. The KJB reads: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that BELIEVETH NOT the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Pretty straight forward, isn't it? If you believe on the Son you have life; if you do not believe, the wrath of God abides on you. This is also the reading of the NKJV, Bible in Basic English, Douay, Spanish, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, Diodati, Young's, Webster, TMB, KJV 21, French Louis Segond, Worldwide English N.T., and Wycliffe. Even the Holman Christian Standard Bible agrees with the KJB reading. It says: "The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who refuses to believe in the Son will not see life..."

The NIV paraphrases by saying "He that REJECTS the Son will not see life", but there is no great theological error here. However the NASB, RSV, ESV say: "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life, but he who DOES NOT OBEY the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

So, according to the NASB, RSV, and ESV where do you stand if you believe on the Son and yet are at times disobedient? Will God's wrath fall upon you in this condition? Is there any rest and confidence in the finished work of Christ for you?

As Hebrews 4 tells us: "For we which have believed do enter into rest...For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his."

 

Hebrews 4:9 “There remaineth therefore A REST to the people of God.”

 

Some Bible critics who themselves do not believe that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God (Ask them to SHOW YOU a copy) tell us the King James Bible is wrong here in Hebrews 4:9 for translating the word sabbatismos (σαββατισμος) simply as “a rest”.  

Some of the Hebrew Roots Movement folks or the Seventh Day Adventists are particularly vocal about this. They tell us the word should be translated as “a keeping of the Sabbath” and that we are therefore obligated by God to be Sabbath keepers.

This is, of course, the same old Galatian error of trying to put New Testament Christians back under the law of Moses. 

“But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Ye observe days, and months, and times and years.

I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.”

Galatians 4:8-10

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage.”

Galatians 5:1

The word translated as “rest” in the KJB in Hebrews 4:9 is found only once in Greek New Testament. This REST is speaking of the finished work of redemption that the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished for his people at the cross.

“For we which have believed do enter into rest”

“For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.”

Hebrews 4:3, 10.

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon 1886 page 565 defines the word sabbatismos as meaning: “the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians.”

The Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon, 1968 page 1579 defines sabbatismos as: “a keeping of days of rest”

Some weird translations - 

the sabbath is left - Wycliffe 1395

a sabbatism - Darby 1890

a sabbatic-rest - Young’s 1898

a Sabbath-keeping - Rotherham’s bible 1902

a Shabbat-keeping - Complete Jewish Bible 1998

the seventh-day rest - Easy-to-Read Version 2006

a Sabbath rest - ESV, Holman, NASB, NIV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic Douay, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970.

a time of eternal rest - God’s Word Translation 1995

Not only does the King James Bible correctly translate this word as “There remaineth therefore A REST to the people of God.” but so also do the following Bible translations - Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster’s bible 1833, Living Oracles 1835 - “a divine rest”, The Longman Version 1841, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Riverside N.T. 1923, New Life Version 1969 - “a complete rest”, Living Bible 1971, J.B. Phillips N.T 1972, NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Easy English Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Names of God Bible 2011, The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011, The Voice 2012 - “a place of rest”, The Bond Slave Version 2012 - “a rest”, The Translator’s Bible 2014, The Modern English Version 2014 and The New Living Translation - “a special rest”.

Foreign Language Bibles = KJB

Even though the NIV English version says “a Sabbath-rest”, yet the NIV Spanish bible - Nueva Versión Internacional (NVI) 1999 reads: “ Por consiguiente, queda todavía UN REPOSO especial para el pueblo de Dios” = “a special rest”.

Also reading simply “ A REST” are the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 and the R.V. Contemporánea 2011 - “queda UN REPOSO para el pueblo de Dios.”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 and O Livro 2000 - “resta ainda UM REPOUSO para o povo de Deus.”

Commentaries -

B.W. Johnson’s Bible Commentary - “There remaineth therefore a rest. Since God has a rest for his people, and neither the Sabbath nor Canaan is the rest, these being only types of that rest, a rest remaineth to the people of God. 10. For he that is entered into his rest. When God rested on the Sabbath, the type of the true rest, his works ceased. So when our rest comes, weary toil, trials and sufferings will be over.”

Matthew Henry - “Now as God finished his work, and then rested from it, and acquiesced in it, so he will cause those who believe to finish their work, and then to enjoy their rest…A rest of grace, and comfort, and holiness, in the gospel state. This is the rest wherewith the Lord Jesus, our Joshua, causes weary souls and awakened consciences to rest, and this is the refreshing. .. It is certain that God, after the creating of the world in six days, entered into his rest; and it is certain that Christ, when he had finished the work of our redemption, entered into his rest; and these were not only examples, but earnests, that believers shall enter into their rest: He that hath entered into rest hath also ceased from his own works as God did from his, v. 10. Every true believer hath ceased from his own works of righteousness, and from the burdensome works of the law, as God and Christ have ceased from their works of creation and redemption.”

John Wesley on Hebrews 4:9 - “Therefore - Since he still speaks of another day, there must remain a farther, even an eternal, rest for the people of God.”

Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible - Hebrews 4:9 - “his rest still remained for the people of God. All that is here said is, to urge the Hebrews to continue steadfast in their faith, by proving to them that the rest of God preached to us by Christ, is infinitely more advantageous, and infinitely superior to that which was promised by Moses. It was a state of perfect happiness, peace, quietness in heaven: it was such a cessation from labour, as God himself enjoyed after the creation. This rest therefore ought to be the great object of our care, the grand point to be adhered to; and the principle by which it is to be attained, is a faith firm and sure.”

The King James Bible is right, as always.

 

Hebrews 6:2 “the doctrine of BAPTISMS”


One Version rummaging bible agnostic who does not believe that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God writes: “I'm running into a little bit of a problem with the KJV translation of this passage. The author was writing to a group of Hebrews who were not yet Christians at this point. The KJV translators seemed to have thought these Hebrews were Christians and some of the terminology in verse two was translated as though the author was addressing Christians. For example, in this verse, the Greek "baptismos" was translated as "baptisms," when it should have been rendered as "washing," as in Jewish ceremonial washing.”


He is wrong, of course, both in his strange theology and understanding of the book of Hebrews itself and regarding how this word should be translated.


Among the principles of the doctrine of Christ (context) was the doctrine of Baptisms. See for example such verses as Matthew 3:7; 20:22-23; 28:19; Mark 10:38-39; Romans 6:4;  1 Corinthians 10:2; Colossians 2:12.


KJB - “Of the doctrine of BAPTISMS, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”



NASB ( Holman Standard - “or about BAPTISMS”, ESV- Footnote “or BAPTISMS”) - “of instruction about WASHINGS and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.”


NIV - “instruction about CLEANSING RITES” Footnote - Or about BAPTISMS.




Tree of Life Version 2015 - “teaching about IMMERSIONS”


“the doctrine of BAPTISMS”


Agreeing with the King James Bible are  Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1599, The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, the Thomson Translation 1808, The Revised Translation 1815,  Noyes N.T. 1819, Webster’s bible 1833, Sawyer’s N.T. 1858, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Revised Version 1885, Young’s 1898, the ASV 1901, Twentieth Century N.T. 1901,  Goodbye N.T. 1902, Goodspeed N.T. 1927, Bible in Basic English 1961, Living Bible 1971, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1972, The NKJV 1982, Good News Translation 1992, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, KJV 21st Century 1994, Contemporary English Version 1995, God’s Word Translation 1995, The Lawrie Translation 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, the World English Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Message 2002 - “BAPTISMAL instructions”, New Century Version 2005, Green’s Literal 2005, Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Pickering N.T. 2005, Daniel Wallace’s NET version 2006 - “teachings about BAPTISMS”, Easy-to-Read Version 2006, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Faithful N.T. 2009, Jubilee Bible 2010, New American Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010,  The New American Bible 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The Conservative Bible 2010, the Expanded Bible 2011, The Work of God’s Children bible 2011, the Names of God Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, International Standard Version 2014, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014, the International Children’s Bible 2015 - “the teaching of BAPTISMS”.



Foreign Language Bibles.


The “ever reliable NIVs”  


Even though the English NIV versions says “cleansing rites”, yet the Spanish Nueva Versión Internacional 2015 reads like the KJB with “la instrucción sobre BAUTISMOS”, as does the NIV Portuguese Nova Versão Internacional 2000 “da instrução a respeito de BATISMOS”, the Portuguese O Livro 2000 and Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “e da doutrina dos batismos” and so also do the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - “de la doctrina de BAUTISMOS”, and the French La Bible Du Semeur 1999 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - “de l'enseignement concernant les BAPTEMES, the Italian Diodati 1991 and the Italian Nuova Riveduta 2006 - “della dottrina dei BATTESIMI, 

Hebrews 7:4 "to whom EVEN the patriarch Abraham". The word "even" (kai) is in majority, Sinaiticus and the NIV and Holman include it, but Vaticanus omits it and so do the NASB and the ESV.

Hebrews 7:14 "Moses spake nothing concerning PRIESTHOOD" - so read the majority of all texts, but Alexandrian texts read " nothing concerning PRIESTS" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman.

Hebrews 7:21 "Thou art a priest for ever AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC" - This phrase is in the majority of all texts including Sinaiticus correction, A and D. It is also the reading of the NKJV, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, Youngs, Hebrew Names Bible and many others, but Vaticanus omits it and so do the NIV, ESV, Holman, and the NASB.

Hebrews 8:11 "shall not teach every man his NEIGHBOR" (plesion) is in the traditional text and NIV and ESV too!, but the Alexandrian texts read FELLOW CITIZEN (politen) and so do the Holman and the NASB. See how the scholars disagree among themselves.

Hebrews 8:12 "and their sins AND THEIR INIQUITIES will I remember no more." - in majority, Sinaiticus correction and A. Also found in the NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Spanish and many others, but Vaticanus omits and so do the NASB, ESV, Holman, and the NIV.

Hebrews 9:11 "Christ..an high priest of good things TO COME" (mellonton). This is the reading of the majority of all Greek texts, A, and Sinaiticus and the NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, and Douay. However the NIV, ESV, and Holman this time follow Vaticanus and says: "good things THAT ARE ALREADY HERE" (genomenon). We see from this and many other examples how the so called "oldest and best" constantly differ from each other and the bible scholars often don't agree in their "science of textual criticism". Today's Bible of the Month Clubs constantly skip from one of the oldest and best to the other one without any rhyme or reason.

Vaticanus is missing from the middle of Hebrews chapter 9 till the end. In fact, it is also missing all of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and the whold book of Revelation, so it is no longer consulted in the footnotes.

Hebrews 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge YOUR conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

Here YOUR conscience is the reading of the majority and Sinaiticus, the NASB, NKJV, ASV and the RSV, but manuscript Alexandrinus reads OUR conscience and so do the NIV, Holman, and the ESV.

Hebrews chapters 10-13

 Hebrews 10:9 "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O GOD." The words "O God" are in the majority of all Greek texts and Sinaiticus correction. It is also the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Geneva, the Syriac Peshitta, Spanish Reina Valera, NKJV and many others. However the other minority Alexandrian texts omit "O God" and so too the NASB, ESV, Holman, and the NIV.

 

Hebrews 10:29 “an unholy thing”, “a common thing”, “unclean”, “profane”?  When Bible correctors mess with the Book.

 

In Hebrews 10:29 we read: “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, AN UNHOLY THING, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

 

NKJV - “A COMMON THING”

 

NASB - “AS UNCLEAN”

 

ESV - “HAS PROFANED” 

 

NIV - “AN UNHOLY THING” 

 

Holman Standard - “AS PROFANE”

 

Recently I saw a video posted by a man who is a professing King James Bible believer, and in his teaching on this verse he “corrected” the King James Bible and told us that “the Greek says COMMON”.

 

Of course this brother doesn’t know how to read Greek himself. He just looked in some lexicon and saw that the word koinos can mean “common” and so he decided to “correct” the King James Bible.

 

The fact of the matter is, this single word (as most other Greek and Hebrew and English, Spanish and French words) has many meanings depending on the context.

 

The Lexicons themselves tell us that the Greek word “koinos” can mean such diverse things as “common, profane as distinct from holy (Kittle), unclean, and defiled.”

 

Other Translations  (some are very weird) 

 

J.B. Phillips N. T. 1962 - “TREATED LIKE DIRT”

 

New Life Version 1969 - “IS WORTH NOTHING”

 

The Amplified Bible 1987 - “COMMON AND UNHALLOWED”  

 

Good News Translation 1992 - “A CHEAP THING”

 

God’s Word to the Nations  1995 - “NO DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PEOPLE’S BLOOD” 

 

Worldwide English N.T. 1998 - “CALLS IT NOTHING”

 

Conservative Bible 2011 - “A SILLY THING”

 

The Concordant Version 2006 - “CONTAMINATING”

 

Context Group Version 2007 - “AN ORDINARY THING” 

 

The Last Days Bible 1999 - “WORTHLESS” 

 

Common English Bible 2011 - “JUST ORDINARY BLOOD”

 

The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - “UNCLEAN” 

 

The Voice 2012 - “TRAMPLED ON” 

 

 

“AN UNHOLY THING”

 

 

Not only does the King James Bible say “AN UNHOLY THING” but so do Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Whiston’s New Testament 1745, Wesley’s Translation 1755, Webster’s Translation 1833, Noyes Translation 1869, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, The Word of Yah 1993, God’s First Truth 1999, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Resurrection Life N.T 2005 (Vinice Garcia), the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010,  Jubilee Bible 2010, The World English Bible 2012 and even the NIV 2011!

 

 

The King James Bible’s “counted the blood of the covenant…AN UNHOLY THING” is a perfectly good translation, especially in the light of the Old Testament sacrificial system that distinguished between the holy and the unholy.

 

If you profess to be a King James Bible believer, then be one. Don’t start to think you are smarter or more qualified than the 47 masters of their craft God used to give us His perfect Book.

 

Don’t be like so many others today who are like the ones described in Judges 21:25 - “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

 

All of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible.

 

Hebrews 10:30 "I will recompense, SAITH THE LORD" - in Majority, Sinaiticus correction and even A. It is also found in Tyndale, Geneva, the Syriac Peshitta, Spanish, NKJV, Hebrew Names Version, Green's MKJV, Young's and others but the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman omit "saith the Lord".

Hebrews 10:34 "For ye had compassion OF ME IN BY BONDS" (tois desmois mou) which again is in the majority, Sinaiticus and P46 which predates Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by 150 years. It is also the reading of the NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, Hebrew Names Version and others. But manuscript Alexandrinus (which the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman just got done rejecting in verse 30) reads: "you sympathized with THOSE IN PRISON" (tois desmiois) and so do the NASB, NIV, Holman, and ESV!

Hebrews 10:34 "knowing in yourselves that ye have IN HEAVEN a better and an enduring substance." IN HEAVEN is in the majority and Sinaiticus correction and is highly significant in the context. That we have a better and enduring substance IN HEAVEN is the reading of the NKJV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, Syriac Peshitta, Spanish, Youngs and Green's MKJV. However, the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman omit these important words and say: "because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions."

Hebrews 10:38 presents us with not only a slight textual difference, but also with a serious theological difference resulting from the different ways in which some versions have rendered this verse.

Let's look at the context. "Now THE just shall live by faith: but if ANY MAN draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul."

First of all, "the just" is the reading of the majority, D and even P13 which predates Sinaiticus by 100 years and Alexandrinus by 200 years. However Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus read; "MY just one will live by faith" and so do the NASB, ESV, Holman, and the NIV.

The most serious problem with the NASB, NIV, ESV and others is how they render the rest of this verse. In the King James Bible there is a contrast between the just person who lives by faith, and the others who may draw back unto perdition and condemnation. Notice what some commentators have said of these verses.

Hebrews 10:38 John Gill

but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. One who finally and totally apostatizes from the doctrine of faith, and the profession of it: and in such persons God has no pleasure, never had, nor never will have; such stand opposed to the just man, that lives by faith, walks humbly with God, in a dependence, not on his own righteousness, but on the righteousness of Christ, in which he is safe from condemnation, and secure of the divine favour; for drawing back is not supposed of the just man, but of any man, as we, with the Ethiopic version, rightly supply; and is to be understood of anyone of the external professors of religion, who forsake the assembling of the saints and is denied of the truly righteous in the following words.

People's New Testament

If any man draw back. He who draws back through fear, or because of trial, in him God hath no pleasure. 39. But we are not of them. The apostle has confidence that the Hebrew saints are of those who "shall live by faith" rather than those who draw back to perdition. He that draweth back is lost.

J.N. Darby also comments: "The apostle is contrasting two characters; the one who perishes, and the one who saves, preserves, his life (spiritually, of course)...the writer urges as a practical truth 'the just shall live by faith'...if he was living by faith in him, he was not drawing back. In a word, drawing back is one character, living by faith another."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say the Greek admits of "if any man", and comment on the passage much like Gill and others. The fact is there is no subject here in the Greek and so the context and correct theology determine whether it should read "any man" or "he". The NASB and the others often add the words "any man" or "a man" to give the sense. See for example Romans 9:16 (twice); 10:10; 14:2,5; and 2 Cor. 3:16.

However contrast Wesley’s Arminian theology, as he states in his commentary: "Now the just - The justified person. Shall live - In God's favour, a spiritual and holy life. By faith - As long as he retains that gift of God. But if he draw back - If he make shipwreck of his faith My soul hath no pleasure in him - That is, I abhor him; I cast him off."

Wesley believed a person could be redeemed by the blood of Christ, have his sins forgiven and be bound for glory only to lose it all if he later chose to reject Christ. A true child of God could never do this, but let's see how the NASB, NIV, Holman and ESV have rendered this verse.

"But MY righteous one will live by faith. And if HE shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him. But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved." (NIV) This rendering implies that one who is just or righteous by the blood of Christ, can then be lost, destroyed and not saved.

Hebrews 10:38 "Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him" is referring to a quote in Habakkuk 2:4 where two different kinds of people are contrasted. There it says: "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him; but the just shall live by his faith." Clearly there is a contrast between two different kinds of people, and the KJB has rightly carried over this distinction in the New Testament.

Not only does the King James Bible contrast the just who lives by faith with the "any man" who draws back unto perdition, but so also do the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, NRSV, New Life Version, Goodspeed, Phillips, Contemporary English Version, 20th Century Version, New Living Translation, Lamsa's Syriac translation, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millennium Bible.

 


Hebrews 11:1 KJB - “Now faith is THE SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”



A Christian brother named Ronald writes me, saying: “A Christian pastor said that the word "substance" in KJV is vague, and a better translation in the NASV is 'assurance.'  I would like to have your thoughts on this. God bless.


Hi Ronald. Keep in mind that these bible correctors don’t really believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. They have made their own minds and personal preferences their “final authority” subject to change at any moment.  


You might want to ask this pastor if he thinks his ever changing NASB got it right in Psalms 78:36 where it teaches that the children of Israel DECEIVED God.


Or ask him if he thinks his NASB’s  constantly evolving “inter confessional” Greek text that is under the direct supervision of the Vatican is his inerrant New Testament.


Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are  the new "Vatican Versions"


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




I assume you are referring to Hebrews 11:1 where the King James Bible says: “Now faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  


And the NASB has: “Now faith is the ASSURANCE of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”


Even the NASB online edition has a footnote saying “Or, substance”

You can see it here -


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A1&version=NASB


The Greek word here is υποστασις - hupostasis, and it literally means “to stand under”. Can you guess what the English word “substance” literally means? - It means "to stand under." “sub” means “under” and “stance” is “to stand’.


The Lexicons


Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, on page 645,  gives one of the definitions of υποστασις - hupostasis as: “That which has actual existence; A SUBSTANCE, real being.”


The Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon, on page 854, gives the definition of this word as: “SUBSTANTIAL NATURE, essence, actual being” and also as “confidence, conviction, assurance, steadfastness.”


Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon 1887, on page 743 tells us the word means: “SUBSTANCE, nature, essence” and “the foundation or ground of hope or confidence, confidence, resolution.”


The Thomson Bible 1808 comments on Hebrews 11:1 with this note: “υποστασις signifies not only SUBSTANCE, or what stands under, but also a putting under, a giving subsistence to, or the realizing of any thing.”



Other translations


Context Group Version 2007 - Now trust is  the  foundation { or SUBSTANCE } of abiding confidence


Holman 2009, Common English Bible 2011 “faith is THE REALITY of what we hope for”  


The Morgan N.T. 1848 - Now faith is THE FOUNDATION of things hoped for


The Pickering New Testament 2005 - Now faith is A REALIZATION of things being hoped for


The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 - Faith is THE ESSENCE of things hoped for


NIV 2011 - Now faith is CONFIDENCE in what we hope for


Darby 1890 - Now faith is the SUBSTANTIATING  of things hoped for


Bishops bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599 - Now faith is the GROUNDS of things which are hoped for


Coverdale 1535, Great Bible 1540  - Faith is A SURE CONFIDENCE of thinges which are hoped for  


Wesley’s N.T. 1790 - Now faith is the SUBSISTENCE of things hoped for


 Concordant Version 2006 - Now faith is AN ASSUMPTION of what is being expected


Far Above All Translation 2011 - Now faith is the ENTITLEMENT to things hoped for


The Davidson N.T. 1876 - And faith is THE FOUNDATION of things hoped for



The King James Bible 


Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is THE SUBSTANCE of things hoped for”



Not only does the KJB read “SUBSTANCE of things hoped for” but so do the following Bible translations - Wycliffe 1395, the Bill Bible 1671, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, the Clarke N.T. 1795, Webster’s Bible 1833, the Pickering N.T. 1840, the Hussey N.T. 1845, the Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Calvin Translation 1856, The Revised New Testament 1862, the Dillard N.T. 1885,  the Worrell N.T. 1904,  The Clarke N.T. 1913, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “And belief is THE SUBSTANCE of what is expected”, The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, Context Group Version 2007 - the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Jubilee Bible 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010,  The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - “faith is THE SUBSTANCE of things to be hoped for”, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015 and the Modern English Version 2014 - “faith is THE SUBSTANCE of things hoped for”


The King James Bible is right, as always. 

 

 

Hebrews 11:11 A Classic Case of Scholarly Confusion 

 Hebrews 11:11 - All Messed Up in the NIVs



There is no Greek text anywhere that allows the NIV bible to render the text of Hebrews 11:11 the way they have it.

King James Bible - Hebrews 11:11 "Through faith also SARA HERSELF received strength to conceive seed, AND WAS DELIVERED OF A CHILD when SHE was past age, because SHE judged him faithful who had promised."

The NIV editions of 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions say: "By faith ABRAHAM, even though HE WAS PAST AGE - AND SARAH HERSELF WAS BARREN - was enabled to BECOME A FATHER because HE considered him faithful who had made the promise."

In the NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions the subject is Abraham and not Sarah and it is Abraham who became a father, rather than Sarah who conceives seed, bears a child and believes God.  By the way, there is not a known Greek manuscript on this earth that even has the words "Abraham"  nor "become a father" in this verse at all!


NASB "By faith even SARAH herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised."

ESV - "By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised."

Dan Wallace and company's goofy NET version reads differently than them all, not following any particular Greek text (Not the UBS, Nestle-Aland, Majority nor the Textus Receptus) and says:

"By faith, even though Sarah herself was barren and HE was too old, HE received the ability to procreate, because HE regarded the one who had given the promise to be trustworthy."

So the NET version introduces Abraham three times in the verse, when all the others refer to Sarah who was too old and Sarah who received strength and Sarah who believed God - NOT Abraham.

NKJV 1982 - "By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, AND SHE BORE A CHILD when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised."


In the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NASB, Message, Darby, Youngs, NEB, Berkeley, ISV, Common English bible, Complete Jewish Bible and just about every Bible version out there in any language it is always Sarah who receives strength to conceive seed and Sarah who was past age and it is Sarah who believes God.

Something is surely amiss here in the NIV, and this obvious blunder was not just an oversight or printing error. The NIVs continued with the same made up reading through three different editions - 1973, 1978 and 1984.

In addition to this, the KJB and NKJV textually have a phrase - "AND WAS DELIVERED OF A CHILD" - which is not found in the  RSV, NASB, ESV. The Greek word translated as  "was delivered of a child" is found in the Majority of all remaining Greek texts and in Sinaiticus correction and D correction, but is omitted in many modern versions that are based on the ever changing UBS texts.

 

"AND WAS DELIVERED OF A CHILD"

The phrase IS found in Tyndale 1525 - "and was delivered of a chyld", Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587- "and was deliuered of a childe when she was past age", The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Thomson Translation 1808, Webster's 1833, The Revised N.T. 1862,The Revised English Bible 1877, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Moffat Translation 1913, The NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, Green's literal 2000, World English Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Complete Apostles' Bible 2003, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, Bond Slave Version 2012, The Modern English Version 2014 and the Modern Literal New Testament 2014.

It is also the reading found in Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "AND WAD DELIVERED OF A CHILD when she was past age".

 

Foreign Language Bibles

Also including the phrase "and was delivered of a child" are the French Martin 1744 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "Par la foi aussi Sara reçut la vertu de concevoir un enfant, et elle enfanta hors d'âge", Martin Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "Durch den Glauben empfing auch Sara Kraft, daß sie schwanger ward, und gebar über die Zeit ihres Alters", the Italian Diodati 1649 and New Diodati 1991 - "e partorì fuor d’età", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1858, 1909, 1960, 1995 -"Por la fe también la misma Sara, siendo estéril recibió fuerza para concebir generación; y dio a luz aun fuera del tiempo de la edad, porque creyó ser fiel el que lo había prometido.", the Russian Victor Zhuromsky, the Chinese Union Traditional Bible, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués, and the Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - "e deu à luz já fora da idade"

and the Modern Greek N.T. - "Δια πιστεως και αυτη η Σαρρα ελαβε δυναμιν εις το να συλλαβη σπερμα και παρα καιρον ηλικιας εγεννησεν"

Well, guess what! Now the new New International Version of 2011 has come out and it goes back to the correct reading saying: "And by faith even SARAH, WHO WAS PAST CHILDBEARING AGE, WAS ENABLED TO BEAR CHILDREN BECAUSE SHE considered him faithful who had made the promise." 

Let's contrast the two very different readings found in the various NIVs so you can see the differences.

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions -  "By faith ABRAHAM, even though HE WAS PAST AGE - AND SARAH HERSELF WAS BARREN - was enabled to BECOME A FATHER because HE considered him faithful who had made the promise." 

NIV 2011 edition - "And by faith even SARAH, WHO WAS PAST CHILDBEARING AGE, WAS ENABLED TO BEAR CHILDREN BECAUSE SHE considered him faithful who had made the promise." 

The NIV Spanish edition (La Nueva Versión Internacional) of 1999  and the 2000 Portuguese NIV  (Nova Versão Internacional) both STILL read like the NIV 1984 English edition with - "Por la fe Abraham, a pesar de su avanzada edad y de que Sara misma era estéril, recibió fuerza para tener hijos", Portuguese NIV - "Pela fé Abraão — e também a própria Sara, apesar de estéril e avançada em idade — recebeu poder para gerar um filho".

If you want to learn a lot more about the ever changing NIVs see - What About the "New" NIV of 2011?  

http://brandplucked.webs.com/whatabouttheniv2011.htm

If you read English and want The Bible with ALL the God inspired words in it and with the correct meaning every time, then get yourself the Bible God has used more than any other - the King James Holy Bible. It is always right.

 

Again in verse 37 a similar example of disagreement and confusion exists. "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, WERE TEMPTED, were slain with the sword..."

The part about "were tempted" is epeirasthesan and is found in the Majority of texts, A, D correction and in P13 which dates to around 250 A.D. It is also found in Sinaiticus, though it reverses the word order and says they were tempted, they were sawn asunder, and it is in the Westcott-Hort text and in the NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, Douay, and Spanish. However, once again the UBS text has changed and now omits this word based primarily on one manuscript, P46, which has many divergent readings not followed in other parts of this book. The NIV, RSV, Holman and ESV now omit "were tempted" and the ESV footnote tells us: "Some manuscripts add 'were tempted'. SOME manuscripts?! Why not be truthful and tell us a very few actually omit it? The modern scholars are constantly changing the New Testament texts and they do not consistently follow each other in these changes. There is continual uncertainty and ongoing disagreement even among themselves.

Did you notice how the ESV (English Standard Version 2001) did not follow the UBS text in verse 11, but now it does in verse 37? But the NASB 1995 does not follow the ESV readings in either of the two? None of the modern versions match each other in both text and meaning. Who do you suppose might be behind such efforts?

One more textual change to be noted in this chapter is found in verse 13. There we read: "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, AND WERE PERSUADED OF THEM, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." The part about "and were persuaded of them" is found in the Greek texts of Stephanus, Beza and Elzevir. The reading is in Tyndale, Great, Geneva and Bishop's Bibles. It is in the NKJV, Young's, Webster's, the Spanish Reina Valera and the Italian Diodati and others.

However the NASB, NIV, RSV and most other modern versions omit this phrase.

Hebrews 12:28 - 29 "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, LET US HAVE GRACE, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire."

The whole theme of the book of Hebrews is contrasting the law of Moses which was but an inferior shadow of the good things to come through the grace of God in Christ. It is by the grace of God that Christ tasted death for all men 2:9; we can come boldly unto the throne of grace 4:16; there are those who do despite unto the Spirit of grace 10:29; we are told to look diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God 12:15; and that it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace, and the author closes with the desire that the grace of God be with us all.

LET US HAVE GRACE is the reading of Wycliffe 1395 - "have we grace", Tyndale 1534 - "let us have grace", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599 - LET US HAVE GRACE",  the KJB 1611, The Bill Bible 1671, John Wesley N.T. 1755 "let us hold fast the grace", the Worsley Version 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795,  Sawyer N.T. 1858,  American Bible Union 1865,  Noyes Translation  1869, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV of 1901, Worrell N.T. 1904,  Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Darby 1890,  Young's 1898, the Bible in Basic English 1961,  the NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce) - "MAY WE HAVE GRACE", the Lawrie Translation 1998 - "LET US HAVE GRACE", the Koster Scriptures 1998, the Tomson N.T. 2002, Concordant Version 2006, Context Group Version 2007 - "let us have favor", Bond Slave Version 2009, the Faithful N.T. 2009 = "LET US HAVE GRACE", the Christogenea N.T. 2009, The Faithful N.T. 2009 - "LET US HAVE GRACE", the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Conservative Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2010 (Mebust) - "LET US HAVE GRACE", Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, the World English Bible 2012, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013,  the Hebrew Names Version 2014 and the Modern Literal New Testament 2014 - "LET US HAVE GRACE through which we may give divine service".

 

Even the Holman Christian Standard  2009 says: "let us hold on to grace".

The textual reading here is the same both in the Textus Receptus and the Textus Corrupts (Vatican Critical text). It is εχωμεν χαριν and this is literally "let us have grace".

However the NIV says: "let us be thankful", the NASB has "let us show gratitude" and then footnotes "Literally "have"" and the RSV, ESV say: "let us be grateful".

"Let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably" is not the same thing as "Let us show gratitude by which we may offer to God an acceptable service."

Obviously both sentences make sense, but the meaning is not at all the same. The KJB reading exhorts us to cast ourselves upon the grace of God and what He has done for us as the only way of approach and fellowship. The NASB, NIV focus on what we should be doing and our attitude rather than on what God has done.

Notice how even the earlier revisions of the RV, ASV read as do the KJB, as well as other modern versions.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown - 

"let us have grace-- suits the English Version "grace" (that is Gospel grace, the work of the Spirit, producing faith exhibited in serving God), but does not suit "thankfulness.

John Gill -

"let us have grace; by which is meant, NOT THANKFULNESS for so great a blessing, though this is highly requisite and necessary; nor the habit or principle of grace in the heart, unless particularly the grace of faith, and the exercise of it, should be designed; but rather the doctrine of grace, the Gospel, is intended"

Matthew Henry - 

 "How necessary it is for us to obtain grace from God, to serve him acceptably: if we be not accepted of God under this dispensation, we shall never be accepted at all"

Hebrews 12 and 13 Textual differences

Hebrews 12:3 "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners AGAINST HIMSELF, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." AGAINST HIMSELF is the reading of the majority, A and Sinaiticus correction. Sinaiticus original said "against themselves" and P46, which the NIV sometimes follows against all others, says "against them". Here the NKJV, NASB, ESV and Holman follow the King James reading, but the NIV omits these words.

Hebrews 12:7 "IF (ei) ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons." The reading of IF is found in the NKJV, Young's, Tyndale, Geneva, Spanish Reina Valera, Diodati and others, but Sinaiticus and A say FOR (eis) chastening you endure. P46, which the NIV, and ESV sometimes followed in chapter 11, omits 21 words which make up half of verse 6 and most of verse 7. The NASB and ESV make it a statement and says: "IT IS FOR discipline that you endure" while the NIV and Holman make it a command with: "Endure hardship as discipline" and adds the word "hardship" which is not found in any text.

Hebrews 12:9 "we have had fathers OF OUR FLESH which corrected us." This is the literal reading of all texts - tes sarkos hemon- and is the reading of the RV, ASV, Young's and many others, and it is in contrast to the phrase in the same verse "shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father OF SPIRITS, and live?"

The contrast is between flesh and spirit, but this distinction is lost in the NKJV, NIV which say "we have had HUMAN fathers" and the NASB, ESV have "earthly fathers", while the Holman has "natural fathers".

Hebrews 12:20 "And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, OR THRUST THROUGH WITH A DART".

This reading is a "minority" reading found in the Reformation Bibles. Keep in mind that for every 1 "minority reading" in the King James Bible, there are at least 20 "minority readings" found in the modern critical text versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.

 

The words "or thrust through with a dart" (ἢ βολίδι κατατοξευθήσεται) are found in several cursive manuscripts as 2, 440, 823 and others according to Jack Moorman. It is the reading of the Textus Receptus, the Greek texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza, Elziever and Scrivener 1894 and in the Greek text used by the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world today, the so called Greek Septuagint in Exodus 19:13 - "or shot through", as well as in the Modern Greek Bible - η με βελη θελει κατατοξευθη·"  

 

The words are found in found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 "stoned, or THRUST THROUGH WITH A DART", the Beza N.T. 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, Worsley Version 1770, The Revised Translation 1815, Webster's 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Morgan N.T. 1848, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised New Testament 1862, Young's 1898, The Clarke N.T. 1913, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Bond Slave Version 2012, and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 -"And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow." and The Modern English Version 2014.   

 

Many foreign language Bibles include the words "or thrust through with a dart" including Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - " sollte es gesteiniget oder mit einem Geschoß erschossen warden.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Cipriano de Valera 1602 and Reina Valera 1909-1995, R.V. Gómez 2010 - "será apedreada, o pasada con dardo.", the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 " ou percée d'un dard.", the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 "fosse lapidata o saettata.",  the Afrikaans Bible 1953 "moet dit gestenig word of met 'n pyl neergeskiet word.", the Romanian Cornilescu Bible and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible "sau străpuns cu săgeata`", the Russian Synodal Version 1876, the Czech BKR bible "budeť ukamenováno, aneb šípem postřeleno.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling "het zal gestenigd of met een pijl doorschoten worsen." the 1998 Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos "dapat ninyong batuhin at sa pamagitan ng sibat ay inyong tuhugin."

 

The Modern Greek Bible - διοτι δεν υπεφερον το προσταττομενον· Και ζωον εαν εγγιση το ορος, θελει λιθοβοληθη η με βελη θελει κατατοξευθη·


and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "תקסל או ירה תירה בחצים׃"

 

However the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman, NET, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985 and any UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical Greek texts omit these words.

Bible commentators, as usual, are all over the board on these words, but John Gill states: "or thrust through with a dart", is wanting in the Alexandrian and  in the Vulgate Latin...and yet is necessary to be retained, being in the original text, in Exodus 19."  

Once again, the textual issue comes down to a choice between the Traditional Text of the Reformation Bibles in all languages versus the Vatican Versions. I and many other Bible believers will stick with the Bible God has set His marks of approval on far more than any others, the King James Holy Bible.

Hebrews 13:6 "So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, AND (kai) I will not fear what man shall do unto me." Notice this is a statement in the KJB, and in Wycliffe, Young's, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Lamsa's Syriac Peshitta, Webster's, the Spanish and even in the Catholic Douay versions.

The NKJV does not always follow the same Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible and here are two examples found in this one verse where the NKJV departs from the KJB texts.

That little word AND (kai) is in the majority, A and even P46, and Sinaiticus correction, but the original Sinaiticus omitted the word AND, and the Westcott-Hort text also makes this sentence a question rather than a statement. So the NKJV follows the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman here and says: "The Lord is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do unto me?"

Hebrews 13:21 "Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in YOU that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ." Working in YOU is in the majority and C, and in the NKJV, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, Spanish and even in the Catholic Douay. But Sinaiticus and A say: working in US, instead of "you" and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman.

Finally in the last verse of Hebrews 13:25 we read: "Grace be with you all. AMEN."

The word Amen is found in the majority of all texts, A, C and even in Sinaiticus correction. It is also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, Douay, World English Bible, Weymouth, Luther, French Louis Segond, Spanish, Syriac Peshitta, and the RSV of 1952. However the NIV, NASB, Holman and ESV all omit the word Amen. This is not because any new manuscripts have been uncovered, but because what one set of scholars, using their "science of textual criticism" choose to accept, the others reject.

You can either trust the ever changing Bible of the Month club $cholar$, who constantly differ among themselves, or you can trust the tried and true Authorized King James Bible as the sure words of the living God.

“Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:104

Will Kinney

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