Another King James Bible Believer

The 2003 Holman Christian Standard Bible

"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25


The Holman Christian Standard has ALREADY been changed 4 times, and they are just doing it again. It is a joke.


Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville Tennessee. All rights reserved.

 

For those who have ears to hear and can see through the Double-Speak, inconsistency and logical fallacies of modern version scholars, the 2003 Holman Christian Standard Bible provides us with several quotes that exemplify the typical, pious sounding BALONEY promoted by those who do not believe IN FACT that any Bible is now the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.

The Holman Standard is just one more of the modern Vatican Versions. What do I mean by this?  Simply that the New Testament is based on the UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical Greek text. See

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

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

 

Here is the proof in their own words - If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:


"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STIP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament." 


The Holman Christian Standard Version 2003 Introductory page tells us: "The textual base for the HCSB New Testament is the NESTLE-ALAND NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE 27th edition, and the United Bible Society N.T. 4th edition."


The Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 Preface page 44: "The text used by the translators of the New Testament. In general, Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece (25th edition, 1963) was followed. Additional help was derived from the Greek New Testament (editors Aland, Black, Metzger, Widgren), produced for the use of translators by the United Bible Societies in 1966."


Then go on to Part Two where you can see the hundreds of words and phrases that the Holman Standard, along with the ESV, NIV, NASB and the Modern Catholic versions have omitted.  Part Two can be seen here - 


http://brandplucked.webs.com/esvcatholicpart2.htm

 

In the Introduction to the HCSB, the translators describe themselves as "a team of 100 scholars, editors, stylists, and proofreaders, ALL OF WHOM WERE COMMITTED TO BIBLICAL INERRANCY". They tell us: "The Bible IS God's inspired Word, inerrant IN THE ORIGINALS." They then tell us their goal is "to affirm the authority of Scripture as God's Word and to champion ITS ABSOLUTE TRUTH against social or cultural agendas that would compromise its accuracy", and that the HCSB "will be a standard in Bible translations FOR YEARS TO COME."

Then they tell us: "Each generation NEEDS a fresh translation of the Bible in its own language" and that "each new generation must be introduced to God's Word in its own language...Translations made as recently as 10 or 20 years ago do not reflect many of these advances in biblical research."

They inform us that their textual base for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, and the Unitied Bible Societies' 4th corrected edition, but then they say: "At times, however, the translators have followed an alternative manuscript tradition, DISAGREEING with the editors of these texts ABOUT THE ORIGINAL READING."

They go on to tell us: "In a few places in the N.T., large square brackets indicate texts that the HCSB translation team and most biblical scholars today believe WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." They say they include them for "their undeniable antiquity" and their "value for tradition".

These "few places in the N.T." include at least 39 entire verses that, by their own admission, "were not part of the original text"!!! Among these are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 21:44; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 15:28; 16:9-20; Luke 17:36; 22:43-44; 23:17; John 5:3-4; 7:53-8:11; Acts 8:37; 24:6-7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24.

Would you characterize 39 entire verses in the New Testament as "a few places"? The truth of the matter is that the Holman Standard is just one more of the recent "new" Vatican Versions, like the ESV, NIV, NASB and NET versions to come on the scene.  This charge is easy to prove and document with hundreds of concrete examples.  See Part One of Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard are the new Vatican Versions here -

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

Then take a careful look at Part Two and compare the hundreds of words that are omitted in all these Vatican Versions, paying special attention to the Holman Standard omissions.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/esvcatholicpart2.htm

First of all, it should be obvious that if only the originals were inspired and inerrant, and they no longer exist, and have never been seen by any of the HCSB translators, then how can they logically say The Bible IS inspired? Don't they really mean "Once upon a time, and far, far away, the Bible WAS inspired"?

Secondly, if they are so committed to inerrancy and are "champions for absolute truth against any compromise with inaccuracy", then why do they include in their new version at least 39 entire verses that they don't think were "part of the original text"? These Scriptures are either inspired of God and belong in the Holy Bible, or they are spurious additions that have no place in any bible version at all.

Thirdly, they reveal their "Every man for himself" X Files Bible mentality (the truth is out there somewhere) by telling us that they themselves disagree about the original reading with the scholars who put together the ever-changing UBS, Nestle-Aland critical texts. Those UBS scholars think certain readings are original, but the HSCB guys think that others are. And you can bet the next bible version to come down the pike will promote yet different readings as original; in fact, it has already happened in the NIV 2011 edition and the International Standard Version.

Fourthly, if the Holman Christian Standard Bible is "a standard for YEARS TO COME", then why do they also claim that EACH GENERATION NEEDS a new translation, or even one every 10 or 20 years "to reflect biblical research"? The shelf life of the modern bible versions isn't very long, is it?

If the "scholars committed to inerrancy" finally produced an inerrant Bible, then they wouldn't need to keep churning out one new version after another, and they would be out of a job, wouldn't they?

The Holman CSB is just one more in a long line of modern bible versions that rejects the Traditional Greek New Testament readings, as found in such English Bibles as Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, and the King James Bible.

The Holman version also frequently rejects the Hebrew Masoretic text and instead follows the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac, Vulgate, or in some cases, just makes up its own text as it goes along.

In its Introduction the HCSB makes several statements that reveal the nature of this translation. It says the basis for the New Testament translation is the Nestle-Aland 27th, and United Bible Societies' 4th corrected edition.

A closer examination of the Holman text reveals that they generally have omitted over 2000 words that are found in the King James Bible, but neither have they strictly followed the Nestle text nor the UBS. The N.T. text of the Holman version is not always like that of the NASB, NIV, RSV, or ESV (the 2001 English Standard Version) - in fact, none of these versions are exactly like that of each other. All of them pick and choose different textual readings and give different meanings to the same texts in literally hundreds of verses.

The Nestle-Aland/UBS/Vatican texts often omit entire verses or phrases that the Holman places in brackets, indicating that they do not consider them to be inspired Scripture.

Entire Verses in Brackets

The Holman introduction says: "In a few places in the N.T., large square brackets indicate texts that the HCSB translation team and most biblical scholars today believe WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." They say they include them for "their undeniable antiquity" and their "value for tradition".

These Scriptures are either God inspired and they belong in the Holy Bible, or they are spurious additions that have no place in any bible version at all. I firmly believe they are inspired Scripture.

Among the readings the Holman version places in brackets, and are not part of the UBS Greek text they say they are using, are the following:

Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the glory, and the power, for ever. Amen" - The NIV, ESV omit these words entirely. NASB in brackets.

Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." NIV, ESV omit. NASB in brackets.

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." NIV, ESV omit. NASB in brackets.

Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore yue shall receive the greater damnation." NIV, RSV, ESV omit; NASB in brackets.

Even though the textual support for hundreds of other words is the same as for these bracketed verses, the Holman chooses to entirely omit them. Just a very few of the hundreds of examples are the following:

The Holman version omits these words, even though the textual evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of including them.

Matthew 5:44 "Bless them that curse you"

Matthew 19:9 "And whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Matthew 20:16 "For many be called but few chosen."

Matthew 27:35 "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet..."

The entire verse of Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." is omitted by the UBS text and the NIV, ESV. The NASB places it in brackets, but the Holman this time places the verse in the N.T. text WITHOUT brackets! Go figure.

The Holman CSB also brackets the following verses: Mark 9:44, 46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"; 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." and all of Mark 16:9 through 20 !!!

In brackets and thus not considered "original" by the Holman editors are Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left"; and Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast." These verses are omitted by the UBS text, the NIV, RSV and ESV versions, while the NASB puts them in brackets.

The Holman version again demonstrates its total inconsistency in Luke 23:34 where we read: "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." These inspired words from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ have overwhelming textual support and not even the NIV, NASB, ESV place them in brackets, but the Holman version does!!!

The Holman version likewise omits "and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." from Luke 9:55-56; and it omits the following words from the Lord's prayer in Luke 11:2-4 "Our...which art in heaven...Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth...but deliver us from evil." Again, these are only a few of the many examples that could be given.

The Holman again brackets John 5:3-4 about the angel coming down and troubling the water.

The Holman brackets Acts 8:37 which the NIV, ESV omit, and Acts 24:6-7, and Acts 28:29, and Romans 16:24.

Here are just a few verse comparisons to give you a better idea of what the Holman version is like.

Psalm 78:36 Can puny man DECEIVE God? According to the HCSB God can be deceived by man.

Psalms 78 tells us of Israel's rebellion and sin against their God and of his continued compassion towards them. One of the people's many recorded sins is found in v.36: "they did FLATTER him with their mouth, and lied unto him with their tongue."

We can flatter God - say all kinds of nice things about him yet not really mean them. God is not fooled by mans false words of adoration.

The Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, NIV, NKJV, Darby, Geneva, RSV, NRSV and the 2003 English Standard Version (ESV) all agree with the King James Bible that they " flattered " God. But the Holman Christian Standard Version, as well as the NASB, says: "they DECEIVED him with their mouth". That my Christian friend is an impossibility. I hope you aren't deceived into thinking the HCSB is the true Bible.

See the article "Can God be Deceived?" for a much more detailed study on this verse -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/eze149ps7836deceive.htm 

KJB - Exodus 14:25 "the LORD...took off their chariot wheels"

Holman - "caused their chariot wheels to swerve"

"TOOK OFF their chariot wheels" is the reading of Tyndale 1530, Coverdale 1535 (smote the wheels from their chariots), Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Holy Bible 1611, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the NKJV 1982, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901 (the predecessor of the NASB), the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, World English Bible, the two Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, Darby, the Living Bible and 1998 New Living Bible, Green's interlinear, MKJV, the NIV and the Spanish versions - quitó las ruedas.

However the "scholarly" NASB tells us : "He caused their chariot wheels TO SWERVE". This is also the reading of the brand new 2004 Holman Christian Standard version.

Now I've had the unpleasant experience of having my car wheels swerve on ice or snow, but thankfully I have never had them come off yet. You have to admit there is a difference between the Lord taking off their wheels and the Lord causing them to swerve.

The word used here is # 5493 soor and it means to remove or take away. It is used in Exodus 8:8 "take away the frogs"; in 8:31 "he removed the swarms of flies", in 34:34 Moses took off the vail", Genesis 41:42 "Pharoah took off his ring" and in Genesis 8:13 "Noah removed the covering of the ark".

 


Leviticus 13:47 “LEPROSY” or “MILDEW” or “A GREEN OR RED AREA” or “A DEFILING MOLD” or “A CONTAGION”?


Leviticus 13:47 KJB - “The garment also that the plague of LEPROSY is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment”  

 

Holman Standard - "If a fabric is contaminated with MILDEW - in wood or in linen fabric..."

 


NIV 1978 and 1984 editions - “If any clothing is contaminated with MILDEW”


The Message 2002 “if clothing is infected with A PATCH OF SERIOUS FUNGUS”


Also reading MILDEW are the Holman Standard 2009 and the New Living Bible 2015


NIV 2011 edition - “As for any fabric that is spoiled with A DEFILING MOLD”


International Standard Version 2014 - "When clothing becomes infected with A CONTAGION


NET 2006 - "When a garment has  A DISEASED INFECTION in it”


God’s Word Translation 1995 and Names of God bible 2011  - “if there is A GREEN OR RED AREA”


The Catholic Connection


The Douay-Rheims 1610, Douay Version 1950, Jerusalem bible 1968 and the St. Joseph New American Bible all read LEPROSY.  


BUT the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has now changed this to read: “When a piece of clothing is infected WITH MOULD”


LEPROSY 


Bible versions that says LEPROSY are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Douay-Rheims 1610,  Lesser O.T. 1835, Darby 1890, Young’s 1898, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Rotherham bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society Tanach 1917, the RSV 1946-1971, Living Bible 1971, NKJV 1982, NRSV 1989, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the NASB 1995, The Koster Scriptures 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, the World English Bible 2000, The Yah Sacred Scriptures 2001, Green’s literal 2005, Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005,  The Mebust Bible 2007, the New Heart English Bible 2010, Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the ESV 2011, The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011, The Katapi New Standard Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The New Brenton Translation 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Far Above All Translation 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 and the Modern English Version 2014. 


Foreign Language Bible - LEPROSY


Both the so called Greek Septuagint and Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta say LEPROSY.  And The Modern Greek Bible - “Και εαν υπαρχη εις ιματιον πληγη λεπρας”


The French Martin bible 1744 and French Louis Segond 2007 - “est infecté de la plaie de la lèpre”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991- “è piaga di lebbra”,  the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1549, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1960-2015 - “una mancha de lepra”, the Portuguese Almeida 2009 - “praga de lepra” and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - “în care se a ă rana leprei”


Definition of Leprosy from the Bible


Etymology Dictionary 


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=leprosy


leprosy (noun) - name given to various chronic skin diseases, later in more restricted use, 1530’s, probably from leprous.  First used in Coverdale Bible, where it renders Hebrew cara’ath, which apparently was a comprehensive term for skin diseases.”


Historical Texts - 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprosy#Historical_texts


Biblically speaking, the Hebraic root tsara or tsaraath (צָרַע, --tsaw-rah' -- to be struck with leprosy, to be leprous) and the Greek (λεπρός - lepros), are of broader classification than the more narrow use of the term related to Hansen's Disease. Any progressive skin disease (a whitening or splotchy bleaching of skin, raised manifestations of scales, scabs, infections, rashes, etc.…) as well as generalized molds and surface discoloration of any clothing, leather, and/or discoloration on walls surfaces throughout homes all came under the "law of leprosy" (Leviticus 14:54-57).[77] Ancient sources also such as the Talmud (Sifra 63) make clear that tzaraath refers to various types of lesions or stains associated with ritual impurity and occurring on cloth, leather, or houses, as well as skin. It may sometimes be a symptom of the disease described in this article but has many other causes, as well. 

 


All Words.Com


https://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=Leprosy&goquery=Find+it%21&Language=ENG


 1(disease) An infectious disease caused by infection by Mycobacterium leprae.


2. In the Bible, a disease of the skin not conclusively identified, which can also affect clothes and houses.


Wordnik.


http://www.wordnik.com/words/leprosy


n. In the Bible, a disease of the skin not conclusively identified, which can also affect clothes and houses.



Your Dictionary.com


http://www.yourdictionary.com/leprosy


In the Bible, a disease of the skin not conclusively identified, which can also affect clothes and houses.


Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/leprosy#IAQJj5FSIsCVQbDH.99


Free Dictionary.Com

http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=leprosy



The disease now called leprosy, is not the same as the leprosy of the ancients. A GENERIC TERM FOR MANY VARIETIES OF SKIN DISEASE, SOME OF WHICH, AMONG THE HEBREWS, RENDERED A PERSON CEREMONIOUSLY UNCLEAN.”

 



Leviticus 15:3  

Here the Holman Standard virtually all by itself adds 17 words to the Hebrew text that not even the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, Revised English bible do. The Holman ADDS to the verse the following words: "All the days that his body secretes or retains anything because of his discharge."

Then it tells us that all these words are NOT found in the Hebrew Masoretic text, but are taken from the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls. But nobody else, not even the Catholic versions or Dan Wallace of NET version seem to agree with the Holman editors. 

 

Who is your "scapegoat", Jesus or the devil? 

Leviticus 16:10 “a scapegoat” or “for Azazel” the devil?

KJB - “ But the goat, on which the lot fell to be THE SCAPEGOAT, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go FOR A SCAPEGOAT into the wilderness.”

Holman Standard (ESV, Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 (New Jerusalem bible 1985, Jehovah Witness NWT, NET, RSV, Holman Standard) - 

“But the goat chosen by lot for AZAZEL is to be presented alive before the LORD to make purification with it by sending it into the wilderness FOR AZAZEL.”  

St. Joseph Footnote: “Azazel: PERHAPS THE NAME OF SATAN”

Scapegoat = Jesus or Azazel = a devil?

http://brandplucked.webs.com/lev1610scapegoat.htm


Deuteronomy 32:5

Tremendous error and contradiction have been introduced into this section of Scripture by the NKJV, NIV, RSV, Holman, ESV and NAS “bibles”. This is part of the song of Moses which says in verses 3-5: “I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.”

The next verse is where the lies of the modern versions enter. The true Holy Bible says: “They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?”

If you look at the context, in the previous chapter God told Moses that the people would enter the promised land and would go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land and turn to other gods. God knew this before He brought them into the land, so their entering the land did not depend on their foreseen obedience to the law, but rather because of the covenant of grace made with Abraham.

They are still His children whom He bought (verse 6) , His people and inheritance (verse 9) and verse 19 still refers to them as “his sons and daughters”. They are His children even though disobedient, just as your child is still your child no matter what he does.

God’s children did corrupt themselves with strange gods, and the spot or blemish they received belonged to the idolatrous practices of other people, but they are still His children, bought by God and belonging to Him as the rest of the chapter shows.

Now look at the NKJV in verse 5. “They have corrupted themselves: They are not His children, Because of their blemish.” The NAS is similar with its: “They are not His children because of their defect”. The Holman Standard says: "this is their defect - they are not His children." These versions tell us they are not His children, and then in the very next verse tell us they are His children because He is their Father and He bought them!

For a couple more examples of how the Holman Standard destroys the grace of God see my article on this at:

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

1 Samuel 6:19 - 50,070 men slain or only 70 or 75 or 70 men 50 chief men or 50 oxen of a man?    Why we cannot trust the Bible commentators or the modern versions.

1 Samuel 6:19 King James Bible - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked INTO the ark of the LORD, even he smote OF THE PEOPLE FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN MEN: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."  

 

ESV 2016 (NIV 2011, Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985) - "He struck SEVENTY men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great blow."


Young’s "literal" translation reads: “He smiteth among the people SEVENTY MEN - FIFTY CHIEF MEN”. 

 

The Holman Christian Standard Bible 2009 has come up with a reading that is different from them all. The HCSB now says: "He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1sam61950070or70.htm

 


1 Samuel 13:1

KJB - "Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..."

Holman - "Saul was 30 years old when he became king, and he reigned 42 years over Israel."

(There is no Hebrew text or any other text that reads this way. They simply made these numbers up out of thin air, just like the NASB, NIV did here. See much more on this verse and the wildly conflicting numbers in the modern versions here   

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1samuel131wordslost.htm

 

2 Samuel 14:14

KJB - "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

(We all die, regardless of social status, nationality, or spiritual condition)

Holman - "For we will certainly die and be like water poured out on the ground, which can't be recovered. BUT GOD WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY A LIFE; He would devise plans so that the one banished from Him does not remain banished."

(Direct contradiction of many Scriptures. God does take away life. He kills and He makes alive. See Deut. 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 12:15; Luke 12:5) The King James Bible correctly states many times that God is no respector of persons. Yet the Holman Standard has changed this reading to "God shows no favoritism." This is wrong and a false teaching, yet most today would not even recognize it. For my article showing the difference between "no respector or persons" and "shows no favoritism" see:

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


1 Kings 22:38 -  “Washed his armour” or “while the harlots bathed”, or "the prostitutes washed themselves in it"? - More New KJV, NASB, Jehovah Witness NWT, NIV, ESV, Holman nonsense.



 

In 1 Kings 22:38 we read of the death of wicked king Ahab. "So the king died, and was brought to Samaria: and they buried the king in Samaria. And one washed the chariot in the pool of Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood; AND THEY WASHED THE ARMOUR; according to the word of the LORD which he spake."

 

NKJV 1982 (NASB, NIV, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And someone washed the chariot at a pool in Samaria, and the dogs licked up his blood WHILE THE HARLOTS BATHED, according to the word of the LORD which He had spoken."

But the RSV, NRSV, the new ESV 2001, and the Holman Standard 2003 go even further than the NKJV, NASB, NIV in that they tend to follow most of the LXX reading (while omitting the word "swine") and have: “the dogs licked up his blood, and THE PROSTITUTES WASHED THEMSELVES IN IT.” 

The King James Bible is right, as always. See why here -


http://brandplucked.webs.com/armourorharlots1k22.htm

 

1 Chronicles 20:3 “he cut them with saws” or “he put them to work with saws”?


KJB - 1 Chronicles 20:3 - KJB - “And he brought out the people that were in it, AND CUT THEM WITH SAWS, AND WITH HARROWS OF IRON, AND WITH AXES. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.”

NKJV - 1 Chronicles 20:3 - “And he brought out the people who were in it, and PUT THEM TO WORK WITH SAWS, WITH IRON PICKS, AND WITH AXES. So David did to all the cities of the people of Ammon.”


The Holman Standard says: "He brought out the people who were in it and PUT THEM TO WORK WITH SAWS (d), iron picks and axes. David did the same to all the Ammonite cities. Then he and all his troops returned to Jerusalem."

 

Footnote (d) TEXT EMENDED (changed) Masoretic Text reads: "AND SAWED THEM WITH SAWS".  They come right out and tell you that they deliberately changed what the Hebrew text says.

 

See why the KJB (and NASB) is right but the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard, modern Catholic versions and Jehovah Witness NWT rejected the Hebrew text.

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


 

How much water did the molten sea contain?

King James Bible - 1 Kings 7:26 - it contained 2000 baths

King James Bible - 2 Chronicles 4:5 - it received and held 3000 baths

 

NKJV - 1 Kings 7:26 - it contained 2000 baths

 

NKJV - 2 Chronicles 4:5 - It contained 3000 baths

 

ESV - 1 Kings 7:26 - It held two thousand baths.

 

ESV - 2 Chronicles 4:5 -It held 3,000 baths.

 

Holman Standard - 1 Kings 7:26: "The reservoir was three inches thick...it held 11,000 gallons." 

 

Holman Standard -  2 Chronicles 4:5 it says: "The reservoir was three inches thick...it could hold 11,000 gallons."

 

 

2 Chronicles 22:2

KJB - "FORTY AND TWO years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

Holman - "Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became king..." (Footnote: Some LXX mss. and Syriac say 22; the Hebrew Masoretic texts read 42)

For an explanation of this apparent contradiction see:

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

2 Chronicles 36:9

KJB - "Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days."

Holman - "Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king..."

Again, the Holman Standard rejects the Hebrew reading and follows the LXX. For an examination of this apparent contradiction see: 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jehoiachin8or18.htm 

Genesis 4:8

Both the Holman CSB and the NIV have added the words "Let's go out to the field" in Genesis 4:8. Their own footnotes say this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (LXX - Greek), the Vulgate (Latin) and the Syriac but that the phrase is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text. This additional phrase is not found in the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV or any Hebrew translation. This is just one of MANY examples in the Holman version where they have rejected the Hebrew readings and brought things in from other sources.




Proverbs 11:30 KJB - “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and HE THAT WINNETH SOULS IS WISE.”

 

Holman Standard Proverbs 11:30 - “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, BUT VIOLENCE TAKES LIVES.” 

 

 

"HE THAT WINNETH SOULS IS WISE.” 

 

Agreeing with the King James Bible are the Jewish translation of the Jewish Publication Society 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publication Society translation, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, NASB, NKJV, NIV 1984 edition, Young’s 1898, Darby 1890, the Koster Scriptures 1998, World English Bible 2000, the ESV 2011, NET version 2006, The New European Version 2010, ISV 2014, Jubilee Bible 2010 - "and he that wins souls is wise.", The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010, The Voice 2012. 

 

Many foreign language Bible read the same as the King James Bible including the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, Reina Valera 1909-1995 -"El fruto del justo es árbol de vida; y EL QUE GANA ALMAS, ES SABIO.", the Portuguese Almeida Bible - "e o que ganha almas sábio é.", the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 - " et celui qui gagne les âmes est sage.', the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - " E il savio prende le anime." and the Dutch Staten Vertaling "en wie zielen vangt, is wijs." to name but a few.  


However the 2003 Holman Christian Standard Version, the NRSV 1989, the New English Bible 1970, and the Revised English Bible 1989 actually read: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, BUT VIOLENCE TAKES LIVES.” 

 

Also the 2003 Message by Eugene Peterson reads: "A good life is a fruit-bearing tree; A VIOLENT LIFE DESTROYS SOULS."

 

Then the Holman footnotes refers us to the so called LXX (Greek Septuagint) and the Syriac, but tells us that the Hebrew text reads “the wise one”.

 

The Catholic Connection  

 

The previous Douay-Rheims 1610 as well as the Douay Version of 1950 both read "The fruit of the just man is a tree of life: AND HE THAT GAINETH SOULS IS WISE."

 

However the 1968 Jerusalem says: "...THE WICKED ARE CARRIED OFF BEFORE THEIR TIME."  

 

Then the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 reads like the Holman Standard, saying: "The fruit of virtue is a tree of life, BUT VIOLENCE TAKES LIVES AWAY."

 

But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has gone back to a reading more like that found in the King James Bible, saying: "The fruit of the just one is the tree of life. AND WHOEVER RECEIVES SOULS IS WISE." 


As is often the case with these fake bibles, not even their footnotes can be relied upon.  The copy of the LXX I have right here in front of me does not read either like the Hebrew texts nor the Holman, RSV, NRSV fiasco.  The LXX actually says: “Out of the fruit of righteousness grows a tree of life; BUT THE SOULS OF TRANSGRESSORS ARE CUT OFF BEFORE THEIR TIME.”


And Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac is also different from both the LXX and Holmans.  It reads: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; but THE SOULS OF THE WICKED SHALL BE DRIVEN OUT.” - NOT “violence takes lives”.


The RSV was similar to the Holman with: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, BUT LAWLESSNESS TAKES AWAY LIVES.”  But then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV 2001, which itself was revised once again in 2007 - now says: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and whoever captures souls is wise.”


Modern “scholarship” is in complete disarray.  They are continually changing their minds and continue to disagree among themselves as to what words God may or may not have inspired in His Book. 

 

 

Psalm 49:11 - Another of the scores of examples that can be given of where many modern versioins clearly reject the Hebrew readings and completely change the meaning of a verse is found in Psalm 49:11.

Here we read concerning those who "trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches" (v.6) that "THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS THAT THEIR HOUSES shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names."

This is also the reading found in the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the NKJV, NASB, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, 1998, Young's, Darby, the Third Millenium Bible, and the Spanish Reina Valera.

However the NIV, along with the TNIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, The Message, and the brand new Holman Standard all say the same thing and have the same footnotes. These modern versions based on "the latest findings in scholarship" all say: "THEIR GRAVES are their eternal houses" (Holman), or "Their tombs will remain their houses forever." (NIV). Then in a footnote they tell us that "THEIR TOMBS" (or, graves) comes from the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac, but that the Hebrew says "their inward thought is that their houses are forever." There it is in black and white, and this is just one of a hundred examples of how the Holman Standard, NIV, ESV, RSV, TNIV etc. pervert God's inspired words.

This type of thing is highly TYPICAL in the practice of modern scholarship. Take for example Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, whom many have referred to as "America's greatest textual scholar". In his NET version he translates this verse as: "Their grave becomes their permanent residence, their eternal dwelling place."

Then in his extensive footnotes he remarks: "Heb “their inward part [is] their houses [are] permanent, their dwelling places for a generation and a generation.” If one follows the MT, then (qerev, “inward part”) must refer to the seat of these people’s thoughts (BDB prefers an emendation in this passage). In this case all three lines of v. 11 expose these people’s arrogant assumption that they will last forever, which then stands in sharp contrast to reality as summarized in v. 12. In this case one might translate the first two lines, “they think that their houses are permanent and that their dwelling places will last forever” (cf. NASB). Following the lead of several ancient versions, the present translation assumes an emendation of (qirbam, “their inward part”) to (qÿvarim, “graves”). This assumes that the letters bet () and resh () were accidentally transposed in the MT."

"Doktor" Wallace admits he has changed the Hebrew text. He "assumes" the Hebrew text has been corrupted, even though it makes perfect sense. These are the type of men who are behind the late$t in $cholar$hip Ver$ion$. It's right there in their own words.

One of the proofs of the true Holy Bible, which in English is the King James Bible of 1611, is that is contains no proveable errors. The modern bible versions all contain numerous real and not just apparent contradictions. A case in point is the differences between 1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 where both sections speak of the molten sea constructed by king Solomon that stood upon twelve oxen. How much water did this molten sea actually contain?

In 1 Kings 7:26 we read: "And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: IT CONTAINED TWO THOUSAND BATHS." However in 2 Chronicles 4:5 we read: "And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and IT RECEIVED AND HELD THREE THOUSAND BATHS."

This obviously looks, at first glance, like a contradiction. The NKJV, NIV and NASB all read slightly differently and it is this critical difference that in fact creates a very real rather than an apparent contradiction. The NKJV in 2 Chronicles 4:5 reads: "It CONTAINED THREE thousand baths." Yet in 1 Kings 7:26 the NKJV, NIV and NASB all say: "It contained TWO thousand baths." (Some modern versions, like the NASB, say it "could hold 2000 baths" and "it could hold 3000 baths" which results in the same real contradiction.)

The new Holman Standard has now come along and it confuses matters even worse. It says in 1 Kings 7:26: "The reservoir was three inches thick...it held 11,000 gallons." Then in 2 Chronicles 4:5 it says: "The reservoir was three inches thick...it could hold 11,000 gallons."

The Holman "scholars" have both changed the Hebrew texts and put the same reading in both places. Then the Holman editors tell us in a footnote that they took the liberty of EMENDING the text to fit 1 Kings 7:26, but that the Hebrew literally reads 3000 baths. Fine folks we are dealing with here, aren't they? They decided to "emend" the text based on NOTHING except their own ignorance and presumption. Do you think God will let them know on the Day of Judgment how much He appreciates all their help in correcting His words?

The solution is really quite easy once you look closely at the correct reading found in the King James Bible. Not only does the KJB read the way it does but so also do both Jewish translations of the Jewish Publication Society of America and the Hebrew Pub. Company of 1917 and 1936, Young's translation, Green's interlinear, the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, Hebrew Names Version, Webster's translation, and the Third Millenium Bible.

There are two verbs found in the Hebrew text in 2 Chronicles and only one verb in 1 Kings. The NKJV,NIV, NASB, Darby, Geneva Bible, RSV, NEB, NRSV, and ESV are all wrong and create a real contradiction by not translating the second verb found in 2 Chronicles 4:5. One verb is RECEIVED # 2388 and the second verb is HELD # 3557 three thousand baths.

1 Kings 7:26 tells us that the molten sea actually contained 2,000 baths of water, while the 2 Chronicles passage tells us that it could receive and hold 3,000 baths but it only contained 2,000 - thus is was only filled to two-thirds of its capacity. It is like saying "This gas tank holds 25 gallons; it contains 15 gallons of gas now."

Matthew Henry, the Bible commentator, got it right. He notes: ". There was the molten sea, a very large brass pan, in which they put water for the priests to wash in, v. 2, 6. It was put just at the entrance into the court of the priests, like the font at the church door. If it were filled to the brim, it would hold 3000 baths (as here, v. 5), but ordinarily there were only 2000 baths in it, 1 Kings 7:26."

 

Song of Solomon 2:4-5. The King James Bible reads: "He brought me to the banqueting house, and HIS BANNER OVER me was love. Stay me with FLAGONS, comfort me with APPLES: for I am sick of love."

Not only does the KJB correctly read "his banner over me was love", and "comfort me with APPLES" but so also do the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV and the ESV.

However the Holman reads: "He brought me to the banquet hall, and HE LOOKED ON me with love. Sustain me with RAISINS; refresh me with APRICOTS."

The Holman version has not followed any text here by changing "his banner over me" to "he looked on me". In all other places the Holman has translated this same word as "banner", but not here, and the Holman has 4 times changed the Hebrew word "apples" to "apricots" in the book of Song of Solomon (disagreeing with all other translations), yet has correctly translated the same word as "apples" in Proverbs 25:11 and Joel 1:12.

In Song of Solomon 7:9 the King James Bible reads: "And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, CAUSING THE LIPS OF THOSE THAT ARE ASLEEP TO SPEAK."

However the Holman here follows the Greek Septuagint and rejects the Hebrew text. It follows the RSV, NIV and ESV by saying: "Your mouth is like fine wine - flowing smoothly for my love GLIDING PAST MY LIPS AND TEETH!" It then tells us in a footnote that this reading comes from the LXX, the Syriac and the Vulgate, but as the ESV footnote also tells us, the Hebrew text reads: "causing the lips of sleepers to speak", just as the KJB has it.

Isaiah 19:3

KJB - "And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and TO THE CHARMERS, AND TO THEM THAT HAVE FAMILIAR SPIRITS, and to the wizards."

(These are those who conjure up devils who impersonate dead people and deceive)

Holman - "Then they will seek idols, GHOSTS, SPIRITS OF THE DEAD, and spiritists."

(There are no ghosts, and the spirits of the dead cannot be accessed. This is a false teaching. See my article on "ghosts"  

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

 


Isaiah 53:11 KJB (RV, ASV, RSV, NKJV) "He shall see THE TRAVAIL OF HIS SOUL, and shall be satisfied."


The Holman Christian Standard keeps CHANGING its text. 


The Holman "Standard" of 2003 says: "He shall see IT out of his anguish, and He will be satisfied with His knowledge. My righteous servant will justify many, and He will carry their iniquities." 


BUT now the Holman "Standard" of 2009 says: "After his anguish, HE WILL SEE LIGHT, and be satisfied. By his knowledge, my righteous servant will justify many, and he will carry their iniquities." Then it footnotes that the Hebrew Masoretic Text omits "light".


NIV - "After the suffering of his soul, he will see THE LIGHT OF LIFE and be satisfied."


The NIV Footnote tells us this comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls but the Masoretic text does not have "light of life". 



The Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 also follow this reading like the NIV does. 


The NIV does not always follow the DSS either for sometimes they mention the DSS reading in the footnotes but do not use it in their text. There is no pattern to when they choose to follow the DSS, LXX, Syriac, Vulgate or whatever. It is all a willy - nilly process, totally at random. 


Some few others also follow this strange variant of "he will see THE LIGHT OF LIFE and be satisfied" are the NRSV 1989. Notice that the RSV 1946-1973 followed the traditional Hebrew text, then the NRSV 1989 went with the DSS reading, and now the ESV 2001-2011 has gone back to the Masoretic text - that's "scholarship" for you. 


Also following the DSS reading of "he will SEE LIGHT" is the World English bible 2000, the New Heart English bible 2010 and the New European Version 2010.



Bible versions = KJB Agreeing with the Hebrew reading of "He shall see THE TRAVAIL OF HIS SOUL, and shall be satisfied." are the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, the Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the RSV, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, God's Word Translation 1995, A Conservative Version 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Hebrew Transliteration Scripture 2010, Jubilee bible 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham English bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, the Modern English Version 2014, Hebrew Names Version 2014, and the Tree of Life Version 2015.

 

 

Jeremiah 8:8 The pen of the Scribes is in Vain

KJB "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain." (The scribes did NOT ALTER the Scriptures, but the people were not obeying the law.)

Holman - "In fact, the lying pen of the scribes has produced falsehood." (Teaches the scribes DID ALTER the Scriptures)

See my article on this at: http://brandplucked.webs.com/jeremiah88penscribes.htm

 

 

Jeremiah 10:5 "upright as a PALM TREE" or "A SCARECROW IN A CUCUMBER FIELD"?

Jeremiah 10:5 KJB - “THEY ARE UPRIGHT AS THE PALM TREE”  

 

Holman Standard, NIV 2011 edition - "Like A SCARECROW IN A CUCUMBER PATCH, their idols cannot speak"

 

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jer105palmscarecrow.htm


 


Daniel 9:26

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

(He died for His people and purchased His church)

Holman - "After those 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off AND WILL HAVE NOTHING."

See the full study on Daniel 9:26 and why the KJB is right and not the Holman Standard -

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

Micah 5:2

KJB - "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM OF OLD, from everlasting."

Holman Christian Standard - "Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. HIS ORIGIN is from antiquity, from eternity."

(Did Christ have an "origin"? How can you have an eternal origin? "Origin" is the reading of the Jehovah Witness version, who teach that Christ was a created being.)  

See the full article here on Micah 5:2 - http://brandplucked.webs.com/micah52heb211origin.htm

Acts 13:33

KJB - "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE."

(This speaks of His resurrection, when Christ became the first-begotten from the dead.)

Holman - "God has fulfilled this to us their children by raising up Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm:You are My Son; TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."

(Was there a time when Christ was not the eternal Son of God? No Greek text reads as does the Holman here. In fact, the Holman again agrees with the Jehovah Witness version)

See my article on the only begotten Son and the meaning of Acts 13:33 at: 

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

 

Holman "Standard" Keeps Changing It's Greek Text 

 The Constantly Changing Critical (Condition) Text Versions in Action.


In 1 Corinthians 13:3 we read in the KJB - "and though I give my body to BE BURNED, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing”.

ινα καυθησωμαι

This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Textus Receptus, K, Psi, the Old Latin ar, b, d, dem, e, f, g, m, o, t, tx, the Syriac Peshitta (Lamsa), the Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavonic ancient versions.

It is also quoted like this by such early church writers as Tertullian, Methodius, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Zeno, Basil, Pacian, Gregory-Nyssa, Theodoret, John-Damascus and Jerome.

But the so called “oldest and best” manuscripts of P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and A, as well as the constantly changing Nestle-Aland, UBS Critical Greek texts, have put on a dizzying display of continuous change and absurdity.

These “oldest and best” mss. actually say “If I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST, and have not charity it profits me nothing.”

ινα καυχησωμαι . kauXEEsomai.

This was the original reading put in the text by Westcott and Hort in 1881. BUT not even the Revised Version of 1885 nor the ASV 1901 followed it. Instead, both rejected this reading and continued to read just like the KJB and all earlier Bibles with “if I give my body TO BE BURNED.”

However, just a few years later they changed the Nestle Greek text to read “if I give my body TO BE BURNED, and have not charity…”

I have hard copies of the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975 and they both read this way - ἵνα καυθήσομαι - kauTHEEsomai. It is an irregular form to follow the word “hina” (ἵνα) but it translates the same way as found in the KJB - If I give my body TO BE BURNED. - ινα καυθησωμαι

This is the reading - καυθήσομαι - found in C, D, F, G and L and it is still the reading found in the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) Greek New Testament of 2010.

However, in recent years the Nestle-Aland Critical text has now once again changed their text, and have gone back to read as Westcott and Hort first had it. The Nestle-Aland Critical text now reads “If I give my body THAT I MAY BOAST, and have not love, it profits me nothing.”

This means that so far the Critical Greek text has had THREE different readings in it for this one single Greek word.

BUT, this reading is so absurd, that many of the modern versions still do not follow it.

The NASB 1995 does not, nor does the ESV 2001-2011. The NASB reads: “If I deliver my body TO BE BURNED, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.” Then it footnotes: “Some ancient mss. read THAT I MAY BOAST.

And the ESV 2011 has: “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body TO BE BURNED, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

It then Footnotes “Some manuscripts - THAT I MAY BOAST”

However the NIV DOES keep changing its TEXT. The NIVs 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions say: “If I give all I possess to the poor and SURRENDER MY BODY TO THE FLAMES, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

Then they footnote: “Some early manuscripts - THAT I MAY BOAST.”

BUT now the NIV 2011 has come out and it changed its text and now reads; “If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body THAT I MAY BOAST, but do not have love, I gain nothing.”

And this time it footnotes: “Some manuscripts BODY TO THE FLAMES.”

The “Reliable” NIVs.

Even though the recent NIV English version of 2011 has changed its TEXT to read “THAT I MAY BOAST”, yet the NIV Spanish edition, La Nueva Versión Internacional of 2015 still reads like the KJB and the TR reading.

It says “y si entregue mi cuerpo para que LO CONSUMAN LAS LLAMAS…. = TO BE BURNED.

And so also does the NIV Portuguese edition of 2000 - “e entregue o meu corpo para ser queimado” = TO BE BURNED.

The Holman Standard.

The Holman Christian Standard Bible has done the same thing as the NIV. I have a hard copy of the Holman Standard 2003. The Holman Standard has already come out with different editions in 1999, 2000, 2003, 2009 and now they are working on another one with great Fanfare.

The 2003 Holman “Standard” (I guess the new “Standard” with today’s Bible Babble Buffet Carousel is one of “constant change”) reads: “…and I give MY BODY TO BE BURNED…”

BUT the Holman “Standard” of 2009 now says: “and if I give my body IN ORDER TO BOAST, but do not have love…”

Also following this most recently changed Critical text reading is (big surprise) Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 - “if I give over my body IN ORDER TO BOAST…”

“IN ORDER THAT I MIGHT BOAST”

Other bibles that follow this latest textual change in the Critical (Condition) versions are THE JEHOVAH WITNESS New World Translation 1961 edition and the 2013 Revised Jehovah Witness NWT - “and if I hand over my body SO THAT I MAY BOAST”, Rotherham’s 1902 (thus following the original Westcott-Hort reading), the NRSV 1989, New Living Translation 2015 (even though the “old” Living Translation 1971 said “to be burned”)

The brand new International Standard Version 2014 just made up their own translation that says: “Even if I give away everything that I have AND SACRIFICE MYSELF, but have no love, I gain nothing.”

THEN it gives this very misleading Footnote, saying: “Other mss. read sacrifice my body to be burned; or myself so that I may boast.”

By saying “other manuscripts read…..” they are implying that THEY actually followed SOME manuscript, when in fact they just MADE THIS UP out of thin air. NO manuscript reads “and sacrifice myself”

Those Bibles that read like the King James Bible (and many of these are themselves Critical Text versions) with “and though I give my body TO BE BURNED” are Tyndale, Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva bible, Darby, Youngs 1898, R.V. 1885, ASV 1901, Weymouth 1902, Living Bible 1971, Revised Standard Version 1972, J.B. Phillips 1972, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, God’s Word 2000, The Message 2002, New Century Version 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, ESV 2011, the Names of God Bible 2011, Mounce N.T. 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Modern English Version 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014, The Pioneers’ N.T. 2014 and the International Children’s Bible 2015.

If you think the Vaticanus manuscript is the best to follow here, you should take note of the fact that in 13:5, just two verses later, instead of reading "charity...seeketh not her own", Vaticanus reads: "charity does not seek that which is NOT her own".

As for Sinaiticus, among its many other blunders, in 1 Corinthians 15:51 instead of saying: "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" Sinaiticus actually says: "we shall sleep but we shall NOT all be changed."

These are the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts" the modern scholars are so fond of, that form the Vatican supervised, ever changing Greek text that is the basis of versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

Their ever changing “Science” of Textual Criticism is about as scientific as playing the Lottery or throwing darts at a dartboard in a drunken stupor.

Get yourself the King James Bible and stick with it. You will never go wrong.

 

1 John 5:7

Apparently the Holman editors did not consider the strongest verse in the Bible about the Holy Trinity to have enough "undeniable antiquity" or "value for tradition" since 1 John 5:7 did not make the cut. The Holman version omits these important words from 1 John 5:7 "in heaven, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth..."

KJB - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Holman - "For there are three that testify:"

See 1 John 5:7 "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm 

John 1:14, 18; 3:16

KJB "the only begotten Son"

HCS "the One and Only Son"

Why is this a problem? This is an error! Jesus is not the only son of God. Every Christian is a son of God, but Jesus is the "only begotten" Son.

See my article on the theological importance of this term "the only begotten Son" at 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/john118begottenson.htm

 

John 1:42

KJB "Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."

HCS "Cephas (which means Rock)."

If you are familiar with the Roman Catholics church's teaching concerning Peter being the rock upon which the church is based, you will know why this is a problem. Oh, and by the way, the Greek is "petros" -"a small stone" here. Not "petra" - "rock".

John 3:13

KJB "Son of man, which is in heaven."

HCS "Son of man."

The words "which is in heaven" are completely out of the text (following Nestle-Aland/Vatican corrupt text). This is the only verse in the New Testament that clearly teaches the omnipresence of Christ while He was here on earth. That is, Jesus was present in the third heaven WHILE he was talking to Nicodemus on earth. And no doctrine is affected in the new versions, right?  

See the full article here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/john313whichisinheaven.htm

John 9:35, 36

KJB "Dost thou believe on the Son of God? ... Who is he, Lord"

HCS "Do you believe in the Son of Man? ... Who is He, Sir"

What is the problem here? Well, aside from the fact that anytime someone changes God's words it is a problem, these two do not say the same thing. "Son of God" is a term used (especially in John's Gospel) to refer to the deity of Christ. "Son of man", however, more commonly refers to His humanity. No one had any problem in accepting his humanity. It was His deity that people had a problem with.

John 5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

John 10:33-36 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."..."Jesus answered them...Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because I said, I AM THE SON OF GOD?"

If you choose to use the Holman Christian Standard, you are free to do so if you wish, but don't be fooled into thinking it is the inerrant, unchanging, pure and inspired words of God - it isn't.

Will Kinney

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

 Notes from the Internet -

Here is an article from Laurence M. Vance that reveals a lot about the Holman Standard.

http://www.av1611.org/vance/hcsb.html


Hi James. Thanks for your thoughts.  You say: "I don't think we have the original text of the entire Bible, 100% intact, in any compilation currently in existence."  And you also say: "Taking this a step further:  to the extent that an English translation is faithful to the meaning of the original text, the English translation may be called the Word of God, although technically it is no longer in the same form that the original text was in."        


James, when I read stuff like this it most definitely seems like a bunch of self-contradictory, scholarly Double-Speak that ends up meaning absolutely nothing except "I want to appear reverently Orthodox in my beliefs but I really have NO infallible Bible to give you."

You tell us on the one hand that we do NOT have the 100% original text, and then you tell us that to the degree an English translation (or ANY translation) "is faithful to the meaning of the original text it may be called the Word (should be small "w") of God."

I think this is a bunch of Baloney and it most certainly leaves you with NO complete and infallible Bible now or ever.  How could you possibly know that something "is faithful to the meaning of the original text" when you admit that you do not have the original text?!!

And what are you going to use to try to determine for yourself what the closest thing to this hypothetical and ever elusive original text IS? Your own mind, scholarship, opinions and personal preferences? And it is almost guaranteed that 99.5% of other people won't agree with you when you finally piece together your bible anyway.

I see your views as representative of  Every Man for Himself Bible Versionism, or as the Bible puts it "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

I believe in a sovereign God who controls all events in history and who sees the end from the beginning.  He alone knows for sure what specific words and numbers and whole verses He inspired and He alone can guide a man or a group of men to put them all together into one Book. I and many others believe God has already done this in the King James Bible.

You, of course, do not have to agree with us, and you obviously do not.  But at least when we say "I believe the Bible is the 100% true and inspired words of God." we actually have a real Book we can hand you to read for yourself.  Your present position makes you both a liar and a hypocrite if you tell others you believe in the infallibility of the Bible (so you better not say you do) and it leaves you with NO infallible Bible to believe in yourself or to give to anyone else.

I am not mad at you personally. I am not labeling you a heretic or "unsaved" or any of those nasty things people sometimes say to one another. I am merely pointing out what I believe to be the fundamental errors in your thinking and methodology.  God bless.

Will Kinney


 

 

Proverbs 28:3 KJB - "A POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food."  

NIV 1978, 1984, 2011, NRSV 1989 "A RULER who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." NRSV footnote "text emended. Hebrew - a poor man"

Holman Standard - "A DESTITUTE LEADER leader who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no food."

The Catholic Connection  

The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both correctly read "THE POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor".  But the 1968 Jerusalem bible and 1985 New Jerusalem both have "THE WICKED MAN that oppresses the poor..." with a footnote telling us that the Hebrew text reads "poor man". The St. Joseph New American bible 1970 says: "A RICH MAN who oppresses the poor...." with no footnote.

Agreeing the the Hebrew text and the King James Bible's "A POOR MAN" are Wycliffe, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, Darby, Youngs, the RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJB, NET, Complete Jewish Bible, Common English Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012, just to name a few. 

 

Even Dan Wallace's NET version reads "a poor man".  He then footnotes in reference to the strange reading found in the NIV. "The MT reads “a poor man,” גֶּבֶר רָשׁ (gever rash); cf. KJV, NASB, NLT. The problem is that the poor in the book of Proverbs is not an oppressor and does not have the power to be such. So commentators assume the word is incorrect. By a slight change to רָשָׁע (rasha’) the reading becomes “a wicked ruler” [Heb “a wicked mighty man”].There is no textual support for this change. The LXX, however, reads, “A courageous man oppresses the poor with impieties.” If “a poor man” is retained, then the oppression would include betrayal – one would expect a poor man to have sympathy for others who are impoverished, but in fact that is not the case. It is a sad commentary on human nature that the truly oppressed people can also be oppressed by other poor people."

Notice too that the RSV followed the Hebrew text here with "A POOR MAN". Then the NRSV went with "A RULER", but then the ESV went back to "A POOR MAN".

In the case of the pathetic Holman "Standard" (hah!), and its reading of "A DESTITUTE LEADER", they just made this up out of their own way too fertile imaginations.

The NIV is one of the worst perversions of God's pure words out there, and yet many professing Christians are using this Vatican Rag and really don't care. When not even Dan Wallace agrees with it, then you know it's got to be bad.

 

Proverbs 28:3 KJB - "A POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food."  

NIV 1978, 1984, 2011, NRSV 1989 "A RULER who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." NRSV footnote "text emended. Hebrew - a poor man"

Holman Standard - "A DESTITUTE LEADER leader who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no food."

The Catholic Connection  

The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both correctly read "THE POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor".  But the 1968 Jerusalem bible and 1985 New Jerusalem both have "THE WICKED MAN that oppresses the poor..." with a footnote telling us that the Hebrew text reads "poor man". The St. Joseph New American bible 1970 says: "A RICH MAN who oppresses the poor...." with no footnote.

Agreeing the the Hebrew text and the King James Bible's "A POOR MAN" are Wycliffe, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, Darby, Youngs, the RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJB, NET, Complete Jewish Bible, Common English Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012, just to name a few. 

 

Even Dan Wallace's NET version reads "a poor man".  He then footnotes in reference to the strange reading found in the NIV. "The MT reads “a poor man,” גֶּבֶר רָשׁ (gever rash); cf. KJV, NASB, NLT. The problem is that the poor in the book of Proverbs is not an oppressor and does not have the power to be such. So commentators assume the word is incorrect. By a slight change to רָשָׁע (rasha’) the reading becomes “a wicked ruler” [Heb “a wicked mighty man”].There is no textual support for this change. The LXX, however, reads, “A courageous man oppresses the poor with impieties.” If “a poor man” is retained, then the oppression would include betrayal – one would expect a poor man to have sympathy for others who are impoverished, but in fact that is not the case. It is a sad commentary on human nature that the truly oppressed people can also be oppressed by other poor people."

Notice too that the RSV followed the Hebrew text here with "A POOR MAN". Then the NRSV went with "A RULER", but then the ESV went back to "A POOR MAN".

In the case of the pathetic Holman "Standard" (hah!), and its reading of "A DESTITUTE LEADER", they just made this up out of their own way too fertile imaginations.

The NIV is one of the worst perversions of God's pure words out there, and yet many professing Christians are using this Vatican Rag and really don't care. When not even Dan Wallace agrees with it, then you know it's got to be bad.

 

Proverbs 28:3 KJB - "A POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food."  

NIV 1978, 1984, 2011, NRSV 1989 "A RULER who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." NRSV footnote "text emended. Hebrew - a poor man"

Holman Standard - "A DESTITUTE LEADER leader who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no food."

The Catholic Connection  

The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both correctly read "THE POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor".  But the 1968 Jerusalem bible and 1985 New Jerusalem both have "THE WICKED MAN that oppresses the poor..." with a footnote telling us that the Hebrew text reads "poor man". The St. Joseph New American bible 1970 says: "A RICH MAN who oppresses the poor...." with no footnote.

Agreeing the the Hebrew text and the King James Bible's "A POOR MAN" are Wycliffe, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, Darby, Youngs, the RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJB, NET, Complete Jewish Bible, Common English Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012, just to name a few. 

 

Even Dan Wallace's NET version reads "a poor man".  He then footnotes in reference to the strange reading found in the NIV. "The MT reads “a poor man,” גֶּבֶר רָשׁ (gever rash); cf. KJV, NASB, NLT. The problem is that the poor in the book of Proverbs is not an oppressor and does not have the power to be such. So commentators assume the word is incorrect. By a slight change to רָשָׁע (rasha’) the reading becomes “a wicked ruler” [Heb “a wicked mighty man”]. There is no textual support for this change. The LXX, however, reads, “A courageous man oppresses the poor with impieties.” If “a poor man” is retained, then the oppression would include betrayal – one would expect a poor man to have sympathy for others who are impoverished, but in fact that is not the case. It is a sad commentary on human nature that the truly oppressed people can also be oppressed by other poor people."

Notice too that the RSV followed the Hebrew text here with "A POOR MAN". Then the NRSV went with "A RULER", but then the ESV went back to "A POOR MAN".

In the case of the pathetic Holman "Standard" (hah!), and its reading of "A DESTITUTE LEADER", they just made this up out of their own way too fertile imaginations.

The NIV is one of the worst perversions of God's pure words out there, and yet many professing Christians are using this Vatican Rag and really don't care. When not even Dan Wallace agrees with it, then you know it's got to be bad.


Proverbs 28:3 KJB - "A POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food."  

NIV 1978, 1984, 2011, NRSV 1989 "A RULER who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." NRSV footnote "text emended. Hebrew - a poor man"

Holman Standard - "A DESTITUTE LEADER leader who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no food."

The Catholic Connection  

The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both correctly read "THE POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor".  But the 1968 Jerusalem bible and 1985 New Jerusalem both have "THE WICKED MAN that oppresses the poor..." with a footnote telling us that the Hebrew text reads "poor man". The St. Joseph New American bible 1970 says: "A RICH MAN who oppresses the poor...." with no footnote.

Agreeing the the Hebrew text and the King James Bible's "A POOR MAN" are Wycliffe, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, Darby, Youngs, the RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJB, NET, Complete Jewish Bible, Common English Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012, just to name a few. 

 

Even Dan Wallace's NET version reads "a poor man".  He then footnotes in reference to the strange reading found in the NIV. "The MT reads “a poor man,” גֶּבֶר רָשׁ (gever rash); cf. KJV, NASB, NLT. The problem is that the poor in the book of Proverbs is not an oppressor and does not have the power to be such. So commentators assume the word is incorrect. By a slight change to רָשָׁע (rasha’) the reading becomes “a wicked ruler” [Heb “a wicked mighty man”]. There is no textual support for this change. The LXX, however, reads, “A courageous man oppresses the poor with impieties.” If “a poor man” is retained, then the oppression would include betrayal – one would expect a poor man to have sympathy for others who are impoverished, but in fact that is not the case. It is a sad commentary on human nature that the truly oppressed people can also be oppressed by other poor people."

Notice too that the RSV followed the Hebrew text here with "A POOR MAN". Then the NRSV went with "A RULER", but then the ESV went back to "A POOR MAN".

In the case of the pathetic Holman "Standard" (hah!), and its reading of "A DESTITUTE LEADER", they just made this up out of their own way too fertile imaginations.

Proverbs 28:3 KJB - "A POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food."  

NIV 1978, 1984, 2011, NRSV 1989 "A RULER who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." NRSV footnote "text emended. Hebrew - a poor man"

Holman Standard - "A DESTITUTE LEADER leader who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no food."

The Catholic Connection  

The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both correctly read "THE POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor".  But the 1968 Jerusalem bible and 1985 New Jerusalem both have "THE WICKED MAN that oppresses the poor..." with a footnote telling us that the Hebrew text reads "poor man". The St. Joseph New American bible 1970 says: "A RICH MAN who oppresses the poor...." with no footnote.

Agreeing the the Hebrew text and the King James Bible's "A POOR MAN" are Wycliffe, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, Darby, Youngs, the RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJB, NET, Complete Jewish Bible, Common English Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012, just to name a few. 

 

Proverbs 28:3 KJB - "A POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food."  

NIV 1978, 1984, 2011, NRSV 1989 "A RULER who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." NRSV footnote "text emended. Hebrew - a poor man"

Holman Standard - "A DESTITUTE LEADER leader who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no food."

The Catholic Connection  

The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both correctly read "THE POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor".  But the 1968 Jerusalem bible and 1985 New Jerusalem both have "THE WICKED MAN that oppresses the poor..." with a footnote telling us that the Hebrew text reads "poor man". The St. Joseph New American bible 1970 says: "A RICH MAN who oppresses the poor...." with no footnote.

Agreeing the the Hebrew text and the King James Bible's "A POOR MAN" are Wycliffe, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, Darby, Youngs, the RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJB, NET, Complete Jewish Bible, Common English Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012, just to name a few. 

 

Proverbs 28:3 KJB - "A POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food."  

NIV 1978, 1984, 2011, NRSV 1989 "A RULER who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." NRSV footnote "text emended. Hebrew - a poor man"

Holman Standard - "A DESTITUTE LEADER leader who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no food."

The Catholic Connection  

The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay both correctly read "THE POOR MAN that oppresseth the poor".  But the 1968 Jerusalem bible and 1985 New Jerusalem both have "THE WICKED MAN that oppresses the poor..." with a footnote telling us that the Hebrew text reads "poor man". The St. Joseph New American bible 1970 says: "A RICH MAN who oppresses the poor...." with no footnote.

Agreeing the the Hebrew text and the King James Bible's "A POOR MAN" are Wycliffe, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, Darby, Youngs, the RSV, ESV, NASB, NKJB, NET, Complete Jewish Bible, Common English Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012, just to name a few.