Another King James Bible Believer

Bible Babel in the Book of Hosea

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

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

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

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

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

The word used here can have several meanings, depending on the context. Though the NKJV has erroneously translated it here as "Bring charges against", yet the NKJV has frequently translated it as "Plead", as in "plead for the widow" Isaiah 1:17, and "plead my cause" in Psalm 35:1; 43:1, 119:154 etc.

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

Hosea 3:1 "Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of HER FRIEND, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love FLAGONS OF WINE."

There is much confusion in the various bible versions in this verse. The meaning of the King James Bible is that the FRIEND who loves the woman is God Himself. There is a Hebrew parallelism in this verse. Notice: 1. "Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend" = "according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel." And then: "yet an adulteress" = "who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine."

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown note: "beloved of her friend--used for "her husband," on account of the estrangement between them. She was still beloved of her husband, though an adulteress; just as God still loved Israel, though idolatrous (Jer 3:20)."

"Beloved of her FRIEND" is the reading of the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Young's, Darby, Douay, Webster's and the KJV 21st Century versions.

However the NKJV says: "loved by A LOVER and is committing adultery." Then it footnotes that the literal Hebrew word is "friend".

The NIV and Holman Standard say: "though she is loved BY ANOTHER"

The NKJV and NIV imply that this other man is not her friend or husband; the Hebrew parallelism is lost, and the meaning is changed.

BUT the NASB says: "love a woman who is loved by HER HUSBAND". The NASB retains the idea that her friend is the Lord (or the prophet) who is her rightful husband.

Hosea 3:1 "who look to other gods, and love FLAGONS OF WINE."

"FLAGONS OF WINE" is the reading of the Geneva Bible 1599, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1909, and Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 (y aman frascos de vino.), the French Martin 1744 “aiment les flacons de vin”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Italian Diodati, Luther's German 1545 (Kanne Wein), the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, Webster's 1833 translation, the 1994 KJV 21st Century version, the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, and the Modern Greek O.T. reads "agapwsi philias oinou" - "they love flagons of wine".

Among the older English versions we see the similarity to the King James Bible. Wycliffe’s 1395 translation reads “drafts of grapes”; Coverdale 1535 has “love the wine cans”, the Bishops's Bible of 1568 says "who love wine pots", and the Geneva Bible of 1599 says: “who love the wine bottles”. Obviously these agree with the King James Bible reading of “flagons of wine”.

However the NKJV joins such versions as the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV and Holman Standard and says: "who love RAISIN CAKES." Now, you have to admit that there is a distinct difference between "flagons of wine" and "raisin cakes".

Other Bible translators have come up with yet more novel ideas about what the Hebrew reading means. The Douay of 1950 says: "they look to strange gods, and love THE HUSKS OF GRAPES."

Another Jewish translation called the Judaica Press Tanach has: “who turn to other gods, and love GOBLETS OF GRAPES.”

The 2004 Message is unrecognizable with: "even as they flirt and party with every god that takes their fancy."

The "flagons of wine" are found four times in the King James Bible (2 Samuel 6:19; 1 Chron. 16:3; Song of Solomon 2:5 and Hosea 3:1) but the NKJV has changed all four of these to "raisin cakes". The Hebrew word for "raisin" is an entirely different word, which is found in 1 Samuel 25:18 and 30:12.

Nave's Topical Bible is typical of many "scholars" who criticize the KJB rendering. It says: "Erroneously translated (KJV) flagon of wine, but more accurately, cake of raisin (RSV).

Well, each is entitled to his own opinion, but that is all it is - an opinion; and their opinion is not shared by others who are just as competent.

Adam Clarke comments: "The flagons of wine were probably such as were used for libations, or drunk in idol feasts. Others think that the words should be translated cakes of dried grapes, sweet cakes, consecrated wafers." (Well, others can THINK that it should be translated another way, but obviously many others are not in agreement with their opinions.)

Matthew Henry comments: "And they loved flagons of wine; they joined with idolaters because they lived merrily and drank hard; they had a kindness for other gods for the sake of the plenty of good wine with which they had been sometimes treated in their temples. God's priests were to drink no wine when they went in to minister, and his Nazarites none at all. But the worshippers of other gods drank wine in bowls; nay, no less than flagons of wine would content them."

Hosea 4:4 "Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: FOR THY PEOPLE ARE AS THEY THAT STRIVE WITH THE PRIEST."

So read the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "for thy people are as they that rebuke the Priest.", KJB, Darby 1890 - "for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.", the ASV 1901 - "Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove; for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.", Lesser Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, NKJV, NASB 1995, NIV 2011, Young's 1898, and the Jewish translations of JPS 1917 and 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company - "for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.", the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, and the Jubilee Bible 2000.

 

Among foreign language Bibles that read the same as the KJB are the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "porque o teu povo é como os que contendem com o sacerdote. ", Luther's German Bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 - "denn dein Volk ist wie die, so den Priester schelten.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1909-1995 - "porque tu pueblo es como los que resisten al sacerdotal.", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Segond 2007 - "ton peuple est pareil à ceux qui se querellent avec les prêtres." = "your people are like those who quarrel with the priests.", and the Italian Diodati 1991 and Riveduta of 2006 - "perché il tuo popolo è come quelli che contendono col sacerdotal." = "your people are as those who contend with the priest." and the Modern Greek Bible - "διοτι ο λαος σου ειναι ως οι αντιλεγοντες εις τον ιερεα." = "for your people are as those who contradict the priest."


 

However the Holman Standard, Amplified bible 1987, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001-2011 say: "But let no one dispute; let no one argue, for MY CASE IS AGAINST YOU PRIESTS."

Then in a footnote, the Holman Standard says the text has been emended (changed), but that the Massoretic text reads: "and your people are like those contending with a priest." - just like the King James Bible has it.

The Catholic versions show the usual pattern in that the previous Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay both read like the KJB with - " for thy people are as they that contradict the priest." But now the Jerusalem bible 1968, the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 have all changed this to: "WITH YOU IS MY GRIEVANCE, O PRIESTS!"

The 2011 critical text Common English Bible gives a completely different meaning as to who is angry with whom, saying: "LISTEN, PRIEST, I AM ANGRY WITH YOUR PEOPLE." Then it footnotes: "Hebrew is uncertain."  Well, it certainly is now!

Again, Daniel Wallace and company's NET version reads: "Do not let anyone accuse or contend against anyone else: FOR MY CASE IS AGAINST YOU PRIESTS!

Then he footnotes: "The MT reads: 'and your people are like those who contend against the priest'. This is reflected in the LXX and the versions; however, it is syntactically awkward and makes little contextual sense. Several text-critics suggest that the text be emended to read: my contention is with/against you, O priest!"

Well, perhaps Mr. Wallace and company can't make sense out of it, but the meaning is quite clear, and he has no right to "emend" the text according to his own dulled understanding.

John Gill comments: "for thy people are as they that strive with the priest; they are so far from receiving correction and reproof kindly from any good men that they will rise up against, and strive with the priests, to whom not to hearken was a capital crime, (Deuteronomy 17:12)."

Likewise Jamieson, Faussett and Brown have no problem understanding the simple reading. They comment: " let no man reprove--Great as is the sin of Israel, it is hopeless to reprove them; for their presumptuous guilt is as great as that of one who refuses to obey the priest when giving judgment in the name of Jehovah, and who therefore is to be put to death (De 17:12). They rush on to their own destruction as wilfully as such a one."

Matthew Henry comments: "Thy people are as those that strive with the priests; they have grown so very impudent in sin, so very insolent, and impatient of reproof, that they will fly in the face even of a priest himself if he should but give them the least check, without any regard to his character and office"

The King James Bible is right, as always.

Hosea 4:7 "As they were increased, so they sinned against me: therefore WILL I CHANGE their glory into shame."

This is the reading of the Hebrew texts and that of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard. However the NIV, and now the TNIV have rejected the Hebrew text and followed the Syriac. They tell you this in their footnotes. The NIV reads: "The more THE PRIESTS (not in any text) increased, the more they sinned against me; THEY EXCHANGED their Glory for something disgraceful."

Again, Daniel Wallace has followed what he calls a "scribal tradition" and the Syriac, and reads like the NIV saying: "THEY HAVE TURNED their glorious calling into a shameful disgrace!"

The real "shameful disgrace" is that there are "renowned scholars" like Daniel Wallace who are so ready to alter God's words according to their own corrupt understanding, and then try to justify it.

4:18 KJB "Their drink is SOUR: they have committed whoredom continually; her rulers with shame do love. GIVE YE.". The reading of "their drink is SOUR" is found in the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901, Young's, Darby, the Hebrew Names Version, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However the NKJV says: "their drink is REBELLION"; the NIV-"their drinks are GONE" and NASB "their liquor GONE".

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

The final two words of "GIVE YE" are in the Hebrew texts. This word means to give, to bring or "go to". It is # 3051 and it is found in the King James Bible, Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible.

John Gill comments: "her rulers with shame do love, give ye;...these "loved, give ye", the sense is, either they loved gifts and bribes, and were continually saying, "give, give", when causes were to be tried, and so perverted justice and judgment, which was very shameful; or they loved wine and strong drink, and therefore required it to be continually given them, which was very scandalous in rulers more especially; or they loved whoredom, both in a corporeal and spiritual sense, and desired more harlots and more idols, and added to their old ones, which was very abominable and ignominious."

John Wesley briefly remarks: "Give ye - Beside there is shameful oppression and bribery among them."

Matthew Henry says: "Give ye, that is, they love bribes, and have it continually in their mouths, Give, give. They are given to filthy lucre; every one that has any business with them must expect to be asked, What will you give? "

However the NKJV, NIV, RSV, NASB, and Holman have all merely omitted the words "Give ye." The NKJV says: "Their drink is REBELLION. They commit harlotry continually, Her rulers DEARLY love dishonor." Then in the footnote tell us "the Hebrew is difficult, a Jewish tradition reads: Her rulers shamefully love, Give."

Well, it is more than a Jewish tradition. These words are actually in the Hebrew texts, and the King James Bible and a few others got it right.

Hosea 5:11 "Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after THE COMMANDMENT."

The idea here is that Ephraim walked after the commandments of men, rather than the words of God. The Geneva Bible notes: "because he willingly walked after the l commandment. (l) That is, after King Jeroboams commandment, and did not rather follow God." John Gill comments: "the commandment; not after the commandment of God, but after the commandment of men." In fact, versions like the NKJV and NASB have added a word to the text to communicate this idea. The NKJV says "human precept", while the NASB has "man's command".

Agreeing with the King James Bible and the Hebrew reading of "walked after the COMMANDMENT" are Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, Youngs, Darby, Green's, the NKJV, KJV 21, the Judaica Press Tanach translation, and the Third Millenium Bible. The Spanish Reina Valera also agrees saying: "porque quiso andar en pos de mandamientos."

However the NIV says "PURSUING IDOLS" and then footnotes "the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain." Likewise Daniel Wallace's wild and wooly NET version says "he was determined to pursue WORTHLESS IDOLS." Then he footnotes "The meaning of the Hebrew term translated “worthless idols” is uncertain; cf. KJV “the commandment”; NASB “man’s command”; NAB “filth”; NRSV “vanity.”

Sorry guys, but the Hebrew word is #6673 tzau and comes from the verb 6680 meaning "to command", as in Genesis 7:9 "as God commanded Noah", Exodus 12:28 "as the Lord commanded Moses" and a multitude of other verses. This same noun form is used in Isaiah 28:10, 13 eight times where it says "precept upon precept", and even the NIV has "rule upon rule".

The RSV says: "walked after VANITY", and then informs us in their footnote that "vanity" comes from the Greek, but that the Hebrew reads "command" The Holman Standard also follows the Greek LXX and says "follows WHAT IS WORTHLESS", and then foonotes "or a command; Hebrew is uncertain."

The ESV now says "FILTH" but then footnotes "or human precepts". Get 10 scholars in a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions, and no inspired and inerrant Bible.

Hosea 6:5 "Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: AND THY JUDGMENTS ARE AS THE LIGHT THAT GOETH FORTH."

So read the Hebrew texts, as well as the following Bible translations: Geneva Bible 1599, ("THY" is also the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' Bible, and Coverdale); the Revised Version 1881 "and THY judgments are as the light that goeth forth.", ASV 1901, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, Darby, NKJV, Green's MKJV, Third Millenium Bible 1998, and the Spanish Reina Valera - "y TUS juicios serán como luz que sale."  

However the NASB says: "And the judgments ON YOU are like the light that goes forth." The NASB merely omits the Hebrew word THY, or else changes it to "on you" and changes the meaning of the verse. The judgments spoken of were the words of truth, light and doctrine that went forth by the prophets and were given to the nation of Israel. The verse does not refer to "punishments for their sins", as the NASB implies.

The NIV has changed the Hebrew text and reads: "MY judgments FLASHED LIKE LIGHTNING UPON YOU."

The Holman Standard similarly rejects the Hebrew texts and says: "I have killed them with the words of My mouth. MY judgment strikes like lightning." However the Holman at least does us the service of noting in their footnote that the reading of MY comes from the LXX and the Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads "YOUR judgments go out as light". By the way, the Hebrew word means "light" and not "lightning".

Not even the RSV, NRSV, or the 2001 ESV went as far as the NIV and Holman in perverting the Hebrew texts. They all read: "MY judgment goes forth as the light." (ESV). Then again they footnote that MY comes from the Greek and Syriac, but the Hebrew reads YOUR.

What is fascinating to watch is how each "scholar" goes about setting up his own mind as the final authority. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is a prime example of today's "every man for himself bible version" mentality.

Wallace's NET version reads: "for15 MY judgment16 will come forth like the light of the dawn.17" . Then the good doctor informs us in his footnotes: "tc The MT reads “and YOUR judgments are a light which goes forth” which is enigmatic and syntactically awkward (cf. KJV, NASB). The LXX reads “my judgment goes forth like light”. Here Wallace recognizes the Hebrew reads "your" (or thy), yet he thinks it is enigmatic, and so corrects the Hebrew text with the Greek LXX.

But then in the very same verse he now criticizes the NIV reading and says: "tn The noun “light” is used here in reference to the morning light or dawn rather than lightning (cf. NIV)."

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Hosea 7:12 "When they shall go, I will spread my net upon them; I will bring them down as the fowls of the heaven; I WILL CHASTISE THEM, AS THEIR CONGREGATION HATH HEARD."

So read the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, NRSV and Geneva Bibles. However the RSV says: "I will chastise them FOR THEIR WICKED DEEDS", then in a footnote tells us they have "emended" (changed) the text, but that the Hebrew reads as does the King James Bible.

But wait! Now the NIV and TNIV read: "WHEN I HEAR THEIR FLOCKING TOGETHER, I WILL CATCH THEM."

Hosea 7:16 "They return, BUT NOT TO THE MOST HIGH: they are like a deceitful bow..."

So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, Geneva, Young's, Darby and Spanish versions. However the NASB says: "They TURN, but NOT UPWARDS", yet the NASB has translated this same word as "the Most High" in Hosea 11:7.

The RSV of 1952 and Daniel Wallace's NET version say: "THEY TURN TO BAAL", then the RSV footnotes that they have emended the text and that the Hebrew is uncertain. The NRSV says: "They turn TO THAT WHICH DOES NOT PROFIT", and then the new ESV has: "They return, BUT NOT UPWARD" and then footnotes "or to the Most High".

So, is it "return, but not to the Most High", "turn to Baal", "turn not upward" or "turn to that which does not profit"?

Hosea 8:12 "I HAVE WRITTEN to him THE GREAT THINGS of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing."

The Hebrew text followed by the King James Bible and so many others reads #7230 rohv. It means "great things, excellent, greatness, multitude, plenty or abundance". However the word for "10,000" is a different Hebrew word, #7239 rib-bohth, and is found only twice in the Hebrew Scriptures.

So read the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1658, the Geneva Bible 1587-"I haue written to them the great things of my Lawe", the Lesser Bible 1853 - "the great things of my law", NKJV 1982, the 1917 Jewish Pub. Society version, 1936 Hebrew Pub. Company version, the Judaica Press Tanach -"the GREAT THINGS of My Law",  Complete Jewish Bible, Green's MKJV and Green's Literal translation - "the great things of My Law", and the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 -"the GREAT THINGS of my law."

Among foreign language Bibles that also read "THE GREAT THINGS of my law" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Spanish Reina Valera 1995 -  "Le escribí LAS GRANDEZAS de mi Ley, y fueron tenidas por cosa extraña", as well as the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - "Ho scritto per li LE GRANDI COSE della mia legge"., The French Martin 1744 - "Je lui ai écrit LES GRANDES CHOSES de ma Loi", the Dutch Staten Vertaling - "Ik schrijf hem de voortreffelijkheden Mijner wet boor" = "the great things of my law"; the Portuguese Sagrada Biblia and the Almeida Corrigida E Fiel - " Escrevi-lhe AS GRANDEZAS da minha lei", Martin Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Wenn ich ihm gleich viel tausend Gebote meines Gesetzes schreibe", the Russian Synodal Bible -"Написал Я ему важные законы Мои" = "the great things of my law", the Africaans Bible 1953 - "Ek het hom tien duisende leringe van my wet voorgeskrywe" = "the great things of my law" and the Modern Greek Bible - "Εγραψα προς αυτον τα μεγαλεια του νομου μου·" - "the GREAT THINGS of my law."

 

Daniel Wallace and company's NET version has paraphrased this verse as: "I spelled out my law for him IN GREAT DETAIL."

However, versions like the ASV, NASB, RSV and Amplified have confused one Hebrew reading for another. The NASB says: "Though I WROTE for him TEN THOUSAND PRECEPTS of My law, They are regarded as a strange thing."

The Holman Standard and ESV put a different slant on things saying: "WERE I TO WRITE FOR HIM (as though He hadn't yet done so) my laws BY THE TEN THOUSANDS, they WOULD BE regarded as a strange thing."

The RSV went with "10,000 things", then the NRSV said "the MULTITUDE of my instructions", and now the ESV goes back to "by the TEN THOUSANDS."

The NIV says: "I wrote for them the MANY things of my law, but they regarded them as something alien." but the NIV Spanish version says: "Yo podría escribirles mi ley muchas veces" = "I COULD write to them my law MANY TIMES."


It is interesting that Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: "great things of . . . law-- . MAURER not so well translates, "THE MANY things of My law."


David Guzik's Commentary - "I have written for him the great things of My law, but they were considered a strange thing: In their sin and idolatry, Israel also rejected the Word of God. God had great things for Israel, but they seemed like a strange thing because their hearts were far from God."  


Matthew Henry comments: " The things of God's law are magnalia Dei--the great things of God. They are things that proclaim the greatness of the Law-maker, and things of great use and great importance to us; they are our life"


John Calvin comments: "He adds, The great things, or, the precious, or, the honorable things of my law. Had he said, "I have written to you my law," the legislator himself was doubtless worthy, to whom all ought to submit with the greatest reverence, and to form their whole life according to his will; but the Lord here extols his own law by a splendid eulogy, and this he does to repress the wickedness of men, who obscure its dignity and excellency: I have written, he says, the great things of my law. "


Hosea 10:1 "Israel is AN EMPTY vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself."

That Israel is an EMPTY vine, is the reading of the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599 -"Israel is a emptie vine, yet hath it brought foorth fruite vnto it selfe", Young's literal - "An empty vine is Israel, Fruit he maketh like to himself", Webster's 1833 translation, the Lesser Bible 1853,  the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2000-2010. 

Foreign language Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and read like the KJB are the Italian Diodati 1649 - "Israele è stato una vigna deserta", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - "Israel parra vacía", the Spanish Cipriano de Valera Revisada 1865, and the Spanish Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "Israel es una viña vacía que da fruto para sí mismo" = "Israel is AN EMPTY VINE, it gives fruit for itself",  the French Martin 1744 - "Israël est une vigne déserte, elle ne fait de fruit que pour elle-même" = "Israel is an empty vine, it gives fruit for itself.", the Finnish Bible 1776 - "Israel on tyhjä viinapuu" = "Israel is currently an EMPTY vine.", the Romanian Cornilescu Bible - "Israel era o vie mănoasă" = "Israel is an EMPTY vine"., and the Russian Synodal Bible -"Израиль – ветвистый виноград" = "Israel - AN EMPTY VINE"

 

The Hebrew word used here means "empty", but I think many translators got it wrong because they were confused by the statement that follows: "he bringeth forth fruit unto himself."

The Hebrew word is # 1238 bah-kak, and it means to make empty or void. It is used in Isaiah 24:1-3 "The Lord maketh the earth empty...the land shall be utterly emptied", and Nahum 2:2 "the emptiers have emptied them out, and marred their vine branches."

The idea is that the vine of Israel is empty of fruit for God, even though it has fruit for itself.

John Gill comments: "Israel is an empty vine" - The people of Israel are often compared to a vine, and such an one from whence fruit might be expected, being planted in a good soil, and well taken care of; but proved an "empty vine", empty of fruit; not of temporal good things, for a multitude of such fruit it is afterwards said to have; but of spiritual fruit, of the fruit of grace, and of good works, being destitute of the Spirit of God, and his grace."

 

The Pulpit Commentary says: "as "empty." Thus Aben Ezra explains it as "empty in which there is no strength to bring forth fruit, nor fruit;" and thus also Kimchi explains it: "An empty vine in which there is not any life-sap;" and in the same sense בי ומי, "empty and sick," Nahum 2:11. This, too, is the meaning of the Authorized Version..."  


John Wesley comments on Hosea 10:1 - "An empty vine - That hath lost its strength to bring forth fruit. Unto himself - Whatever fruit was brought forth by its remaining strength, was not brought forth to God. His fruit - When the land yielded more plentiful increase, this plenty was employed on multiplying idols."  


The Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary, agreeing with the meaning found in the King James Bible, say: "empty--stripped of its fruits, (Nahum 2:2);  bringeth forth fruit unto himself--not unto ME. - In proportion to the abundance of their prosperity, which called for fruit unto God, was the abundance of their idolatry."


Matthew Henry comments: "But this was the character of Israel, they were as an empty vine, a vine that had no sap or virtue in it, and therefore none of those good fruits produced by it that were expected from it, with which God and man should be honored."


A multitude of modern versions give contradictory and opposite meanings to the verse. The NASB, RSV and ESV say "Israel is a LUXURIANT vine", the opposite of the meaning found in the King James Bible.


The NIV says Israel is "a SPREADING VINE", Darby "an UNPRUNED vine", and the Holman Standard says it is "a LUSH vine" and then footnotes "Or, a RAVAGED vine".


Daniel Wallace's NET bible says: "Israel was a FERTILE vine, that yielded fruit."


The Message says: "Israel was once A LUSH VINE, BOUNTIFUL IN GRAPES."The Common English Bible says: "Israel is a GROWING vine that yields its fruit."


The Voice of 2012 paraphrases the whole passage but sort of ends up with the same meaning as found in the KJB, saying: "Israel, once a vibrant vine that bore adequate fruit, IS NOW BARREN."


The NKJV gives a different meaning than them all, saying: "Israel EMPTIES his vine".


The Message is interesting in that it differs from the others, saying: "Israel WAS ONCE A LUSH vine vine, bountiful in grapes."


The World English Bible gives the complete opposite meaning, with: "Israel is a luxuriant vine that produces his fruit."  And the Catholic versions read like many of today's "Evangelical" versions.  Both the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 say: "Israel is a LUXURIANT VINE."  


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


Hosea 10:5 "The inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the calves of Beth-aven: for the people thereof shall mourn over it, and the priests thereof that REJOICED on it, for the glory thereof, because it is departed from them."

The meaning is very simple - the idolatrous priests who once REJOICED on their pagan altars, shall now mourn when God brings judgment. The Hebrew word used here clearly means "to rejoice, to be joyful, or to be glad." It is used many times and always with this meaning. "I will rejoice in Jerusalem" Isaiah 65:19; "I will rejoice in thy salvation" Psalm 9:14; "their heart shall rejoice as through wine" Zechariah 10:7.

"the priests thereof that REJOICED in it" is the reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, Geneva Bible, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera, and even the Holman Standard, the ESV and the NIV.

However previous RSV said "the priests shall WAIL over it", then footnotes that they have emended (changed) the text, and that the Hebrew means to exult or rejoice. The NKJV follows this "emended" reading and says: " And its priests SHRIEK FOR IT-- Because its glory has departed from it.", and the NASB has: " And its idolatrous priests will CRY OUT over it", then footnotes "or, who used to rejoice". Well, the KJB had it right all along, and the NKJV totally missed it.

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

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

 

 


The NKJV reads: "As for Samaria, her king is cut off like a TWIG on the water." The NASB has: "Samaria will cut off her king like a STICK on the surface of the water"; while the NIV has something a little different still with "Samaria and its king will float away like a twig on the surface of the waters."

The RSV says "a CHIP", and the Message has "A DEAD BRANCH". Who here does the cutting off? God (KJB)? Samaria (NASB)? or do they just float away (NIV)? Is it foam, a stick, a chip, a dead branch, or a twig?

The word used here for "FOAM" is the same Hebrew word for "wrath" or "indignation". Just as wrath bubbles up, so too does the foam upon the water. The translation of "twig" (NKJV) actually comes from the Greek Septuagint, and not the Hebrew text. All Hebrew versions I have seen translate this word as "foam".

Hosea 10:10 "It is my desire that I should chastise them; and the people shall be gathered against them, WHEN THEY SHALL BIND THEMSELVES IN THEIR TWO FURROWS."

This is the reading found in the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, Webster's, the 2003 Updated Bible Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However the NKJV joins such versions as the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV and Holman saying: "When it is My desire, I will chasten them. Peoples shall be gathered against them When I BIND THEM FOR THEIR TWO TRANSGRESSIONS." Then it footnotes: "or, in their two habitations."

John Gill comments: "when they shall bind themselves in their two furrows - when, like heifers untamed, and bound in a yoke to plough, do not make and keep in one furrow, but turn out to the right or left, and make cross furrows; so it is intimated that this was the reason why the Lord would correct Israel, and suffer the nations to gather together against them, and carry them captive, because they did not plough in one furrow, or keep in the true and pure worship of God; but made two furrows, worshipping partly God, and partly idols... The "Keri" or marginal reading is, "their two iniquities"; which the Septuagint follows, rendering it: "when they are chastised FOR THEIR TWO INIQUITIES.''

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown see a different meaning in the phrase, but stick with the KJB reading. They comment: "when they shall bind themselves in their two furrows--image from two oxen ploughing together side by side, in two contiguous furrows: so the Israelites shall join themselves, to unite their powers against all dangers, but it will not save them from My destroying them." They also note: "HENDERSON prefers the Keri (Hebrew Margin) "for their two iniquities".

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Catholic Connection 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Went from -  frowardly and most disingenuously apostatized more and more

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Hosea 11:4 "I drew them with cords of A MAN, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their JAWS, and I laid meat unto them."

"cords of A MAN" is the Hebrew reading and that of the RV, ASV, NASB, Geneva, Young's, Darby, and the Jewish translations. However the NKJV says: "with GENTLE cords" and then footnotes that the literal Hebrew is "a man". The NIV has: "with cords of HUMAN KINDNESS", and the ESV "cords of KINDNESS", but then footnotes that the literal Hebrew is "cords of a man", just like the KJB has it.

One of the most pretentious of versions now held in high esteem by all the Bible correctors is Daniel Wallace's NET bible. This goofy piece of garbage actually reads: "I led them with LEATHER cords, with LEATHER ropes."!!!! Then the good doctor Wallace tells us in his footnote: "This homonymic root is well attested in Arabic - skin; leather.

Will it ever dawn on people that the "notable scholars" of today have completely lost their marbles?

"take off the yoke on their JAWS" is the reading of the Geneva, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV and Holman Standard, but the NKJV joins the NIV saying: "take the yoke off their NECK", and then footnotes again that the literal Hebrew is "jaws".

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Hosea 11:9 "I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter INTO THE CITY."

"I will not enter INTO THE CITY" is the Hebrew reading, and that of the Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, the Revised Version, Douay, the Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However the NKJV says: "I will not COME WITH TERROR". The RSV says: "I will not come TO DESTROY", and then footnotes that the literal Hebrew is "into the city". Likewise the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman say: "I will not COME IN WRATH." All these versions have changed the Hebrew text.

 

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

 

KJB Judah yet RULETH WITH God

NIV Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God

NASB Judah is also UNRULY AGAINST God

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

So which one is God's true word? 

 

The Catholic Connection

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Hosea 12:4 "Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake WITH US."

"WITH US" is the reading of the Hebrew texts, as well as that of the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Geneva Bible, Young's, Darby, and the 2001 ESV. However, the RSV, NIV and Holman Standard all follow the Greek Septuagint and Syriac, instead of the Hebrew texts. The NIV and Holman Standard say: "and talked WITH HIM there."

12:7 KJB "He is a MERCHANT, the balances of deceit are in his hand." The NASB & NIV, along with the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and Holman Standard agree with the King James reading, while the NKJV alone changes "he is a merchant" to " A CUNNING CANAANITE!". The Hebrew word here for "merchant" is found only four times, and in the other three instances of this word, there the NKJV has translated it as "merchant" or "trade", but only here as "a cunning Canaanite".

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

 

 

Hosea 13:9 KJB - "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help."

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Catholic Connection

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Other Versions, Different Meanings -

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible makes no attempt to change the text of the KJB and comments: " I will be your King: God wanted to be recognized as the King of Israel, no matter which man sat on the royal throne."

 

Kretzmann's Popular Commentary 1924 says: " I will be thy King, so the Lord's offer still holds good; where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? Who else could really deliver them from the power of the Assyrians?"

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Hosea 13:14 KJB -  "I will redeem them from death...REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."

  

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

(Have these bible correctors lost their collective minds?)

 

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

 

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

 

Coffman's Commentary -

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The King James Bible is the only true word of God. 1

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

Israël est une vigne déserte, elle ne fait de fruit que pour elle-même

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible mentions: "I will be thy King - (literally, “I would be” thy King) Where is any other that, etc. "

David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible makes no attempt to change the text of the KJB and comments: " I will be your King: God wanted to be recognized as the King of Israel, no matter which man sat on the royal throne." 

Kretzmann's Popular Commentary 1924 says: " I will be thy King, so the Lord's offer still holds good; where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? Who else could really deliver them from the power of the Assyrians?"

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible mentions: "I will be thy King - (literally, “I would be” thy King) Where is any other that, etc. "

David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible makes no attempt to change the text of the KJB and comments: " I will be your King: God wanted to be recognized as the King of Israel, no matter which man sat on the royal throne." 

Kretzmann's Popular Commentary 1924 says: " I will be thy King, so the Lord's offer still holds good; where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? Who else could really deliver them from the power of the Assyrians?"

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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