Another King James Bible Believer

Psalms #1 How Different The Versions!

In this comparative study of the Book of Psalms we will be showing the totally different meanings found in the multitude of conflicting bible versions. Many people assume all versions say the same things but with slightly different words. This is not true at all. Some of these changes, both textually and in the meaning, will surprise you.

Psalms 2:1 "Why do the heathen RAGE, and the people imagine a vain thing?"

Here the NIV gives a false reading and a false footnote. The NIV says: "Why do the nations CONSPIRE, and the peoples plot in vain?"

Then in a footnote the NIV tells us that the Hebrew reads "conspire" while the word "rage" comes from the Greek Septuagint. This is totally false information.

The Hebrew word itself means to "rage" and is in fact the reading not only of the King James Bible but also of the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the NKJV, Green's Modern KJV of 1998, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Douay 1950, St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the 2001-2011 ESV (English Standard Version).

"Why do the heathen RAGE?" is also the reading found in the Great Bible 1540, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Webster's Bible 1833, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation and the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 - Why do the Goyim RAGE?".  The NASB says "Why are the nations in an uproar". 

 It is also quoted this way using the word RAGE in Acts 4:25 even by the NIV!

"Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen RAGE, and the people imagine vain things." (KJB)

About the only other bible versions to translate it like the NIV has it are the liberal RSV, and the NRSV - "Why do the nations CONSPIRE?"

 

The reason I mention this false note of the NIV here is because in this very Psalm  2:9 the NIVs of 1978 and 1982 reject the Hebrew reading and follow the Greek Septuagint, but they don't bother to tell us that they did this. 

In Psalms 2:9 we read: "Thou shalt BREAK them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

Here the reading "Thou shalt BREAK them with a rod of iron" is found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and the Holman Standard.

However the NIV 1978 and 1984 editions say: "You will RULE them with an iron sceptre", but the footnote telling us this reading comes from the alleged LXX is missing.

But wait! Now the brand new NIV 2011 edition has come out and it goes back to the reading of "you will BREAK them with a rod of iron."

And this time it tells us in a footnote to see the LXX for the reading of "you will RULE them". These are the fine folks that have given us the sound scholarship behind the ever changing NIVs.

Psalms 2:7 "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE."

This verse is prophetic of the fulfillment found in the book of Acts 13:33 where we read: God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

This day when God "begot" the Son of God refers to the resurrection day when the Father raised the Son from the dead and He became the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18) and the first begotten of the dead (Rev. 1:5).

This day have I begotten thee is the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the KJB, RV 1881, Darby 1890, the ASV 1901, NKJV, NASB, RSV, and ESV.

However the NIV, Holman Standard, Dan Wallace's NET version and the Jehovah Witness version read: Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER. thus teaching that there was a day when Christ was not the Son of the Father, and thus was not the eternal Son of God.

The Catholic Connection  

The earlier Douay-Rheims 1582 and Douay 1950 both read "Thou art my son, this day HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE." But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the New Jerusalem bible now read: "You are my son, today HAVE I FATHERED YOU."

But the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the 2009 The Sacred Bible follow the Hebrew (and the Greek in Acts 13:33) and say "You are my son, this day HAVE I BEGOTTEN YOU."

 

The NIV, New Jerusalem bible, Jehovah Witness NWT, Dan Wallace's NET version and Holman Standard quote it this way in Acts 13:33 as well - "today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."  NET - "today I HAVE FATHERED YOU." The NET then footnotes: "Greek - I have begotten you."

There is NO Greek text on this earth that reads "I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."  The Greek text says "σημερον γεγεννηκα σε". Literally this is "today I have begotten thee."

There is no word for "become" and there certainly is no words for either "your" and much less for "Father".  They just made this up as a complete and total paraphrase that ends up entirely missing the point and teaching a FALSE doctrine.  There was no "day" when God became the Father of the Son.  The Son has always existed, just as the everlasting Father has. 

A person cannot be a father unless he has a son or a daughter. He is a man and a husband, but not yet a father. There is no such thing as a father who has no children. You don't become a father until you have a son. If the Father is eternal and from everlasting, then so must be the Son likewise.

Psalms 2:7 and Acts 13:33 refer to the day the Son was resurrected from the dead and He became "the first BEGOTTEN from the dead."  

For a much more detailed study on this verse,  see Acts 13:33 "This day have I begotten thee."

http://brandplucked.webs.com/acts1333thisdaybegotte.htm 

It's all so clear once you have the right Bible.

 

Psalms 2:12 "KISS the Son, lest he be angry."

 

This is the literal reading of the Hebrew and that of the English translations of Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Calvin Bible 1855, Noyes Translation 1869, the Revised Version 1881, Darby 1890, the ASV of 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the NKJV 1982, NIV 1984 and 2011, the Hebrew Names Version, the ESV 2011, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the International Standard Version, New Heart English Bible 2010, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, and the Names of God Version 2011 - "KISS THE SON, or he will become angry."

Likewise reading "kiss the Son" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the 1909 Spanish Reina Valera, the French Martin 1744 and the Louis Segond of 1910 both say "kiss the Son" - "Baisez le Fils", as does Martin Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Küsset den Sohn", the Italian Diodati 1649 - "Baciate il figliuolo", the Portuguese Almeida - "Beijai o Filho", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "Kus die Seun", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Kust den Zoon", the Hungarian Károli Bible - "Csókoljátok a Fiút" = "Kiss the Son", the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap - "Kyss Sønnen", the Czech Bible Kralicka - "Líbejte syna", the Russian Synodal Version 1876 - "Почтите Сына" and the Modern Greek Bible - "Φιλειτε τον Υιον, μηποτε οργισθη" = "KISS the Son, lest he be angry" (the verb Φιλειτε means "kiss") and the Smith & van Dyke Arabic Bible - قبّلوا الابن لئلا يغضب فتبيدوا من الطريق لانه عن قليل يتقد غضبه. طوبى لجميع المتكلين عليه

 

The so called Greek Septuagint is really messed up and says: "ACCEPT CORRECTION, lest at any time the Lord be angry" and the Latin Vulgate and Clementine Vulgate have "adprehendite disciplinam" = "learn discipline".

However the RSV, the NRSV 1989 and the Common English Bible 2011 say: "Kiss HIS FEET" omitting the word Son and making up the reading of "his feet". Then they tell us in a footnote that the "Hebrew is uncertain".

The Hebrew is not uncertain. The literal reading is "kiss" (as found in many places including Genesis 27:26, 27; 1 Kings 19:18; Psalm 85:10 and Hosea 13:2) and the word for "Son" is also translated by both the RSV, and NRSV as "son" three times in Proverbs 31:2!

The "literal" NASB, and the Holman Standard say: "PAY HOMAGE TO the Son" and then the Holman Standard informs us in a footnote that it literally reads KISS.  The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible of 2008 says "Kiss the descendant".

Dan Wallace and company give us the usual "anything but the King James Bible" rendering of "GIVE SINCERE HOMAGE! Otherwise he will be angry" and omits the word SON altogether.

While the Judaica Press Tanach (Complete Jewish Bible) has: "ARM YOURSELVES WITH PURITY lest He become angry and you perish in the way."  Yeah, that's pretty close, huh?

Young's gives an inferiour reading with: "Kiss the CHOSEN ONE", while the 1970 New English Bible makes up its own reading: "Kiss THE KING, lest He be angry".

The Catholic Connection

The Catholic versions are a confused mess as usual. The 1610 Douay-Rheims, the 1950 Douay version as well as the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version follow the Latin Vulgate and say: "EMBRACE DISCIPLINE, lest at any time the Lord be angry", then the 1968 Jerusalem Bible says: "KISS HIS FEET", and then the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible has: "pay homage to him".  None of them are right.

The Jewish translation put out by the Jewish Publication Society of 1917 changes the text to remove any reference to the Son of God. It reads: "DO HOMAGE IN PURITY lest He be angry."

However the new 1998 Complete Jewish Bible and the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible read the same as the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible with: "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry."  

It should be abundantly obvious that anytime someone tries to tell you that "all bibles basically read the same" simply does not know at all what he is talking about.

Psalms 4:2 "O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after LEASING."

The KJB critics love to pounce on this verse and the use of the word Leasing. They tell us Leasing is an archaic word and imply or state outright that we should leave the KJB and adopt some other modern version, usually the NASB, NIV or the NKJV.

The word leasing is indeed an archaic word which means falsehood, deception, or lying. But what they would put in place of the Authorized Version are bibles that depart thousands of times from the Greek and Hebrew texts that underlie the KJB, and that give totally different meanings in hundreds of verses, and often do not even agree with each other. No thank you. I will stick with the time honoured and God approved King James Bible, and learn the handful of archaic words. At least in this way I know I have the full truth of God and a Bible in which I can believe every word.

In Psalms 4:2 , instead of Leasing the NKJV says Falsehood, the NASB has Deception, but the NIV give the wrong meaning by saying False gods. The verse has nothing to do with False gods.

Psalms 4:4 "STAND IN AWE, and sin not."

This is the reading of the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Webster 1833 translation, Hebrew Names Version, KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The NASB, Geneva bible, and Youngs are similar with "Tremble, and sin not."

The Bible in Basic English says: Let there be fear in your hearts, and sin not.

However the NKJV, NIV and ESV say: BE ANGRY, and do not sin. "Be angry" is actually taken from the LXX, while the two Jewish translations I have say either "Stand in awe" (1936 Hebrew Pub. Company) or "Tremble" (Jewish Pub. Society 1917). There is a big difference between Standing in awe before God, and Being angry.

Psalms 7:4 KJB "If I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me; Yea, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY."

NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman - "If I have repaid evil to him who was at peace with me, OR HAVE PLUNDERED MY ENEMY WITHOUT CAUSE"

NET -  "or have wronged my ally, OR HELPED HIS LAWLESS ENEMY".

Young's - ""If I have done my well-wisher evil, AND DRAW MINE ADVERSARY WITHOUT CAUSE."

The New Jerusalem bible - "If I repaid my ally with treachery, OR SPARED SOMEONE WHO ATTACKED ME UNPROVOKED, may an enemy hunt me down and catch me."

Greek LXX - "If I have requited with evil those who requited me with good, MAY I THEN PERISH EMPTY BY MEANS OF MY ENEMIES."

 

The reading or meaning found in the King James Bible - "Yea, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY" is also that of the Revised Version 1881 -"(yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary)", the ASV 1901 - "(Yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary)", the Great Bible 1540 -"yee, I haue delyuered hym, that without any cause is myne enemy.", Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 "yea I haue deliuered him that vexed me without cause", Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Bible, Webster 1833, Darby 1890 "(indeed I have freed him that without cause oppressed me)",  Bible in Basic English 1969, World English Bible - "(Yes, I have delivered him who without cause was my adversary)", and the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Updated Bible Version 2004 - "(Yes, I have delivered him that without cause was my adversary;)"


Many foreign language Bibles also read like the King James Bible.  Among these are the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 - "Si dí mal pago al pacífico conmigo, (hasta he libertado al que sin causa era mi enemigo;) = "I have even freed him, who without cause, was my enemy.",  Reina Valera 1909 - 1995 "(al contrario, he libertado al que sin causa era mi enemigo)", the Reina Valera Gómez 2010, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and Almeida Corregida E Fiel - "(antes, livrei ao que me oprimia sem cause) = "rather, I have freed him who without cause oppressed me", the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "(io che ho lasciato andare libero colui che mi era nemico senza region)"

 

 

Yet the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV all give a very different meaning. Instead of Yea, I have DELIVERED him that without cause is mine enemy", they say: "Or have PLUNDERED my enemy without cause?"

Yet the NKJV and the others translate the same Hebrew word as "delivered" in Psalms 18:19; 34:7; 50:15, 81:7 and 91:15.

 

The Catholic Connection  - Three completely different meanings

The earlier Douay-Rheims, the 1950 Douay and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version all read: "If I have rendered to them that repaid me evils, LET ME DESERVEDLY FALL EMPTY BEFORE MY ENEMIES."

But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem changed this to "If injustice has stained my hands, If I repaid my ally with treachery, OR SPARED SOMEONE WHO ATTACKED ME UNPROVOKED, may an enemy hunt me down and catch me."

While the 1970 St. Joseph NAB gives us: "If I have repaid my friend with evil, I WHO SPARED THOSE WHO WITHOUT CAUSE WERE MY FOES - Let the enemy pursue and overtake me."

Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, has written his own translation called the NET bible version. He renders Psalm 7:4 in this manner: "or have wronged my ally, OR HELPED HIS LAWLESS ENEMY".

Young's 'literal' (hah!) is different from them all, saying: "If I have done my well-wisher evil, AND DRAW MINE ADVERSARY WITHOUT CAUSE."

The Jubilee bible 2000 is unique, with: " If I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me, THEN LET MY PERSECUTOR ESCAPE WITHOUT RETRIBUTION." Say what!? 

God's Word Translation 1995 and the 2012 Names of God Bible are very different still, with: "if I have paid back my friend with evil, OR RESCUED SOMEONE WHO HAS NO REASON TO ATTACK ME—"!!!

Then the Names of God bible footnotes "Hebrew meaning of this line is uncertain."  Well, it certainly is NOW, huh?

The alleged Greek LXX renders verse 7:4 as: "If I have requited with evil those who requited me with good, MAY I THEN PERISH EMPTY BY MEANS OF MY ENEMIES."

So, did he Deliver his enemy or Plunder him, ask that he perish empty, or rescue someone who didn't attack him, or did he help his ally's lawless enemy?

As James White and other bible agnostics love to tell us, By comparing many different versions we can get a better understanding of the passage, right?

The Bible Commentators    

Many Commentators agree with the KJB reading and see the phrase "(YEA, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY" as being a reference to David sparing the life of king Saul when he had the chance, and was even urged by others, to kill him in the cave.

Adam Clarke - "Yea, I have delivered him - When, in the course of thy providence, thou didst put his life in my hand in the cave, I contented myself with cutting off his skirt, merely to show him the danger he had been in, and the spirit of the man whom he accused of designs against his life"  

Coffman's Commentary - "The New English Bible's rendition of the second line in Psalms 7:4 ["or set free an enemy who attacked me without cause"] is severely condemned by Derek Kidner who affirmed that, "Their translation not only contradicts the O.T.'s demand for generosity to a personal enemy, but also David's known convictions. "Yea, I have delivered him that without cause was mine adversary." George DeHoff cited two clear examples of David's doing that very thing on behalf of King Saul in 1 Sam. 24:1-22 and in 1 Sam.26:1-25."

John Gill - "yea, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy; meaning Saul, who persecuted David without any just reason, and whom David delivered without any obligation to do it; not for any benefit and kindness he had received from him."

Matthew Henry - "I have delivered him that without cause is my enemy, Psalm 7:4. By this it appeared, beyond contradiction, that David had no design against Saul's life--that, once and again, Providence so ordered it that Saul lay at his mercy, and there were those about him that would soon have dispatched him, but David generously and conscientiously prevented it, when he cut off his skirt (1 Samuel 24:4) and afterwards when he took away his spear (1 Samuel 26:12), to attest for him what he could have done. Saul himself owned both these to be undeniable proofs of David's integrity and good affection to him."

 John Calvin - "In the second clause of the fourth verse, he proceeds farther, and states, that he had been a friend, not only to the good, but also to the bad, and had not only restrained himself from all revenge, but had even succoured his enemies, by whom he had been deeply and cruelly injured."

The King James Bible is always right.

Psalms 7:11 "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day." (Just read the rest of the context; the KJB is right.)

So read the NKJV, the Spanish Reina Valera, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, Green's literal translation, the New Life Bible, the New Century Version, Good News Translation, Webster's, the KJV 21st Century, Bible in Basic English, Italian Diodati, and the Third Millenium Bible.

However the NASB, RSV, and NIV read: "God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day."

The ridiculous paraphrase called The Message, used so much by Rick Warren, says: "God in solemn honor does things right, BUT HIS NERVES ARE SANDPAPERED RAW. Nobody gets by with anything."

The Greek LXX and the Douay Version say: "God is a righteous judge, AND STRONG, AND PATIENT, NOT inflicting vengeance every day." These versions add words not found in any Hebrew text, and end up meaning the very opposite of the other versions.

 

Psalms 8:4-5 “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than THE ANGELS, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.”

It is quoted this way in the New Testament in all Bibles in Hebrews 2:6-8 -"Thou madest him a little lower than THE ANGELS..."

More Bible Buffoonery from the pen of a Bible agnostic.

Al Maxey with his ever changing NIV is at it again. On his site he has an article titled in capital letters INACCURACIES IN THE KJV. He then posts:

Although some have very heatedly, and even unkindly, contended that the KJV has NO inaccuracies .... that it is absolutely PERFECT ..... that it always accurately renders the original Hebrew & Greek texts and never misses the intended meaning of the original, this is simply not true! Notice the following examples:

#1 --- In Psalm 8:5 there is a very familiar quotation in the KJV: "For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels." The Hebrew word here is actually "Elohim" which means "gods." The KJV translators were aware of this fact, for they correctly translated this word in Psalm 138:1 --- "Before the gods will I sing praise unto thee." (End of Maxey’s keen insights)


Bible critic and Vatican Version user Al Maxey apparently wrote this piece of nonsense sometime before the NIV update of 2011 came out, but it is still up on his site.  Let’s take a closer look at this verse and see if there is any merit in his “inaccuracies in the KJV” accusation.


Psalms 8:5 is actually one of the O.T. verses that is quoted in the New Testament, where even his ever changing NIV matches the sense of the King James Bible. Psalms 8:5 is quoted in Hebrews 2:6-7 where we read: “ But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

Thou madest him a little lower than THE ANGELS; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands”

ALL Bible versions read “angels” here in Hebrews 2:7. 

Now, let’s take a closer look at Psalms 8:4-5 as it stands in the Old Testament.

In the King James Bible we read: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than THE ANGELS, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.”

Keep in mind that Al Maxey is using his NIV.  But not even his 1984 edition of the NIV reads the way he says Psalms 8:5 should read.  His 1984 edition NIV says: “You made him a little lower than THE HEAVENLY BEINGS, and crowned him with glory and honor.”  Mr. Maxey also tells us “The Hebrew word here is actually "Elohim" which means "gods."   

Perhaps Mr. Maxey is unaware that according to his own NIVs complete concordance they have translated this same Hebrew word Elohim as “God, gods, JUDGES (4 times), ANGELS (twice), divine, godly, GREAT, HEAVENLY BEINGS, IDOLS, majestic, MIGHTY, sacred, SHRINE, SPIRIT, and VERY.”  His NIV 1984 edition already has translated this word as ANGELS twice. They do this in Job 1:6 and Job 2:1.  

 

Elohim = Judges

Exodus 22:8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto THE JUDGES, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.


Also reading this way are the Bishops bible, Geneva Bible, KJB, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, NKJV, The 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company bible, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 - "For any sinful word, for a bull, for a donkey, for a lamb, for a garment, for any lost article, concerning which he will say that this is it, the plea[s] of both parties shall come to THE JUDGES, [and] whoever the judges declare guilty shall pay twofold to his neighbor."


The Hebraic Transliteration Scriptures 2010 - If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought to THE JUDGES , [to see] whether he have put his hand to his neighbour's goods.


The Jewish Family Bible 1864 - the judges and The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - the judges.

 

And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - Exodus 22:8 - unto the JUDGES”

 

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Exodus%2022:8

 

 

In Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 the KJB follows the literal Hebrew text and says “Now there came a day when the sons of GOD came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.”

But the NIV says “One day THE ANGELS came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.” 

 Oh, but wait. It gets even worse for our eminent scholar and Bible corrector Mr. Maxey - far worse.  Now his 2011 “new” New International Version has come out, and guess what they did in Psalms 8:5.  You got it. They now changed it to read ANGELS! 


Let’s contrast the 1984 NIV edition with the 2011 NIV edition.

Psalms 8:4-5 NIV 1984 - “What is MAN that you are mindful of HIM, THE SON OF MAN that you care for HIM? You made HIM a little lower than THE HEAVENLY BEINGS, and crowned HIM with glory and honor.”

The NIV 2011 edition now reads: “What is MANKIND that you are mindful of THEM, HUMAN BEINGS that you care for THEM?  You have made THEM a little lower than THE ANGELS and crowned THEM with glory and honor.”

Again, Psalms 8:5 is quoted this way in the New Testament in all Bibles in Hebrews 2:6-8 -"Thou madest him a little lower than THE ANGELS..."

Psalms 8:5 reads this way - "lower than the ANGELS" in the Jewish translations like the 1917 JPS (the Jewish Publication Society), 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998 and the Hebrew Names Version 2014. 

It is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395 - “Thou hast maad hym a litil lesse than aungels”, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - “Thou madest hym lower then the aungels”, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims of 1610, the Bill Bible 1671, the Longman Version 1841, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, the Brenton Translation 1851, the Lesser Bible 1853, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, Darby 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, New Life Bible 1961, Living Bible, Douay of 1950, Darby 1890, New American Bible, New Century Version, God's First Truth 1999, the The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, the Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009,  English Jubilee Bible 2010, New Heart English Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, The Revised Douay Rheims bible 2012, The World English Bible 2012, The New Brenton Translation 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible, The Translators Bible 2014, The Modern English Version 2014 AND the NIV 2011 edition!

And this online Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - Psalms 8:5 - “lower than the angels”

http://studybible.info/IHOT/Psalms%208:5

 

 

Foreign Language Bibles

 

Among foreign language Bibles we read the same thing in the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, and La Biblia de las Américas of 1997 (put out by the same Lockman Foundation that does the contradictory NASB), - "Le has hecho poco menor que LOS ANGELES.",  the Italian Diodati 1649  and the Conferenza Episcopale Italiana- "E che tu l’abbi fatto poco minor DEGLI ANGELI",  the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Et tu l'as fait un peu inférieur AUX ANGES", the Lithuanian Bible - "menkesnį už ANGELUS", the Czeck BKR version - "menšího ANDELU", the Dutch Staten Vertaling - "dan deENGELEN", the Russian Synodal Version - "Не много Ты умалил его пред Ангелами", the German Elberfelder Bible of 1871 and the German Schlachter of 2000 - "niedriger gemacht als DIE ENGEL", the Portuguese O Livro 2000 and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugues - "um pouco mais baixo que OS ANJOS."

Not even the NIV 1984 editon, TNIV, NET and ESV go as far afield in their translations as some others do, telling us that God has made man “a little lower than THE HEAVENLY BEINGS."  Who would these heavenly beings be but "the angels"?  

Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized bible says: "less than MESSENGERS OF GOD." 

And the "new" NIV of 2011 has come out and it now reads: "You have made them a little lower than THE ANGELS".  

 

The Catholic Connection

The Catholic versions present us with the usual confusion.  The older Douay-Rheims of 1610 as well as the 1950 Douay both read "than the angels".  But the 1968 Jerusalem bible went with "You have made him a little less than a god"; then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB went back to "a little less than THE ANGELS", BUT the 1985 New Jerusalem again went with "You have made him little less than a god".

 But wait. They are not done yet. Now the latest Catholic version called the Sacred Scriptures Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 has once again gone back to "the angels" and so has The Revised Douay-Rheims bible 2014.

The Holman Standard gives us the usual confusion with its footnotes that the passage could mean anything.  It reads "You made him a little less than God" but then footnotes: "or gods, or a god, or heavenly beings."

However the Geneva Bible tells us: “For thou hast made him a little lower THAN GOD, and crowned him with glory and WORSHIP.” (One of  the many reasons God in His providence replaced the Geneva with the perfect Bible, the King James Holy Bible).  

This is similar to the NASB that says God has “made him a little lower than GOD.”  However even the NASB footnotes: "or the angels".

The NASB complete concordance tells us that they have translated the Hebrew word elohim in a variety of ways including "God, gods, god, a divine being (1 Samuel 28:13), exceedingly, great, judges (3 times), mighty, rulers and shrine."

Words obviously have different meanings in different contexts, but both the passages in Psalms 8 and Hebrews chapter 2 in the N.T. are speaking about the creation of man, and man was not made "a little lower than God" but a little lower than the angels as the inspired apostle clearly explains the true meaning of Psalm 8:5.

The New English Bible of 1970 says: "Yet thou hast made him a little less than a god" , while the latest critical text edition called the Common English Bible of 2012 has: "You’ve made them only slightly less than divine", and the blasphemous Message even says: “We’ve so narrowly missed being gods, bright with Eden’s dawn light.” 

The 'translation' called God's Word of 1995 has: "You have made him a little lower than yourself." and Young's says: "And causest him to lack a little of Godhead".

The Spanish versions are being corrupted too. The latest Reina Valera Contemporánea of 2012 put out by the United Bible Society now reads "Hiciste al hombre poco menor que un dios." = You made man a little less than a god".  

 

The King James Bible is always right. Don't let some Bible Butchering Buffoon who is his own authority tell you any different.

 

Psalms 9:17 - "The wicked shall be TURNED INTO HELL, and all the nations that forget God."

This is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, MKJV, KJV 21, TMB, Websters, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Italian Diodati, and the Geneva Bible.

The NASB and ESV give a different meaning with: The wicked shall RETURN TO SHEOL, and all the nations that forget God. But the most outrageous is the NIV with: "The wicked RETURN TO THE GRAVE, and all the nations that forget God."

You cannot Return to a place unless you have been there before. The false teaching of reincarnation can be taught from the NIV, but not from the KJB. Also, if the wicked "return to the grave" what distinguishes them from the righteous, who also go to the grave?

The NIV destroys the correct meaning of this verse. The word Hell occurs 31 times in the KJB Old Testament; 19 times in the NKJV, but in the NASB, NIV the word Hell is found zero times. Now who do you suppose would want to get rid of the word Hell?

Psalm 10:3-6 gives us a good example of the confusion and contradictions of the modern bibles. The KJB reads: "For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and BLESSETH THE COVETOUS, WHOM THE LORD ABHORRETH. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance,will not seek after God: GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS. His ways are always GRIEVOUS; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them."

That the wicked "blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth", is the reading of the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Third Millenium Bible, Webster's Bible, and the 21st Century KJV.

However the NKJV and NIV read: "BLESSES the greedy AND RENOUNCES THE LORD", while the NASB says "The greedy man CURSES AND SPURNS THE LORD". Is it "blesses the covetous" or "curses the LORD"? Is it "the Lord abhorreth the covetous", or is it "the wicked renounces the Lord"? They don't even agree with each other.

In verse 4 "God is not in all his thoughts" is the same in the NKJV, and the NIV is basically the same with "in all his thoughts there is no room for God." But the NASB, ESV have an absurd reading. They say: "All his thoughts are,"There is no God". This is humanly impossible and ridiculous. Not even the most ardent atheist goes around all day thinking only "There is no God, there is no God, there is no God."

 

 

 

Psalms 10:5

KJV- the wicked…..His ways are always GRIEVOUS

NIV - the wicked…..His ways are always prosperous

NKJV - the wicked…..His ways are always prospering

ESV - the wicked…..His ways prosper at all times

HCSB - the wicked…..His ways are always secure

 

 

The description of the wicked in verse 5 "His ways are always GRIEVOUS".

 

However the NKJV joins the NASB, NIV, ESV and the Jehovah Witness NWT in saying: "his ways are always PROSPEROUS."

 

The NKJV has translated this same word as "grieved" in  Jeremiah 5:3 and as "violent"  in  Jeremiah 23:19.  The word means "to afflict, to be in pain, to travail, anguish and to wound". It never means to be prosperous. In fact, I looked in the NIV and NASB concordances and many times they render the word with the above meanings, but only ONE time do they translate it as "prosperous", and that is here in Psalm 10:5.

 

There are many different ways the various Bible versions have translated this word, and some of them are opposites, but many of them side with the meaning found in the King James Bible. 

 

Wycliffe's translation of 1395 has "his ways BE DEFOULED in all time", Coverdale's bible of 1535 reads: "His wayes are allwaye FILTHIE". The Bishops' Bible 1568 agrees with the KJB -"His wayes are alwayes GREEVOUS".

 

The Thomson Bible 1808 reads: "His ways ARE POLLUTED on every occasion"

 

The Longman Version 1841 reads: " His ways are ALWAYS EVIL."

 

The Boothroyd Bible 1853 - "PERVERSE at all times are his ways"

 

Lamsa's translation of the Syriac has "His ways are always WEAK", but the Bible in Basic English has the opposite with "His ways ARE EVER FIXED, while the Douay-Rheims reads "his ways ARE FILTHY at all times".

 

God's First Truth 1999 says: "His ways are always FILTHY"

 

Young's 1898 says "PAIN do his ways at all times." and the Julia Smith Translation 1855 is similar with: "His way WILL BE IN PAIN in all time"

 

Green's 2000 literal and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 have "His ways ARE PERVERTED at all times"

 

The 2011 Common English Bible says "Their ways ARE ALWAYS TWISTED." and the Amplified of 1987 reads: "His ways ARE GRIEVOUS [or persist] at all times."

 

The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, A Conservative Version 2005 and The Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) have: "PROFANE are his ways at all times"  

 

"His ways are always GRIEVOUS"

 

Also reading "his ways are always GRIEVOUS" are The Bill Bible 1671 - "his was are always GRIEVOUS", Webster's 1833 translation, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "his ways are always GRIEVOUS", The Amplified Version 1987 edition "His ways ARE GRIEVOUS", The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible of 1998, the Bond Slave Version 2009, the English Jubilee Bible of 2010, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the BRG Bible 2012 .

 

Among foreign language Bibles the Spanish Antigua Versión agrees with the sense of the KJB saying: "Sus caminos son viciosos en todo tiempo" = his ways are VICIOUS. The 1960 and  1995 Reina Valera have "Sus caminos son torcidos" = his ways are twisted.  The 1569 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras has "Sus caminos atormentan en todo tiempo" = his ways cause torment at all times" and the Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel both agree, saying "Os seus caminhos atormentam sempre" = his was always cause torment,  while the 1649 Italian Diodati says: "Le sue vie son profane in ogni tempo" = his ways are profane at all times .

 

The Modern Greek Bible says "his ways DEFILE at all times" -Αι οδοι αυτου μολυνονται εν παντι καιρω·

 

Psalms 16 offers us several examples of how scholars can be translating the same Hebrew text into English, and yet come up with very different meanings.

King James Bible - Psalm 16:1-3 “Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust. O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord: MY GOODNESS EXTENDETH NOT TO THEE; but to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent in whom is all my delight.”

The clear meaning found in the King James Bible is that David’s own goodness does not in any way advantage or benefit God Himself in any way, but David’s goodness does affect and benefit the other saints that are in the earth.

This is consistent with other teachings found in the Holy Bible. For instance, in Job 22:2-3 we read: “Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy way perfect?” The obvious answer to this rhetorical question is No.

And again in Job 35:7-8 we read: “If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand? Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man.”

To these verses we might also add Luke 17:10 where our Lord says: “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do.”

And then we also have Romans 11:35 where we read: “Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”

I do not hold any commentator or scholar as my final authority, but it is sometimes of interest to read what others have thought. Adam Clarke says the Arabic reads: “Thou dost not need my good works.”, and then he goes on to explain: “I think the words should be understood of what the Messiah was doing for men. My goodness is not to thee. What I am doing can add nothing to thy divinity; thou art not providing this astonishing sacrifice because thou canst derive any excellence from it: but this bounty extends to the saints-to all the spirits of just men made perfect, whose bodies are still in the earth; and to the excellent, those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. The saints and illustrious ones not only taste of my goodness, but enjoy my salvation.”

John Gill also discusses the many different renderings of this verse and then comes down on the side of the King James reading. He comments: “they are the words of Christ, and to be understood of his goodness...and the effect of it to his church and people; and denotes his love, grace, and good will towards them, shown in his incarnation, sufferings, and death; and the blessings of goodness which come thereby; ... though there is glory to God in the highest in the affair of salvation by Christ, yet the good will is to men... the kindness in paying the debt was not to God but to men.”

The 1599 Geneva Bible simply says: “my goodness extendeth not to thee” - Though we cannot enrich God, yet we must bestow Gods gifts for the use of his children. “

Matthew Henry likewise agrees with the sense found in the King James Bible, saying: “Whatever good there is in us, or is done by us, we must humbly acknowledge that it extends not to God; so that we cannot pretend to merit any thing by it. God has no need of our services; he is not benefited by them, nor can they add any thing to his infinite perfection and blessedness. The wisest, and best, and most useful, men in the world cannot be profitable to God, Job 22:2,35:7. God is infinitely above us, and happy without us, and whatever good we do it is all from him; so that we are indebted to him, not he to us: David owns it (1 Chronicles 29:14), Of thy own have we given thee. 3. If God be ours, we must, for his sake, extend our goodness to those that are his, to the saints in the earth; for what is done to them he is pleased to take as done to himself, having constituted them his receivers.”

Agreeing with the meaning found in the King James Bible are the following translations: Wycliffe 1395 - “Thou art my God, for thou hast no nede of my goodis”, Coverdale 1535 - “thou art my God, my goodes are nothinge vnto thee.”, Bishop’s Bible 1568 - “my weldoing can do thee no good”, the Geneva Bible 1587 - “my weldoing extendeth not to thee, But to the Saints that are in the earth”, Douay-Rheims, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, Young’s - “My good is not for thine own sake”, Darby “my goodness extendeth not to thee”, Webster’s Bible 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 - “Tú eres el Señor: Mi bien á ti no aprovecha, Sino á los santos que están en la tierra” (my good does not benefit you, but the saints that are in the earth”, 21st Century KJV 1994 - “my goodness extendeth not to Thee”.

However there are a multitude of modern versions, including the NKJV, that have changed the meaning of this passage.

NASB 16:2-3- “I said to the LORD, "You are my Lord; I HAVE NO GOOD BESIDES YOU. As for the saints who are in the earth, They are the majestic ones in whom is all my delight.

NIV - “apart from you I have no good thing."  Holman Standard - "I have no good besides You", ESV

Douay-Rheims 1610 - “ for thou hast no need of my goods.” (equals sense of KJB)

Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902 - “My goodness, mounteth not unto thee.” (equals sense of the KJB)  

Judaica Press Tanach - " my good is not incumbent upon You.” (Say, what?)

The Message - “Without you, nothing makes sense. “ (And neither does this)

NKJV - “My goodness IS NOTHING APART FROM YOU." This definitely changes the meaning of the passage, nor does it mean the same thing as the NIV or the NASB, all three of which give a different meaning from each other to the text. NASB = God is the only good thing I have; NIV = I have no good thing unless You give it to me; NKJV = My goodness means nothing unless You credit it as good. All of them = just more Bible Babel.

I believe the King James Bible is the only true Holy Bible providentially given to us by the mighty hand of our gracious and true God.

Psalms 16:4 says; "Their sorrows shall be multiplied that HASTEN after another god." Agreeing here with the KJB are the NKJV and the NIV. This word "hasten" is found some 60 times and is always to make haste or speed. However the NASB has here: "The sorrows of those who HAVE BARTERED for another god will be multiplied." The NASB has only one time translated this word as "bartered for". One is left asking what did they barter in exchange for another god? Not at all the same as the KJB, NKJV or NIV, is it?

Psalms 16:5 says: "The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup." In other words, it is God Himself who is our lot and joy. With the KJB agree the NKJV, NASB, but the NIV has changed the meaning by saying: "LORD, you have assigned me my portion and my cup." OK, so what did the Lord assign? In the KJB, NKJV, and NASB it is the LORD himself who is our portion. With the NIV we are left with no idea what God has assigned.

In Psalms 16:10 we are given a verse that is quoted in Acts 2:27 and 31 referring to Christ, that his soul was not left in hell. "For thou wilt not leave my soul IN HELL; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see CORRUPTION."

Christ did descend into the lower parts of the earth - Ephesians 4:9. He was in the heart of the earth - Matthew 12:40, and He preached to the spirits in prison - 1 Peter 3:19. Agreeing with the reading of "hell" is Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims, Webster's 1833 translation, The Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB. The NKJV and NASB say SHOEL instead of HELL; even though the NKJV translated this same word as hell in Psalm 9:17.

The NIV says: "you will not abandon ME to the grave." The word is "soul" not "me", and hell is in this context, not the grave. Christ did a whole lot more than just go to the grave. The grave or sepulchre is where His physical body was, but He himself went into the heart of the earth, where hell is.

In Psalms 16:10 we read: "neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to SEE CORRUPTION." This is the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, NKJV, Hebrew Names Version, Young, Douay, Darby, the 2003 ESV (a revision of the older RSV), and the Spanish Reina Valera. Even the NIV is OK here with "nor will you let your Holy One see decay. "

John Gill (and an host of other Bible commentators) remarks: "neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption; that is, to lie so long in the grave as to putrefy and be corrupted; wherefore he was raised from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures, before the time bodies begin to be corrupted; see (John 11:39) ; and this was owing not to the care of Joseph or Nicodemus, in providing spices to preserve it, but of God who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; and who would not suffer his body to be corrupted, because he was holy, and because he was his Holy One; that so as there was no moral corruption in him, there should be no natural corruption in him; so the Jewish Midrash F23 interprets it, that "no worm or maggot should have power over him;''

However the NASB of 1972, along with the RSV and NRSV - which the later ESV has also now corrected - says:" not allow Thy Holy One to SEE THE PIT." Well, Christ did indeed see the pit; that is where His soul went! Apparently this blunder was eventually noticed by the “scholars” who continually revise scores of passages in the ever-changing NASB, so now the latet NASBs have changed back to "undergo decay", which is much closer to the truth.

Unfortunately, this same “Duh!” moment of insight has so far escaped Daniel Wallace’s NET bible version, nor the Holman Standard. These two versions read: “You will not abandon ME to Sheol; you will not allow your FAITHFUL FOLLOWER to see THE PIT.”

The bible scholars change their versions every few years both in wording and texts. They have no settled and no sure words of God, and neither do you unless you believe God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words, and done so in the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Psalms 17

I am amazed by the statement of a modern version proponent who told me regarding all the different meanings found in the multiplicity of versions: "unlike the easily confused KJVO advocate who believes it is confusion, most of us see it as clarification".

Psalms 17:5 "HOLD UP my goings in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not." So read the NKJV, Spanish, Geneva, Webster's, KJV 21, TMB. It is a request asking God to hold up his goings. However the NASB, NIV make this a statement with: "My steps HAVE HELD FAST to thy paths."

Psalms 17:10 "THEY ARE INCLOSED IN THEIR OWN FAT: with their mouth they speak proudly." This is literally what it says, and with the KJB agree the Revised Version, the ASV, Geneva, Darby, Spanish, Jerusalem bible, the Spanish, Webster's KJV 21, and the TMB. The NKJV begins the slide with "they have closed up their fat hearts", the NIV says "they close up their callous hearts" and the NASB has "they have closed their unfeeling heart". The NASB concordance shows the word as "fat" 82 times, and only once as "unfeeling". The word "heart" is not in any text at all. The KJB simply tells us they are fat, and thus well off and in need of nothing; or so they think.

Psalms 17:13-14 "Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down; deliver my soul from the wicked, WHICH IS THY SWORD: From men WHICH ARE THY HAND, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, AND WHOSE BELLY THOU FILLEST WITH THY HID TREASURE." The KJB, Websters, Darby, Young and Douay version have "the wicked WHICH IS THY SWORD,...men WHICH ARE THY HAND." That is, even the evil men of this world are under the control of God, and He uses them in our lives to chasten us and conform us to the image of Christ.

Compare the following verses as examples of God using the hand of the enemies as His own hand. "THOU hast set up the right hand of his adversaries; thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice." Psalm 89:42. "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and HE delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Syria, and into the hand of Benhadad the son of Hazael, all their days." 2 Kings 13:3.

John Gill notes: "the sense is, deliver my soul from men, which are instruments in thine hand to chastise thy people: so even Satan himself, and the Sabeans and Chaldeans, whom he instigated to afflict Job, are called the "hand" of the Lord that touched him, because he suffered them to do what they did for the trial of him, Job 19:21." The new versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV change this to "deliver my soul from the wicked BY Your sword, and... BY Your hand", thus changing the meaning.

Another change in meaning is in "whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure". Here, the NKJV, NASB, ASV, Geneva, Youngs, Darby and Spanish all agree with the KJB. But the NIV has come up with a totally different meaning. The NIV says: "from men of this world whose reward is in this life. YOU STILL THE HUNGER OF THOSE YOU CHERISH." These few examples are not clarification but confusion.

PsalmsS 18:13 "The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; HAIL STONES AND COALS OF FIRE."

Bible versions that include the phrase "hail stones and coals of fire" are the Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’, the Geneva Bible, Youngs, Darby, the Jewish translations of 1917 (JPS), 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company,  the 2004 Judaica Press Tanach, the Complete Jewish Bible, the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011, the RV 1881, the ASV 1901, the RSV 1954, World English Bible, the NASB 1995, God's Word 1995, the 2001 ESV,  the Names of God Bible 2011,  Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the NKJV 1982, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2010 - "The Highest gave his voice: hailstones and coals of fire.", the Common English Bible of 2011, and The Voice of 2012 (These last two are both new critical text versions - Obviously the "scholars" who make up today's Bible Babble  Buffet versions do not agree with each other). 

Foreign language translations that include these words are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1549, the Reina Valera 1602 to 1995  and the 1997 Biblia de las Américas - "Y el Altísimo dió su voz; Granizo y carbones de fuego.", the Italian Diodati of 1649, the Nuova Diodati of 1991 and the Italian Riveduta of 2006 - "l’Altissimo fece udire la sua voce con grandine e con carboni ardenti." as well as the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "e havia saraiva e brasas de fogo." and the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 21 of 2007 - "de la grêle et des charbons de feu.", Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Russian Synodal Translation, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia - "mga granizo, at mga bagang apoy. and the Modern Greek Bible (not to be confused with the so called LXX) - "χαλαζα και ανθρακες πυρος." = "hail stones and coals of fire."

However the NIV, NRSV 1989, Dan Wallace and company's NET version, and the 2003 Holman Standard omit these words, and then in a footnote tell us that some Hebrew mss. and the LXX omit these words, but they are found in most Hebrew manuscripts. Well, not only are they found in all Hebrew Bibles but they are also found in the ancient Syriac versions too.

Also of interest is that the NIV Spanish edition, called Nueva Versión Internacional 1999, put out by the same people who give us the NIV English version (International Bible Society) has included the Hebrew words left out by the NIV English version. It reads: “En el cielo, ENTRE GRANIZOS Y CARBONES ENCENDIDOS,  se oyó el trueno del Señor, resonó la voz del Altísimo.” Likewise the NIV French edition, called La Bible du Semeur 1999 (IBS) also includes the Hebrew words omitted by the American NIV. 

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion.  The earlier Douay Rheims of 1610 as well as the 1950 Douay contain the Hebrew reading - " and the Highest gave his voice: HAIL AND COALS OF FIRE."  BUT then the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible all omitted the words "hail and coals of fire". In fact the New Jerusalem notes that these words ARE in the Hebrew but the Greek omits them. Oh, but wait. They are not done yet. Now in 2009 the Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it puts the Hebrew reading back in again!  It now reads: "And the Lord thundered from heaven, and the Most High uttered his voice: HAIL AND COALS OF FIRE." 

Notice too that the previous 1954 RSV included the words; then the NRSV 1989 omitted them, but then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV 2001 -  “scientifically” put them back in again! This typifies what modern scholars call  "the art and science of textual criticism” - which in reality is nothing more than random guesswork and fickle change so they can sell you their late$t and be$t Ver$ion.

 

Though I certainly do not trust the Dead Sea Scrolls, since they have been found to contain conflicting texts of radically different readings, plus an additional “15 apocryphal Psalms or similar compostions distributed among four manuscripts”, yet the DSS copy of Psalm 18 does include these Hebrew words that the NIV omits.



PSALMS 18:34 and 2 SAMUEL 22:35
Is the bow “broken” (KJB) or merely “bent”?
 
Psalms 18:34 (KJB) – He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel IS BROKEN by mine arms.

2 Samuel 22:35 (KJB) – He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel IS BROKEN by mine arms.
 
New KJV – He teaches my hands to make war, So that my arms can BEND a bow of bronze.

NASV – He trains my hands for battle, So that my arms can BEND a bow of bronze.

NIV – He trains my hands for battle; my arms can BEND a bow of bronze.

ESV – He trains my hands for war, so that my arms can BEND a bow of bronze.

Young’s so called “literal” totally misses it with: “Teaching my hands for battle, And a bow of brass was brought down by my arms.”
Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac is off too, reading: “He trains my hands to war; and he strengthens my arms like a bow of brass. “

And the Catholic Douay-Rheims follows the Greek Septuagint which is different from them all, and reads: “Who teacheth my hands to war: and thou hast made my arms like a brazen bow.” This is how the so called LXX also reads.

Agreeing with the King James Bible are  Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587- “He teacheth mine hands to fight: so that a bowe of brasse IS BROKEN with mine armes.”,  Webster’s translation of 1833,
 
Spanish: The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Reina Valera of 1602, 1865, 1909 and the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez all read with the Hebrew and agree with the KJB saying “break” and not “bend”  - “Quien enseña mis manos para la batalla, Y será QUEBRADO con mis brazos el arco de acero.”

The French Martin Bible of 1744 also correctly reads “break” and not “bend” - C'est lui qui a dressé mes mains au combat, tellement qu'un arc d'airain a été ROMPU avec mes bras.”
 
Italian: Diodati 1649 correctly has “broken” as well: - “Egli ammaestra le mie mani alla battaglia; E colle mie braccia un arco di rame è ROTTO.”

The Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel of 1861  and the A Biblia Sagrada em Portugues also have “broken”  and not “bend” - “de sorte que os meus braços QUEBRARAM um arco”
 
 The Hebrew word for “is broken” in these two passages clearly means “to break” and not “to bend”. There is a very different Hebrew word used when the Bible talks about “bending” the bow to shoot arrows and it is used in such passages as Psalms 11:2 -”For, lo, the wicked BEND their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string” and Psalm58:7 - “when he BENDETH his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.”
 
          The word “broken” in these passages means “to break apart” in the sense that GOD has taught him and strengthened him miraculously so that a bow of steel is snapped in two by him. Note particularly the phrase “so that” and Who is doing the strengthening. If it does not mean “broken” but rather “bent”, then one must not only refute from scripture the meaning of “break”, but must also demonstrate from scripture just as surely that it means “bent”. Tracing all the usages of the word “broken” (or any form of the word “to break”) will reveal that there is no place in the KJB where the word “break” (or any of its forms) means “to bend”.

 Matthew Poole says that David is proclaiming the following: “To Him I owe all that military skill, or strength, or courage which I have. My strength therefore is sufficient not only to bend a bow of steel, but to break it.”

Spurgeon says: “these these bows could scarcely be bent by the arms alone, the archer often had to gain the assistance of his foot; it was, therefore, a great feat of strength to bend the bow with just the arms so far as to even snap it in halves. This was meant of the enemies’ bow, which he not only snatched from his grasp, but rendered it useless by breaking it in pieces. Jesus [of whom David is a “type” here] not only destroyed the fiery suggestions [arrows] of Satan, but he broke the arguments [bow] with which he shot them, by using Holy Scripture against him. By the same means we may win a like triumph, breaking the bow and cutting the spear in sunder by the sharp edge of revealed truth. Probably David had by nature a vigorous bodily frame; but it is even more likely that he was at times clothed with more than common strength. At any rate, he ascribes the honour of his feats entirely to his God.” Miraculous for sure, but David killed a lion and a bear with his bare hands and killed Goliath by slinging a stone so hard it went through Goliath’s forehead.”

Psalms 19:3 Speaking of the heavens which declare the glory of God and the firmament that sheweth His handywork, we read: "There is no speech nor language WHERE THERE VOICE IS NOT HEARD." The creation itself speaks of the existence of the Creator, and so affirms Romans 1;19-20. This is the reading of the NKJV, NIV, Douay, Webster, KJV 21,TMB,Green's Modern KJV, and the Hebrew Names Version. However the RSV, NASB tell us: "There is no speech, nor are there words, THEIR VOICE IS NOT HEARD."

 

Psalms 19:3 “There is no speech nor language WHERE their voice is not heard.”

 

Psalms 19:1-3 KJB - “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

 

There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.”

 

One particular bible agnostic and unbeliever in the existence of a real, complete and inerrant Bible who “uses” the ever changing NASB writes complaining about the use of the word “where” in the KJB. He says it was added to the Hebrew text and then reminds us that the Bible tells us not to add to nor take away from the words of God.  He says his NASB and ESV are better when they give the opposite meaning to that found in the KJB.  

 

Of course he failed to mention that both the NIV 1984 and the NKJV 1982 both read exactly as the King James Bible saying: “There is no speech or language WHERE their voice is not heard.” (NIV 1984)  But Bible Agnostics have no final authority except their own minds and personal preferences, so he is allowed to piece together his "bible" as he goes along.

 

The NASB along with the ESV reads: “19:1-3 -The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

 

Day to day pours forth speech,  And night to night reveals knowledge.

 

There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard.”

 

The KJB says that there is no place where the voice of creation is not heard, while the NASB, ESV tell us that There is no voice that is heard at all.

 

Apparently he thinks the KJB’s “adding” words in italics to complete the sense of the Hebrew is wrong, but it doesn’t bother our Bible correcting friend that his own NASB “adds” the words THERE IS at the beginning and the verb ARE to “nor ARE there words”. You see, these words are NOT in the Hebrew text either, but since his NASB doesn’t put the words in italics, he might think that they are. Well, they are not. 

 

Versions like the NASB and ESV add literally hundreds of words to both the Hebrew and Greek texts in order to attempt to bring out the meaning into the English language, and the NASB rarely and the ESV never puts them in italics to let you know this is what they did.

 

Both the Hebrew and the Greek languages are elliptical languages, that is, they often omit verbs, connecting words, direct and indirect objects and sometimes even the subject of a sentence. (See John Calvin's notes below)

 

Does this Bible critic really believe that his constantly changing, Vatican supervised NASB is the inerrant words of God?  Of course not. He is an “only the originals were inspired and inerrant” type of guy who couldn’t show you a copy of a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language if his life depended on it.

 

I and many others believe the King James Bible is right, and I will show in a minute that MANY other Bible translators agree with the way they translated the verse.  The KJB is telling us that the voice and speech of the witness of creation is heard in every nation on this earth.  

 

And Romans 1:19-20 confirm this witness - “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

 

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”

 

Not only does the King James Bible say that “There is no speech nor language, WHERE their voice is not heard.” but so too do the following Bible translations - the Geneva Bible 1587, Webster’s Bible 1833, The Hebrew Publishing Company Scriptures 1936, The New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The NIV 1984, The Word of Yah 1993, The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, J.P. Green’s literal 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Asser Septuagint 2009 - “There are no tongues nor words WHERE their voices are not heard.”, The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version 2009, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The New European Version 2010 -“There is no speech nor language WHERE their voice is not heard.”, The English Jubilee Bible 2010, the New Heart English Bible 2010, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - “WHERE their voice is not heard”, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - “There are no speeches nor languages, WHERE their voices are not heard.”, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “There is no speech nor devarim (language), WHERE their voice is not heard.”, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 -“WHERE their voice is not heard.”, The World English Bible 2012, The BRG Bible 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “There is no speech nor language WHERE their voice is not heard.”, and The Biblos Bible 2013 - “There is not speech nor language WHERE their voice is not heard.” and The Hebrew Names Version 2014 - “There is no speech nor language WHERE their voice is not heard.”

 

 

The Great Bible 1540, and Matthew’s Bible 1549 say: “but their voices are heard among them.”

 

The Bill Bible 1671 says: “There is neither speech nor language, but their voices are heard among them.”

 

Darby 1890  says: “yet their voice is heard.”  

 

God’s First Truth 1999 says: “but their voices are heard among them.” 

 

The NIV 1984 edition read exactly like the KJB. They changed it in the NIV 2011 but it still has the same basic meaning.  It now says: “Yet their voice goes out into all the earth.”

 

A Conservative Version 2005 has: “There is no speech nor language in which their voice is not heard.” 

 

The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005 - “There are no speeches or words, in which their voices are not heard.” 

 

The New Brenton Translation 2012 says: “There are no speeches or words IN WHICH their voices are not heard.”

 

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Commentary - “Though there is no articulate speech or words, yet without these their voice is heard.”  

 

John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible - “Verse 3.   Heard - Or, understood; there are divers nations in the world, which have several languages, so that one cannot discourse with, or be understood by another, but the heavens are such an universal teacher, that they can speak to all people, and be clearly understood by all.”

 

Charles Spurgeon - “Verse 3. "There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard." Every man may hear the voices of the stars. Many are the languages of terrestrials, to celestials there is but one, and that one may be understood by every willing mind. The lowest heathen are without excuse, if they do not discover the invisible things of God in the works which he has made. Sun, moon, and stars are God's traveling preachers; they are apostles upon their journey confirming those who regard the Lord, and judges on circuit condemning those who worship idols.”

 

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible -  He mentions the other view, but then concludes: “High as these authorities are, yet it seems to me that the idea conveyed by our common version is probably the correct one. This is the idea in the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. According to this interpretation the meaning is, “There is no nation, there are no men, whatever may be their language, to whom the heavens do not speak, declaring the greatness and glory of God. The language which they speak is universal; and however various the languages spoken by men, however impossible it may be for them to understand each other, yet all can understand the language of the heavens, proclaiming the perfections of the Great Creator.”  

 

Matthew Poole’s Annotations on the Bible - “The sense is, There are divers nations in the world, which have several languages, so that one cannot discourse with or be understood by another; but the heavens are such a universal and admirable teacher, that they can speak to all people under them, and be clearly understood by all.”

 

John Calvin also discusses both views and comes down solidly in favor of the way the King James Bible has it.  He says: “The other exposition, therefore, as it is more generally received, seems also to be more suitable. In the Hebrew tongue, which is concise, it is often necessary to supply some word; and it is particularly a common thing in that language for the relatives to be omitted, that is to say, the words which, in which, etc., as here, There is no language, there is no speech, [where ]their voice is not heard…The difference and variety of languages does not prevent the preaching of the heavens and their language from being heard and understood in every quarter of the world…David, therefore, by making a tacit comparison, enhances the efficacy of the testimony which the heavens bear to their Creator. The import of his language is, Different nations differ from each other as to language; but the heavens have a common language to teach all men without distinction, nor is there any thing but their own carelessness to hinder even those who are most strange to each other, and who live in the most distant parts of the world, from profiting, as it were, at the mouth of the same teacher.”  

 

John Gill comments - “though they are ever so different one from another, so as not to be able to understand each other; yet the voice of the heavens, uttering and proclaiming the glory of their Maker, is heard and understood by them all”

 

The King James Bible is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation that conveys the truth that the heavens declare the glory of God, and day unto day utter speech bearing witness to His creative power, and this witness is heard in every nation under the sun.

 

The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.


Psalms 20:7 "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will REMEMBER the name of the LORD our God."

The Hebrew word used here is #2142 zakar, and almost 200 times it means "to remember", but it can also mean "to call to mind" or "to make mention of ". It is used is such common phrases as: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8); "Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth" (Eccl. 12:1). One thing it does NOT mean is "to boast" or "take pride in". In fact, it is the same Hebrew word found in verse 3 of this Psalm where all the versions say: "REMEMBER all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice."

"But we will REMEMBER the name of the LORD" is the reading of Coverdale 1536, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the 1936 Hebrew Pub. Company translation, the NKJV, the Italian Diodati and the Spanish Reina Valera. The RV, ASV, and Young's have "but we will make mention of the name of the LORD."

The NIV and the ESV have come up with a paraphrase that says: "But we will TRUST IN the name of the LORD. The NIV complete concordance shows that they have translated this word as "remember" 162 times, but as "trust" only once, and that is here in Psalm 20:7.

However the NASB joins the RSV and the NRSV and says: "But we WILL BOAST IN the LORD." The NASB complete concordance show that they have translated this word as "remember" some 181 times, but "boast" only one time! Where did they get this reading from? It is found in the corrupt LXX which reads "but we will GLORY (or be made great) in the name of the Lord."

Instead of "But we will remember the name of the LORD our God" the cartoon version called The Message says: "But WE'RE MAKING GARLANDS FOR GOD our God." Yeah, that's pretty close, huh?

Psalms 20:9 "Save, LORD: LET THE KING HEAR US when we call." This verse reads the same in the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Geneva, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, the Hebrew Names Version, the Hebrew-English translations of 1917, 1936 and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible. The king can easily be seen as the anointed, or the Christ, who is the true king, whom God will hear, referred to in verse 6. Christ makes intercession for us, and God hears Him.

John Gill correctly points out that the Greek LXX rendering is wrong (NIV, RSV, ESV) and does not conform to the Hebrew. He says it should read "Save, LORD; let the king hear us when we call" and that the king refers to the Messiah "and prayer is made to him, and he hears and receives the prayers of his people; and, as Mediator, presents them to his Father perfumed with his much incense; for he is a Priest as well as a King."

However, the NIV, and the ESV, without a footnote, have this reading. "O LORD, SAVE THE KING! Answer us when we call!" It is of interest to note that the RSV, and the NRSV also read like the NIV and Holman Standard, but the RSV, NRSV have a footnote telling us that the Greek LXX reads this way. I looked it up and it's true. But the RSV, NRSV also state in their footnote that the Hebrew reads as do the KJB, NKJV and NASB. So again, the NIV editors have forsaken the Hebrew masoretic text and followed the Greek LXX.

Psalms 22 - All about Christ's sufferings

Most Christians over the centuries have recognized that Psalm 22 is clearly a prophetic Psalm which speaks in great detail about the sufferings that Christ endured during the hours of His crucifixion on the cross. The Lord Jesus willingly took our place of deserved judgment, and offered up Himself to bear the wrath of a Holy God for our sins. In fact, while He is hanging on the cross of Calvary, He quotes the very words from the beginning of this Psalm.

Psalms 22:1 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my ROARING?" Here the word is #7581 and it is always ROARING in the King James Bible. It comes from the verb to roar, and is used in verse 13 of a roaring lion, where ironically, all the other versions have correctly translated the same Hebrew word as "roaring". Usually this word is associated with a lion. Christ is portrayed prophetically in this Psalm in His sufferings on the cross. Christ is the LION of the tribe of Judah who hath prevailed to open the book. See Revelation 5:5. "Roaring" is the correct reading found in the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, KJV 21, the Italian Diodati and Youngs.

The liberal RSV, as well as the NASB, NIV, and NKJV have changed this to "the words of my GROANING". This is incorrect since the word does not mean "groaning". Other Hebrew words do, but not this one. Also, of all the versions I checked, only the NASB changes the last part of this question into a statement. Instead of "Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?" the NASB has: "Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning." The Revised Version, American Standard Version, Holman, RSV, ESV, NIV and NKJV still retain this last part as a question and not a statement as the NASB has it.

Psalms 22:2 "O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the NIGHT SEASON, and am not silent." Here the RV, ASV and the NKJV correctly have "night season". Jesus Christ did not suffer upon the cross during the night, but during the daytime. Yet it was His "night season"; He called it "your hour and the power of darkness" Luke 22:53. But the NASB and NIV have changed "in the night SEASON", to "in the NIGHT". This simple change in meaning creates a contradiction when we look at the facts of the timing of the crucifixion as recorded in the gospel accounts.

Psalms 22:3 "But thou art holy, O thou THAT INHABITEST the praises of Israel." So read the Geneva Bible, the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Darby and the Spanish Reina Valera. However the NASB and the NIV both give different meanings to this verse. The NASB says: "Yet You are holy, O You who ARE ENTHRONED UPON the praises of Israel", while the NIV has: "Yet you ARE ENTHRONED AS THE HOLY ONE; you are the praise of Israel."

Psalms 22:16 "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: THEY PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET."


This piercing of the hands and feet never occurred to king David, but was prophetic of Christ on the cross.

Charles Spurgeon comments: "They pierced my hands and my feet. This can by no means refer to David, or to any one but Jesus of Nazareth, the once crucified but now exalted Son of God. Pause, dear reader, and view the wounds of thy Redeemer."

It appears that many Hebrew manuscripts have deliberately been corrupted in this place, since it so clearly speaks of the crucifixion of the Son of God. Most Jewish translations have a nonsensical reading in this place. Instead of "they pierced my hands and my feet", they say: " LIKE A LION, my hands and my feet."

This is also the reading found in the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. It may surprise some to hear that Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, in his idiosyncratic (i.e. goofy and weird) NET version, also makes up a similar reading, saying: "LIKE A LION THEY PIN my hands and feet."

However there are some Hebrew manuscripts, including the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls, that read "they PIERCED my hands and my feet".

The NIV reads like the KJB in this place and in their footnote they tell us that so too do "some manuscripts of the Masoretic Texts, the LXX and the Syriac." In their book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich, on page 519 they tell us that the Hebrew Psalms scroll found at Hahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs) reads: "THEY HAVE PIERCED my hands and my feet".

 

"THEY PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET" is also the reading of the alleged Greek Septuagint, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, and almost all English and foreign translations, including Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, The Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV 1973, RV 1885, ASV 1901, ESV 2001-2011 editions, the Holman Standard 2003, Names of God Version 2011, The Voice 2012 and the Jubilee Bible 2010.

The 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible also reads this way, saying: "For kelavim have surrounded me; the Adat Mere’im (congregation of evil men) have enclosed me; ka’aru yadai v’ragelai (THEY PIERCED my hands and my feet; see Isa 53:5; Zech 12:10 and medieval Hebrew Scripture manuscripts as well as the Targum HaShivim).

And The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 likewise reads "THEY PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET."

 https://archive.org/stream/ancienthebrewlit03yyyauoft#page/402/mode/2up

 

Another Jewish translation, called the Ancient Roots Translation of 2008,  also reads  "they pierced my hands and my feet" 

 

You can see it here - 

http://www.messianic-torah-truth-seeker.org/Scriptures/Tenakh/Tehillim/Tehillim22.htm  

 

Other Bibles that read "they PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET" are The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Living Bible 1971, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Green's Literal 2005, The Bond Slave Version 2009, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The Conservative Bible 2011, The World English Bible 2012, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "they PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET", and the BRG Bible 2012.

 

 

Foreign language bible that also read "they PIERCED my hands and my feet" are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569, 1602, 1909 and 1960 and the Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 - "Horadaron mis manos y mis pies", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and  Louis Segond of 2007 - "ils ont percé mes mains et mes pieds", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and La Nuova Riveduta of 2006 - "mi hanno forato le mani e i piedi." and the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada - "transpassaram-me as mãos e os pés.

The ESV of 2011 reads: "they have PIERCED MY HANDS AND MY FEET." Then it footnotes that this is the reading of : "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac, but that most Hebrew mss. read "like a lion my hands and my feet".

Psalms 22:16 -

 

John Calvin goes with “they pierced my hands and my feet” and specifically says there are “strong grounds for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews.”


Adam Clarke also goes with “they pierced my hands and my feet” and comments: “But there is a various reading here which is of great importance. Instead of caaru, they pierced, which is what is called the kethib, or marginal reading, and which our translators have followed; the keri or textual reading is caari, as a lion. In support of each reading there are both MSS. and eminent critics...the Syriac, Vulgate, Septuagint, AEthiopic, and Arabic read, "they pierced or digged;" and in the Anglo-Saxon the words are, {Anglo-Saxon}: "They dalve (digged) hands mine, and feet mine."


John Gill goes with “they pierced my hands and my feet” and comments: “In this clause there is a various reading; in some copies in the margin it is, "as a lion my hands and my feet", but in the text, "they have dug" or "pierced my hands and my feet"...The modern Jews are for retaining the marginal reading, though without any good sense...it is written "they pierced"; and Ben Chayim confirms this reading, and says he found it so written in some correct copies, and in the margin; and so it is written in several manuscripts; and which is confirmed by the Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Greek, and Vulgate Latin versions; in which it is rendered, "they dug my hands and my feet" 

The learned John Owen (161-1683) discussed how the corruption might have occurred back around 1660.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=eHQAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA466


"But that which makes the greatest cry at present is the corruption of Psalm 22:17, where, instead of "ka'aroo", which the LXX. translated "Thruxan", "They digged" or "pierced," - that is, "my hands and feet," - the present Judaical copies, as the Antwerp Bibles also, read "ka'ree", "as a lion," so depraving the prophecy of our Savior's suffering, "They digged (or pierced) my hands and my feet," leaving it no sense at all; "As a lion my hands and my feet."


Owen covers the views of Simeon de Muys, Johannes Isaac to Lindanus, Buxtorf with agreement from Genebrard, Pagninus, Vatablus, Mercer, Rivet, etc., Voetius, Camets and Pococke. Not only were these gentlemen closer to the time of the Masoretic text printings, they were accomplished Hebraists.

 

This was all well known even at the time of the AV.


A disputation on Holy Scripture against the papists, especially Bellarmine (1588)

William Whitaker

http://books.google.com/books?id=zzIJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA159


Whitaker references the Hebraists Andradius and Galatinus as well as Isaac. He makes good points about the Targum (Chaldee Paraphrat), Jerome, and two Masorah entries.


 

However we continue to have a group of looney tune versions like the NRSV of 1989 which actually reads: "My hands and my feet ARE SHRIVELED." Then in a footnote, the NRSV tells us that the Hebrew reading is uncertain.

 

Some odd ball translations  

 

The Bible in Basic English - "they MADE WOUNDS IN my hands and feet."

The New Life Bible 1969 - "they have CUT THROUGH my hands and feet." 

Dan Wallace and company's NET version - "like a lion THEY PIN my hands and my feet."

The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2006 has "TO BURROW MY HANDS AND MY FEET."

The Context Group Version 2007 - "they surround me like a lion threatening to TEAR ME TO PIECES"

The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 has - "TO DIG my hands and my feet" 

The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - "they HAVE DUG my hands and my feet" 

International Standard Version 2014 - "they GOUGED my hands and feet." 

Modern English Version 2014 - "like a lion they PIN my hands and my feet."

New English Bible 1970 - "they have HACKED OFF my hands and my feet."

Douay 1950- "they have DUG my hands and my feet."

Jerusalem Bible 1968 - "they TIE my hands and my feet"

New Jerusalem Bible 1985 - "as if to HACK OFF my hands and my feet"

Today's English Version (put out by the United Bible Society) 1992 "they TEAR AT my hands and my feet."

New Life Version 1997 - "They HAVE CUT THROUGH my hands and my feet."

Contemporary English Version 1995 (put out by the American Bible Society) - "TEARING AT my hands and my feet."

The Message 2002- "They PIN ME DOWN hand and foot and lock me in a cage."

The Common English Bible 2011 (another critical text version complete with the Apocryphal books) follows the wrong reading and paraphrases it as: "Dogs surround me; a pack of evil people circle me LIKE A LION --OH, MY POOR HANDS AND FEET!"

New Century Version 1991 (put out by Thomas Nelson, Inc.) - "THEY HAVE BITTEN my ARMS and MY LEG."!!!

The Catholic Connection

In typical fashion, the Catholic Versions are all over the board. The Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay 1950 read: "THEY HAVE DUG my hands and feet."  Then the 1968 Jerusalem bible went with "THEY TIE ME hand and foot". But the 1970 St. Joseph NAB actually got it right with "THEY PIERCED my hands and my feet".  But then the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible changed this to "a gang of villains is closing in on me AS IF TO HACK OFF my hands and my feet." And now the 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it goes back to "THEY PIERCED my hands and feet."  

Let's see..."DUG my hands and feet", or "TIE my hands and feet", or "HACKED OFF my hands and feet" or "they PIERCED my hands and feet"?  

Yep, pretty much sound like the old "Yea, hath God said?" syndrome to me.

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

 

In closing this little study of Psalm 22, I would like to focus on the last two verses of this amazing Psalm and note how the meaning has been changed in such versions as the NKJV, NASB and NIV.

In the King James Bible Psalm 22:30-31 reads: "A SEED shall serve him; IT SHALL BE ACCOUNTED TO the Lord FOR A GENERATION. THEY SHALL COME, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this." This is also the reading found in the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Darby, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Italian Diodati, Webster's, KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible.

Adam Clarke comments on this verse: "This seed, however, shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. It shall be a peculiar people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and called by Christ's own name."

However the NKJV changes the meaning of this verse. It says: "A POSTERITY shall serve Him. It will be RECOUNTED OF the Lord TO THE NEXT generation, They will come and declare His righteousness to a people who will be born, that He has done this."

The NKJV looses the idea of "the seed" and instead of the seed being accounted for a generation, the NKJV adds words not found in any Hebrew text, and says the message will be TOLD TO the NEXT generation.

The NASB is similar to the NKJV saying: "Posterity will serve Him; IT WILL BE TOLD OF the Lord TO THE COMING generation. They shall come..."

The NIV goes even further along this line. The NIV omits the Hebrew reading of "They shall come" and follows the Greek reading like the RSV and NRSV. At least the RSV, NRSV tell us in their footnote that they have omitted these words from the Hebrew texts and followed the Greek, but the NIV fails to inform us of this fact. The words "THEY SHALL COME" are found in all Jewish translations, as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, Holman, NET, and now the 2001 English Revised Version (a revision of the previous RSV, NRSV) has put these Hebrew words back in their ever-changing bible versions.

The NIV says: "POSTERITY will serve him; FUTURE (NOT in any text) generationS WILL BE TOLD ABOUT the Lord. (Then it omits the Hebrew words "They shall come", and continues:) They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn - for he has done it."

The Hebrew word is clearly SEED and the Seed theology is consistently taught throughout the King James Bible, but not the modern versions. "a SEED" is the reading of the Jewish translations, Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, Young's and Darby. The seed of Christ is the generation of His elect people from the beginning to the end of the world. "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for THE SEED." Romans 9:8. "when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see HIS SEED...and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." Isaiah 53:10

The seed is ACCOUNTED TO the Lord FOR a generation. 1 Peter 2:9 tells us: "But ye are a chosen GENERATION, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."

In the KJB and other translations, the sense is that the seed, which is the body of believers who will be born from His death and resurrection, are the children of the promise who are COUNTED FOR THE SEED (Romans 9:8) and are considered as "a generation". Christ generated us, or gave us birth, by means of His death and resurrection. We were in Him when He died, and we were in Him when He rose from the dead.

The NKJV changes the meaning with: "A POSTERITY will serve Him. It will be RECOUNTED OF the Lord TO THE NEXT generation." Wrong! Can you see that the meaning is changed? If this were the only example in the Bible, you might say, Well, what's the big deal? But the fact is there are literally hundreds of such changes in meaning from one version to the next. You end up asking yourself, Well, what did God really say?  

 

Some further thoughts on the so called Greek Septuagint and Psalms 22.

Every once in awhile I run into some guy who tries to promote one of the various and conflicting "Septuagints" out there as being the true words of God and they despise and discredit not only the King James Bible, but the Hebrew Masorretic texts in general and all other versions too, including the NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman, etc. These are some of the nuttiest loons out there.

 

But let's notice just a few places in Psalms 22 where Brenton's LXX is very different from both the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible (as well as virtually every other Bible out there as well)

In Psalms 22:1 instead of saying: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? WHY ART THOU SO FAR FROM HELPING ME, AND FROM THE WORDS OF MY ROARING?"  

The LXX adds some words to the first part and totally changes the meaning of the second part.  It reads: "O God, my God ATTEND TO ME;  why hast thou forgotten me?  THE ACCOUNT OF MY TRANSGRESSIONS IS FAR FROM MY SALVATION."

Psalms 22:2 KJB - "O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, AND AM NOT SILENT."

LXX 22:2 - "O my God, I will cry to thee by day, but thou wilt not hear; and by night AND IT SHALL NOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR FOLLY TO ME."

 

Psalms 22:21 KJB - "Save me from the lion's mouth: FOR THOU HAST HEARD ME from the horns of the unicorns." 

LXX Psalms 22:21 - "Save me from the lion's mouth; AND REGARD MY LOWLINESS from the horns of the unicorns."

Psalms 22:24 KJB - "For he hath not despised nor abhorred THE AFFLICTION OF THE AFFLICTED; neither hath he hid his face from HIM; but when HE cried unto him, he heard."  

LXX Psalms 22:24 - "For he has not despised nor BEEN ANGRY AT THE SUPPLICATION OF THE POOR, nor turned away his face from ME; but when "I" cried to him, he heard ME."

Psalms 22:27 KJB - "...and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before THEE."  

LXX - Psalms 22:27 "...and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before HIM."  Psalms 22:29 KJHB - "All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: and all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: AND NONE CAN KEEP ALIVE HIS OWN SOUL."  

 

LXX Psalms 22:27 - "All the ends of the earth HAVE eaten and worshipped; all that go down to the earth shall fall down before him: MY SOUL ALSO LIVES TO HIM."

And finally Psalms 22:31 KJB - "THEY SHALL COME, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, THAT HE HATH DONE THIS."  

 

LXX Psalms 22:32 "And they shall report his righteousness to the people that shall be born, WHOM THE LORD HAS MADE."



 

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

Psalms #1 How different the versions!

 1

 

 

Psalms 19:3 “There is no speech nor language WHERE their voice is not heard.”


Psalms 19:1-3 KJB - “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.


Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.


There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.”


One particular bible agnostic and unbeliever in the existence of a real, complete and inerrant Bible who “uses” the ever changing NASB writes complaining about the use of the word “where” in the KJB. He says it was added to the Hebrew text and then reminds us that the Bible tells us not to add to nor take away from the words of God.  He says his NASB and ESV are better when they give the opposite meaning to that found in the KJB.  


Of course he failed to mention that both the NIV 1984 and the NKJV 1982 both read exactly as the King James Bible saying: “There is no speech or language WHERE their voice is not heard.” (NIV 1984)  But Bible Agnostics have no final authority except their own minds and personal preferences, so he is allowed to piece together his "bible" as he goes along.


The NASB along with the ESV reads: “19:1-3 -The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.


Day to day pours forth speech,  And night to night reveals knowledge.

 

There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard.”


The KJB says that there is no place where the voice of creation is not heard, while the NASB, ESV tell us that There is no voice that is heard at all.


Apparently he thinks the KJB’s “adding” words in italics to complete the sense of the Hebrew is wrong, but it apparently doesn’t bother our Bible correcting friend that his own NASB “adds” the words THERE IS at the beginning and the verb ARE to “nor ARE there words”. You see, these words are NOT in the Hebrew text either, but since his NASB doesn’t put the words in italics, he might think that they are. Well, they are not.  

 

Versions like the NASB and ESV add literally hundreds of words to both the Hebrew and Greek texts in order to attempt to bring out the meaning into the English language, and the NASB rarely and the ESV never puts them in italics to let you know this is what they did.


Both the Hebrew and the Greek languages are elliptical languages, that is, they often omit verbs, connecting words, direct and indirect objects and sometimes even the subject of a sentence. (See John Calvin's notes below)


Does this Bible critic really believe that his constantly changing, Vatican supervised NASB is the inerrant words of God?  Of course not. He is an “only the originals were inspired and inerrant” type of guy who couldn’t show you a copy of a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language if his life depended on it.


I and many others believe the King James Bible is right, and I will show in a minute that MANY other Bible translators agree with the way they translated the verse.  The KJB is telling us that the voice and speech of the witness of creation is heard in every nation on this earth.  


And Romans 1:19-20 confirm this witness - “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.


20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”


Not only does the King James Bible say that “There is no speech nor language, WHERE their voice is not heard.” but so too do the following Bible translations - the Geneva Bible 1587, Webster’s Bible 1833, The Hebrew Publishing Company Scriptures 1936, The New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The NIV 1984, The Word of Yah 1993, The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, J.P. Green’s literal 2005, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Asser Septuagint 2009 - “There are no tongues nor words WHERE their voices are not heard.”, The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version 2009, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, The New European Version 2010 -“There is no speech nor language WHERE their voice is not heard.”, The English Jubilee Bible 2010, the New Heart English Bible 2010, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - “WHERE their voice is not heard”, The Work of God’s Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - “There are no speeches nor languages, WHERE their voices are not heard.”, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “There is no speech nor devarim (language), WHERE their voice is not heard.”, The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 -“WHERE their voice is not heard.”, The World English Bible 2012, The BRG Bible 2012, The Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - “There is no speech nor language WHERE their voice is not heard.”, and The Biblos Bible 2013 - “There is not speech nor language WHERE their voice is not heard.” and The Hebrew Names Version 2014 - “There is no speech nor language WHERE their voice is not heard.”



The Great Bible 1540, and Matthew’s Bible 1549 say: “but their voices are heard among them.”


The Bill Bible 1671 says: “There is neither speech nor language, but their voices are heard among them.”


Darby 1890  says: “yet their voice is heard.”  


God’s First Truth 1999 says: “but their voices are heard among them.” 


The NIV 1984 edition read exactly like the KJB. They changed it in the NIV 2011 but it still has the same basic meaning.  It now says: “Yet their voice goes out into all the earth.”


A Conservative Version 2005 has: “There is no speech nor language in which their voice is not heard.” 


The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005 - “There are no speeches or words, in which their voices are not heard.” 


The New Brenton Translation 2012 says: “There are no speeches or words IN WHICH their voices are not heard.”


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Commentary - “Though there is no articulate speech or words, yet without these their voice is heard.”  


John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible - “Verse 3.   Heard - Or, understood; there are divers nations in the world, which have several languages, so that one cannot discourse with, or be understood by another, but the heavens are such an universal teacher, that they can speak to all people, and be clearly understood by all.”


Charles Spurgeon - “Verse 3. "There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard." Every man may hear the voices of the stars. Many are the languages of terrestrials, to celestials there is but one, and that one may be understood by every willing mind. The lowest heathen are without excuse, if they do not discover the invisible things of God in the works which he has made. Sun, moon, and stars are God's traveling preachers; they are apostles upon their journey confirming those who regard the Lord, and judges on circuit condemning those who worship idols.”


Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible -  He mentions the other view, but then concludes: “High as these authorities are, yet it seems to me that the idea conveyed by our common version is probably the correct one. This is the idea in the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. According to this interpretation the meaning is, “There is no nation, there are no men, whatever may be their language, to whom the heavens do not speak, declaring the greatness and glory of God. The language which they speak is universal; and however various the languages spoken by men, however impossible it may be for them to understand each other, yet all can understand the language of the heavens, proclaiming the perfections of the Great Creator.”  


Matthew Poole’s Annotations on the Bible - “The sense is, There are divers nations in the world, which have several languages, so that one cannot discourse with or be understood by another; but the heavens are such a universal and admirable teacher, that they can speak to all people under them, and be clearly understood by all.”


John Calvin also discusses both views and comes down solidly in favor of the way the King James Bible has it.  He says: “The other exposition, therefore, as it is more generally received, seems also to be more suitable. In the Hebrew tongue, which is concise, it is often necessary to supply some word; and it is particularly a common thing in that language for the relatives to be omitted, that is to say, the words which, in which, etc., as here, There is no language, there is no speech, [where ]their voice is not heard…The difference and variety of languages does not prevent the preaching of the heavens and their language from being heard and understood in every quarter of the world…David, therefore, by making a tacit comparison, enhances the efficacy of the testimony which the heavens bear to their Creator. The import of his language is, Different nations differ from each other as to language; but the heavens have a common language to teach all men without distinction, nor is there any thing but their own carelessness to hinder even those who are most strange to each other, and who live in the most distant parts of the world, from profiting, as it were, at the mouth of the same teacher.”  


John Gill comments - “though they are ever so different one from another, so as not to be able to understand each other; yet the voice of the heavens, uttering and proclaiming the glory of their Maker, is heard and understood by them all”


The King James Bible is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation that conveys the truth that the heavens declare the glory of God, and day unto day utter speech bearing witness to His creative power, and this witness is heard in every nation under the sun.


The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.


Will Kinney

 

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