Does the King James Bible depart from the preserved Hebrew texts?
In the ongoing battle for the Bible those who do not believe such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible exists now or ever did exist in any language on this earth have recently taken up a new tactic to try to convince the Bible believers that our King James Bible is just as corrupt as their multitude of conflicting, error filled Bible of the Month Club versions. In fact, they come right out and say it. “See, even if our modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman, NET, etc. DO reject, depart from and change the Hebrew texts, so does your King James Bible. You’re in the same boat we are.”
It is an undeniable FACT that all modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman and the NKJV often and in numerous places clearly reject the Hebrew readings and either replace them with some partial Septuagint readings, the Syriac or they just make them up out of thin air, and often not even in the same places as the others have done it.
For specific and provable examples of this, please see these two articles:
A man named Brian Tegart openly and unabashedly admits that he does not believe there ever was, much less is now, such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. In fact, he comes right out and tells us that the Bible does not teach that there would BE such a thing! In his internet posts he likes to refer to “the scripture” but he never comes right out and tell us what he means by “the scripture” nor where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever Bible version we’re reading now so we can see the differences. It seems his only spiritual interest is to get us to believe like he does, that is, that no such thing as an inerrant Bible exists.
Here is the list of alleged King James Bible departures from the Hebrew texts that Brian recently posted at one of the Bible Agnostic ....err... Christian clubs that abound on the internet today. What we see here is a rather silly attempt by a couple of men who do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever has been the complete and inerrant words of God.
Many of these examples even go against their own Bible of the Month Club versions so popular today. Yet you will not hear one peep of protest from any of the other members there who use their NASB, NIV, or ESV’s even though this goofy list criticizes their own preferred versions. The only important thing to the Bible Agnostic is that he is attacking the final authority of the King James Bible, and that is what they all have in common.
Let's take a look at the examples posted and see if there is any merit to them.
Genesis 41:56 Hebrew: what was in them LXX & KJV: storehouses
Well the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV, NIV, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - graneros -, Luther's German bible of 1545 -Kornhauser -; the Portuguese Almeida, the 1996 French Ostervald, the Italian Diodati 1649, the 1927 Italian Riveduta, the 1917 JEWISH Publication Society, and the 1936 HEBREW Publishing Company, and the more recent JUDAICA Press Tanach, the Complete JEWISH Bible, and the HEBREW Names Bible all translated it the same way as the King James Bible. This is not a case of "following the LXX" but is a legitimate translation of the Hebrew texts. In fact, the LXX doesn't even say "storehouses" but rather "granaries" - sitoboloonas. The Modern Greek translation has a different word - apotheekas - which does mean "storehouses". Better burn those modern versions guys. This man has the only true handle of what God REALLY said ;-)
Exodus 8:23 Hebrew: ransom LXX & KJV: division
RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, ESV, 1917 Jewish Publication Society, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, Youngs = KJB. NKJV- difference; NIV = separation; NRSV= distinction. Looks like we'd better stoke those fires nice and hot. Nobody got it right except this guy and his imaginary and never published “scripture”.
1 Samuel 16:4 Hebrew: he said LXX & KJV: they said (not true. wrong verse?)
1 Samuel 25:8 Hebrew: is upon us LXX & KJV: we came
- No idea what he's talking about. NASB, NIV, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV, Holman, Young, 1917, 1936 all = KJB
2 Chronicles 17:4 Hebrew: God LXX & KJV LORD God
- "LORD" is in italics in the King James Bible, showing you that the word LORD was provided by the translators, but the parallel passage in 1 Kings 22:43 reads LORD and so it is supplied from that place. The addition also emphasizes that it was the one true LORD (Jehovah) God that is being referred to in the context. Also reading "LORD God of his father" are Wycliffe, the Geneva bible, Bishops' bible, Lamsa 1936, Amplified 1987, KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
ALL the new versions frequently "add" the words God or Lord to various texts when they think the context calls for it. In fact, the NIV, by their own admission, has added the words God or LORD some 104 times in the Old Testament when it does not occur in the Hebrew text and they have omitted it some 51 times when it DOES occur. Then in the New Testament the NIV has added the word JESUS 336 times when not in the texts, and the word GOD 117 times. Yet all this is brushed aside and seems to be OK with the modern version bible agnostics - BUT, when the King James Bible does this type of thing one or two times, then they blow a gasket, rise up in sanctimonious indignation and cry “Error!”. Go figure.
For several examples where versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV etc. add and even omit the words God and Lord, see:
Job 15:11 Hebrew: gently LXX & KJV: secret
- This is another translational issue, not a textual one. The NKJV has another totally false footnote. It says the LXX reads "secret thing". This is a bald faced lie. The LXX copy I have is so far out of whack it is laughable. Instead of saying: “Are the consolations of God small with thee? is there any secret thing with thee?” the LXX actually reads: "Thou hast been scourged for but few of thy sins; thou hast spoken haughtily and extravagantly."!!! It is totally unrecognizable when compared to any other bible version out there. The NKJV editors are lying to you.
Most modern versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB generally say something like: "Are the consolations of God too small for you, And the word spoken gently with you?"(NKJV). However it should be noted that the word "spoken" is not in any Hebrew text and there are a wide variety of different translations.
Agreeing with the King James Bible's "is there any secret thing with thee" are the 1549 Italian Diodati, the 1602 Spanish Reina Valera "cosa oculta", Luther's 1545 German bible, Geneva Bible "strange thing", Websters 1833, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 all read "secret thing". The Modern Greek translation also agrees with the KJB saying "he exeis ti apokruphon en heautoo" = "Do you have any hidden thing in yourself?"
The New English Bible 1970 reads "a word whispered quietly"(which would agree in sense with the KJB). Wycliffe read "shrewed words" while Bishops had "lying words" and Douay had "wicked words".
John Gill makes no attempt to “correct the text” and comments on the verse: “is there any secret thing with thee? any secret wisdom and knowledge which they were strangers to; or any secret way of conveying comfort to him they knew not of; or any secret sin in him, any Achan in the camp, that hindered him from receiving comfort, or put him upon slighting what was offered to him.” See also Adam Clarke’s commentary and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on this verse. They all support the King James Bible’s reading.
Hosea 13:16 Hebrew: is held guilty LXX & KJV: become desolate
- Another ridiculous example of allegedly departing from the Hebrew text. The Hebrew word, like most Hebrew words, has multiple meanings. It is translated as "desolate" 5 times in the KJB and even though the NKJV here has "Samaria is held guilty", yet the NKJV and the NIV translate this same word as "desolate" in other places, as in Isaiah 24:6 and Ezekiel 6:6. Agreeing with the KJB's "Samaria shall become desolate" are the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, Youngs, the Geneva Bible, the New English Bible 1970, Luther's German bible 1545, the French Louis Segond, the Italian Diodati 1549 and the Nuovo Diodati 1991, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 and 1995 "Samaria será desolada", and the KJV 21st Century 1994.
Agreeing in sense are 1395 Wycliffe "perish";1535 Coverdale, the 1568 Bishops bible, and the 1960 Bible in Basic English - "shall be made waste".
Proverbs 24:28 Hebrew: would you deceive? LXX & KJV: do not deceive
- Apparently the guy who made up this silly list has lost his mind. The NKJV reads like this self-professed "scholar" suggests, but agreeing with the King James Bible's "and deceive not with thy lips" are the NASB, NIV, Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV and Holman versions. It should be obvious that James Price or whoever made up this list has no idea what he is talking about, and his only agenda is to try to discredit The Book of God, a.k.a. the King James Holy Bible.
Lamentations 1:8 Hebrew: became vile LXX & KJV: is removed
- This is another really lame and misleading attempt by the NKJV editors to undermine the authority of the King James Bible. The NKJV says: "Therefore she has BECOME VILE" and then they footnote "Septuagint and Vulgate read 'moved' or 'removed'. Again, this is not true. The Septuagint version says "therefore has she come into tribulation".
The Hebrew word used in Lamentations 1:8 is found only once but it comes directly from another Hebrew word which has multiple meanings including "to be removed, to wag, to make move, to bemoan, to shake, to be sorry, to take pity, to flee, and to skip for joy”. The NKJV itself translated this same word as "to move" and "to drive away" in Jeremiah 4:1; 50:3 and 8, and Psalm 36:11.
Again “removed” is a legitimate translation of this Hebrew word. Agreeing with the King James Bible reading of “Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is REMOVED” are Green’s 2000 ‘literal’ translation, Webster’s, Darby, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - “ella ha sido removida”, Rotherham’s 1902 Emphasized bible, and the 1987 Amplified bible. The 1994 KJV 21st Century version reads “she has become a wanderer”, and even the Message says "she is an outcast".
Jeremiah 50:11 Hebrew: heifer threshing grass LXX & KJV: heifer at grass
- Well, if this is supposedly what the Hebrew text says, then a whole bunch of translators, both Jewish and Gentile have entirely missed it. "Heifer at grass" is the reading found in the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, the Hebrew Pub. Company 1936 translation, Complete Jewish Bible, Geneva bible, Bishops' bible, Wycliffe, Coverdale, Amplified bible, Green's literal, Youngs, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, Darby, Douay, the KJV 21st Century version, the RSV, NRSV, and the ESV. Even the NASB admits that "heifer at grass" is another Hebrew reading.
Proverbs 19:24 Hebrew: bowl LXX & KJV: bosom
- Again, this Hebrew word has a couple of meanings, one being bosom and the other dish. Agreeing with the KJB are the Geneva Bible, Coverdale, Bishops' bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the Italian Diodati 1649, the French Martin 1744, the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium bible 1998.
Ecclesiastes 9:14 Hebrew: snares LXX & KJV: bulwarks
- Again, this false information comes from the bogus NKJV footnotes where it says "snares" and then footnotes that bulwarks comes from the LXX, Syriac and Vulgate. Sorry NKJV guys, but the Hebrew word is translated here as 'bulwarks' by the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, 1936, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Hebrew Names Bible, the RV, ASV, Youngs, Darby, Douay, Amplified bible, Bishops' bible, Luther's German 1512 " Bollwerke", the Italian Diodati, Italian Riveduta 1927, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 "baluartes", French Martin and Ostervald 1996 (forts), Green literal, Bishops' bible, Coverdale, and the KJV 21st Century.
Not even the NASB, NIV, RSV or ESV agree with the NKJV. They all say "seigeworks", which is much like the KJB’s “bulwarks” instead of the NKJV's 'snares'.
Isaiah 1:17 Hebrew: reprove the oppressor LXX & KJV: relieve the oppressor
- This is another case of blind stupidity trying to discredit the Authorized King James Bible. The guy missed what the verse says in the King James Bible and is completely wrong about what the reading should be. The KJB says "relieve the oppressed" not "relieve the oppressor".
The modern fake bibles can't even agree among themselves. The NKJV and NASB say "REPROVE the oppressor" while the NIV says "ENCOURAGE THE OPPRESSED" (which is more like the KJB). The NEB 1970 falls more in line with the KJB when it says "champion the oppressed", the Living Bible has "help the oppressed" and the ESV says "correct oppression". The Judaica Press Tanach has "strengthen the robbed" and even The Message has "help the down-and-out".
Agreeing with the Hebrew reading correctly translated in the King James Bible "RELIEVE the OPPRESSED" are the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Complete Jewish Bible, Bishops's, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Youngs, Hebrew Names Bible, Douay, the NRSV, and the Spanish Reina Valera.
Speaking frankly, the guy who put together this bogus list of alleged errors in the King James Bible is an idiot (See original Greek;-) who has no inerrant Bible in any language to give or recommend to anyone. “Idiot” of course in the literal Greek meaning of the word, that is, one who is ignorant and follows his own peculiar ways. All he has are his own personal opinions and preferences along with a massive dollop of misinformation and outright lies which he uses in his vain attempts to overthrow God's time tested and always true inerrant words of God - the King James Holy Bible.
Get a copy. Read it and believe every word of it. You will never go wrong.
JAMES PRICE of the NKJV fame - another Bible Agnostic
James Price, who helped put together the NKJV, is another Bible critic who has long lists of what he considers to be errors in our beloved King James Bible. Here are a few of them that were posted recently at a Bible club I belong to where the vast majority of professing Christians do not believe there exists such a thing as a complete and inerrant Bible in any language.
Isaiah 13:15 -
James Price’s “indisputable error” in the King James Bible?
Isaiah 13:15- “Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one THAT IS JOINED UNTO THEM shall fall by the sword.”
One blusterous Bible corrector asserts:
www.dbts.edu/journals/1999/Combs.pdf Errors in the King James Version? by William W. Combs - Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
"The following example was supplied to me by Dr. James D. Price, who is currently producing a manuscript on this subject."
"In the OT it is universally agreed, even by KJV-only advocates, that the KJV was based on the Second Bomberg Edition of 1525 edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. However, on occasion the translators did not follow the Hebrew/Aramaic text before them. For instance, in Isaiah 13:15 the KJV reads “joined” (“every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword”). There is no support for this reading in any Hebrew manuscript, text, ancient version, or rabbinic tradition. Instead, the correct reading is “captured” (“anyone who is captured will fall by the sword,” NASB). Possibly, the KJV translators misread one Hebrew letter for another, mistaking the word såpåh , “capture,” for såpaÿ , “join.” Whatever the case, the reading of the KJV is not the reading of the autographs and is thus an indisputable error."
Modern versions that side with Mr. Price’s translation of “captured” or “caught” are the RSV, NASB, NKJV and NIV. (END of Bible critic's comments)
And now for my Rebuttal -
Mr. Prices information on page 288 of his book ‘King James Onlyism: A New Sect’ appears to be totally false, as we shall soon see. Mr. Price writes - Isaiah 13:15 - The MT, supported by the LXX, Vulgate, and Targum reads “captured”, whereas the KJV reads “joined”. The translators misread one Hebrew letter for another, mistaking the Hebrew word nispeh for the word nispach found in 14:1, meaning ‘join’ or ‘cleave to’.”
First of all, Mr. Price is completely wrong about the alleged LXX reading “captured” and not “joined” as the King James Bible (and many others, as we shall soon see) has it.
I have a copy of the LXX right here on my desk. It is 'The Septuagint Version with Apocrypha Greek and English, published by Zondervan, 4th printing 1977. There are several different versions of this thing, but the one I have clearly says: "And they that ARE GATHERED TOGETHER shall fall by the sword." The Greek is και οιτινες συνηγμενοι εισιν μαχαιρα πεσουνται
The verb used here is a common one; it is the periphrastic perfect, passive participle of sunago, which means "to gather, to assemble together, to come together, to assemble." It is used numerous times in the N.T. in such places as "they were assembled together" (Acts 4:31), "he should gather together in one the children of God" (John 11:52) and "Come and gather yourselves together" (Rev. 19:17). The word has NOTHING to do with "capture". The good doktor Price is flat out wrong.
According to Wigram’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance 1980, on page 881 he lists the Isaiah 13:15 reference to the Hebrew word # 5595 sahphah, meaning “to add, to augment, to put, or joined”. There is a very similar word under the same number (5595) and pronounced the same way which also means “to destroy, consume or to perish”.
Strong’s concordance lists the word found in Isaiah 13:15 as # 5595 and lists a variety of meanings for this single Hebrew word including: “to scrape together, to accumulate or increase, perish, add, augment, consume, destroy, heap, join, perish and put.”
Even if we were to take this Hebrew word as the NASB concordance lists it under #5595 we see that the NASB has also translated it as “to add” twice and “to heap” once. Deut.32:23 “I will HEAP mischiefs upon them”; Numbers 32:14 “to ADD still more to the burning”, and Isaiah 30:1 “in order to ADD sin to sin.”
It seems only logical that if a group of people are “added” to another group, then they are “joined unto them”, right?
Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta reads differently than them all with: “Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one THAT ESCAPES shall fall by the sword.” This certainly does not help out the Bible agnostics claim that the word should be translated as “captive”.
The LXX copy I have agrees with the King James Bible saying: “they that ARE GATHERED TOGETHER shall fall by the sword.” = και οιτινες συνηγμενοι εισιν μαχαιρα πεσουνται
The Spanish Cipriano de Valera of 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and the Spanish Jubilee Bible 2010 also agree with the King James reading: “y cualquiera que A ELLOS SE JUNTARE, caerá a espada.” = "whoever of them JOINS HIMSELF TO THEM will fall by the sword." as does the Reina Valera Gómez Bible of 2010 - "y cualquiera que A ELLOS SU UNA, caerá a espada." = "and whoever UNITES HIMSELF TO THEM will fall by the sword."
The Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugues both agree with the KJB reading - "Todo o que for achado será transpassado; e todo o que se unir a ele cairá à espada." = "and everyone who UNITES HIMSELF TO THEM will fall by the sword."
The Italian Diodati of 1649 agrees with the KJB reading - “Chiunque sarà trovato sarà trafitto, e chiunque si SARA AGGUIUNTO con loro caderà per la spada.”
The French Martin Bible 1744 also reads like the KJB saying: “et quiconque s'y sera joint, tombera par l'épée.”
Martin Luther’s German translation of 1545 also agrees with the King James reading. Brother Herb Evans affirms: “Equally interesting is Martin Luther making the same “mistake” in his German Bible before the KJB translators did, he says "Welcher dabei ist"? (to unite by means of a joint or to become united or connected by or as of by a joint)”
Darby’s translation agrees in sense with the King James Bible - “All that are found shall be thrust through; and every one THAT IS IN LEAGUE WITH THEM shall fall by the sword.”
Young’s ‘literal’ likewise is similar to the KJB: - “Every one who is found is thrust through, And every one WHO IS ADDED falleth by sword.”
Matthew's Bible 1549 - "And WHOSO GATHER TOGETHER, shal be destroied with the swerd."
The Geneva Bible of 1587 also agrees with the KJB - “Euery one that is founde, shall be striken through: and WHOSOEVER JOINETH HIMSELF, shall fall by the sworde.”
The Bishops’ Bible of 1568 is similar in meaning - “Whoso is founde shalbe shot thorowe: and WHOSO TAKETH THEIR PART, shalbe destroyed with the sworde.”
Coverdale’s 1535 translation reads: “Who so is founde alone, shalbe shot thorow: And WHO SO GATHER TOGETHER, shalbe destroyed wt the swerde.”
Other English translations that agree with with King James Bible reading of “joined” are Webster’s 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853 - and EVERY ONE THAT IS JOINED UNTO THEM shall fall by the sword.", the 1994 KJV 21st Century version,the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 - "and THEY THAT ARE GATHERED TOGETHER shall fall by the sword." and the English Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 - "and EVERY ONE THAT IS JOINED UNTO THEM shall fall by the sword."
John Gill comments on the passage, saying: “ and everyone that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword; or "added" unto them; any of other nations that joined them as auxiliaries, see (Revelation 18:4) or "that is gathered"; so the Septuagint, "they that are gathered"; that are gathered together in a body to resist the enemy, and defend themselves. Some render the word, "every one that is consumed", with age; neither old nor young, as follows, should be spared. The Targum is, “everyone that enters into the fortified cities,''flees there for safety and protection.”
Matthew Henry comments: “every one that is joined to them shall fall by the sword; those of other nations that come in to their assistance shall be cut off with them. It is dangerous being in bad company, and helping those whom God is about to destroy.”
John Calvin also translated the passage as it appears in our King James Bible and he comments: “And every one that is joined to them shall fall by the sword. Some translators render this clause differently from what I have done; because the Hebrew verb (saphah) signifies to destroy or consume, they read it, Whosoever shall be destroyed, and explain it as relating to the old men, who were already worn out with age, and could not otherwise live longer; as if he had said, “Not even the men of advanced age, who are sinking into the grave, shall be spared, even though they are half-dead, and appear to be already giving up the ghost.” But because that is a feeble interpretation, and the verb (saphah) signifies likewise to add, I rather agree with others, who think that it denotes companies of soldiers, as in taking a city the soldiers are collected together in the form of a wedge, to ward off the attacks of the enemy. But it will perhaps be thought better to understand by it the confederates or allies who were JOINED to Babylon, and might be said to be united in the same body, in order to show more fully the shocking nature of this calamity.”
Albert Barnes (1854) also comments on this verse in his Notes: Critical, Explanatory, and Practical on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah
“Every one that is joined unto them - Their allies and friends. There shall be a vast, indiscriminate slaughter of all that are found in the city, and of those that attempt to flee from it. Lowth renders this, ' And all that are collected in a body;' BUT THE TRUE SENSE IS GIVEN IN OUR TRANSLATION. The Chaldee renders it, ' And every one who enters into fortified cities shall be slain with the sword.' “
Here is the Albert Lowth translation. http://books.google.com/books?id=p_IoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA81 Isaiah 13:15 “Every one, that is overtaken, shall be thrust through : And ALL THAT ARE COLLECTED IN A BODY shall fall by the sword.”
The recent 2001 Judaic Press Tanach gives a different interpretation to the passage - ”Everyone who is found shall be stabbed, and ANYONE WHO TAKES REFUGE shall fall by the sword.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=H68aja_bBzMC&pg=PA278 Commentary on Isaiah - Joseph Addison Alexander (1846) V. 15. “The flight of the strangers from Babylon is not without reason, for every one found (there) shall be stabbed (or thrust through), and every one joined (or joining himself to the Babylonians) shall fall by the sword. All interpreters agree that a general massacre is here described, although they differ as to the precise sense and connection of the clauses.... Junius explains the verse to mean that not only the robust but the decrepit ... should be slain, and the same interpretation is mentioned by Kimchi. Hitzig takes the sense to be that every one, even he who joins himself (i.e. goes over to the enemy), shall perish; they will give no quarter. others suppose an antithesis, though not a climax. Gesenius in the earlier editions of his lexicon explains the verse as meaning that he who is found in the street, and he who withdraws himself into the house, shall perish alike. Lowth makes the antithesis between one found alone and one joined with others.”
In any event, what we learn from this single example is that men like James Price have no inerrant Bible in any language to give to anyone. Instead they foolishly and ignorantly set up their own minds and peculiar understanding as their final authority, in spite of the fact that many other godly men throughout history who were just as qualified, if not more so than Mr. Price, disagree with him and side with the King James Bible reading.
Here are some more of James Price's 'priceless' examples of alleged error in the King James Bible.
2 Chron 33:19--Hebrew Hozai LXX the seers
This is another absurd attempt to “prove” the KJB allegedly rejects the Hebrew text. Not only does the King James Bible translate this word as “seers” here but so do the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, the 1936 Jewish Publication Society version, the Complete Jewish Bible, Coverdale, the Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the NIV, Green’s literal, the Amplified bible, Luther’s 1545 German bible “der Seher”, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 “están escritos en las palabras de los videntes”, the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 -”der Voyants”, the Modern Greek “logois twn blepontwn”, the RSV, NRSV, ESV and Bible in Basic English. Even Wallace and company’s NET versions says “the annals of the prophets.”
It is versions like the NKJV and NASB that transliterate the word as ”the sayings of HOZAI.” The Hebrew word is # 2374 chozeh. In fact, even the NKJV and the NASB have both translated this same word as “seers” in several other passages!
Job 1:19--Hebrew from across LXX, KJV from [omits across]
This Bible critic is really hard up to try to find some kind of an error here. The phrase is “There came a great wind FROM the wilderness”. Not only does the King James Bible read this way but so too do the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Green’s literal, the Jewish Publication Society 1936 translation, Hebrew Names Bible, the Amplified, Holman Standard and the NIV.
Song 4:1; 6:5--Hebrew going down LXX, KJV appear
Again, this is a simple difference of translation of the Hebrew word, not a difference between the Hebrew text and the so called LXX. The Hebrew word occurs only twice and it is found only in the Song of Solomon. All one has to do is to compare a multitude of translations out there to see that there is a huge variety of different ways this word has been translated.
Douay-Rheims as well as Lamsa’s have the goats “come UP from the mount”, Bishops has “be shorn upon the mount”, Geneva has “look down from”, Young has “shown from mount Gilead” (which would agree more with the KJB reading), the RV and ASV have the goats “live along the mount”, Darby has them merely “on the mount”, while the NASB has them “descending”, the NKJV “going down from the mount”, the Easy to Read version has them “dancing down the mount”, the NIV Spanish edition (Nueva Versión Internacional) has the goats “frolicking” on the mount - “cabras que retozan en los montes”, the Italian Diodat has them “grazing” on the mount, while the Bible in Basic English has the goats “take their rest on the mount”.
Not only has the King James Bible translated this word as “appear” as in “thy hair is like a flock of goats, that APPEAR from mount Gilead” but so too do Websters 1833, the 1994 KJV 21st Century Version, Third Millenium Bible. The Spanish versions keep on changing from one year to the next, but the Reina Valera 1909 agrees with the KJB saying the goats “se muestran” or “appear” on the mount Gilead.
Isa 57:8--lit. hand (figure of nudity) LXX, KJV [omits the word]
A multitude of Bible translations agree with the King James Bible and not even the NASB, NIV, NKJV, Youngs, Darby, Holman, RSV, NRSV, nor ESV say anything about a “hand” here. The word ‘hand’ is often used in a figurative sense. This Bible Critic has no complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language - just bits and pieces that he selects according to his own understanding, and his understanding is in disagreement with EVERYBODY else. He has become his own little god and his own authority.
Hos 13:16--Hebrew is held guilty LXX, KJV become desolate
This is again another ridiculous and false charge. Not only does the KJB say “Samaria shall become DESOLATE” but so also do Wycliffe, Bishops, Coverdale, Geneva Bible, the 1936 Jewish translation, Youngs, Green’s ‘literal’, the Bible in Basic English, Luther’s 1545 German bible, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the Reina Valera 1909, the French Martin, and the Italian Diodati - “Samaria sarà desolata” Even the NKJV, which translates it as “is held guilty” here, has translated the same Hebrew word as “desolate” in places like Isaiah 24:6 and Ezekiel 6:6. People like James Price who make up these goofy laundry lists of alleged departures from the Hebrew texts are blind hypocrites. Remember, Mr. Price is one of the main guys behind the NKJV, and yet his version has translated this same word the same way as found in the King James Bible.
Gen 7:22--Hebrew Spirit LXX, Vg, KJV (omits the word)
Another silly charge. The KJB reads: “All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” The KJB translators were well aware of the fact that the more literal Hebrew reads “the breath of the spirit of life” because they mention it in their marginal notes. However it is not always necessary to the sense to include the word ‘spirit’ and all the modern versions do this very same thing in other places.
Not only does the KJB say “the breath of life” but so do Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, Douay, the 1936 Jewish translation, NET version, TNIV, Green’s 2000 ‘literal’, the Italian Diodati and Riveduta, French Martin and Ostervald, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras and the KJV 21st Century version.
Versions like the NASB, NIV also frequently omit the word “spirit” when they feel it is not necessary to the sense of the passage. For example, in Exodus 6:9 it says: “but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of SPIRIT”, but the NASB, NIV omit the word here. Also in Proverbs 14:29 we read of “he that is hasty OF SPIRIT”, yet versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV omit the word, and in Proverbs 16:2 “the LORD weigheth the SPIRITS” has been changed to “motives” in the NIV, NASB and Holman.
Num 10:29--Hebrew Reuel LXX, Vg, KJV Raguel
This is a simple case of a variation in spelling. Also reading RAGUEL are Wycliffe, Bishops’s bible, Coverdale, Webster’s 1833, Young’s, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Luther’s 1545 German bible, the Modern Greek version, and the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995.
Num 13:8, 16--Hebrew Hoshea LXX, Vg, KJV Oshea
Another spelling variation, not a departure from the Hebrew texts. Also reading OSHEA are the Geneva Bible, Bishops’s bible, Young’s ‘literal’, Websters, the French Martin, the Portuguese Ferreira, and the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995.
Num 13:24--Hebrew cluster LXX, Vg, KJV cluster of grapes (adds words)
Well, Duh. It’s obvious that the cluster they gathered was a cluster of grapes and so too read the Geneva Bible, Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, the NIV, TNIV, Darby, the Message, New English Bible 1970, and the 1989 Revised English Bible to name a few.
Deut 2:27--Hebrew in the road LXX, Vg, KJV (omits the word)
This is getting really silly. These guys are really desperate to find anything they think will stick. The KJB did not omit anything. It says “I will go along by THE HIGH WAY...” The highway was the road! So too read the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, Geneva bible, Bishops’, Coverdale, Hebrew Names Bible, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, the Bible in Basic English, Darby, Green’s 2000 ‘literal’, and even the NASB and Holman Standard read “highway”.
1 Sam 5:9, 12: 6:4, 5--Hebrew tumors broke out LXX, Vg, KJV they had emerods in their secret parts
Does James Price really want to go here? All he shows by this example is his own ignorance and blind bias against The Book.
I have addressed this example in a separate article. You can see it here. The King James Bible is right, as always.
Psa 39:13--Hebrew remove your [gaze] LXX, Vg, KJV O spare me.
This is another case of difference of translation of the Hebrew texts, not a LXX issue. “O SPARE ME, that I may recover strength, before I go hence and be no more.” is also the reading found in Bishops’ bible, Coverdale, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Hebrew Names Bible, World English Bible, New Living Translation, KJV 21st Century, 1969 Berkeley version, and Third Millenium Bible.
Many others are similar in meaning. The Geneva bible has “Stay thine anger from me”, while the New Century Version and Easy to Read versions read: “Leave me alone”, and the Bible in Basic English has: “Let your wrath be turned away from me.”
Jer 52:12--Hebrew King Nebuchadnezzar LXX, Vg, KJV Nebuchadnezzar (omits the word King)
This example is getting pretty picky. Literally speaking, the word for “king” does occur three times in this single verse, but there are times when the word is not needed to give the strict sense of the passage.
Here we read: “...which was the nineteenth year of *(king) Nebuchadressar KING of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the KING of Babylon, into Jerusalem.”
Other Bible translations that have omitted translating one of the three times the word “king” occurs in this verse are Coverdale, Bishops bible, Wallace’s NET version, the New English Bible 1970, the 1989 Revised English Version, Amplified bible, the NIV, TNIV, New Life Bible, Darby, the Hebrew Publication Society’s 1936 translation, God’s Word translation, Webster’s 1833 and the 1994 KJV21st Century.
In fact, a simple look at the complete NIV concordance shows that there are 55 times that they have not translated this word at all. In this example of Jeremiah 52:12 it is quite clear that Nebuchadnezzar was the KING of Babylon.
Genesis 6:5 and 2 Chronicles 8:16 - God, GOD, Lord, LORD?
I will deal with a couple other examples that men like James Price, Doug Kutilek, Rick Norris, and James White often bring up in a vain and hypocritical attempt to overthrow the authority of the King James Bible and to get you to believe that there is no such thing as the complete, inspired and infallible Bible in any language on the earth today.
In Genesis 6:5 the present day King James Bibles read: “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
The first printing of the 1611 had the word God with a capital G and a small o and d, thus is was “God” instead of GOD. Amazingly enough, these Bible agnostics make a big deal out of this minor printing error that was soon caught and corrected in 1629 (according to Scrivener) to now read GOD.
One of the principal versions actually used to criticize Genesis 6:5 is the NKJV - put out by James Price, of couse. The NKJV reads: “Then the LORD (10) saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth...” Then in the NKJV footnote they state: “Vulgate reads God.” Some online NKJVs footnote: “LORD - Following Masoretic Text and Targum; Vulgate reads God; Septuagint reads LORD God.” Thus the NKJV tries to make us think that the KJB somehow goofed and followed the Vulgate instead of the Hebrew texts.
The NKJV is totally hypocritical. The NKJV itself translates the “tetragramaton” or # 3068/3069 (JEHOVAH, LORD, GOD) as both “GOD” and “LORD”, and so do versions like the NASB and many others.
The NKJV has translated #3069 (yehhovee a variant of yehhovaw) as GOD in such passages as Genesis 15:2; Exodus 23:17, Deut. 3:24; 9:26; Joshua 7:7, Isaiah 25:8, 30:15, 40:10 etc. The NASB concordance shows that they have translated the word #3068 as GOD 315 times and as LORD 6399 times. The NIV shows they have translated this word as LORD over 6000 times, but also as “he, his, him, and me” some 40 times and have not translated it at all 38 times when it’s in the Hebrew, and 52 times they added it when it wasn’t in the Hebrew!
Now, let’s compare various Bible versions to see how they have translated Genesis 6:5. Remember, the first printings of the 1611 had “God” but in 1629 this very minor printing error was caught and changed to GOD.
Those bible translations that read “God” are: Bishops’ bible, Wycliffe, the Lesser Bible 1853, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version “And God saw that the wickedness of man...”, and the Word of Yah 1993.
Those that read “Lord” are: Amplified, Holman Standard, Geneva, NET, ESV, NRSV
Those that read “GOD” are: The Message, King James Bible from 1629 onward, Webster’s 1833, the 1998 Third Millenium Bible.
Those that read ‘LORD’ are: NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV
Those that read JEHOVAH are: the ASV, Darby, Youngs
Those that read Adonai - the Complete Jewish Bible
Those that read Elohim - the Urim-Thummim Version 2001
Does it really make any difference at all in the meaning of this verse whether you have the”Lord, LORD, God, or GOD”? Of course not, but this is the level of gnat-straining pickiness the “No Bible is inspired and infallible” guys are reduced to.
2 Chronicles 8:16 - Another case of a very minor printing error of no significance whatsoever is found in this verse. When the original 1611 Holy Bible was printed it read: “Now all the worke of Solomon was prepared vnto the day of the foundation of the house of the LORD, and vntill it was finished: so the house of God was perfected. “
In both cases “the house of the LORD” and “the house of God” are the same Hebrew. The “corrected” King James Bibles now read “the house of the LORD” in both places.
Again, this was a very minor printing error that was soon corrected and the meaning is not in the least bit changed regardless of which reading you go by.
“house of the Lord” - Amplified, Geneva, Bishops bible, Holman, ESV, NRSV
“house of the LORD” - KJB, RV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, Coverdale
“house of Jehovah” - ASV, Darby, Youngs
“house of GOD” - The Message
“house of Adonai” - Complete Jewish Bible
“house of Yahweh” - Rotherham
“house of YHWH” - 1917 JPS revised
Barry Hofstetter's bogus list
Alleged KJB departures from the Hebrew texts. These ridiculous examples were posted at our Which Version club by a seminarian who naturally has no inspired and 100% true Bible in any language. His name is Barry Hofstetter. Professor Barry posted the following examples of where the KJB supposedly departs from “the” Hebrew texts and follows the LXX.
Judges 16:26, where the Hebrew MT reads "touch the pillars," while the
KJV/LXX read "feel the pillars."
This is about as silly as it gets. BIG difference between “touch” and “feel”, right? “FEEL the pillars” is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman and the Jewish translations. This Bible critic has no idea what he is talking about.
1 Kings 22:48, where the Hebrew MT reads "Jehoshaphat had TEN ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir," while the KJV/LXX reads, "Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir."
One small problem here. The present day LXX does not even have verse 48 in it. In fact, the present day LXX is missing 5 entire verses from this section. It omits entirely verses 46 through 50, so I don’t know where this Bible corrector is getting his information.
In addition to this the reading of TEN is highly disputed and no Bible version I am aware of reads this way. It has to do with the difference between the qere and kethib readings. Bible translations that do NOT have the word TEN in them are Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, Darby, Youngs’, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible or NET versions. Not even the Jewish translations contain the word TEN. These include the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the 2008 Natural Israelite Bible, the 2008 Ancient Roots Translinear Bible, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Complete Jewish Bible or the Hebrew Names Version.
2 Kings 20:4, where the Hebrew MT reads "the city," while the KJV/LXX read "the middle court."
Once again Professor Perhaps has missed it. The Hebrew interlinear text I am reading says “the middle court” and not “city”. Perhaps what confused this Bible agnostic is the fact that the Hebrew word used here - #2691 ghah-tzer has several meanings, including “court, towns, and villages”. Even the NASB concordance shows that they have translated this same Hebrew word as “villages” 47 times and as “court, courts or courtyard” 141 times!
Not only does the KJB say “the middle court” but so too do Bishops, Geneva Bible, the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, NET, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible, Douay, Lamsa, Darby, Youngs, the Complete Jewish Bible, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, and the Judaica Press Tanach.
Isaiah 10:32, where the Hebrew MT reads "the mount of the house of Zion," while the KJV/LXX reads "the mount of the daughter of Zion."
Again, this has to do with the qere/kethib issue common to ALL Bible translations. My Hebrew interlinear translation copy agrees with the KJB reading of “daughter” and not “house”Agreeing with the King James Bible are Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay, Darby, Youngs, NET, Rotherham, and the Jewish translations themselves of 1936, the Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version and the Judaica Press Tanach.
Isa. 65:4, where the Hebrew MT reads "pieces of," while the KJV/LXX reads "broth of."
Once again, this has to do with the qere/kethib issue faced by all bible translators. My Hebrew interlinear copy says “BROTH” and not “pieces” Agreeing with the King James Bible’s “broth” is the Bishops’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, NET, the NIV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Rotherham, Darby, Douay, Green’s interlinear, the Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations and the Judaica Press Tanach.
This Bible Corrector - Barry Hofstetter - is a Bible agnostic who has placed his own mind above ANY Bible as his final authority.
The allegations of error in the King James Bible are endless. If you knock one down, the critics will rarely if ever admit they were wrong but instead will just bring up another one. Yet not one of their allegations of error has ever been proved. These Bible Critics are in fact Bible Agnostics. Today's Christian scholars do not believe that any Bible in any language (including the Hebrew or "the" Greek) is the inspired, complete and inerrant words of God. Each one considers himself to be an expert, and they ALL disagree with each other hundreds of times as to what the correct texts are and how they should be translated. Each one has become his own final authority, and (in their view) apparently God has failed to keep His promises to preserve His words in "the book of the LORD".
"Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm