Another King James Bible Believer

Psalm 145 - Are 15 words missing from God's word in this Psalm?

Psalm 145:13 KJB - "Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations."


ESV (RSV, NIV, Holman, all Catholic Versions) - "Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations. THE LORD IS FAITHFUL IN ALL HIS WORDS AND KIND IN ALL HIS WORKS."

The reading of the King James Bible is that also of the Bishops' Bible 1568, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Bill Bible 1672, the Thomson Bible 1808, the Lesser Bible 1853,  the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Revised Version 1881, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish translations of JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Bible, the Bible in Basic English 1961, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, The Living Bible 1971, The New Jewish Version 1985, Amplified Bible 1987, NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, NASB 1963-1995, Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004, Green's Literal 2005, A Conservative Version 2005, Dan Wallace NET version 2006, Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2010, Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Names of God Bible 2011 (a Critical Text version), Conservative Bible 2011, the 2011 Orthodox Jewish Bible, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013, the 2012 Lexham English Bible, Bond Slave Version 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible, the Hebraic Roots Bible 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 and The  Modern English Version 2014.


Not even Daniel Wallace's NET 2006 version includes the extra words, but reads as do the KJB, NKJV, NASB.


Foreign Language Bibles


Among Foreign language bibles that follow the Hebrew text and do NOT add the extra sentence are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1602-2011, the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez Bible, Luther's bible 1545, the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Segond of 2007, the Italian New Diodoti 1991, the Italian Riveduta of 2006, the Portuguese Almeida Atualizada 2009, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013, the 2014 Romanian Fidela Bible, the Albanian Bible, the Czech Kralicka Bible, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905, the Vietnamese Bible,  the Korean Bible, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap, the Chinese Union Traditional Bible, the Russian Synodal Translation, the Smith & van Dyck's Arabic Bible, the Ukranian Bible.

However in the NIV 1984 edition we read: "Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures through all generations. THE LORD IS FAITHFUL TO ALL HIS PROMISES AND LOVING TOWARDS ALL HE HAS MADE."  

But wait!  There's more.  Now the brand new 2010 NIV has come out and they changed the verse once again.  Now it reads: "The LORD is TRUSTWORTHY IN all he promises and FAITHFUL IN ALL HE DOES."  

So even the NIV has now changed "faithful" to "trustworthy" and "loving to all he has made" to "faithful in all he does."  It just keeps getting better and better, huh.

Other versions that also include these extra words are the liberal RSV of 1952, followed by the NRSV, ESV, (which places them in brackets, indicating uncertainty), the Message 2002, the new Common English Bible of 2011 and now the Holman Christian Standard Version of 2003 (which does not place them in brackets).


The Catholic Connection


The extra words found in Psalm 145 are also found in ALL Catholic bible versions from the Latin Vulgate, the Clementine Vulgate, the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582, the Douay of 1950, the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version.

The Holman Standard says: "Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom; Your rule is for all generations. THE LORD IS FAITHFUL IN ALL HIS WORDS, AND GRACIOUS IN ALL HIS ACTIONS."

The NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman then have a footnote telling us that these extra 15 words come from one Hebrew manuscript, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac, but that most Masoretic texts do not have these last two lines. "Most Masorertic texts"? How about all Hebrew manuscripts do not have them except one, and it placed the extra words at the bottom of the page?!!!

The only Hebrew mss. that has these words is one where the extra words were added at the bottom of the page, and the Septuagint version I have does not agree with the NIV rendering.

The LXX copy does NOT read like the NIV rendering. The LXX says: "The Lord is faithful in his words and holy in all his works". the NIV 1984 version says: "The Lord is FAITHFUL TO all his promises (not words) and LOVING (not holy) TOWARD ALL HE HAS MADE."  

But then of course we now have the brand new 2010 NIV which changes the verse once again, and now reads: "The LORD is TRUSTWORTHY IN all he promises and FAITHFUL IN ALL HE DOES."  

Lamsa's translation of the Syriac says: "The Lord is faithful in all his words (not promises) and righteous (not loving, nor holy) in all his works (not 'towards all he has made', nor "faithful in all He does"). Neither the LXX nor the Syriac match the meaning found in the NIVs, but Hey, they can fudge a bit, can't they?


So are these extra words given by inspiration of God or not? Have they been lost from all Hebrew versions as well as the KJB, NKJV, NASB, or did the NIV, RSV, [ESV], Holman Standard and Catholic versions add them to God's word? The opinions vary a great deal, as we shall see.

Gleason Archer, who is one of the NIV translators, in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (page 39) says regarding Psalm 145:13 "Where is the verse in between? Fortunately it has been preserved in the Greek of the LXX; and by translating it back to the Hebrew, we come out with the PROBABLE (caps mine) original line...the verse beginning with nun became entirely lost in the Masoretic text."

It is of interest that Mr. Archer refers to this two line reading as a separate verse, yet apparently the versions that include the extra verse, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, [ESV], Holman, Douay and the Catholic New Jerusalem, have a problem counting numbers. If it really is another verse, why then instead of making it number 14 in this Psalm do they make verse 13 twice as long as any other and retain the verse numbering of the KJB and the Hebrew texts? If they really believe it is another verse, then make it another verse!

The mindset of many modern scholars is further revealed by looking at several other statements Mr. Gleason "scribal error" Archer makes in his book. On the very next page (page 40) Mr. Archer states there were an additional 26 words lost in the Hebrew texts which again are supplied by the Greek Septuagint. He says: "in 1 Samuel 14:41, where the Masorretic Text reads: 'And Saul said to Yahweh, O God of Israel, grant a perfect lot." But according to the LXX version, Saul prefaced this request for a correct lot by a lengthy petition, saying, "Why have you not answered your servant today? If the fault is in me or my son Jonathan, respond with Urim; but if the men of Israel are at fault, respond with Thummin."... passing over no less than 26 Hebrew words in between. But here again the LXX supplies us with all the missing words in Greek, and from these we can reconstruct them in Hebrew, as has been done in the critical apparatus of Kittel's edition." (end of quote)

Apparently, however, not even the rest of the NIV 1984 translation committee agreed with the good doctor Archer because they did not include these extra 26 words in the NIV 1984 edition.  


Nor are they found in the Syriac Peshitta, nor in the NASB nor in the 2003 Holman Standard. But wait - the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version) AND the "new" NIV 2011 have now put all these words in their texts.  The "new" New International Version 2011 now reads: "Then Saul prayed to the LORD, the God of Israel, "WHY HAVE YOU NOT ANSWERED YOUR SERVANT TODAY?  IF THE FAULT IS IN ME OR MY SON JONATHAN, RESPOND WITH URIM, BUT IF THE MEN OF THE ISRAEL ARE AT FAULT, RESPOND WITH THUMMIN"  Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot, and the men were cleared." 

All the capital lettered words are ADDED to the text of the 2011 NIV edition, but are not in the "old" New International Version of 1984. The 2011 NIV has omitted the Hebrew words "Give a perfect lot" and then from the LXX added the next 26 words to the Hebrew text.

Mr. Archer’s book is riddled with statements like this concerning many passages of Scripture. He says things like "these transmissional errors, as we believe them to be", "quite possible to commit an error in textual transmission", "has undoubtedly undergone multiplication by ten because of an obscurity or misunderstanding" and "the alleged desire to embellish the record and exaggerate the glory of the past must have been a very modest one on the Chronicler’s part"; "but there is strong evidence to indicate that the original text read a much lower number"..."a very justified suspicion that the text was inadvertently garbled in the course of transmission"; "the numeral has dropped out completely, and there is no way of ascertaining what it was."

Keep in mind that this man is one of the big shots on the NIV AND the NASB translation committees, a highly respected "scholar", and people like Hank Hannegraf highly recommend his book. Can you imagine what this type of intellectual drivel can do to the faith of the average Christian? "Yea, hath God said...?"

Does Mr. Archer recommend we use the Septuagint version where it adds scores of other verses not found in any Hebrew texts? Or how about the LXX version of Jeremiah?

Doctor E.W. Bullinger, of the Companion Bible fame, notes "The Septuagint translation of Jeremiah differs both in matter and form from the Masorretic Hebrew Text. It is a Paraphrase rather than a Version, and an Exposition rather than a Translation. It is not therefore to be regarded as representing an independent Hebrew Text, but as a paraphrase, often abbreviated, and often inaccurate. No Hebrew Manuscript ever seen corresponds with a text from which the Septuagint professes to have been derived. It omits about one-eighth of the Hebrew text, or about 2,700 words; while the changes manifest the carelessness and arbitrariness of the translator or translators. Indeed, the Hebrew language does not seem to have been understood, or its meaning apprehended."

Back to Psalm 145:13

Adam Clarke says regarding the added words of Psalm 145:13, "not in the Hebrew text, that answers to the nun, which is found in no printed copy of the Hebrew Bible; yet one manuscript, now in Trinity College, Dublin, has it thus, I suppose by correction, in the bottom of the page."

John Gill comments: "This psalm is written alphabetically, as is observed on the title of it; but the letter "nun" is here wanting. NOR IS THE ORDER ALWAYS STRICTLY OBSERVED IN ALPHABETICAL PSALMS; IN THE 37TH PSALM THE LETTER 'AIN' IS WANTING, AND 3 (letters) IN THE 25TH PSALM. (caps are mine). The Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, supply this defect here, by inserting these words, "the Lord is faithful in all his words, and holy in all his works," as if they were begun with the word Nman, but they seem to be taken from Psalm 145:17, with a little alteration."

Not even Daniel Wallace's NET version includes the extra words in verse 13. He omits them and his version reads as do the KJB, NASB, NKJV and many others. He comments in his footnote: "Several ancient witnesses, including one medieval Hebrew manuscript, the Qumran scroll from cave 11, the LXX, and the Syriac, supply the missing nun verse, which reads as follows: “The Lord is reliable in all his words, and faithful in all his deeds.” SCHOLARS ARE DIVIDED (Caps are mine) as to the originality of this verse. L. C. Allen argues for its inclusion on the basis of structural considerations (Psalms 101-150 [WBC], 294-95), but there is no apparent explanation for why, if original, it would have been accidentally omitted. The psalm may be a partial acrostic, as in Psalms 25 and 34 (see M. Dahood, Psalms [AB], 3:335). The glaring omission of the nun line would have invited a later redactor to add such a line."

Aren't scholars funny? What one firmly believes and asserts, another discredits in no uncertain terms. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes, and he becomes his own final authority.

If versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard are so intent on following the very different Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts, one HUGE, GLARING difference is to be noted, which the NIV, RSV, ESV folks apparently don't want you to know. They never mention it in their "scholarly footnotes".

According to the recent book, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich, by Harper Collins Publishers 1999, not only do the Dead Sea Scrolls contain these extra 15 words in Psalm 145:13 BUT the DSS also contain the following words - "BLESSED BE THE LORD AND BLESSED BE HIS NAME FOREVER AND EVER", not just once, but 21 TIMES in this very Psalm! The whole phrase "Blessed be the LORD and blessed be his name forever and ever" occurs AFTER EVERY SINGLE VERSE IN THE WHOLE PSALM! So why don't the NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman follow the DSS in all these verses? This would add another 252 words to the Psalm.

There are a few other less obvious changes in this Psalm that illustrate the total inconsistency of these modern versions and their "scientific" findings.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the NIV Psalm 145:5

Psalm 145:5 KJB - "I WILL SPEAK of the glorious honour of thy majesty, and of
thy wondrous works."

NIV - Psalm 145:5 "THEY WILL SPEAK (NIV 1984 edition) THEY SPEAK (NIV 2011
edition) of the glorious splendor of your majesty and I will meditate on your wonderful works." Footnote: "Dead Sea Scrolls and Syriac; Masoretic text "I will meditate".

First of all, the NIV is wrong in its footnote. Lamsa's translation of the
  Syriac Peshitta 1933 does not read like the NIV tells us, but rather reads exactly like the King James Bible. It says: "I WILL SPEAK of the glorious honor of thy majesty, and of thy wondrous works." I have a hard copy of Lamsa's translation right here in front of me. So, the NIV footnote is wrong, and the rest of the footnote about the Dead Sea Scrolls is very misleading, as we shall shortly see.

The Hebrew word used here for "I will SPEAK" is # 7878 see'agh, and it has
several meanings including "to speak, to declare, to tell, to meditate, to muse, to complain and to pray".

Agreeing with the King James reading of "I WILL SPEAK" or "I will TALK" its
equivalent or even "I will meditate on" are Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible - "I wyll set foorth in wordes the glorious maiestie", the Geneva Bible 1587, Darby - "I WILL SPEAK of the glorious splendour of thy majesty", Youngs, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, the Complete Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, the NASB 1995, the NKJV 1982, the ESV 2001-2011, Dan Wallace's NET version, the Holman Standard 2003 - "I WILL SPEAK of Your glorious splendor and Your wonderful works.", the Lexham Bible 2012, the Jubilee Bible of 2000 - "I WILL SPEAK of the beauty of the glory of thy majesty" and the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - "I WILL SPEAK"

To repeat, the NIV says: "THEY SPEAK of the glorious splendor of your majesty",
and then tells us that this reading comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Agreeing with the NIV reading are the Common English bible 2011 (another critical text edition), the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1610, and the Douay of 1950, the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "THEY SHALL SPEAK of the magnificence of the glory of thy holiness: and shall tell thy wondrous works." This means that the NIV reading actually comes from the Latin Vulgate and the Dead Sea Scrolls and now reads like the Catholic versions.

BUT let's take a closer look at these Dead Sea Scrolls. The book of Psalms in
the DSS is numbered very differently from the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic text. They are all completely out of order. For example, they number 119, 135, 136, 145, 154, then a completely unknown Psalm, then 139, 137, 138 and then another completely unknown Psalm called Ben Sira 51 followed by The Apostrophe to Zion, and then Psalm 93. The whole book is very, very different.

Then in Psalm 145 itself all 21 verses in this DSS copy, including verse 5, are
followed by the words "BLESSED BE THE LORD AND BLESSED BE HIS NAME FOR EVER AND EVER." Does the NIV include all these extra words that are also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? No, of course not. And they call this type of selective nonsense "the science" of textual criticism and "new findings of scholarship"!  I think God has a different opinion of it - "ye have PERVERTED the words of the living God" - Jeremiah 23:36

In Pslam 145:18 we read the words: "The LORD is nigh UNTO ALL THAT CALL UPON HIM, to all that call upon him in truth." So read the Hebrew Masorretic texts and even the versions like the NKJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET and Holman Standard. However the Dead Sea Scrolls omit all the words "unto all that call upon him". So why didn't they follow the DSS here?

145:12 "To make known to the SONS of men HIS mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of HIS kingdom. Here the NIV omits "sons" but it is found in the NASB, NKJV.

Then the NASB, NIV, RSV ESV, and Holman Standard all say "YOUR mighty acts" and "YOUR kingdom". Why did the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman reject the Hebrew "his" and change it to "your" twice? There is no contextual reason for doing this.

The Holman Standard has a footnote telling us that YOUR mighty acts and YOUR kingdom, comes from the Syriac and the LXX, but that the Hebrew texts read HIS...HIS. The NKJV, RV, ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby, and Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, and the 2001 Judaica Press Tanach all read "HIS acts and HIS kingdom" as does the King James Bible.

Psalm 145:12 - Out of curiosity, what do the Dead Sea Scrolls do with this verse? Well, THEY OMIT IT ALTOGETHER!!! Why don't the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV just omit the verse too? What logical "science of textual criticism" would allow the NIV translators to ADD 15 words to verse 13 based on the DSS, and then NOT OMIT another 18 words from the previous verse based upon the same Dead Sea Scrolls, and then not ADD the additional 252 words found throughout the whole Psalm after every single verse saying: "Blessed be the LORD and blessed be his name forever and ever"? God only knows.

Finding the true words of God in the modern versions is like throwing darts at a target or consulting an Ouija board - you never know what you are going to come up with.

God says in Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it" and in Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is pure...Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Psalm 145:13 is just one of hundreds of examples of real differences between the texts of the Authorized King James Version and the multitude of conflicting modern versions. Not all bible versions are the same, nor can they all equally be the inspired, infallible, complete words of God.

I'll stick with the one God has clearly set His mark of approval on - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney


Response to the article at one of our Bible clubs.

A man who calls himself Shoonra wrote the following response.

You covered this topic rather well. Psalm 145 is an alphabetic acrostic (according to the beginning letter of each verse) -- except after the M (mem), verse 13, there is no verse beginning with N (nun) and verse 14 skips to the next letter, S (samech).

The assumption is that there used to be a verse beginning with N that somehow dropped out, possibly a copyist's error in a Very Early transcription of the Psalms because it is so completely missing from all Massoretic manuscripts.

To try to supply the missing verse, the verse (called 13b) that reads "Faithful {Ne'emon} is the Lord in all His ways ..." was conjured up and inserted. It wasn't much of a conjuring because it duplicates, except for the first word, verse 17 "Righteous {Tzadik} is the Lord in all His ways ...."

In other words, the verse 13b, which is found in the LXX, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate, is a late invention and not particularly creative or imaginative, in an attempt to provide a verse beginning with the letter N.

So I do not think that verse 13b is authentic but, on the other hand, it is so similar to verse 17 that I don't believe its inclusion conveys any false doctrine.

Hi Shoonra. I actually agree with you on this. It seems whoever added these extra words went head over heels in his efforts to somehow "round out" the Psalm as he saw fit. He not only added the nun lines, but that whole other phrase (BLESSED BE THE LORD AND BLESSED BE HIS NAME FOREVER AND EVER) to all 21 verses!

The question here is not true versus false doctrine, but the issue is the inerrancy of the Bible. Does an inerrant Bible exist? I and many thousands of other KJB believers are convinced there is an infallible Bible and it is, of course, the King James Bible.

If not the KJB, then all we have is widespread speculation, doubt and ever expanding diversity of textual readings with no end in sight. It just gets worse with each new bible of the month club version that comes down the pike, and fewer and fewer Christians believe The Book.

 Return to Articles -