The Ever Changing ESVs 2001, 2007, 2011 and 2016 editions = just another Vatican Version.
As of July 2012 you can now listen to this teaching video about the ESV on Youtube. Here is the link
I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."
There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts."
The UBS on its own website admits whom they SERVE, and it is ROME
United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis
MARCH 15, 2013 BY COMMUNICATIONS
The election of Pope Francis, ‘a long-time friend of the Bible Societies’, is an encouragement to United Bible Societies (UBS) to work even harder to make the Bible available to everyone.
“He is a man of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH with an ECUMENICAL spirit and he is a pastor, who knows the reality of ‘simple’ people. The new Pope is a truly biblical person whose faith and actions are deeply rooted in the Bible and inspired by the Word of God.”
“As a long-time FRIEND of the BIBLE SOCIETIES Pope Francis knows that our raison d’être is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “WE ASSURE POPE Francis of our RENEWED AVAILABILITY to SERVE the CATHOLIC CHURCH in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of NEW evangelisation.”
Want more proof that the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are the new Vatican Versions?
Check out which Greek New Testament Catholic Bibles blog is promoting. They also recommend the NIV and NET and you can get an ESV complete with the Apocryphal books at this site. But can you guess which Bible you WON'T find on their list of Recommended Bibles?
Catholic Bibles Blog promotes the Nestle-Aland 28th Critical Text Edition
The Ever Changing ESVs of 2001, 2007, 2011 and now the 2016 edition (so far)
The 2001 English Standard Version is now heavily being promoted by many churches. It is a revision of the old Revised Standard Version, which earlier met with almost universal condemnation by evangelicals as being "liberal". Yet in the last few decades the church has been "softened up" by numerous conflicting bible versions like the NASB and NIV to now be ready to accept with open arms what it once rejected. In fact, all three of these modern versions are basically Catholic bibles. You don't believe it? Well, here is the proof.
This is how far along the path of apostasy the Christian church has come.
The ESV has already come out with FOUR different editions within just 16 years, each one revising and changing both the English text in literally HUNDREDS of verses and in some cases the previous Hebrew and Greek readings as well that were found in the previous ESVs.
Here is how these modern “Evangelical” versions are in fact now the New “Catholic” bibles. You can now get the ESV complete with the Apocryphal books included. Here it is -
The ESV- News and Events - Catholic Voice
"In fact, we have decided to move away from the NRSV and to prepare the Lectionary using a modified form of the English Standard Version (ESV), still with the revised Grail Psalter"
From the Vatican’s own website
IN TRANSLATING THE BIBLE
THE NEW REVISED EDITION ROME
The Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the United Bible Societies are pleased to present to all concerned a revised version of the 1968 “Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible”.
The document, now entitled “Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible”, affirming the spirit and following the principles set forth in the historic agreement first published in 1968, reflects the experience gained in producing scores of Bible translations since then. These interconfessional Bible translation projects have largely been made possible by those “Guiding Principles”; as a result of reports received from the users minor modifications have now been introduced into this new edition.
The basic understanding, however, remains unchanged: as in the past, interconfessional translations will continue to be based on a Hebrew text of the Old Testament and a Greek text of the New Testament which have been agreed on by scholars from various church traditions. Drafting and reviewing of the translations will be carried out in close cooperation, with the aim that the new text will be acceptable to, and be used by all Christians and Christian communities who speak the language into which the translation is being made.
The clear goal of this interconfessional effort is to produce editions of the Holy Scriptures which provide all speakers of the language with a common text. This will in turn make possible, often for the first time, a common witness to the Word of God in the world of today. To all who are interested in obtaining faithful and understandable translations of the Bible, this updated version of the “Guidelines” will, we pray, be an effective instrument for reaching this goal.
May God bless those who work to make His Word more widely known and lived, and through them bless all who will receive and read these new interconfessional translations.
Vatican City, November 16th, 1987.
ESV - English Standard Version 2001
NIV 1984, 2011
NASB - 1995
Holman Standard 2003
NJB - Catholic New Jerusalem bible - 1985
Matthew 12:47 - “Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” (Omitted by RSV and ESV, the Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968, the New Jerusalem bible 1985, but found in Douay-Rheims 1582, the Douay of 1950, St. Joseph NAB 1970, NIV, NASB, NKJV. The Holman Standard has it but footnotes: "Other manuscripts omit this verse)
The Catholic Douay-Rheims bible of 1582 and the Douay Version of 1950 both contained all of Matthew 12:47; 17:21 (v.20); 18:11; all of 23:14!, Mark 7:16; 9:44 and 9:46 (v.45,47); Mark 11:26; 15:28; Luke 23:17, John 5:4!, Acts 8:37!!; Acts 24:6b through 8a; Acts 28:29; Romans 16:24 and even 1 John 5:7 "
Even the hotly disputed whole sections of the Bible were in both the Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay Version of 1950. All of Mark 16:9-20 were in both, with not a word of doubt as to their reliability. The RSV completely removed these verses from their TEXT and most modern versions have brackets and footnotes that indicate doubt as to their authenticity.
The latest 2011 NIV has set Mark 16:9-20 apart from the rest of the text with a straight black line. The then say "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20." And then they put all these verses in smaller italicized printing.
The facts of the matter are that all these verses are found in the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts except basically TWO! and these two are the notoriously corrupt Vatican and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The support for these verses is ancient, widespread and universal.
So, what do the modern Catholic versions do? Well, let's take a look at the New Jerusalem bible of 1985. It still includes verses 9-20 but now has a footnote saying: "The 'longer ending' of Mark 16:9-20 is included in the canonically accepted body of inspired scripture, although some important MSS (including Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) omit it, and it does not seem to be by Mark. It is in a different style, and is little more than a summary of the appearances of the risen Christ, with other material, all of which could be derived from various NT writings."
Note: John MacArthur also does not believe that 12 verses as found in Mark 16:9-20 are inspired Scripture and should be in our Bible. To see a very well done refutation of John MacArthur's arguments for their omission, see these Youtube videos done by James Snapp Jr. He completely demolishes MacArthur's position on these verses. And James Snapp is NOT a King James Bible only believer!
Here is Part One - about 15 minutes
And here is Part Two - about 15 minutes
And here is Part Three, the Summary - about 15 minutes
All the verses found in John 7:53 to John 8:11 were solidly in both the 1582 Douay-Rheims bible and the 1950 Douay. In fact, the Douay has a footnote that says of this whole passage: "It is well supported in both the Old Latin and Vulgate Manuscripts. There is no doubt of its right to be included among the Sacred Writings."
Yet most modern versions today again bracket these verses and footnote doubts about their right to be included in the Bible. iAbsolutely Amazing, isn't it? So, who is coming up with this new Evangelical/Catholic Connection bible and why?
ALL these verses are omitted by the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND by the RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation etc. The Holman Standard puts them all in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.
Matthew 17:21- “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.” (All omit)
Matthew 18:11 - “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” (All omit)
Matthew 23:14- “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” (All omit)
Mark 7:16 - “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” (All omit)
Mark 9:44 - “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (All omit)
Mark 9:46 - “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” (All omit)
Mark 11:26 - “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” (All omit)
Mark 15:28 - “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.” (All omit)
Luke 17:36 - “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” (All omit)
Luke 23:17 - “For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.” (All omit)
John 5:4 - “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.” (All omit)
Acts 8:37 - “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (All omit)
Acts 15:34 - “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.” (All omit)
Acts 24:6b to 8a - “and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee” (All omit)
Acts 28:29 -”And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.” (All omit)
Romans - 16:24 “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” (All omit)
I John 5:7-8 - omits the words: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth” (All omit)
Here is a Catholic site called Catholic Books where you can buy the ESV with the Apocryphal books included. This version has the full backing of the Catholic church.
But you will not find the King James Bible being sold here.
Here is a list of the "bibles" they recommend at this Catholic site
The Oxford University Press Publishing company itself writes -"An edition of the ESV with the Biblical apocrypha—the books of the Protestant apocrypha,...was developed by Oxford University Press and published in January, 2009. The publisher cites the fact that the ESV "has been growing in popularity among students in biblical studies, mainline Christian scholars and clergy, and Evangelical Christians of all denominations." Thus, they deemed, "Along with that growth comes the need for the books of the Apocrypha to be included in ESV Bibles, both for denominations that use those books in liturgical readings and for students who need them for historical purposes." The publisher's hope for this new edition with Apocrypha is that it will be used widely in seminaries and divinity schools where these books are used in academic study." Oxford University Press 2012.
In a surprising move, the International Committee for the Preparation of an English-language Lectionary (ICPEL), which determines the form of the English-language Roman Catholic lectionary used in England and Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Australia, insofar as it conforms to Vatican directives such as Liturgiam authenticam, selected the ESV for use as the base text in preparing a new Lectionary for the English-speaking Catholics in only those countries in late 2011.
John Piper and the ESV
John Piper of Desiring God Ministries says: "When I turned 15 my parents gave me a beautiful, leather-bound King James Bible. I loved it....God met me in this book day after day when I was a teenager...Three and a half years later as a freshman at Wheaton I picked up the first Bible I ever bought for myself, a Revised Standard Version. It was close enough to the King James so that I felt at home, but its English was not Elizabethan; it was my English. This became my reading, meditating, memorizing Bible for the next 37 years... I would be happy to see the NIV sail into the sunset if it could be replaced by the ESV as the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the English-speaking church... I have longed that there be something more readable than the NASB and more literal than the NIV. The NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and so much interpretation that I could not preach from it...I am simply arguing that the ESV is the best balance available of readability and literalness. I hope that it becomes the standard for the church."
(Comment: There are numerous and profound differences between the KJB and the RSV. After studying this issue for several years now, I certainly am not of the opinion that the RSV is "close enough". John Piper, though in many ways a solid Christian minister, is a very confused man when it comes to the Bible version issue and whether or not we have such a thing as a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible "with all the words in them".
Just watch this 2 minute video called "Get a Bible With All the Words" with John Piper trying to teach on John 4:42 to 53 where he criticizes and complains about the extremely minor paraphrase found in the NIV where they substitute something else for two simple words "for" and "then" (or 'therefore'). Here is the short video -
Mr. Piper criticizes the NIV for leaving out just two little words and then says: "If you want to get something where all the words are there, then get the ESV or the NASB or the New King James Version, or...you know, I'm not trying to sell anything. I just want all the words, because I lean on them. I make my point from them."
Well, this sentiment may sound very pious, noble and spiritual but isn't Mr. Piper aware of the simple FACTS that his favorite ESV OMITS literally THOUSANDS OF WORDS from the text of the New Testament including 18 entire verses when compared to his recommended NKJV?
His ESV omits even more whole verses than does his also recommended NASB (See Matthew 12:47 for example) and in comparison to BOTH the NKJV and NASB his ESV ADDS HUNDREDS of words to the Hebrew Old Testament that not even the NASB does? See for example 1 Samuel 10:1 where the ESV adds 42 words to the Hebrew text that are not found in either the NASB, NKJV, NIV, Holman Standard or King James Bible. See also 1 Samuel 14:41 where his ESV add some 36 words to the Hebrew text that are not found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, KJB, Holman Standard or the NIV 1984 edition (but the ever changing NIV 2011 also added them).
And these are just 2 examples out of a hundred that I know about where his ESV either adds to or rejects the inspired Hebrew text. Just where exactly does Mr. Piper have ANY Bible that he truly believes "has all the words in it"?
John Piper has also made another short 2 minute video regarding his favorite ESV in which he answers the question: "How can a pastor respectfully and lovingly move his congregation from the King James Version to a better translation?" You can see it here -
In this short video John Piper refers to his ESV and other modern versions as being "just as accurate and more helpful" and his main reason for "moving a congregation from the KJB to a better translation" is because he says the Bible should be in "a common language, not formal, literary, 300 year old stilted language" and that "we need new translations from time to time."
It never seems to enter the thinking of people like John Piper, John MacArthur and others who glowingly recommend the ESV as being "just as accurate" as the King James Bible that the ESV omits literally THOUSANDS of words from the God inspired texts found in the King James Bible.
The ESV omits some 18 entire verses from the New Testament, even more than do the NASB, NIV and the ESV ADDS literally HUNDREDS of words to the Hebrew texts that not even the NASB, NIV do; and all three of these "just as accurate" modern versions reject scores of Hebrew readings and not even in the same places.
He doesn't even mention the huge textual differences that exist among all these "just as accurate" versions nor refer to the completely different meanings found in hundreds of verses. This would completely undermine his whole position.
Instead he tells us that the main reason for getting away from the King James Bible and embracing a modern version is because "we need new translations from time to time that are not in stilted, literary 300 year old language but in modern language."
His reasoning may sound convincing to those who are either ignorant or unconcerned about the very real and serious TEXTUAL differences between the King James Bible and most modern versions. But how in the name of logic or God given common sense can two very different Texts both be "just as accurate"?!!!?
Oh, and by the way, all those "stilted, literary 300 year old" thee's and ye's are FAR more accurate to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts and often make a very big difference in meaning than Mr. Piper's "common language" use of the generic "you". Here is why the use of Thee and Ye is far more accurate and should be kept -
Doug Kutilek, another "No Bible is the infallible words of God" club member, said in a recent "As I See It", that he'll probably make the ESV his version of choice replacing the NIV.
Alan Jacobs, professor of English at Wheaton College, writing in the December 2003 edition of First Things magazine says: "It is the ESV’s balance of thorough, up-to-date scholarship and deference to the elders’ wisdom that makes it the best available English Bible. What this means, further, is that the ESV is the best candidate yet for the long-hoped-for “replacement” of the KJV, the translation that bridges denominational gaps and strikes the right balance among the virtues of clarity, correctness, and grace."
Some other big name Christians listed on the ESV website as giving glowing recommendations of this version include: R.C. Sproul, Max Lucado, Joni Eareckson Tada, John F. Walvoord, Chuck Missler and Erin Lutzer. John MacArthur also highly recommends the ESV.
The ESV New Testament is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text which differs from the Traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Bible; in all major textual ways it is identical to the modern Catholic bible versions. See the link provided above for proof of this statement.
The ESV omits some 5000 words, including 18 entire verses in the New Testament alone. The Old Testament is a random mixture of texts from the Hebrew Masoretic tradition, readings from the alleged pre-Christian Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and Vulgate. It is the old RSV in a new garb.
To see several examples of where the "Evangelical" ESV has ADDED hundreds of words to the Hebrew texts just like the old Liberal RSV taking from the so called Greek Septuagint, see Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness here -
(Dr. Ken Matto has put together a brief article showing just some of the textual similarities (omissions) from the New Testament and how the "new" ESV is just like it's old predecessor, the liberal RSV, and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the Catholic versions. You can see his article here -
Leviticus 16:10 “a scapegoat” or “for Azazel” the devil?
KJB - “ But the goat, on which the lot fell to be THE SCAPEGOAT, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go FOR A SCAPEGOAT into the wilderness.”
ESV - “but the goat on which the lot fell FOR AZAZEL shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness TO AZAZEL."
I firmly believe God has preserved His infallible, inspired, pure and complete words in the King James Bible. Without exception, I have never met a modern version promoter who believes that any text, be it Hebrew or Greek, or any Bible in any language is the infallible words of God that he would not change, alter or correct according to his own understanding.
My personal belief is that when it comes to the issue of the Final Authority of God's words today, if a Christian is not a King James Bible believer, then he can be described as those of whom God said: - "every man did that which is right in his own eyes". Each one then becomes his own scholar and makes up his personalized bible version as he goes along.
As you read through these few examples, keep in mind what God Himself says of His words. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it." Deut. 4:2; "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6; "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35.
The examples in this study are just a small portion of all that could be given of where the ESV departs from the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follows the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, Vulgate, or Dead Sea Scrolls. Often this same ESV will footnote the readings of the Septuagint, Syriac, or Dead Sea Scrolls but not follow them. The inevitable result is confusion and uncertainty regarding what God has said to us.
To avoid writing a 40 page essay on this subject, I will only cover some of the more blatant examples found in the 2001 English Standard Version from Genesis through Second Samuel. This should be enough to show there are very real and substantial textual differences between the King James Bible and the ESV.
How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies - Three examples
Number 1 - Haggai 2:7 The Desire of all nations shall come
Number Two - Isaiah 66:5 But He shall appear to your joy
Number Three - Daniel 9:26 "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself"
The ESV is wrong on all three of these.
THE GRACE OF GOD DESTROYED - Four Examples - The ESV is wrong on THREE of them.
# 1. Numbers 23:21 -
In Numbers 23:19-21 we read these beautiful truths: “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.”
The next verse, 21, expresses a great truth in the KJB, but this is where the error of the new versions occurs. Verse 21: “He hath NOT BEHELD INIQUITY in Jacob, NEITHER HATH HE SEEN PERVERSENESS in Israel: the LORD his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them”.
The ESV, NIV, NASB, NET all get this wrong.
#2. Deuteronomy 32:5 Are they God’s Children or Not His children?
The NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET all get this wrong.
#3. 2 Samuel 23:5 "Although my house BE NOT SO WITH GOD; YET he hath made with me an everlasting covenant"
The NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB all get this wrong.
#4. Isaiah 35:8 “THE WAYFARING MEN, THOUGH FOOLS, SHALL NOT ERR THEREIN.”
The NIV, NASB, NET all get this wrong. The ESV, NKJV got it right.
Genesis 15:1 King James Bible - "I am thy shield, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD"
ESV - "I am your shield; YOUR REWARD SHALL BE VERY GREAT."
The ESV is clearly wrong. See why here -
Jeremiah 8:8 "the pen of the scribes is in vain" - the Muslims & Bogus bibles
Were the Old Testament Scriptures corrupted or not?
KJB - "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? LO, CERTAINLY IN VAIN MADE HE IT; THE PEN OF THE SCRIBES IS IN VAIN."
NKJV (ESV, NIV, NASB) - “How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us'? LOOK, THE FALSE PEN OF THE SCRIBE CERTAINLY WORKS FALSEHOOD."
The Ever Changing ESVs
Genesis 3:16 KJB - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be TO thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
ESV 2001, 2007 and 2011 editions - To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, Your desire shall be FOR your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
(I have hard copies of all three of these, and that is how they all read)
ESV 2016 edition - To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be CONTRARY TO your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
a Genesis 3:16 Or shall be toward (see 4:7)
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016).
(You can see the ESV 2016 edition - 4th edition in just 16 years - online here)
To see a study on this verse - Genesis 3:16 - and the confused mess the Bible Babble Buffet versions have made of it, See
Genesis 20:16 KJB - "And unto Sarah he said, BEHOLD, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: BEHOLD, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: THUS SHE WAS REPROVED."
NKJV says: " INDEED, THIS VINDICATES YOU before all who are with you and before all others. Thus she was REPROVED."
The ESV has: "IT IS A SIGN OF YOUR INNOCENCE in the eyes of all who are with you, and before everyone YOU ARE VINDICATED."
Genesis 47:21- KJB "And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof."
ESV - "As for the people, HE MADE SERVANTS OF THEM, from one end of Egypt to the other." Footnote: "Samaritan, Septuagint, Vulgate; Hebrew - he removed them to the cities.
Following the Hebrew texts and agreeing with the reading "HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES" are Tyndale 1534, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Lesser Bible 1853, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2003, Hebrew Names Version, the Jewish JPS 1917, New Life Version 1969, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 1993, the NASB 1995, The Complete Tanach, International Standard Version 2014, Jubilee Bible 2010, Common English Bible 2011 (a critical text version), Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 (critical text), Lexham English Bible 2012, the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible - "he removed them to cities".
Other English Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and say "HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES" instead of the ESVs "HE MADE SERVANTS OF THEM" are God's First Truth 1999, Green's Literal 2005, the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES", Conservative Bible 2011, Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014.
and the Modern Greek Bible - "τον δε λαον μετετοπισεν αυτον εις πολεις" = "he removed the people to the cities"
and the Modern Hebrew Bible - ואת העם העביר אתו לערים מקצה גבול מצרים ועד קצהו׃
NIV - "And JOSEPH REDUCED THE PEOPLE TO SERVITUDE from one end of Egypt..." The NIV footnote says this comes from the Samaritan and the LXX, but that the Hebrew says: "he removed them to the cities".
This false reading taken from the so called LXX is also that of the liberal RSV, the NRSV, ESV, New Living Translation 2013, Message 2002, The Voice 2012 and the NET version 2006 put out by Daniel Wallace and company.
The Catholic Connection
It is also the reading found in the modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985, though the earlier Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950 read like the KJB and followed the Hebrew texts.
Dan Wallace footnotes that he thinks the Hebrew reading of "he removed them to cities" makes no sense in the context. Well, bible agnostics like Daniel Wallace are entitled to their humble opinions, but I and millions of other Bible believers maintain that God did not make a mistake and the Hebrew Scriptures are right.
John Gill comments on this verse: "And as for the people, he removed them…From the places where they dwelt, that it might appear they had no more property there, and might forget it, and be more willing to pay rent elsewhere; and their posterity hereafter could have no notion of its being theirs, or plead prescription; and besides, by such a removal and separation of the inhabitants of cities, some to one place, and some to another, sedition and mutiny might be prevented: he had them to cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt, even unto the other end thereof; according to the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem, those that dwelt in provinces, or in country towns and villages, he removed to cities, and those that dwelt in cities he removed into provinces, and placed them at the utmost distance from their former habitations, for the reasons before given."
Adam Clarke also agrees with the Hebrew and KJB reading and says it would be easier to feed the people where the corn was being stored, that is, in the cities, and to then have some others out working the fields. The KJB is right and the fake bible versions are wrong for rejecting the Hebrew texts and following some fanciful Samaritan Pentateuch or the alleged Septuagint.
Pulpit Commentary - "Verse 21. - And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES - -NOT enslaved them, converted them into serfs and bondmen to Pharaoh (LXX., Vulgate), but simply transferred them…that throughout the land they were moved into the nearest cities, as a considerate and even merciful arrangement for the more efficiently supplying them with food (Calvin, Keil, Lange, Wordsworth, Speaker's Commentary)."
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “as for the people, he removed them to cities — obviously for the convenience of the country people, who were doing nothing, to the cities where the corn stores were situated.”
The King James Bible is always right. Don't settle for an inferior substitute.
Genesis 49:10 KJB - "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, UNTIL SHILOH COME: and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."
The ESV reads: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."
ESV Footnote tells us to compare the Syriac, and Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads: "until Shiloh comes". "Shiloh" is found in the NASB, NKJV.
But the NIV also omits the word and reads as the old RSV and Daniel Wallace's NET version: "UNTIL HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS".
Daniel Wallace then footnotes "Some prefer to leave the text as it is, reading “Shiloh”.
Likewise the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 also read like the ESV with "UNTIL TRIBUTE BE BROUGHT TO HIM".
See the whole article on Genesis 49:10 "UNTIL SHILOH COME", and why the KJB is right and the ESV is not right.
In Exodus 14: 24-25 we read: "And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, And TOOK OFF their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily."
To see a more fully developed article on this, go here -
"TOOK OFF their chariot wheels" is the reading of Tyndale 1530, Coverdale 1535 (smote the wheels from their chariots), Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Holy Bible 1611, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the NKJV 1982, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901 (the predecessor of the NASB), the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, World English Bible, the two Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, Darby, the Living Bible and 1998 New Living Bible, Green's interlinear, MKJV, the NIV 1978 and 1984 editions - "He made the wheels of the chariots COME OFF so that they had difficulty driving." (NIV 1984) and the Spanish versions - quitó las ruedas.
However the "scholarly" NASB tells us : "He caused their chariot wheels TO SWERVE". This is also the reading of the brand new 2004 Holman Christian Standard version.
Now I've had the unpleasant experience of having my car wheels swerve on ice or snow, but thankfully I have never had them come off yet. You have to admit there is a difference between the Lord taking off their wheels and the Lord causing them to swerve.
The word used here is # 5493 soor and it means to remove or take away. It is used in Exodus 8:8 "take away the frogs"; in 8:31 "he removed the swarms of flies", in 34:34 Moses took off the vail", Genesis 41:42 "Pharoah took off his ring" and in Genesis 8:13 "Noah removed the covering of the ark".
Besides the confusion of the NASB and Holman Standard, let's see how some other modern versions clarify this passage for us.
The 1950 Catholic Douay version says God OVERTHREW the wheels; but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and New Jerusalem bible say God was "clogging" the wheels.
The RSV 1952, NRSV, the ESV 2001, New English Bible 1970, Daniel Wallace and company's NET version, The Message AND NOW THE "new" NIV of 2011 all say God "CLOGGED the wheels", (NIV 2011, NET - "He JAMMED the wheels of their chariots") with a footnote that tells us this reading (clogging, jamming) comes from the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch and Syriac; but that the Hebrew text reads "took off" or "removed". Actually, the Greek version called the Septuagint doesn't say "clogging", as we shall soon see.
The Bible in Basic English of 1965 says God "made the wheels STIFF"
The New Century Version tells us God "kept the wheels from turning".
Young's "literal" (hah) says: "and turneth aside the wheels of their chariots." This would mean they swerved, but not that they actually came off.
Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta reads: "clogging the wheels" (from the Syriac we get the reading found in the Message, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, the "new" NIV 2011 and the other recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985. The Catholic Jerusalem bible reads "He so CLOGGED their chariot wheels.." then it footnotes that the "versions" read 'clogged' but the Hebrew reads "TOOK OFF")
Today's English Version 1992 "He made the wheels get stuck"
And the famed Greek Septuagint says God "bound the axel-trees of their chariots"; it doesn't say "clogging the wheels" as the false footnotes of the RSV, ESV, NIV 2011 tell us.
So when you read glowing recommendations about the next Bible of the Month Club version coming out that is based on better manuscripts and greater advances in scholarship, just realize it is a lot of pious sounding baloney. None of these people believe any Bible or any text is the inspired words of God, and all their efforts are designed to overthrow the time tested, inerrant, God approved King James Holy Bible.
Deuteronomy 11:14, 15. Here Moses is speaking for God and he says: "... I will give you the rain of your land...And I will send grass in thy fields...". So read the NKJV, ASV, RV, NET, and even the NIV. The NASB at least up through the 1972 edition also followed the Hebrew texts and read this way, but in 1977, and again in 1995 the NASB decided to follow the Samaritan, Vulgate and LXX, and reads as do the RSV, and ESV with: "HE will give you the rain...and HE will send grass...". ESV footnote: "He - Samaritan, Septuagint, Vulgate" ; Hebrew "I".
Deuteronomy 30:16 The KJB, NASB, NIV, NET and Hebrew texts read: "In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God..." However the RSV, and ESV add a bunch of words not found in any Hebrew text. The RSV, ESV say: "IF YOU OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD YOUR GOD that I command you today by loving the LORD your God..." Footnote: LXX; Hebrew lacks "if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God". Among the Catholic versions, the older Douay did not add these extra words to the Hebrew text, but the more recent Catholic versions like St. Joseph and the New Jerusalem do add them.
Deuteronomy 32:8 KJB - "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL."
ESV - "When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the SONS OF GOD."
Footnote - "Compare Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint; Masoretic Text sons of ISRAEL."
NRSV 1989 - "he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number OF THE GODS."
Dan Wallace NET version 2006 - "he set the boundaries of the peoples,according to the number of THE HEAVENLY ASSEMBLY."
Deuteronomy 32:8 - "according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL" is the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901 - "according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.", the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), Darby, Youngs 1898, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, NIV 1984-2011, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Holman Standard 2009, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Names of God Bible 2011 (critical text version), Lexham English Bible 2012 - the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.", and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - "When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."
Other English Bible that follow the Hebrew text and say "according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL" are The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, the Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 - "the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL", the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible 2008, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "according to the number of benai Yisrael.", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."
But the RSV and ESV say: "he fixed the borders of the people according to the number of the SONS OF GOD."
Then footnotes: Compare Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint; Masoretic Hebrew text "Israel".
The NRSV of 1989 had said: "the number of THE GODS."
Other modern versions that also read "the SONS OF GOD" instead of the Hebrew text "the children OF ISRAEL" are The Voice 2012 - "the number of the sons OF GOD.", the ISV 2014 (Critical text version) "the number of the CHILDREN OF GOD.", and the 2011 Common English Bible (another critical text version) goes even further and says: "based on the number OF THE GODS."!!!
First of all it should be noted that the so called Greek Septuagint does NOT read "sons of GOD" as these modern version footnotes imply, but rather it reads "according to the number of the ANGELS OF GOD" - ἀγγέλων θεοῦ
Secondly, what was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls at this point is a very chopped up text with numerous missing words in just this verse alone. Even Dan Wallace refers to it as "a Qumran fragment". The copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Abegg, Flint & Ulrich shows in brackets what is missing. The only parts found here would read: "When...their inherit...he separated...the children of GOD." That's it! And from this scrap of manuscript alone some modern versions have now rejected the time tested Hebrew Masoretic text and changed it.
The reading of "according to the number of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL" is the reading found in all Hebrew Masoretic texts as well as the Syriac Peshitta -"according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL".
ALL Jewish translations like the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the Hebrew Names Version, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 and the Judaica Press Tanach - "according to the number of THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."
The Modern Greek Bible - “εστησε τα ορια των λαων κατα τον αριθμον των υιων Ισραηλ.” = “He set the boundaries of the people according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL.”
The Modern Hebrew Bible - בהנחל עליון גוים בהפרידו בני אדם יצב גבלת עמים למספר בני ישראל׃ - "the number of the sons of the people of ISRAEL."
The Dead Sea Scrolls may read "the children of GOD", but the Septuagint does not read as the ESV implies it does. The LXX (Septuagint) reads "angels of God", not "sons of God".
The willy nilly nature of the "science" of textual criticism employed by the ESV translators can easily be seen in that they randomly pick from among various DSS readings, using some and rejecting others. For example, the ESV footnotes that 2 Samuel 5:4-5 are "lacking in the DSS", but yet they are in the Hebrew texts as well as the so called Septuagint, and this time the ESV leaves the two verses in their version.
The Catholic Connection
The older Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims, and Douay read like the KJB and the Hebrew texts with "the children of ISRAEL."; BUT the newer Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 read like the ESV and have "the children OF GOD." The New Jerusalem informs us in their footnote that "children of God" comes from the Greek, but the Hebrew reads "children of ISRAEL."
But there is more. Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) has come out, and it goes back to the Hebrew reading and says: "according to the number of the sons OF ISRAEL."
Dan Wallace's goofy NET version reads differently than them all. He has "he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of THE HEAVENLY ASSEMBLY." Then in his footnote he acknowledges that the Hebrew Masoretic Text reads "sons of ISRAEL", and that the LXX has "ANGELS OF GOD", but that one Qumram fragment has "sons OF GOD." So where did Dan Wallace and company get "THE HEAVENLY ASSEMBLY"? They just made it up!
Wallace's NET version is in good company with some other comic book "dynamic equivalent" perversions like the Living Bible 1971 which had: "He gave each of them A SUPERVISING ANGEL!", the New Living Bible 2007 that says: "according to the number IN HIS HEAVENLY COURT.", and Eugene Peterson's The Message of 2002 which says: "under the care of DIVINE GUARDIANS."
Hey, we can now make the bible say virtually anything we want it to say, right? And most modern day professing Christians don't really care one way or the other.
Deuteronomy 32:43 KJB - "Rejoice, O YE NATIONS, WITH HIS PEOPLE; for he will avenge the blood of his SERVANTS, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful UNTO HIS LAND AND TO HIS PEOPLE."
So read the RV 1881, ASV 1901, NKJV 1982, NASB 1995, NIV 1984 - 2011, the Holman Standard 2009, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Voice 2012, Knox Bible 2012, and even Dan Wallace's NET version of 2006.
The NIV, which frequently rejects the Hebrew readings or adds things to it, this time stays with the Hebrew text and reads like the King James Bible. The NIV 2011 says: "Rejoice, you nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.”
The NASB 1995 also follows the Hebrew text and reads like the KJB, with: "Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land and His people.”
Not even Dan Wallace and company's NET version 2006 goes along with the ESV, NRSV, RSVs conflicting readings (even among themselves) here. The NET version reads basically like the KJB with: “Cry out, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge his servants’ blood; he will take vengeance against his enemies, and make atonement for his land and people.”
However the ESV is really messed up. Keep in mind that the ESV is a revision of the older liberal RSV. The RSV 1952-1971 says: "PRAISE HIS PEOPLE, O YOU NATIONS; for he avenges the blood of his SERVANTS, and takes vengeance on his adversaries, and makes expiation FOR the land OF his people." Footnote "Hebrew - his land his people"
Then the NEW RSV came out in 1989 and it says: "PRAISE, O HEAVENS, HIS PEOPLE, WORSHIP HIM ALL YOU GODS. For he will avenge the blood of his CHILDREN, and take vengeance on his adversaries, HE WILL REPAY THOSE WHO HATE HIM, and cleanse the land for his people."
Then the NRSV Footnotes that the Hebrew Masoretic text lacks "HE WILL REPAY THOSE WHO HATE HIM." Then they tell us this phrase comes from the Greek and one Qumran manuscript. And it also Footnotes that "CHILDREN" comes from the Greek but the Hebrew reads SERVANTS, and "cleanse the land FOR his people" comes from the Greek and the Vulgate, but the Hebrew reads "his land his people".
And finally the ESV comes out in 2001-2011 and it says: "REJOICE WITH HIM, O HEAVENS; BOW DOWN TO HIM ALL GODS, for he avenges the blood of his CHILDREN and takes vengeance on his adversaries, HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM AND CLEANSES HIS PEOPLE'S LAND."
Then the ESV informs us in their Footnotes that "REJOICE WITH HIM, O HEAVENS" comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads like the KJB has it. And that the phrase "HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM" comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, but it is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text, and lastly that "HIS CHILDREN" comes from the Septuagint and the Vulgate but the Hebrew reads "SERVANTS"
As you can see, neither the RSV 1952 - 1971, the NRSV 1989 nor ESV 2001-2011 agree even among themselves, let alone with the King James Bible and all the others that follow the Hebrew texts. About the only other version to agree with the ESV 2011 is the critical text Common English Bible of 2012.
Also the 2007 New Living Bible rejects the Hebrew text, like the ESV does, but it even goes further than the ESV. The New Living Translation 2007 says: “REJOICE WITH HIM, YOU HEAVENS (= ESV), AND LET ALL OF GOD'S ANGELS (ESV - all gods) WORSHIP HIM. [a] REJOICE WITH HIS PEOPLE, YOU NATIONS, AND LET ALL THE ANGELS BE STRENGTHENED IN HIM. (Not in ESV at all) [b] For he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take revenge against his enemies. HE WILL REPAY THOSE WHO HATE HIM [c] and cleanse the land FOR his people.” (= ESV)
You see, not only do the Dead Sea Scrolls nor the so called Greek Septuagint agree with the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic text, but they don't even agree with each other! The LXX says "Let all the ANGELS OF GOD worship him" but the DSS has "and bow down to him ALL YOU GODS".
Then the LXX says "REJOICE, YE GENTILES, WITH HIS PEOPLE" but the DSS has "REJOICE, O HEAVENS, TOGETHER WITH HIM."
Then the LXX adds the whole phrase "AND LET ALL THE SONS OF GOD STRENGTHEN THEMSELVES IN HIM" but this is not found either in the Hebrew text nor the Dead Sea Scrolls.
However the MODERN GREEK BIBLE reads like the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic texts and the King James Bible. It has: Ευφρανθητε, εθνη, μετα του λαου αυτου· διοτι θελει εκδικησει το αιμα των δουλων αυτου, και αποδωσει εκδικησιν εις τους εναντιους αυτου, και καθαρισει την γην αυτου και τον λαον αυτου. = "Rejoice, nations, with his people. For he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will recompense to his enemies, and will cleans his land and his people."
The Catholic Versions
The Catholic versions are in their usual mess. The older Douay-Rheims and Douay and even the 1970 St. Joseph NAB do NOT have the extra phrase "HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM", that is allegedly taken from the DSS and Septuagint, but the newer Catholic New Jerusalem 1985 has added the phrase "HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM", but it still goes with "servants" (Hebrew/KJB) instead of "children" (LXX). But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has now removed the added phrase "He repays those who hate him."
Here are the main two modern Catholic versions in comparison to each other. They obviously do not even agree with each other.
The 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible says: "Exult with him, you heavens, glorify him ALL YOU ANGELS OF GOD, For he avenges the blood of his servants and purges his people's land."
The 1985 New Jerusalem bible reads: "Heavens, rejoice with him, LET ALL THE CHILDREN OF GOD pay him homage, NATIONS, REJOICE WITH HIS PEOPLE, LET GOD'S ENVOYS TELL OF HIS POWER, For he will avenge the blood of his servants, HE WILL RETURN VENGEANCE TO MY FOES, HE WILL REPAY THOSE WHO HATE HIM, and purify his people's country."
These two Catholic versions are just 15 years apart from each other, and yet they are very different in texts and meanings.
And now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) has come out, and the late$t in $cholar$hip finding$ has once again for the most part gone back to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic reading. It says:
Deuteronomy 32:43 - "You nations, praise his people! For he will avenge the blood of his servants. And he will distribute vengeance to their enemies. And he will be merciful to the land of his people.”
Gone are all those extra words and phrases the other versions picked up from the conflicting Dead Sea Scrolls and so called Greek Septuagint. Modern scholarship is a Wonder to behold, isn't it? You are always Wondering what they will come up with next.
Joshua 9:4 “made as if they had been ambassadors” or “they gathered provisions”?
Joshua 9:4 speaking of the inhabitants of Gibeah that go to make a league with Joshua and the warring children of Israel - KJB “They did work wilily, AND WENT AND MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS, and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles, old and rent, and bound up”
ESV - “they on their part acted with cunning and went AND MADE READY PROVISIONS and took worn-out sacks for their donkeys, and wineskins, worn-out and torn and mended.” NO Footnote.
Holman Standard 2003 - “they acted deceptively. THEY GATHERED PROVISIONS (b) and took worn out sacks on their donkeys and old wineskins, cracked and mended.”
Footnotes: [b] - Joshua 9:4 Some Hb mss, LXX, Syr, Vg; other Hb mss read They went disguised as ambassadors
NASB 1995 - “they also acted craftily AND SET OUT AS ENVOYS, and took worn-out sacks on their donkeys, and wineskins worn-out and torn and [b] mended”
Footnote - literally “tied up” (Note: thus the KJB’s “and bound”, which is what the Hebrew text says)
NIV 2011 edition - “they resorted to a ruse: THEY WENT AS A DELEGATION whose donkeys were loaded with worn-out sacks and old wineskins, cracked and mended.
Footnotes: Joshua 9:4 Most Hebrew manuscripts; some Hebrew manuscripts, Vulgate and Syriac (see also Septuagint) They prepared provisions.
Common English Bible 2011 (a critical text version) - “they acted cleverly. THEY SET OUT PRETENDING TO BE MESSENGERS. [a] They took worn-out sacks for their donkeys and worn-out wineskins that were split and mended.”
Footnotes: Joshua 9:4 Heb uncertain
NKJV 1982 - “they worked craftily, and went AND PRETENDED TO BE AMBASSADORS. And they took old sacks on their donkeys, old wineskins torn and mended”
Here is a case where not even the modern Vatican Versions agree among themselves. The NASB, Common English Bible and NIV (all three Critical text versions) and the NKJV side with the traditional Hebrew Masorretic text which reads “MADE AS IF THEY HAD BEEN AMBASSADORS”.
But the ESV and Holman (both Critical text versions) reject the traditional text and say "and MADE READY PROVISIONS." The Holman Standard tells us they got this reading from the so called Greek Septuagint. The ESV doesn't even have a note telling why they changed the Hebrew text. See the fuller development of this study here -
Judges 14:15 "And it came to pass ON THE SEVENTH DAY, that they said unto Samson's wife..." So read all Hebrew texts and the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Geneva, Spanish, Diodati, and many others, but the RSV, ESV, NASB, NET and NIV all say: "on THE FOURTH DAY". Footnote: 4th day comes from Syriac and LXX, but the Hebrew says "the 7th day".
Again, the older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, Douay followed the Hebrew and read "the SEVENTH day" but the newer Catholic versions like St. Joseph and New Jerusalem go with the Syriac/LXX and read "the FOURTH day" like the ESV.
For an explanation of this apparent contradiction see -
While there, be sure to read the excellent article by Marty Shue titled A Response to Gary R. Hudson - where Mr. Hudson severely criticizes those who are KJB only. Marty did an excellent job of refuting Hudson's claims.
Judges 16:13 Here the NASB, ESV, NET, the Catholic versions like the Douay, St. Joseph and New Jerusalem and NIV add an additional 35 words to the Hebrew text. Agreeing with the KJB are the Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby, Young's and many others. There is no Hebrew text that contains these extra words. The NASB, NIV , Holman, ESV all add "and tighten it with the pin, I'll become as weak as any other man. So while he was sleeping, Delilah took the seven braids of his head, wove them into the fabric". The NIV footnote tells us these 35 extra words come from SOME Septuagint manuscripts.
For a much fuller examination and explanation of this passage where versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Daniel Wallace's goofy NET version add these extra words to the Hebrew Scriptures, see my article on the book of Judges here:
1 Samuel 1:24 "And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, WITH THREE BULLOCKS, and one ephah of flour..." So read all Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, Geneva Bible, NKJV, Young's, NET and others.
But the NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV unite in reading: "she took him up with her, along with A THREE-YEAR-OLD BULL". Footnote tells us this comes from the Syriac and LXX, but the Hebrew reads "three bullocks".
Among the Catholic versions, the older Catholic Douay-Rheims, Douay followed the Hebrew text and says "three calves" but the more recent Catholic versions (St. Joseph, New Jerusalem) go with the Syriac/LXX and have "A THREE YEAR OLD BULL."
1 Samuel 2:33 "And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume THINE eyes, and to grieve THINE heart: and all the increase of thine house IN THE FLOWER OF THEIR AGE."
So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, NET but the RSV, ESV say: "to weep HIS eyes out to grieve HIS heart and all the descendants (footnote Hebrew "increase") of your house shall die BY THE SWORD OF MEN."
Then the ESV tells us in a footnote that ALL these readings reading comes from the LXX, but that the Hebrew reads "your" (thine) and the phrase "SWORD OF MEN" comes from the Septuagint and not the Hebrew.
Likewise the older Catholic versions read like the KJB, but the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible also change "thine" to "his" and add "by the sword", and then tell us these readings come from the Greek and not the Hebrew.
1 Samuel 6:19 - 50,070 men slain or only 70 or 75 or 70 men 50 chief men or 50 oxen of a man? Why we cannot trust the Bible commentators or the modern versions.
1 Samuel 6:19 King James Bible - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked INTO the ark of the LORD, even he smote OF THE PEOPLE FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN MEN: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
ESV 2016 (NIV 2011, Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985) - "He struck SEVENTY men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great blow."
Young’s "literal" translation reads: “He smiteth among the people SEVENTY MEN - FIFTY CHIEF MEN”.
1 Samuel 9:25 When Saul went to Samuel and he was anointed king of Israel we read: "And when they were come down from the high place into the city, SAMUEL COMMUNED WITH SAUL UPON THE TOP OF THE HOUSE."
So read the Hebrew texts, and even the NASB, NIV, NKJV, Holman Standard and Dan Wallace's NET version.
However the RSV, ESV NRSV, New English Bible 1970 and the 1989 Revised English Version say: "And when they came down from the high place into the city, A BED WAS SPREAD FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE LAY DOWN TO SLEEP."
Then in a footnote the ESV tells us this reading comes from the Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads like the KJB, NASB, NIV, NET and NKJV. The meaning is not at all the same.
The Catholic Versions like the Douay-Rheims, the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 also read this way. The Douay-Rheims of 1610 says: "And they went down from the high place into the town, and he spoke with Saul upon the top of the house: AND HE PREPARED A BED FOR SAUL on the top of the house, AND HE SLEPT."
One of the latest critical text versions to come down the pike is the 2011 Common English Bible. It says in verse 9:25 - " When they came back from the shrine to the town, A BED WAS MADE FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE SLEPT."
Then they footnote that this reading comes from the LXX but that the Hebrew text reads as does the KJB - "LXX; MT He (Samuel?) talked with Saul on the roof. Then they got up early." The 1989 Revised English Version also changes the Hebrew text and adds these extra words too.
Eugene Peterson's the Message of 2002 does the same thing. It likewise omits the Hebrew "Samuel communed with Saul upon the top of the house" and instead substitutes the so called Greek LXX and reads: "Afterward they went down from the shrine into the city. A BED WAS PREPARED FOR SAUL ON THE BREEZE COOLED ROOF OF SAMUEL'S HOUSE."
The RSV, ESV also change the Hebrew texts in verse 24 where the Hebrew says: "Behold that which is left! set it before thee, and eat: for unto this time hath it been kept for thee since I said, I HAVE INVITED THE PEOPLE."
But the LXX has a completely different reading and says: "Behold that which is left; set it before thee, and eat; FOR IT IS SET FOR THEE FOR A TESTIMONY IN PREFERENCE TO THE OTHERS; TAKE OF IT; and Saul ate with Samuel on that day."
However the RSV and ESV do not follow either the Hebrew text nor the LXX but instead say: "Eat, because it was kept for you until the hour appointed, THAT YOU MIGHT EAT WITH THE GUESTS."
Then in a footnote the ESV informs us that the Hebrew says "I have invited the people", just as the King James Bible has it. Even the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible stick with the Hebrew reading of "I have invited the people".
This reading found in the ESV comes neither from the Hebrew nor the LXX; they just made it up. Not even the Catholic versions read this way but say "when I invited the people." (Douay-Rheims)
Then just two verses later in 1 Samuel 10:1 the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001, New English Bible 1970, Revised English bible 1989 , NET, the Message and the Common English bible of 2011 add a whole bunch of words not found in the Hebrew texts nor in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, Holman Standard, Geneva Bible nor any Jewish translation like the 1917 JPS, Complete Jewish Bible, Orthodox Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Tanach, etc.
The KJB, as well as the NASB, NIV, says: "Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?"
BUT, the RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001, NET, Revised English bible 1989 Common English Bible and the Message say: "Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, Has not the LORD anointed you to be prince over HIS PEOPLE ISRAEL? AND YOU SHALL REIGN OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD AND YOU WILL SAVE THEM FROM THE HAND OF THEIR SURROUNDING ENEMIES. AND THIS SHALL BE THE SIGN TO YOU THAT THE LORD HAS ANOINTED YOU TO BE PRINCE OVER his heritage."
And once again we see that it is the Catholic bible versions like the Douay, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bibles and the Greek Septuagint that all add these 40 to 42 extra words. The New Jerusalem footnotes that all these extra words come from the Greek Septuagint but that the Hebrew text does not contain them.
Here also Dan Wallace's NET version adds all these extra words too and then footnotes: "The MT reads simply “Is it not that the Lord has anointed you over his inheritance for a leader?” The translation (NET) follows the LXX."
Wallace comes up with the lame explanation that a scribe's eye accidentally skipped over all these word and that the LXX supposedly restores these lost words to the Hebrew text. Why does Dan Wallace and company follow the so called Greek Septuagint in 1 Samuel 10:1 but not in 1 Samuel 9:25? Or why do all of them still stick with the Hebrew number of THIRTY men in verse 22 and not go with the Septuagint's SEVENTY in verse 22?
All these 43 extra words in capital letters in 1 Samuel 10:1 (see above) are not found in the Hebrew texts, but they are brought in from the Septuagint version which is wildly different than the Hebrew texts in hundreds and hundreds of passages.
If these contradictory modern versions wish to follow the so called Septuagint instead of the Hebrew, then why did none of them follow the Greek reading found in this same chapter in verse 22? The Hebrew text tells us "And Samuel took Saul and his servant, and brought them into the parlour, and made them sit in the chiefest place among them that were bidden, which were about THIRTY persons."
However the LXX tells us: "and set them there a place among the chief of those that were called, about SEVENTY men." The Bible is supposed to be a historically true narrative of events that actually took place and there is a significant difference between 30 and 70. Why did none of these modern versions follow the LXX reading in verse 22? It's anybody's guess, but the bible agnostics like to call this lame brained witches brew of theirs "the science of textual criticism".
The ESV and it's "SOMETIMES the Septuagint" philosophy in action - 1 Samuel 12:3, 6, 8 and 15.
1 Samuel 12:3 - KJB (NIV, NASB, NKJV, Holman, NET) - Samuel is speaking to all Israel and says: "...or of whose hand have I received any bribe TO BLIND MINE EYES THEREWITH? and I will restore it you."
ESV (RSV, NRSV) - "Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? TESTIFY AGAINST ME, and I will restore it to you."
Footnote: Hebrew lacks "Testify against me." Septuagint.
Here the ESV not only ADDS words to the Hebrew text that they took from the so called Greek Septuagint, but they didn't even follow the Septuagint reading in THE SAME VERSE.
Instead of saying "from whose hand have I taken a bribe TO BLIND MY EYES WITH IT?", the Septuagint actually reads: "of whom have I taken a bribe, EVEN TO A SANDAL? BEAR WITNESS AGAINST ME, and I will make restitution to you."
So the ESV chose to take PART OF the same sentence in the LXX but NOT the other part. And they call this stuff "textual science"?
If the ESV editors are so enamored with the LXX, why did they not follow it in the previous chapter of 1 Samuel 11:8 where instead of the Hebrew reading of "the children of Israel were THREE HUNDRED thousand, and the men of Judah THIRTY thousand.", the LXX says: "every man of Israel was SIX HUNDRED thousand, and the men of Judah SEVENTY thousand."???
1 Samuel 12:6 KJB (NASB, NIV, NKJV, NET) - "And Samuel said unto the people, It is the LORD that advanced Moses and Aaron, and that brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt."
ESV (RSV, NRSV, Holman, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem, Jehovah Witness NWT) - "And Samuel said to the people, "The LORD IS WITNESS, who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt."
Footnote: Septuagint, Hebrew lacks "is witness".
1 Samuel 12:8 KJB (NASB, NIV, Holman, NKJV, NET) - "When Jacob was come into Egypt, and your fathers cried unto the LORD, then the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, which brought forth your fathers out of Egypt, and made them dwell in this place."
ESV (RSV, NRSV, Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985) - "When Jacob went into Egypt, AND THE EGYPTIANS OPPRESSED THEM, then your fathers cried out to the LORD and the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, who brought your fathers out of Egypt and made them dwell in this place."
Footnote: Septuagint; Hebrew lacks "AND THE EGYPTIANS OPPRESSED THEM"
But once again, the ESV didn't completely follow the LXX even in this same verse. The LXX also says "When Jacob AND HIS SONS went into Egypt...", but the ESV didn't use that part of the so called Greek Septuagint, just the other part found in the same verse. Now, that's science, don't ya know!
Then in 1 Samuel 12:15 the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NEB 1970, REB 1989 and this time the NET version too ALL ADD words from the so called LXX and OMIT words found in all Hebrew texts.
In the Hebrew and the KJB we read: "But if ye will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall the hand of the LORD be against you, AS IT WAS AGAINST YOUR FATHERS."
Agreeing with the Hebrew text and the KJB are the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV and Holman Standard - (only the NIV omits 2 of the 3 times the word LORD occurs here.) However the RSV, NRSV, ESV, REV, NET all say: "But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then the hand of the LORD will be against you AND YOUR KING."
Thus these versions OMIT the Hebrew reading "as it was against your fathers" and ADD "and your king" taken from the so called Greek Septuagint.
1 Samuel 13:15 "And Samuel arose, and gat him up from Gilgal unto Gibeah of Benjamin. And Saul numbered the people that were present with him, about six hundred men."
So read the Hebrew texts as well as the NASB, NIV, NET and NKJV.
However the RSV, NRSV, ESV, Revised English Bible 1969 add a whole bunch of words from the LXX. The RSV, ESV read: "And Samuel arose and went up FROM GILGAL. THE REST OF THE PEOPLE WENT UP AFTER SAUL TO MEET THE ARMY; THEY WENT UP from Gilgal to Gibeah of Benjamin."
The Catholic versions add all these extra words too and the New Jerusalem bible informs us in their footnote that all these extra words come from the Greek but they are not found in the Hebrew texts.
Let's back up just a minute and take a look at several other places where the ESV has ADDED to the Hebrew text, and OMITTED it in others in these few chapters of 1 Samuel.
We could ask Why did the ESV NOT follow the LXX reading in 1 Samuel 11:8 where the Hebrew text says of Saul that "he numbered them in Bezek, the children of Israel were 300,000 and the men of Judah 30,000."
However the LXX says the numbers were 600,000 and 70,000! That is quite a difference in numbers, yet no modern version I saw follows the LXX reading here.
What is interesting here is that both the RSV 1946 and the ESV 2001 retained the Hebrew numbers here (300,000 and 30,000), but the NRSV of 1989 reads "300,000 and those of Judah 70,000! So the NRSV took one reading from the Hebrew and the other one from the Greek, but then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV - went back to the Hebrew readings for both numbers. This "science" of textual criticism is a kick in the head, isn't it?
1 Samuel 14:41 - The KJB, as well as the RV, ASV, Holman Standard 2009, NASB 1995, ISV 2014, NKJV, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Tree of Life Version 2015 and the NIVs 1978 and 1984 editions, say: "Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, GIVE A PERFECT LOT. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped."
However the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, NEB, REB, The Message, AND NOW THE NIV 2011 EDITION TOO read, adding all these words, "Therefore Saul said, O LORD God of Israel, WHY HAVE YOU NOT ANSWERED YOUR SERVANT THIS DAY? IF THIS GUILT IS IN ME OR IN JONATHAN MY SON, O LORD, GOD OF ISRAEL, GIVE URIM. BUT IF THIS GUILT IS IN YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL, GIVE THUMMIN. And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped."
Even though the English "new" New International Version added all these extra words (though it still didn't at the extra 42 words to 1 Samuel 10:1 like the ESV does) yet the NIV Spanish version 1999 and the NIV Portuguese version of 2000 still retain the Hebrew reading like the KJB has it.
Daniel Wallace's NET version also adds all these extra words and then footnotes: "Heb “to the Lord God of Israel: ‘Give what is perfect.’” The Hebrew textual tradition has accidentally omitted several words here. The present translation follows the LXX."
The Catholic Connection
Well, guess what. So too do ALL the Catholic bible versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, the Douay 1950, St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and New Jerusalem bible 1985 as well. Then the New Jerusalem bible footnotes that "the Hebrew is corrupt".
In a footnote the ESV says these additional words come from the Septuagint. However my copy of the Septuagint does not read like the ESV says it does. It says instead "Lord God of Israel, give clear manifestations; and if the lot should declare this, give, I pray thee, to thy people Israel, give, I pray, holiness. And Jonathan and Saul are taken..."
Quite different from them all, isn't it? Folks, don't be deceived or taken in by the lies these bible agnostics refer to as their "science" of textual criticism. It has a lot more in common with witches brew than it does with any legitimate science known to God or man.
2 Samuel 7:16 Here God is speaking to David and He says: "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before THEE: thy throne shall be established for ever."
"Before THEE" is the reading of all Hebrew texts, as well as the Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby, Young's, Geneva and others, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, NET and ESV follow the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew and say: "your kingdom shall be made sure before ME". Here the older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims and the Douay read "before thy face", but the newer St. Joseph and New Jerusalem read "before ME" and then footnote that the Greek reads "before ME" but that most Hebrew manuscripts read "before YOU", just as the King James Bible has it.
“He cut them with saws” or “ He put them to work with saws”?
ESV, NKJV, NIV pervert the truth of Scripture
2 Samuel 12:31 and 1 Chronicles 20:3 - Did David cut his enemies with saws and kill them and burn their bodies in the brick kilns, or did he just “put them to work” with saws and made them go to the brick works to labor there?
Obviously, both readings and meanings are not the same and both cannot be what God recorded in His words as historical fact.
2 Samuel 12:31 King James Bible - “And he brought forth the people that were therein, and PUT THEM UNDER SAWS, AND UNDER HARROWS OF IRON, AND UNDER AXES OF IRON, AND MADE THEM PASS THROUGH THE BRICK-KILN: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem.”
1 Chronicles 20:3 - KJB - “And he brought out the people that were in it, AND CUT THEM WITH SAWS, AND WITH HARROWS OF IRON, AND WITH AXES. Even so dealt David with all the cities of the children of Ammon. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.”
NKJV (ESV, NIV, MEV 2014) - 2 Samuel 12:31 - “And he brought out the people who were in it, and PUT THEM TO WORK WITH SAWS AND IRON PICKS AND IRON AXES, AND MADE THEM CROSS OVER TO THE BRICK WORKS.”
NKJV (ESV, NIV, MEV 2014) - 1 Chronicles 20:3 - “And he brought out the people who were in it, and PUT THEM TO WORK WITH SAWS, WITH IRON PICKS, AND WITH AXES. So David did to all the cities of the people of Ammon.”
See why the KJB got it right, as it always does.
2 Samuel 15:7 "And it came to pass after FORTY years, that Absalom said unto the king..."
There is no question that the Hebrew texts all read FORTY years and so do the Jewish translations, the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, Young's, Darby, Geneva, Douay, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and the Third Millennium Bible 1998.
I know of at least three explanations as to what the "40 years" may be referring. Number One - the 40 years refers to the time since David was originally anointed to be king, as recorded in 1 Samuel 16:13, which occurred several years before he actually began to reign as king. Number Two - it could refer to the age of Absalom at this time. Number Three - Absalom's mother was Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur. Years before, David had invaded the Geshurites and killed many of their people, perhaps 40 years had passed, and now Absalom sought vengeance on behalf of his mother and her people.
In any case, the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET AND the more recent Catholic versions all change this number to "after FOUR years", and the ESV says this reading comes from the Septuagint and Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads 40 years. Again, this is misleading. The copy of the Septuagint that I have says 40 years, and the NIV footnote says "SOME Septuagint copies say 4 years". The older Douay-Rheims and the Douay followed the Hebrew reading and read "after FORTY years" but newer St. Joseph and New Jerusalem both read "after FOUR years" following SOME LXX and the Syriac, but rejecting the Hebrew text.
Here ALL Hebrew texts read FORTY years.
See why the KJB and the Hebrew text is right, here -
2 Samuel 21:8-9 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah...and the five sons of MICHAL the daughter of Saul, whom she BROUGHT UP FOR Adriel...and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD; and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest..."
MICHAL is the reading of all Hebrew texts and the reading of the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Geneva, Spanish, and Third Millenium Bibles. But the RSV, NASB, NIV, NET and ESV all change this to MERAB the daughter of Saul, instead of MICHAL, based they say on two Hebrew manuscripts, the Syriac and the Septuagint, but that most Hebrew manuscripts read Michal.
However, again, the copy of the Septuagint I have says Michal, as does the KJB. The NIV footnotes says "SOME LXX mss. read Merab". Once again we see that the older Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims and the Douay followed the Hebrew texts reading "MICHAL" BUT the newer Catholic versions go with the Syriac and "some" LXX copies that read MERAB.
The simple explanation is that though Michal had no children of her own, she did bring up these five children, possibly as a step-mother after her sister had died. Always give the benefit of the doubt to the truth of Scripture rather than altering the text just because you don't understand its truth.
2 Samuel 23:18, 19 "And Abishai, the brother of Joab...was chief among THREE...Was he not most honourable of THREE?"
So read the KJB, NKJV, NIV, RV, ASV, NET, Geneva, Young's, Darby, AND the Septuagint. However the RSV, NASB, and ESV say "THIRTY", based on two Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac. Again, the older Catholic versions (Douay-Rheims, Douay) read "THREE" following the Hebrew, but the more modern Catholic versions (St. Joseph, New Jerusalem) now read "the THIRTY". The simple explanation is that the "three" refers back to verse 13 where we read that "three of the thirty chief went down, and came to David in the harvest time unto the cave of Adullam."
2 Samuel 24:13 "So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall SEVEN years of famine come unto thee in thy land?"
So read all Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, NASB, Jewish translations, Geneva, Darby, Young's, NET and even the Syriac. However the NIV, RSV, and ESV change this number to THREE years, based on the Septuagint versions. Among the Catholic versions, the older Douay-Rheims and Douay read "SEVEN years" following the Hebrew texts, but the more modern Catholic versions like St. Joseph and New Jerusalem reject the Hebrew and go with the Greek saying "THREE years".
In 1 Chronicles 21:12 the number recorded is three years, yet there is a simple way to explain this apparent contradiction. Instead of believing the infallible word of God and asking Him to open our understanding, these modern version editors prefer to assume there is a scribal error in all the Hebrew texts because "they" don't understand how to reconcile the apparent discrepancy. For my article which offers a logical explanation see:
Psalm 49:11 KJB - “THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS, THAT THEIR HOUSES SHALL CONTINUE FOR EVER, and their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names.”
ESV 2001 - “THEIR GRAVES ARE THEIR HOMES FOR EVER, their dwelling places to all generations, though they called lands by their own names.” Footnote - Septuagint, Syriac, Targum; Hebrew Their inward thought was that their homes were forever”
Psalm 49:11 is one of the numerous places where the NIV, New English Bible 1970, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 - 2011, Holman Standard, NET and many other modern versions clearly depart from the Hebrew and they even tell you in their footnote that they do it.
Psalm 49:11 "THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS, that their houses shall continue for ever". So read the King James Bible, the Great Bible 1540, the Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Lesser Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, RV 1881 - "THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS, that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names." ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, The New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the Jewish translations of 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, NKJV 1982, Amplified Bible 1987, NASB 1995, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Third Millenium Bible 1998, Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 "In their heart, their houses continue for ever", A Conservative Version, English Jubilee Version 2010, the New Heart English Bible 2010, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, the International Standard Version 2014 -"THEIR INNER THOUGHTS ARE ON their homes forever."
Other English Bibles that follow the Hebrew text and not the so called Greek Septuagint or the Syriac, and read "THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS, that their houses shall continue for ever" instead of "THEIR GRAVES ARE THEIR HOMES FOR EVER, their dwelling places to all generations" are The Word of Yah 1993, Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, Green's Literal 2005, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, Conservative Bible 2011, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust).
Foreign language bibles that follow the Hebrew text and also say "THEIR INWARD THOUGHT IS that their houses shall continue for ever" are the Spanish Sagradas 1569, the Reina Valera 1909 - "En su interior piensan que sus casas son eternas", Reina Valera 1995 and Biblia de las Américas 1997 - "Su íntimo pensamiento es que sus casas serán eternas Luther's German Bible 1545, the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - "Ils pensent que leurs maisons dureront éternellement", the Italian Diodati 1649 the Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Nuova Riveduta of 2006 -"Il loro intimo pensiero è che le lor case dimoreranno in eterno", the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada 2009 - "O pensamento íntimo deles é que as suas casas são perpétuas" = "THEIR INNER THOUGHT IS..."
and the Modern Greek Bible - "Ο εσωτερικος λογισμος αυτων ειναι οτι οι οικοι αυτων θελουσιν υπαρχει εις τον αιωνα = "THEIR INWARD THOUGHTS ARE THAT their houses will be for ever."
However, the NIV 1984-2011, along with the Holman Standard, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 -2011, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, New Living Translation 2013, Names of God Bible 2011, Common English Bible 2012 all say the same thing and have the same footnotes.
The NIV says: "THEIR TOMBS will remain their houses forever..." The ESV and Holman say: "Their GRAVES are their homes forever."
Then in a footnote these versions tell us that "THEIR TOMBS" or "graves" comes from the LXX and Syriac, while the Hebrew Masoretic text and even the Dead Sea Scrolls say "THEIR INWARD THOUGHT WAS THAT their homes were forever." (ESV footnote)
The Catholic Connection
Among the Catholic Bible versions, every one of them has rejected the Hebrew reading of "their inward thought is" and have followed the so called Greek Septuagint reading of "Their TOMBS" or "their SEPULCHRES WILL BE THEIR HOMES FOR EVER"., just like the ESV, NIV, Holman and NET versions.
These include the Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610, the Douay 1950, the St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970, the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "And their sepulchers will be their houses forever".
Again, Wallace's NET version says: "Their GRAVE BECOMES THEIR PERMANENT RESIDENCE, THEIR ETERNAL DWELLING PLACE". The he footnotes: "Heb “their inward part is their houses are permanent..." If one follows the MT, then “inward part”) must refer to the seat of these people’s thoughts... In this case one might translate the first two lines, “they think that their houses are permanent and that their dwelling places will last forever” (NASB, KJB)...the present translation assumes an emendation of “their inward part” to “graves”. This assumes that the letters bet and resh were accidentally transposed in the MT."
What gall! These "every man is his own authority" scholars assume they can "emend" or change the text whenever their fickle faculties take flight. And do you think it is just a "coincidence" that many of these modern versions now match the modern Catholic versions, which are all based on the same, every changing United Bible Society critical text that has been set up to create with the Vatican an "interconfessional" text to unite them? I trow not.
Psalm 60:4 "Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, THAT IT MAY BE DISPLAYED BECAUSE OF THE TRUTH. Selah."
So read the Hebrew texts as well as the following Bible translations: Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, KJB , Youngs', Darby, the Revised Version of 1881, American Standard Version 1901, NASB 1963-1995, NKJV 1982, the Jewish translation of 1917 - “Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, THAT IT MAY BE DISPLAYED BECAUSE OF THE TRUTH. Selah.", the Complete Jewish Bible, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.
The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 and the Reina Valera 1995, and La Biblia de las Américas are the same as the KJB with "Has dado a los que te temen bandera que alcen por causa de la verdad. Selah". as does the French Martin 1744 and the Louis Segond of 1910 - “tu as donné une bannière à ceux qui te craignent, afin de l'élever en haut pour l'amour de ta vérité; Sélah.”, the Italian New Diodati of 1991 - “Ma ora tu hai dato a quelli che ti temono una bandiera, perch sia innalzata in favore della verit. (Sela)”, and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada and the Almeida Revista E Corrigida -”Deste um estandarte aos que te temem, para o arvorarem no alto, por causa da verdade. (Sel.)” and the Modern Greek Bible - "Εδωκας εις τους φοβουμενους σε σημαιαν, δια να υψονηται υπερ της αληθειας." = "You have given a sign (banner) to those who fear you to be lifted up because of the truth."
However, the NIV reads: - "But for those who fear you, you have raised a banner TO BE UNFURLED AGAINST THE BOW." The RSV, NRSV, ESV read much the same with: "Thou hast set up a banner for those who fear thee, TO RALLY TO IT FROM THE BOW.", but then in the RSV, NRSV footnotes tell us this totally different reading comes from "the Greek LXX, the Syriac and Jerome, but the Hebrew says “because of the truth”.
Well, not even their footnote is totally accurate. The copy of the Greek LXX I have says "given a TOKEN...that they might FLEE FROM THE BOW", while Lamsa's translation of the Syriac says the opposite with: "Thou hast WROUGHT A MIRACLE to them that reverence thee, SO THAT THEY NEED NOT FLEE FROM THE BOW."
Dan Wallace and Company’s NET version, as usual, has a totally messed up translation which says: “You have given your loyal followers a rallying flag, so that they might seek safety from the bow.”
The Holman Standard perversion says: "You have given a signal flag to those who fear You, so that THEY CAN FLEE BEFORE THE ARCHERS."
Likewise all the Catholic versions - Douay-Rheims, Douay, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem 1985 have rejected the clear Hebrew text and have adopted “part of” the so called Greek Septuagint. The New Jerusalem reads: “You gave a signal to those who fear you TO LET THEM ESCAPE OUT OF RANGE OF THE BOW.”
These bogus bibles versions are significant in that TRUTH has disappeared, and God's people are now fleeing before the enemy!!
Proverbs 17:8 KJB - “A GIFT is as a PRECIOUS STONE in the eyes of HIM THAT HATH IT: whithersoever it turneth, it prosperity.”
The King James Bible is always right, and these new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. are getting worse, not better.
Folks, you are not going to believe this one.
Proverbs 30:1-2 "The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: THE MAN SPAKE UNTO ITHIEL, EVEN UNTO ITHIEL AND UCAL, surely I am more bruthish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.
Jameson, Faussett and Brown - “Ithiel and Ucal were perhaps pupils.”
John Gill - “unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal; who were either the children of Agur, whom he instructed in the knowledge of divine things; or they were, as Aben Ezra, either his companions with whom he conversed about sacred things, or his disciples who inquired of him about these things, and learned them of him.”
Adam Clarke - “Agur seems to have been a public teacher, and Ithiel and Ucal to have been his scholars.”
John Wesley - “And Ucal - Two friends and co - temporaries of Agur, who desired his instructions.”
Matthew Poole - “Those who take Ithiel and Ucal to be proper names, believe them to be the pupils of Agur, and it is conjectured that the different parts of Agur’s discourse is in answer to questions proposed by these pupils, after the manner of the ancient schools — “hearing them, and asking them questions.”
Matthew Henry mentions - “Ithiel and Ucal are mentioned as the names of his pupils, whom he instructed, or who consulted him as an oracle, having a great opinion of his wisdom and goodness.”
The words "THE MAN SPAKE UNTO ITHIEL, EVEN TO ITHIEL AND UCAL" are found in The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, The New Jewish Version 1985, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “the gever (man) spoke unto Itiel, even unto Itiel and Uchal”.
This is also the reading of the Geneva Bible, the RV 1885, Darby 1890, the ASV 1901, the New Life Version 1969, the Catholic Jerusalem and New Jerusalem versions, the RSV, NKJV 1982, the NIV 1984 edition, The NASB 1995, The Koster Scriptures 1998, the World English Bible 2000, Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 - “This man says to Ithiel, to Ithiel and to Ukal”, Holman Standard 2009, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, the Lexham English Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Modern English Version 2014, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 and the Amplified Bible 2015 edition - “The man says to Ithiel, to Ithiel and to Ucal”
Foreign Language Bibles
Foreign Language Bibles that also say: "THE MAN SPAKE UNTO ITHIEL, EVEN UNTO ITHIEL AND UCAL" are the Italian Nuova Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta 2006 - "Massime pronunciate da quest’uomo per Itiel, per Itiel e Ucal.", the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 - "La profecía que dijo el varón a Itiel, a Itiel y a Ucal.", the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013 - “do Itiela, do Itiela i Ukala.”, the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “Disse este varão a Itiel, a Itiel e a Ucal”, the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - “Itiel, pentru Itiel şi pentru Ucal.”, the NIV Portuguese bible (even though the English NIV is VERY different) - “Este homem declarou a Itiel; a Itiel e a Ucal”, the Hungarian Karoli Bible - “Itielnek és Ukálnak.”, the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “das Manneswort an Itiel, an Itiel und Ukal”, the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia - “kay Ithiel, at kay Ucal”, and the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap - “til Itiel og Ukkal”
HOWEVER, even though the RSV of 1952 reads the same as the King James Bible - "THE MAN SPAKE UNTO ITHIEL, EVEN TO ITHIEL AND UCAL" - the ESV (English Standard Version of 2011) actually say: "The words of Agur son of Jakeh. The oracle. THE MAN DECLARES, I AM WEARY, O GOD; I AM WEARY, O GOD, AND WORN OUT. Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man."
(Not quite the same meaning as "THE MAN SPAKE UNTO ITHIEL, EVEN TO ITHIEL AND UCAL" is it?)
Though the NIV 1984 edition read the same as the KJB - “The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh - AN ORACLE: This man declared to Ithiel, TO ITHIEL AND TO UCAL: "I AM THE MOST IGNORANT OF MEN; I DO NOT HAVE A MAN’S UNDERSTANDING. “
NIV 2011 edition.
But now the brand new revision of the old NIV - the 2011 NIV - now says: "The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh - AN INSPIRED UTTERANCE. This man's utterance to Ithiel: I AM WEARY, GOD, BUT I CAN PREVAIL. SURELY I AM ONLY A BRUTE, NOT A MAN; I DO NOT HAVE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.”
Not only does the new NIV 2011 radically differ from the old NIV, BUT also from the ESV. The "I AM WORN OUT" of the ESV is not the same thing as the NIV 2011 "BUT I CAN PREVAIL." , is it?
Let’s compare the RSV of 1971, the NRSV of 1989 and the ESV of 2011, and then the NIV 1984 edition to the NIV 2011 edition to see how the “scholars game” is really played.
RSV 1971 - “The words of Agur son of Jakeh OF MASSA. The man says TO ITHIEL, TO ITHIEL AND UCAL: 2. Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man.”
NRSV 1989 - “The words of Agur son of Jakeh. AN ORACLE. Thus says the man: I AM WEARY, OF GOD, I AM WEARY, O GOD. HOW CAN I PREVAIL? 2. Surely I am too stupid to be human; I do not have human understanding.”
ESV 2011 - “The words of Agur son of Jakeh. THE ORACLE. The man declares, I AM WEARY, O GOD; I AM WEARY, O GOD, AND WORN OUT. 2. Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man.”
The NIV 1984 edition - “The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh - AN ORACLE: THE MAN DECLARED to Ithiel, TO ITHIEL AND TO UCAL; I AM THE MOST IGNORANT OF MEN; I do not have MAN’S understanding.
The NIV 2011 edition - “The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh—an INSPIRED UTTERANCE.
THIS MAN’S UTTERANCE to Ithiel: “I AM WEARY, O GOD. BUT I CAN PREVAIL. SURELY I AM ONLY A BRUTE, NOT A MAN; I do not have HUMAN understanding.”
The Catholic Connection
Likewise the Catholic versions are all messed up. The newer Jerusalem Bible 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 both agree with the reading found in the King James Bible,
but the 1950 Douay version reads: "The word of THE GATHERER the son of THE VOMITER. The vision which the man spoke WITH WHOM GOD IS, AND WHO BEING STRENGTHENED BY GOD, ABIDING WITH HIM, said: I am the most foolish of men, and the wisdom OF MEN is not with me."
It doesn't even remotely agree at all with either the NIV 2011 or the ESV 2011.
But wait! There's more. Now Peterson's Paraphrase of 2003, called The Message, has come out and it says: "THE SKEPTIC SWORE, "THERE IS NO GOD! NO GOD! - I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT! I'm more animal than human; so-called human intelligence escapes me."
Hey, not to worry - It's all the same "message", right?
Ecclesiastes 8:10 - “were forgotten” or “were praised”?
King James Bible - “And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy, and they WERE FORGOTTEN in the city where they had so done: this is also vanity.”
ESV, NIV - ” Then I saw the wicked buried. They used to go in and out of the holy place and WERE PRAISED in the city where they had done such things. This also is vanity.”
I would hope that you can see there is an obvious difference between the wicked being forgotten and the wicked being, not only not forgotten, but even praised! You can’t praise someone and have forgotten them at the same time.
Agreeing with the King James Bible in saying that the wicked were FORGOTTEN are: Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, NASB, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, Darby, Young’s, the NKJV 1982, the Hebrew Names Bible, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation and the 2004 Jewish Complete Tanach.
Among foreign language translations that follow the Masorretic text and read as does the King James Bible are the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, and French Ostervald 1996 -”et sont oubliés dans la ville.”, Luther’s German Bible 1545, Spanish Reina Valera, and Reina Valera Gómez 2004 - “y ser olvidados en la ciudad donde esto hicieron. Esto también es vanidad.”, the Italian Diodati 1649, New Diodati 1991, and the Portuguese de Almeida and Biblia Sagrada - “foram esquecidos na cidade.”
The NASB - “So then, I have seen the wicked buried, those who used to go in and out from the holy place, and they are soon forgotten in the city where they did thus. This too is futility.”
Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac - “And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the holy place, and they WERE FORGOTTEN in the city where they had done such evil things; this also is vanity.”
NIV - “Then too, I saw the wicked buried-those who used to come and go from the holy place and RECEIVE PRAISE in the city where they did this. This too is meaningless.”
So how did the NIV and the other perverted versions listed below come up with “receive praise” insteat of “were forgotten”? Well, the NIVs own footnote tells us. The NIV footnote says the reading of “receive praise” comes from “Some Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint (Aquila), but most Hebrew manuscripts read ‘and are forgotten’.”
The ESV also perverts this verse and says: “were praised in the city” and then footnotes: “Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint Vulgate read ‘praised’; Most Hebrew manuscripts read “forgotten”.
RSV, NRSV, ESV -” Then I saw the wicked buried. They used to go in and out of the holy place and WERE PRAISED in the city where they had done such things. This also is vanity.”
Holman Standard - “ In such circumstances, I saw the wicked buried. They came and went from the holy place, and they WERE PRAISED in the city where they did so. This too is futile.”
Douay-Rheims Roman Catholic, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic Public Domain Version 2009 - “ I saw the wicked buried: who also when they were yet living were in the holy place, and WERE PRAISED in the city as men of just works: but this also is vanity.”
Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968 - “to honor them”
The Message tells us: “One time I saw wicked men given a solemn burial in holy ground. When the people returned to the city, THEY DELIVERED FLOWERY EULOGIES--and in the very place where wicked acts were done by those very men!”
The silly Amplified bible tells us: “and they are [praised and] forgotten in the city”. It’s a little difficult ...No, it’s impossible to be both praised and forgotten.
Daniel Wallace and company have gone completely over the edge of all reason and their NET translation actually reads this way in Ecclesiastes 8:10 - “ Not only that but I have seen the wicked approaching and entering the temple, and as they left the holy temple, they boasted in the city that they had done so. This also is an enigma.”
Maybe James White will tell us that they are all “reliable and trustworthy” because each of them follows their own sources. Doesn’t matter what God Himself inspired in His inerrant words; just as long as they follow “their sources” (no matter how wrong or corrupt” James thinks they are “reliable”.
Have these Bible critics lost their minds? (That’s a rhetorical question ;-)
Song of Solomon 7:9 KJB ( NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV) "And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, CAUSING THE LIPS OF THOSE THAT ARE ASLEEP TO SPEAK."
However the ESV, like the NIV, reads: "It goes down smoothly for my beloved, GLIDING OVER LIPS AND TEETH", and then in a footnote tells us this reading comes from the Septuagint, Syriac and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew reads: "causing the lips of sleepers to speak", just as the KJB has it!
Actually, the ESV footnote doesn't quite tell us the whole truth either. The Septuagint version reads: "And thy throat as good wine, going well with my kinsman, suiting my lips and teeth" (Say what?), and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac reads: "And your palate is like the best wine for my beloved, that goes down in the mouth of my beloved and makes me move my lips and my teeth." What we see in the ESV is that they have just arbitrarily picked out a small part of these confused versions and placed it in their "bible".
Isaiah 32:1-2 KJB - "Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. V.2 And A MAN shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land."
ESV (RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, Holman, NET) - "EACH will be like a hiding place from the wind, a shelter from the storm, like streams of water in a dry place." Then the ESV gives a false footnote saying: "Hebrew 'they'"
The ESV is wrong and its footnote is flat out wrong and misleading. And the ESV and these other Vatican Versions completely miss the fact that this passage refers to the Messiah, the Son of God.
Isaiah 49:12- Here is an interesting example of how the NIV and ESV depart again from the Hebrew Masoretic text. There we read in the KJB - "Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the north and from the west: and these from the LAND OF SINIM." Many think Sinim may be a referrence to China, but in any case, the Hebrew clearly says Sinim.
Sinim is also the reading of the NASB, ASV, RV, NKJV, the Lexham English Bible of 2012, the Jewish translations JPS 1917, Judaica Press Tanach, the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011 and many others. Not even Dan Wallace and their NET version changes the Hebrew text here but says "from the land of SINIM." and so too does the 2003 Holman Standard Version - "the land of SINIM."
However the NIV says "from the REGION OF ASWAN." Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this Aswan comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls but that the Hebrew says Sinim.
The goofy critical text version that recently came out called The Common English Bible of 2011 totally paraphrases this verse as: "Look! These will come from far away. Look! These from the north and west, and these FROM THE SOUTHLAND." BUT then it footnotes: from the southland.[a] Heb Sinim
It is of interest to note that the RSV and the new ESV both say "land of SYENE" and also have a footnote telling us Syene comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls but that the Hebrew Masoretic text reads Sinim. Here we have two different groups of modern "scholars" giving us two different readings, Aswan and Syene, and both telling us that this reading comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. They both agree in rejecting the Hebrew traditional text but can't seem to agree on what the DSS says! Maybe they should have gone with the Greek Septuagint - it says "from the land OF THE PERSIANS."!!! And these Bible "scholars" want us to take them seriously!
Jeremiah 10:5 "upright as a PALM TREE" or "A SCARECROW IN A CUCUMBER FIELD"?
Jeremiah 10:5 KJB - “THEY ARE UPRIGHT AS THE PALM TREE”
ESV - “THEIR IDOLS ARE LIKE SCARECROWS IN A CUCUMBER FIELD.”
NIV 1978, 1984 editions - "Like A SCARECROW IN A MELON PATCH, their idols cannot speak"
NIV 2011 edition - "Like A SCARECROW IN A CUCUMBER PATCH, their idols cannot speak"
Jeremiah 27:1 JEHOIAKIM or ZEDEKIAH? Has the Hebrew text been corrupted?
Jeremiah 27:1 - Is there a scribal error in the King James Bible and in the Hebrew Masoretic text?
Jeremiah 27:1 KJB - "In the beginning of the reign of JEHOIAKIM the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying...."
ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "In the beginning of the reign of ZEDEKIAH the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD."
The King James Bible is right, as always. And here is why -
Lamentations 3:22 KJB - “It is of the LORD'S mercies THAT WE ARE NOT CONSUMED, because his compassions fail not.”
ESV 2001 (printed edition hard copy ) - “The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER CEASES;  his mercies never come to an end.” Footnote: “Syriac, Targum; Hebrew - Because of the steadfast love of the LORD, we are not cut off."
To see much more about this verse and how several modern versions reject the Hebrew reading in favor of something found in the Syriac see my article here -
Hosea 13:14 "I will redeem them from death...REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."
One of the most beautiful and comforting promises in the book of the prophet Hosea has been completely turned on its head and made out to be utter non-sense in many versions.
King James Bible - "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES."
ESV 2001-2011 - "SHALL I ransom them from the power of Sheol? SHALL I redeem them from Death? O Death, WHERE ARE your plagues? O Sheol, WHERE IS YOUR STING? COMPASSION is hidden from my eyes."
The NKJV keeps the verse as 4 statements but changes the meaning. It says: "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! PITY is hidden from My eyes."
Daniel 12:10 KJB - "Many shall BE PURIFIED, AND MADE WHITE, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." (Notice the passive verbs. God is the one who purifies and makes white. We do not do this ourselves.)
ESV - "Many shall PURIFY THEMSELVES AND MAKE THEMSELVES WHITE and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand." (Notice the active verbs. The ESV teaches that they both purify themselves and make themselves white."
Also reading like the ESV with ACTIVE verbs are the Revised Version 1885, Young's 1898, the ASV 1901, the Jehovah Witness NWT, the liberal RSV 1971 (but the NRSV has passive verbs), The Voice 2012, the Hebrew Names Version 2014 - "Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined."
Bibles that correctly have the PASSIVE verbs (the action is being done to us by Another) are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587 - "Many shal be purified, made white, & tried”, Douay-Rheims 1610, Webster's Bible 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, Noyes Translation 1869, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The New Jewish Version 1985, the NRSV 1989, God's Word Translation 1995, the NASB 1995 - "Many will BE PURGED, PURIFIED AND REFINED", The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, Holman Standard 2009, Jubilee Bible 2010, New American Bible 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Names of God Bible 2011, the NIV 2011, The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The New Brenton Translation 2012, the Lexham English Bible 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, the ISV (International Standard Version) 2014, The New English Septuagint Translation 2014 - "and be made white and be refined", and the Modern English Version 2014 - "Many shall BE PURIFIED AND MADE WHITE and tried."
The ESV New Testament
In the New Testament, the RSV and the ESV are missing the following whole verses. Matthew 12:47 (though the NASB, NIV have it, but omit or bracket the others) Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:18; most of Luke 9:55-56; all of Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4, Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24, and most of 1 John 5:7. So, yeah, we can see that the RSV and ESV is "close enough" to the King James Bible, right?
Matthew 1:7-10. ESV errors from corrupt texts
Matthew chapter one lists the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ from the kingly line of David and Solomon.
KJB - “And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat ASA (ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀσά); and ASA (Ἀσά) begat Josaphat…(v.10) And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat AMON (Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμών) and AMON ( Ἀμών) begat Josias.”
ESV - “and Solomon the father of (Here the ESV changed the verb found in all Greek texts “begat” to a noun not found in ANY Greek text “the father of) Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of ASAPH (δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀσάφ), and ASAPH ( Ἀσάφ) the father of Jehoshaphat…(v.10) And Hezekiah the father of Manasseh and Manasseh the father of AMOS (Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμώς) and AMOS ( Ἀμώς) the father of Josiah.”
These different names - ASA versus ASAPH, and AMON versus AMOS are TEXTUAL differences. They are not variations in spelling the same names, but are totally different names that come from very different Greek texts. And the texts followed by the ESV here in verses 7, 8 and 10 are the WRONG names.
Simply go back to 1 Chronicles 3:10-14 in either the Hebrew Scriptures or even the so called Greek Septuagint and they both read the same. ASA was the son of Abia, and AMON was the son of Manasseh. Even the ESV tells you this in 1 Chronicles 3:10-14.
The ESV has followed the Westcott-Hort, UBS critical Greek text in these places where they have the wrong names. There were at least three men named Asaph and two named Amos, but neither one of them is listed anywhere in the Bible as being in the lineage of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Majority of all Greek manuscripts, the Hebrew Scriptures, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta and even the so called Greek Septuagint read as does the King James Bible with ASA and AMON.
So where did the ESV get the names of ASAPH and AMOS? They come from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Instead of just recognizing that these are two of the most corrupt manuscripts in existence, they have chosen to go against all historical evidence to the contrary and have two guys in the lineage of our Saviour who simply do NOT belong there.
If you want to find out what these so called "oldest and best manuscripts", many modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, Jehovah Witness NWT and the MODERN Catholic versions are ALL based on, See -
"The true character of the so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts"
What is interesting here is that not even the NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, The Voice, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 or even Dan Wallace’s NET version followed the UBS, Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts here that falsely read “Asaph” and “Amos”, but went instead with the Traditional Greek texts of the Reformation Bibles and the KJB and they all correctly read “ASA” and “AMON” instead of the ESV’s “ASAPH” and “AMOS”.
The other perverted bibles would be the previous RSV where they correctly have ASA in verses 7 and 8 but then footnote that “the Greek says ASAPH”, which is not true at all. Only a very few corrupt Greek manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read this way, while the vast majority of them have it right. But the RSV then went with the false reading of AMOS in verse 10, and then footnotes “others read Amon”.
Then came along the NRSV of 1989 and it changed BOTH names to ASAPH and AMOS, just like the ESV 2001-2011 has it. These are TEXTUAL errors that result in two of the wrong men being placed into the lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ, and even the NASB, NIV, Holman and NET translators had enough sense to see that these are the wrong names and they went back to the Traditional Greek text in these two instances.
God is a God of absolute Truth; He cannot lie. If you find lies and falsehood in a book that purports to be the words of the living God and they are false, then this bible version is false and cannot be trusted.
“For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together.” Mark 14:56
Matthew 7:14 is the way that leads to life “NARROW” or “HARD”?
Matthew 7:13-14 KJB - “ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and NARROW is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
ESV (RSV, Revised Standard Version CATHOLIC Edition 1966, NRSV) - “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is HARD that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
The NKJV 1982, Holman Standard, NET - “DIFFICULT is the way which leads to life” (NKJV- the marijuana version;-)
Well, I guess it’s much harder when you are using one of the fake Vatican supervised versions like the ever changing ESV, but the way to life is not hard at all. All we have to do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But the way IS “narrow”. There is only one door, not many, and that door is the Lord Jesus Christ himself.
“I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved” John 10:9
“ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” John 5:24.
The Greek word translated here in Matthew 7:14 as “NARROW” is thlibo and it literally means “to press together” “to hem in” (Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the N.T. page 139.
Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon says that the perfect participle (which this is) means “HEMMED IN, CONFINED, NARROW.” (Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, 17th edition 1887, page 319)
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament tells us on page 291 that the perfect participle (which this is here in Matthew 7:14) means: “a compressed way, i.e. NARROW, STRAITENED, CONTRACTED.”
The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon tells us on page 362 that the passive participle (which this is) means: “pressed together, compressed, MADE NARROW”
And even Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the N.T. says that the perfect participle is “Literally NARROWED, i.e. hemmed in, like a mountain gorge; the way is rendered NARROW by the Divine conditions.”
The Catholic Versions
The older Douay-Rheims 1582 said “narrow is the gate, and STRAIT (not crooked, not bent) is the way that leadeth to life”. Then the 1950 Douay has a similar meaning saying: “narrow is the gate and CLOSE (narrow) the way that leads to life”.
BUT now the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 has: “how narrow is the gate that leads to life, HOW ROUGH the road” and the 1968 Jerusalem and the 1985 New Jerusalem bibles now read like the ESV with “it is a narrow gate and A HARD ROAD that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
Other Versions -
The International Standard Version 2014, Green’s Literal 2005 and New American Bible 2010 have “how CONSTRICTED is the road that leads to life”
Young’s 1898 - “and COMPRESSED the way that is leading to life”
Worldwide English N.T. 1998 - “The gate is small and the road IS NOT WIDE that goes to life. Not many people find it.”
World English Bible 2000 - “How narrow is the gate, and RESTRICTED is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it.”
Jubilee Bible 2010 and Lexham English bible 2012 - “and CONFINED is the way which leads to life”
The New European Version 2010 - “For narrow is the gate and STRAIGHT the road that leads to life, but few are they that find it.”
New Testament for Everyone 2011 - “But the gate leading to life is narrow, and the road going there IS A TIGHT SQUEEZE.”
Biblos Bible 2013 - “and COMPRESSED the way leading to life”
English Majority Text N.T. 2013 - “and CONFINED is the way which leads to life”
Hebrew Names Version 2014 - “and RESTRICTED is the way that leads to life”
“NARROW is the way, that leadeth unto life”
Agreeing with the King James Bible are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, The Beza N.T. 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston’s N.T. 1745, Wesley N.T. 1755, Haweis N.T. 1795, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, Living Oracles N.T. 1826, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Revised N.T. 1862, Notes N.T. 1869, Twentieth Century N.T. 1901, the Clarke N.T. 1913, New English Bible 1970, Living Bible 1971, The Word of Yah Bible 1993, the NASB 1995, The Revised Webster Bible 1995, Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, the New Century Version 2005, The Conservative Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Bible 2010, The Aramaic N.T. 2011 “and NARROW is the road”, the NIV 2011, The Voice 2012, The Translator’s Bible 2014, the Modern English Version 2014, and the New International Reader’s Version 2014.
The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.
Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV 2001, 2007 editions, Holman, Douay-Rheims, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (ESV 2011 edition, NRSV, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem)
Luke 3:33 - Who ARE these guys???
The textual variants for just this one verse are mind boggling. And of course, the UBS/ Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland critical Greek text continues to change from one edition to the next.
Previous editions did NOT read the way they do now. I have hard copies of several of them.
Luke 3:33 KJB - “Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of ARAM, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda” (5 names)
ESV - the son of Amminadab, the son of ADMIN, the son of ARNI, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah” (6 names)
NASB - the son of Amminadab, the son of ADMIN, the son of RAM, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, (6 names 1 is different)
NIV - the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah (5 names = KJB)
Holman - son of Amminadab, son of Ram, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah (5 names = KJB)
NKJV - the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah (5 names)
NET - the son of Amminadab, the son of ADMIN, the son of ARNI, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah (6 names = ESV but not the NASB)
And not even most the modern Bible Buffet versions agree with the ESV.
The Holman 2009 doesn't - It has " on of Amminadab, son of Ram, son of Hezron, son of Perez, son of Judah," = KJB with slight spelling changes.
The NIV 2011 does not agree with the ESV either. It reads like the KJB with slightly different spelling.
Nor the Tree of Life Version 2015. Reads like the KJB.
The NASB adds ONE of the extra names, but not the other.
The NASB has “the son of ADMIN, the son of RAM”, but the ESV says: “the son of ADMIN, the son of ARNI”
The ESV DOES read like the old liberal RSV, the NET (Big surprise) and the modern Catholic Versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.
Here are three different Greek texts, so you can see how confusing they all are.
The Textus Receptus of the Reformation bibles (Stephanos 1550 and Scrivener 1894 -
του αμιναδαβ του αραμ του εσρωμ του φαρες του ιουδα (5 names, and 2 are different from the Westcott-Hort text which omits Aminadab but the more recent Critical text includes this name)
- του αδμιν του αρνι του εσρωμ του φαρες του ιουδα (5 names, but 3 are different from the KJB)
And the most recent Nestle-Aland/UBS Critical Greek text -
τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνὶ τοῦ Ἑσρὼμ τοῦ Φαρὲς τοῦ Ἰούδα (6 names and it doesn’t agree with the previous Westcott-Hort text by two names, nor the TR nor the “Majority” text.
And the so called Majority Text differs from all of them as well by adding another name that is not found in either the TR nor in the Critical text versions.
It reads: the son of Amminadab, the son of Aram, THE SON OF JORAM, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνὶ] (א2 Ἀρνει) L (N* Ἀρὰμ for Ἀδμὶν) X (Γ) (f13 Ἀρηῒ) 157 pc copbo NR CEI Riv TILC Nv (NM omit τοῦ Ἀδμὶν)
τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνὶ] (p4vid Ἀδμειν and Ἀρνει) (א* Ἀρνει) 1241 pc copsa
τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνὶ] (B Ἀρνει) WH
τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρὰμ] 0102 (1216 Ἀμιναδὰμ) (1243 1646 2174 Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἰωρὰμ)
τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἰωρὰμ] K Δ Ψ (180 1010 Ἰωαρὰμ) 597 700 (892 Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ) 1006 1010 1195 1243 1505 2148 2452 Byzpt Lectpt itb (ite) Paschal Chronicle
τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰμ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἰωρὰμ] (28* Ἰαρὰμ) 28c 205 1242 (1292 Ἰωαρὰμ) 1344 Lectpt syrh slav
τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἀδμὶ τοῦ Ἀρνὶ] (N* omit τοῦ Ἀδμὶ) Θ (0102) (1 Ἀμιναδὰμ and Ἀλμεὶ for Ἀδμὶ) pc (syrpal) arm geo
τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰμ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἀλμεὶ τοῦ Ἀρνὶ] 1 (1365 add τοῦ Ἰωρὰμ) (l1127 Ἀμιναδὰβ and Ἰωρὰμ τοῦ Δονεῖ for Ἀρνὶ)
τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰμ τοῦ Ἰωρὰμ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ] 1009
τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἰωρὰμ τοῦ Ἀνμεὶ τοῦ Δονεῖ] l70 (l185) (l950)
τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ] (see Matthew 1:3; Matthew 1:4) A D E G H Nc Π 33 565 (1071 1242 Ἀμιναδὰμ) 1079 1230 1253 (1424) Byzpt l184 l292 l2211 lAD ita itaur itc itd itf itff2 itl itq itr1 vg syrp goth ς ND Dio
τοῦ Νηρὶ τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰμ τοῦ Μελχι τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἀδδὶ] 1546
omit verses 24-38] W (579 omit verses 23-38)
See A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants
Ἑσρὼμ] p4 א A Byz ς WH
τοῦ Φάρες] p4 א B Byz ς WH
Luke 4:44 "Galilee" or "Judea"? A Geographical Blunder in the Vatican Versions
KJB - “And he preached in the synagogues of GALILEE.”
ESV - “And he was preaching in the synagogues of JUDEA.”
See this point further discussed in my article here -
Luke 10:1 "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come."
Here Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the so called oldest and best manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based, differ from each other. These two manuscripts differ in significant ways from each other more than 3000 times in the gospels alone. The reading of SEVENTY is found in the majority of all texts including, A, C and Sinaiticus. The NASB, NKJV, ASV, Holman Standard, RSV and NRSV all read 70 but the NIV, TNIV and the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version) read seventy TWO, which is the reading of Vaticanus.
It is of interest to see the fickleness of the scholars in that the previous RSV and NRSV both read "70", but then the revision of the revision of the revision - the ESV - has now adopted the reading of "72", but the two newest versions to come down the pike, the Holman Standard and the ISV (International Standard Version), both have retained the reading of "70". Their only consistency is their inconsistency.
The NIV, ESV say: "The Lord appointed seventy TWO others". The number 72 is the reading of Vaticanus, but most manuscripts including Sinaiticus read 70. The Catholic versions like Douay-Rheims, Douay, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible ALL read 72 in both verses. So, was it 70 or 72 men whom Christ sent out? Is your Bible the inerrant word of God or do you prefer one of the multiple-choice Probably Close Enuf Versions?
2 Thessalonians 2:13 Another mind-blower!
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath FROM THE BEGINNING chosen you to salvation..."
"From the beginning" is the reading found in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, and Ethiopic ancient versions. It also was the reading of the previous Nestle-Aland Greek editions, and is still found in the NIV 1973, 1984 editions, NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NET version and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard.
However, the latest Nestle-Aland texts have once again changed their reading, based on Vaticanus, and now reads: "God has chosen you AS THE FIRST FRUITS to be saved" and this is how the NRSV, ESV and the 2005 TNIV and the NIV 2011 now read! So again, it looks like those old NASB, NIV's 1973, 1984 and 2003 Holman Standards are once again out of date and follow the wrong texts according to the late$t $cholarly finding$. Guess which versions also read "God has chosen you AS THE FIRST FRUITS". Yep, once again, it is the majority of Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, the Douay and the St. Joseph New American bible. But a curious thing has happened. Now the New Jerusalem of 1985 has gone back to the reading of "God chose YOU FROM THE BEGINNING", BUT then once again the Catholic Public Domain bible of 2009 has gone back to "AS THE FIRSTFRUITS" taken from the Vaticanus mss. You can always depend on the Vatican-Evangelical Combine to give us a never ending variety of readings so you can never be absolutely sure about what God may or may not have said in His precious words.
Titus 3:10 "Heretic" or "A Divisive Person"? Satan's Deception in the Modern Versions
King James Bible - "A man that is an HERETIC after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." Titus 3:10-11
ESV (NKJV, NIV, NASB) - "As for A PERSON WHO STIRS UP DIVISION, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." Titus 3:10-11
2 Peter 3:10 "...the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein SHALL BE BURNED UP."
"Shall be burned up" (katakansetai) is the Majority reading, as well as A, Old Latin, Syriac Harclean, Coptic Boharic, and Ethiopic ancient versions. This is also the reading of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, and the NASB. However, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain a non-sensical reading, which was never adopted until recently. The NASB footnotes that "Two early manuscripts read 'discovered'". Actually what they really say is "the earth and the works that are therin SHALL BE FOUND" (Greek - heurethnsetai), but this is too ridiculous even for the most fanciful of scholars, so several modern versions adopt this reading but paraphrase it so as not to seem quite so ludicrous.
The NIV says the works shall BE LAID BARE; the ESV and ISV say they will be EXPOSED; while the NRSV and Holman Standard tell us the earth and its works "shall be DISCLOSED." Here the Catholic versions are in their usual disarray and disagreement with each other. The older Douay-Rheims and Douay read like the KJB with "SHALL BE BURNED UP". Then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB went with the other reading and said "all its deeds WILL BE MADE MANIFEST", BUT then once again the newer New Jerusalem bible of 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version have gone back to "SHALL BE BURNED UP."
Jude 5 - "the Lord saved” or "Jesus saved”?
James White’s “superior manuscripts”
(Note: This is a section from my study called “The Book of Jude - James White's "inferior" texts”, where he states in his book that the King James Bible is based on INFERIOR TEXTS”. Of course, the good Doktor James White is not “attacking” the KJB, you understand. He’s just being an impartial and objective textual critic :-)
You can see the whole article here -
Jude 5 KJB -"I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that THE LORD, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not."
ESV - "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that JESUS, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." “THE LORD, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt” is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus and was the reading that even Westcott and Hort went with - οτι ο κυριος λαον εκ γης αιγυπτου σωσας
It is the reading found in ALL Reformation Bibles including Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible 2000 - “daß der HERR, da er dem Volk aus Ägypten half”, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and the Louis Segond 2007 - “que le Seigneur”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and Reina Valera 1909-2011 - “que el Señor, habiendo salvado al pueblo”, the Italian Diodati 1649 and La Nuova Diodati 1991 and La Nuova Riveduta 2007 - “che il Signore” and the Portugueze A Biblia Sagrada, O Livro 2000, NIV Portuguese 1999 and the Almeida Actualizada - “havendo o Senhor salvo um povo”.
However both Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, as well as the Latin Vulgate actually read JESUS instead of the LORD, even though the passage is speaking about the Lord God, the Father, bringing the children of Israel out of Egypt. These two manuscripts tell us that Jesus saved the people out of the land of Egypt.
The Latin Vulgate has: “IESUS populum de terra Aegypti salvans” and the Clementine Vulgate reads: “JESUS populum de terra Ægypti salvans”
The correction of manuscript C reads God instead of Lord, and P72 actually says "God Christ" brought the people out of Egypt! Confusion reigns among James White’s so called “oldest and best manuscripts”.
The ESV does not even follow the UBS 1st through 4th editions, or the first 27 editions of the Nestle-Aland Critical Text Greek here. The UBS text says "the Lord" (ο κυριος) and the reading of "Jesus" (Ἰησοῦς) is merely placed in a footnote as being found in the Vatican mss. and A.
But wait a minute. Now the 28th Nestle-Aland critical text has just come out in 2012 and it now has removed the word "Lord" which was in it for 27 different editions, and now they actually put the word "Jesus" into their late$t text.
Don’t forget, the ESV came out in 2001 and again in 2007 and a third edition different from the previous 2 ESV editions in 2011. So at that time they weren’t even following the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts. This reading of JESUS is primarily that found in the Vatican manuscript, the Latin and Clementine Vulgates, and the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims and Douay versions.
A couple other recent modern versions that now adopt this "new" reading of JESUS instead of THE LORD are Dan Wallace's NET version (Surprise!), the New Living Translation (even though the previous Living Bible 1971 said “the Lord”) and the Lexham English bible 2012.
What is to be noted is that not all of the modern Critical Text versions follow this reading that the ESV and Catholic versions have.
The reading of "how that THE LORD, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not" is the reading found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1587, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, NIV 1978-2011 editions, NASB 1995 (critical text version), NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2003 (critical text), Jubilee Bible 2010, Names of God Bible 2011 (critical text), Common English Bible 2011 (another Critical text version), the ISV (critical text) and the Voice 2012 (another critical text version.)
This is also the reading of the Modern Greek Bible - “οτι ο Κυριος, αφου εσωσε τον λαον εκ γης Αιγυπτου” and the Modern Hebrew Bible - ויש את נפשי להזכיר אתכם את אשר כבר ידעתם כי הושיע יהוה
Just a few of the foreign language versions that read "THE LORD having saved the people" instead of "JESUS having saved the people" are the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 and Contemporánea 2011 and Spanish NIV 1999, the French Louis Segond of 2007, the Italian New Diodati of 1991 and the Italian Riveduta of 2006, the German Luther of 1545 and German Schlachter of 2000, the Portuguese Almeida, the NIV Portuguese version 1999 (Nova Versão Internacional) and the Portuguese O Livro of 2000, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014.
The Catholic Versions
The Catholic versions are their usual mixed bag with the previous Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 both reading JESUS (which they got from the Latin Vulgate), while the later Jerusalem bible 1968, New American Bible 1970, and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 reading THE LORD, instead of 'Jesus".
But wait! It's not over yet with the Catholic church and their Merry-Go-Round Versions. Now the latest Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) of 2009 has come out, and they have gone back to the Vatican reading of JESUS. It says: "Those who once knew everything that JESUS, in saving the people from the land of Egypt"
This same confusion is seen in the revision of the revision of the revision, called the ESV. Instead of reading THE LORD the RSV of 1952 says HE (found in no text at all), then the NRSV of 1989 went back to THE LORD, but then in 2001 the ESV (English Standard Version) has now adopted the reading found in Vaticanus and it actually says JESUS saved the people out of the land of Egypt.
Daniel Wallace's NET version has also adopted this weird variant of JESUS too and in his footnotes he says: "As difficult as the reading "Jesus" is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation, it is wholly appropriate."
In other words, because it is clearly wrong it must be right! This is the nature of the so called "science" of textual criticism. Every man does that which is right in his own eyes.
Back in the days spoken of when the LORD brought the people out of the land of Egypt, THERE WAS NO JESUS. Jesus is His human name given to Christ, the Son of God when He took on human flesh at the incarnation. Before the Incarnation He was Christ the eternal Son of God, but He was not yet a partaker of flesh and blood. There was no Jesus before the incarnation. His human name is Jesus.
Matthew 1:20-21 - "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and THOU SHALT CALL HIS NAME JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."
“But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see JESUS, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour” Hebrews 2:9
The Lord Jesus Christ is never referred to as Jesus until after his incarnation when He took on Him the seed of Abraham and was made in the likeness of men.
The reading now found in the ESV, Catholic Douay-Rheims, Douay and most recent Catholic Public Domain Version as well as Dan Wallace's NET version is just another proof that the ESV is a bogus Vatican Version. It doesn't even follow the previous 27 editions of the Nestle-Aland critical texts, let alone the traditional Greek texts found in the King James Bible.
Dan Wallace, of NET version fame, says: “Another significant change is found in Jude 5. NA27 reads πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ, while NA 28 has ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς. The key difference is Ἰησοῦς for κύριος. The text now says that Jesus saved his people out of Egypt and later destroyed the unbelievers. The NET Bible and the ESV also have the reading Jesus. As the primary textual critic for the NET, I felt that this reading would be the most controversial of any that we adopted."
None of these Bible versions agree with each other in both texts and meaning in literally hundreds of verses. Did God really preserve His words as He promised, or do we no longer have any Bible that we can call the complete, infallible, inspired words of God? I know where I stand, by God's sovereign grace, on this most important issue. How about you?
"Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way." Psalm 119:128
Notes from the Internet - Objection raised
Did Christ exist in the Old Testament? What about 1 Corinthians 10:4 - “And all did drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”
No, this was not the literal, incarnate Christ. The eternal Son of God appeared in the Old Testament, but He did not become a man, take on human nature and become Jesus the Christ until His incarnation.
In Matthew 1:1 and 16 we read: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham...And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”
Then in Mathew 1:18 we read: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”
Again, in Matthew 2:4 we read: “And when he (Herod) had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.”
In Luke 2:11 we read: “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.”
Regarding 1 Corinthians 10:4 where is says “and that Rock was Christ” is is called a “spiritual Rock”. It figuratively or spiritually signified Christ, but was not the literal Christ. He had not yet been born.
John Gill comments on 1 Cor. 10:4 saying - “And the rock was Christ:
that is, it signified Christ, it was a type of him.”
Adam Clarke comments: “Now, though of all the senses already given that of Bishop Pearce is the best, yet it does appear that the apostle does not speak about the rock itself, but of Him whom it represented; namely, Christ.”
John Calvin comments: “On this principle the Apostle says, that the rock was Christ, for nothing is more common than metonymy in speaking of sacraments. The name of the thing, therefore, is transferred here to the sign -- not as if it were strictly applicable, but figuratively, on the ground of that connection which I have mentioned.”
Matthew Henry comments - “They did all eat of the same spiritual meat, and drink of the same spiritual drink, that we do. The manna on which they fed was a type of Christ crucified, the bread which came down from heaven, which whoso eateth shall live forever. Their drink was a stream fetched from a rock which followed them in all their journeyings in the wilderness; and this rock was Christ, that is, in type and figure. He is the rock on which the Christian church is built; and of the streams that issue from him do all believers drink, and are refreshed. Now all the Jews did eat of this meat, and drink of this rock, called here a spiritual rock, because it typified spiritual things.”
John Wesley comments: “And all drank the same spiritual drink - Typical of Christ, and of that cup which we drink. For they drank out of the spiritual or mysterious rock, the wonderful streams of which followed them in their several journeyings, for many years, through the wilderness. And that rock was a manifest type of Christ.”
Here are some brief comments on the ESV and how it relates to Creation by Jesus Christ from brother Teno Groppi. He writes:
(KJB) But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, from EVERLASTING.
This is a clear prophecy of Jesus Christ. Prophecy is one of the key proofs that the Bible is the Supernatural word of God. And this is one of the most stunning prophecies of Jesus Christ - it gives the very town He will be born in, what family He'll belong to, and some specific things about His life - all in one little verse written 700 years before Jesus was born. Let's see the daily horoscope try that! Surely no Bible version would mess up at such an important place.
(ESV 2001) ... whose ORIGIN is from of old, from ANCIENT days. So also read the Catholic St. Joseph NAB, the New Jerusalem bible and the Jehovah Witness versions.
What? Whose origin? From old, ancient days? Either that's not talking about Jesus, or they are making Jesus into a created god like the cults do. The ESV has just defrocked Jesus Christ. What good is a Bible version that strips the deity of Jesus Christ? Who would be the inspiration behind that?
The ESV editors may have gotten the hint that their fake bible read a little too much like the old liberal RSV and the Jehovah Witness versions here, so in the 2007 "update" the ESV has now changed their previous translation so that it now comes more into line with the traditional theology of this verse. After all, they DO want to sell their latest version, right? So their latest "revision" (after just 6 short years" now reads: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose COMING FORTH is from of old, from ancient days."
(KJB) For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
(ESV) For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one ORIGIN. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers.
Again, Jesus has an origin in the ESV. If Jesus has an origin, and is a created being rather than the Creator - he can't be our Saviour, because he'd need one himself.
They will claim that they honor the deity of Christ in other places. Maybe so, but who wants a Bible that waters down Jesus Christ half of the time? If a version didn't have “some” verses get it right, nobody would fall for it, but by changing just “some” of the verses, the devil gets people to use versions that dilute the power and deity of Jesus Christ. Remember, the serpent is the most subtil of all creatures (Gen 3:1), and his first effort was to cast doubt on the word of God (Gen 3:1). Changing just *some* of the verses is exactly how we'd expect Satan to operate.
(KJB) Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the BEGINNING of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things BY JESUS CHRIST:
(ESV) ... mystery hidden for AGES in God who created all things, [by nobody]
Ages? What does that tell you? Not much. Not as much as "from the beginning" - that is specific, settled. And Somebody is missing from the verse. Who might that be? Only Jesus Christ - apparently nobody important if you want to have a Bible version with the "same message". Also omitting the words "by Jesus Christ" are all the Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph, and the New Jerusalem bible.
(KJB) John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
(ESV) No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
The ESV call the One at the Father's side, "the only God". Does that mean the Father is not God? The verse doesn't even say that Jesus is God's Son at all here, it refers to THE Father. That doesn't even say He's Jesus' Father!
(KJB) Prov 26:10 The great God that FORMED ALL THINGS both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors.
(ESV) Like an archer who wounds everyone is one who hires a passing fool or drunkard.
They replaced the Creator God with some kind of Robin Hood shooting arrows at fools and drunkards.
1 Cor 10:28
(KJB) 1 Cor 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND THE FULNESS THEREOF:
(ESV) But if someone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience--
Who does the earth belong to? In the ESV we don't know - that part is omitted.
These are not unimportant differences. Either Jesus is a created being or he is the Creator God. If these verses in the ESV are correct, we're wasting our time with Christianity following a Jesus who needs a Saviour himself.
The ESV, just as all the modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, RSV, and the NIV keep on changing their English text, and sometimes even the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, from one edition to the next, and they do not let the reader know what changes they have made from one to the other. These “Now you see it, and now you don’t” fake bibles keep on changing all the time, and they have no settled text.
Here are a few clear examples of the textual changes made in the ESV 2007 edition from what it read in the ESV 2001 edition. You can see a more complete list at this site here. They have changed over 350 verses that were found in the 2001 ESV edition. And now they have once more revised the 2007 edition in 2011 where they changed another 500 words from the previous 2007 edition.
The ESV underwent a minor revision in 2007. The publisher chose not to identify the updated text as a second or revised edition; it was intended to replace the original ESV under the original name. A second revised edition which changed about 500 words (the most notable being changing "wounded for our transgressions" to "pierced for our transgressions" in Isaiah 53:5, matching the NASB rendering) was issued in April 2011: the 2007 edition has been gradually phased out in its favor. - Mansfield, R (2007-6-25), "2007 ESV Changes: Hebrews–Revelation", This Lamp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version
How women have changed from 2011 to 2016:
From the 2011 ESV:
Makes sense, doesn't it? As people change, and as women become more contrary, the bible needs to change to reflect that. Right?
You can see the ESV 2016 edition at this site
ESV textual changes from 2001 to 2007
2 Chron 21:2 - Jehoshaphat king of Judah
2 Chron 21:2 - Jehoshaphat king of Israel
2 Chronicles 21:2 “ISRAEL” or “JUDAH”? Are all Hebrew texts wrong and have been corrupted?
RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001, most Catholic versions and several previous English versions and some commentators say Yes.
KJB and many others say No.
In the King James Bible, as well as in ALL Hebrew texts we read: “And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of ISRAEL.”
But the ESV 2001 edition (RSV, NRSV, Catholic Douay-Rheims 1610, Catholic Jerusalem bible 1968, the St. Joseph New American bible 1970, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s bible 1549, Bishops’ bible 1568 - thus we see the imperfections of the previous English bibles )
- “He had brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat: Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Azariah, Michael, and Shephatiah; all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of JUDAH.”
Then in a footnote it tells us that the reading of JUDAH comes from the Greek Septuagint and the Syraic, but that the Hebrew texts read ISRAEL.
BUT the ESVs have come out with 4 different editions in just 16 years and they keep changing their texts. The ESV 2007 and ESV 2011 (I have hard copies) and now also the ESV 2016 editions have come out and now gone back to the Hebrew and reads:
“He had brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat: Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Azariah, Michael, and Shephatiah; all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of ISRAEL.”
Agreeing with the KJB and the Hebrew texts are the Geneva Bible 1587, the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985, the NASB, NIV, NET, NKJV, Young’s, Jewish Publication Society bible 1917, the Complete Tanach 2004, the Modern English Version 2014, Tree of Life Version 2015, and now the ESV 2016 edition.
The solution to this “problem” is easily solved by seeing how God uses the term ISRAEL many times in the book of 2 Chronicles to refer to the people of Judah and kings of Judah as the people of ISRAEL and kings of ISRAEL.
The term Israel is used in a generic sense of God’s people and many of those from the 10 tribes of Israel had indeed joined themselves to the house of Judah to serve the true God.
The term ISRAEL is used in this way in 2 Chronicles 12:6 “the princes of ISRAEL humbled themselves”; 15:17 “But the high places were not taken away out of ISRAEL; nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.”; 23:2; 24:5 “Go out into the cities of Judah, and gather of all ISRAEL money to repair the house of your God” and 16; and in 2 Chronicles 28:19 “For the LORD brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of ISRAEL; and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.”
2 Chron 36:9 - Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.
2 Chron 36:9 - Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.
Psalm 19:4 - Their measuring line goes out through all the earth
Psalm 19:4 -Their voice goes out through all the earth
Isaiah 53:10 - when his soul makes an offering for sin
Isaiah 53:10 - when his soul makes an offering for guilt
Micah 5:2 - But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
Micah 5:2 - But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.
Zechariah 14:14 - Judah will fight against Jerusalem
Matthew 17:24 the collectors of the half-shekel tax
Matthew 17:24 - the collectors of the two-drachma tax
Matthew 19:5 - and they shall become one flesh
Matthew 19:5 - and the two shall become one flesh
Mark 5:5 - bruising himself with stones
Mark 5:5 - cutting himself with stones
Mark 7:25 - But immediately a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit
Mark 7:25 - But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit
Mark 8:37 - For what can a man give in return for his life?
Mark 8:37 - For what can a man give in return for his soul?
Mark 10:8 - and they shall become one flesh
Mark 10:8 - and the two shall become one flesh
Mark 13:14 - But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be
Mark 13:14 - But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be
Luke 18:24 - Jesus, looking at him with sadness, said, “How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!
John 4:14 - never be thirsty forever
John 4:14 - never be thirsty again
John 6:58 - This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died.
John 6:58 - This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died.
John 6:53 - It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail
John 6:53 - It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all
John 15:2 - Every branch of mine
John 15:2 - Every branch in me
Acts 1:18 - this man bought a field
Acts 1:18 - this man acquired a field
Acts 5:21 - the senate of Israel
Acts 5:21 - the senate of the people of Israel
Acts 8:7 - For unclean spirits came out of many who were possessed, crying with a loud voice, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed.
Acts 8:7 - For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed.
Romans 1:23 - animals and reptiles
Romans 1:23 - animals and creeping things
Romans 11:20 - So do not become proud, but stand in awe.
Romans 11:20 - So do not become proud, but fear.
Romans 11:25 - Lest you be wise in your own conceits
Romans 11:25 - Lest you be wise in your own sight
Romans 12:16 - Never be conceited.
Romans 12:16 - Never be wise in your own sight.
1 Corinthians 1:30 - He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.
1 Corinthians 1:30 - And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
1 Corinthians 11:27 - will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:27 - will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:30 - Why am I in danger every hour?
2 Corinthians 4:16 - Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day.
2 Corinthians 4:16 - Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.
2 Corinthians 9:7 - Each one must give as he has made up his mind
2 Corinthians 9:7 - Each one must give as he has decided in his heart
2 Corinthians 12:7 - So to keep me from being too elated by the surpassing greatness of the revelations
2 Corinthians 12:7 - So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations
Galatians 2:21 - for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 2:21 - for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Ephesians 5:7 - Therefore do not associate with them;
Ephesians 5:7 - Therefore do not become partners with them;
Phillipians 2:7 KJB - "But made himself of no reputation"
ESV 2001 edition- "He made himself nothing"
ESV 2011 edition -"He emptied himself"
See why the King James Bible is right, here -
Colossians 4:5 Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of the time.
Colossians 4:5 Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time.
1 Timothy 4:15 - Practice these things, devote yourself to them
1 Timothy 4:15 - Practice these things, immerse yourself in them
2 Timothy 2:26 - and they may escape from the snare of the devil,
2 Timothy 2:26 - and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil
Philemon 14 - of your own free will
Philemon 14 - of your own accord
1 Peter 3:3 - Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing—
1 Peter 3:3 - Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—
1 John 3:24 - Whoever keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in them.
1 John 3:24 - Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him.
Jude 12 - These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, looking after themselves;
Jude 12 - These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves;
Jude 14 - “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones,
Jude 14 - “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
So, did the Lord already come or is He going to come in the future?
Revelation 2:23 - I will give to each of you as your works deserve.
Revelation 2:23 - I will give to each of you according to your works.
And here is a list of hundreds of more changes the ESV made from the 2007 edition to the 2011 edition -
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm
Here is a very good article about the Corrupt Foundation of the ESV by Terry Watkins. Lots of good information and facts about the textual basis of this latest Vatican Version.
Here is a good article called The Fruits of the ESV by Terry Watkins. It has a lot of good information and verse comparisons that show how utterly inferior the ESV really is. It also clearly shows that the ESV was supposedly in part conceived in order to do away with the growing "gender inclusive" language found in the NIV, but the ESV itself has TONS of examples of the very thing it allegedly was supposed to correct. Please take a look-
Comparing the liberal RSV to the ever changing ESVs -
Genesis 6:3 The King James Bible says: “My Spirit shall not always STRIVE WITH man.”
The RSV and ESV say: “My spirit shall not ABIDE IN man for ever.”
In the first place, the Spirit of God was not abiding within those wicked men of whom this message was addressed. Nor does the Spirit of God abide within any other Christ rejecting person.
See KJB in John 14:16-17. “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of Truth; WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”
Genesis 49:10 – KJB – “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a LAWGIVER from between his feet, UNTIL SHILOH COME; and unto him shall THE GATHERING OF THE PEOPLE BE.
“until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”
The RSV says: – The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor THE RULERS STAFF from between his feet until HE COMES TO WHOM IT BELONGS; and to him shall be the OBEDIENCE of the peoples.”
“Shiloh” here refers to Christ as a Peace Maker, and the RSV robs him of his Messianic rule.
The ESV confuses things even more. It says: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM, and to him shall the obedience of the people be.”
Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew reads “until Shiloh comes”.
Isaiah 32:2 – KJB – “A MAN shall be as a hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest.”
RSV and the ESV both say – “EACH shall be like a hiding place from the wind, a shelter from the storm.”
The “man” here can be no one but Christ. Just another case of setting the Lord Jesus aside, and giving us a substitute.
Daniel 3:25 – KJB – “Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
RSV, ESV – “The appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”
Here the Lord Jesus is like “a” son of one of the pagan gods.
Hosea 13:9 – KJB – “O Israel, thou has destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.”
RSV – “I will destroy you, O Israel; who can help you ?”
Here is an example of how scripture is often made to say exactly the opposite of what was given by the inspiration of God. The ESV isn’t much help either. It disagrees with both the KJB and the RSV.
The ESV says: “HE destroys you, O Israel, FOR YOU ARE AGAINST ME, against your helper.”
Micah 5:2 – KJB – “Bethlehem, out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING.”
RSV, ESV 2001 edition – “whose ORIGIN is from of old from ANCIENT DAYS.”
ESV 2011 edition - “whose coming forth is from of old, FROM ANCIENT DAYS.”
This refers to the Lord Jesus and the RSV makes him a created being having an origin. This same corruption is inserted into Hebrews 2:11 where the word ORIGIN is added making Christ have an origin or a beginning, just as mortal man does.
Hebrews 2:11 KJB - “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” That is, we all have one Father.
RSV - “For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have ALL ONE ORIGIN. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren.”
ESV 2001 edition - “For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified ALL HAVE ONE ORIGIN. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers.”
ESV 2011 edition - “For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified ALL HAVE ONE SOURCE. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers.”
And the supreme irony is that so many Christians today have abandoned the Reformation Bible text of the King James Bible and are now using and promoting the new Vatican Versions.
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"
“Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth..is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird...and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication...Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 17:2-5; 18:2-4
Now in 2016 the ESV folks are telling us that they finally decided to fix their text once more and they plan on leaving it in this final edition where they have only changed 52 words from the previous ESV of 2011. Here is their own article about this -
ESV Permanent Text Edition (2016) Word Changes (52 Total) Beginning in the summer of 2016, the text of the ESV Bible will remain unchanged in all future editions printed and published by Crossway—in much the same way that the King James Version (KJV) has remained unchanged ever since the final KJV t...
By the way, the only way the King James Bible changed was with an update of the spelling of many words like “sonne” to son, and daies to days, and sheepe to sheep, and booke to book. The TEXT never changed, unlike the ESV’s now FOUR different editions within just 16 years.
Notice one of the changes involves a specific number by following a different text. The previous ESVs rejected the Hebrew text in Ezekiel 40:14 where the Hebrew and even the NASB and NIV read - “He made posts of THREESCORE (60) cubits”. The previous ESVs followed the so called Greek Septuagint instead, where it reads TWENTY (20) cubits. But now the 2016 ESV has gone back to the Hebrew reading of 60 cubits.
But, the ESV, along with the NASB, NIV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT and the modern Catholic versions, still follows the ever changing Vatican supervised Critical Text of the New Testament, and still rejects and adds to many of the Hebrew readings. This has not changed, and never will.
The Ever Changing Vatican Supervised ESVs 2001, 2007 and 2011 = just another Vatican Version
News Flash - The ESV's "permanent text" lasted about one month!
After Tweaking 29 Verses, Bible Translation Becomes Unchanging Word of God
The translation oversight committee changed just 52 words across 29 versesout of more than 775,000 words across more than 31,000 versesfor the final “permanent text” edition. The board then voted, unanimously, to make the text “unchanged forever, in perpetuity.”
“The text of the ESV Bible will remain unchanged in all future editions printed and published by Crossway ..."
TG: Oh happy day! The ESV crew has finally decided to commit themselves. Bible correctors will be beside themselves not being able to tamper with God's word, something that comes as naturally to them as breathing. They will be stuck with Elhanan killing Goliath, but they've never been bothered by that anyway.
Crossway Statement on the ESV Bible Text
TG: Uh oh! I knew their desire to tamper with God's word would be too much for them to bear. "Never" lasted just one month.
We have become convinced that this decision was a mistake. We apologize for this and for any concern this has caused for readers of the ESV. ... rather to allow for ongoing periodic updating of the text"
The Vatican's efforts to destroy faith in the Bible.
From the Internet.
Some guy posted this meme on Facebook. I then responded -