Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

Bible Babble Buffet Eleven



Luke 6:1 KJB - "And it came to pass on THE SECOND sabbath AFTER THE FIRST, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands."  


 

ESV - Luke 6:1 - "ON THE SABBATH, while he was going through the grain fields, his disciples plucked and ate some of the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands."  


In the Traditional Reformation text there is a single Greek word that is translated as "THE SECOND AFTER THE FIRST".  It is the word δευτεροπρωτω (duteroprotos). It is found only one time in the entire New Testament and composed of the word "second" and "first". It literally is "the second after the first".  


This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts as well as Alexandrinus, C, D, E, H, K, X, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi as well as the Old Latin copies a, air, d, f, ff2.  It is the reading of the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever and even Tischendorf.  


It is also the reading found in the Vulgate, Syriac Harclean, Gothic, Armenian and Slavonic ancient versions and it is quoted in this way by several early church writers including Caesarius -Nazianzus, Gregory, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Isidore and Theophylact.


It is omitted by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and a small handful of others, and thus we have the simple reading of "ON THE SABBATH" in such critical text versions as the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NET, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and some modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.  



Most commentators - John Gill, Jamieson, Faussett and Brown, Matthew Henry, Ellicott, Meyer, Alford, Clarke, Guzik, Poole, Lang, Calvin, etc. - believe the expression is genuine and offer several explanations of what the phrase means.  


John Gill comments: “what seems most likely is, that this sabbath was, as it may be rendered, "the first sabbath after the second"; that is, the first sabbath after the second day of the passover, when the sheaf of the firstfruits was offered, and harvest might be begun; which suits well with ears of corn being ripe at this time, which the disciples rubbed. So the Jews reckoned the seven weeks from thence to Pentecost by sabbaths; the first after the second day they called the second first, or the first after the second day; the second they called the second second; and the third was named the second third; and so on, the second fourth, the second fifth, the second sixth, and second seventh, which brought on Pentecost, when the harvest was ended. So in the Jewish liturgies, there are collects for the first sabbath after the passover, and for the second sabbath after the passover, and so on to the sabbath before Pentecost. The eastern versions, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic, not knowing what should be meant by it, have only rendered it, "on the sabbath day"


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “second sabbath after the first—an obscure expression, occurring here only, generally understood to mean, the first sabbath after the second day of unleavened bread.”  

 


The Catholic Connection  


The older Douay-Rheims 1582 as well as the Douay 1950 contained the reading.  But the 1979 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem omit it and read like the ESV, NIV, NASB.  But once again in 2009 the Catholic version called The Sacred Scriptures has gone back to including the reading once again.


 


"THE SECOND SABBATH AFTER THE FIRST" or δευτεροπρωτω and various ways of translating it is the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster's translation 1833, the Living Oracles 1835, Noyes Translation 1869, Sawyer N.T. 1858, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth 1912, World English Bible - "Now it happened on the second Sabbath after the first", NKJV 1982, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Jubilee Bible 2010 and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012 - "Now it happened ON THE SECOND SABBATH AFTER THE FIRST that He went through the grain fields."


Many foreign language Bible contain the words, including Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter 2000 - "Und es begab sich an einem Sabbat", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909, Reina Valera Gómez 2010 - "Y aconteció en el segundo sábado después del primero", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Or il arriva le jour de Sabbat second-premier", the Italian Diodati 1649, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada - "  E aconteceu que, no sábado segundo-primeiro", the 1998 Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible - "Nangyari, sa ikalawang araw ng Sabat pagkaraan ng una", the Modern Greek Bible - Κατα δε το δευτεροπρωτον σαββατον διεβαινεν αυτος δια των σπαρτων and the Modern Hebrew Bible ויהי בשבת השנית לספירת העמר עבר בין הקמה ויקטפו תלמידיו מלילת ויפרכו אתן בידיהם ויאכלו׃




Luke 7:31 "AND THE LORD SAID, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?"



Some criticize the KJB for the words "And the Lord said" because they are not found in the "Majority" text nor in the Critical text, and so they ask where do they come from.  

 

These 4 words are omitted by such versions as the ESV, NASB, NET, most modern Catholic versions, the Jehovah Witness NWT and the so called "Majority" text.  

 

The Catholic Connection  

 

The older Douay-Rheims bible of 1582 contained the words "And the Lord said". But then the Douay version of 1950 as well as the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 omitted them. But once again, the Catholic Public Domain Version of 2009 has come out and it puts the words back in the text.


The words "And the Lord said" are in the Textus Receptus editions of Erasmus 1516, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Scrivener 1894 and Elzevir 1624. It is the text of the Reformation Bibles.


According to Jack Moorman’s book, When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text, these words are found in 2 cursive copies listed by The International Greek New Testament Project, the Old Latin copies of f and g2, and is in Jerome's Latin Vulgate of 404 A.D., the Clementine Vulgate and the Persian version.

 

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. contains the words “And the Lord said”. - “Ait autem Dominus: Cui ergo similes dicam homines generationis hujus? et cui similes sunt?”


http://www.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=Luke+7%3A31&search_form_type=general&q1=Luke+7%3A31&s=0&t1=la_jvl&ns=0


Jerome’s Latin Vulgate 382 to 405 A.D.


http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk007.htm



 


 Ait autem Dominus: Cui ergo similes dicam homines generationis hujus? et cui similes sunt?


The first three words here are "And the Lord said" - Ait autem Dominus


But James Snapp says they are confusing this with the Clementine Vulgate, which (according to the same site) was done in 1592.


Now, a couple of problems come up here with James Snapp's argument. Both Wycliffe's bible 1395 and the Catholic Douay-Rheims done in 1582 are both before the Latin Clementine Vulgate.  So, the question becomes, if "And the Lord said" was NOT in the earlier Latin Vulgate (as James affirms), and didn't get "added" to the text until the 1592 Clementine, there where did these two earlier translations (both of which tell us were translated from the Latin Vulgate)  get this reading?

 


“And the Lord said [eipe(n) de ho kurios]” in Luke 7:31, 11:39; 12:42 [kai eipen ho kurios]; 17:6; 18:6. Clearly, this is a typical Lukan usage. 


From here: http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/07/text-note-luke-2231.html

 

You may also find Nick Sayers's article on Luke 7:31 "And the Lord said" to be helpful

 

http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Luke_7:31

 


“AND THE LORD SAID” are found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815,Webster’s bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Young’s 1898, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The New Life Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, Contemporary English Version 1995, The Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), The Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie Translation 1998, The Complete Jewish Bible 1998, God’s First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Green’s Literal Translation 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Bond Slave Version 2009, The Jubilee Bible 2010, The New European Version 2010, The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “And YHWH (יהוה) said,”, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), The Conservative Bible 2011, The Work of God’s Children Bible 2011, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust), The Hebrew Names Version 2014, The Modern English Version 2014 and The Hebraic Roots Bible 2015.


The International Standard Version 2014 has “Jesus continued”, and, the Worldwide English N.T. 1998, The New Century Version 2005, The Common English Bible 2011, Expanded Bible 2011, The New International Reader’s Version 2014, The New Living Translation 2015 and The International Children’s Bible 2015 have: “Then Jesus said,….”


Even the NIV 2011 says: “Jesus went on to say, ….”


The words are also in the Modern Greek N.T.


Και ειπεν ο Κυριος· Με τι λοιπον να ομοιωσω τους ανθρωπους της γενεας ταυτης; και με τι ειναι ομοιοι;


http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch


And they are in the Modern Hebrew Bible - 

ויאמר האדון עתה אל מי אדמה את אנשי הדור הזה ואל מי הם דמים׃


Luther’s German bible 1545, and the German Schlachter bible 2000 - Aber der HERR sprach


The Italian Diodati 1649 - E il Signore disse: and the New Diodati 1991


The French Martin 1744 - Alors le Seigneur dit, and French Ostervald 1998, 


The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - Y dice el Señor: ¿A quién, pues, compararé los hombres de esta generación, y a qué son semejantes?, Cipriano de Valera 1602, and the Spanish Reina Valera  1960 and 1995 editions, and the Reina Valera Gómez Bible 2010.


The Dutch Staten Vertaling bible - En de Heere zeide, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Czech Kralicka Bible, The Finnish Bible 1776 - Niin Herra sanoi, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, Veren’s Contemporary Bulgarian Bible, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Smith & VanDyke’s Arabic Bible, The Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Polish Updated Gdansk Bible 2013, The Portuguese Almeida Corrigida 2009 - “E disse o Senhor”, and the NIV Portuguese edition 2000, and Portuguese O Livro 2000, the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos bible 1998, The Turkish Bible 1994, the Basque (Navarro-Labourdin) N.T., The Czeck BKR Bible, the Chinese Union Traditional Bible and the Romanian Fidela Bible 2014 - "Iar Domnul a spus"

 

 

Luke 9:54-56 KJB - "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, EVEN AS ELIAS? But he turned, and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village."

 

Luke 9:54-56 presents an interesting case. In the King James Bible we read: "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, EVEN AS ELIAS? But he turned, and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village."  

 

This is the only time these verses appear in the Bible together like this. They are either inspired of God and belong in your Bible or they are not.

 

All the capital lettered words in these three verses are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including F, K, M, U, Gamma, Lambda, Pi, the Old Latin copies of a, aur, b, c, e, f, q, r1, and are found in many ancient versions like the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Palestinian, Harkelian, Gothic, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, Ethiopian and the Latin Vulgate Clementine edition.

 

They are also found in the Modern Greek Bible - Στραφεις δε επεπληξεν αυτους και ειπε· δεν εξευρετε ποιου πνευματος εισθε σεις· διοτι ο Υιος του ανθρωπου δεν ηλθε να απολεση ψυχας ανθρωπων, αλλα να σωση. Και υπηγον εις αλλην κωμην” as well as the Modern Hebrew Bible - ויפן ויגער בם ויאמר הלא ידעתם בני רוח מי אתם׃ כי בן האדם לא בא לאבד נפשות אדם כי אם להושיעם וילכו להם אל כפר אחר׃

 

 

They are also in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible, and even the older Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay of 1950 contained all of verses 55 and 56.  All these words are also found in the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Knox Bible 2012, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Amplified bible 1987, The Voice 2012, the Jubilee Bible 2010 and the 2012 Natural Israelite Bible.

 

Among foreign language Bible these verses are found in the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996 and the French Louis Segond of 2007, the Italian Diodati 1649 and New Diodati 1991 as well as the 2008 Riveduta, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Romanian Cornilescu and 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible, the Chinese Traditional Bible, Norwegian Det Norsk Bible 1930, the Polish Bible Nowe Przymierze of 2011, the Hungarian Karoli Bible, the Russian Synodal Version 1876, Luther's German Bible 1545 and 2000 German Schlachter, the Moari Bible, the Quichua Bible 2011, the 1998 Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos Bible, Vietnamese Bible 1934, the Arabic Life Application Bible 1998, The Bulgarian Bible 1940, the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués -"Senhor, queres que digamos que desça fogo do céu e os consuma, como Elias também fez? 55 Voltando-se, porém repreendeu-os e disse: Vós não sabeis de que espírito sois, 56 Porque o Filho do homem não veio para destruir as almas dos homens, mas para salvá-las. E foram para outra aldeia." 

 

 

The Spanish Evangelio Segun San Lucas Rey Alfonso X of 1260 A.D. - "El tornos contra ellos, e maltroxo los e dixo: Non sabedes de qual esparto sodes. El Fiio de la Uirgin non uino a perder las almas, mas a saluar. E fueron a otro castiello."

 

These words are also found in the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909-2011, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (Lockman Foundation, who also do the NASB), and the Reina Valera Gómez Bible of 2010.

 

 

The NASBs reveal their fickle nature in that when it first came out in 1963 they completely omitted all these words from the text, as also in the 1972 and 1973 editions.  I have these NASBs right here in my study and all these words are omitted from their texts.  Then in 1977 and again in 1995 they put them back in [but in brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

 

What is happening here is that the Egyptian (Alexandrian) texts like Vaticanus,  Sinaiticus, A, C, P45 and P75 omit all these words, as do the Westcott-Hort/UBS/Vatican Greek texts and so all these words are now omitted by such versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, the Message, the J.W. New World Translation, Daniel Wallace's NET version AND (you guessed it) the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.

 

The Catholic Connection

 

Once again we see the same pattern in the Catholic versions. The older Douay Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 contained all the words in verses 55 and 56; then the 1970 St. Joseph and the 1985 New Jerusalem Catholic versions omit some 28 words from these two verses, but then once again the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version put all 28 words back in verses 55 and 56 again! - "And turning, he rebuked them, saying: "Do you not know whose spirit you are? [9:56] The Son of man came, not to destroy lives but to save them." And they went into another town."  

 

Keep in mind that many bible critics tell us that the Douay Rheims and the latest Catholic Public Domain version are based on the Latin Vulgate. Yet this is simply not always the case.  The Latin Vulgate omits most of verses 55 and 56 just like the NIV does.

 

 

The NIVs in foreign language editions are not always the same either.  The Spanish NIV reads like the English NIV by omitting all these words, but the NIV Portuguese includes most of them by including all of verses 55 and 56, but omitting "even as Elias did" from verse 54. 


Here is what the NIV Portuguese edition looks like: Nova Versão Internacional 1999 - "Ao verem isso, os discípulos Tiago e João perguntaram: “Senhor, queres que façamos cair fogo do céu para destruí-los?” Mas Jesus, voltando-se, os repreendeu, dizendo: “Vocês não sabem de que espécie de espírito vocês são, pois o Filho do homem não veio para destruir a vida dos homens, mas para salvá-los”;  e foram para outro povoado."  


Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and stick with it. It is God's Book for these end times and the Standard of excellence and accuracy, and the only Bible seriously believed to be the 100% true and infallible words of the living God.


 

 Luke 10:1, 17 -  "How many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach, 70 or 72?"


 

Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God.  In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right.  It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of ASSERTIONS IN THE FIELD OF HISTORY and science.” 


 

Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement.  IF THE BIBLE IS NOT 100% HISTORICALLY TRUE, THEN AT WHAT POINT DOES GOD START TO TELL US THE TRUTH?  If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific names and numbers when it records past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right? 

Luke 10:1, 17  KJB - "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." V.17 "And the SEVENTY returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."


ESV, NIV -  "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two...V.17 The SEVENTY TWO returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name."


The reading of SEVENTY is found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE appoynted out other seuentie, and sent them two and two before him", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "the Lord appoynted other seuentye also", the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whitston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770,  Living Oracles 1835, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth 1912, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1962, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Lamsa's 1933, Etheridge 1849 and Murdock's 1852 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, World English Bible, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, the Holman Standard 2009, the 2007 International Standard Version, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011, The Voice 2012, the Jubilee Bible 2000 and the Natural Israelite Bible 2012. 


SEVENTY is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including SINAITICUS, A, C the Old Latin f, q, r1 and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.


It is also so quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Tertulian, Origen, Eusebiou, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome and Cyril. It is also the Greek text reading of the Majority text, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Greek Orthodox text, and even Tischendorf's 8th edition. 


 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "SEVENTY" in Luke 10:1 and 17 are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera's 1909-1995 - "el Señor designó también a otros setenta", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - " le Seigneur en ordonna aussi soixante-dix autres", Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "HERR andere siebzig aus und sandte sie zwei ind zwei", the Portuguese Almeida -  "o Senhor outros setenta", the Italian Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta Bible 2006 - "il Signore ne designò altri settanta", the Modern Greek Bible - "Μετα δε ταυτα διωρισεν ο Κυριος και αλλους εβδομηκοντα" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "ואחרי כן הבדיל האדון עוד שבעים אחרים וישלחם לפניו"

 

However the Vaticanus manuscript, the Latin Vulgate (Post hæc autem designavit Dominus et alios septuaginta duos) and D read SEVENTY TWO and so the NIV, the ESV, Dan Wallace's NET version, the New English Bible 1970, Revised English Bible 1989, the Common English Bible 2011.


Notice that the previous RSVs 1946-1973 and the NRSV 1989 both read SEVENTY, but the latest revision of the revision of the revision, the ESVs (2001, 2007, 2011 editions) now goes with SEVENTY TWO.


The Catholic Connection 


ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version have followed the Latin Vulgate, Vaticanus reading here - "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY-TWO others and sent them two by two ahead of him..."


But many newer versions that are based on the Critical Text have retained the reading of SEVENTY. Among these are the NASB 1963-1995, the Holman Standard 2009, The Voice 2012, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Message 2002, Names of God Bible 2011 and the International Standard Version.


The Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbooks keep changing as well. Westcott and Hort put SEVENTY [TWO] in their text, bracketing the number [TWO]. However not even the Revised Version 1881 or the ASV of 1901 followed this reading of 72 but stayed with 70.  The Nestle Critical text 4th edition 1934 says 70 with no "two" in the text at all.  I have a hard copy of it here in my study.  But some time later the Nestle-Aland Critical text went back to putting the number [two] in brackets, indicating doubt, and this is how it stands in todays UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical textbooks.


So if all these versions are equally the inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God, how many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach - SEVENTY or SEVENTY TWO?  It is impossible that God inspired both readings in the same place. One is right and the other is wrong.  


At this point the Bible Agnostic crowd usually comes out with "What does this have to do with salvation?  No doctrines are changed, are they?"


Well, once again, going back to the doctrinal statement put out by their fellow bible agnostics in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, inerrancy also has to do with the recorded "assertions in the field of history."  Is the Inerrancy and 100% truthfulness and infallibility of God's words no longer a Doctrine of the Christian faith?


Besides this, there ARE several fundamental Doctrines that are watered down, confused and perverted in all these modern Vatican Versions. For several concrete examples, See Fake Bible Versions DO Teach False Doctrines -


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


And these examples of totally different numbers in the same verses among today's modern versions is not just a case or one or two. Here are at least 20 different examples you can see.  Wrong Numbers in the Multiple Choice Bible Babble Buffet Modern Versions -


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


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


 


Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"?  Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.

 

King James Bible -  Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

 

NASB 1963-1977 editions - “But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

 

NASB 1995 edition - “But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

 

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."  

 

NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."  

 

Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES?  What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?

 

This section of Luke tells of the time when Jesus came to the house of Martha and Mary, and Martha was cumbered with much serving and Mary sat at the feet of Jesus and heard his word. In Luke 10:42, after Jesus told Martha that she was careful and troubled about many things, he says: "But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

 

The one thing that is needful is to sit at the feet of Jesus, to hear his words, and be in fellowship with him.

 

"BUT ONE THING is needful”

 

The "But one thing is needful" is the reading found not only in the Majority of all manuscripts and the TR, but also of P45 and P75, both of which predate the vaunted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is also found in Alexandrinus, C original, E, F, G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Lambda, Pi, Psi. And it is the reading of the Old Latin aur,  f, g1, q, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Coptic Sahidic and Vulgate ancient versions.

 

"BUT ONE THING is needful" is the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901 (the highly praised precursor to the NASB), the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, Common English Bible and Dan Wallace's 2006 NET version.

 

But in the NASBs of 1963, 1972 and 1977 we read instead: "FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE."

 

This ridiculous reading comes from the Vaticanus manuscript.   The Siniaticus goes back and forth, being corrected three times in this one phrase alone. First Sinaiticus actually read ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν ἢ ἑνὸς = "but few things are the one" (Deep, huh?) Then a scribe changed it to read like the Majority text; and then another scribe changed it back again to read like Vaticanus.   

 

Also reading this way are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 and the 2013 J.W. Revision which say: “A FEW THINGS THOUGH ARE NEEDED, OR JUST ONE. For her part, Mary chose the good portion.”  

 

The Amplified bible of 1987 still non-sensically reads: “THERE IS NEED OF ONLY ONE THING OR BUT A FEW THINGS. Mary has chosen the good portion”. Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902 read this way - “OF FEW THINGS, IS THERE NEED, OR, OF ONE; Mary, in fact, hath chosen, the good part,” as does the Lexham English Bible of 2012 - “But FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, OR ONLY ONE THING, for Mary has chosen the better part”

 

But the NASB update of 1995 has reversed itself, and now reads as the KJB and the NIVs EARLIER EDITIONS and the ESV. Why? Not because of any new manuscript evidence recently come to light; they simply changed their minds.

 

The Catholic versions have done the same thing.  The early Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay followed the Traditional texts and read like the KJB - “But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL, and Mary hath chosen that good part”.  But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible followed the Vaticanus reading and read: “FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED, INDEED ONLY ONE.”

 

But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has also gone back to the Traditional reading and once again says: “And yet ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY. Mary has chosen the best portion”

 

Likewise the Nestle-Aland Critical Greek texts have changed over the years. Westcott and Hort originally went with the nonsensical reading ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία ἢ ἑνός, which is not even grammatically correct and literally is “few things is necessary the one”.  So also did the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975. I have hard copies of both of these and this is how their critical text reads.

 

 But not even the RV, ASV or even the RSV were that far gone that they actually followed this absurd reading found in their own critical Greek text editions. The first major translation to adopt it and put it in their text was the NASB in 1963 and the NASB stuck with it through 7 different editions until 1995.  Then sometime later they changed the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts and they now read as does the KJB with “ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία = “but one thing is necessary.”  

 

But wait!  There is more.  The NIVs 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions had it right. The read: "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Marry has chosen what is better."  But now that the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts have changed their reading to the correct one, which reads this way, the NEW NIV 2011 edition has come out, and now gone with the OLD Vaticanus reading the the critical text editors and the NASB just got done correcting.  The New NIV of 2011 now reads: "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better."!!!

 

    So the critical text promoters have abandoned in this place their beloved "oldest and best" manuscripts, all in the name of "the science” of Textual Criticism, don’t ya know. The question remains - Which NASB or which NIV was inspired and inerrant? The first 7 editions of the NASB from 1963 to 1977 or the 1995 update?  

 

Or the first three editions of the NIV, or this latest one done in 2011 where it doesn't even follow the late$t $cholarly Finding$? Well, actually, there is NO NASB or NIV user who believes their ever-changing versions are the inspired and infallible words of God.

 

 The 1995 NASB update changed 20,000 words and deleted another 8000 words from the previous 1977 NASB edition. This is not fantasy. I have the book Double Jeopardy, by Lawrence M. Vance, that documents in black and white every change that has taken place between these two different editions of the NASB.   

 

What we see among these bogus bible versions that are based on the ever changing Nestle-Aland/UBS/Vatican critical Greek texts (both  the “Evangelical” NASB, ESV, NIV, and the modern Catholic versions) is the fact that they have no settled Scripture. What may be fa$hionable $cholar$hip today, will change with the wind tomorrow.  And their so called “oldest and best manuscripts”, that these new Vatican Versions are based on, are in fact among the most corrupt in existence.

 

Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and “meddle not with them that are given to change” - Proverbs 24:21

 

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


 

Luke 11:11 "If a son shall ask bread..."

 

 

The perversion of God's word in the present day began in 1881 with the publication of the Revised Version in England. This is when Christiandom began to accept the Westcott-Hort revised Greek text, and literally thousands of changes were made in an attempt to overthrow the authority of the King James Bible. Satan is subtle and he introduces his changes little by little. The next bible that began to be accepted was the ASV or American Standard Version of 1901. They still kept all of the "thee"s and "ye"s, and actually the ASV is much closer to the KJB than its later counterpart,  the NASB. Each new version departs from the KJB a little bit more. The NKJV is not primarily based on the same Greek text as the NIV, but it does not wholly follow the underlying Greek texts of the KJB either in at least 40 instances in the New Testament, and has changed the meaning of hundreds of verses and introduced false doctrines into the Bible.

 

In Luke 11:11 we read:  "If a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" 

 

All of the capitalized letters are omitted in the NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman and NIV. The NASB says :  "Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a FISH (not bread), he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?"

 

There is no "now suppose" in any text; they have changed the active verb "ask" to the passive "is asked" and they have omitted the words "WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASK". The NIV, ESV, RSV, Holman and NET are all similar to the NASB. This is because Vaticanus does not have these words and Vaticanus (B) has substituted "Fish" for "bread".

 

P45 and P75 are also in disagreement with each other, as well as the Majority of all Greek texts.  P45, agreeing with Vaticanus,  has "FISH" (ixthun not BREAD - arton) BUT P75 has a unique reading not found in any bible version I know of.  P75 actually has a completely different word here - isxun - STRENGTH, or MIGHT.  These two partial, paprus manuscripts often differ one from the other, sometimes following Vaticanus and at others Siniaticus, and sometimes going their own separate ways. For example, both P45 & 75 omit "neither under a bushel" in verse 33, yet the NASB, NIV include these words because they are found in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  

 

The reading of the King James Bible in Luke 11:11 is that found in the Majority of all manuscripts including A, C, D and Siniaticus - one of the "oldest and best" (according to modern scholarolatry).

 

The Vaticanus manuscript and the Westcott-Hort text read - τίνα δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν τὸν πατέρα αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἰχθύν, μὴ ἀντὶ ἰχθύος ὄφιν αὐτῷ ἐπιδώσει;

 

But the text found in the Majority, A, C, D, Sinaiticus, the Byzantine and even Tishendorf reads: τίνα δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν τὸν πατέρα αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; ἢ καὶ ἰχθύν, μὴ ἀντὶ ἰχθύος ὄφιν αὐτῷ ἐπιδώσει

 

It is of great interest to note that the KJB reading is also that of the Revised Version of 1881 and the ASV of 1901 which was so highly praised by the NASB as being "the Rock of Biblical Honesty." These were the first "Critical texts" to come on the scene,  and yet both of them still read as does the King James Bibe. Both the ASV of 1901 and the Revised Version of 1881 read: "And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and he give him a stone? or a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent?" So, why did the NASB change the reading? Hey, the Textual Critics can do whatever they want whenever their fancy strikes them.

 

The KJB reading is also found in the Catholic Douay Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 and even the Catholic Jerusalem bible of 1968.  The 1582 Douay-Rheims read: "And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? Or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" It is the Catholic church that posseses the Vaticanus manuscript, yet even they did not follow it in this place, as did the NIV, ESV, NET, Holman and NASB; that is until later Catholic versions came on the scene, like the NEW Jerusalem in 1985.

 

The New Jerusalem bible 1985 now reads like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET with: "What father among you, if his son asked for a FISH, would hand him a snake?" and then it now omits the words "will he give him a stone? Or a fish...". BUT the latest Catholic version has come on the merry-go-round bible scene and guess what. It has gone back to the original reading once again.  It is the 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version and it now reads: "So then, who among you, if he asks his father for bread, he would give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he would give him a serpent, instead of a fish?"

 

Can we expect the same random changes in the Bible of the Month Club English versions?  Most definitely.  In fact, it has already happened among those modern versions that generally follow the ever changing Westcott-Hort, UBS type of fickle scholarship.  They have now come out with what they calle the International Standard Version in 2010 and it too has gone back to the original reading found in the King James Bible all along.  The brand new, updated according to $cholar'$ late$t finding$, I$V now reads in Luke 11:11 - "What father among you, if his son asks for bread, would give him a stone, or if he asks for a fish, would give him a snake instead of the fish?"  Modern scholarship is nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

 

The first version the change the Greek and English text to omit the words “WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASK" and to change BREAD to FISH was the liberal RSV, then followed by the NASB, NRSV, NIV, ESV, Message, the Holman Standard and Wallace’s NET version.

 

The reading of “if a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE?  OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” is found in the Majority of all manuscripts, and in such Bible translations as: the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi Manuscript circa 1000 A.D. Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525,  Coverdale 1535,  Cranmer’s Bible 1539, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557 - 1602, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the King James Bible 1611, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s translation of 1755, Young’s, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac,  Weymouth Version 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the NKJV 1982, the Amplified Bible 1987 (put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB), the 1994 21st Century KJV, and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible.

 

 

Foreign language Bibles that read the same way as the King James Bible are Jerome’s Latin translation of 382 A.D., the Latin Vulgate of 405, the Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Gómez Bible 2010 - “¿Qué padre de vosotros, si su hijo le pide pan, le dará una piedra? ¿o si pescado, en lugar de pescado, le dará una serpiente?”, the 2003 Castillian, the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (by the same Lockman Foundation), Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter bible of 2000 - "Wo bittet unter euch ein Sohn den Vater ums Brot, der ihm einen Stein dafür biete? und, so er um einen Fisch bittet, der ihm eine Schlange für den Fisch biete?",  the Italian Diodati 1649, and the New Diodati 1991, and the 1997 La Parola e Vita - “E chi è tra voi quel padre che, se il figlio gli chiede del PANE, gli dà una pietra? “, the Portuguese de Almeida and the A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "E qual o pai de entre vós que, se o filho lhe pedir pão, lhe dará uma pedra? Ou também, se lhe pedir peixe, lhe dará por peixe uma serpente?", the Chinese Union Traditional, the Russian Synodal Translation 1876, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996 - “Qui est le père d'entre vous, qui donne à son fils une pierre, lorsqu'il lui demande du PAIN?”,

 

the Modern Greek used throughout the whole world in the Greek Orthodox churches and the Modern Hebrew New Testament - ומי בכם האב אשר ישאל ממנו בנו לחם ונתן לו אבן ואם דג היתן לו נחש תחת הדג׃    . 

 

So if you are trusting the modern "bibles" to give you the complete truth of God, you are getting something "fishy" instead of the bread of God.

 

 

 

 John 1:42 - “A stone”, “Peter” or “Rock”?


At one of our Facebook forums a very ignorant Bible critic posted: “Jesus gave the PARTICULAR name as stone ONLY in the KJV that was founded because the POPE opposed him in his marriage offer.  The true meaning we see in Paul calling Peter ONLY as Cephas which means ROCK.”


Well, our illustrious Bible critic is wrong on several counts.  He is wrong about the meaning of the word petros; He is wrong in saying that ONLY the KJB translates this word as “stone”, and he is totally wrong in his reference of the marriage of king James and the Pope.  He has confused king James with Henry the VIII.  Other than these minor details, he is right on;-)  


Let’s take a closer look


John 1:42 KJB - “ And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A STONE.” - πετρος



συ κληθηση κηφας ο ερμηνευεται πετρος


ESV (NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims) - “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means PETER).”


Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 Holman Standard 2009 - “and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, “You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which means “ROCK”).


New Life Version 1969 Living Bible 1971, The Message 2002 - ““You are Simon, John’s son—but you shall be called Peter, THE ROCK!”



The Greek word πετρος is only this one time translated as “a stone” in John 1:42.  All other times it means Peter.  But the word for A ROCK is not this word. It is a slightly different Greek word petra - πετρα. And this word petra IS translated as ROCK some 16 times in the New Testament.


It is used in such places as “built his house upon A ROCK” (Matthew 7:24), “upon this ROCK I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and ROCK of offense: and whosoever believeth ON HIM shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33), “they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them; and that ROCK was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4)


Petra - πετρα -  is a large Rock and it refers to Christ or the foundation of a building, while PetrOs  is a small rock or a stone, and refers to the apostle Peter.


The Lexicons


Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon 1887 page 557 tells us that this word Petros - πετρος- means: “a piece of rock, A STONE  while the word πετρα means A ROCK.  


Likewise the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, 1957 on page 660 informs us that the word petra means “ROCK” and that the other word petros means “a STONE”.


Notice that in Matthew 16 when the Lord asks the disciples Who He is and Peter responds “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” that Jesus tells him that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but the Father in heaven did. And then He says: “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros = a small rock, a stone), and upon THIS ROCK (not “you”, but “this rock” petra - a large rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”


Christ Himself is the Rock; not Peter. “For other foundation can no man lay that that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST.”  1 Corinthians 3:11


A STONE


Agreeing with the King James Bible where Jesus tells Cephas his name means A STONE are Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Geneva Bible 1587,  the Beza N.T. 1599, the Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1933, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth Translation 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009 and  the Jubilee Bible 2010.


The Pickering N.T. 2005 also says: “You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated ‘Stone’).6 “ and then he footnotes: “petros is Greek for ‘stone’ (a small object, as opposed to a 'rock'). The name ‘Peter’ is a transliteration into English of petros, but since ‘peter’ does not mean ‘stone’ in English, to put ‘Peter’ in verse 42 misses the point. “  


The Modern Literal New Testament of 2014 goes even further and says: “You are Simon, the Son of Jonah, you will be called Cephas, which is by translation, A PEBBLE.”


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


 

John 1:42 - “A stone”, “Peter” or “Rock”?


At one of our Facebook forums a very ignorant Bible critic posted: “Jesus gave the PARTICULAR name as stone ONLY in the KJV that was founded because the POPE opposed him in his marriage offer.  The true meaning we see in Paul calling Peter ONLY as Cephas which means ROCK.”


Well, our illustrious Bible critic is wrong on several counts.  He is wrong about the meaning of the word petros; He is wrong in saying that ONLY the KJB translates this word as “stone”, and he is totally wrong in his reference of the marriage of king James and the Pope.  He has confused king James with Henry the VIII.  Other than these minor details, he is right on;-)  


Let’s take a closer look


John 1:42 KJB - “ And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A STONE.” - πετρος



συ κληθηση κηφας ο ερμηνευεται πετρος


ESV (NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims) - “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means PETER).”


Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 Holman Standard 2009 - “and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, “You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which means “ROCK”).


New Life Version 1969 Living Bible 1971, The Message 2002 - ““You are Simon, John’s son—but you shall be called Peter, THE ROCK!”



The Greek word πετρος is only this one time translated as “a stone” in John 1:42.  All other times it means Peter.  But the word for A ROCK is not this word. It is a slightly different Greek word petra - πετρα. And this word petra IS translated as ROCK some 16 times in the New Testament.


It is used in such places as “built his house upon A ROCK” (Matthew 7:24), “upon this ROCK I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and ROCK of offense: and whosoever believeth ON HIM shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33), “they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them; and that ROCK was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4)


Petra - πετρα -  is a large Rock and it refers to Christ or the foundation of a building, while PetrOs  is a small rock or a stone, and refers to the apostle Peter.


The Lexicons


Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon 1887 page 557 tells us that this word Petros - πετρος- means: “a piece of rock, A STONE  while the word πετρα means A ROCK.  


Likewise the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, 1957 on page 660 informs us that the word petra means “ROCK” and that the other word petros means “a STONE”.


Notice that in Matthew 16 when the Lord asks the disciples Who He is and Peter responds “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” that Jesus tells him that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but the Father in heaven did. And then He says: “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros = a small rock, a stone), and upon THIS ROCK (not “you”, but “this rock” petra - a large rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”


Christ Himself is the Rock; not Peter. “For other foundation can no man lay that that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST.”  1 Corinthians 3:11


A STONE


Agreeing with the King James Bible where Jesus tells Cephas his name means A STONE are Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Geneva Bible 1587,  the Beza N.T. 1599, the Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1933, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth Translation 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009 and  the Jubilee Bible 2010.


The Pickering N.T. 2005 also says: “You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated ‘Stone’).6 “ and then he footnotes: “petros is Greek for ‘stone’ (a small object, as opposed to a 'rock'). The name ‘Peter’ is a transliteration into English of petros, but since ‘peter’ does not mean ‘stone’ in English, to put ‘Peter’ in verse 42 misses the point. “  


The Modern Literal New Testament of 2014 goes even further and says: “You are Simon, the Son of Jonah, you will be called Cephas, which is by translation, A PEBBLE.”


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



John 1:42 - “A stone”, “Peter” or “Rock”?


At one of our Facebook forums a very ignorant Bible critic posted: “Jesus gave the PARTICULAR name as stone ONLY in the KJV that was founded because the POPE opposed him in his marriage offer.  The true meaning we see in Paul calling Peter ONLY as Cephas which means ROCK.”


Well, our illustrious Bible critic is wrong on several counts.  He is wrong about the meaning of the word petros; He is wrong in saying that ONLY the KJB translates this word as “stone”, and he is totally wrong in his reference of the marriage of king James and the Pope.  He has confused king James with Henry the VIII.  Other than these minor details, he is right on;-)  


Let’s take a closer look


John 1:42 KJB - “ And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A STONE.” - πετρος



συ κληθηση κηφας ο ερμηνευεται πετρος


ESV (NASB, NIV, Douay-Rheims) - “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means PETER).”


Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 Holman Standard 2009 - “and he brought Simon to Jesus. When Jesus saw him, He said, “You are Simon, son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which means “ROCK”).


New Life Version 1969 Living Bible 1971, The Message 2002 - ““You are Simon, John’s son—but you shall be called Peter, THE ROCK!”



The Greek word πετρος is only this one time translated as “a stone” in John 1:42.  All other times it means Peter.  But the word for A ROCK is not this word. It is a slightly different Greek word petra - πετρα. And this word petra IS translated as ROCK some 16 times in the New Testament.


It is used in such places as “built his house upon A ROCK” (Matthew 7:24), “upon this ROCK I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and ROCK of offense: and whosoever believeth ON HIM shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33), “they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them; and that ROCK was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4)


Petra - πετρα -  is a large Rock and it refers to Christ or the foundation of a building, while PetrOs  is a small rock or a stone, and refers to the apostle Peter.


The Lexicons


Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon 1887 page 557 tells us that this word Petros - πετρος- means: “a piece of rock, A STONE  while the word πετρα means A ROCK.  


Likewise the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, by Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, 1957 on page 660 informs us that the word petra means “ROCK” and that the other word petros means “a STONE”.


Notice that in Matthew 16 when the Lord asks the disciples Who He is and Peter responds “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” that Jesus tells him that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but the Father in heaven did. And then He says: “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros = a small rock, a stone), and upon THIS ROCK (not “you”, but “this rock” petra - a large rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”


Christ Himself is the Rock; not Peter. “For other foundation can no man lay that that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST.”  1 Corinthians 3:11


A STONE


Agreeing with the King James Bible where Jesus tells Cephas his name means A STONE are Tyndale 1524, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, The Geneva Bible 1587,  the Beza N.T. 1599, the Mace N.T. 1729, Worsley N.T. 1770, Webster Bible 1833, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac 1933, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Third Millennium Bible 1998, God’s First Truth Translation 1999, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Complete Apostle’s Bible 2005, The Pickering New Testament 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009 and  the Jubilee Bible 2010.


The Pickering N.T. 2005 also says: “You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated ‘Stone’).6 “ and then he footnotes: “petros is Greek for ‘stone’ (a small object, as opposed to a 'rock'). The name ‘Peter’ is a transliteration into English of petros, but since ‘peter’ does not mean ‘stone’ in English, to put ‘Peter’ in verse 42 misses the point. “  


The Modern Literal New Testament of 2014 goes even further and says: “You are Simon, the Son of Jonah, you will be called Cephas, which is by translation, A PEBBLE.”


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



ALL of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney

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